|
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Reinhardt called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. It was held at the Metropolitan Council’s
Mears Park facility in St. Paul.
Members Present: Willis Branning (Dakota County), Conrad Fiskness (Metro Watershed Districts), Dennis Hegberg
(Washington County), Alternate Lee Whitcraft for Antoinette Johns (TIES), Edwin Mackie (Scott County), Alternate
Patrick O'Connor for Randy Johnson (Hennepin County), Jim Kordiak (Anoka County), Victoria Reinhardt (Ramsey County),
Terry Schneider (AMM), John Siegfried (Carver County), and Roger Williams (Metropolitan Council).
Members Absent: Barbara Johnson (AMM)
Coordinating Committee Members Present: Larry Charboneau, David Claypool (Vice Chair), Eli Cooper, Will Craig,
Virginia Erdahl, Rick Gelbmann, Jim Hentges, Brad Henry (Chair), Jerome Johnson, Edward Schukle, Gary Stevenson, and
Ron Wencl.
Visitors: Steve Lehr, CB Richard-Ellis and Shawn Toscano, ESRI
Support Staff: Randall Johnson and Kathie Doty of Richardson and Richter
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
Member Fiskness moved and Member Siegfried seconded to accept the agenda as submitted. Motion carried, ayes
all.
3. APPROVE MEETING SUMMARY
Member Schneider moved and Member Fiskness seconded to approve the summary of the January 26, 2000 meeting as
submitted. Motion carried, ayes all.
4. GIS TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION
Rick Gelbmann, Coordinating Committee, and Brad Henry, Coordinating Committee Chair, presented and
demonstrated highlights of Version 1 of the regional parcel dataset. Henry stressed this dataset was assembled as a
place to start to address one of the key priority information needs previously identified by the MetroGIS community. In
particular, that the limited number of attributes attached to each parcel were selected because they were easy to
accomplish and that the proposed pilot project is, in part, intended to obtain feedback from the user community about
the desired enhancements to the data content and CD-ROM method of distribution.
Chairperson Reinhardt thanked Gary Stevenson and Dakota County for volunteering to oversee the development of
Version 1 of this dataset. Member Branning (Dakota County) thanked the Metropolitan Council for financing the costs of
collaboration that have brought MetroGIS to this point.
Chairperson Reinhardt noted that resolution of policies concerning private sector access to parcel data are
fundamental to MetroGIS’ next steps and offered a modified version of the Business Plan recommendation, to that
presented on page 15 of the staff report included in the agenda packet, for the members to keep in mind as the Business
Plan is presented. She explained that after meeting with representatives of the private sector she decided the decision
making process outlined in the proposed Business Plan would not address the needs quickly enough. She noted that the
proposed modifications maintain the intent of the Plan but speed up the process. She also emphasized that these
modifications do not assume any predetermined outcome as to how or if the private sector’s needs will be/can be
addressed to the private sector’s satisfaction.
Chairperson Reinhardt also noted that the modified motion postpones action on the recommendation in the
Business Plan to redirect the $75,000 supplemental data maintenance payment until more information is known about the
proposed centralized data distribution functions.
In the subsequent dialogue, Chairperson Reinhardt clarified that it is possible that a more formal
organizational structure than at present, such as a joint powers agreement, may be needed to effectively address the
private sector data access issue. It was also noted that county officials have already initiated talks to identify
common ground regarding non-government access fees for parcel data.
a) Business Plan and Regional Parcel Dataset Pilot Project
Kathie Doty, of Richardson, Richter & Associates, and member of the Business Planning Team, explained the
Business Planning process, previous direction that had been received from the Board including functions that MetroGIS
should support, proposed function priorities and resulting budget estimates, funding to date, funding options
investigated and the Metropolitan Council administration’s acceptance (subject to full Council acceptance) to
sponsor the entire coordination budget, and proposed pilot project to refine the regional parcel dataset and related
distribution policies including the role of the private sector.
Board members discussed several matters relating to distribution of regional data, updating of regional data,
funding to improve regional data distribution capacity, and need for direction concerning the proposed postponement of
action regarding redirection of the $75,000 supplemental data maintenance payment. Board members also discussed and
agreed upon several refinements to Chairperson Reinhardt’s modified recommendation (Item 3) concerning how the
private sector members would be nominated, need for diversity among the size of the participating private sector firms,
and relationship between the existing Coordinating Committee and the proposed Regional Parcel Dataset Subcommittee. All
members concurred that it would not be in the public interest to act today in a manner that would preclude private
sector involvement at a later date. And consequently, that it is important that the Policy Board understand the private
sector’s interests from the outset of the development of policies concerning the regional parcel dataset.
