ROLL CALL: Chairperson Jim Brown called the meeting to order at approximately 1:10 p.m. and requested a call of the roll. Ten duly authorized representatives were present at the time of the roll call. Therefore, a quorum was present to conduct business.

MINUTES: Chairperson Jim Brown requested approval for the February minutes. Yvonne Norton-Leung moved for the minutes of the March 12, 1998 Steering Committee meeting to be approved as distributed. Dennis Burling seconded the motion. As no discussion was desired, Larry Zink called roll and the motion passed unanimously (see vote #1 on Voting Record sheet).

NEW MEMBERS: According to LB924, three new members have been added to the Steering Committee, one from the Property Tax Division, one from the Nebraska Game and Parks and a federal representative. The federal representative has yet to be appointed. The Game and Parks representative and the Property Tax representative were both absent at the time of the welcome. Catherine Lang, PTD, arrived a little later.

GIS RELATED LEGISLATION: Rod Armstrong reported that there were provisions in LB924 to create the Nebraska Information and Technology Commission. It also placed additional members on the Steering Committee. It made reference to the Steering Committee being asked to advise the Chief Information Officer in setting information technology policy and to provide assistance as requested by the NITC in support of the technical panel. There are likely to be no immediate requests forthcoming. Initially introduced as LB483, the Nebraska Plane Coordinate System Act was also inserted into LB924 and became law as a result of the passage of LB924. A prior Steering Committee recommendation, that the State Surveyors office be given additional responsibilities in the area of assisting local governments with cadastral mapping, also passed as part of LB924, along with some additional resources.

Larry Zink pointed out that the due date for the Steering Committee’s Annual Report had been moved from July.

Yvonne Norton-Leung said that there was a $250,000 fund to support technological collaboration between large state agencies and smaller local agencies. There is the potential that GIS may have some role within this fund. Rod said that the IRC would be meeting on June 1 and developing some criteria. They will be recommending the Commission adopt this and the funds will become available July 1. He suggested the Steering Committee look at this as a source for funding collaborative projects.

Larry noted that the specific wording in LB924, that relates to the GIS Steering Committee are part of the agenda packet.

Jim Brown said that Rod Armstrong is moving on. His last day is June 1 so this will be his last meeting. Chairperson Jim Brown also noted that Cathy Lang from the Property Tax Division had arrived.

Jim Merchant asked when the Chief Information Officer would be appointed. Rod believes that this position will not be filled permanently until the next administration but there will be someone appointed in an acting capacity. Jim said that in terms of the Steering Committee interacting with this office, there was no rush. Rod agreed there was no rush but further pointed out that he believes the Steering Committee will have cause to interact with the Chief Information Officer as well as the Information Resources Cabinet before the year is out. Other positions for coordinators for the information office have been advertised. Funding becomes available July 1.

EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS:

1. 1998 Mid-America GIS Symposium: Jim Merchant thanked Yvonne for her comments at the start of the conference as well as all the participants. This was the largest meeting to date. There was a final count of 600, which exceeds the prior record by 100 persons. He added his appreciation for all assistance. Yvonne suggested a special recognition be extended to Jim for bringing the group to Nebraska and for raising awareness in Nebraska of GIS. There were a large number of people who attended who were completely new to the concept of GIS.

 
2. National Association of Emergency Management (NAEM): Terry reported that NRC has sent staff members to the Hastings event. They discussed DOQ’s, GIS, surface soils and the Internet.

 
3. NACO: Larry explained that this is coming up and he is interested in soliciting idea about how to most effectively and creatively use this opportunity. At this early date, he believes that they would be open to program suggestions should any be forthcoming. The dates will be December 1-3. This is an important event for the Steering Committee. Larry suggested that perhaps some ideas could be taken from the Mid-America GIS Symposium in terms of what areas people have interest in. Perhaps a repeat of the Lincoln/Lancaster County program would be appropriate. Yvonne stated that this is part of the education mandate that the Steering Committee has taken on even more strongly this year. She suggested a presentation by a panel group and further proposed that the content be directed at county officials and other people who are not familiar with the possibilities of GIS. The most important people to begin reaching are those who make the financial decisions in terms of allocation of resources. This should be something that a beginner would be comfortable coming into and not just technically focused.

 
4. 1999 Nebraska GIS Symposium: Jim Brown said that there was a short lunch meeting to discuss this topic and there are some things the Committee needs to be aware of. First, based on both the last symposium and the Mid-America symposium, there may not be as many volunteers available to help put the 1999 symposium together. Secondly, the timing of this meeting is not in as strong a position, coming a year after the Mid-Am Symposium. Given these two points, they were trying to come up with a way to bring this into something that the Committee can deal with. In addition, the Committee has discussed the need for Nebraska to create a GIS users group and how to tailor the 1999 GIS Symposium into a vehicle to create and help sponsor a users group. The area at the Cornhusker has been reserved, although no contract has been signed, and the Professional Surveyor’s Association of Nebraska has pledged financial backing, but the level of energy that is available is unknown. Jim proposed that the conference be scaled back to two days, with the first day consisting solely of workshops and the second day consisting of a meeting and perhaps some breakout in the afternoon. Instead of being the Nebraska 1999 GIS Symposium, this would be the first annual meeting of the Nebraska GIS Users Group. The user group would be created at that time and they would create a slate of officers. Any money that would come back to the GIS community from the proceeds from this would flow into the GIS users group thus providing funding for them and their operations for the upcoming year. This would get this organization up and running and allow the Steering Committee to do more educational outreach to those people who are not aware of the potential of GIS. Jim explained that this is just a very broad proposal at this time and that they had also considered moving it to a less elaborate facility than the Cornhusker as well.

