|
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Reinhardt. The meeting was held at the
Metropolitan Council's Mears Park facility in St. Paul.
Board Members Present: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Pat Scott (Minneapolis) and Terry Schneider
(Minnetonka); Counties Anoka: Dennis Berg; Carver: John Siegfried; Hennepin: Jeff Spartz (alternate); Ramsey: Victoria
Reinhardt; Scott: Edwin Mackie; Washington: Dennis Hegberg. Metro Chapter of MN Association of Watershed Districts:
Conrad Fiskness (Riley PurgatoryBluff Creek Watershed District); and Metropolitan Council: Bill Schreiber.
Board Members Absent: Counties-- Dakota; Joseph Harris; Hennepin: Randy Johnson, Technology Information
Education Services (TIES): Thomas Halvorson (Bloomington School District).
Coordinating Committee Liaisons Present : Liaison to Data Content Advisory Team: Will Craig (University of
Minnesota); Liaison to Policy Advisory Team: Margo LaBau (Anoka County); Liaison to Standards Advisory Team: Ron Wencl
(USGS).
Coordinating Committee Liaisons Absent: Chair, Coordinating Committee: David Arbeit (LMIC); Liaison to Data
Access Advisory Team: Jim Sydow (TIES).
Support Staff Present: Randall Johnson, Rick Gelbmann, Heidi Welsch.
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
Accepted as submitted.
3. ACCEPT MEETING MINUTES
Member Fiskness moved and Member Hegberg seconded to approve the minutes of the Board's March 25, 1997
meeting, subject to clarifying member Harris represents Dakota County in the members present section. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS
Chairperson Reinhardt introduced Member Schreiber. Member Schreiber stated he is replacing David Hartley as
the Metropolitan Council's representative to the Policy Board because David Hartley had resigned from the Council to
pursue an out-of-state employment opportunity. Member Schreiber commented that MetroGIS is an exciting opportunity for
the Council to collaborate with local government to achieve common needs and that he is looking forward to representing
the Council in this endeavor. Chairperson Reinhardt reported that the Ramsey County Board had appointed Janice Rettman
as Ramsey County's alternate to the Policy Board.
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
a) Election of Vice Chairperson
The group discussed electing the vice-chairperson with the understanding this person would become the chair
the following year was discussed but decided not to pursue this course at this time to maintain flexibility and because
the Board's operating guidelines would need to be amended to implement this policy.
Member Siegfried nominated Member Fiskness (watershed district representative) to serve a Vice-Chairperson
which led to discussion and general acknowledgment that county representatives to the Board should be in the leadership
roles given the significant investments counties have made to implement GIS. Member Siegfried stated he is comfortable
with a focus on county leadership but also does not want to exclude others. Member Berg was asked if he would serve as
vice-chair. He stated that he would accept if nominated. Member Fiskness withdrew his name from nomination.
Member Schneider nominated Member Berg to serve as vice chairperson through April 1998. Member Siegfried
seconded the nomination. Chairperson Reinhardt closed the nomination process, hearing no other nominations. Member
Schneider moved and Member Scott seconded to elect Member Berg as vice chairperson by acclamation for the coming year.
Motion carried unanimously.
b) MetroGIS Information Need Priorities/Next Steps Methodology
Information Need Priorities: Will Craig, Coordinating Committee Liaison to the Data Content Advisory Team,
presented an overview of the process the Team used to identify priority information needs of cross-jurisdictional
importance. He also acknowledged the participants and those who guided the project. He reported that at its April 24th
meeting, the Coordinating Committee had concluded there is a natural break between the information needs ranked numbers
13 and 14 and that concentration on the top thirteen information needs (see recommendation for a listing) is reasonable
for the time being.
He also explained that the Coordinating Committee selected four of the thirteen top needs for immediate
attention because they provide a foundation for work on the others. These four foundation needs are "jurisdictional
boundaries", needs associated with an addressable street network data base, "land use plans", and "parcel boundaries".
The reasons for selecting each of them were noted. Craig also explained the Coordinating Committee believes MetroGIS
should build upon projects underway at Metropolitan Council to make addressable street centerline and soils data
available for the entire seven-county region. He encouraged the Board to be open to other situations where a similar
economy of scale can be achieved.
Board members commented that some of the information needs appeared to overlap and questioned whether some of
them should be collapsed. Craig explained that some collapsing is expected but the preference of the Coordinating
Committee's is to leave the decision to the experts that the will be invited to participate in the next step of the
project. The members concurred with this approach.
