September 22, 1998

Attending Members
William Bush - Director, Arkansas Geological Commission
Susan Cromwell - Director, Office of Information Technology
Shelby Johnson - Research Specialist, Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies
Randy Jones - Surveyor, First Electric Corporation
Shirley Sandlin - Benton County Assessor
Suzanne Wiley - Tech Analyst, GIS, Spatial Analysis Lab, U of A at Monticello

Members Unable to Attend
Robert Bennett - Arkansas State University
Cecil Davis - DP Director and Alternate for Cathy Mathis, Director, Department of Arkansas Heritage
Ben Kittler - Ben Kittler Surveying
Phil Schoettlin - Chamber of Commerce, Fayetteville
Robert Wallis - Acxiom Corporation
Jim Wells - Wellsco Graphics Solution Center

Guests
Phyllis Smith - Chairperson GIS Users Forum, UALR GIS Laboratory
Karen Howard - Vice Chair, GIS Users Forum, Arkansas Dept. of Health

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

The meeting was called to order.

The minutes of the last meeting of August 20, 1998, were approved.

Update on Technical Objectives Committee

Shelby Johnson was asked to discuss the activities of the Technical Objectives Committee, which was formed at the last LIB meeting. The Committee is comprised of Shelby Johnson, Ben Kittler, Clarence Durand, Suzanne Wiley, and Karen Howard. He explained that the committee's initiative was to write guidelines and develop a strategy for establishing a statewide digital data repository for digital geodata information. The name they chose for the repository project is the "Arkansas Geospatial Warehouse System (AGWS)," reflecting both the warehouse concept and a system that can transform, document, search and retrieve, and make information accessible. Each of the committee members searched how other states are coordinating with the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). He pointed out that they paid particular attention to information from Kansas and Missouri, and used this information to help develop a model for Arkansas.

Shelby read to the group the mission statement and the vision statement that were written by the committee The committee identified groups that have a major interest in this effort, which are data consumers, geospatial data producers, geospatial data organizers, and the people of the state. They also decided on objectives, which are policies, compatibility, storage, organization, documentation, quality, and accessibility. Shelby went over the details of the objectives as presented in the report and discussion followed among the board members.

Shelby went on to explain that the document had been released for public comment and that the committee also made a solicitation for comment from the director of the Data Access Support Center (DASC) in Kansas and from the Missouri Spatial Data Information Service (MSDIS). Some of the suggestions from these sources have been included in the AGWS document. Extensive discussion ensued regarding the technical standards of metadata in the state in relation to the document objectives. Some recommendations of the Board members were incorporated in the document.

It was decided to place the amended AGWS document out for all Land Information Board members to review and for public comment. The Board members will be asked to return their comments by October 8. Susan Cromwell commented that once the AGWS technical objectives are completed, that the proposal for a repository be presented as an RFP in order to get an idea of the actual funding that will be needed from the legislature. Bill Bush pointed out that the LIB will have to go through the legislative communications committee, present the report, present the responses from an RFP, and show what kind of funding will be necessary for the project. He pointed out that the LIB does have legislative support in that the legislature passed the law and gave the Board the tasks, and that the repository project is a response to their mandates. Susan Cromwell said that the LIB should not ask to establish any new state positions to deal with the project, because the message delivered from the current (and most likely future) administration is that agencies are to reallocate and cut personnel resources rather than hire new staff. The DIS position is to continue to provide management responsibility but to hire the work out to be done if that is the most efficient business decision.

Randy Jones voiced the concern that it will need to shown clearly how the repository project will directly benefit the citizens of Arkansas at a local level in order to receive funding and the members agreed. He also voiced the opinion that the Board needs to ask for enough funding to be able to create a first-class data repository and that this might be achieved by asking for a surcharge on one or more of the public utility services. Suzanne Wiley pointed out that the original legislation included an office of Land Information Technical Support with staff and equipment and that this office could serve to process data in the warehouse for public or legislative use. Shirley Sandlin pointed out that most of the cities and counties do not have the funding or technology to ever do this individually and that they all need the capability to track geodata and statistical information. She added that it is her hope that once this repository is in place that everyone can benefit from this data, and if this comes together as she sees it, all of the counties and cities will be able to use this information, which will affect all citizens.

Susan Cromwell pointed out that while this is a desirable outcome, the state will not have the networking infrastructure in the state to do the kind of distribution needed for a while. She pointed out that this biennial issue is to get the infrastructure in place and to define the content, and that the LIB cannot ask for a goal of reaching the cities and counties at this point as the network cannot be built fast enough. Susan further explained that there are major issues with getting telecommunications providers to provide the access necessary to remote areas of the state and that there is a really big problem with building the network, that it isn't just throwing people and resources, it's getting the participation of communications providers in the state. She felt that it be made clear that the request for funding will be the first pass and that the LIB will be back in the next biennium.