• The floor will be opened for nominations
• Nominations must have a second.
• A motion is necessary to cease nominations.
• Nominations will be subject to a vote by secret ballot.
• Names would be read as they are opened.
• Individuals are elected, not agencies or their designees.
• Officers are elected for a term of one year, from July 1 to July 1.

Jim Brown opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chair. Dayle Williamson nominated Lash Chaffin for Vice Chair. Dennis Burling seconded the nomination. As there were no further nominations, Rod Armstrong moved to bring nominations to a close. Dayle Williamson seconded. Dayle Williamson moved to suspend the rules and cast a unanimous ballot to elect Lash Chaffin vice Chair. The motion passed (see vote #4 on Voting Record sheet).

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS FOR MULTI-PURPOSE LAND INFORMATION SYSTEMS: Erik Hubl reported that the Advisory Committee has met twice since the last Steering Committee meeting. Once at the Mid-America GIS Symposium and again at 9 am this morning. He continued by clarifying a point from the previous minutes. The section stating "He explained that what it essentially comes down is a question of whether the base map will be a land base map or a DOQQ" is misleading. The use of a land base map, or vector format, goes hand in hand with the use of a digital aerial photo, such as the DOQQ’s. Each format can exist and be used in a computer environment independently, but it is the combination of these two that adds tremendous potential to any given GIS. The aerial brings intuitive visual information that can be readily understood and the vector map brings intelligence to features and allows queries and analysis to be performed. Their intent is to encourage combined usage of these maps.

Erik said that the accuracy standards for the DOQQ’s are supposed to be +33 feet. In Lancaster County, accuracy is better than + 20 feet.

The first section that was released and is online on the Internet has been reprinted in the Surveyor’s Key Essay and newsletter, so that went out to the appropriate body of people to review the geodetic section. They are hoping to get some comments back. The Advisory Committee on Standards will be submitting a glossary for inclusion on the website within the next month. Also within the next month, the second section of base mapping will be available for review. Erik also noted that the Advisory Committee has been asked to help the Property Tax Division with its the development of revised regulations related to tax maps.

The progress occurring to date has been in jumps and spurts. It is very dependent on personal office responsibilities and the time the members can contribute to the cause. The lack of any funding restricts the Advisory Committee from meeting more frequently and does not allow the task force members any relief from the driving requirements. The work now completed is the result of hundreds of emails, many hours of reading and numerous revisions. It should be obvious that the work has only just begun. However, in the development of written standards, Nebraska is not too far behind Kansas. Their standards group has been organized for nearly three years and has a very large group of people involved. They now have online Metadata Standards, Cadastral Standards and GIS Addressing Standards. They have in place a Data Access Support Center which serves as a central source of information and for data access. This promotes the integration of standards and facilitates cooperation among state, local, federal and private users. Someday, Nebraska will also need to have some sort of structure in place if it is going to effectively distribute and enforce GIS standards. Erik suggested that this is something that the Steering Committee needs to begin thinking about. DASC has a web page online. Erik encouraged Steering Committee members to look at it, as it could be a good model for Nebraska.

The second section on base mapping should be available prior to the next Steering Committee meeting. The third section, Cadastral Data, and the fourth section, Attribute Data, are currently being pulled together by several task force members but have not been looked at by the Advisory Committee as a whole. The Advisory Committee looks forward to the Steering Committee’s direction and advice as we near the one-year mark of the creation of this task force.

Jim Brown encouraged the Steering Committee to access the website for regular updates. There is a very short timeline for the development of standards. He asked that the Steering Committee give Erik and the Advisory Committee all the support possible.

PLSS PILOT PROJECT UPDATE: Chairperson Jim Brown reported that the project is behind schedule. He has spent the past week actively involved in it. This project also moves forward in jumps and spurts as Jim finds time to work with it. All the data from Adams County is in. There was excellent support in Adams County. They used the State Surveyors GPS equipment and are still in possession of it. They GPSed nearly 100 section corners in that county. They are using some of them for control and some of them for test purposes to find out how good the data is. Jim is currently trying to analyze that data to find out what the quality is like. They have checked the digitized control against about 90 or so GPS observation. It is far better than Jim had expected. The average error in the digitized section corners is 19 feet. The data in this particular county shows that with 90% assurance you can assume that the corner is within 30 feet of the digitized point. Adams is unusual in that it has section-line roads and good points to digitize through most of the county. By the next meeting, Jim hopes to have something up on Larry’s web page analyzing the Adams County data. The project was initially projected to end sometime in June but that deadline will not be met. Jim is currently seeking additional personnel as a result of LB924 and is anticipating having extra people to assist in bringing this project to a close.

