|
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Erdahl at 8:35 a.m. It was held at the Roseville City Hall.
Members Present: Cliff Aichinger, David Arbeit, David Claypool, Virginia Erdahl, Brad Henry, Richard Johnson,
and Dennis Welsch.
Members Absent: Patrick O’Connor
Visitors: Gary Stevenson (Dakota County) and Mark Beauchamp and Trudy Richter of the Fair Share Financial
Project consultant team.
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The agenda was approved as submitted with the exception that consideration of Item 4b (Organization Structure)
was moved ahead of Item 4a (Financial Model).
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
The minutes for the April 7, 1999, Policy Advisory Team meeting were approve as submitted.
4. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
4b. MetroGIS Organizational Structure
Trudy Richter, member of the project consultant team, summarized the evaluation criteria she applied to each
of three organizational structure options selected by the Team for further investigation: Intergovernmental or
Contractual Agreement, Non-Profit Corporation, and Joint Powers Agreement.
The group spent about an hour discussing the pros and cons of each option and concurred with Ms. Richter that
the Non-Profit Corporation option should not be pursued. It would take legislation to authorize public sector control.
The group also concurred that MetroGIS would likely have a difficult time convincing the legislature on the merits of
granting an exception for public control of a non-profit.
Team members agreed the recommended structure must:
- Provide voting memberships for all three organization classes currently represented by associations:
cities, school districts, and watershed districts.
- Qualify for liability insurance (indemnify the parties)
- Restrict voting memberships to public sector organizations. If the private sector were to have a voting
membership(s) conflicts of interests would result when MetroGIS contracts with the private sector various tasks.
- Provide stability among the essential partners.
- Assume the organization structure memberships selected to begin with may not be what MetroGIS will need or
want in five years.
Ms Richter agreed to research the following questions for discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for June
24th, pertaining to Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) option:
- To satisfy the JPA requirements for voting membership have the individual city, school district, and
watershed districts with which the selected representative from AMM, TIES, and Metro Chapter of Minnesota Watershed
Districts are affiliated enter into the JPA on behalf of their constituent organizations. Ms Richter also agreed to
investigate whether this option would raise any undesirable circumstances.
- Look into a new state law for watersheds districts/water shed management organizations for applicability
to MetroGIS that authorizes voting memberships for non private sector that are not members of the JPA.
Ms. Richter stated that under either an intergovernmental or joint powers models, MetroGIS could contract for
financial services (fiscal agent) but could not issue bonds on its own. Richard Johnson stated the Metropolitan Council
has issued bonds on behalf of the Metropolitan Radio Board and other similar organizations and believes the Council
would be willing to issue bonds for MetroGIS, if the need arose, but legislature approval would be required. Ms.
Richter agreed to meet with Richard to further explore these options and to check into whether bonds can be issued for
data development.
4a. MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Model
Mark Beauchamp, member of the project consulting team, summarized his preliminary model design and how he has
attempted to incorporate the suggestions adopted by the Policy Board on April 21st.
The following additions and modifications were requested by team to the preliminary model:
- Add "counties" as class to model and then "zero them out" with credits for: a) contribution of parcel,
jurisdictional boundary and any other data for which counties may be designated as the primary producer and b) active
participant in a GIS users group.
- Separate the Metropolitan Council from other Metropolitan Agencies.
- Account for the relative cost to maintain data to address each of the different 13 priority needs (e.g.
use of parcels might be equivalent to usage of 3-4 or more of the other information needs).
- Include in the base data maintenance costs, continuation of the $75,000 supplemental data maintenance
payment and an additional amount* above the base (a multiplier) that would be provided to primary producers that agree
to take on any tasks beyond their internal needs which, in turn, would reduce the regional custodians work to manage
and maintain the regional dataset.
* Amount of payment above the base determined by consistency with agreed upon specifications for the
regional solution.
Richard Johnson left the meeting.
Mr. Beauchamp suggested that if the actual subscription rate exceeds the penetration rate assumed in the
model, that the excess fees should be used to: 1) repay organizations that pay more than their fair share to get the
organization up and running (bridge financing), 2) improve data and finance unfunded needs and 3) reduce the
subscription fees.
Ms. Richter suggested that a short list of subscriber benefits should be developed to accompany presentation
of the recommended subscription fees. Widespread understanding will require enough information that a GIS professional
can quickly conclude it would be more cost effective to join MetroGIS than to go it alone. Claypool raised a concern
for how MetroGIS subscription rates might impact on funding secured by counties through existing partnerships of local
governments. Staff emphasized that the model will include credits for formal GIS partnerships as exist in Dakota and
Ramsey Counties and stated that the fees sought by MetroGIS must be set up in such a way that there is no overlap in
services provided by the various partnerships.
Mr. Beauchamp concluded his remarks by stating that if MetroGIS decides to implement a formal structure that
it should consider developing a three-year business plan to establish a clear strategy to achieve and monitor the
penetration rates assumed in the fair share model.
Several team members stated they believe the Metropolitan Council would be the most significant beneficiary
from an operational MetroGIS and argued the Council should pay for the entire initiative. Staff asked the team to defer
this dialogue until the next meeting when Richard Johnson could participate. Staff also mentioned that some aspects of
the MetroGIS initiative exceed the internal business needs of the Council. Mr. Beauchamp was asked to insure the model
accurately reflects the benefits that would likely accrue to the Metropolitan Council.
Chairperson Erdahl stated she believes there will be more buy-in to the procedures, programs, etc. associated
with MetroGIS if the prospective partners do not perceive MetroGIS as a program controlled by the Metropolitan Council.
Chairperson Erdahl’s noted that MetroGIS leadership needs to be mindful of the political realities of issues
related to the Council's regulatory responsibilities and the Council’s controversial relationship with the
Legislative as it develops a financing plan for MetroGIS. She also noted that if the Council were to be the sole
financier that MetroGIS could get caught in the middle of the Legislature were to drastically modify its funding
allocations to the Council.
4c. Peer Review Forum
Due to lack of time, discussion was postponed to the June 24th meeting, except the forum date was set for
August 12th.
4d. Regional Parcel Information Need
Due to lack of time, discussion was postponed to June 24th meeting. However, it was agreed to seek general
direction from the Coordinating Committee on June 17th about the Committee’s expectations for a regional solution
to the MetroGIS’ parcel information need.
4e. Final Presentation - MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Model & Organizational Structure
Due to lack of time, discussion was postponed to June 24th.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
The Team was informed that Victoria Reinhardt and Randall Johnson would be representing MetroGIS at a U.S.
House of Representatives Subcommittee hearing in Washington D.C. on June 9th. The written testimony will be mailed to
Policy Board and Coordinating Committee members when sent to the Subcommittee.
6. INFORMATION SHARING
- Information Policy Update - Postponed until June 24th
- Progress Report to the FGDC / Fair Share Model Project - No Discussion
7. NEXT MEETINGS
- Thursday, June 24th, Roseville City Hall, 8:30 a.m.
8 ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 A.M.
Prepared by Randall L. Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
