|
1. Call to Order
Co-Chair Krum called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m., Room 302, at the offices of Minnesota State Planning
Agency in the Centennial Building near the State Capitol.
Members present: Bob Basques (City of St. Paul); Roger Carlson (City of Minneapolis); David Claypool (Ramsey
County); John Connelly (St. Paul & Ramsey County Charter Commissions); Will Craig (UM CURA); Rick Gelbmann
(Metropolitan Council); Jane Harper (Washington County); Ed Krum (Mn/DOT); Susanne Maeder (LMIC); Jim Maxwell (The
Lawrence Group); Rick Person (City of St. Paul); Bart Richardson (DNR IS); Ronal Wencl (USGS); Tim Zimmerman (Hennepin
County)
Members absent: Roger Carlson (Hennepin County); Lisa Freese (MN Planning); Elliott Graham (Ramsey County);
Blaine Hackett (SRF Consulting); Catherine Hansen (SRF Consulting); Bob Moulder (Hennepin County); Donna Roper
(Minneapolis Public School District); Ben Verbick (LOGIS)
Visitors: John Conzemius (Metropolitan Council); Roger Williams (Metropolitan Council)
Staff: Theresa Foster (MetroGIS Technical Coordinator)
2. Accept Agenda
Member Maxwell motioned to accept the agenda as submitted, Member Gelbmann seconded.
Motion carried.
3. Introduction of Team Members
Co-Chair Krum welcomed all members and asked them to go around the table and introduce themselves formally to
all members of the team.
4. Accept Meeting Minutes
Member Harper motioned to accept the meeting minutes from February 18th, 1999, Member Claypool seconded.
Motion carried.
5a. Technical Team Work Plan
Craig reported that 8 members and staff from the Technical Advisory Team met on two separate issues (data
access and data content) to revise the current 1999 work plan. At those meetings members agreed that an aggregation of
data content, data standards, and data access issues should be reframed as a process and organized in content with
specific activities for each subset of information. Craig informed the group that the plan before them was still
incomplete and needed further discussion from the group on specific content and direction. Member Harper suggested that
Washington County has been in contact with the state of Minnesota’s Geospatial Data Warehouse and concluded that
ISITE might eliminate the DataFinder activities at the regional level. More work needs to be done so that all members
of MetroGIS know about ISITE, Clearinghouse Activities and DataFinder and find a solution. Gelbmann iterated that the
timing of DataFinder, development, capabilities, and system of integration needs are 99% compatible with MN
Clearinghouse activities and MetroGIS need to find a strategy to address ISITE concerns. Wencl suggested that we
reformulate the work plan based upon three categories: current activities, on-going activities and long-term
activities. Craig proposed the members hold off on the discussion of prioritizing work plan issues till the next
meeting. Maxwell believes that the data holding at MetroGIS could be underutilized and that there is not enough
publicity/public awareness about the datasets that are available. Harper agreed that we need to promote awareness,
programs, projects and access to the capabilities of the data and GIS.
Craig departed.
MetroGIS needs to broaden from the perspective of producer to user and broaden distribution and activities
related to the data. Gelbmann reiterated the Item #3 in the work plan is a marketing and distribution activity with
enhancements to DataFinder, metadata and coordination activities. Claypool suggested that customer satisfaction should
replace user in the item in order to impact the distribution of GIS. Basques suggested that we focus on the utility of
the data.
Motion: Member Harper suggested that we forward the work plan on to the Coordinating Committee with stated
changes, and suggested changing the title from 1999 Work Plan to General Work Plan. Gelbmann seconded and stated that
we should discuss prioritization at the next Technical Advisory Team meeting in June.
Motion Carried.
Krum stated that member Munson would like to move Item 5d up in the agenda as he is leaving for a Metropolitan
Council meeting at 3:00 p.m. Members agreed.
Meader Arrived.