Dayle Williamson asked how Merrick County was faring. Dayle indicated that according to the last minutes, Jim had reported Merrick moving along ahead of the other counties. Dayle explained his agency had offered to do GPS for Merrick County but they had refused. He was wondering how they could be moving along faster without that base information. Jim replied that he did not know where Merrick County stood with regard to this project right now. Dayle also commented that Dawson County was in need of additional educational information. Jim explained that he had not gotten to Dawson County yet, as he is the only person working on this project, but they are next on his list. Dayle said that he noticed a comment from the last minutes regarding the NRD not getting data entered and wanted to let the Committee know that the NRD has made quite a bit of progress in the past six weeks in getting this data entered. Jim said that one good thing about having Adams County out in the front is that they are learning things about this process that will be of benefit to the other counties.

The good news is that the data is better than they thought it was, the adjustment will be better than they hoped. Jim is looking at Erik’s standards and trying to dovetail this work with the proposed standards and it appears that in Adams County, the rural maps will fall within that broad spectrum of accuracy. That may not hold for all the counties. The quality of the digitized work and the section line roads not being on the section lines as you move farther west will have an effect. At least in Adams County, the data appears to be usable somewhere within the guidelines Erik’s committee is coming up with. Larry asked if that was without additional private surveying information. Jim replied that was the next step in Adams County. If they add more recent private survey information, that is already a record, to it then Jim can refine it quite a bit. The biggest problem is the poor quality of the original government surveys. In many cases, the more accurate measurements already exist at the county level, but need to be entered into the database.

FRAMEWORK DATA SURVEY: Larry Zink reported that the summary of what is happening on this topic is in the notes accompanying the agenda. The survey is winding down. It was sent out to 191 organizations, all the counties, all the NRD’s, all the first class cities, selected state agencies and federal agencies, and some public power and irrigation districts. Right now, Larry is looking at a 77% return, due in part to significant efforts in encouraging the participants to return their surveys. The counties that have not responded have mostly been counties with low populations, York County, Omaha, and OPPD being notable exceptions. Next week, Larry is hoping to do some phone follow up. Overall, the response has been very good.

The raw data has gone to a national collection point and will be returned later. John Miyoshi asked if there was still an opportunity to return the surveys. Larry said yes, but that the cut off date was the end of May.

ANNUAL REPORT: Jim Brown said that LB924 has eliminated any due date for the Annual Report. It has been recommended that November would be an appropriate time. November is just shortly before the Legislature meets and a good time for the Steering Committee because it is away from any other Committee activities.

Yvonne suggested that the Steering Committee consider their audience. Possibly the Annual Report should be associated in some fashion with the budget cycle as well as with the NITC. Because one of the Steering Committee’s concerns is funding, tailoring the Annual Report to capture the some enterprise goals would be a good way to move these concerns along with the budget. Larry asked what the effect would be of passing resolutions in support of the activities of different agencies operating within the Steering Committee. These documents would be available to back up their respective budgets, but the Annual Report would be submitted in November and would include copies of these resolutions. Yvonne said that because one of the enterprise goals is multiple agencies working together, any project having to do with GIS needs to go through the GIS Steering Committee before it goes forward. Also, before the project is reviewed or approved, it must have something that comes from the GIS Steering Committee indicating it has been reviewed and is a good idea.

Larry asked if that could be done in resolution form and then summarized in the Annual Report. Rod agreed it would work, but that the time frame that the whole process works on commences September 15 when budget requests come in. There is then a two-month analysis. The NITC, by law, has to make its recommendations to the government by November 15. If there are instances where Steering Committee wants to go on record supporting particular budget initiatives or proposing budget initiatives or proposing policy changes, the approach Larry outlined would work. However, the target date for submitting these resolutions needs to be September 15. The remainder of the Annual Report can wait until November. Rod said that this approach is an appropriate one, particularly as a means to provide guidance to those who are not familiar with GIS technology.

Yvonne said that the question of resolution versus letter recommendations is an issue that can be addressed later. Some clear indication of support or concern that funds are being allocated in an inappropriate fashion does need to be developed. In light of these issues, Jim Brown asked if the Committee wanted to set the due date for the entire Annual Report as September 15. If the resolutions are written prior to September, then it should not be that much additional work to complete the entire report. Larry Zink disagreed. Lash asked if other committees and groups, like CJIS, who write annual reports operate on the same timeline. Rod explained that CJIS was a little out of sync with the last budget cycle. Their strategic plan was completed during the legislative session last year, just in time to get some funding put into the budget. The new legislation is going to begin forcing groups to operate on the same timeframe. Lash asked if the big commission was going to be giving guidance about when the Annual Report should be done. Yvonne said that information regarding budget components was already out on the website.

Larry Zink said that he would prefer to deal with initiatives and support resolutions separate from the main body of the Annual Report. Rod commented that given the meeting schedule, that there was only one meeting scheduled between now and the budget cut off. The Committee needs to begin thinking about how to identify initiatives or issues that are surfacing. Jim Brown suggested the possibility of scheduling a meeting in August to deal with budget issues. Rod added that initiating proposals as well as reacting to other proposals would be a good idea. Yvonne said that the IRC is requesting agencies and programs to come make a short presentation to the IRC so that other agency directors are up to speed. The GIS Steering Committee is scheduled for July, which offers an opportunity for verbal communication. The target audience of the Annual Report is the legislature. There are multiple issues here. One is bringing the IRC up to speed so it can be reported on to the NITC. Another issue is any kind of budget discussion, both Steering Committee budget concerns and support for other agencies. The Annual Report is basically the wrap up report, but these are each separate issues. It would be nice to see them all roll into one another for coherency.

