| This Web-based document was archived by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library. |
 |
|
|
 |
Electronic Real Estate Recording Task ForceMEETING MINUTES Minutes: 12 October 2000 As recorded by Bob Horton Present: (Members) David Arbeit, Stephen Baker, Ann Burkhart, Jeff Carlson, David Claypool, Michael Cunniff, Larry Dalien, Susan Dioury, Dennis Distad, Don Goedken, Marty Henschel, Bob Horton, Charles Hoyum, Charles Jensch, John L. Jones, Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, Paul Kiltinen, Cindy Koosman, Denny Kron, Charles Krueger, Richard Little, Paul McGinley, Gail Miller, Mark Monacelli, Bill Mori, Leonard Peterson, John Povejsil, Bonnie Rehder, Eileen Roberts, Dennis Unger, Joseph Witt. (Guests) Bill Batcher, Bert Black, Luci Botzek, Lisa Fisher (via telephone), Tiffanie Heben, Brandon Lobb, Erling Rood, Lisa Skipton, Richard Wendt. 1. Call to order Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer called the meeting to order at 9 A.M. 2. One minute introduction and summary by members of why they are on the task force All those present introduced themselves and explained what group, organization or profession they represented and what they brought to the task force. Afterwards, Secretary Kiffmeyer thanked the participants and underscored the significance of including as many viewpoints as possible in the work plan. She noted that her office would contact the legislators who are members of the task force, to ensure that they have the opportunity to comment on the draft. 3. What interested parties want from an electronic real estate task force In response to an earlier request, reiterated by email on 11 October, a number of people had submitted written statements on what they and the entities which they represented wanted from the task force. These were distributed at the meeting. The following briefly commented on their statements:
Secretary Kiffmeyer urged other groups on the task force to draft and submit short statements summarizing their interests. The meeting recessed for 15 minutes to let those in attendance begin that work. When the final products are ready, the Secretary of State’s Office will distribute them on the task force’s listserv for review and comment. 4. Presentation of work plan and discussion of major concerns At the September meeting, a number of people had volunteered to meet to develop a framework for the report to the legislature. They were constituted as the "framework committee." Eileen Roberts presented their outline of the work plan outline. The draft was distributed to the task force listserv on 11 October. She described the principles behind it. The goal was to be as inclusive as possible, to raise all the issues pertinent to electronic real estate recording and which ought to be explored, but without drawing any conclusions or making any decisions about them. She asked that any comments and questions be posted to the listserv by 19 October, so that the framework committee could prepare a revised draft for the task force’s November meeting. Lisa Skipton and David Claypool asked for clarification of item 9 ("creating a simplified platting process that would facilitate reference to real estate parcels that are subject to metes and bounds…"). The issue had been advanced in a legislative proposal some years back and was not well received; it would need to be closely studied. Eileen Roberts agreed and noted that the plan only recommends what should be studied. Lisa Fisher asked if the plan could include a statement about the role of notaries. She will propose some language and post it to the listserv. Charles Jensch suggested adding a reference to uniform fees and charges; he will draft a statement for review. Stephen Baker recommended a numbering system for the drafts of the plan, to distinguish among them. The version presented at this meeting will be the original; the next draft will be version 1. Paul McGinley noted that paper and electronic record keeping systems will probably co-exist for some time. He asked: How will the systems cohere? How will the implementation process will work? How will the official record be determined? He then raised the issue of whether technology would progress more quickly than the task force, making some of the topics moot. Would a smaller scope make for a more realistic agenda? Eileen Roberts and Bill Mori agreed that this could be a conclusion of the task force. The preparation of a timeline for the report would create a framework for answering that question. Secretary Kiffmeyer pointed to the draft outline of the report on the meeting’s agenda. That listed the components as currently defined; the framework committee is engaged in putting them together for review at the November meeting of the task force. Mark Monacelli asked that the recorders’ role in the development of electronic real estate recording be reflected in the history component; Secretary Kiffmeyer agreed and asked him to draft what the recorders would like to see included. 5. Recorders’ survey of technological resources Cindy Koosman reported on the recorders’ survey of technological resources. Of the 87 counties in the state, 57 had responded. She distributed a preliminary, high level analysis of the data collected. She noted that this documented the recorders’ work with and interest in technology. She pointed out the low level of resources committed to their technology budgets; in light of that, she added that only funds dedicated exclusively to electronic real estate recording will enable automation in the counties. The Minnesota Association of County Officers will continue to collect and compile data for the survey. Cindy Koosman will keep the task force apprised of the process and its results. 6. Date of next meeting The next meeting of the task force is scheduled for 16 November at 1:00 P.M. 7. Approval of minutes The minutes of the 14 September meeting were approved as distributed. The meeting adjourned at 11:20.
|
|
Send
comments regarding this site to: Updated: 08/21/01(jhr) |