Board members accepted a proposal from Coordinating Committee Charboneau to oversee a process whereby he would
coordinate development of a list of potential private sector interests and then rely upon a self nomination process
resulting in a list of candidates for consideration by Chairperson Reinhardt and Vice-Chairperson Siegfried, who would
oversee appointment of private and public sector representatives. It was also agreed that: 1) the members should not be
dominated by elected officials, 2) the county staff should be familiar with their county’s costs to develop the
geospatial data included (or proposed) in the regional dataset and the legal aspects concerning their access policies,
3) the county staff should be familiar with typical data requests from the private sector, and 4) the private sector
representatives should be knowledgeable of the parcel-related data their respective firms desire from the counties. It
will then be up to the private sector to decide if they can accept the fee identified through this process.
Member Kordiak volunteered to co-chair the subcommittee as the Board’s representative. Member Mackie also
volunteered to serve in a dual capacity as private sector and Board representative. Board members accepted these
offers.
The group also concluded that that the proposed subcommittee should focus on the private sector and that
policy relating to non-profits and academia should be dealt with after private sector policy is set. There was
concurrence on the Board and among the Coordinating Committee members present that the academic and non-profit fees
would most likely fall somewhere on the continuum between access policy set for the private and public sectors.
Motion: Member Siegfried moved and Member Fiskness seconded that the MetroGIS Policy Board:
- Accept the proposed Business Plan for MetroGIS, dated April 19, 2000
- Authorize the next steps presented in the Business Plan and generalized as follows:
- Accept the Metropolitan Council management’s proposal (to be confirmed with the Council) to
continue to fund MetroGIS’ coordination functions.
- Postpone further consideration of a subscription fee program for the public sector
- Initiate discussions between the Metropolitan Council and the counties concerning continuation
of the practice of funding a supplemental data maintenance payment to the counties
- Expand functions to support centralized internet-based distribution of regional data
- Request each county to immediately authorize distribution of the regional parcel dataset to the
public and private sectors for the pilot project
- Agree on a licensing agreement for distribution of the regional parcel dataset
- Commence pilot project with MetroGIS distributing regional parcel datasets
- Obtain feedback from data recipients
- Assess MetroGIS’ involvement and any budget or function modifications
- Request each of the counties, the Metropolitan Council, and others as appropriate to enter into a
common data sharing agreement through December 31, 2003 (the Business Plan’s term)
- Advocate within and among the respective organizations to facilitate and encourage organizational
policy and actions consistent with MetroGIS’ objectives.
- MetroGIS will continue to be stakeholder-governed
- Stakeholders will continue to participate in the affairs of MetroGIS
- MetroGIS will register its name with State and federal authorities
- MetroGIS will use outreach and educational opportunities to inform potential users of
MetroGIS
- Form a subcommittee made up of Private Industry, Counties, and Metropolitan Council to work directly with
the MetroGIS Coordinating Committee and Policy Board to determine costs and legal structure that will meet the needs of
the Private Sector.
- The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Policy Board will oversee the development of the subcommittee
- The subcommittee will be co-chaired by one member of the Policy Board and a member from the private
sector, the latter as determined by the subcommittee.
- The subcommittee will submit a report on recommendation at the next MetroGIS Policy Board meeting
for its consideration.
Motion carried, ayes all.
Chairperson Reinhardt thanked the Metropolitan Council for allowing the MetroGIS experiment to continue.
Member Fiskness also thanked the Council for agreeing to continue to fund MetroGIS, avoiding the need to force the
notion of a subscription fee at this time. Member Siegfried thanked the Business Planning team for its work and
Chairperson Reinhardt thanked David Claypool for his assistance in preparing the modified recommendation.
b) Modify July Meeting Date
It was agreed to hold the July meeting on the 19th rather than the 26th as had been originally scheduled.
6. INFORMATION SHARING
There is no discussion of the items presented in the agenda packet materials except for the 6c, NACo and NSDI
Presentations March 5 & 6. Chairperson Reinhardt summarized these presentations and commented that according to
comments received and questions asked, MetroGIS’ efforts to organize and sustain multi-participant GIS
collaboration continue to be on the cutting edge and others continue to express interest in applying what we have
learned.
7. NEXT MEETING
July 19, 2000
8. ADJOURN
The meeting concluded at 8:25 p.m.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
