Teams > Policy Board

October 27, 1999 Minutes

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. Chairperson Reinhardt welcomed the newest member to the Board, Roger Williams representing the Metropolitan Council, and asked each member and those in the audience to introduce themselves.

Members Present: Dennis Berg (Anoka County), Willis Branning, (Dakota County), Conrad Fiskness (Metro Watershed Districts), Antoinette Johns (TIES), Victoria Reinhardt (Ramsey County), Roger Williams (Metropolitan Council), Terry Schneider (AMM), and John Siegfried (Carver County).

Members Absent: Dennis Hegberg (Washington County), Barbara Johnson (AMM), Randy Johnson (Hennepin County), and Edwin Mackie (Scott County),

Coordinating Committee Members Present: David Arbeit, Gary Caswell for Patrick O’Connor, Will Craig, David Claypool, Virginia Erdahl, Rick Gelbmann, Brad Henry, Jerome Johnson, Richard Johnson, Ron Wencl, and Dennis Welsch

Visitors: Trudy Richter of the MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Project consultant team, David Bitter of the MetroGIS Benefits Study team, and John Connelly, Co-Chair Technical Advisory Team.

Support Staff: Randall Johnson, Theresa Foster, and Melissa Walker.

2. ACCEPT AGENDA

Member Siegfried moved and Member Schneider seconded to approve the agenda as proposed. Motion carried, ayes all.

3. ACCEPT MEETING SUMMARY

Member Siegfried moved and Member Johns seconded to approve the July 28, 1999 meeting summary, as submitted. Motion carried, ayes all.

4. GIS TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION

Gary Stevenson shared an application that Dakota County is piloting entitled "Screening for Childhood lead Exposure Using Geographic Information System and Internet Technologies". It was noted that physicians are using and helping to refine this application. Access is password protected due to the sensitivity of the data involved. Chairperson Reinhardt commented that this is an excellent example of how use of GIS technology is helping decision-makers address quality of life issues.

5 ACTION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS

a) MetroGIS Financing and Structure

1. MetroGIS Benefits Study: Dr. William Craig and David Bittner, both with the University of Minnesota, summarized the preliminary results of their MetroGIS Benefits Study. William Craig is also a member of the MetroGIS Coordinating Committee. Their yearlong study was conducted in two parts – interviews of recipients of shared data and a mail survey of individuals that have or are participating in the MetroGIS activities and decision making. Mr. Bittner summarized the results of the interviews noting that the participants cited benefits of MetroGIS that fall to into three major categories: improved working relationships, provision of regional datasets, and development and support of Data Finder.

Dr. Craig then summarized the preliminary results of the mail survey, noting that a response rate of 80 percent had been achieved. He stated he will be providing the Board with a more detailed analysis in the coming weeks. The results show that in addition to access to data, MetroGIS is positively affecting participating organizations in several ways, the most noteworthy are improved working relationships, improved communication about GIS technology and its applications, and improved attitudes about data sharing. Respondents also commonly cited three data needs that are outside of MetroGIS’ thirteen priority information needs: orthoimagery, soils, and contour/elevation data. Craig noted that the first two are being addressed by the Metropolitan Council and others as part of their internal business needs and that some work is occurring on the development of contour data in conjunction with development of orthoimagery. Respondents identified the need to address long term funding, legal organizational structure, and access to more data as the priorities for the near term. In summary, Dr. Craig stated that MetroGIS is benefiting the metro area in three major ways: more data is being shared; more communication is occurring among peers; and there is an improved attitude about data sharing.

Chairperson Reinhardt commented that as we move forward with the Business Plan, we must continue to focus on ways to measure "perceived value" and on methods to clearly communicate benefits.

Board members encouraged the Coordinating Committee and staff to actively seek out ways to include the "collar counties" in MetroGIS activities. Members also asked staff to report at the next meeting about who outside of the Metro Area has requested a license to use the regional street centerline dataset. Rick Gelbmann agreed to prepare a report.

Chairperson Reinhardt commented that the 80 percent response rate is outstanding and reflects the importance of the issues at hand.

