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 Thursday, June 29, 2000.

ROLL CALL: Chairperson Lash Chaffin called the meeting to order at approximately 1:00 p.m. and requested a call of the roll. Thirteen 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 May 11, 2000 minutes. seconded. No discussion was desired, so Larry Zink called roll and the motion passed. (see vote #1 on Voting Record sheet).

REVISED 2000-01 MEETING SCHEDULE: Larry explained that parking permits from UNL will no longer be issued free of charge. The cost will be $2 per tag. A motion was made and seconded to revise the GIS Steering Committee meeting schedule and location of meetings, as proposed by Larry.  The motion passed (see vote #2 on Voting Record sheet).  

REVIEW OF NON-PLANNING ITEMS:

DOQ/DEM DATABASES UPDATE: Mahendra Bansal reported that the pilot project concerning the revision and second generation of DEMs and DOQs for Lancaster County is complete. The methodology, database standards, and production procedures are established; 10 meter DEMs and DOQs base on the first method of aerotriangulation. There is a need to revise the DOQs statewide conforming to the 1999 NAPP imagery. This is a database which is extensively used by all levels of government (as a base map layer) for multitudes of applications. The DNR is looking into the resources to take up this project, and is working with the USGS to draft an agreement for a statewide coverage.

There was some discussion about whether to consider this project in relation to prioritization of Steering Committee efforts. In the past, the development of other priority databases, such as hydrography, have come before this one. It was noted that the Steering Committee had not yet received a report or recommendation from its DOQ/DEM Database Advisory Committee. Jim Merchant pointed out that the motion was only to support DNRs efforts to develop the database, not for the Steering Committee to take action. Cliff added that if this is ready to be done, there is no reason not to recommend it.

The motion passed (see vote #2 on Voting Record sheet).

HYDROGRAPHIC PROJECT: Larry reported that the hydrographic pilot project in the Logan Creek watershed up in northeastern Nebraska is still in process. The committee is to the point where the question of how much revision would be done to enhance scanned and vectorized line work off of the quad sheets needed to be addressed. The guidelines proposed include utilizing the '93 DOQs.

The Committee determined that if a one-dimensional stream was on the seven and a half minute topo map, it would be revised to be corrected based on the DOQ. If it was not on the topo map but showed up on the DOQ it would not be captured. All water bodies would be revised to the DOQs. It is possible that toward the end of the process, the decision may be made to delete any body that does not meet the size requirements.

Two dimensional stream segments will also be edited to match the DOQs. Zero dimensional features, such as wells, will not be captured in this database. Areas where DLGs do not exist, new line work will be created utilizing heads up digitizing based on DOQs, using the DRGs as a reference in terms of what to digitize.

Cliff asked when the project would be completed. Larry said they hope to have it completed by the end of next month so that they have some idea of what resources will be required. Cliff asked if this was the beginning of a statewide initiative. Larry indicated that the intent was to assess resource requirements for a statewide initiative. Jim Langtry asked if these guidelines were intended to carry on beyond the pilot project. Larry said that was why this Committee wanted Steering Committee approval. Jim Langtry asked if the latest available DOQs would be used now that they are being developed. Larry explained that it had been discussed, but that they decided that there would likely not be that much difference between the two generations. Also, if the 99' DOQs are used, the project will have to wait until the DOQs are available statewide to ensure consistency across the database.

Josh added that 93' was a wet year which means more surface water was visible. 

Larry explained that these guidelines represent a significant labor commitment. They have discovered in the pilot project that a lot of channel changing that has occurred since the original quad maps were created and while revising them to the '93 DOQs will be a require a lot of work, it will result in a much more current and valuable product. These are likely to be the guidelines used across the entire state.

Cliff asked how much time it will take to complete the statewide effort. Josh said they have no idea since the methodology is not set yet and a lot depends on how long it takes to digitize places with no DLGs available. Mike added that in other states where this has been done, such as Florida, it took five to six years because they had to create the DLGs first. In Kansas, where most of the line work has already been done, completion of a statewide database only took two years.

