|
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Coordinating Committee Chairperson Henry at 8:35 a.m. in the absence of the
Chairperson Erdahl. The meeting was held at the Roseville City Hall.
Members Present: Cliff Aichinger, David Arbeit, David Claypool, Brad Henry, Richard Johnson, Gary Caswell for
Patrick O'Connor, and Dennis Welsch.
Members Absent: Virginia Erdahl
Visitor: Mark Beauchamp and Beth Hobbs of the Fair-Share Financial Model consultant team, Will Craig, and Gary
Stevenson.
Support Staff: Randall Johnson
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as submitted.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
Johnson moved and Welsch seconded to accept the June 24, 1999 meeting summary as submitted.
4. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
4a. MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Model
Mark Beauchamp requested feedback from the Team on the following model components: means to allocate benefit
received from MetroGIS, assumptions that drive the model, cost allocation process/methodology, estimated costs, and
customer (subscription) classes. Mr. Beauchamp shared six scenarios to illustrate how varying specified cost
assumptions would impact subscription rates for each of the organizational classes. Each scenario assumed a four-year
implementation timeframe, an average annual fee for each subscription class, and a recognized allocation methodology
that utilizes "parcels" or "area" as a weighting factor.
Mr. Beauchamp favored use of Scenario #6, which excluded development and maintenance expenses for the
Socioeconomic Characteristic and Where People Live Business Information Needs. The notion is these costs should be
deferred until MetroGIS has a stable revenue stream and has achieved more than the a minimum penetration rate because
of the significant expense to address these information needs relative to the remainder of the priority information
needs. According to John Lunde of the consultant Team, the annual cost for Scenario #6 would be approximately $1.14
million ($605,000 in annual operating expenses and $381,000 data development and maintenance expenses). This projected
annual operating expense includes up to $150,000 in supplemental data maintenance payments for primary data producers.
Stevenson questioned the need for this magnitude of expense noting he believes that a significant portion of
local government GIS data needs can/will be met by the counties. Caswell also restated the comment he made at the June
17th Coordinating Committee meeting that he is uncomfortable with the assumption there will be a regional dataset(s) to
address each priority information need as it was his understanding the emphasis of MetroGIS was to facilitate data
sharing. These comments lead to a lengthy discussion about who will benefit from MetroGIS, the degree to which they
will benefit, and the process by which regional solutions are decided for each information need. Mr. Beauchamp
commented that these are some of the reasons why the penetration rates for local government units have been
conservatively estimated at only 30 percent. Staff added that the city/township penetration rate was estimated in part
on the basis that nearly 50% of these entities within the region abut a county boundary and, therefore, are assumed to
have a need for data from outside of the county in which they are located. The estimated penetration rates also assume
most school districts and watershed districts use data from multiple counties on a regular basis. All agreed that the
primary value of MetroGIS to local government units would be access to data for areas from outside of the county in
which their jurisdiction is located.
The group spent considerable time discussing the variables that drive the scenarios. It was agreed it would be
easier for the Team to analyze relationships if the proposed cost allocation methodology were separated from the cost
estimates. Once a methodology is agreed upon, the group could then turn to the question of how to pace implementation.
Mr. Beauchamp was asked to provide three or four hypothetical amounts, beginning with of $100,000, to clearly
illustrate relationships between percent of total costs by class and actual subscription fees by class in the event
phased-in implementation is pursued. The group also acknowledged a need for a marketing plan to provide a definitive
path to grow into the desired model; that it is fundamental to the project to achieve perceived equity among the
classes; and that the best-fit financial model, in terms of equitably distributing the costs of MetroGIS, will likely
require concessions from all.
The consultant team was asked to accomplish the following tasks to prepare for the July 20th meeting:
- Prepare three or four cost hypothetical allocation models beginning with $100,000 to illustrate the
relative shares/costs among the subscription classes. One of the classes options should also include the possibility of
a county representing the cities (local government) located within its jurisdiction.
- Include a subscription fee for counties and then apply the supplemental data maintenance credit and a
credit for membership in a GIS Users Group. (The consultant team estimated the subscription fee, prior to these
credits, for the county class would be around $130,000.)
- Maintain the penetration rates proposed in the July 7th version of the model.
- Use "parcels" as the weighting factor for all information needs, with the exception of surface water
features. It was acknowledged, and recognized as appropriate, that by using "parcels" as the predominate weighting
factor that the costs will be borne to a higher proportion by more densely developed areas. The group was undecided
whether "area" or "parcels" would be the most appropriate weighting factor for surface water features but agreed not to
change the "area" factor assigned by the consultant team because the cost estimate for this information need assumes a
no-cost solution; that is, data development and data maintenance expenses are assumed to be contributed by a
stakeholder organization.
- Include an assumption that the model will be updated at least annually because of the rapidly changing
nature of parcels and to maintain a balance among the number of parcels assigned to each of the subscription classes.
- Substitute raw scores for the ranked scores from which to calculate relative benefit from regional
solutions for each priority information need. Arbeit and Craig commented that the differences between the information
needs are not accurately reflected by the 1 to 87 ranking (e.g., the raw score difference between information needs one
and two might be significantly different than between information needs two and three).
- The State and Federal subscription classes each should each be shown as single entities rather than as
separate agencies. The group preferred to defer to the agencies how to divide up the total for the class among
themselves. (Following the meeting, the consultant was also asked to consolidate metropolitan organizations into one
class.)
- Reconcile the apparent under count of parcels associated with the watershed district class. (MetroGIS
staff will take the lead on acquiring a reliable count.)
- Propose a means to account for and credit a stakeholder(s) for a significant expenditure that addresses a
priority MetroGIS business need. (Arbeit suggested, as an example, the $350,000+ expenditure of Mn/DOT and the
Metropolitan Council to acquire a license to The Lawrence Group’s Street Centerline dataset).
- Include placeholders for two additional subscription classes -- "collar counties" and "non-government". It
was agreed that no numbers should be included at this time to minimize complexity.
4b. July 20th Policy Advisory Team Agenda
It was agreed that the agenda should be limited to the resolving issues associated with the organizational
structure and the fair-share financial model to prepare for the July 28th Policy Board meeting. Mark Beauchamp agreed
to attend the meeting. Staff agreed that compensation would be in order for this additional meeting.
4c. Information Policy Legislation
It was agreed that the materials included in the Team’s agenda packet for this item should be forwarded
to the Policy Board as an information item at the July 28th Policy Board meeting. Arbeit volunteered to investigate
whether any between-session hearing activity is proposed in the near term.
4d. MetroGIS Benefits Study – Participant Satisfaction Survey
Craig invited the Team to comment on a preliminary draft of a survey he is planning to administer as part of
his MetroGIS Benefits Study. The group offered several suggestions, including requesting the respondents to identify
the organization class they represent and to clarify the purpose of Question 2b to get at how important is it that
MetroGIS undertake each of the core functions adopted by the Policy Board. Craig also asked for help to identify
additional non-data benefits of a successful MetroGIS.
4e. MetroGIS Support of Local GIS User Group Forums
Welsch moved and Arbeit seconded to recommend that MetroGIS co-sponsor to the maximum extent possible with
currently budgeted funds and to include co-sponsoring of topical GIS forums as a line item in subsequent budgets.
Motion carried, ayes all.
5. INFORMATION ITEMS
5a. Update – Fair-Share Model Peer Review Forum
No discussion of the material included in the packet.
6. NEXT MEETING
- Tuesday, July 20, 1999, 8:30 am at the Roseville City Hall
7 ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
