Present were (authorized to vote *):

Complete Meeting Agenda

MAJOR MEETING TOPICS

NOTICE OF MEETING: A public notice of the meeting, pursuant to Section 84-1411 R.R. S. 1943, was published in the Lincoln Journal-Star on March 2, 2000.

ROLL CALL: Chairperson Lash Chaffin called the meeting to order at approximately 1:00 p.m. and requested a call of the roll. Twelve duly authorized representatives were present at the time of the roll call. Therefore, a quorum was present to conduct business.

MINUTES: Chairperson Lash Chaffin requested approval for the January minutes. Dayle Williamson moved for the minutes of the January 20, 2000 Steering Committee meeting to be approved as distributed. Mark Kuzila seconded. As no discussion was desired, Larry Zink called roll and the motion passed. (see vote #1 on Voting Record sheet).

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS FOR MULTI-PURPOSE LAND INFORMATION SYSTEMS: Erik Hubl reported that the Advisory Committee will be ready for the Steering Committee to consider the cadastral section for approval at the May meeting. This section has been distributed to the assessors of 73 counties, to every municipality that is a city, all villages with an electric company, city clerks and the NRD's. Erik noted that at this point, there has been very little feedback.

One element the Advisory Committee was really hoping to get feedback on is the parcel ID number. This section was drafted as a proposal for discussion but it has not received much comment. They hope to get more information about how others have designed their PIN number at the upcoming Western Governors Association Cadastral Forum.

Currently, the Advisory Committee is working on a generic introduction to GIS and the guidebook, objectives of the guidebook, government applications and a "Other Data Layers" section.

GIS-RELATED NITC ACTION PROPOSALS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS: Larry Zink announced that the NITC adopted all of the action plans proposed by the GIS Steering Committee and included them in the first Statewide Technology Plan. Several of these action plans originate in activities that the Steering Committee is already engaged in.  Larry indicated that he would appreciate the Steering Committee reviewing them again as this represents a significant commitment by the Steering Committee and therefore his time.

I. Develop and adopt strategies for the cooperative intergovernmental development, maintenance and distribution of priority statewide digital geospatial (GIS) databases. Larry noted that there are four working Committees in place already, and that this action plan sets a timeline for concrete results to be achieved. He also suggested that this was probably a good time to review whether these was a priority database for which the Steering Committee did not create an Advisory Committee, but perhaps should in light of the statewide technology plan action item.

Mark pointed out that there are issues beyond the simple collection of data. The key issue is properly applying and using the data after it has been collected. Larry said that if there is something with respect to use and education that needs to be added to the Technology Plan, this is the opportunity to do so.

Larry asked if an Advisory Committee needs to be created to work on the soils database. Dayle said that he didn't feel that would not be necessary. Mark again pointed out that correct use and application of the data is a more critical issue. Larry commented that it was something that could be added to the recommendations submitted by the Committees to the NITC for the next statewide technology plan and asked how Mark envisioned this effort coming about with respect to the Soils database.

Mark said that the NRC has been largely focused on developing data and that the bulk of the burden of education and interpretation should probably fall upon the NRCS and the CSD. This is an issue that will need to be addressed with all of the databases under development, however, and some discussion needs to take place as to how the other groups intend to deal with it. Larry said that hopefully the working groups for all the other databases that can generate any needed recommendations for education.

II. Conduct a study to determine the need for and merits of establishing a funding mechanism dedicated to facilitating collaborative intergovernmental efforts to develop priority statewide geospatial databases. Larry explained that this action item is designed to build the Steering Committee's case for the need for a collaborative funding mechanism at the state level. He requested assistance in working toward achieving this goal and determining the best approach to clarifying the need for these databases and the end cost. He envisions the first step as addressing the database committees to ask for specific cost savings benefits from them. Another angle is to visit the legislative fiscal office and the Governor's budget people to determine what information would be most useful to them.

Jim Brown indicated that he met with Cliff Welsh and Larry Worrell about this issue and all three will likely want to be involved in any efforts relating to this item.