Larry said that it appears that there are some funds available for this project from a variety of sources including the new DNR, DEQ, NRCS, and Game and Parks. However, it has not come together as a statewide effort, and there is some question as to how to pull together interagency resources to most effectively address this as a coordinated effort.

GIS 2001 SYMPOSIUM: Larry reported that planning is moving ahead for a May 2001 Nebraska GIS Symposium. It will be sponsored by the GIS/LIS Association, with possible GIS Steering Committee co-sponsorship. Larry indicated that before the Steering Committee's name was used in promotion, he wanted to check to make sure that the Steering Committee was supportive of co-sponsorship again.  Larry also noted that last year the profits went to support the Association and he wanted to confirm that the Steering Committee was also comfortable with that arrangement again.  There was no objection to either issue.

STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENT: Lash explained that pursuant to the directive from the last GIS Steering Committee meeting, the Executive Committee met to discuss the need for a strategic plan.

Larry said that the Executive Committee directed him to create a draft document to include motions, resolutions, advisory committees and other initiatives undertaken by the Steering Committee in the past. There are also elements in this document that are not the result of a Steering Committee motion and represent Larry's own thoughts and ideas. Those are clearly marked.

There was a fair amount of discussion about what the scope of this project would be. Jim Brown pointed out that the Steering Committee does not have the time or resources to develop a strategic plan for Nebraska. In struggling with this issue, Larry drafted a plan for coordinated GIS development. Located within the document is the statement "The question is not whether these public investments in GIS will be made; the question is whether they will be made in a coordinated manner so as to maximize overall public return on these investments." This statement represents what Larry would propose as a focal point for this effort. In drafting this plan, Larry relied heavily on the CJIS strategic plan.

The actual strategic plan of this document is a mission statement, goals, primary assumptions for the future, and a list of potential projects that fit these goals. The vision is based on a concept developed by the Steering Committee four years ago to address the issue of decentralized but integrated effort. This is where ideas will be put regarding what the Committee proposes to do next year, how much that will cost, and projected timelines.

Jim Merchant asked what the audience for this document will be and if it addresses a statutory requirement. Steve Schafer explained that the Steering Committee is recognized in statute and has the opportunity to put together a comprehensive plan. The audience ultimately is the NITC and persons involved in the budget process and will be used as a point of reference to support GIS efforts and budget requests. Mike Calvert, a fiscal analyst from the budget office has commented before that when a budget request comes in backed by an agency's ongoing planning process, it is likely to be taken more seriously than if it comes in alone. If it is also part of a broader planning effort, then the appropriations committee takes more notice.

The CJIS group was a process involving efforts from all aspects of criminal justice, where individuals from state and local law enforcement got together to identify where their data sharing opportunities exist. They then came forward with a very ambitious set of proposals for improving data sharing among these groups.

Lash commented that the CJIS document was used to justify the hiring of consultants for further detailed reports. Steve Schafer added that CJIS has been highly successful in acquiring federal money as well.

Proposed Focus for the Strategic Plan
Tom Lamberson expressed concern that the plan as it is written includes considerable redundancy and that a simpler document will be better received. His proposed outline includes:

• Introduction and Background
• 4 Goals as identified by the Steering Committee
• priority databases
• land records
• education/outreach
• data sharing
• Initiatives to support the goals
• Where we are, where we are going, how we will get there listed under each goal

This model addresses funding as a means to achieve the proposed goals and does not include the Montana GIS cost benefit study because he could find no justification for including it. Steve Schafer maintained the position that the business case for GIS needs to be made in this document. Lash asked if it would be acceptable to use Tom's model for the main body and add an appendix including the business case. Steve said it doesn't matter where it is located as long as it is included. It is so difficult for a policy level person to grasp the value and benefits of technology in general, GIS in particular, that unless there is some explanation of the applications of this technology and benefits to be obtained, the case will not be made. The business case should be made either in the introduction or in a separate section and then reemphasized with each goal and initiative, with an explanation of why this particular measure is important. This will provide senators with something to refer to when discussing appropriations on the floor.

