|
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Erdahl at 8:30 a.m. It was held at the Roseville City Hall.
Members Present: David Arbeit, David Claypool, Virginia Erdahl, Brad Henry, Richard Johnson, Patrick O'Connor,
and Dennis Welsch.
Members Absent: None
Visitors: John Lunde and Trudy Richter of the Fair-Share Financial Model consultant team and Gary Caswell.
Support Staff: Randall Johnson
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The proposed agenda was modified to include Items 6a – 1999 Participant Satisfaction Survey and Item 6b
– GIS Users Groups & Continuing Education Proposal.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
The June 2, 1999 meeting summary was accepted as submitted.
4. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
4a. MetroGIS Organizational Structure
Trudy Richter summarized several reasons why she believes the current informal organization structure is
inadequate to move MetroGIS to the next level, should the Board choose to do so at the conclusion of the Fair-Share
Model study this Fall. She also summarized pros and cons of three organizational options that would provide the legal
standing she recommends for MetroGIS. Paramount among the reasons for pursuing a formalized legal structure in the near
term is the current interim data and cost sharing agreements will begin to expire December 31, 1999 and there is a need
to clearly communicate that the Metropolitan Council is a participant and not in control of the MetroGIS. This
statement of independence is needed to maximize buy-in among prospective participants that MetroGIS is in fact
stakeholder governed.
The renegotiations that will be required on a county-by-county basis to extend the interim agreements and
maintain the current structure would not be inconsistent with this need to distinguish MetroGIS from the Council.
Further, many of the issues that should be renegotiated to extend the interim agreements would be common the issues
that would need to be addressed to formalize a legal structure for MetroGIS. These issues include setting policy for
regional dataset distribution, including non-government entities; addressing issues of indemnification and insurance
for the regional entity and area integrators; and providing formal flexibility to expand the geographic extent of the
data sharing partners beyond seven county metro area as the Board deems appropriate. The structure also needs to be
flexible enough to address the needs of all primary and regional data producers, which is not the case with the current
interim agreements between the Council and each of the seven counties.
With regard to voting memberships, Ms. Richter reported the research she undertook to answer questions posed
by the Team on June 2nd concerning the organizational structures used by TIES, AMM, and the Metro Chapter of MN
Association of Watershed Districts. She clarified that the AMM and watershed organizations would not qualify to enter
into a joint powers agreement because they are not government jurisdictions. The group spent considerable time
discussing options to achieve the objective to provide voting memberships on the Policy Board for cities and watershed
districts. The concept of "associate" or non-voting memberships for city and watershed interests was rejected. It was
agreed that the details of how to achieve voting memberships for cities and watershed districts would be worked out in
the negotiations to establish the joint powers organization. These details could: 1) include a providing general
description of the characteristics of the cities and watershed districts that would be eligible for representation
rather than naming specific organization to avoid the need to resign the joint powers agreement each time the AMM or
Metro Chapter of the MN Watershed District representative changed, 2) detailing the process by which candidate
representatives are identified and selected to serve on the Policy Board, and 3) describing expectations for the
relation between the individual member city and watershed district and its umbrella organization – AMM, etc.
Caswell arrived.
Staff was directed to work with Ms. Richter to draft a staff report for discussion at the July 20th Team
meeting that would present the team’s conclusions to the Policy Board. This report is to convey the following
points: 1) explain reasons why a new organizational structure is in MetroGIS’ best interests at this time, 2) that
a joint powers (JPA) organization is the best fit for MetroGIS at this time, 3) that there is some feeling that a
structure such as the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District or Metropolitan Radio Board may be superior to a JPA but
also recognize that to obtain the necessary Legislative approval will be difficult to obtain without first operating
under a JPA and documenting its shortcomings, and 4) explain the Team’s preference to pursue voting memberships
for cities and watersheds but note that if accomplishing this objective becomes too unwieldy to recommend that MetroGIS
Policy Board seek a formal structure that provides associate or non-voting memberships for these interests.
