|
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), Terry Schneider
(Minnetonka) and Alternate Donn Wiski (Roseville); Counties: Anoka: Dennis Berg; Ramsey: Victoria Reinhardt, and
Washington: Dennis Hegberg; Metro Chapter of MN Association of Watershed Districts: Conrad Fiskness
(Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District); Metropolitan Council: Bill Schreiber.
Board Members Absent: Counties: Randy Johnson (Hennepin); Carver: John Siegfried, Dakota; Joseph Harris; and
Scott: Edwin Mackie; and Technology Information Education Services (TIES): Thomas Halvorson (Bloomington School
District)
Coordinating Committee Members Present: Data Content Advisory Team Liaisons: Will Craig (University of
Minnesota) and David Claypool (Ramsey County); Policy Advisory Team: Margo LaBau (Anoka County); Standards Advisory
Team: Ron Wencl (USGS); Chairperson-Coordinating Committee: David Arbeit (LMIC); Vice Chairperson-Coordinating
Committee: Brad Henry (Minneapolis); Gary Stevenson (Dakota County); Rick Gelbmann (Metropolitan Council); Jim Hentges
(Scott County); Alan Srock (Utilities-NSP); Richard Johnson (Metropolitan Council); and Patrick O'Connor (Hennepin
County).
Coordinating Committee Liaisons Absent: Data Access Advisory Team Liaison: Jim Sydow (TIES)
Support Staff: Randall Johnson, Heidi Welsch.
2. ACCEPT AGENDA
Member Schneider motioned and Member Fiskness seconded to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. ACCEPT MEETING MINUTES
Member Fiskness motioned and Member Schneider seconded to approve the minutes for the Board's September 24,
1997 meeting, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
4. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS
4a. MetroGIS Address Data Guidelines
Coordinating Committee Chairperson Arbeit introduced this item. Ron Wencl, Standards Advisory Team Liaison,
summarized the proposed guidelines for working with address data. Wencl noted voluntary guidelines, rather than
mandatory standards, are recommended as a place for MetroGIS to start because there is no single best answer for the
variety of intended uses of address data. It was noted that the proposed guidelines are expected to be expanded over
time and as revisions to the guidelines are debated the result may move closer to standards. David Arbeit explained
that the process of refining the guidelines will be shaped by the Business Information Needs Project. He also explained
that users of The Lawrence Group's (TLG) street centerline file, which is now available free of charge to all
government serving the Metro Area, will need to follow the recommended guidelines to take full advantage of the robust
geocoding capabilities provided by the TLG dataset. Free access to this dataset is expected to be the incentive needed
to facilitate wide-spread compliance with the proposed guidelines.
Member Schneider complimented the Team on the readability of the guidelines document. Other members concurred
that the document is good example of how to effectively communicate technical information to a variety of interests.
Board members discussed whether there would be an advantage to the region to pursue a standard versus the
recommended guidelines. Ron Wencl noted that he believes a state or federal agency, rather than regional organizations,
would be in a better position to implement a standard. He reported the US Census Bureau is in the early stages of
development of census related standards, which include address data, and that the proposed MetroGIS address guidelines
have been shared with Census Bureau officials. The Board accepted the notion of guidelines because it does not want to
alienate any stakeholders and it does not have the authority to require compliance.
It was explained that the Metropolitan Council will fund the printing and distribution of the address
guidelines document to organizations which obtain a license for the TLG dataset, organizations represented on the
Policy Board, and several other key users of the dataset through 1998. Board members agreed to postpone discussion of
the cost of broad and longer term distribution of this document to the Board's January 28, 1998 meeting. On January
28th, it was agreed that staff would provide the Board with a comprehensive overview of anticipated MetroGIS expenses
and anticipated funding needs. Staff was asked to address a variety of funding options, including private sector,
grants, legislature, etc.
Motion: Member Schneider moved and Member Schreiber seconded to adopt and promote use by MetroGIS participants
of the address data guidelines set forth in the document entitled Guidelines and Issues for Working with Address Data
as approved by the Coordinating Committee on October 24, 1997. Motion carried, ayes all. Member Scott arrived.
4b. Interim Regional City, Township & County Jurisdiction Boundaries Dataset
Coordinating Committee Chairperson Arbeit introduced this item. David Claypool, Data Content Advisory Team
Liaison, summarized the proposed interim strategy to address the highest priority information need of MetroGIS.