Tom agreed that summarizing the benefits in a strong executive summary or a separate section makes sense from a policy makers point of view. Val commented that regardless of what format the main document utilizes, an executive summary is needed for legislators and senators to fit into about three pages.

Larry continued with the analysis of the current situation and system requirement sections, which is intended as a subjective look at what is working in Nebraska and what isn't. Whether or not these sections are included in the end planning document, it is useful information to have internally, in addition to some sort of list of what it takes to have a decentralized, coordinated, integrated GIS.

 Steve Schafer said that the stated focus of the Steering Committee needs to be refined title to reflect the end result to be achieved which is not coordination but the development of a spatial data infrastructure.

Duane pointed out that in trying to sell GIS, it is important to keep in mind that the technology has evolved dramatically in a very short time. The reality is that there are a whole broad band of applications addressed by GIS technology, which has just become available just in the past ten or fifteen years. Natural resources, transportation, population, emergency response issues have all been historically dealt with either in a non-graphical fashion or with a manual graphic solution. It is now possible to solve these kinds of problems with an efficiency that makes the information valuable. A lot of decisions are made about spatial issues without graphic information because it wasn't possible to generate the data graphically only a short time ago. The tools are available now and while it is a substantial investment, a comparison needs to be made between how much money is allocated to generating reports to communicate relevant information now and how much more efficiently it can be done by the appropriate application of GIS technology.

Larry commented that he planned to address many of Duane's points in the section that explains the benefits of GIS.

 There was further discussion regarding a shift of focus from coordination to creation of a spatial data infrastructure. Larry explained that this is the jargon produced on the national level. The NSDI is the National Spatial Data Infrastructure and refers to the databases, coordination, metadata and all the pieces that allow GIS users to work together. Lash commented that it was a more meaningful term to him as a layperson than what is usually used. Larry indicated that he did not stress it in the document because it was not something the Steering Committee had discussed. That term as a focus stresses that out of the broader scope, the Steering Committee is planning to address the pieces that allow GIS components to work together to receive the greatest benefit for the investment.

Duane clarified that the Steering Committee is really looking to address the value utilizing GIS to produce results that are usable by everyone rather than attempting to coordinate efforts among state and local government. Larry explained that the issue in question was to de-emphasize coordination entirely and stress the creation of a spatial data infrastructure as the Steering Committee's focus. Coordination is the means to achieve the goal.

• Define Benefits
• Analysis of the current status of the spatial infrastructure in Nebraska - what is in place? What is needed?
• Internal
• Strengths
• Weaknesses
• External
• Opportunities
• Threats
• Identify Mission, Goals and Initiatives
• Develop 5 year plan and develop 2001 Action Plan for implementing tactical plan -

Next is a diagram of the planning process. Lash commented that it did not add much new information but it looks good. Erik added that an intuitive flowchart is important.

• Benefits
• GIS from MPLIS
• Benefits derived from the property tax assessor
• List of different types of applications for GIS
• Montana cost benefit report
• Examples of savings to agencies in Nebraska - such as the decrease in tax protests in Lancaster county as a result of GIS usage.

Larry said this is a difficult section to create because cost benefits are so subjective. Duane commented that the work will have to be done anyway so it is not a new investment, it is an issue of whether it will be done efficiently.

• Coordination working reasonably well
• Defined mission and approach
• Database development efforts (DOQs, DEMs, SSURGO, State Highway, NGPC Prop., PLSS, Land Cover
• Guidebook for MPLIS
• Nebraska GIS Symposium
• Nebraska GIS/LIS Association

Erik said that listing the strengths is a good idea. Being so close to the efforts underway, it is difficult to truly measure the progress already made. Other states view Nebraska as a leader in the application and coordination of GIS technology. Larry said that the purpose of this section in terms of the planning effort is it is a means to assess what things are working and what things are not.

