|
1. Call to Order
Co-Chair Krum called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m., at the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District in St.
Paul.
Members present: David Claypool (Ramsey County); John Connelly (St. Paul & Ramsey County Charter
Commissions); Will Craig (UM CURA); Rick Gelbmann (Metropolitan Council); Elliott Graham (Ramsey County); Catherine
Hansen (SRF Consulting); Jane Harper (Washington County); Ed Krum (Mn/DOT); Susanne Maeder (LMIC); Jim Maxwell (The
Lawrence Group); Michael Munson (Metropolitan Council); Bart Richardson (DNR IS)
Members absent: Bob Basques (City of St. Paul); Roger Carlson (City of Minneapolis); Roger Carlson (Hennepin
County); Lisa Freese (MN Planning); Blaine Hackett (SRF Consulting); Bob Moulder (Hennepin County); Rick Person (City
of St. Paul); Donna Roper (Minneapolis Public School District); Ben Verbick (LOGIS); Ronal Wencl (USGS); Tim Zimmerman
(Hennepin County)
Visitors: William Johnson (Bethel College); Jerry Happel (PlanSight)
Staff: Theresa Foster (MetroGIS Technical Coordinator); Randy Johnson (MetroGIS Staff Coordinator)
2. Accept Agenda Member Maxwell motioned to accept the agenda as submitted, Member Claypool seconded. Motion
carried.
3. Introduction of Team Members
Co-Chair Krum welcomed all members and welcomed visitors William Johnson (Bethel College) and Jerry Happel
(PlanSight); he then asked members to go around the table and introduce themselves formally to all members of the team
and the visitors.
4. Accept Meeting Minutes
Member Claypool motioned to accept the meeting minutes from June 10th, 1999. Member Harper seconded. Motion
carried.
5a. Technical Team Work Program – Priorities
Member Krum reported on the Technical Advisory Team work program and discussed the priorities of the calendar
1999 work plan. Krum stated that the work program reflects on-going work activities with the Business Information Needs
workgroups as well as Ad-hoc workgroups, customer needs satisfaction survey and the coordination activities with the
Minnesota Governors’ Council on Geographic Information. Member Meader stated that there are short term and long
term activities with the Governors’ Council and suggested the coordination with the State’s Geospatial Data
Clearinghouse is an on-going activity and should be moved out of an ad-hoc workgroup prioritization. Krum suggested
that this should be moved to the on-going coordination activities. Member Gelbmann suggested that items 2 & 3 under
order of prioritization for the ad-hoc workgroups be interchanged because metadata enhancement is significant function
that needs to be promoted in the coming year. Krum agreed and stated that data sharing relies on metadata enhancements
and should have a higher prioritization. Harper reiterated that there is a study on-going through MetroGIS about
metadata, and asked if the Technical Advisory Team can be updated at their next meeting. Gelbmann stated that the study
was accepted for presentation at the URISA conference and will update the Technical Advisory Team in the future.
Motion: Harper moved and Gelbmann seconded to accept the general work program and appove the 1999 work plan
with the suggested changes.
5b. A Regional Solution – I35W Coalition
Jerry Happel (PlanSight) provided the Technical Advisory Team with an in-depth presentation of the I35W
coalition activities for developing a subregional solution to developing parcel, future land use, existing land use,
and zoning datasets. He demonstrated the On-line Atlas and the Geo-Data Warehouse. Member were then asked for comments
on the technical procedures piloted by the coalition and comment on whether the solution warrants further investigation
as a regional solution for MetroGIS. Member Munson asked whether or not socioeconomic data will be included as a data
set for the coalition. Happel identified that there is a prototype dataset being developed by John Carpenter (InSight
Mapping). Harper asked what type of resources were required to develop these products? Happel stated that it was a
3-year project, $1.50/parcel, with ~ 150,000 parcels. There were numerous grant contributors of which MetroGIS was a
participant. Claypool asked if the funding was higher because some parcel datasets were not completely/accurately
developed. Member Randy Johnson stated that future work for building a regional dataset solution for land use will
rely on an aggregation scheme that will be developed using the coalition designations. Members agreed that this
solution is flexible and is cost-effective for the future efforts of MetroGIS when they develop a regional solution for
parcels, future and existing land use and zoning.