Larry commented that this is a political item. Jim Langtry observed that the funding seems to be geared toward databases that need to be developed at the local government level. Larry said that funding needs to be made available for both local government efforts and statewide efforts.

III. Develop and adopt a strategy to facilitate the modernization of local government land information systems (property ownership records, maps, etc.), addressing the needs for compatibility across jurisdictional boundaries and adequate funding. (Action Items #3) Larry said that due to the sheer scope of the effort involved, this is the only action item with a two-year timeline. The charge with this action item is to get the various affected parties to the table to determine how the state intends to partner with local government.

Dayle agreed that the strategy should be to begin working with the Governor's budget staff and the Legislative budget staff and determine what agency is going to support this if possible. Any recommendations need to be complete by September 15, 2000 if it is to be included in the budget. Code agencies will receive guidance from the Governor as to whether it should be put in the budget.

Lash recalled that last year Steve Schafer was interested in seeing some sort of pilot study that could be used to demonstrate cost benefits and suggested that a particularly attractive county database that fitting that description could be developed. Larry said that it can be done but it is extremely complex. Jim Brown added that while such a study is possible, the numbers generated are not necessarily germane to the rest of the state.

Larry explained that his impression is that the Steering Committee needs to come to a consensus about who will be a part of this working group. Currently, that includes the Steering Committee, Property Taxation Office, the State Surveyor's Office, realtors, NACO, etc. People with knowledge both of this area and the politics need to be connected to form this advisory committee as soon as possible. Larry has consulted with Cathy Lang who indicated a preference to work this issue through the Steering Committee.

Jim Brown expressed concern that there has been discussion regarding the transaction stamp tax for five years with no action taken. There has been discussion about developing regional map centers but nothing has been done. There is considerable frustration in some circles regarding the Steering Committee's lack of action with respect to these issues and a feeling that something should be put together even though it may not be necessarily be the perfect solution. Regional map centers are needed in the rural counties and they cannot put them together without assistance.

Duane maintained that the reality is that this technology has been around long enough to pique public interest and unless some move is made, the ability to take effective action and generate interest will pass. Jim Brown said that the issue is no longer proving that GIS is the way to do cadastral and tax mapping at the county level. That point has been made and proven. The issue is where to uncover funding, not proving the cost benefits ratio of converting to automated mapping.

Duane said that the DOQ's could be utilized for emergency response efforts without a tremendous expenditure and would provide a platform to start building other applications in these rural counties. Jim Brown moved to form a committee comprised of Duane Stott, Larry Worrell, Jim Brown, Cliff Welsh, and anyone else who might be interested to develop both funding and a methodology to address these local government issues. Larry suggested it would be helpful to have someone from the Policy Research Office involved. Jim Brown agreed since the remainder of the proposed committee members represent local government interests. Larry added that Property Tax Division should also be included. Jim Brown agreed they should be involved but that this issue is designed to assist rural outlying counties to create the funding to develop a regional map centers rather than to assist the counties who are already under the Property Tax Division. Jim Langtry suggested involving the League and NACO as well.

Lash requested a second to the motion. Dayle seconded. Lash did not believe that the League would be a good partner in this endeavor because, politically, the League brings a broader constituency to the table who might be opposed to it. NACO, however, should definitely be included. Jim Brown said that NACO is already involved via Cliff and Larry Worrell. Jim Brown said that he was not opposed the participation of any agency but feels that this group needs to be kept small to allow action to be more quickly taken. He hopes to have something on the table by late summer.

Larry clarified that this committee will be charged with pursuing this action item; develop and adopt a strategy facilitating modernization of local government land information systems.

Jim Brown added that they also plan to address the issue of locating some funding mechanism. Larry indicated that there is a distinction for him between the need for funding to assist local government and the need for resources to do statewide databases. Jim Brown explained that this committee will be dealing with the local government assistance portion of this. If the Committee later wants to expand this committee or methodology to include statewide databases that will be fine. Initially, Jim would like this committee streamlined enough to deal with the local government issue of finding a methodology for local government to deal with and fund this technology. Larry agreed, adding that that definition was what he had intended when he wrote the document.