Mahendra suggested adding data sharing and development of standards and guidelines.

Dick Genrich suggested changing the State Highway database development effort to Transportation Network.

Steve Schafer asked if a summary of the current GIS environment, including what state agencies are already involved in using GIS could be added.

Larry asked how in depth this section should be. Duane said that the legislature needs to know exactly how much real activity is really going on. Jim Langtry commented that that this goes back to the outline of goals and initiatives. It's difficult to summarize this kind of thing. Larry concluded that this should be done but done concisely.

• No funding for coordinated database development
• Limited ability to effect priorities.
• Coordination not connected to in-house GIS service capabilities
• No support for education and outreach
• No standard address range database
• Little preparation for emergency response/public safety GIS use
• No cost sharing mechanism with local government
• Geospatial data clearinghouse not promoted or current

Dick questioned whether the standard address range database and the emergency response items fit in this list. Jim Merchant suggested that one possible way of getting that issue addressed here would be to expand the scope and use the phrase 'a broad range of other application areas that have not been addressed' and add additional examples. Larry stated that in his estimation, one significant weakness in Nebraska's GIS planning is emergency response and public safety. Jim Merchant clarified that in other words, if there was a greater awareness of the benefits of GIS technology there would be a lot more users.

Larry said this is a good place for the Steering Committee to identify things that need to be looked at and the categories need to be narrow enough to work with.

Erik suggested adding 'Limited Bandwidth' as a topic.

• Partnerships among federal, state, and local entities
• Interest at Local Government Level in this technology - not much financial investment in data so there is not a lot of money tied up in non-compatible data.
• Network connectivity across the state enables data sharing

Jim Merchant said that the first statement is not very descriptive and that it might be better defined as the potential for greater partnerships with federal government entities.

Mahendra suggested adding that publication of databases over the Internet was an external opportunity. Steve Schafer added that networking makes exchange of information much easier. Lash said that Internet availability makes better public policy decision making statewide possible. Increases availability of public policy tools was added as an external opportunities.

Another addition to the list was increased interest in partnerships and data sharing.

• Non sharing of data for cost recovery or other reasons
• Lack of awareness of others' needs or projects
• Coordinated opportunities through limited awareness.
• Data security

• Framework databases
• Core databases
• Data standards
• Coordinating structure
• Data Integrators
• Metadata
• Clearinghouses
• Partnership Structures
• Education and Outreach
• Data sharing agreements
• Collaborative funding mechanism

The mission statement is one that was adopted a year ago in response to the draft charter with the NITC. There was no discussion on this point.

The goals are ones the Steering Committee has already adopted with revised wording. For example, the first goal originally read 'actively coordinate the development maintenance and distribution of priority statewide databases.' Larry revised it to 'develop widely needed digital geospatial databases in standard records format and establish systems for the ongoing cooperative maintenance and enhancement of those priority geospatial databases.' Mahendra pointed out that the Steering Committee does not develop databases. Larry said that this is not specifically a Steering Committee plan.

Jim Merchant said that if this is not reflecting what the Steering Committee is going to do, then it is unclear who will be doing these things. For example, in terms of education and outreach, there is a question of who will be conducting the education and no clear sense of when that will be clarified. Larry said that would be defined in the specific proposals section.

The Steering Committee has traditionally not had the capability to do much in terms of directly pursuing that goal but that is an area that could be strengthened. This particular goal simply states that this is something that, as a community, needs to be developed. Dick commented that the scope of these goals is mixed, that some are clearly Steering Committee goals and others that fall elsewhere. This should be the Steering Committee's strategic plan. The goal was changed to 'coordinate the development of widely needed digital geospatial databases in standard reference format and establish systems for the ongoing cooperative maintenance and enhancement of the priority geospatial databases.'

The goal of 'promotion and facilitation of local government land record moderization and GIS development' was changed to 'promote and facilitate local government land record modernization and GIS development'. No concerns were expressed.

