|
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Chairperson Erdahl. It was held at the Roseville City Hall.
Members Present: David Arbeit (LMIC), David Claypool (Ramsey County), Partick O’Connor and Gary Caswell
(Hennepin County), Rick Gelbmann for Eli Cooper (Metropolitan Council), Virginia Erdahl (Washington County), Brad Henry
(AMM-Minneapolis), Ed Shukle (Anoka County), and Dennis Welsch (AMM-Roseville).
Members Absent: None
Visitors: Dave Drealan, (Carver County and member of the Coordinating Committee), and Jim Hentges (Scott
County and member of the Coordinating Committee), Trudy Richter and Kathie Doty of Richardson and Richter and
consultants to Private Sector Component of Regional Parcel Dataset Pilot Project.
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as submitted.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
The summary of the May 2, 2000 special meeting of county representatives to the Coordinating Committee was
accepted with corrections to add Gary Stevenson to those in attendance and correct the spelling of Ed Shukle’s
last name.
4. SUMMARY OF APRIL 26, 2000 POLICY BOARD MEETING
Staff summarized the actions of the actions of the Policy Board on April 26th. O"Connor called attention that
the Board "accepted" and did not "endorse" the Business Plan. The group agreed and noted that the Board minutes should
be modified accordingly.
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
5a. Summary of Major MetroGIS Work Priorities - and - 5b. 2000-2001 Detailed MetroGIS Budget:
Staff requested feedback for the members regarding proposed major work plan priorities for June 2000 through
December 31, 2001, noting that proposed activities reflect the coordination function previously endorsed by the
committee as priorities and the level of expenditure proposed in the Board-accepted Business Plan. Staff noted that on
June 5th endorsement of the MetroGIS Business plan will be sought from the Metropolitan Council’s Livable
Communities Committee (LCC) concerning the Council’s willingness to fund the coordination functions of MetroGIS
and extension of the Anoka and Washington County GIS Data and Cost Sharing Agreements to December 31, 2001.
O’Connor raised a question about the need to sustain a budget and work plan of the magnitude suggested,
given the success to date. A general discussion of the work in progress concerning the thirteen priority business
information needs, in particular concerning the parcel, future land use and existing land information needs.
Chairperson Erdahl encouraged the group and the group concurred that MetroGIS should stay with the proposed
activities and budgets, which are based upon the accepted Business Plan until the results of the pilot projects are
available before considering shifting any priorities.
Claypool commented that the private sector’s needs must be addressed as they are clients and customers
just the same as other public sector organizations. Kathie Doty summarized the main purpose of the subcommittee created
by the Board on April 26th to be chaired by Commissioner Kordiak (Anoka County) is to provide the private sector a
forum to specify what they want in terms of geospatial data and related services from the public sector.
Caswell noted that he continues to disagree with the function "create and maintain datasets for MetroGIS based
upon identified priorities". Arbeit stated that this function was placed in the "partnered support" (Category III)
priority as a result of the findings of the 1999 MetroGIS Benefits Study to recognize that unless a business need
exists among the MetroGIS partners for any particular dataset and they are willing to fund it that it will not be
pursued. Erdahl noted that this function does not obligate any organization(s) to anything that they do not wish to
pursue.
Gelbmann asked staff to consider a different way to show the revenues received from donations on the funding
balance sheet. His concern is that amount could be mistaken for annual rather than cumulative amounts carried over
until spent. He also asked for clarification of the funding for Data Finder support for I(3)(b) for 2001.
Motion: O’Connor moved and Drealan seconded to accept the work plan and detailed budget for June 2000
through December 2001 with the understanding that they would be reviewed following the parcel data pilot projects.
Motion carried, ayes all.
Staff was asked to include this material as an information item on the Coordinating Committee’s June 22
meeting. Team members asked staff to email them the result so of the Council’s Livable Community Committee meeting
on June 5th.
5c. Policy Advisory Team Membership
It was agreed that each county represented on the Policy Board should be invited to appoint a representative
to the Policy Advisory Team. Staff was asked to include this request as an information item on Coordinating
Committee’s June 22 meeting.