Dan expressed concern that with largely local government representation on the committee state needs might not be addressed. In addition, with a September 15 deadline, there is not much time to complete this project. While this committee is working, the four advisory groups would be well advised to draw up a budget proposal addressing the eventual cost of developing these databases. This would allow the Governor's office and the Legislature to see how much it will cost and what the money will be spent on. It doesn't make sense to locate the funding before there is some concept of what the money will be spent on. Another potential funding avenue may be LB 1349 which earmarks two cents of the cigarette tax for technology infrastructure. $900,000 of that money is under the control of the NITC.

Larry commented that the need for regional centers is surfacing in a number of dialogues, not just GIS. Local government needs technical support to move into E-government and regional centers appear to be an attractive solution. There are two pieces to this, defining the technical structure and determining how to sell the concept.

Jim Brown said that no plan or idea in this realm is meaningful, especially with respect to county government, without NACO's involvement. NACO is a key player in this arena and there is no chance of making progress unless their support is obtained. Larry added that the additional support of the administrative and legislative branches of government would be helpful as well. Dennis Wilson asked if this must all be accomplished prior to September 15. Jim Brown explained that the accelerated timeline has more to do with the legislative cycle than the budget cycle. If this issue is not addressed this year, then it will be two more years before it can surface again. Larry commented that at this point, it may be more a matter of planting the seed than of getting the Legislature to act.

Larry clarified that the motion on the table is to create an advisory committee for Local Government Land Record Modernization. Larry Zink called the roll and the motion passed. (see vote #2 on Voting Record sheet).

Dayle said that in addition to this committee's efforts, it would be beneficial to have a champion in the Legislature introduce a resolution calling for an Interim study. Lash suggested calling Larry Worrell to ask one of the county friendly senators to have the resolution put on the agenda.. Dayle observed that this will go well with the Governor's bill to assist the counties.

IV. Conduct an educational outreach program designed to maximize the overall return on local government investments in the development of geographically referenced databases and GIS systems by providing educational materials, presentations and coordination services to the public officials who will be making these investment decisions. Larry explained that the Committee has previously submitted a similar proposal under the DAS budget but it didn't make it through the final budget deliberations.

Larry reported that Steve Schafer had indicated that this item would probably be rolled into other requests for funding for educational efforts under the Statewide Technology Plan but as the Technology Plan was compiled, there was not enough time to do so. Currently, no on is requesting funds either from the Governor's budget or the legislative appropriations to fund this project. There is the possibility of obtaining short-term funding via the state collaborative information technology grants. The danger in pursuing short-term funding is in developing and implementing a program and only having enough capital for the first year. Several groups interested in collaboration are in this position now.

Larry reported that Schafer had suggested the possibility of applying for a grant to develop content.  Brown indicated he didn't think that addresses the real issue. A permanent staff person is needed to provide outreach and education to interested counties. Larry indicated he wasn't sure if this was the best approach, but that he had checked with IMServices and they are prepared to apply for a grant on behalf of the Steering Committee, if that is the wishes of the Committee.  

Jim Brown expressed concern that acquiring funding for one year would open the possibility that the outreach program established would generate more interest than could be handled by the Steering Committee with its available funds. The grant is not reliable money and the Committee needs to ask for staff and appropriations from the legislature to obtain consistency and stability. Because it is difficult to request funds from the Governor's budget, non-code agencies and local representatives should call the Governor and the DAS Director and ask them to request an additional GIS staff person once the Statewide Technology Plan is a published document. Dayle pointed out one complicating factor is that all agencies have a personnel ceiling. For the DAS director to request personnel, she will have to determine what to give up. Jim Brown agreed, adding that was why it is important to call. DAS must be convinced before September 15, but not too early. June is a good time to begin making calls because that is about the time agencies begin working on budget plans. Jim Merchant also expressed concerns about the merits of the one-year grant approach.  As a result of this discussion, the Committee decided to not pursue an NITC grant for this education and outreach program at this time.

