Meeting Minutes Prepared and submitted by Andra Bontrager, Vice Chair and Geoff Maas, Chair Approved by Standards Committee on February 26, 2018

Transcription

1 Joint Meeting of the Geospatial Advisory Council s Parcel and Land Records Committee & Standards Committee Thursday, November 30, :30 pm to 3:30 pm 705 Courthouse Square, Room 499, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, Meeting Minutes Prepared and submitted by Andra Bontrager, Vice Chair and Geoff Maas, Chair Approved by Standards Committee on February 26, 2018 Meeting Attendees (Both in-person and via conference call) George Meyer, Otter Tail County, chair, Parcel and Land Records Committee Geoff Maas, MetroGIS/Metropolitan Council, chair, Standards Committee Andra Bontrager, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Standards Committee David Brandt, Washington County Curt Carlson, Independent Contractor Peter Jenkins, Minnesota DNR Chad Martini, Stearns County Chris Jensen, Stearns County Renee Rosenow, Stearns County Mike Pooler, Stearns County Bart Richardson, Minnesota DNR Dan Ross, Minnesota Geospatial Information Office Mark Sloan, Clay County Jeff Storlie, St. Louis County Ryan Stover, St. Louis County Anne Theroux, Pro-West and Associates Mark Volz, Lyon County Heather Albrecht, City of Maple Grove Victor Barnett, Ramsey County Jessica Fendos, Ramsey County Adam Iten, Emergency Communications Networks/Department of Public Safety Mark Kotz, Metropolitan Council David Kramar, Minnesota State University-Mankato Philip Nagel, City of Waseca John Nerge, City of Brooklyn Park Nancy Rader, Minnesota Geospatial Information Office Agenda Item 1 Call to Order Standards Committee Chair Geoff Maas called the meeting to order at 12:35 pm Agenda Item 2 Welcome and attendee introductions Maas and Parcel and Land Records Committee Chair George Meyer; Maas and Meyer then welcomed the group and had participants introduce themselves and then took the roll call of their respective committee members; 1

2 Agenda Item 3 Approve Meeting Agenda Chair Maas asked for a motion to approve the agenda Motion: Kotz, Second: Fendos, no discussion, unanimous approval; Agenda Item 4 Approval of Meeting Minutes from October 25, 2017 Standards Committee Meeting Chair Maas asked for approval of the minutes from the October 25, 2017 meeting Motion: Barnett, Second: Kotz, no discussion, unanimous approval; Agenda Item 5 Address Point Data Standard: Status and Post-Approval Revisions Chair Maas gave a quick re-cap of the events leading up to the October 25 meeting s motion and second in support of accepting the Address Point Data Standard, the on-line discussion of the group from October 26 through November 6 and the final electronic vote of approval on November 7, With that approval, the Address Point Data Standard was approved to be advanced to the Geospatial Advisory Council at its next meeting on December 6, 2017 in St. Paul. In that intervening time, several small revisions and corrects were advanced and requested these were reviewed and approved by the group as follows: Change request for PIN to be expanded from field width of 25 to 28 (accepted); Removal of OBJECT_ID from standard (removal from all standards); UNIQUE_ID changed to ADD_ID to remove confusion with other standards; Change PIN to STATE_PIN to align with the Parcel Data Transfer Standard; Maintain the GIS911POC attribute as is (e.g. not drop 911 indicator from the attribute); Change the element name Lifecycle to Lifecycle Status; Maintain the Not Active attribute as is in the Lifecycle status domain; Additionally, there was consensus among the group on moving toward the consistent use of standard domain values for community names, postal communities and common codes in use (e.g. GNIS, etc.) with other standards presently in use and in development. It was acknowledged that there remains a conflict between domain entries based on standard definitions and those which are user-entered values that are locally determined and needed for local use. The Committee agreed to investigate this further with the development of the road centerline standard. Chair Maas asked if there was a motion for final approval of these modifications for advancement of the standard to the Geospatial Advisory Council on December 6. Motion: Kotz, Second: Barnett, no discussion, unanimous approval. Mark Kotz, chair of the Metro Address Work Group, agreed to update the documentation and forward the revised standard to the Geospatial Advisory Council for its review prior to its submission to the Geospatial Advisory Council on December 6,

3 Agenda Item 6 Parcel Data Transfer Standard Maas provided a brief recap of the development of the parcel standard to date, specifically: The desire to align the parcel standard s address-specific attributes with those of the forthcoming address standard, and; The anticipated uses of, and needs for, the parcel standard. The potential of leveraging an adopted standard to work proactively with tax system and CAMA vendors for output and transfer of data; Meyer also added the recent work and discussions of the Parcel and Land Records Committee in advancing the standard. Maas and Meyer noted that over the course of 2017 many discussions about the standard had taken place around the state. With the input received from the most recent round of stakeholder review (October 2016-January 2017), the advance of the Address Point Data Standard and the significant re-ordering of elements in the parcel standard, an additional round of stakeholder review was worth discussion and consideration. Initial discussion and acceptance of minor corrections to the Parcel Data Transfer Standard included: Ensuring the PIN width value is set at 28; Removal of the OBJECT_ID field (as per the earlier discussion to remove them from all standards) Acknowledgement and support of the atomization of address elements in the Parcel Transfer Standard to replicate the format of same in the Address Point Data Standard The group also reviewed and accepted the changes suggested from the October 2016-January 2017 review period and those collected through the listening sessions around the state during These changes included the following: Elements 3.4 (Owner Name), 3.10 (Tax Name) and 3.17 (Acres [Polygon]) would be categorized as Mandatory Elements 3.1 (Lot) and 3.2 (Block) would have their field width expanded from 5 to 30 characters Element 3.3 (Plat) would have its field width expanded from 50 to 150 characters (with the understanding that long plat descriptions or names would be truncated if they exceeded 50 character) Element 3.15 (Landmark) would have its field width expanded from 100 to 150 characters Element 3.16 (Homestead Exemption) would remove Partial [P] from its domain to be replaced by Fractional [F] this term aligns better with the terms used by assessors. Element 3.23 Market Year database name changed from MARKET_YEAR to MKT_YEAR (8 characters) Element 3.27 through 3.30 would be changed from USEx_DESC (Use Description) to USECLASSx (Use Classification) Element 3.32 (Tax Exempt) had its domain expanded to include the value Payment In Lieu of Taxes [L]] Element 3.54 (Abbreviated Legal Description) had its database name changed to ABB_LEGAL 3