Motion: Member Siegfried moved and Member Fiskness seconded to acknowledge the preliminary findings of the MetroGIS Benefits Study. Motion carried, ayes all.

• MetroGIS Financial Model & Organizational Structure Project Report: Policy Advisory Team Chairperson Erdahl reminded the Board that the this project was funded with a grant from the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) project, summarized past Board action at its April 21^st (assumptions) and July 28^th meetings (endorsed preliminary findings for Peer Review), and summarized the proposed functions, organizational structure, associated support costs, and highlights of the fair-share model that were shared for comment at the Peer Review Forum on September 16th.

Board members acknowledged that the current organizational structure does not provide legal standing and that the best organizational option under current State law, joint powers agreement (JPA), has shortcomings in terms of securing voting memberships for all current members as directed by the Board at its July 28^th meeting. All agreed that this matter must be a high priority to resolve in the Business Plan.

Motion: Member Schneider moved and Member Branning seconded to acknowledge receipt from the consultant team of the Fair-Share Financial Model project report, dated October 7, 1999. Motion carried, ayes all.

• Peer Review Forum: Coordinating Committee Chairperson Henry provided an overview of the presentations and results of the small group sessions hosted at the September 16^th Peer Review Forum. Chairperson Henry summarized the conclusions drawn by MetroGIS management from the Forum as follows: 1) there is strong support for continuing MetroGIS’ collaborative and communication functions, 2) there is a need to better communicate the benefits of the data integration function proposed by MetroGIS as opposed to each organization having to internalize these integration costs, 3) generally local government viewed the proposed subscription fees as too high, and 4) little comment was received regarding the proposal to pursue a separate joint powers agreement structure to govern MetroGIS.

Henry stated that as we are able to demonstrate and document benefits of collaboration in a manner that prospective participants can directly apply to their own circumstances, participation and willingness to assist with costs to support MetroGIS will increase. Board members concurred.

Members agreed that a transition period will be necessary where supplemental funding will be required to support MetroGIS activities but that instituting a subscription fee based revenue program should still be the long term goal. All agreed that education on the uses of GIS and on the benefits of collaboration should be an emphasis of the work program for the next few years. The members also generally agreed that the subscription fee methodology must accommodate the varying circumstances among participants and that what is considered fair and reasonable in one county may not be appropriate in another.

Member Schneider requested, and the group concurred, that: 1) research should be conducted for the Business Plan to document what prospective participants are spending on data acquisition and GIS deployment and 2) on design of an outreach program to improve awareness of what is possible through use of GIS relevant to satisfying internal business needs of prospective participants. He also stated that cities in general understand the large investment that metro area counties have made to convert their property records to digital form and, therefore, are not concerned about the proposal to declare county contributions to MetroGIS satisfied if they share their data.

Motion: Member Johns moved and Member Berg seconded to accept the Peer Review Forum proceedings entitled "A report of the MetroGIS Fair-Share Financial Model Peer Review Forum, September 16, 1999". Motion carried, ayes all.

• Recommendations & Next Steps: Coordinating Committee Chairperson Henry summarized actions sought from the Board: 1) finding of adequate public purpose to proceed to the next step, 2) endorsement of the modified functions as recommended by the Coordinating Committee, and 3) endorsement to proceed with preparation of a Business Plan for MetroGIS

Henry reiterated a finding of the Fair-Share Financial Model Study that support of the desired collaborative functions identified for MetroGIS exceed the internal business needs of individual MetroGIS participants. He also restated a finding of the MetroGIS Benefits Study that continued support of activities that promote and foster data sharing are as highly valued as access to shared data.

Member Berg suggested that the Business Plan should include investigation of the option of privatization, noting that if passed, information policy legislation pending for the 2000 session would dramatically reduce resources available in his county to finance GIS technology and to service information requests. In particular, he suggested that partnerships with the utility companies should be investigated. He emphasized the need to be proactive and to have defined options available for discussion with the Legislature when the hearings begin for SF2237, noting that a Business Plan which addresses information policy issues in a broadly supported manner could be very valuable when testifying before the Legislature. Member Branning commented that a significant amount of work remains to address the issues proposed to be dealt with in the Business Plan. He expressed some concern that completion by March 2000 is very ambitious.