V. NITC Community Council works with the GIS Steering Committee to develop guidelines for core local government, multipurpose geospatial datasets; and model inter-local agreements for the cooperative development, maintenance and funding of geographic information systems core data. Larry explained that this action item was not submitted by the Steering Committee but by NIDCAC as the result of a local government technology study completed in response to a bill introduced by Senator Wehrbein during the last session. The need for coordination at the local government level was identified in the area of developing geospatial databases. The proposal recommends that the Community Council work with the GIS Steering Committee to develop guidelines for core local government multi purpose geospatial datasets. The Steering Committee has this element well in hand via its Multipurpose Land Information Systems Advisory Committee. The action item also proposes that these two groups should collaborate to create model interlocal agreements for the cooperative development, maintenance and funding of core geospatial data. Although much of these objectives are already being addressed by the Steering Committee, this action item provides and opportunity to have the NITC Community Council become a partner.

It may make more sense to work with the existing committee and ask the NITC to join these efforts rather than creating another body. The NITC is aware of the Steering Committee's efforts, but some sort of dialogue needs to be initiated, formally inviting them to participate. Having the Community Council's active participation would be of benefit to the Steering Committee. Jim Brown suggested beginning work with the existing group and creating a new one only if the objectives turn out to be too divergent. While this issue addresses the problem of creating partnerships and the existing committee is more focused on obtaining funding, the two matters dovetail nicely.

NITC TECHNICAL STANDARDS RECOMMENDATION. Larry explained that this refers to the draft NITC technical standards language that was tabled at the last meeting pending verbage changes related to the metadata portion.  Larry also noted that there is now nothing particularly pressing about working with this as the deadline for inclusion into the initial NITC's State Technology Plan has passed. There was general agreement at the last meeting that the Steering Committee should propose adoption of the FGDC metadata standards in the NITC Technical Standards; the question was whether the Committee wanted to include a recommendation in terms of usage. Last time, Larry drafted a recommendation from the Steering Committee which stated that all geospatial datasets by public agencies should be documented with metadata. The word all seemed to generate some concerns among Committee members, so Larry rewrote the draft metadata protion of the proposed standards language to read:

"Metadata. To preserve the public's investment in geospatial databases and to facilitate data sharing, public agencies should document new geospatial data it collects or produces, either directly or indirectly, with metadata compliant with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata (data describing the data). Systematic efforts should also be made to develop metadata for existing legacy geospatial data, as time and resources allow."

John Erickson said that one of the concerns was that people had already created large databases and that it may be cost prohibitive to go back an add metadata. This revised wording allows agencies to complete the change over in its own time while insuring that metadata is created as a part of all new geospatial data development. Dennis Wilson moved to approve the Technology Infrastructure Recommendations as submitted. Dick seconded. Larry Zink called roll and the motion passed. (see vote #3 on Voting Record sheet).

DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING STATEMENT: Larry Zink explained that at the last meeting, the Committee determined to enter into a dialogue with Lauren Hill from the PRO. Before approaching Lauren, Larry indicated that he thought it would be helpful to have a draft resolution to get an idea of what the Steering Committee wants to talk about with the Administration. If the Committee is generally comfortable with this draft document, the next step woubl be to go over it with the PRO.

Lash asked if the definition of 'local government' included only county government or if cities and municipalities were a part of it. Larry explained that it depends on how it is structured. The Wisconsin model is county based, but as a part of getting the money, the counties are required to form a local government coordinating committee that involves the cities. All money flows through the counties within that context, but local government coordinating committees determine who will complete what project and how much money is allocated to each. The optimum solution for Nebraska would be to have a revenue stream going to local governments to allow them to determine what makes sense in their given area.

Larry stressed the need for guidelines and local coordination, suggesting that groups requesting funding would have to have a plan before receiving money. Jim Langtry cautioned against getting too specific and eliminating NRD and other group efforts. Larry explained that the intent is to force these groups at this level to work together.

