|
1. Call to Order
In the absence of Chairperson Erdahl, Member Richard Johnson called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. The
meeting was held at the Roseville City Hall.
Committee Member Attendees: Cliff Aichinger (Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District), David Arbeit (LMIC),
Bill Brown (Hennepin County), David Claypool (Ramsey County and Coordinating Committee Vice Chair, Brad Henry
(Minneapolis and Coordinating Committee Chair), Jerome Johnson (Anoka County), Richard Johnson (Metropolitan Council),
and Dennis Welsch (Roseville).
Members Absent: None
Visitors: Will Craig (MetroGIS Benefits Project Manager)
Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
2. Approve Agenda
The agenda was accepted as proposed.
3. Approve Minutes
Henry moved and Arbeit seconded to approve the September 8, 1999 meeting summary as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. Discussion/Action Items
4a. MetroGIS Benefits Study
Will Craig summarized the methodology and preliminary findings of his MetroGIS Benefits Study. The
mailed-survey component focused on obtaining feedback from participants regarding importance of each of MetroGIS’
endorsed functions to their the business needs and whether the respondents believed MetroGIS should expend its
resources on the each of these functions. It was agreed to combine the ratings obtained from the responses to each
question into a two-dimensional matrix, the results of which to be used to establish the relative importance of each
function to prospective users. The group concurred that the break-points used to categorize acceptance/approval should
be substantially higher than 50% to reflect MetroGIS’ principle that policy fundamental its success is to be
developed through a consensus-based process.
The preliminary findings from Craig’s survey show strong support for the MetroGIS’ coordinating
functions that facilitate and promote data sharing. Craig noted that he would be presenting his preliminary results at
the Mn State GIS/LIS Conference the following week. Staff noted that these findings would also be presented the Policy
Board on October 27th preceding the Board’s consideration of the Fair-Share Model and Organizational
Structure Project recommendations. The fair-share model project recommendations will include updating the relative
rating of the 22 current "core" and "desirable" functions using results of Craig’s study.
Craig also noted the MetroGIS project has apparently had a significant affect on improving the Metropolitan
Council’s image and creditability among its local government partners.
4b. Update on September 29th Briefing of Metropolitan Council
Coordinating Committee Chair Henry summarized the topics covered during the 30 minute+ presentation made by
Policy Board Chairperson Reinhardt, Richard Johnson, and himself. He also commented that questions asked by the
Councilmembers did not indicate any disagreement with MetroGIS’ principles, the Council’s role as primary
sponsor, or MetroGIS’ funding request for 2000. The members' main interest was when will MetroGIS begin to
interact/collaborate with the "collar counties".
4c. MetroGIS Fair Share Financial Model Project – Recommendations and Next Steps
Team members reviewed a preliminary draft of the report from the Coordinating Committee to the Policy Board
for the Oct. 27th meeting concerning next steps. It was agreed the report should focus on providing
rationale for:
- moving forward with continued implementation of functions that promote and facilitate coordination,
- revising the regional dataset function to develop them on a case-by-case basis as funding is secured
rather than seeking funding for data development through a subscription fee,
- proceeding with a detailed Business Plan for implementation of the "core" functions, as modified to
reflect feedback received at the Peer Review Forum and the results of Will Craig’s Benefits Study
- the Council’s continued support of MetroGIS’ coordination-related functions through 2000. The
Council will consider the results of the Business Plan and needs for long-term stability to assess its level of
commitment thereafter.
It was agreed that the Business Plan must include resolution of issues surrounding a regional parcel data
solution. Coordinating Committee Chair Henry suggested that we make use of GIS technology more prominent in the
development and explanation of policy for this and other regional dataset solutions. Staff noted that Theresa Foster,
MetroGIS Technical Coordinator, had provided the results of several GIS queries to the consultant team during
development of the proposed penetration rates for local government units. He also cautioned that the solution must set
policy that continues the current policy that local government can not have access to the regional parcel data if they
have not cooperated with their respective county’s parcel data program.
Member Arbeit commented that MetroGIS should investigate the Portland Metro’s modest GIS data fee
structure and the sponsor role of the Portland Metro which provided much of the funding for development of the regional
datasets. It was acknowledged that if this approach were adopted, the lead organization would not be responsible for a
solution that exceeds its internal needs. If enhancements were required to meet needs of other organizations, funding
would be required from the benefiting organizations or the enhancements would not be pursued.
The Team agreed that focus on the organizational structure should be reduced. All agreed that the partners
would avoid a decision until they are faced with a problem that requires a separate legal organizational to resolve in
a manner consistent with their collective needs. The focus in the proposed Business Plan should be to examine the pros
and cons of the current informal structure and to offer options to overcome these shortcomings.
Members agreed there should be a specific statement of the Council’s role. Several modifications were
suggested to the contents of the proposed Business Plan, including resolution of the regional parcel dataset issues,
adding a component to look at impact on existing data sales policies, and how MetroGIS is distinguished from LMIC,
GCGI, GIS/LIS, etc. Staff agreed to revise the draft report to reflect the Team’s comments and suggestions and to
share the revised document with Team leadership before mailing it to Board members.
4d. Preliminary Agenda – October 27th Policy Board Meeting
The team suggested that staff suggest to Chairperson Reinhardt moving the GIS Demonstration to follow the
action items. No other comments were offered.
4e. Update on Business Plan Consultant Contract
Staff explained that options and strategies are being discussed with Trudy Richter of Richter and Richardson
Associates. The plan is to try to work out as many details as possible prior to the October 27th Board
meeting and to initiate the process as soon as possible following the Board meeting, assuming the Board authorized a
Business Plan.
4f. Team Meeting Schedule
The team decided to postpone a decision on scheduling meetings beyond November 3rd.
5. Information Items: None
6. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Policy Advisory Team is tentatively scheduled for November 3, 1999, subject to action
taken by the Policy Board on October 27th.
7. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
Submitted by Randall L. Johnson, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
