ASLIB Minutes - October 20, 1998

October 20,1998

Attending Members
Mr. William Bush, Arkansas Geological Commission
Ms. Susan Cromwell, Office of Information Technology
Mr. Shelby Johnson, CAST
Mr. Randy Jones, First Electric Corporation
Ms. Shirley Sandlin, Benton County Assessor
Ms. Suzanne Wiley, U of A at Monticello
Mr. Cecil Davis, Alternate, Dept. of Arkansas Heritage

Members Unable to Attend
Dr. Robert Bennett, Arkansas State University
Mr. Ben Kittler, Kittler Surveying
Mr. Phil Schoettlin, Chamber of Commerce, Fayetteville
Mr. Jim Wells, Wellsco Graphics Solution Center

Guests
Melanie Lowery, Analyst, Department of Information Systems
Sharon Priest, Secretary of State
Phyllis Smith, UALR GIS Applications Lab, Chair of GIS Users Forum
Ms. Karen Howard, Arkansas Department of Health, Vice Chair of GIS Users Forum

-------------------------

The meeting was called to order.

Mr. Bush informed the Board that Mr. Wallis has had to resign and asked if any of the members had recommendations for new members to send to the Governor's Office. It was noted that a new member needed to be from a city or county position. This was discussed and several names were

Jeff Winter from the City of Hot Springs
John Barr from the City of Little Rock
Ted Bellers from the City of Piggott
Chris Bordeaux from PAGIS
Dale Enoch (sp) from Arkansas One Call (sp) Center

General Business

The attendance was taken.

Mr. Bush advised that if a member misses three consecutive meetings, that the Board is required to report this to the Governor's Office. The Governor's Office then has an opportunity to replace the board member, but he felt that what they do is contact the member and if the member has valid excuses for absenteeism, they can leave them on the board. Mr. Bush informed the members that he had to report one member to the Governor's Office, and he emphasized that if a member misses three consecutive meetings, he has to report it.

Mission Statement and Annual Report

Mr. Bush discussed the mission statement and annual report that is due from every board and commission in state government every year, and that the LIB report is due in December. He explained that the annual report is generally a summary of the meetings. Attendance forms go along with it. He volunteered that he would draft something up for approval so that it could be approved and filed in December. Mr. Bush also explained that if the Board goes before the legislature to request funds, that these documents must be on file. He also mentioned that a mission statement needs to be completed.

Update on DOQs and DEMs

Mr. Bush reported that the DOQs have again come down in price, which is encouraging. He said that the price is now down to $900, making the total required $261,975 for the state, down from $296,000. There was no price change on the DEMs, but that the state share of that was $63,900. He explained that if the Board wishes to pursue this, a request will have to be made to the USGS and funding will have to be arranged. A question was raised as to whether the files would be public domain, and Mr. Bush explained that the DOQs would be made with taxpayer's money and the resulting maps would be available for everyone. Randy Jones asked whether anyone had done a pilot project to see what kind of problems would be faced in delivering the files to the public in regards of computing capabilities. Mr. Bush pointed out that the biggest benefit will be that these mapping efforts will provide a base map for data at all levels which will benefit the public and make information more readily available. He also felt that once it is shown how much has been done in this program and how little is left, that it would have a good chance of getting funded in the next legislative session. He also explained that if maybe state money is not available, that the NRCS may be able to put more money in the project, as they are in the process of doing soils maps for the state and these missing DOQs are critical for the completion of that project. He suggested that the Board find out what NRCS is actually willing to commit to the project. Shelby pointed out that the NRCS is limited by their resources, yet they have a mandate to far exceed what they can do in terms of the soils project, and that part of why the project is being held up is lack of the DOQs. Bill Bush said it might be possible to find some more partners to help on the DOQ project to keep the individual costs down. Shirley Sandlin asked whether there was a way to find out whether the USGS could do the project in one or two years. Mr. Bush didn't feel they'd make a commitment, but that it depends on how many other states are getting in with partnership programs. He suggested that any money set aside for this project could have some kind of authorization to not disappear at the end of the first year, but to carry over into a second year. Even if half of the money was put into each fiscal year, a contract could be written with the USGS. Mr. Bush said he would contact Ray Fox and try to get something on paper in terms of a time frame.

Motion to Adopt the Metadata Content Standard for the State

In the previous meeting a vote was taken without a quorum present, so Shelby Johnson reintroduced the motion that the Board adopt the Minimum Metadata Content Standard, Sections I and VI, as the metadata standard for the state. Shirley Sandlin seconded the motion. As a point of discussion, Shelby explained that no changes were made to the document since the previous meeting's discussion. A vote was taken and the motion passed.

Strategic Planning

The Board then spent the next several hours in a strategic planning session, facilitated by Melanie Lowery, Planning Specialist from the Department of Information Systems. A formal document will be produced at the end of this process.