Jim Merchant said that what he would like to see in the Education and Outreach section is something creating a partnership with higher education. This would allow the Steering Committee to identify the shortcomings in the training available through higher education institutions in terms of being able to train people in sufficient numbers in this technology. Steve Schafer questioned whether this is the appropriate forum in which to discuss this issue. It may be more helpful for the Steering Committee to commit to promoting and educational outreach program. Jim Merchant pointed out that it is not the Steering Committee's function to take on the sole responsibility for conducting this educational outreach program.

The data sharing goal is entirely new and has not been adopted by the Steering Committee. 'Develop structures, standards and processes that facilitate easy access to integration and usability of publicly available geospatial databases. It has always been a priority, but has never been translated into an actual goal. There was no discussion on this goal.

There was general agreement to remove goal number five as a goal, which deals with the acquisition of funds, and integrate it elsewhere.

Tom also eliminated goal number four, which Larry thought should be kept. Nationally, the concept of the spatial data infrastructure includes the recognition that many new coordinating structures and institutions will be put in place. There are no easy mechanisms to find data, share data, maintain data, form partnerships, or develop standards. Coordinating structures are a very important piece and while the Steering Committee is a start, it is a weak start and needs to be strengthened. The committee decided this area would be best incorporated in another section in this document rather than being a stand-alone section.

 Larry explained that this concept was culled from CJIS' strategic plan. This addresses the question of what assumptions are being made about the various elements involved. One assumption is that the Steering Committee will continue to be a viable coordinating structure. Another is that the Steering Committee will develop and adopt data standards. Further, government and other public agencies will share data and cooperate in updating and upgrading information. Next, the Steering Committee will designate agencies to be responsible for the distribution and updating of specific databases by integrating enhanced data from other sources as it becomes available. This is one of the concepts that has been addressed at the federal level where they are looking for state leaders to take on responsibility for developing and maintaining priority databases.

Mahendra questioned whether the Steering Committee's charge includes activities of this sort. Larry Zink said that he believes the statutory requirements could easily encompass that responsibility and it is something the Steering Committee has already been involved with. The legislature looks to the Steering Committee to perform this function. This is the coordinating body best situated to do this.

Steve Schafer expressed concern that the language used implies that the Steering Committee has the authority to appoint an agency to take on responsibility for which it is unprepared or incapable of fulfilling. That problem can be addressed by adding that the Steering Committee will be responsible for this area subject to other restrictions, including budgetary or statutory authority.

Larry explained that this will not allow for the Steering Committee to set down mandates, it will simply set this body up as a coordinating entity. Steve Schafer expressed further concern with the last three assumptions because they specifically direct the legislature to a particular action rather than making recommendations. These ideas need to be captured in goals rather than listed as directives. Tom indicated that he questioned whether this section added any value at all but that he struck the last three entirely.

Initially, Larry planned to provide a simple list of initiatives, but Tom's model calls for expansion to include where we are, where we are going, how we will get there and why. Tom explained that he planned to list each goal followed by all applicable initiatives with descriptive information following.

Goal one is Priority Databases. This includes surface water features, elevation models, transportation, public power districts, land cover, aerial imagery and elevation photography, public land survey, municipal boundaries, street addresses, collaborative fund, geospatial data standards, and a GIS service bureau.

The only new initiative is a street address database and the three additional items, collaborative fund, geospatial data standards and GIS service bureau are all institutional issues that will contribute to the development of the above. The GIS service bureau is to be a place in state government where an entity can go to have GIS work done without having to develop a GIS themselves. Jim Langtry asked if that would not be better listed under coordination and management. Larry explained that these are listed in both places because they are initiatives that relate to the goal of developing priority geospatial databases.

Lash suggested listing specific steps that would be required under the priorities. Larry explained that this is only an outline and that additional text would be added later.

Larry asked if street addresses should be listed as a potential project for this initiative. Lash expressed concern that this had not been discussed or adopted by the Steering Committee and requested that a specific item be included on the agenda for the next meeting for this item.