Bill Bush returned to the subject of the possibility of asking for utility surcharges as a source of funding. Randy Jones explained that the major utilities in the state would be the best choice. He explained that he would really like to see a high quality base map for the state be created with this funding, not just have a clearinghouse. Susan Cromwell suggested that the specifications for funding include creating one very good, totally referenced base map for the state. Suzanne Wiley pointed out that the creation of a base map is a different issue that the warehouse and that the warehouse project will not be for the purpose of developing data. She recommended that a state base map be made as a separate proposal. Shelby Johnson recommended that rather than going with the base map, the focus should be on framework data as that data allows the choice of what a base map will be. He pointed out that it is a closely tied issue, but it really is separate from the repository. Susan Cromwell asked whether a basic base map be included in the repository project for demonstration purposes to the public.

Phyllis Smith asked whether there would be any problems with duplication of efforts in regards to data, citing the example of any agency which already has data available who would not want to give data to the respository. Several Board members reiterated that the data repository would not just store data, but would link to existing data sources in many locations and would seek to not duplicate information. Susan Cromwell felt that it would be very important to figure out who the agencies are that hold data that is applicable to the state repository, and get them coordinated and involved in the request for funding and in sharing information. She also pointed out that in state government as a whole, the move is towards more cooperation between agencies, sharing of resources, and elimination of redundancy, and she hopes that GIS issues will be included in those efforts. Karen Howard mentioned that the AGWS document doesn't specify whether this repository will just be a storage location or whether it will start with base map layers and a request for funding of the DOQs and DEMs, and then that data will be provided to local governments to use as base layer data to get started with their GIS systems. Shelby Johnson explained that this could be addressed by spelling out framework layers. 

Shelby Johnson proposed that the discussion be closed on the AGWS with the plan that comments will be returned by October 8 with the focus on incorporating changes into the document which will give a basis for the costs involved in the project. Shelby also pointed out that the AGWS is one part of an overall strategic plan and that the strategic plan would address funding sources and sustainability. Bill Bush commented that that by the time a proposal makes it to a budget hearing, the legislature may not allow a presentation, they may only ask questions, and that it is very important to gather support prior to legislative review. Susan Cromwell asked whether it would mean more federal money to the State of Arkansas for funding of federal initiatives if the data repository was finished and Shelby indicated that it was not likely. He did feel that it would make the state more competitive with regards to economic development. Randy Jones again voiced the concern that the legislature would not recognize the importance of the geodata warehouse project unless it could be related directly to the needs of their constituents. He felt strongly that the legislators would need to be told what the warehouse will do and who's going to benefit, and that it would be paid for in some other way than asking for money from the general fund.

It was agreed at this point that the Technical Objectives of the AGWS document would be presented for public comment, the comments would be reviewed, and then it would be looked at by a cost committee.

Land Information Coordinator Update

Bill Bush called on Susan Cromwell to update the Board regarding the Land Information Coordinator position. She explained that the DIS HR Director had sent the to the Governor's Office for approval. Mr. Bush recommended that the job be posted prior to approval in order to begin taking applications for review. Suzanne Wiley asked as to whether the salary range would be posted with the job grade in order to attract applicants and Ms. Cromwell said this could be possible. Shelby Johnson pointed out that there is a NSGIC list server where the job could be posted, also. Phyllis Smith added that MidAmerica puts out job announcements, also. Susan Cromwell encouraged the members to pass the position on to any professional organizations as soon as it was available for posting. Susan did ask that if the members forwarded the job position to any organizations, that they use the list server to notify Board members where the job is being posted. She also agreed to draft an Email message to preface the job listing for distribution to any lists.

Reports

GIS Workshop in Rolla, Missouri
Mr. Bush attended the GIS Workshop at Midcontinent Mapping Center in Rolla, Missouri.  He explained that there were a lot of people at the conference and it seemed there were too many individual issues to address in too short a time. He said USGS spent a lot of time promoting their agency, which most people were familiar with already, but that a few things were accomplished. He followed up on information with Ray Fox regarding DEMs and DOQs in Arkansas and he explained that there are two federal agencies who are very interested in having these done - the USGS Water Resource Division and the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Bush did some research regarding funding for the DEMs and DOQs and basically the costs that Ray had given before are pretty much the same, but most likely by the time these were done in the state, the price would come down some and any money through the Corps of Engineers or WRD would help offset the costs. He pointed out that it will still be a lot of money, with the DEMs running around $64,000 and the DOQs about $300,000, for a total of about $360,000. Karen Howard said that Ray Fox had informed her that the DOQs had come down in price to $900 apiece, for a 10% reduction to approximately $269,000. Mr. Bush added this project would have to budgeted on a fiscal year basis when asking for funding and this would be based on how much could be physically accomplished in a year. He explained that there are three elements in issuing a contract: the preparation of the specs, the issuing of the contract, and the actual work done; the time frame over the year, the total of all three, is taking longer and the part that is taking longer is the preparation of the contracts. He explained that the work is taking less time but the other two aspects are growing.