Member Siegfried noted that if MetroGIS moves too quickly to implement a cost sharing program the result could be devise and counter-productive. He favors the Metropolitan Council continuing, for the time being, to support collaborative activities that promote and facilitate data sharing. Member Schneider concurred that there will be the need for a transition period but that he would like to see work continue as part of the Business Plan to mature the subscription program so that we are ready to proceed when the time is right to implement it. He also concurred with Member Berg that MetroGIS should investigate cooperative arrangements with the private sector.

Member Johns suggested, and the group concurred, that the Business Plan scope of work should specifically state that an appropriate governance structure will be identified along with timelines for a decision and for implementation.

Member Williams, representing the Metropolitan Council, noted he believes MetroGIS is an important endeavor with tremendous benefit possibilities for all involved. He stated that the Council sees its role as one of many partners and has no interest in "owning" MetroGIS but rather wants a structure that is good for everyone. He also cautioned that the Council does not have the resources to continue to pay for the entire endeavor. He explained that he will share the findings of the Benefits Study with the Council at a Council retreat scheduled for next week and that he would advocate for continued Council support of the MetroGIS initiative.

Member Fiskness commented he believes successful achievement of MetroGIS’ desired outcomes and vision will require more nurturing before a definitive structure is sought. He believes that prematurely moving to a subscription fee or other user fee system could be detrimental to the buy-in needed for long-term success. Member Schneider concurred that it will take some time to acquire the critical mass of buy-in but he also restated his belief that organizations other than the Council should share in the costs to support MetroGIS to promote the value of the collaborative functions.

Motion: Member Berg moved and Member Branning seconded to find that adequate public purpose exists to move to the next phase of implementation – preparation of a Business plan for MetroGIS as explained in the accompanying staff report dated October 1, 1999 -- with the understanding that the concept of a subscription fee will be matured as part of the Business Plan deliberations and maintained as a revenue option until the time is right to pursue implementation. Motion carried ayes all.

Motion: Member Williams moved and Member Branning seconded to endorse the Coordinating Committee’s recommended modifications [accompanying staff report dated October 1^st ) of MetroGIS’ program assumptions concerning classification of core functions and MetroGIS’ role concerning development of regional datasets. Motion carried, ayes all.

Motion: Member Williams moved and Member Berg seconded to acknowledge the Metropolitan Council’s commitment to continue financing MetroGIS’ coordination-related functions with the understanding for the need to review the results of the proposed Business Plan in terms of what it will take to make MetroGIS a reality for the long term and with the understanding there may be a need for some additional commitment from the Council for 2001 beyond its internal business needs. Motion carried, ayes all.

b) MetroGIS Data Solutions

1. Regional Parcel Data: Technical Advisory Team Liaison Claypool explained the Coordinating Committee’s recommended data specifications for a regional parcel dataset solution; proposed roles and responsibilities for counties as primary custodians of parcel data, and proposed roles and responsibilities for the yet to be determined regional custodian. He noted that the Coordinating Committee plans to recommend a regional custodian once the technical design for the regional dataset is agreed upon and the candidate organization(s) have had an opportunity to evaluate their ability to perform all expectations. Mr. Claypool also explained that Dakota County staff have accepted responsibility to coordinate a technical design team comprised of county GIS technical specialists and others as appropriate charged will piloting a regional parcel dataset solution.

Chairperson Reinhardt thanked Dakota County for agreeing to coordinate the regional parcels workgroup. She also emphasized the need to build on past work of the Technical Advisory Team and upon the North Metro 1-35W Corridor Coalition parcels pilot project. Chairperson Reinhardt also requested regular updates due to the critical nature of this work to the Business Planning process and ultimately the success of MetroGIS.

Member Siegfried suggested that the design team investigate the GIS data repository concept used by the 37-county Minnesota River Basin project wherein all of the data is stored in a central repository at Mankato State University.

