|
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, Gary Caswell for Partick O’Connor, David Claypool, Virginia Erdahl, Brad
Henry, and Paul Leegard.
Members Absent: Richard Johnson and Dennis Welsch.
Visitors: Mark Beauchamp of the Fair-Share Financial Model consultant team, Tom Brown with Hennepin County,
and Gary Stevenson with Dakota County.
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The proposed agenda was accepted as submitted.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
The minutes for the July 20, 1999 meeting were not included in the packet. Action was deferred to the next
meeting.
4. SUMMARY OF JULY 28TH POLICY BOARD MEETING
Staff provided an overview of the highlights of the July 28, 1999 Policy Board meeting. They included: Board
recognition that promotion of common practices among MetroGIS participants has value; concurrence that the MetroGIS
organizational structure should continue to provide voting memberships on the Policy Board for cities, watersheds, and
schools to build and maintain accountability; consider seeking legislative authority sooner than later if the Joint
Powers Agreement authorities unnecessarily complicate provision of these voting memberships; the Coordinating Committee
was asked to conduct a survey of local government, cities in particular, to establish the level of resources budgeted
for GIS programs; and a request to begin emailing Board members minutes of Coordinating Committee meetings in addition
to updates on topics of interest. Board members also endorsed the concept of the Coordinating Committee sending them
ideas or proposals for initial reaction and the idea of special workshop meetings to discuss important topics prior to
developing a recommendation.
5. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
5a. MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Model
Mark Beauchamp summarized changes
he had made to the fair-share financial model in response to direction received
from the Team and staff since the previous meeting. He also presented a
schematic of model logic. The group asked that the final report include
definitions for various model components and a link to the appropriate
section(s) of the Task B final report for the source of the numbers used in the
model.
Mr. Beauchamp explained he had added a component referred to as a "scale factor" to recognize that the data
needs for some levels of government are less rigorous than for others (i.e., federal agency versus a city). The scale
factor uses three codes (1, 2 and 3) with "1" being the least rigorous. The group concurred that inclusion of this
factor in the model is appropriate while recognizing the need to collect the necessary empirical data to assign an
equitable code. For the time being, all agreed that assignment of a "1" to state and federal government and a "2" to
all other classes is appropriate. Arbeit stated that the data needed to measure differences in data scale needs among
government units is possible to collect, as part of the next MetroGIS information needs survey. It was agreed to
investigate the appropriateness of asking a question about the "scale factor" in the small group sessions at the Peer
Review Forum to gather some additional insight prior to finalizing a recommendation to the Policy Board.
Mr. Beauchamp explained the various allocator formulas that drive the model and the current penetration rate
assumptions. The group concurred that the proposed dual-part penetration rate, comprised of organization class and
number of the parcels within the jurisdictions of subscriber organizations, is a reasonable way to address the large
variation in the number of parcels contained within prospective subscriber organizations. The group also spent some
time with the factors that had been taken into account to assign penetration rates for cities, school districts and
watershed districts and also concurred the proposed rates are reasonable. These factors included deducting the cities
in Dakota County assuming the county will provide for their GIS needs, the number of cities with over 10,000 parcels,
the number of cities along a county boundary within the metro area, and the number of the cities in counties that do
not provide the data solutions proposed by MetroGIS.
Review of Schedule 3 revealed a possible double counting of regional data integration costs. Staff will check
with John Lunde, lead for Task B, to determine if the proposed incentive funding of up to $75,000 annually to primary
data producers was deducted from the cost of costs that would be assumed by the regional data integrator. This
incentive was included to compensate a primary producer for any activities voluntarily incurred beyond their internal
business need to address a MetroGIS need that would otherwise need to be addressed by the regional integrator. The
group also concurred to: 1) reduce the category "Grants to MetroGIS" from $400,000 to $300,000 over the four-year
implementation period mainly to clearly distinguish from other non-government revenues and move this category to a
separate section below the Data Development and Maintenance expenses, 2) rename the "Revenues from "private sales" to
"Revenues from non-government/government outside of metro area" and change the amount from $400,000 to $500,000 over
the four-year implementation period, 3) add total columns to the schedules, 4) provide an example of how to interpret
the model to derive a fee for a specific entity, and 4) replace the phase in Attachment 1 of ‘Provided by
Sufficient Systems" to "Provided by Task B".
Mr. Beauchamp explained, at the request of Member Arbeit, that the negative 2 percent share shown in Schedule
5 for counties is the result of sharing revenues with the counties and zeroing out the remainder of their subscription
fees (see general allocation section in Schedule 3). He asked the group if it agreed with his assumption to share
revenues with all participants even though the county’s data contribution would "zero-out" their subscription fee.