Jim Brown called for a motion to set the due date for the 1998 Annual Report as November 15. Yvonne made the motion and Rod Armstrong seconded it. The motion passed (see vote #5 on Voting Record sheet).

PROCESS AND STRUCTURES SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: Jon Ogden reported that at the last meeting, a subcommittee was formed to look at the Steering Committee’s operational process and structure and to make recommendations for changes to facilitate the realization of the long-term goals adopted by the Steering Committee. This subcommittee consisted of Yvonne Norton-Leung, Jon Ogden, Tom Lamberson and Larry Zink. Basically what they came up with was a structure where the Steering Committee was sitting on top of four standing subcommittees. The subcommittees could have working groups underneath them if so desired. The subcommittee report outlined how each of the proposed standing subcommittees would be initiated and/or evolved and which subcommittee would be responsible for each long-range goal (see Appendix for subcommittee report outline).

Following the presentation of the subcommittee’s recommendation, Jon returned to the ‘Priority Database Discussion List’ to generate some feedback on the agencies listed to fill the lead role. Larry provided background about these categories. Some of these categories initially got on a list 3-5 years ago as the result of a survey completed by state agencies, local governments and NRD’s regarding data needs. Fortunately, these categories dovetail fairly well with the national framework data priority databases. Yvonne pointed out that there was some question whether these databases still fulfill the needs of the agencies in question or do additions and deletions need to be considered.

Larry explained that the Subcommittee had not made recommendations for initial assessment lead agencies for two databases hydrology and soils, because the subcommittee felt they needed broader discussion due to considerable interest by several different agencies. John Miyoshi asked which agencies besides the Natural Resources Commission would handle these. Larry said the Natural Resources Conservation Service would be interested in soils, the Department of Water Resources, Game and Parks Commission, Department of Health, DEQ and more would have interest in hydrology. John Miyoshi pointed out that the Department of Water Resources was not up to speed at all. Jon Ogden explained that the Subcommittee did not feel comfortable promoting any one agency to take the lead. Yvonne suggested that perhaps a consortium of two or three agencies with high profile stakes in the database could be formed.

Larry said that his understanding was that the databases with questions would go to the Executive Committee for further discussion. No movement in terms of the lead agency assessment would occur between this meeting and the next. Yvonne proposed that the Steering Committee take a look at the list of potential lead agencies to determine if there was any disagreement and open discussion only on those databases. Jon Ogden began with Geodetic Control, assigning the State Surveyors office as the lead assessment agency. Dayle Williamson then agreed that both Digital Orthoimagery and Elevation Data definitely came under the Natural Resources Commission.

Jon continued with Transportation going to Roads. Governmental Units was assigned to the Legislative Computer Services. Yvonne explained that the Subcommittee identified state agencies only because they felt they could not allocate anyone else’s resources and this is asking for a commitment of people and time. There are many other entities that will be participating. Dennis Burling requested a definition of ‘governmental units’. Larry explained that as it is defined in the national Framework database concept, it refers to the boundaries of political subdivisions, which means that it could be municipal boundaries, school district boundaries, NRD boundaries, etc. This is one area that there is a real problem in terms of flow of information because there is no central place that this information comes to and it is a fairly dynamic area. Jim Langtry pointed out that the Property Tax Division is involved in this as well. Yvonne said that the Legislative Computer Services will be taking a prime role in the 2000 census, which is one major reason the Subcommittee selected them as the lead agency. Jon Ogden acknowledged that there will be a lot of people involved in the census, but the Subcommittee felt that this was the group who would be best in charge of the initial assessment. Lash Chaffin said he thinks Scott Moore has a subcommittee looking at this as well as trying to computerize the elections. Rod did not think that they were involved with the divisions and boundaries. Yvonne liked the idea of going to talk to Scott and Greg, explaining the situation and asking them to participate. Lash said that they are constantly having trouble with people voting in the wrong sub-district. Dennis considers this database as being no different than hydrology and soils and there needs to be a cooperative effort across a number of different agencies. Jon said that what the Steering Committee is asking these agencies to do is an initial overview of what are the needs, who are the players, what is out there, what is needed versus what is out there, who might be responsible for what parts of it. These agencies may end up doing nothing but gathering this initial assessment information and reporting it back to the Steering Committee.

Dennis Burling requested the title be changed to ‘Proposed Lead Agencies Regarding Priority Databases’ because without adding ‘proposed’ to the title, it sends an entirely different message. Yvonne agreed that there is a concern that as the legislature moves into budget allocation of resources, these agencies could be construed as the priority agencies to receive funding in these areas, which was never intended.

The Subcommittee targeted the State Surveyor’s office to lead the assessment efforts of Cadastral PLSS. Land Cover/Land Use was assigned to the Conservation and Survey Division. Property Parcels was assigned Property Tax Division, providing they were willing to accept.

Jim Brown expressed concern over the Land Cover/Land Use database because he does not know what it is. Land Cover is self explanatory but Land Use is more confusing. Jim explained that he thinks of land use in terms of taxation, and things like crop ground, irrigated land, range land, which doesn’t fit very well with Land Cover. Jim Merchant accepted the assignment for the Conservation and Survey Division.