4 Element 3.56 (Export Date) had its database name changed to EXP_DATE (8 characters) The group discussed the Ownership and Administration Elements (Elements ) Element The Ownership Categories cover general public entities (01 = Federal, 02 = State, etc.) and are to be an optional attribute in the standard. Element 4.2 (Administrative Ownership) remains in development, the group agreed to maintain this attribute in the standard even though its domain of values is not yet complete. This attribute is also optional. Element 4.3 (School District) makes uses of numerical codes provided by the Minnesota Department of Education. Element 4.4 (Watershed District) makes use of the legal name of the watershed district, watershed management organization or other agency that administers the watershed. Alias/Element Names and Attribute Descriptions Discussion: Kotz pointed out that in the documentation on the parcel standard the Alias/Element names looked to be a mix of descriptions and element names and that a more cohesive offering of element names, with descriptions available in the accompanying documentation would be preferable. Additionally, Kotz pointed out that the standards document currently in use did not match that of the Address Point Data Standard. Kotz and Maas agreed to develop a more standardized format for documenting and publishing both the Address Point Data Standard and Parcel Data Transfer Standard, with the idea that such a format could be used for other standards as well. Meyer indicated he could circulate these revisions to the Parcel and Land Records Committee to adjust or refined attribute definitions as needed prior to, or during any upcoming stakeholder review period. There was an additional brief discussion about the role of ensuring spatial accuracy of the geometry (parcel polygons) being a part of the standard. It was decided that this was out of scope for the present iteration of the Parcel Data Transfer Standard. Agenda Item 7 Decision on Next Action of the Parcel Data Transfer Standard Chair Maas called for consideration of next actions. In accordance with the revisions to Versions 2.0 and 3.0 of the Parcel Data Standard in terms of changing attribute names, attribute descriptions and the order they are found within the standard, a discussion of the utility and need for an additional 30-day public review period took place. Motion to publish the revised (Version 3.1) Parcel Data Transfer Standard out for an additional 30-day review period: Meyer, Second: Kotz No discussion raised, unanimous approval. 4

5 Members of the Standards Committee and Parcel and Land Records Committee committed to updating the Parcel Data Transfer Standards documents for a 30-day review period beginning on January 2, 2018 and ending on February 2, This provides time for comments collected to be documented and shared with the Standards Committee prior to its late February meeting. Agenda Item 8 The Minnesota Road Centerline Standard (MRCS) Maas provided background and context on the development and advance of the nascent MRCS road data standard. This proto-type of the MRCS as it presently appears, is an extension of the work of the Metro Regional Centerline Collaborative (MRCC) from May 2014 to present and the NextGen9-1-1 efforts (from 2015 to present) to develop a multi-purpose road centerline standard to meet various business needs including NextGen9-1-1, routing, addressing, geocoding. The MRCS in its present form enjoys support from the NextGen9-1-1 community as its current form of attribution meets their business needs and can be successfully used in the create of a geospatiallysourced Master Street Address Guide (a.k.a. geomsag). Current MSAGs are derived from tabular data, not from geospatial data. Letters of support for the MRCS were offered from the Department of Public Safety, the MRCC team and the Metro Emergency Services Board. Discussion by the Standards Committee indicated that there are a number of other possible attributes it could contain including such things as turn tables for more sophisticated routing deployment, and that a number of the domain values, especially those for Greater Minnesota including GNIS codes and ESN (Emergency Service Number area) remain incomplete. It was noted that the MRCS as presented at the meeting was only represented by an Excel spreadsheet, which did not contain sufficient definitions of the attributes it contained. A document with definitions of the attributes and the purpose for the standard would be needed prior to authorization of the The Committee indicated it would be interested in further review and analysis of a potential statewide centerline standard once these materials have been prepared. The Standards Committee would assist in publishing out this, or other, candidate centerline standard for a public review to the stakeholders to Members of the NextGen9-1-1 community agreed to begin preparing documentation and researching needed domains to be submitted to the Standards Committee for assessment prior to approving a statewide stakeholder review. Agenda Item 9 Other Business No other business items or points of discussion were raised. Agenda Item 10 Next Meeting The next meeting of the Standards Committee is scheduled for Monday, February 26, A venue for this meeting has not yet been set. Agenda Item 11 Next Meeting Chair Maas called for a motion to adjourn; Motion: Kotz; Second: Barnett; No discussion raised, unanimous approval. Chair Maas thanked the participants for their time and energy and adjourned the meeting at 3:22 pm 5