Claypool explained that the Metropolitan Council is currently compiling a regional dataset from best available data and
has agreed to share the resulting dataset with MetroGIS participants at no cost while further study is in progress to
define long term data caretaker responsibilities and options. The current thinking of a hierarchical data custodianship
concept was explained which would rely upon local government, most likely the counties, as the primary caretaker for
jurisdictional boundary data and on a yet to be designated organization to compile a regional dataset from county data.
Rick Gelbmann, GIS Coordinator for the Metropolitan Council, explained that Washington County is in the midst
of a MetroGIS pilot project designed to define the responsibilities for the caretakers of this county and regional
datasets. The results of the pilot will be shared with the Data Content Advisory Team which will then prepare a list of
organizations that are candidates for custodianship of the regional dataset. Negotiations will then be pursued with
each candidate and ultimately Board designation will be sought. It was noted that Mn/DOT, Metropolitan Council, and
LMIC are currently thought to be the likely options.
Arbeit noted that the subject of jurisdictional boundaries is a statewide issue and that currently there is no
authority responsible to maintain a digital dataset. Member Schneider noted that counties seem to be the most
appropriate organizations for city and school district boundaries, as opposed to Mn/DOT. Claypool explained the
Washington County pilot project is expected to provide a means to objectively evaluate the options and that preliminary
information from the Washington County pilot should be available by February 1998.
Member Hegberg cautioned that MetroGIS not get caught in the middle of boundary disputes. Claypool explained
compilation of a regional dataset is intended to identify problems not resolve them. Board members agreed that a policy
to this end needs to be adopted and clearly communicated to participants.
Motion: Member Scott moved and Member Fiskness seconded to endorse an interim solution of relying upon the
regional city, township, and county jurisdictional boundaries dataset being complied by the Metropolitan Council to
address MetroGIS's county and minor civil division boundaries information need. (Discussion of long term data custodian
responsibilities and candidate organizations options will commence upon completion of the Washington County
Jurisdictional Boundaries pilot project.) Motion carried, ayes all.
4c. Soils Data Distribution Policies Advisory Team
Coordinating Committee Chairperson Arbeit provided an overview of why soils survey data varies from county to
county, how the data is used, relevant work of the Soils Committee of the Governor's Council on Geographic Information,
the Metropolitan Council's business need to compile a regional dataset from the several independent sources into a
single integrated dataset, and the Metropolitan Council's offer to share the regional dataset with MetroGIS
stakeholders once several data distribution policy issues are resolved.
In response to the Council's offer to share this data, Arbeit reported that on October 24th the Coordinating
Committee established the Soils Data Distribution Policies Advisory Team and, given the significance of the issues to
be addressed, agreed that the Policy Board should be invited to designate one of its members to serve on the Team as a
liaison of the Board.
Margo LaBau, Policy Advisory Team Liaison, explained that pending completion of this regional, multiple source
dataset by the Metropolitan Council and the Council's offer to share it provides MetroGIS with an opportunity to
discuss solutions to policy issues that Policy Board members raised early on when the concept of a regional GIS was
offered for discussion. She also explained that distribution of the policy issues involved with the distribution of the
regional soils dataset goes beyond the scope of the data and cost sharing agreements, that sustainable solutions to the
soils distribution policy issues require all organizations with an intellectual interest to participate, and that the
results of these policy debates are expected to serve as a prototype for distribution of other datasets.
Members raised questions about the appropriateness and need for a policy Board member to participate on a Team
charged with recommending options. It was agreed that given the importance of the issues, the presence of a Policy
Board liaison would be beneficial with the understanding that the Board member's role is limited to that of a messenger
of Policy Board goals and objectives.
Member Hegberg suggested that Member Fiskness would be the best person to serve as the Board's liaison to this
Team, given his watershed district perspective. Member Fiskness questioned the appropriateness of a data consumer
(watershed district) rather than a data producer (county) serving as the Board's representative on the Team. It was
agreed that the Team membership should include some consumers of soils data, such as watershed districts, in addition
to those organizations with an intellectual property claim.