5c. 2000 Regional Census Geography Project
Member Gelbmann updated the team on the peer review forum, roles and responsibilities and specifications for
the census boundaries information need. Metropolitan Council will assume regional custodian responsibilities and treat
the census boundaries dataset as the TLG street centerline dataset as in developing license agreements. The 1990
census geography will be free of charge to MetroGIS stakeholders and will be available sometime in January. Craig
iterated that the data development will have a BETA testing phase after 4 months of development and stakeholders will
be asked to test the data for their communities. Members agreed that a more developed statement of roles and
responsibilities as well as data specifications are needed in the future, but will recommend that the census boundary
solution proposed by Metropolitan Council meets the requirement for the census boundary information need.
Motion: Krum moved and Harper seconded that the proposal of the census boundary solution be forwarded to the
Coordinating Committee. Motion carried.
5d. MN Governors’ Council Hydrographic Committee Work Plan and Lakes, wetlands, etc. Business Information
Need
Meader updated the team on the coordination activities of the Mn Governors’ Council Hydrographic
committee and MetroGIS stakeholders. The needs of all coordinating bodies will be better served by a combined effort.
The cordinating activities include a data inventory and user needs assessment for all levels of government,
associations and private industry. Craig commented on scale, value and independence of available data that is not
homogenous at this time in order to aggregate. Meader discussed the scalability factor and commented that 1:24,000 has
no value to local government based upon that scale. Craig agreed that input from local level interest would be valuable
in order to provide for local information needs. Harper commented that there is an on-going project within Washington
county to do a data assessment and that Cindy Wentworth should be contacted for the project.
Motion: Krum motioned that the MetroGIS Information Needs for Wetlands, lakes, etc. be part of the combined
effort happening at the state level and approve the key stakeholder classes of participant. Craig moved and Gelbmann
seconded. Motion carried.
5e. Washington County Municipal Boundaries Pilot Project
Johnson reported to the team that the Washington County Boundaries pilot project is complete. Johnson
presented a conceptual strategy to accomplish testing by other counties; (a) individual testing by the remain 6
counties to evaluate procedures and specifications and provide in-depth inconsistencies or obstacles relative to
current practices ( b) Participation in a peer review forum and document findings. Harper stated that testing could be
done in pilot areas selected by the technical advisory team. Maxwell asked about the time frame. Harper stated it took
Washington County 4-6 months to evaluate the data. Craig state that if we just adopted this a guideline in which the
counties could test the dataset and strategy and ask them to provide feedback. Meader commented that physical testing
is the component that is needed in order to fully identify problems with a conceptual strategy. Members agreed to a
peer review forum following testing.
Harper suggested that we recommend pilot areas that have a uniqueness and that shed some light on the process.
Motion: Gelbmann moved and Munson seconded to recommend the 2 pilot testing areas and commit to a peer review
forum following the pilot area testing. Motion carried.
5f. Rights to Property Update and Service Area Jurisdictions Harper updated the team on the work in progress
by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, on a survey sent out in May whose purpose was to determine which agencies
and organizations are mapping conservation lands and how they are creating their datasets. Harper in the future will
keep the team updated on rights to property issues when they arise.
5g. Parcel Attributes
Craig update the team on the coordination activities in obtaining candidate data attributes for the parcel
boundary dataset. So far four of the seven counties have sent in their responses and anticipate a list of completed
results and next steps by the following Technical Advisory Team meeting.
6. Other Business: No other business discussed
7. Next Meeting
Next meeting will be held at 2:30 p.m., August 19, at the Roseville Library on Hamline Avenue,
Roseville, Minnesota.
8. Adjourn
Krum moved, Connelly seconded, meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Prepared by Theresa K. Foster, MetroGIS Technical Coordinator
|
