2.  Introductions  Subcommittee Updates  Strategic Planning for 2013  Highlights from our Roundtable Discussion in November  DRCOG Recommendations for Moving Forward

4.  2013 Regional County Dataset – Used NCR Agreement Points as a guide to resolve discrepancies between Counties.  2013 Regional Muni Boundary Dataset – NCR Agreement Points for Munis are not currently available. Muni Boundaries were snapped to County Boundaries where said boundaries are shared. NCR Muni Agreement Points will be used for the next Regional Muni Boundary Dataset.  Datasets are now available on DRCOG’s Regional Data Catalog

5.  5 commonly used tables each from both the SF1 and ACS will be added to the Regional Data Catalog, as discussed in the last Census Subcommittee Meeting, 12/12.  Goal is May  Future Datasets will be added depending on staff time and public demand

6.  No subcommittee update  Good news:  DRCOG is creating a 2012 Regional Open Space layer that combines:  Locally submitted data  COMAP  DRCOG Open Space Layer 2010  Can we share it?  Still trying to figure that out. It’s likely we can share your jurisdiction back to you; not sure about a regional layer to everyone.

7.  DRAPP 2012 is 99% done.  Requirements gathering for DRAPP 2014 has already begun.  Budget meeting in April to discuss cost of add-ons  If you weren’t part of DRAPP 2012 and want to be part of 2014, please contact me.

8.  We have data to share with you!  DRCOG Purchased InfoGroup (formerly InfoUSA) data in September of 2012.  We bought REGIONAL BUSINESS and RESIDENTIAL datasets to feed the Land Use Model (UrbanSim).  We’ve cleaned and QAQC’ed it; it’s ready to use!  We can share it for FREE with member governments and approved partners, if an agreement is signed.  And… Buildings and Scheduled Development are available too!  Your jurisdiction only

9.  Why might the data look wrong to you?  We have to fill data gaps (attribution and geometry).  We have limited time to create datasets, exacerbated by:  Receiving data in a variety of formats  Receiving data that’s not “clean” (e.g. won’t geocode)  Receiving data late  Not receiving data at all and having to mine it from other sources or develop methodology to estimate it.  How might we fix this in the future?  Better communication with you on what we need and when we need it  Collaboration – let’s try to match formats, schemas where we can  Open Data Sharing – make your data easier to get to

10.  2013 County Boundaries (Regional Data Catalog)  2013 Muni Boundaries (Regional Data Catalog)  2010 Census Data (Regional Data Catalog)  2012 InfoGroup Regional Business (DVD by request)  2012 InfoGroup Regional Residential (DVD by request)  2010 Buildings by Jurisdiction (DVD by request)  2011 Scheduled Dev. by Jurisdiction (DVD by request)  2012 Open Space by Jurisdiction (DVD by request)

11.  How to request data:  Email Ashley - asummers@drcog.orgasummers@drcog.org  Remember that you must have a signed data sharing agreement in place to get the InfoGroup data (and maybe the other stuff too)!  Data Delivery:  Via DVD in May/June/July or as signed agreements are received.

13.  What was said at our roundtable discussion?  Creating fewer, more focused subcommittees in 2012.  Data Dash was a good idea; would like to see it used for smaller objectives to make it more focused and thus more successful.  Aligning objectives with other agencies and regional initiatives, like OIT and NCR. For example, using the NCR agreement points as a guideline for the boundaries subcommittee is a beneficial collaborative effort.  Tech and Policy Teams were a great idea and should continue into 2013.

14.  Continue to pursue the regional boundary layer, possibly with DRCOG serving as a BAS adjudicator (US Census).  Subcommittees need a champion/sponsor (such as an agency like Denver Water or Urban Drainage) to make them successful.  Use the Data Dash idea for the Boundaries subcommittee.  Continue to pursue collaboration between the OIT Address Points Initiative and the DRCOG Built Environment Initiative.  Progress on data sharing agreements is paramount in 2013. DRCOG will not pursue a role as BAS Adjudicator. We need suggestions. Josh (DRCOG) completed the 2013 boundaries layer. DRCOG will pursue this partnership. Will need a new strategy if we want to pursue. Grassroots?

15.  One of our major objectives…  Determining a strategy for encouraging data sharing.  Status  Data Sharing Policy – Results from the 3/20 Board Meeting  The board took no action on the board memo and resolution stating that they did not feel it was appropriate for the board to legislate on this issue. Among their comments, they mentioned the following:  The message was too forceful.  They would prefer we handle data sharing issues on an individual jurisdiction basis.  Board members would like to be notified when their staff does not respond to DRCOG.  They were under the impression that their staffs were already required to submit data. This was an incorrect assumption and it was not addressed further.

16.  Meet less frequently  No subcommittees  New goal for the group – information sharing, brainstorming, collaborating  Participatory – our members share something from their communities at the meetings  DRCOG Newsletter to you regarding our data efforts?