Staff noted that sharing revenue from any non-government sources with counties would be consistent with the fundamental
assumption that intellectual property rights would remain intact for all primary data contributed for regional data
solutions. The group concurred that revenues should be shared with all participants. The group agreed that the current
version of the model meets their expectations. b) Peer Review Forum
5b(1). Invitation
It was agreed that the draft letter included in the agenda packet needs to be shortened. Team members provided
feedback on a draft list of organizations and classes of job responsibilities targeted to receive an invitation. Staff
was encouraged to send an application to all state agency directors and to continue to target managers in specific
agencies where GIS use is known. Civil defense, fire and, police were added for local government. E911 was added to
Metropolitan organizations. State Planning, Office of Technology, LCMR, the Board of Soil and Water Resources, and the
House and Senate Research staff were added to the list of state interests to notify. The US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, Census Bureau, and Forest Service were added to the list of federal interests to notify.
It was decided it is premature to notify state legislators. Consultants that work with local government were
deleted from the draft list. It was agreed that if a local unit of government wants a consultant to represent them
so-be-it but that they should not be notified directly.
5b(2). Small Group Sessions
The group concluded that to stimulate discussion in the small groups, attendees should be encouraged to sit
with their peers (e.g., city table(s), state table(s), metropolitan table(s), etc.). It was agreed the facilitation
questions will be included in a packet to be distributed at the beginning of the break to each table. The order of the
questions will be as listed in Agenda Item 5b(2), except number 2 will follow number four and a questions about "scale
factor" will be added, presumably as a new number 6. Policy Advisory Team members will serve as facilitators. Any
additionally needed facilitators will be identified once prospective attendees have had a chance to RSVP.
5b(3). Program
The presentation will focus on the results generated by the model as they relate to prospective subscribers.
Explanation of assumptions will be a key focus. Only general information about costs will be shared. Details of the
model will not be presented except to answer specific questions. Chairperson Erdahl will present the model and Mark
Beauchamp will be available to respond to technical questions about the model. Example subscription fees will be
provided in two forms for the gambit of local government organization classes – generically by number of parcels
within organization classes (e.g., cities: 5,000, 10,000, 15,000 … parcels and three of four specific small,
medium and large city examples). The total projected expenses for state, federal and metropolitan organizational
classes will be shared with a statement that it will be up to the specific organizations to decide how to allocate the
fee among themselves. Hand out materials will be agreed upon at the September 8th meeting. All speakers will stress
that the Metropolitan Council is a partner and that MetroGIS is not another name for the Metropolitan Council.
The order of the presentations was endorsed as shown in the preliminary program with the exception that that
Chairperson Erdahl will present the results of the model as well as the context information. It was also agreed that no
more than an hour should elapse before getting to the model presentation. Arbeit’s presentation will include an
explanation of what is meant by a "mature MetroGIS", that is, a brief summary of the 22 functions endorsed by the Board
and the proposed regional data solutions.
Each presenter was asked to prepare an outline of the points they propose to make to share with Team members
for discussion at the September 8th meeting. Staff offered to consolidate the presentations into a common format. It
was also agreed that the presentation about benefits should include a demonstration and that poster-sized GIS products
should be displayed throughout the meeting room. Staff agreed to investigate whether the GIS graphics included in
Appendix I of the testimony submitted to a House Subcommittee can be blown up to poster-size.
5c. MetroGIS Participant Appreciation Function
The group agreed to postpone action on this proposal until following Policy Board consideration of the
fair-share model recommendations.
Mr. Beauchamp was asked to leave the room.
5c. MetroGIS Next Steps
It was agreed that if a sole source contract is acceptable to the Metropolitan Council that the Team would
support such a contract with Trudy Richter and Mark Beauchamp to prepare a Business Plan, assuming they can demonstrate
they have the experience to accomplish the Team’s expectations. All agreed that utilizing the services of the
current consultants could save significant time and effort. Mr. Beauchamp returned to the room and was informed that
the high-level outline he had prepared for a Business Plan needs to include an evaluation of the preliminary conclusion
that the joint powers agreement (JPA) organizational structure would be compatible with the actions suggested by the
Business Plan and an evaluation of when the JPA should be pursued.
The group also agreed that a solution to the regional parcel information need is a must to MetroGIS’s
ability to generate revenue by subscriptions. The Business Plan must recognize this fundamental need. Work to resolve
this information need may begin before the Business Plan is complete. It was agreed that the desired regional data
specifications and desired regional custodian roles and responsibilities should be presented to several existing
organizations (TIES, LOGIS, LMIC, the Metropolitan Council, etc) for a response as to their capacity to carry out the
desired MetroGIS solution before seeking proposals from the private sector to perform these services as a 3rd party on
behalf of MetroGIS participants. The consensus of the group was that a subcommittee of individuals from MetroGIS
stakeholder organizations could successfully address this information need.
No other critical next steps were identified.
6. INFORMATION ITEMS
There was no discussion of the items included in the agenda packet and no other items were offered.
7. NEXT MEETING
- September 8th at the Roseville City Hall, beginning at 8:30 a.m.
8 ADJOURN
Arbeit moved and Leegard seconded to adjourn at 11:25 a.m. Motion carried, ayes all.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