Jon asked if these assignments were acceptable to the Committee and if the Subcommittee could ask these people to get started on their assessments. Yvonne said that the secondary question was whether the selected agencies would accept the assignments. Jon added that the two databases without a lead agency were going to be referred back to the Executive Committee. Jim Brown expressed concern over the hydrology database. It is easier to identify who is creating the soils. It is not clear with the hydrology database who is doing the most work and has the knowledge. Dayle Williamson said that the NRC has a very extensive hydrology database. It goes back to the Platte River and the Missouri Basin Commission and pulls in federal information. Yvonne explained that what the Subcommittee is looking for is an agency that is prepared to assign someone to get the survey information put together fairly quickly. Larry requested the agencies involved use the form included in the agenda package so that the data ends up being provided to the Steering Committee in a consistent form. The form will be posted on the Internet. Larry asked if a motion was needed now. Yvonne suggested the Committee move forward by consensus rather than by a motion.

Yvonne asked Cathy Lang from the Property Tax Division if her office would be willing to take on responsibility for the Property Parcels database. Cathy agreed. John Miyoshi said that the NRC is doing the survey of soils and there is no reason to have anyone but them on that unless a federal partner is going to be assigned, such as the NRCS. Further, John said that whenever he needs hydrology data, he goes to the NRC first. Yvonne suggested that the NRC take this on with the understanding that they will also check with anyone else who has hydrology database information. Jon Ogden pointed out that Dayle would need to be comfortable leading four groups. Larry expressed support for involving federal agencies. Because there is a desire for more collaboration between state and federal agencies, he proposed the Committee go to the NRCS and ask them to take the leadership role with the soils database. Lash agreed that asking them to be involved was a good idea but suggested that perhaps Dayle could approach them about this. Dayle agreed to take the lead for all four databases and to attempt to get the federal agencies involved.

Jon Ogden asked for any objections to the proposed lead agencies as listed with the NRC also taking the lead in the hydrology and soils databases. There was none, but it was noted that there was no representative from the Legislative Computer Services present to accept responsibility for the Governmental Units database. Rod Armstrong said Legislative Computer Services was the logical place for the Governmental Units database. Jon confirmed that there was consensus among the Committee members regarding the agencies selected to conduct the initial assessment of database needs.

Larry asked if there was any need to discuss the worksheet. Dennis Burling suggested that the word ‘categories’ be added to item #1. This would change the sentence to read "Identify primary Stakeholders in this particular priority database categories". In addition, references to ‘database’ on the remainder of the worksheet should be altered to read ‘database(s)’ because there can be more than one. Hopefully, the lead agencies will not just focus on one database. Larry noted the changes and announced that this worksheet will be available on the Internet.

Larry noted that one of the goals the Committee discussed was to expand the Education Committee to three members. Dennis Wilson, Lash Chaffin, and Jim Merchant have all agreed to serve. The Steering Committee also suggested John Miyoshi. John declined. Larry asked if anyone else would be interested in joining. Yvonne volunteered. John proposed getting state agency involvement. Yvonne said there needs to be a range of people from the state and local agencies as well as from the University. She indicated she would be happy to abdicate her position as soon as the appropriate people or agencies were identified.

Larry expressed some concern that there were several administrative/operational tasks in the adopted goals that were handed off to the Executive Committee. This essentially expanded the Executive Committee’s area of responsibility and gives them some ongoing obligations. Because this is somewhat of a shift from the way the Committee has operated in the past, Larry believes it merits some discussion to ensure this is actually what was intended. Yvonne asked who is on the Executive Committee. Larry said the NRC, the DEQ, Roads, the Vice Chair and the Chair. No concerns were voiced.

Yvonne pointed out a motion needed to be made to adopt the new structure. Dennis moved to adopt the structure as presented with corrections as noted throughout the presentation. Lash seconded. The motion carried (see vote #6 on Voting Record sheet).

NEBRASKA CULTURAL RESOURCES GIS PROJECT – NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY: Teresa Jacobs from the Nebraska State Historical Society explained that the Historical Society recently applied for and received an ISTEA grant through the Federal Highway Administration for further development of a statewide GIS layer that will contain all identified Nebraska archeological site, historic architectural sites, and historic transportation routes. In 1994-96, the University of Nebraska, through a pilot project study, received money from the Federal Highway Administration for a GIS layer which was developed for use by the Historical Society. What the Society is trying to do is create a layer for archeology and historic sites throughout Nebraska. The pilot project did this by converting legal descriptions into latitude/longitude. Most of the data is in legal descriptions. It has just been since the project began that the Historical Society has begun tracking locations in terms of latitude and longitude. The Society’s records go back to the early 1900’s so they have quite a bit of catching up to do. The grant money is to hire a temporary staff person to input this information from the records into a database. The information in the current database is point data and they are looking at going to polygonal data.

How this affects other people and why they went to the department of roads. Any federal undertaking in Nebraska has to go through the State Historic Preservation Office. The majority of undertakings getting clearance are from the Department of Roads. The Archeology Office has seven permanent staff people, five of which are funded by the Department of Roads. The State Historic Preservation Office also has an archeologist who actually does the clearance for this project. The Historical Society is setting up so that there will be two or three stations in Lincoln with all the information, including historic standing structures. They have also put in a layer of some historic trails and are looking at some historic maps. Teresa noted that the Historical Society was not included in the Priority Database discussion but that in the future they would very much like to utilize these resources as they develop their own system to do predictive modeling.