4b. Estimate of Costs of Collaboration
John Lunde, member of the consultant team, explained three scenarios he used to estimate costs to develop
regional datasets for each of the thirteen priority business information needs. The group accepted the concepts
presented in these three scenarios and accepted his reasoning for not using a fourth scenario (#3 presented in his
handout). It was agreed this fourth scenario involved unrealistic demands on primary data producers and that quality
control could not be assured. Mr. Lunde explained none of the scenarios he used to estimate costs would result in
regional data better than the primary sources but, that of the two options (#1 & #4) that rely upon
assembly/integration of primary source data, scenario #4 would produce the more accurate results. He noted that for
tasks that require highly accurate parcel boundaries, that the data maintained by the counties (primary producers)
would likely remain the data of choice.
Mr. Lunde stated that his estimated costs do not pad the labor expenses, that hardware and software expenses
were built into the regional dataset expenses, and that organizational overhead was not included because he had assumed
a member organization would donate these items. The group asked him to include an estimate of the organizational
overhead to insure there is an accurate accounting of all costs that would need to be shared.
Caswell questioned the assumption that MetroGIS will pursue a regional data solution for each of the thirteen
information needs. Arbeit noted that Mr. Lunde’s estimates are not intended to supersede the Information Needs
Workgroup process through which the data specifications and information need specific recommendations are developed in
a broadly participatory environment. The group agreed that it is a reasonable and necessary task to cost out a solution
for each information need to enable MetroGIS to evaluate whether it can support regional solutions all of the priority
information needs and to establish phasing guidelines as appropriate. The group also agreed that even is somewhat vague
it is important for Mr. Lunde to provide and document his best guess for solutions that would satisfy the information
needs consistent with the preliminary work documented in the MetroGIS Business Object Framing Model, as summarized by
staff and consistent with the regional dataset solution assumptions provided by staff. The notion was that by doing so
at least some portion of the cost for each information need would be captured for the fair-share financial model and if
the MetroGIS process later demonstrates the need for a different solution, the institutional memory will be valuable
for developing rationale for any additional required funds.
Richard Johnson commented, and the group agreed, that a methodology needs to be developed to access the
benefit for pursuing funding for the identified costs. All agreed but there was no discussion as to who would
participate.
Mr. Lunde agreed to revise his preliminary cost estimates to include all costs as opposed to zeroing some out
on the assumption that a stakeholder organization will donate them; provide an update of his assumptions, in particular
for Data Finder support; and provide a phasing plan that sequencing the funding needs based upon a prescribed order of
regional dataset development. He also noted that the final report will include a narrative that describes the rationale
for choices in assumptions that have a substantive effect on costs. He noted he would provide Mark Beauchamp, lead on
the financial model, with the revised estimates for inclusion in the model to be presented with the Team on July 7th.
4c. Peer Review Forum – Fair Share Model Project Findings
The group concluded that the invitations for the forum should not be mailed until following the July 28th
Policy Board meeting and, consequently, that the August 12th date should be pushed back to give adequate notice.
September 16th was tentatively selected subject to facility availability. The presenters were accepted as suggested
with the exception that the group decided to drop a separate presentation and comment session for the organizational
structure. Chairperson Erdahl will summarize the proposed organizational structure in her comments about the context
for the model. It was agreed that the benefits presentation should follow the context comments and that more time
should be allotted for the benefits presentations from Craig and Welsch. Attendees will be seated at tables. When the
presentations conclude they will be invited to participate in small group discussions facilitated by Team members to
elicit responses to questions including: Do you believe your organization would benefit from MetroGIS? Would you be
willing to pay the proposed MetroGIS subscription fee? It was agreed that Craig and Welsch need to clearly articulate
benefits that would accrue to organizations that subscribe to MetroGIS.
5. INFORMATION ITEMS
5a. Information Policy Legislation Update
Arbeit provided the Team with a table summarizing the action by the Legislature on several information policy
bills introduced to the 1999 Legislature. Discussion was postponed due lack of time.
5b. Final Presentation – Fair Share Model Project
Discussion was postponed due to lack of time.
5c. Community Federal Information Partnership Program
Discussion was postponed due to lack of time.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
6a. 1999 Participant Satisfaction Survey – Ranking of Core Functions
Discussion was postponed due to lack of time.
6b. GIS Users Groups & Continuing Education Proposal
Discussion was postponed due to lack of time.
7. NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, July 7, 1999, 8:30 am at the Roseville City Hall
8 ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
