|
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Reinhardt called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. It was held at the Metropolitan
Council’s Mears Park Centre offices in downtown St. Paul.
Members Present: Willis Branning, (Dakota County), Conrad Fiskness (Metro Watershed Districts),
Antoinette Johns (TIES), Edwin Mackie (Scott County), Victoria Reinhardt (Ramsey County), Richard Johnson alternate for
Roger Williams (Metropolitan Council), Terry Schneider (AMM) and Donn Wiski (AMM).
Members Absent: Dennis Berg (Anoka County), Dennis Hegberg (Washington County), Randy Johnson
(Hennepin County), and John Siegfried (Carver County).
Coordinating Committee Members Present: David Arbeit, David Claypool, Virginia Erdahl, Rick Gelbmann,
Brad Henry, Gary Stevenson, and Will Craig.
Visitors: Trudy Richter of the MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Project consultant team, David Hemsey
(Carver County).
Support Staff: Randall Johnson, Theresa Foster, and Melissa Walker.
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
It was agreed to act on Items 3, 5a, and 5c before considering the remainder of the agenda.
Chairperson Reinhardt encouraged member organizations who have not designated an alternate Board member to do so to
insure quorums can be met given the importance of the decisions that will face the MetroGIS Policy Board in the coming
months.
3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY
Member Branning moved and Member Fiskness seconded to approve the April 21, 1999 meeting summary as
submitted. Motion carried ayes all.
4. JUNE 9TH CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY
Chairperson Reinhardt summarized the testimony she and her fellow panelists presented at the June
9 Congressional Subcommittee Hearing. She reported she had emphasized a need for the federal government to
assume some of the start-up financing needed by GIS collaboratives and to consider participating on an ongoing basis
consistent with benefit received. She also noted she intends to meet with several of Minnesota’s congressmen to
inform them of MetroGIS and to ask that they support the Community/Federal Information Partnership (C/FIP) program
proposed for funding, beginning FY2000. (An explanation of the program was included in the agenda packet.)
Coordinating Committee Chairperson Henry then summarized the type of benefits generally realized when
GIS is deployed within an organization. These include: automate once-use many times, reduced time to respond to data
requests from constituents and decision makers, improved data accuracy, and better more timely data to support
decisions and operations. He also summarized some of the benefits that can accrue to participants of collaboratives,
such as MetroGIS, including: data readily available from outside of the jurisdiction, common language that expedites
application and data development, possibility of data developed/secured by the collaborative more cost effective than
locally developed & maintained data, one contact for many sources of data and services. Henry used the examples
included with the written testimony submitted for the June 9th Congressional Subcommittee Hearing and from
Minneapolis based projects to illustrate these benefits. Chairperson Reinhardt added an examples shared at the
Subcommittee Hearing that the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District recently benefited significantly from the presence
of MetroGIS when it was able to respond quickly to an encephalitis outbreak through use of several regional GIS
dataset. Without their quick action, made possible by MetroGIS, many people could have been seriously hurt. Chairperson
Henry closed by reporting that 10-20 percent of the GIS data inquires received by the Minneapolis GIS department
request data from surrounding communities or illustration of data metro wide which can not cost-effectively be done
without access to regional datasets such as those associated with MetroGIS.
Member Fiskness commented that he believes standardization of procedures and guidelines is a benefit
of the MetroGIS initiative and asked if any effort is underway to document examples. Coordinating Committee member
Craig stated he is preparing to survey MetroGIS participants as part of his MetroGIS Benefits Study and that he will
include a question or two to address this topic. Committee members Arbeit, Claypool, and Gelbmann also provided
examples of how standardized procedures can minimize the cost of application development used by multiple
organizations. They also acknowledged that the network of technical GIS expertise is growing, which by itself promotes
cost efficiencies through sharing of knowledge on a variety of data and GIS systems undertakings.
5. ACTION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
a) Regional MCD/County Jurisdictional Boundary Dataset Guidelines
Member Schneider moved and member Fiskness seconded that the Policy Board endorse use of the U.S.
Census Bureau’s "FIPS" county and place name codes for MCD’s (minor civil divisions) as standard MetroGIS
codes from identifying counties and MCD’s and to promote their use among MetroGIS stakeholders. Motion carried,
ayes all.
b) MetroGIS Structure Update
(1) Legal Organization
Policy Advisory Team Chairperson Erdahl reported that the Policy Advisory Team has concluded that a
Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) Association is the most viable available option currently available to MetroGIS but that
the Team is recommending that a Business Plan should be prepared before any action is taken. The Business Plan would
set forth strategies necessary to build toward a mature MetroGIS, include a marketing plan to insure all critical
milestones and assumptions can be achieved, evaluate whether a JPA structure provides the necessary authorities, and,
if so, when it should be created.