One of the questions addressed in the last meeting was why the Historical Society was not cooperating more with the Department of Roads. The open records law covers all the records at the State Historical Society and the site records are confidential. The Society would like to keep them that way so they will not be opening an Internet site or granting access to more people. Because there are people from the Department of Roads within the Historical Society to do clearance work for them, the Society did not feel it necessary to include the Department of Roads or provide them with a station.

Dick Genrich explained he was the one at the last meeting who questioned the application. He did not know that there were people from the Department of Roads on staff at the Historical Society. Teresa clarified that they were Historical Society personnel funded by the Department of Roads. Dick said he was not even informed of that fact previously. The way the application was written is still somewhat disturbing to him but most of his concerns have been addressed. The project itself sounds like something that the Department of Roads would support. He had a conversation with Jim Pearson just before Teresa called. Jim Pearson said that there were some concerns on the selection committee, but he has no problem with it once Dick is comfortable with it and the Steering Committee grants their approval.

Yvonne said that this is the type of project that will come to the NITC and the IRC. On the positive side, there is a good deal of collaboration between different agencies, particularly including the University and the Department of Roads. She questioned whether the funding from the Historical Society was part of an existing budget or part of next year’s budget. Teresa was not sure. The Historic Preservation Office was able to find money within their budget for the match. The previous ISTEA grant allowed the use of staff salary as part of the match. They attempted to do the same this year, but were told that it was not possible. Yvonne requested that more information on the project be forwarded to the IRC and the NITC, adding that this project meets many enterprise goals that the IRC and NITC are beginning to insist on new proposals encompassing.

Teresa said that there are not a lot of standards set for archeological databases. The Historical Society began electronically tracking their databases in 1986 and they have had one revision since then. They are still trying to get that up to date. They have been to Kansas and looked at their project. The Kansas Historical Society received $125,000 to create their GIS system and have done a beautiful job with it. The Nebraska State Historical Society has talked to the Kansas Society and will continue to look at GIS’s in surrounding states. Within the Steering Committee, there appears to be more of a state interest while the Historical Society’s GIS may attract more federal interest, as far as people wanting to use the system due to the fact that federal projects require Historical Society clearance. The Historical Society is working with the NRCS, the Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, and other people who have an interests within Nebraska. These are people the Society will be tapping for information in terms of where the federal lands are because it is treated differently and covered differently. Yvonne commented that money going into a federal project has certain kinds of information and regulations that go along with it. She found the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s report under the privacy working group as to what can and cannot be and whether the Society will need certain kinds of statutory protections. If privacy becomes an issue then they may have to look into this. Teresa responded that at the Historical Society they had dealt with federal laws, particularly repatriation. Yvonne clarified that this was in reference specifically to geographic data sharing.

Larry said that he talked to Tom Lambertson who is on the ISTEA grant approval committee. Tom made a motion to approve the grant pending the recommendation of the GIS Steering Committee, with the concern that standards be followed. In order to move the process forward, the Committee needs to take some action on it. Larry put out a query on the national list serve about standards for this and has been receiving some feedback. It does appear that there are some working groups, particularly in the western states where there is a heavy federal presence, who are developing some guidelines for this kind of database. Dennis pointed out that another reason Tom wanted this on the Steering Committee’s agenda was so that later the IRC would not come back and ask why this project did not have Steering Committee approval. That being said, Dennis moved that the Steering Committee endorse this project. Dick seconded.

Lash said that he could see the value of a Historical Society over-lay but wondered what types of information are confidential. Teresa explained that the actual location that are covered by Native American Graves Repatriation Act which states that they are required to keep the graves protected along with any other buried information. In addition, much of what is recorded is on private land and this is one means of protecting the landowner. Also, this protects the sites as cultural resources. There is a lot of looting in the southwestern states and the best way to prevent that is to keep the site locations confidential. The Historical Society almost never excavates a site for research purposes. Normally, they go in to salvage what information they can get from a site when it is in danger of being lost otherwise. Lash asked if there was some way to create an electronic block for some of the information which would keep the confidentially. For example, if the Department of Roads planned to develop an interstate in the Sandhills a flag would come up for them but no one else. Dick said that all Roads projects are cleared through the Historical Society. Teresa added that most federal agencies already have an archeologist on staff, such as the Park Service with Midwest Archeological Center and the Bureau of Reclamation with several archeologists on staff. The Historical Society fills the smaller agencies needs, such as the Department of Roads and NRCS. If it is just a well pad in Western Nebraska, they will contract with one of the larger agencies who will then subcontract. It almost requires an archeologist somewhere along the way to determine if the site needs to be looked at or not. The Historical Society is not only going to be recording new sites; they will also be recording areas that have been surveyed in the past to avoid duplication of efforts. Dick commented that about once a month there is someone who comes in looking for old cemeteries and requests copies of old maps from the Department of Roads.

The Historical Society just made their Internet presence known mid-March. They are waiting to hear from the public as to what they want the Society to provide to them. Federal agencies are asking for archeological data and the Society hopes to be able to provide that. Lash asked if there was a search mechanism set up to access old archives and quarterlies. Yvonne responded that the site was pretty minimal right now. The idea was to find out what kinds of things people wanted.