Member Schreiber asked if property description data maintained by county assessors will be among the core
data, in particular, property valuation data. Craig explained that a variety of data will be needed to answer the high
priority information needs and subject matter experts will be looked to identify the needed data. Randall Johnson
explained that the Metropolitan Council's GIS Data and Cost Sharing Agreements with the metro area counties will
provide access to property description data by government organizations for their internal business purposes whether or
not these data are needed to answer the top thirteen information needs.
Questions were raised about how varying accuracy and varying data update frequencies would be met. Staff noted
that both characteristics about data that subject matter experts will be asked to address for each information need and
that the workgroups may conclude that multiple specifications are needed to accommodate the range of needs.
Member Hegberg suggested that census tract boundaries should be included with the jurisdictional boundary
information need, given their importance to reporting for a number of private and public organizations. Craig stated
that he would prefer the jurisdictional boundary information need category to remain as simple as possible to enable
effective testing of the "next steps" methodology.
Member Berg noted that in terms of broad information needs, Anoka County needs a more efficient way to handle
lot dimension information. They respond to about 2000 inquiries a year for this information. Staff noted they would
expect this need to be addressed by the "parcel boundaries" workgroup.
Member Scott stated she had spoken with Minneapolis staff that attended the May 22nd public presentation of
the Information Needs Project results and she is comfortable with the priorities recommended by the Coordinating
Committee. Member Siegfried concurred, noting that he believes the results of this participatory process are as good as
can be expected.
Next Steps Methodology: Craig explained the seven-step methodology (see recommendation) endorsed by the
Coordinating Committee to identify appropriate data sources for each priority information need. Responding to a
question, Craig estimated the work of the jurisdictional boundaries workgroup would be completed by the end of summer
and the current thinking is to complete the workgroup tasks for the top four information needs by June 1998.
Member Fiskness asked whether the data bases that are to support MetroGIS will be in a central location. Staff
explained that the current thinking is the data bases will be distributed among a variety data producers and a task of
the information need workgroups is to identify the most appropriate source(s) for each information need. Staff also
explained that the Access Advisory Team is working on a WEB Index Model to coordinate access to these data bases in a
manner transparent to the user. Also explained was the expected relationship between the information needs workgroups
and the work by the Standards Advisory Team to identify solutions to data sharing obstacles. Ron Wencl, Standards
Advisory Team Liaison, noted that a priority to overcoming data sharing obstacles is to describe data holdings in a
common way through use of an agreed upon "metadata" format.
Request for Direction: Board Endorsement or Information: Will Craig explained the Coordinating Committee had
debated whether to seek formal Board endorsement of the top thirteen information needs and the next-steps methodology.
He reported that the group was generally of the opinion these are details within the context of addressing a broader
strategic issue and, as such, should be within the purview of the Committee to decide. However, he also noted the
Committee had agreed to seek direction from the Board how it wants to handle matters of this type. The debate focused
on a sensitivity of how to best to communicate with the Policy Board without burdening it with unwanted details.
Chairperson Reinhardt explained that she had asked staff to place these items on the Policy Board's agenda for
formal endorsement because she believes they will set team and committee work programs for some time to come. The
consensus of the Board was this discussion was useful and informative and that it is important to give the Board an
opportunity to raise questions to insure that everyone is moving forward together. Board members also concurred with
Chairperson Reinhardt that they would prefer matters is this type to be brought before the Board for endorsement rather
than for information.
Member Scott moved and Member Schneider seconded to approve the following recommendations of the Coordinating
Committee, as presented in the staff report dated May 12, 1997:
- To endorse selection of following thirteen information needs as the priorities for MetroGIS to concentrate
on initially: Rank: Information Need Statement ( I need to know:)
- The boundaries and characteristics of a specified jurisdiction (ex: city, school district, county,
police and fire districts). (Jurisdictional boundaries #47)
- The street addresses for specified locations. (Street addresses #42)
- About land use or development plans that have been officially adopted by public bodies. (Land use
plans #10)
- Who has rights to a property, including ownership, leases, easements, rightofway. (Rights to
property #1)
- The boundaries and location of a specified parcel. (Parcel boundaries #44)
- The locations and characteristics of water features (ex: lakes, wetlands, floodplains, acquifers,
watersheds). (Lakes, wetlands, etc. #31)
- How a piece of land is being used, including whether or not it is vacant. (Land use, existing
#4)
- The boundaries and characteristics of census areas (ex: census blocks, block groups, tracts). Census
boundaries #48)
- Where people live and how to contact them. (Where people live #2)
- The regulations that affect the use of a piece of land, such as zoning. (Land Regulations #6)
- The locations and characteristics of roads/highways. (Highway / road networks #27)
- The socioeconomic characteristics of an area's population (ex: census tract, count, city).