Mr. Bush talked about how he works with people in Washington on national mapping issues, some of whom were at the conference. He explained how they don't look at how their decisions trickle down and affect the states and that there are some differences of opinion on how things should be done. Mr. Bush described how the DOQ work is going to be contracted out and how standards need to be set at the national level. He said that since the meeting in Rolla, they are ready to bargain and have backed off on some of the detrimental policies. Three state geologists will be meeting in Washington later in October to deal with some of the policy decisions that affect the state. Mr. Bush emphasized that what the Association of American State Geologists is trying to do is make sure that the quality is not reduced and that the costs be kept to a minimum. He explained that sometimes the USGS has to operate under mandates but sometimes their policies extend beyond those mandates, and that hopefully quality can be maintained. He hopes that the State can use USGS services, because they will pay for half of a lot of the work, which doubles the amount of money available. He pointed out that there are other people working on these issues at the level that decisions are made that can have an impact on how money and time are spent by the Board. He also mentioned the Corps of Engineers as a possible source of money and that he will find out who to contact about this.

Suzanne Wiley inquired as to who would handle monies gathered from various sources for the DOQs and DEMs, and Mr. Bush suggested that the LIB could manage the appropriation, it could be placed in DIS funds for management, or any other agency, but that since the Land Information Coordinator will be working for DIS, placing funds with DIS for management would make sense. Susan Cromwell mentioned that DIS is already set up for that kind of pass-through funding mechanism. Bill Bush also pointed out that most agencies have this kind of mechanism in place.

There was further discussion on funding issues.

At this point Mr. Bush turned the meeting over to Shelby Johnson, Vice Chair.

GIS Users Forum
Karen Howard was asked to update the Board on the activities of the GIS Users Forum. Karen commented that she didn't feel like she had any new information to take back to the Forum regarding map layers and funding sources for agencies. Susan Cromwell said that she would go through the state IT plans on file and look for agencies that have anything budgeted for GIS data development and see what any of them might have in mind. She also inquired of Shelby as to whether CAST was aware of who needs new data and who has money for it, and he replied that a lot of times they are aware of some things but he is not aware of specific projects asking for DOQs and DEMs.

Shelby asked Karen Howard whether there was really anything to report from the Forum, and she explained that she had requested that the Forum be combined with the GIS Working Group, and the Forum did vote unanimously to do this. Karen said there are teams working on the upcoming conference and that people have signed up to participate on technical advisory committees to support issues that the LIB brings up, like the process works in Kansas.

Mission Statement
The mission statement was tabled until the next meeting, as the Board members responsible for this were not in attendance.

Metadata Standards
Shelby Johnson talked about his research on metadata standards. He explained that he took a look at the minimum content standard of the FGDC, with emphasis on Sections 1 and 7 and explained that the entire 90-page document is available off the FGDC web site. Shelby explained that Sections 1 and 7 cover basic structures of data. He explained that Section 1 refers basically to the descriptive information about the data, which is all citational or the naming part of the data. All Section 7 is basically the "serial" number of the metadata itself - date, review date, future review date, contact information, standard name, standard version, etc. Susan Cromwell inquired as to whether there are naming conventions and Shelby answered that the appendix of the FGDC document has information regarding this.

Shelby explained that Sections 1 and 7 are the minimum standard required regarding metadata standards. While in Kansas at the standards meeting, he said there was a presentation by a company (Enabling Technologies) which has developed a commercial metadata software application called SMMS. The representative told Shelby that his company arranges statewide purchase plans. A bundle of 20 is $450 for a user license. Shelby said that this is probably the only commercial metadata generation product on the market, but that there are a number of public domain products that are free but not as comprehensive.

Shelby said he would like the Board to adopt Sections 1 and 7 of the FGDC standards, and that these standards are already federally mandated. Susan Cromwell asked if the Board would be ignoring the other sections of the document. Shelby explained that he was not recommending ignoring the other sections, just that Section 1 and 7 represents what the FGDC calls "minimum," so it is a good place to start.

Susan Cromwell inquired as to whether the adoption of this standard would have any impact in terms of federal funding, and Randy Jones replied that this was true and it would also have an impact regarding grant funding. Bill Bush pointed out that this standard was probably a requirement for many federal grants. Mike Mitchell said he would look at some of the grants.