5d. Update Regional Parcel Dataset Pilot – Public and Private Sector Components
(See discussion for Item 2 for May 20, 2000 Meeting of County Representatives (attached)
5e. Update NSDI GeoData Alliance
No discussion
6. NEXT MEETING
7 ADJOURN
O’Connor moved and Claypool seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 a.m. Motion carried, ayes all.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
MEETING OF COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES REGIONAL PARCEL DATASET PILOT
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Chairperson Erdahl. It was held at the Roseville City Hall
immediately following the MetroGIS Policy Advisory Team meeting.
Present: David Arbeit (LMIC), David Claypool (Ramsey County), Partick O’Connor and Gary Caswell (Hennepin
County), Dave Drealan, (Carver County), Virginia Erdahl (Washington County), Jim Hentges (Scott County), Brad Henry
(AMM-Minneapolis), Ed Shukle (Anoka County), and Gary Stevenson (Dakota County) – arrived late.
Visitors: Trudy Richter and Kathie Doty of Richardson, Richter & Associates; consultants to Private Sector
Component of Regional Parcel Dataset Pilot Project.
Support Staff: Randall Johnson
BUSINESS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS (Item 2 considered first as an extension of the preceding meeting)
2. Authorization to Distribute and Licensure
Staff summarized a concept whereby the Metropolitan Council would serve as the distribution agent for the
regional parcel dataset during the pilot project but the counties would retain the licensing authority. The group
accepted the concept and turned its attention to how to best obtain approval from each of the counties to authorize the
Council to distribute the regional dataset and whether there would be simpler way than attaching seven preauthorized
county signature pages to each license.
The counties agreed that a letter from each of them would be the preferred way to authorize the Council to
distribute the dataset in accordance with the written permission provision of the GIS Data and Cost Sharing Agreement.
The group directed staff to prepare a draft letter for their review and comment. It was also agreed that this
authorization should not require a public hearing because a fee is not proposed for distribution to the public sector.
The group concluded that the attaching copies of the seven county signature pages would not be necessary as long as the
original signature pages are on file and duly noted as such in the authorization.
Stevenson arrived. Erdahl noted that she would inform him of the previous discussion.
1. Fees for Non-Government Access
Erdahl requested that each county representative share what their respective administration’s think about
the $.0.02/parcel proposal suggested at the May 2nd meeting as fee for the regional parcel boundary dataset. The group
concurred that the $0.02/parcel fee was for the parcel boundaries and a PIN for each parcel. Additional attributes
could be obtained for an additional fee, consistent with the current pricing policies in each county.
O’Connor (Hennepin) – comfortable with the proposal. Suggested the metaphor of the parcel boundaries
plus PIN’s as the "chassis" upon which additional attributes can be added. Arbeit concurred with the "chassis"
metaphor noting its similarity to the National Spatial Data Infrastructure’s (NSDI) concept of "framework data" of
which one is cadastral (parcel) data and which is limited to the PIN as the means to relate to other datasets.
Drealan (Carver) – Noted he had spoken with administration and the survey department and they concur the
$0.02/parcel fee is acceptable. Although he noted that he would prefer to postpone further discussion about fees until
more is know about the private sector’s wants and needs.
Hentges (Scott) – Had not spoke with administration. Acknowledged a concern for inability to service data
requests in a timely manner with current resources.
Shukle (Anoka) – Comfortable with the proposal.
Claypool (Ramsey) – Comfortable with the proposal.
Erdahl (Washington) – The proposal is acceptable but some on staff suggested considering the option of
outsourcing the development and maintenance of the regional dataset and the counties receiving their revenue through
royalties. The group was receptive to the concept and concurred that it should be considered as an option when the time
presents itself in the dialogue with the private sector that is pending.
Stevenson (Dakota) – Comfortable with proposal.
Richter and Doty noted that in their research for the pending private sector pilot project three questions
have arisen that they need direction:
- Need for commonly understood terms. The group agreed to use the terms parcel boundaries and attributes.
"GIS data" will not be used. The group spent some time explaining the term " GIS application".
- Legal advise received so far from county sources indicates that a joint powers agreement may be the most
straightforward way to collect fees for the regional parcel data, assuming the public sector would maintain and
distribute it.
- There will be a need to define what is meant by the restriction to "internal business purposes" and what
constitutes a significant enough change to the data to permit it to be redistributed? The group concluded these are
issues for a future meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