In summary, it is important for the state to get land records modernization complete. The work needs to be done at the local level with state partnership for technical expertise and resources. The Wisconsin model is one of many out there. Larry asked it there was anything included in those statements that the Steering Committee is uncomfortable entering into a dialogue with the administration about.

Dayle agreed that the points are good but would like to change the last whereas. He suggested changing that statement to read "Most of Nebraska's local governments need assistance. Resources required to automate land records so that this important information can be more easily kept current and be more accessible to a wide range of users and applications." In some cases, resources are available, they just need to be channeled in the right direction.

Jim Brown proposed altering that statement to read "Most of Nebraska's local governments need assistance to automate these land records..." Lash commented that it is difficult to make an accurate statement regarding availability of resources.

Dennis Wilson asked what the next step will be. Larry explained that after the Steering Committee expresses it general comfort with the draft document, Dan will take it to Lauren to determine what the next step will be. Dennis expressed concern about this document being presented to anyone else without being formally adopted by the Steering Committee. It would be fine for Larry to take the three points to Lauren, but not the draft document. Larry suggested removing the title GIS Steering Committee. Dennis agreed. Lash pointed out that the purpose of this document is to generate discussion rather than to take action.

GEOSPATIAL DATA SHARING COOPERATIVE: Larry said there was nothing new to report on this topic as Lauren Hill has been busy in the Legislature and current pending legislation may significantly impact this issue.

UPDATES FROM PRIORITY DATABASE ADVISORY COMMITTEES:
HYDROGRAPHY: Larry reported that there is an interagency agreement signed to do a pilot project for the Logan watershed in NE Nebraska. People will begin training next week. NRC, DWR, Game and Parks, DEQ and USGS are the signatories on that agreement. The hope is to have this pilot completed in time to get an idea of the resources required to build a statewide database.

DOQ/DEM DATABASE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Dayle reported that this pilot project is in Lancaster County. The Lancaster County Assessor and the Lower Platte South NRD is cost sharing to help do that project. The DEM's are complete but the DOQ's are not. The NAPP photography has finally been approved by the USGS. Once the photography is obtained, the DOQ's will be complete in a couple of weeks. The pilot project should be complete by April in both the State Plane and Universe Transverse Mercator projection.

TRANSPORTATION: Ed reported that this committee held its first meeting with eight people in attendance, but additional viewpoints are needed to provide a broader perspective. Roads provided some input regarding geospatial needs and requests for information. Other parties of interest need to be involved to identify areas outside of the Department of Roads that use GIS geospatial data, including E911, Emergency Management, and city and county governments, and state patrol. Fifteen or so potential members of this committee were identified with eight in attendance at the first meeting.

GOVERNMENTAL UNITS: Larry reported there has been no activity with this committee.

LAND COVER: Jim Merchant reported there has been no activity with this committee.

UPDATE ON PLSS EFFORTS: Jim Brown reported that Adams and Merrick Counties have been completed. Merrick is waiting for some GPS work. They are moving aggressively forward in Dodge County. They met with the property tax people who liked it and gave them the go-ahead. As far as the public land system is concerned, Dodge County as a whole has been completed for some time. They are now going back and completing individual parcels. There is no timeframe for this project.

Western Governor's Association GIS Council's major project is to talk about what is happening in terms of cadastral data development. It will be held in Salt Lake City. Five persons from Nebraska are planning on attending. The intent of the meeting is to share with one another what is being done in this area and to see if there are any of policy recommendations that need to be put to the Western Governors.

CENTRAL PLATTE GEOSPATIAL DATA COORDINATION: Larry Zink explained that Larry Wells spoke at the last meeting and requested assistance in developing a GIS Protocol manual. Larry Zink volunteered to work with Mark Kuzila in acquiring more information about what was needed. One question that was discussed was what level of support is there in terms some kind of coordinated effort. The entities involved are diverse and frequently do not have a common interest and Mark and Larry agreed that some consensus regarding coordination needs to be reached before moving forward. There is a proposed motion to offer the GIS Steering Committee's name to convening such a meeting.

