Second Meeting Documentation

**MOT Project Requirements:**

**Overview** --- The capabilities to be able to bring the Municipalities data down from a GIS HUB environment to a local File Geodatabase as an entry point to our existing Utility Coordination data processing job, in order to accomplish the third item, still questionable, need more testing, and if it is found as a feasible solution, we would still need to complete the development required to download that data to be integrated with the current workflow.

- _CIP Project data_: Get the Municipalities’ (City of Miami, City of Coral Gables) data via the existing workflow (File Geodatabase sent over SFTP), and integrate their data to our current data processing workflow.

- _MOT’s data: Get the Municipalities’_ (City of Miami, City of Coral Gables) data via the existing workflow (File Geodatabase sent over SFTP), and integrate their data to our current data processing workflow. I understood, we agreed on leveraging the existing schema used for processing CIP Projects in our current Utility Coordination solution, but with the addition of “MOT” as another possible value to the domain restricting the possible values for the FACTYPE (FACILITY TYPE) field in the required schema.

- _(Tentative for next meeting)_ About data transfer via HUB vs via SFTP, we agreed that for the next meeting deadline, the Municipalities will start by sending the required File Geodatabase with their data meeting the agreed schema via SFTP, and we would look further into the option of using HUB as the data transfer environment. The capabilities to be able to bring the Municipalities data down from a GIS HUB environment to a local File Geodatabase as an entry point to our existing Utility Coordination data processing job, in order to accomplish this action item, still questionable, need more testing, and if it is found as a feasible solution, we would still need to complete the development required to download that data to be integrated with the current workflow.