5e. Year 2000 Regional Census Geography Project
Gelbmann reported that work is in progress on the Census Boundaries business information need and will focus
on finalizing the 1990 Census Geography to correlate with parcel boundaries and the TLG dataset. Future work will
include an update to 2000 Census Geography when the Census Bureau finalizes boundaries late this year or early next
year. The process for this business information need will be a peer review process on census geography. There are four
main objective to discuss during the peer review: compatibility with other datasets, limitations (precinct
boundaries), expectations or adjustments, and data specifications for the regional dataset custodian. Stakeholders
invited will be from cities, counties, school districts, legislature and private industry. Gelbmann invited members to
discuss any concerns with the business information need and suggest candidates from stakeholder organizations. Harper
suggested that human services departments and state legislature stakeholders would be of significance. Gelbmann noted
that the scope will be limited to look at candidates biased to GIS and limited to geography not just the attributes.
Maxwell suggested that the interest of the peer review should focus on the actual data and geography that is available.
Munson reiterated the problems with using the existing boundaries they have changes in boundaries, most major cities
split track, and computer generated problems and problems with snapping boundaries. Some counties follow municipal
boundaries and don’t provide street ranges. Munson agreed that a pseudo boundary dataset is needed to help
communities. Communities with a lot of changes can not get access to good census data. Wencl asked what are the
problems with the existing Tiger files from the Census Bureau. Munson noted that the 2000 Census changes do not
incorporate local level boundaries. Harper suggested at the peer review workgroup that you discuss the problems with
the existing data in its original geographic format and how the working with the parcels and streets dataset will
improve the census boundary dataset. Also, not the discrepancies in the tiger line file data, scale and overlay
problems. Foster noted that after the peer review process is done and a dataset is available, promote the usage of
census boundary to other customers and the activities of stakeholders in using the dataset. Harper suggested that the
workgroup diagram the relationships and provide comparisons and contrasts that relate to students or any stakeholders
in order to perform analysis of the data.
Munson departed.
5b. Technical Advisory Team Assignments
Krum discussed the need for technical advisory team members to provide leadership through the business
information needs workgroup process and ad-hoc workgroups. Krum, Connelly and staff met prior to today’s meeting
to discuss the responsibilities, roles and organization structure of the Technical Advisory Team. Gelbmann iterated
that their needs to be a formalized peer review workgroup process to suggest to members. Peer review is a type of
ad-hoc workgroup that has already been used by MetroGIS in the TLG street centerline enhancements and should be used if
there is already an external process/project in place. The peer review process will coordinate with stakeholders and is
devised to be limited to a single meeting with the stakeholders to provide information, coordination, and data
specifications on the dataset that will be implemented. The peer reviewers (stakeholders) will be asked at the
workgroup to provide feed back and enhancements that meet their needs as well as specific interests to the information
need. Krum asked each member to identify specific business information needs workgroups they would like to participate
in as well as topic specific ad-hoc workgroup related to the general work plan previously approved. They were
encouraged to fill out the sign-up sheet that were distributed previously and if they couldn’t complete them at
this time to forward them on to himself, Member Connelly or staff. Staff will provide an update to the information
needs workgroups and members identified for other ad-hoc workgroups at the next team meeting.
Motion: Gelbmann motioned that the technical advisory team assignments are implemented with the inclusion of
the peer review workgroup, Person seconded.
Motion Carried.
Member Gelbmann stated that the DNR Land Cover project be included as a peer review process. Richardson will
provide an update to the Technical Advisory Team on the DNR Land Cover project at the next meeting. Harper also stated
that in the GIS/LIS newsletter there is on-going work on rights to property with Barbara Weismann and will look into
this project. Member Claypool volunteered to assist Harper on the rights to property business information need
research.
5c. Parcel Boundary Recommendations
Foster summarized the information presented in the agenda item for the data comparison, data specifications
and roles and responsibilities of primary custodians and regional custodians and requested discussion and action from
the team on the assumptions that will used to devise a regional parcel data solution. Members were asked to keep in
mind that the counties, in their role as primary custodians, would not be asked to modify their datasets to accommodate
the needs of other stakeholders. If modifications are needed, the tasks and costs of any such tasks will be classified
as "costs of collaboration", which will be include in the fair-share allocation model that is under development.