Board members concurred with the Team that the MetroGIS organizational structure should continue to
provide voting memberships on the Policy Board for cities, watersheds, and schools. The group briefly discussed the
complication that individual cities and watersheds would likely have to enter into the JPA to secure voting
memberships, which complicates the organization. Member Schneider suggested that the Committee’s final
recommendation should consider seeking legislative authority sooner then later if the Joint Powers Agreement
authorities unnecessarily complicate provision of these voting memberships. Member Wiski concurred that it is important
for MetroGIS to continue to include all current interests as voting members to ensure accountability, particularly in
light of the forthcoming recommendation to raise revenues through subscription fees. He commented that Roseville has
clearly demonstrated significant value to use of GIS by the city. The strategic question is does coordination produce
value consistent with the proposed subscription fees?
Member Johns offered that TIES utilizes a member/associate member structure through which associate
members are involved in discussions but do not vote. She suggested this might be a means to effectively broaden
participation in policy deliberations. Trudy Richter, lead for the organizational structure component of the fair-share
model study, noted the Policy Advisory Team is aware of this option but concluded that the Coordinating Committee and
Advisory Team structure provides adequate option for non-voting members to participate.
5(b)(2) Operational Organization
Chairperson Reinhardt stated she had encouraged the Coordinating Committee to investigate ways to
improve communication between itself and the Policy Board in light of the upcoming major decisions. Board members
suggested that emailing them minutes of Coordinating Committee meetings immediately following the meetings in addition
to continuing the current practice of updates on topics of interest every 4 to 6 weeks. Board members also endorsed the
concept of the Coordinating Committee sending them ideas or proposals for feedback and agreed to the idea of special
workshop meetings to discuss important topics prior to the Committee developing a recommendation of the Board taking
action.
5(b)(3) Fair-share Financial Model
Policy Advisory Team Chairperson Erdahl presented the major assumptions and cost drivers that have
been built into the MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Model and she summarized the resulting proposed fair-share
subscription fees to support the costs of MetroGIS. Finally she explained that the Policy Advisory Team is recommending
preparation of a Business Plan to define a detailed subscription phase-in strategy along with a timeline for
development of regional data solutions to insure that revenues from fees and supplemental sources are adequate to cover
expenses. Staff noted that the project consultant is continuing to refine the model and that the projected subscription
fees presented at the forum will likely differ somewhat from those included in the agenda materials.
Member Schneider commented he believes three fundamental topics that need to be addressed before the
Policy Board will be in a position to act on the fair –share financial model project recommendations: define the
costs, define the benefits, and define how the proposed subscription fees relate to the amount of funding actually
budgeted for GIS activities by prospective subscribers. He noted that the significant progress appears to have been
made to address the first two topics and he offered to investigate the possibility of collaborating with AMM to conduct
a survey to address the third topic.
Coordinating Committee member Stevenson noted the Dakota County GIS Partnership is opposed to the
proposed subscription fees for local government. He also stated that the benefit of access to data from neighboring
jurisdictions is yet to be documented and he and his partnership members are not convinced that adequate benefit exists
to justify the proposed subscription fees.
Members Schneider and Johns commented they believe the GIS programs of Dakota County and its partner
local governments may be significantly ahead of the norm in the region and that these achievements should be used as an
example of what is possible. Both members disagreed with the partnership’s disapproval of the proposed
subscription fee to support the evolution of similar capabilities throughout the region. Member Johns commented that
the Lakeville School District is highly complimentary of MetroGIS, noting they could not have accomplished their GIS
objectives without the agreements that had been put into place to facilitate data sharing. Member Schneider also
commented that most organizations he is familiar with have a broader vision that looks beyond their own internal needs.
He encouraged the other Board members to give MetroGIS philosophies a chance to evolve and to test the value of the
collaborative.
Chairperson Reinhardt suggested three minor changes to the names of organizational classes (changes
"cities" to "municipalities" and add "district" after "schools" and "watershed"). She also encouraged the others to
support management’s proposal to seek feedback from prospective participants before presenting final
recommendations to the Board.
Motion: Member Wiski moved and Member Mackie seconded to authorize MetroGIS management to share its
preliminary cost sharing projections with prospective MetroGIS participants at the Peer Review Forum scheduled for
September 16 and to seek feedback about their willingness to participate. Motion carried, ayes all.
Member Schneider suggested that in addition to the proposed mailing staff should look into the
possibility of a broadcast fax from AMM to its member organizations.
5(b)(4) Peer Review Forum
No discussion other than members recommended that the presentation include a demonstration of the
benefits to be realized from collaboration. Staff also agreed to send Board members the list of organizations sent
invitations.
c) Application for ESRI's Public Access Grant Program
Member Johns moved and Alternate Member Johnson seconded that the Policy Board endorse the
Metropolitan Council applying on behalf of MetroGIS for an ESRI Public Access Grant. Motion carried, ayes all.
Member Branning left the meeting.
6. INFORMATION
There was no discussion of the items described in the agenda packet and the members introduced no
items.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
None
8. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will held on October 27, 1999. The group agreed to a 6:30 p.m. starting time.
Chairperson Reinhardt asked staff to mail the agenda packet a week earlier than normal given the significance of the
topics to be considered. It was agreed that a decision will be made at the October 27th whether a special
meeting will be needed to act on recommendations from the MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Model and Organizational
Structure project.
9. ADJOURN
Member Fiskness moved and Alternate Member Johnson seconded to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. Motion
carried ayes all.
Prepared by Randall L. Johnson, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator
|
