|
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LaBau at 8:30 a.m. It was held at the Roseville City Hall.
Members Present: David Arbeit, Brad Henry, Richard Johnson, Margo LaBau, and Dennis Welsch
Members Absent: Virginia Erdahl and Patrick O'Connor
Visitors: Beth Hobbs and John Lunde, Fair-Share Financial Model Consultant representatives, and Will Craig,
coordinator of MetroGIS Benefits Study .
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Theresa Foster
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
The agenda was accepted, as submitted.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARIES
Richard Johnson moved and Arbeit seconded to approve the June 25th, September 11th, September 14th, and
October 15, 1998 Team meeting summaries, as submitted. Motion carried, ayes all.
4. ACTION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
4a. MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial and Organizational Structure Project
Beth Hobbs, consultant project manager, explained progress made on Task A (roles and responsibilities).
MetroGIS information needs have been classified into one of three categories: 1) clearly fitting NSDI Framework theme
definitions, 2) within NSDI Framework concept but beyond NSDI in level of detail, and 3) not meeting definitions of
Framework themes (e.g. MetroGIS information need not included in NSDI Framework). It was noted that the NSDI recognizes
multi-participant organizations have data and information needs in addition to the NSDI Framework (core) themes and
encourages metadata for these datasets to be posted with the NSDI Clearinghouse.
Team members agreed a fourth category, NSDI Framework element not identified as an information need by
MetroGIS, should be included in the consultant’s analysis. MetroGIS’s local government perspective of
priority information needs is most likely representative of local government throughout the country. Also, this type of
local-to-national needs contrast and comparison is anticipated of recipients of NSDI Framework Demonstration Grants.
Hobbs stated that the requested fourth category of analysis is already in progress.
Work on the roles and responsibilities matrices was summarized. No changes have been made to the MCD/County
Jurisdictional Boundary dataset and draft matrices for the address and landmark (component of TLG Street Centerline
dataset with relevance to location of places) dataset are ready for staff comment. It was agreed that a complete matrix
(all seven framework functions) will be developed for each dataset that comprises each priority MetroGIS Information
Need (e.g., MCD/County jurisdictional boundaries, school district jurisdictional boundaries, and watershed
jurisdictional boundaries). In addition, a modified matrix (focuses mainly on the data development and data management
functions) will be developed for each primary data source which, in turn, will be integrated into a regional dataset.
It was agreed that staff and the consultant team will work out the specific content for these matrices and clarify
associated terminology and report back to the Team. Lunde suggested, and the group agreed, that the following hierarchy
is useful to clarify meaning of terminology: 1) an information need is addressed by one or more data needs and 2) a
data need is addressed by one or more datasets.
Lunde explained the objectives and conceptual design for Task B (estimate costs of collaboration—costs
beyond the business needs of participant organizations). It was agreed that the costs incurred by primary data
producers to meet their internal data needs are out of scope for this study. The study will concentrate on the marginal
costs (costs that exceed internal business needs) to integrate, manage, and distribute regional datasets in a form
readily useful to numerous MetroGIS participants. Lunde agreed to develop a more detailed work plan and sample
interview questions to evaluate the range of tasks necessary to address differing producer procedures and to accomplish
the other aspects of Task B for discussion the next Team meeting (January 21, 1999).
Lunde stated he would like to begin interviewing primary data producers by the end of January and to maximize
use of time of those interviewed, attempt to interview them only once. Staff suggested, and the group agreed, that
Lunde should also interview Jerry Happle of PlanSight, consultant for the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition,
regarding tasks his firm performed to integrate primary data sources into the coalition’s GIS backbone.
PlanSight’s experiences are directly applicable to tasks anticipated to accomplish MetroGIS objectives.
Foster stated that desired data specifications for a regional dataset(s) and custodian responsibilities should
be well in hand for parcel boundaries and parcel identifiers by late January and that data specifications for address
matching and MCD/County Jurisdictional Boundaries are complete. (Editor’s note: Addresses, as an attribute of
parcels, will likely not be finished. Washington County has agreed to investigate solutions to the school and watershed
boundary data needs as pilot projects for MetroGIS. Work on the school district boundaries has or will commence shortly
followed by watershed boundaries, possibility by Spring, 1999.) It was agreed that Lunde will initially concentrate on
developing cost profiles to sustain data distribution (Data Finder) for MetroGIS and to support the MetroGIS
organization to give MetroGIS as much time as possible to define desired regional data specifications. It was also
agreed that I-35W officials should be interviewed, in addition to the proposed national search, to provide additional
perspective on the organizational needs and expenses associated with sustaining a mature multi-participant GIS
collaborative.
The group agreed that evaluation of the costs associated with satisfying NSDI Framework specifics is secondary
to developing cost profiles to sustain MetroGIS. The group also agreed to defer discussion of this matter until Task A
is complete to determine if there is an NSDI specification to compare against. If an evaluation is to be undertaken,
coordination with LMIC’s Framework Demonstration Grant will be critical.
Team members were provided with the final detailed work plan for the study along with the final quality
assurance plan (both dated December 2, 1998). The latter explains how the consultant will interact with MetroGIS
throughout the study period. It was agreed that Team members should receive the consultant’s monthly report prior
to each Team meeting and that discussion at the meetings should focus on resolving problems and seeking guidance on
specified matters.
4b. 1998 Annual Report
The group concurred with staff’s proposal to produce a formalized annual report for 1998. No suggested
additions or modifications were offered for the draft list of 1998 milestones or for the specifications suggested for
annual report.
4c. 2000 Funding Priorities and Revenue Resources
No additions or modifications were offered concerning the proposed 2000 funding priorities and revenue
resources proposed in the staff report. The group agreed this matter should be a consent item on the November 17th
Coordinating Committee agenda, given committee members had been asked to comment in early November on the same budget
proposal and no comments have been received. Team members concurred with staff’s conclusion that it is premature
to include a city subscription fee as a revenue source as suggested Policy Board member Schneider at the November 18th
Board meeting. Members asked staff to highlight the statement that this budget proposal does not include funds for
implementation of solutions, only identification of strategies.
4d. January Policy Board Meeting
The suggested meeting agenda for the January Policy Board meeting was endorsed, with the exception of Item 4f.
Strategy for Transition of Metropolitan Council Leadership. Richard Johnson noted 13 of the 17 Metropolitan Council
members recently stated they are interested in reappointment. No action is likely by the governor by the January Board
meeting. It was agreed to hold off discussion of this item with the Coordinating Committee and Board until more is
known.
4e. MetroGIS WEB Site – Committee Member Contact Information
Members agreed they would prefer the following two-tier team contact information approach to be supported by
the redesign of the MetroGIS WEB site, if technically possible and cost effective: 1) provide MetroGIS Policy Board,
Committee, and Team members with a LISTSERV capability to communicate among themselves via an "intranet of sorts"
without the need to go through staff and 2) require contact with the Board, Committee, and Team from the general public
(non-team members) to go through staff. Staff noted this information would be forwarded to the consultant assisting
with the website redesign.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
None.
6. NEXT MEETING
Thursday, January 21, 1999, 1:30 p.m. at the Roseville City Hall
7. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