Discussion of Public Relations Initiatives for the Board

Guest: Sharon Priest, Secretary of State

Susan Cromwell introduced Sharon Priest, Secretary of State, and invited her to talk about her interests in GIS issues. Ms. Priest explained that she is a member of the Board of the Information Network of Arkansas, which exists to help disseminate all types of state and agency information to the public by way of the state web site. She described how her interest in GIS issues began when a state legislator asked her office for a map of his district and it was discovered that the information available was not very accurate. So her office recognized that new maps were needed, particularly in light of reapportionment and that they needed to prepare. The Secretary of State's Office contracted with CAST of creating maps for every house and senate district in the state. She became aware of the uses for statistical analysis using these maps in terms of election campaigns for reaching voters and feels that legislators can also become very effective by having a base map overlaid with all types of data. She went on to explain that she feels that the state maps and the data will also become very important for city and county officials for planning and management of all types of resources in the future. These uses, she feels, will be the best way to convince legislators to fund GIS efforts in the state.

Susan Cromwell pointed out that is very important that legislators can demonstrate how resources are being used and how this data can support accountability in programs. She explained that the Board is attempting to develop a strategy on how to present this information to legislators in order to get support for funding. Shelby Johnson explained that what the Board is putting together a visual presentation to support GIS efforts which will demonstrate how GIS information may be used by the public. The presentation will show how geospatial information is crucial to decision making processes and planning for economic development, health and safety, natural resources, asset management, etc. He explained that Arkansas is lagging behind in on-line access to electronic mapping data. One project that the Board would like to request funding for is the completion of the digital mapping of the state and that the money needed from the state would be around $261,000. He explained that once the mapping was completed, it would serve as a base layer for a variety of data analysis, particularly in relation to soils analysis. Shelby explained that the maps that do exist now have been sponsored largely from the Natural Resource Conservation Service and USGS and National Forest Service. Susan Cromwell pointed out that the areas that have been mapped were selected based on the needs of those federal agencies, which has left uncompleted areas in the state.

Shelby went on to explain that another hole the Board would like to have filled in is digital elevation models, but that more of these maps have been completed than the DOQs. He pointed out that these elevation maps are important in relation to water and timber management, as well as geological assessment. He said that the state can co-op with the USGS to complete the elevation models at a cost of $61,000. This brings the total needed up to around $322,000 in state costs for finishing the mapping projects. He summarized by saying that the most important thing is to fill in the data holes and then to create a mechanism to deliver the information statewide. Shelby added that another important initiative is to try to reduce duplication of effort.

Several of the Board members pointed out that these initial funds are just to complete the mapping projects and that an ongoing source of revenue would be needed to support the program in the future.

Shelby Johnson then asked Sharon Priest what her advice would be on how to best promote the Board's funding efforts, and she felt that being able to show people how these GIS systems can help in their everyday work would be most important. She also recommended taking this information to the Association of Counties and other groups to gather support for these efforts. Ms. Priest made the point that it will be really important to get all the agencies to work together on these efforts in order to make information readily available to everyone, to minimize duplication of efforts, and to decrease costs.

Discussion continued regarding state versus private sector services for supporting the project and the important of finding long-term funding for maintenance and improvement of the GIS systems.

Susan Cromwell then requested that the Board discuss some of the target groups that need to be reached for their support. Sharon Priest commented that it would be important to reach as many groups as possible. Susan mentioned the Joint Committee on Advanced Communications and the Career Opportunity Partnership Cabinet. Sharon suggested that representatives from all state agencies could be invited to become involved in this project and that private industry could play an important role, either in providing funding or support state initiatives for funding. Bill Bush agreed that it was very important to work with the private sector in order to maintain data standards.

Suzanne Wiley asked Sharon Priest what her best opinion would be on the groups to approach first. Sharon recommended approaching people involved in education, welfare, etc., and that the Board approach individuals as well as groups. She explained that it would be very helpful to locate those legislators that had interests in areas that could be best served by better GIS data systems and to approach those particular legislators for support. She also pointed out that there are going to be a lot of new legislators coming into government, which means a lot of opportunity to educate them as to the needs of the public.

Shelby Johnson brought up the subject of where funding could come from and discussion on this subject followed.

At this point Sharon Priest and Susan Cromwell had to leave and the Board recessed for lunch.

Geodetic Advisor

Mr. Bush opened discussion on the proposed State Geodetic Advisor. He had done some research and received some information from the Chief of the Geodetic Services Division of NOAA regarding the program. He explained that the Geodetic Advisor would serve as a liaison and that the position would be a jointly funded NOAA position, with the employee residing in the state. The State of Kentucky has just reached an agreement to establish a position and the state's portion of the cost is $43,800, including benefits. Mr. Bush emphasized that the employee works for NOAA, not for the state. Some of the duties would be to guide and assist the state's charting, geodetic and surveying programs; education and training state personnel; and technical assistance to GIS projects. He explained that 24 states currently have a Geodetic Advisor and 20 of those positions are funded with matching funds as a NOAA employee. Three states filled the position with a full-time state employee. Delaware has an advisor on an as-needed basis. Some of the smaller states are looking at sharing an advisor, but Bill commented that this would not be very conducive to Arkansas. Arkansas would be required to provide 50% of the funding, which would be close to $45,000, and would have to commit to a four-year program. NOAA would provide a vehicle and some of the equipment, and the state would have to provide office space and administrative assistance. He also said that the Geodetic Advisor would basically be there to train people and the state would have to hire people to do the work, which would depend on what size of program was wanted within the state. Mr. Bush asked some other people with knowledge of this type of program about how much money would actually be needed for an entire program for the state, and the estimate came back at about $250,000 for the state's obligation, but that this might be out of line.

