|
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LaBau at 8:35 a.m. It was held at the Minnesota Land Management
Information Center (LMIC) in St. Paul.
Members Present: David Arbeit, Brad Henry, Richard Johnson, Margo LaBau, and Alternate Gary Caswell for
Patrick O'Connor
Members Absent: Virginia Erdahl and Dennis Welsch Visitor: Joe Edwards, Metropolitan Council, Manager
Contracts and Documents Unit
Support Staff: Randall Johnson
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as submitted.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
Action on the Team’s August 6, 1998 meeting summary was deferred to the next team meeting.
4. ACTION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
4a. Consultant Selection -- MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial and Organizational Model Project
Motion: Richard Johnson moved and Arbeit seconded that the Policy Advisory Team, acting in its capacity of the
Project Steering Committee:
- Accept the Consultant Evaluation Team’s recommendation to select the BRW Consultant Team to assist
with the MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial and Organizational Model Project.
- Request the Metropolitan Council to pursue a consultant contract with BRW, subject to addressing the
concerns stated in the Comments and Conclusions Section of the staff report dated September 10, 1998, regarding
evaluation components one and three.
Discussion on the motion was as follows:
Caswell asked for clarification why there is so much emphasis on costing out roles and responsibilities and,
in particular, those stipulated as NSDI Framework Functions. Arbeit explained, and the other members concurred, that
cost estimates of the roles and responsibilities that comprise the "costs of collaboration" (costs of data integration)
are needed to effectively devise a cost allocation model and, further, to receive consideration for grant funding from
NSDI, a strong tie must be made between our local project and NSDI Framework principles. Staff also explained the NSDI
Framework Functions had been incorporated into the MetroGIS Business Information Needs Workgroup process before the
grant application had been submitted as a place for MetroGIS to start and that it was a straight forward extension of
the MetroGIS workplan to include an study component to compare and contrast local needs versus NSDI principles.
With regard to the concerns raised in evaluation comments one and three for the BRW proposal, as described in
the staff report dated September 10th, it was agreed that Arbeit, Henry, and LaBau, serving in their capacity as
members of the Project Steering Committee, and staff will meet with the members of the BRW consultant team to clarify
expectations, milestones, deliverables, utilization of MetroGIS resources, coordination with the Project Steering
Committee, and fees. It was also agreed that the following expectations need to be established in the contract
negotiations: a) the deliverable must include three or four, fully developed organizational options, with the pros and
cons explained for each, to address the concern for a possible canned approach for development of an organizational
model and b) the Project Steering Committee expects to be consulted with on a regular basis throughout the development
of options for the organizational and financial models.
An explanation of contract approval process was requested. Richard Johnson reported that on September 9th, the
Metropolitan Council had authorized its Regional Administrator to enter in a contract with the selected consultant. Joe
Edwards provided an overview of the steps involved in approving the contract and stated he believes the planned October
1st start date is doable.
Vote: Motion carried unanimously, as originally moved by Richard Johnson and as seconded by Arbeit.
Staff stated he would pass the Team’s concerns along to the BRW project manager following the meeting to
give them an opportunity to prepare responses for negotiations meeting.
4b. Meeting to Clarify Expectations with Consultant
A contract negotiation meeting was tentatively scheduled for at 2:30 p.m., Monday, September 14th, pending
availability of members of the BRW team. Arbeit, Henry, and LaBau volunteered to assist staff in their negotiations
with the BRW team to address the concerns and direction stated in Item 4a, above. Joe Edwards, Metropolitan Council
Contracts and Documents Unit, will also assist with the contract negotiations.
4c. Creation of Technical Advisory Team
Staff noted that the idea of consolidating the Access, Content and Standards Advisory Teams into a single
Technical Advisory Team is an outgrowth of an August 27th Coordinating Committee directive that each of the liaisons
meet to evaluate ways to improve communication among the teams, improve member attendance, and provide an effective
vehicle for technical review of matters before consideration by Coordinating Committee. To assist staff to prepare for
the liaisons meeting, staff asked for feedback on the e-mail sent several days earlier regarding the concept collapsing
the three technically-oriented teams into a single Technical Advisory Team.
Members concurred the idea has merit. They particularly liked the fact that team members would have the
opportunity to work on the breadth of technical matters confronting MetroGIS rather than be confined to a specific
topic area. All agreed this change and the philosophy to assign workgroups tasks with defined a beginning and ending
should improve stakeholder interest in actively participating in MetroGIS activities. They also concurred this
reorganization would allow for better use of staff support resources. Staff was asked to investigate whether
MetroGIS’s operating guidelines need to be amended to implement this reorganization.
4d. Graceful Exit Policy
The group concluded that a specific graceful policy is not necessary, in particular given the probable
reorganization of the technical committees. Staff suggested that once a decision is made on the Technical Advisory Team
that a letter from the Coordinating Committee chair should be sent to all persons listed as members of the three
current technically-oriented teams inviting them to join the new team and thanking them for their participation. The
team agreed.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
The team acknowledged its role as Project Steering Committee for the Fair-Share Financial and Organizational
Model Project and concurred its meeting schedule over the next year will need to be flexible to accommodate timely
discussion with the consultant team on a variety of matters. Staff was asked to speak with the consultant about
establishing milestones that would be the subjects of the prescheduled meetings, to the extent practical, and the basis
for authorizing incremental payments.
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