Member Berg asked whether the counties will be required to modify their data in any way to contribute it to the regional dataset pool and, if so, who will be expected to pay for these modifications. Staff Coordinator Johnson stated that a principle of MetroGIS is that data are to be contributed by organizations in exactly the form maintained by the organization for their internal business needs. If any modifications are required to merge or integrate into a regional dataset, the users are expected to pay for these modifications. Johnson also summarized the concepts of primary data custodian (counties in the case of parcels) and regional data custodian (to be determined for parcels).

The group agreed to postpone demonstration of the preliminary results of the Regional Parcels Workgroup’s efforts to join parcel data from each county until following the meeting.

Motion: Member Schneider moved and Member Williams seconded to endorse, as policy for MetroGIS, the data specifications and role and responsibility assignments specified in Attachments A and B to the accompanying staff report dated October 11, 1999:

1. Desired data specifications for a regional parcel data solution (Attachment A)
2. Assignment of the role of primary producers of parcel data to each of the seven counties (Attachment B)
3. Responsibilities for counties in their recommended role (Attachment B)
4. Responsibilities for the regional parcel data custodian (Attachment B)

Motion carried, ayes all.

Motion: Member Branning moved and Member Siegfried seconded to accept the Coordinating Committee’s recommendation to postpone assignment of the role of the Regional Parcel Data Custodian until more is known about the specifics of the technical design and associated data maintenance requirements. Motion carried, ayes all.

1. Municipal Boundary Mapping Guidelines for Counties: Technical Advisory Team Liaison Claypool explained the Coordinating Committee’s recommendation to adopt a voluntary policy that each of the seven metro area counties follow the guidelines developed by Washington County for capture and maintenance of municipal boundary data. He noted that use of the same or similar data capture guidelines by each of the seven counties will reduce time and cost to integrate each of the county’s jurisdictional boundary data into the regional dataset that the Metropolitan Council has agreed to maintain for MetroGIS.

Motion: Member Johns moved and Member Williams seconded to:

1. Endorse the MCD (minor civil division) jurisdictional boundary guidelines developed by Washington County as guidelines for MetroGIS (counties serving in the role of primary producers of MCD boundary data) with the understanding these guidelines are intended to be improved and enhanced overtime
2. Promote use of these guidelines by each of the seven counties.

Motion carried, ayes all

b) 2000 Meeting Schedule

Member Siegfried moved and Member Schneider seconded to set the following meeting schedule for 2000, with the understanding the additional meetings will be likely be needed during the first quarter to support preparation of the Business Plan: Wed., January 26^th, Wed., March 29^th, Wed., July 26^th, and Wed., October 18^th. Motion carried ayes, all.

6. INFORMATION

Chairperson Reinhardt summarized the September 29^th briefing of the Metropolitan Council regarding MetroGIS. Member Williams noted that on October 6^th, the North Metro I-35W Corridor Coalition briefed the Metropolitan Council on its comprehensive planning and GIS programs and thanked the participants of the September 29^th MetroGIS briefing for setting the ground work for the Oct 6^th briefing. Coordinating Committee Vice-Chair Claypool commented on a federal funding program that is progressing through Congress that will provide funding for development of Global Positioning System (GPS) infrastructure critical to establishing control for property data maintained by counties.

7. OTHER BUSINESS

See last item

8. NEXT MEETING

Wednesday, January 26, 2000

9. ADJOURN

Member Fiskness moved and Member Branning seconded to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried, ayes all.

After Adjournment

REGIONAL PARCEL PILOT PROJECT UPDATE

Gary Stevenson, Director of Land Information and Surveying for Dakota County and member of the MetroGIS Coordinating Committee, demonstrated progress made to date to "stitch together" parcel data received from several of the counties. He also demonstrated the ability to query against the merged parcel data. Board members were impressed with the results to date and encouraged Stevenson to maintain close communication as the technical work group progresses with this project.

Prepared by

Randall L. Johnson
MetroGIS Staff Coordinator