Randy Jones asked what the primary function of a Geodetic Advisor would be, and Mr. Bush explained that it would be checking all corner markers against a geographic positioning system. Documentation provided to him listed duties as : Provide the technical expertise from NOAA and state personnel would actually collect the geodetic data; educate and train state personnel; assist the state in planning and coordinating geodetic surveys; provide quality assurance; suggest marker maintenance activities; train and assist state personnel in preparation of survey data in a format compatible with GCS standards and specifications. Mr. Bush did point out that a lot of the surveying work could be contracted.

Mr. Bush asked the members where they thought this project falls in their priority list. Shelby Johnson felt this position would be equally as important as completing the DOQs and DEMs for the state. Suzanne Wiley didn't feel the Board should drop the Geodetic Advisor project. She pointed out that although they are looking at the completion of the DOQs and DEMs which would benefit a lot of people, but that on the other hand that geodetic control was on a different scale and would benefit surveyors, land owners, and tax assessors, and that the Board should work at all the levels possible and improve data quality from both ends. Mr. Bush asked whether this should be identified as an important issue and then leave it to the surveying community to pursue the project with the Board providing support. Shelby Johnson pointed out that there was nothing to prevent the state from hiring its own Geodetic Advisor and not co-op with NOAA, which would allow definition of specifications of needs and fund through the State Surveyor's Office. Cecil Davis pointed out that an advisor funded through NOAA would automatically carry federal contacts and would this be to the state's advantage, and that a Geodetic Advisor not funded by NOAA would possibly not have valuable contacts in the organization. Bill Bush agreed that probably NOAA would not listen to an Advisor hired solely as a state employee. Mr. Bush also raised the question as to whether the position would be a full-time one or whether it could be shared with another state or states, as NOAA is now leaning towards this due to less funding availability, but that he doesn't particularly like that idea.

Mr. Bush asked whether the Board should establish a committee to go out and make some contacts or whether they should put out a questionnaire to other states for information, which would take some time. Or whether they have enough information at this time to identify the need and determine the strategy for hiring a Geodetic Advisor. He explained that he did not feel comfortable with what information they had. Randy Jones pointed out that the Board would have to find a state agency that would support the position, and Mr. Bush said the position could just go in with the State Surveyor, but that money would have to be found to support it. Only office space would be available, but there would be no equipment or ongoing technical support. Shelby Johnson said that the Board is in support of the idea, but he believed more fact finding need to be done, and possibly that questioning of other states would be helpful in terms of determining the pros and cons of supporting such a position and how it was handled administratively in other states. Shelby then recommended that it be included as an action item for the next meeting. Bill Bush volunteered to send out a survey to query some other states regarding this and he will pass any information he receives on to the Board members.

General Business

It was agreed that the members would concentrate on the strategic plan draft document and the Geodetic Advisor job description prior to the next meeting.

Arkansas Geospatial Warehouse System

Shelby Johnson gave an update on the status of the AGWS document and pointed out that the public comment period had passed and the document was in its final version. He said that it was almost ready for final review by the Board. He then suggested that once the final touches were on the document, that an RFP be put out in order to get an idea of the costs that might be associated with building the system. Discussion followed regarding the steps involved in doing this, including what approval would be needed from the Joint Committee. In order to expedite the proposal, a motion was made to accept the Technical Objectives of the Arkansas Geospatial Warehouse System, prepared by the Repository Objectives Committee. A vote was taken and the motion passed.

Bill Bush requested that Shelby Johnson present the document to the Joint Committee when it could be scheduled, and that as many of the Board members attend as possible. He also pointed out that copies of the document will need to be sent to the members of the Committee in advance.

Bill Bush inquired as to what else the Board needed to accomplish prior to the next meeting. Suzanne Wiley suggested that Susan Cromwell look into the process of how the Department of Information Systems might be able to support a Geodetic Advisor office.

Bill Bush requested that the Board members consider where they would send the AGWS request for proposal following approval by the Joint Committee, in order to expedite the process. Suzanne Wiley suggested all the university GIS labs in the state, big GIS consulting companies, and the State Library or data center. He ommented that the RFP would have to go out under the auspices to DIS, as DIS is mandated to house and maintain the clearinghouse for GIS, but that DIS could contract out for the services. It was recommended that the Board contact Michael Hipp of DIS to discuss the process of opening an RFP through the Department and also how funding needs of the LIB might possibly included in the DIS budget process. Shelby Johnson agreed to try to contact Michael Hipp and follow up on these issues.

Shelby Johnson also will arrange to post the final Arkansas Geospatial Warehouse System document on the web site.

Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for November 18, 1998, from 9-noon.

The meeting was adjourned.