Washington Cadastral Framework: Partnership Meeting Minutes

August 19, 1999

Video Conference Q:\docs\CadastreFW\Project Mgt\Communications\mtg990819minutes.wpd


Attendance

1. Greg Tudor, WA DNR

2. Carrie Wolfe, WA DNR

3. Frank Fischer, WA DNR

4. Mike Mohrman, WA OFM

5. Andy Gerst, WA PRC

6. Karl Herzog, WA IAC

7. Dave Steele, WA DNR

8. Sue Peterson, WA DFW

9. Steve Phillips, Weyerhaeuser

10. Debbie Ivers, WA DFW

11. Shelly Snyder, WA DFW

12. Terry Johnson, WA DFW

13. Jeff Devitt, WA DNR (ARIS)

14. Gene Thorley, US GS

15. Ian Von Essen, Spokane County

16. Bob Folsom, Spokane County

17. Loren Wiltse, Lincoln County

18. Brad Hudson, Lincoln County

19. Russ Nance, Longview Fibre

20. Bruce Kessler, Stevens County (ESRI)

21. Joe Barreca, Stevens County (Map Metrics)

22. Al Kowitz, WSU


Introduction

Greg Tudor facilitated the meeting. All attendees introduced themselves. The Colville WSU site was added to the video conference sites of Lacey, Seattle, Spokane, and Vancouver. All sites were attended, but several expected participants were missing from Seattle, Spokane, and Vancouver. New partners, Parks and Recreation, and Fish and Wildlife were welcomed.



Project Status

The last partnership meeting was held on 06/15/1999. At that meeting, the priority for deliverables was set to develop a state integration and funding plan. The primary focus of this meeting is to review that plan. The partnership agreement will be revised based on the plan and the legislative proposal to fund the plan. The agreement will be sent out again in October. The project funding has been short of the expected partner contributions, DNR has been picking up the remainder. Partner direct and in-kind contributions will need to be tallied again at the end of September to claim the FGDC grant match. A request was made to FGDC to extend the project grant deadline to 03/31/2000. The web site has been revised to include important project documents. The technical integration meetings for the Snohomish County area have been making good progress on developing a means of integrating partner data to the framework database. Integration of BLM, Snohomish County, DNR upland and DNR aquatic cadastral data is currently in testing stage. The technical project team has been developing AMLs to format partner data into the transfer standard; partners will maintain their own version of the conversion programs. The NILS project has been making progress with determining how to implement the FGDC Cadastral Data Content Standard as objects and feature classes for Arc8. NILS requirements will be available to other GIS vendors on completion.



State Integration Plan



The integration plan was reviewed by section. In the Background Section, Gene Thorley identified a long term option for transaction taxes to be used to support integration of data through the regular business process. This is being considered for long term funding after demonstrating the reliability of standard processes. Ian Von Essen noted that totally free access to all was a concern because we need to ensure that private sector entities contribute their information to the Framework. He could see the benefit of free access to contributing partners. Bruce Kessler replied that he would have a concern about data for data exchanges because many smaller private organizations do not have resources or data to barter.



In Partner Integration, Gene Thorley expressed concern about the central database approach being taken. He introduced the virtual database concept in which individual contributors keep their data in a decentralized database format which can be searched like a clearinghouse. An example was Wynette County, GA. There is a need to centralize the organization of the data so that it is searchable. Joe Barreca state that he felt public ownership was a good place to start with partner data integration.



For the Integration Plan Summary, the focus of state agency data was questioned for its value to counties, since the local sources are the most valuable. Ian Von Esson stated that county assessors have no business impetus to update public parcels. They would like to see the public agencies update and amange that information in the framework database.



Also, partners were concerned with the common denominator for data sharing. How much data actually needs to be shared? Counties are looking for PLSS and public land ownership to identify locations and parcel interests accurately without undue effort; constituents and state agencies are looking for county parcels to facilitate business between each other. Commercial interests are usually looking for greater detail than what partners need to contribute to the framework database. Assessors do not track public land ownership since there are no direct gains, but in order to identify taxable property missing from the rolls all lands need to be identified. Ian indicated that segregation and aggregation of property took place without fees.



Steve Phillips asked about the role of private industry in the plan since it seemed to be left out in the rush to put it together.



Action: Include a specific reference to the continued technical and integration support of private partners by DNR, and the acceptance of private partner contributions. Greg



The 1999 Partnership Preliminary Budget Proposal Development seemed to be an ambitious, but solid approach.



For the 2000 Supplemental Budget Partnership Request, Karl Herzog made the correction that the IAC recommendation to the legislature is being developed for consideration by the IAC Board in September. The IAC Board includes representatives from PRC, DFW, and DNR. Gene noted that we should be ready to answer some tough questions from the legislature. There were additional comments on the three funding areas: 1. State agency data development and integration funding. 2. County development and integration funding. 3. Integration and technical support funding.



1. There was great interest expressed for the cleanup of public ownership information, but there were also concerns that not enough resources would be directed to the process. Sue Peterson, Shelly Snyder and Andy Gerst acknowledged the problems and indicated their commitment to the cleanup. The budgets are being developed to address the data quality issues, and to make sure that the legislature sticks to these budget requests.



2. In addition to the counties listed (Spokane, Grant, Yakima, Franklin, and Douglas), Kittitas, Stevens, Adams, and Lincoln counties should also be considered for inclusion. The selection process is just being developed.



Action: Include additional counties for consideration. Carrie



3. Determine whether BLM has an interest in being included as an integrator.



Action: Work with DNR Land Survey to determine the staffing requirements. Greg



For the 2001-2002 Biennial Budget Partnership Request, Karl Herzog state that we should keep in mind that the US Bureau of Indian Affairs may have a plan for tribal participation in a similar cadastral project in the midwest.



In the Long Term Partnership Strategy, the legislation for long term funding needs to be specifically identified. City and private partners need to be recognized. Document images of survey and deed records need to be included as a long term goal.



Action: Include fee and agency support options. Greg



Overall, grassroot support was identified as a need. There are still some legal issues with constituent privacy and unfair business advantages.



At the close of the meeting, partners were asked to revise their profiles and expectations, and be prepared to review the project in October. Partners indicated that the video conference was a good use of their time, and allowed them to participate.



Next Meeting: The next partner meeting will be held in November. Greg will try to schedule it on the 9th which would be the day before the quarterly Framework Management Group meeting.