Larry Wells said that at the previous meeting, he had the opportunity to openly discuss some of the ongoing issues with the cooperative agreement between Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming and the Department of Interior concerning GIS and mapping requirements as it relates to Nebraska's specific interest in the proposed program. Coordination of geospatial standards and requirements of the program are fairly well specific because it is a joint state/federal project and FGDC standards are mandated for all federal agencies in the program. The Mapping Committee involved in this cooperative agreement is taking the position of encouraging the use of FGDC standards by non-federal agencies to promote the widest possible use and sharing of the data.

The Mapping Committee is in close coordination with the Technical Committee which is working on the IMRC, Integrated Monitoring and Research Component. There is a definite need for this type of protocol manual that specifically spells out the requirements for geospatial data acquisition from a research and monitoring aspect. This need fits very closely with what the GIS Steering Committee is undertaking with respect to coordinating these types of digital data acquisition. If this program does go into effect as proposed, digital cadastral information will probably be added to that list of information layers. There is a definite need for verification of what are termed third party impact with respect to economic and tax issues.

Mark commented that Larry Wells has been working with people for the last couple of years trying to get something done in this arena. Larry Wells contacted Mark who felt that it was his duty to bring this to the attention of the Steering Committee. They are now ready, once the Steering Committee approves the action, to call a meeting of the major players in this cooperative effort in the Kearney area. This is an opportunity to help this group get some coordination efforts moving.

Dayle said that the cooperative agreement was a 3 year effort that ends July1 of this year. The cooperative members were all aware that the project could not be completed in that time period, but the document does allow for a six-month extension by the Governance Committee. The cooperative agreement also sets aside 75 million dollars of federal and three state funding for development of the program and the first increment, which is 13 years in length. They are developing a water action plan that is becoming very costly. It appears that it will run $40 million over the original funding allotment. Naturally, the participating state governments and the federal government are all protesting the overrun. Dayle inherited chairmanship of the Finance Committee and they are going back to each of the Committees and asking what they can give up to stay within the budget. Each committee provides its budget to the Finance Committee and the Finance Committee runs the budgets back through the Governance Committee. Any finances that may be needed for coordination efforts will have to undergo this procedure.

Larry Zink clarified that in helping to convene this meeting the Steering Committee is only committing to assist with the first step, facilitating the process and asked if the Committee might be stepping on toes by coming forward. Larry Wells said that since all of the data sets being prepared by the government people are public domain data sets this is for the public good. One of the critical factors with respect to much of the controversy surrounding the river, ground water, and surface water is trying to level the playing field as far as data standards so that everyone is working with the same accuracy and precision of data. That is where the protocol manual comes in, spelling out the standards for the various entities involved.

Mark moved to adopt the draft motion 'To explore interest in and support for enhanced coordination of geospatial data development, as it relates to the Central Platte area, the GIS Steering Committee endorses efforts to convene a meeting of interested parties and authorizes the use of its name and good offices to facilitate the convening of such a meeting.'. Dayle seconded. Larry Zink called roll and the motion passed. (see vote #4 on Voting Record sheet).

GIS/LIS ASSOCIATION: Scott reported that they held the first GIS Forum of the millennium. Chief Cassidy gave a presentation on GIS in criminal justice. There will be another forum April 6.

As of last month, membership in the Association is over 100. They will be revisiting the bylaws regarding the issue of corporate memberships as there has been some corporate interest.

John Erickson will be the new Nebraska GIS Symposium Chair. It appears the 2001 conference will be held at the Cornhusker Hotel.

Scott McIntyre is putting together a slate of new officers to be voted on at the next meeting. Any interested parties should prepare and submit a short biography.

The next meeting will be held at the University of Nebraska Kearney. The Steering Committee is invited to hold their meeting in conjunction with the Association. A short agenda for the meeting is breakfast, GIS/LIS Association Business meeting from 10-12, break for lunch, and the Steering Committee meeting from 1:30-4:30 with some break out sessions. GIS Symposium Planning Committee, Association Objectives, Education etc.