Jim Brown reminded the Committee that there was a motion on the floor to endorse this project. There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. The motion passed (see vote #7 on Voting Record sheet). Yvonne clarified that her abstention from voting was not an indication that she did not support the project. It was due to the fact that she is Chairperson of the IRC.

NEBRASKA GEOPSPATIAL DATA CLEARINGHOUSE AND NEBRASKA ONLINE: Jim Brown stated that this topic is old history but it is time to bring it back up again. He requested that discussion on this topic be limited to 25 minutes. Dennis Burling moved to pass this agreement to the Executive Committee to refine and better define it. Having read through it, he believes it is too ambiguous and needs a lot of work. Dayle Williamson seconded the motion. Yvonne asked if there was a timeline on this. Jim replied that he did not believe there was. The issue has been hanging for a year. Larry explained that Sam Somerhalder, Nebraska Online, called a month ago wanting to clear this up since the policy decisions have now been made.

Dennis clarified two reasons for wanting to send this to the Executive Committee. The document contains references to electronic data, data records, data files, and data information. The use of so many different terms is inconsistent and the Committee needs to better define what is being accomplished by this agreement. It also talks about the Nebraska GIS Steering Committee’s internal computer section, which does not exist. Dennis does not believe that references should be made to things that do not exist.

Dayle Williamson pointed out that he felt this was something that needed to go through the IRC. Rod disagreed. Dennis said that he thought there would be a number of state agencies who would be signing agreements with Nebraska Online and he had no problem with that, but he did have a problem with the wording of the document. Larry explained that this agreement is basically the standard blueprint before any effort was put into tailoring it. He did not feel there was any reason to put a lot of work into it until the Committee had discussed it. Dayle asked if the Steering Committee could make an agreement without going through the IRC. Rod said that individual agencies did that all the time. Dayle suggested the IRC had been set up as an overseer. Yvonne stated that normally individual agencies would enter into an agreement like this and the IRC would never be involved. The State Records Board has oversight over all agreements with Nebraska Online. Yvonne did not think the IRC needed to be involved either. Rod suggested Yvonne raise the question at the June 1^st meeting to get clarification.

Larry asked as a corollary to Dennis’s motion if the Steering Committee was interested in moving in this direction at all. If the Committee is not interested, then sending this document to the Executive Committee for refinement is a waste of energy. Jim Brown agreed this question was germane to the motion, which was to refer the document to the Executive Committee. Dennis said he did not understand what the intent of the agreement was without sitting down and clarifying what the Committee is trying to accomplish. Larry clarified that the intent is to maintain the existing clearinghouse with the State Records Board. Jim said that if there is opposition to doing this, he does not want to take it to the Executive Committee to argue over wording. Dennis said that if the intent is a clearinghouse, then that is the intent that needs to be stated in the agreement. Larry agreed, stating that this is simply a blueprint and that Nebraska Online is open to changes. Rod suggested that there was no reason why the Steering Committee would not execute this agreement based on clarifications and refinement. Lash asked if the Executive Committee was just going to try to tailor the agreement to encompass a clearinghouse and not dictate any new databases go through this. Larry said that in the interest of maintaining flexibility to add more that the Committee not close the door on that option. Lash added the agreement could be amended. If the Committee wants this tailored, then taking it to the Executive Committee is a good idea.

Jim closed discussion and called for the vote. The motion passed (see vote #8 on Voting Record sheet).

STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS UPDATES AND AGENCY GIS ACTIVITIES: Jim Brown reported that with respect to LB924 the Surveyor’s office has been searching for a lead person. Applications will be closing in 9-10 days. The search was nationwide and there appears to be about a half a dozen good people out of the thirty who applied. The one applicant with all the qualifications did not appear.

Dayle reported that the NRC is continuing to move along well with the Digital Elevation Models and the Digital Orthoquads. They are working in northwestern Nebraska right now. From the last legislative session, the NRC gained the responsibility to cost share on water meters for irrigation wells in the areas with the alluvium. This is in relation to the Kansas lawsuit. They are using the DOQ’s, overlaying the alluvium and overlaying the irrigation wells on that. Unfortunately, longitude and latitude do not mark the irrigation wells and the NRC is planning to encourage the NRD’s to do some additional GPSing. It will be important to know where these irrigation wells are in relation to the alluvium as Nebraska deals with Kansas on water issues.

Yesterday, Randy Strauss and the NRC staff presented a paper in Wisconsin. Using digital orthoquads, the NRC has been working in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency as they develop federal insurance rate maps. They usually only go into urban areas but there frequently is need for insurance in rural areas and that isn’t being done without maps. FEMA says that developing maps is a very expensive process and they were not going to do it. The NRC has developed a process whereby it can be done quite rapidly and FEMA is accepting that process. The presentation was made yesterday. Everything was downloaded to them off the NRC site. FEMA developed the maps at a Washington DC office and it was then presented to a national audience. Many states are still lacking in getting DOQ’s and these DOQ’s are accurate enough to do that. Certainly you if you are going to build something precisely you need to do additional surveys, but as a map for rural areas these are acceptable. It was accepted and the maps were already printed. The audience was amazed because it usually takes FEMA two years to do that and the NRC has done that in a couple of months.