The discussion that followed included: Gelbmann stated that the NSSDA compliance and reporting requirement
adds value and faith to the regional dataset. Richardson stated that this dataset would have regional value for the
state. Claypool added that if their were to be any additional requirements (duties) to the primary custodians
(counties) that this is secondary in their business practices and that counties have the least amount of return in a
regional parcel dataset. Meader stated that counties might not receive a direct return but they benefit from other
datasets that may provide a return to them. Person noted that under the regional custodian responsibilities it states
that there will be quarterly updates and is this user pressure for distribution. Gelbmann commented that this implies
an automated process. Mark Kotz spent 3 to 4 months working on Met Council’s parcel dataset. Harper agreed that a
process needs to be developed by the regional custodian and needs to be more flexible to meet the needs of other
stakeholders in order to clip out the parcel geography for their entity. Harper stated that the regional custodian not
only identify gaps/overlaps in the primary datasets but also provide a process to resolve those issues. Gelbmann stated
that in compiling a regional coverage that their be an established process to compile and automate the primary
custodians datasets. Wencl stated that the wording of compile, provide, distribute and update, metadata, NSSDA
compliance implies adding value to a regional dataset and if this is true what or who would have the intellectual
property rights. Person suggested that from Gary Stevenson’s comments in the attached document that he believes
that Stevenson does not want a regional parcel dataset out in the public to protect the counties internal revenue
source. Claypool stated that intellectual property rights will be and has been a heated debate in Minnesota and needs
to be defined in a court of law and the subject of value added will be interpreted by the legislature in the near
feature. Harper stated that MetroGIS still needs to recommend/find a regional custodian. Richardson agreed to provide a
thorough analysis for the next meeting on the significance or contribution of the DNR as a regional custodian. Maxwell
stated that a regional custodian selection would depend on a revenue source. Foster reiterated that what is needed
today is that the technical advisory team approve the data specifications, roles and responsibilities for a parcel
boundary data solution and that comment on policy issue (value added, revenue distribution, cost sharing) be forwarded
onto the Coordinating Committee for direction and that the concerns of the primary custodians (counties) for a parcel
boundary solution be forwarded also.
Motion: Harper moved that the primary data specifications, roles and responsibilities for primary and regional
custodians be approved with the changes in providing a process to resolve issues of gaps/overlaps for the regional
dataset and establishing a process to automate and compile the primary custodians parcel boundaries datasets. Gelbmann
seconded.
Motion Carried.
5e. MN Governor’s Council Hydrographic Committee Work Plan and
Lakes, wetlands, etc. Business Information Need
Foster reported to the team that MN Governors Council Hydrographic Committee will focus on reviewing and
coordinating existing work to build and enhance elements of hydrography data layers. There will be two workgroups that
will be divided up to focus on user needs, data inventory, and a hydrographic data model for the state. Local units of
government will be asked to participate in the user needs assessment as well as the data modeling sessions. Conrad
(Ramsey-Washington-Metro Watershed District) and Foster (MetroGIS) will participate on the data inventory and user
needs assessment organization workgroup. Read (Metropolitan Mosquito Control District) and Foster (MetroGIS) will
participate on the hydrographic data model organization workgroup. MetroGIS stakeholders will be asked to contribute
and participate on these two workgroups when the workgroups begin in May. Foster asked team member to identify any
other participants at this time, and noted that Member Meader is the Co-Chair of the Hydrographic Committee and will
provide the updates to team members relevant to the needs of MetroGIS in future meetings. Harper suggested to include
Mark Neiman, Jeff Berg, and representatives from the FEMA mapping group.
Due to time limitations Items 6a and 6b were not be discussed at this time.
7. Next Meeting (Coordinating Committee Meeting – June 24)
Staff asked if their were any changes to location necessary, others recommended to move the meeting to either
one of the following places, Mosquito Control District, Roseville Library, or leaving it at MN Planning. Staff will
look into space for the next meeting to be held at the Mosquito Control District.
8. Adjourn
Krum moved, Connelly seconded, meeting was adjourned at 4:28 p.m.
Prepared by Theresa K. Foster, MetroGIS Technical Coordinator
|