The next question is whether the collaborative fund, geospatial data standards and GIS service bureau items should be listed in this document and, if so, whether they belong here. Jim Merchant said that it is unclear that these are not databases and they should be broken out as a separate paragraph. John Erickson said that there are other areas where these might be appropriately listed - collaborative development fund could go under data sharing and the geospatial data standards and GIS service bureau under education and outreach. Jim Merchant said that they do belong in this section because they do support database development. They can be listed elsewhere but this is a good place for them.

Lash suggested discussing whether they belong in the document at all to begin with. Lash indicated that he felt the collaborative development fund definitely needs to be incorporated somewhere within this document. Regarding the GIS Service Bureau, Larry explained that from time to time, he receives calls from state agencies without GIS capability wanting to do a particular GIS related project but there is no one in state government who has a generic service responsibility for GIS. It is a roadblock for agencies that would explore the technology if it did not involve a huge, up-front investment of hardware, software and personnel. Larry also noted that if a partucular project does not fit clearly within a particular agency's area of responsibility, the Steering Committee is hampered in moving forward with coordinated efforts in the regard.

Jim Merchant pointed out that terming it a service bureau might raise some problems and that it might be better defined as technical assistance. There are a number of states with geospatial extension support service centers that are in charge of handling some of these responsibilities. It is a good concept but should be called something else. Another possible title is interagency technical assistance. Steve Schafer agreed that the need does exist regardless of what it is eventually named.

Lash suggested that this entity be defined as facilitating technical assistance because this covers a gamut of problems and issues. . 

Jim Merchant commented that the Steering Committee has requested funding in the past for an education and outreach person who would fulfill the functions outlined for the Service Bureau so a precedent is set for this type of request. The only piece that may not fit is the title GIS Service Bureau. Lash added that his impression was that the education and outreach section included some of these concepts and could be quite far reaching in theory.

Larry raised his concern with this approach, because what he is suggesting for consideration is much more than just technical assistance.  He sees a need for a place for agencies to go to receive specific GIS services/products.  Larry said that he has heard positive feedback with respect to the idea of a Service Bureau and that he believes that there is a need for this type of entity to prevent the necessity for every individual agency interested in the technology to be forced to invest in GIS technology and expertise, or not pursue GIS applications.  

Lash clarified that there was no objection to the concept of providing interagency technical assistance under education and outreach. The second tier concept of a working entity to actually do some of these projects needs more discussion. Jim Langtry suggested tying this concept with the idea of Regional Centers. There is no reason this issue cannot be referenced in multiple places within the strategic plan.

Larry said that the Regional Center concept is the other closely related idea and developed out of the Land Record Modernization Committee. The idea is for state government to take an active goal in facilitating aggregation of demand and service for local government, in particular GIS mapping and surveying, especially in rural areas. It was drafted in a flexible manner to allow for the inclusion of more general computer technical assistance if that is necessary.

In discussions about this issue, there were state and local representatives. The state representatives were in favor of a more flexible structure, while the local participants were interested in creating an entity with state parameters so that there would be complete coverage, state structure, guidelines and standards.

There was some concern that counties that did not elect to participate in the Regional Center concept would receive the same benefits as those who had chosen to participate and adhered to the given standards. Larry said that this is just a rough outline, drafted to determine if there was any support for the concept.  

Lash said that there will be further discussion on this topic at the next meeting and expressed the desire to see this turned into an initiative. Larry asked if the Steering Committee wants to include a specific future plan with the strategic plan. Steve Schafer said that it was not necessary to outline specific dates of completion but that some prioritization lends credibility to the document. Larry asked if money figures were necessary. Steve Schafer said that some general numbers would be useful. Larry requested assistance from the Steering Committee to put together some numbers for the plan.

Larry asked for clarification on the Steering Committee's wishes relative to the overall format of the Strategic Planning document.  Following further discussion, it was decided to move towards the model presented by Tom Lamberson, with Tom and Larry working together to develop a modified version.

Tom said that he would work with Larry to put together a sample document for distribution to Steering Committee members prior to the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned.

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