The NRC sent one staff member away for grid training. They have been getting some good training back on that and it is important to carry on with it.

Dayle reported that he also heard another presentation this week from a consultant who has done an extremely good job in Tallahassee, Florida working for the people who manage the storm sewers. The consultant showed all the things they had done. They had flood plains laid out and everything had high resolution, digital orthophotos. The price was very large. Dayle thought it was a tremendous presentation but then someone asked how the flood plain managers were handling this system. The consultant replied that they were not using this system. Then someone asked how the planning department was handling the system. They are not using it either. Another question was how would a citizen find out where the flood plains are. They consultant said that they did not have any maps and that you would have to go a mile to the Planning Department to look at their paper maps and back to determine the flood plain. It was an interesting discussion. It is a big political battle in Tallahassee, but that did not come out in the presentation. Those are the things that the Committee needs to watch out for. Here is a city a little smaller than Lincoln that spent a couple million dollars on a system that is not being used and the citizens are being cheated.

Cathy Lang reported that Ethel has been working with Erik on map issues. They have talked about standards for mapping. They are getting ready to take over assessment for five counties. When the Property Tax Division moves, Cathy is hoping to get some things connected that have been temporarily tabled. One of the things Property Tax is going to be doing it gathering very general mapping information of school districts, main roads and some of the other naturally occurring features so that the Commission can look at some physical information as they are making determinations about property valuations.

Rod Armstrong reported that he is leaving to go to work for an outfit called the Applied Information Management Institute in Omaha. This is a non-profit organization that does technology based economic work. His last day is June 1^st and he starts work there on June 4^th. Yvonne thanked Rod for his participation.

Lash reported that he has been following Cathy’s five county project. There are a lot of cities that are frustrated with the lack of accurate assessment information. Some of those cities have fairly accurate computer maps that extend beyond their jurisdiction. If Cathy is in need of help filling gaps, Lash offered assistance.

Larry offered his thanks to Rod for many years of service to the Committee.

OTHER BUSINESS: Dennis Burling asked if approval of the minutes referred to the minutes posted on the Internet or the mailed hard copy. Jim Brown said approval was of whichever one was right. Dennis said that was fine but the wrong copy was the one available to the public. Yvonne commented that the copy that is on the website is really the public information one and that one supercedes any other. Larry explained that the problem of shifted organizational affiliations in the "Present were" listing was apparently an HTML frame glitch that varied the printout relative to the size of the type font used.

The meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be Thursday July 23, 1998 at 1:00 PM.

• Structure and Process Goal. Evaluate the GIS Steering Committee’s operational process and structure.
• Objective -- Select a committee to lead the GIS Steering Committee through a process of designing effective processes and organizational structures to meet its goals and objectives.

• Database Goal. Actively coordinate the development, maintenance, and distribution of priority statewide digital geospatial databases.
• Land Records Goal. The promotion and facilitation of local government land record modernization and GIS development.
• Education Goal. Strengthen the GIS Education Subcommittee and its overall educational program activities.
• Financial Goal. Increase financial support for the GIS Steering Committee goals and programs.

• Database Cmte.
• Implementation of Database Goal objectives for all priority databases
• Land Records Cmte.
• Implementation of Land Record Goal objectives
• Education Cmte.
• Implementation of Education Goal objectives
• Operational / Exec. Cmte.
• Implementation of Financial, Structural & Process, and Planning Goal objectives

• GIS Str. Cmte. revisit priority database designations (5/21/98)
• GIS Str. Cmte. designate lead agencies for priority database studies
• Priority databases with consensus lead agencies affirmed by GIS Str. Cmte. (5/21/98)
• Priority databases without consensus lead agencies deferred for further discussion (7/23/98)
• Initial assessment and report by consensus lead agencies on priority databases (7/23/98)

• Identify primary stakeholders in database
• Initial assessment of current status versus need
• Draft plan to achieve Database Goal objectives
• major deficiencies in current database
• who should be involved in study
• revised standards needed
• maintenance and integration needs
• study timelines
• study resources needed

• Continued support of Advisory Committee on Standards for Multipurpose Land Information Systems
• Str. Cmte. Report: update, plan for completion, and impact on Land Records Goal objective (7/23/98)
• Continued support of Advisory Committee on Statewide Public Land Survey System
• Str. Cmte. Report: update, plan for completion, and impact on Land Records Goal objective (7/23/98)

• Identification of at least three Str. Cmte. members for the Education Cmte. (5/21/98)
• Initial report of Education Cmte. on plans and efforts to achieve Education Goal objectives (7/23/98)

• GIS Str. Cmte. discuss and affirm this role for Exec. Cmte. (5/21/98)
• Exec. Cmte. discussion of the implications and feasibility of undertaking these operational responsibilities
• Exec. Cmte. report to Str. Cmte. (7/23/98)

• Implementation of Financial, Structural & Process, and Planning Objectives
• Increase financial support for the GIS Steering Committee goals and programs.
• Implementation oversight of adopted processes and organizational structures designed to achieve goals and objectives.
• Monitor and make periodic reports to the Steering Committee on overall progress (or lack thereof) in achieving adopted goals and objectives.

• What role does the GIS Str. Cmte. wish to have relative to the Information Resources Cabinet’s new responsibilities?
• What role and responsibility should the Str. Cmte. assume? Primarily technical? Primarily policy?