Jim Brown commented that it has been nearly a year since this Association began. There was some concern about whether the time was right to organize such an organization. Since its inception, the GIS/LIS Association has exceeded all expectations and the Board deserves a round of applause.

Dennis moved to hold the next Steering Committee meeting in Kearney. Mark seconded. Larry Zink called roll and the motion passed. (see vote #5 on Voting Record sheet).

Larry asked what should be on the agenda. There was some discussion regarding having reports on the status of some of the priority databases, some quick reports regarding what various agencies are doing and a period of discussion during which suggestions regarding additional Steering Committee activities could be made. Lash commented that with so many users there, it would be well worth the time it takes to provide updates. Ed added that given the location, there is the potential to reach a lot of people who ordinarily would not attend a Committee meeting and possibly generate some interest in GIS activities around the state. Lash suggested asking for additional discussion and commentary following each presentation. Larry pointed out that it could easily take at least two hours.

STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS UPDATES AND AGENCY GIS ACTIVITIES: Jim Langtry reported that Lancaster County is still involved in a pilot project to complete an update of the height modernization. There is a meeting scheduled for next week to further coordinate those efforts.

Jim Merchant reported that the CSD's part of the COHYST project, which is the mapping of crops and irrigated lands, should be complete within a week. CSD is trying to link some of their activities to allow for more efficient delivery of data. They also want to include data on CD-Rom.

Mark reported that the Division is continuing to work on an update of the ground water level maps. Along with the CALMIT/COHYST activity, they just delivered a 1997 center pivot inventory map to the cartographers that will be available in digital format soon. The last center pivot map was issued about nine years ago.

Ed reported that the DOR GIS strategic plan will be getting off the ground. The agency has made final preparations with the consultant to come in and convene a preliminary meeting with Roads on GIS. Those are scheduled for sometime in April.

Erik reported that they have had an Internet map server application property information available on the web. All 90,000 parcels are available and can be accessed to determine property assessment and values.

Other Business: Duane explained that there was an informational meeting in Scottsbluff two weeks ago held by a consultant who is working on a wireless study as a result of LB446. This may a good opportunity for the GIS Steering Committee to stress the importance of GIS and GPS.

Larry Zink said that he drafted a letter to the Advisory Committee that is charged under statute to design a plan for a statewide wireless architecture. The letter stresses the importance of GIS/GPS technology interfacing with these efforts and to seriously consider the implications of that in their plan. The Steering Committee's assistance was offered, should they be interested.

Duane added that the Advisory Committee's timeline includes fact finding and user informational meetings from January to April 2000. This means that if the Steering Committee is going to have any input, this is the time for it.

Larry Zink asked if there were any concerns about sending the letter to the Advisory Committee. There were none.

Lash asked if there was anything inconsistent with what Tom Nesbitt, head of the State Patrol, wants in terms of linking communications in all his cars. Duane said that the State Patrol was represented at the meeting. This is really a radio communications initiative but there is the potential for GIS here.

Larry Zink noted that the annual election of officers will be held at the next meeting. Unless there are objections, the Committee will follow past policies.

Larry Zink announced that April 14-16 will be the Emergency Managers Annual Conference. They have extended an invitation for the Steering Committee to attend the conference and sponsor a booth.

Larry Zink stated that he received a message from Lauren Hill regarding a piece of legislation regarding access to public records. LB628 makes clear that a copy of public databases must be provided upon request within three days in a digital form for duplication costs. Lash explained that only NACO and the League showed up to oppose it.   A reasonable cost of reproduction can be billed but not development costs. Larry Zink asked if there had been any discussion regarding privacy issues. Lash said there was but that no one had shown up at the hearings to oppose it. It is on a fast political track, has advanced over General File and is now Select File.

The next meeting will be May 11, 2000 at the GIS/LIS Association Meeting in Kearney, Univ. of Nebraska - Kearney Student Union. The meeting was adjourned.

"P"=present, "A"=absent, "+"=voting for, "-"=voting against, "NV"=not voting