Members raised questions how much energy to put into using the regional soils dataset as a policy prototype
for other datasets, given the inaccuracy of the data and its source being digitized public soils survey atlases. Arbeit
noted that the Coordinating Committee's position is there would be value to discussing options to these policies issues
with a low-risk dataset such as soils. All agreed that compilation of the individual source datasets into a regional
dataset adds value to the individual data sources and that benefit would be received from the proposed discussions.
Board members asked for an estimate of the duration of the Team's work. LaBau estimated that several meetings
are likely over a period of about six months. She stated she expects numerous issues to be raised since this is the
first attempt to address data distribution, such as what constitutes public information, notwithstanding soils data is
at the lower end of the cost-to-develop spectrum.
Board members offered strategies to minimize the time commitment. A matrix was suggested to illustrates which
organizations currently disseminate soils data and what they get in return. It was speculated that the added value of
the aggregation into a regional dataset may be the only value appropriate for MetroGIS policy makers to discuss. Staff
was also asked to consider interviewing each of the organizations with an intellectual claim in the pending regional
dataset and report the findings at the first meeting. This would not only give the Team an idea of the divergence of
opinion that exists but would also help the members gage the complexity of the task.
Motion: Member Scott moved and Member Schreiber seconded to accept the Coordinating Committee's suggestion
that members of the Policy Board whose organizations have an intellectual interest in the regional soils dataset should
be conferred with concerning appointment of representatives to the Soils Data Distribution Policy Advisory Team from
their respective organizations. Motion carried, ayes all.
Member Berg volunteered to serve as Policy Board liaison to the Soils Distribution Policy Advisory Team with
the understanding that his role is limited to that of messenger of Board policy. The group agreed.
4d. Letter of Endorsement -- Land Records Modernization Initiative
Coordinating Committee Chairperson Arbeit explained that at its September 24th meeting the Policy Board had
directed staff to draft a letter to the Governor's Council on Geographic Information (GCGI) to be signed by Chairperson
Reinhardt and state the MetroGIS Policy Board supports the objectives of the GCGI's Land Records Modernization
Initiative. The draft letter was shared with the members for comment. No comments were received.
Motion: Member Fiskness moved and Member Schneider seconded to accept the draft letter of support to the
Governor's Council on Geographic Information (GCGI) regarding the GCGI's Land Records Modernization Initiative.. Motion
carried, ayes all.
5. OTHER BUSINESS: None
6. INFORMATION ITEMS
6a. Telecommunications Utility Mapping Mandate - Coordinating Committee Response and Draft Rules
Coordinating Committee Chairperson Arbeit noted that as directed by the Policy Board, the Coordinating
Committee had forwarded comments Public Utilities Commission concerning pending rules governing Telecommunications
Utility Mapping requirement. Notable portions of the most recent draft of the pending rules were summarized. Member
Scott asked if the Committee has any concerns with the pending rules. Arbeit noted and David Claypool, Ramsey County
Surveyor, concurred that the draft rules are fully compatible with concerns previously raised by Coordinating Committee
members and consistent with long term MetroGIS interests.
Alan Srock with NSP and the utility representative on the Coordinating Committee, explained that he believes
MetroGIS is an appropriate forum to work through these issues and that the draft rules and the guidelines being
developed through MetroGIS are a good first steps. Member Schneider commented that this forum is an example of what
MetroGIS is to become.
Member Fiskness asked to what degree is what we are doing through MetroGIS subject to obsolesce. Arbeit stated
that has been very little interest among MetroGIS participants in hardware/software specifications which are subject to
obsolesce. Rather, the majority of interest has been in the data content needs which are much less susceptible to
obsolesce. It was noted that it is logical that vendors will follow the lead of MetroGIS, given its consensus based
approach to protocol that affects a large number of users.
6b. MetroGIS Availability of the Lawrence Group Regional Street Centerline Dataset
No discussion of this item.
6c. Preliminary Coordinating Committee Agenda for October 24, 1997 Meeting
No discussion of this item.
6d. General MetroGIS Activity Update
No discussion of this item.
7. NEXT MEETING
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 1998; 7:00 PM; Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Facility; Rm. 1A
Chairperson Reinhardt reminded the members that the focus of the January 28. 1998 meeting will be funding for
MetroGIS and encouraged full board participation in the discussion.
8. ADJOURN
Member Scott moved and Member Fiskness seconded to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Prepared by Randall Johnson, GIS Liaison
|