(Socioeconomic characteristics of areas #71)
- A unique identifying attribute of a land parcel, such as parcel ID. (Parcel identifiers #46)
- To endorse the following next-phase methodology to identify the appropriate data sources for information
needs that are priorities to MetroGIS:
Using all information produced through the modeling process and surveys to date, data analysts will
complete portions of the object model corresponding to that need and document all attributes that have been identified.
[staff] One or more working groups comprised of subject matter experts will develop more detailed data specifications,
supported by project staff and data analysts, as needed.
- Identify and evaluate all available sources of data relative to the detailed data specifications.
[workgroup/content team]
- Identify and describe any data that are needed but which do not currently exist. [workgroup/content
team]
- Identify obstacles to obtaining needed data and possible ways to overcome the obstacles. [advisory
teams]
- Select preferred data sources [policy board].
- Pursue functionality and legal form needed to provide access to preferred data. [MetroGIS and/or data
producers]
- To endorse a strategy to test and refine the next-phase methodology with the "jurisdictional boundaries"
information need and explore the data and information needs associated with street centerlines, land use plans, and
parcel boundaries prior to addressing any of the other top thirteen information needs: Motion carried unanimously.
c) Policy Board Membership
Margo Labau, Coordinating Committee Liaison to the Policy Advisory Team, presented this item. The reasons for
selecting each of the constituencies currently represented on the Policy Board and on the Coordinating Committee were
explained. Labau also explained: 1) the process used to define the term "stakeholder" and summarized the three levels
of stakeholder interest, 2) the process used to seek endorsement from key stakeholder which led to appointment of the
Policy Board members, and 3) the Committee's expectation that any adjustments to the initial Board membership would be
decided by the Policy Board.
Board direction was sought regarding the potential for Board membership by private providers of essential
public services. Labau explained that this direction is sought at this time because the Information Needs Project may
identify organizations important to the success of MetroGIS that are not represented on the Board. She noted that this
subject has not been discussed by the Policy Advisory Team or the Coordinating Committee and is brought before the
Board to seek permission only to begin exploring options.
The consensus was to hold the Board's voting membership to the current members and to encourage other
stakeholders to participate in Board discussions. Staff was asked to prepare a list of non-government organizations
that will likely benefit from MetroGIS for discussion at the next meeting. It was agreed if a previously unrepresented
organization(s) is discovered to be important to the success of MetroGIS that it would be in the interest of MetroGIS
to bring them into the process as early as possible.
It was agreed that MetroGIS needs to be cautious about any private sector relationship it pursues that might
appear as an unfair advantage by any particular company and a broad-based perspective is a must for any particular
interest group. The current mechanism for representation by school districts, watershed management organizations, and
cities was cited as the type of interest class representation that should be sought for any unrepresented interests,
particularly private sector interests. The group concurred that a subcommittee to represent utility company interests
should be investigated because utility companies provide essential public services, they have a business need for much
of the same data needed by the Board member organizations, and because they generally have data and resources useful to
a multi-participant GIS.
6. INFORMATION ITEMS
a) Response to Member Schneider's Information Request
Member Schneider stated that he would like more information about the Metropolitan Council's GIS Data and Cost
Sharing Agreement initiative with metro area counties. The Board concurred that a briefing on the objectives, status,
and general provisions of these agreements would be helpful. Staff agreed to provide this information at the July 30th
meeting and to provide a copy of an executed agreement to Board members. Gary Stevenson of Dakota County was asked if a
copy of the Dakota County GIS Partnership agreement could also be shared with the Board since the partnership includes
a private utility. Gary agreed to send a copy to MetroGIS staff for the July 30th meeting.
b) MetroGIS -- General Activity Update
There was no discussion of the information provided in the packet.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
a): Communication with Board Members
Board members concurred that staff should assume that Board members do not know much about MetroGIS and to
think of ways to bring them up to speed. It was agreed that concise educational/background materials should be prepared
to orient any new members with activities that have shaped MetroGIS.
b) July 30, 1997 Policy Board Meeting
A workshop format as agreed upon for the July 30th meeting and the primary focus will be to discuss the
Council's GIS Data and Cost Sharing Agreement initiative with the metro area counties. Staff was asked to provide a
copy of a representative executed agreement to the members for their review before the meeting. Member Schreiber asked
for an update on data sharing and GIS program development obstacles perceived by the counties, noting that MetroGIS
should not be a barrier to counties that want to move ahead faster than MetroGIS can accommodate. County staff were
invited to attend and to participate in this discussion.
8. NEXT MEETINGS
- Wednesday, July 30, 1997
- Wednesday, Sept. 24, 1997
- Wednesday, Nov. 19, 1997
- 7:00 PM, Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Facility
9. ADJOURN
Member Scott moved and Member Siegfried seconded to adjourn at 9:15 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, AICP, GIS Liaison, Metropolitan Council
|