Strategic Plan

Shelby Johnson recommended that the Board table the strategic plan until the next meeting, as this would take more time than remained in the afternoon.   The other members concurred. 

Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for October 20, to allow time to get reports back from Board members and the public on the draft Arkansas Geospatial Warehouse System (AGWS) document. It was decided that the meeting should be an all-day session to specifically work on a Land Information Board strategic plan.

Legislative Issues

The Board then began a discussion regarding approaches regarding legislative issues. Shelby Johnson recommended the formation of a public relations committee or the development of some type of public relations process to reach the citizens of Arkansas. He talked about how there are many organizations that would be interested in the activities of the LIB and how it would be good to have a package or presentation to carry to groups. Susan Cromwell didn't feel that this was something that needed a committee effort but that this type of public relations activity will be something that the Land Information Coordinator will need to develop. Suzanne Wiley felt that a committee, though, could develop a format. The members discussed what would be important to present to the public and some items agreed upon were the DOQs, DEMs, a geodetic advisor, the data repository, and anything else the Board is trying to do. Shelby Johnson felt that these areas need to be publicized so that when requests for funding go to the legislation next year, the issues will be familiar to the legislators. He pointed out that although the new Land Information Coordinator will be able to help considerably, the Board needed to start gathering some ideas immediately.

Discussion followed on what types of groups are would be good to reach. Some groups mentioned were:

  • Arkansas Center for Public Affairs

  • The Governor's Technology Advisory Committee

  • The Joint Committee on Advanced Communications and Information Technology

  • Municipal League

  • Arkansas Association of Counties

  • Center for Rural Advocacy

  • Legislators

  • County Assessors and County Clerks

The Board discussed how to best communicate with groups, and it was agreed that to be effective, the information presented would need to be slanted towards how GIS directly affect the citizens of the state, which included the areas of health and safety, insurance statistics, emergency services, etc. Shelby suggested that a presentation be created that each LIB member would have that would contain speaker's notes and when a member has the chance to talk before a group, that the presentation be used. Susan Cromwell reminded the Board that Bill Bush had already done a brief presentation before the Joint Committee and that this would be a good place to start by presenting an update on the Board activities. She emphasized that they would be very supportive regarding GIS issues.

Karen Howard suggested that a really good presentation with slides would be necessary in order to hold the interest of the viewers and the Board members agreed. Suzanne Wiley moved that the Board develop a preliminary presentation and test it out on the Joint Committee, which would be based on a Powerpoint slide show and posters, etc. Susan Cromwell said she would find out when the next Joint Committee meeting is scheduled and will let the members know.

It was emphasized in discussion that to reach the legislators and receive funding for a repository and base map, a presentation would have to show clearly how GIS initiatives will benefit their constituents. Mike Mitchell pointed out that the LIB through the efforts at coordinating a base map for the state would help projects around the state get completed and help initiate new projects. Susan Cromwell also pointed out that with the move towards more accountability by government, a state base map is going to be necessary to track state program outcomes. Shirley Sandlin pointed out that the sheriffs and the county judges would be important backers, as well as the Municipal League Shelby also suggested that some printed material could be drawn up for submission to various association or professional newsletters. Susan Cromwell suggested that the presentation be modular. The first module would be customized for each specific group presentation, and then specific GIS application examples would follow the group's interests.

Shelby Johnson asked what the process is to write a legislative proposal and Susan Cromwell said she had heard that the Bureau of Legislative Research had a template available to assist in writing bills.

Susan Cromwell mentioned to the Board that in relation to public relations efforts, the Office of Information Technology is hiring a City/County Planning Specialist and that person will be helping the Land Information Coordinator in their efforts. She also suggested that the LIB plan on going before the Education Committee with a special presentation about the impact of a base map on the decisions they have to make about public education.

Geodetic Advisor

Shelby Johnson explained that at the last meeting Bill Bush had some concerns that had been raised about some surveyors about the Geodetic Advisor position and having one in the state. He was going to investigate that. Randy Jones said that he was attending a surveyor meeting and he would check around, but that he felt the state surveyors would be in favor of a state Geodetic Advisor.

New Business

DOQs and DEMs
Suzanne Wiley suggested that the Board start putting together a draft of what needs to be included for legislative action in relation to the projects on DOQs, DEMs, the Geodetic Advisor, and the data repository. Shelby suggested that the Board issue a statement of priorities to the email lists and poll members as to their support for each project prior to submission to the legislature. Susan Cromwell recommended that the Board approach the GIS Forum members and ask the members to get high-level agency commitment to a partnership towards long-term efforts. Phyllis Smith agreed to poll the Forum on the proposed projects. Suzanne Wiley proposed that an advisory panel be created from the agencies in order to get involvement at the top levels. Karen Howard mentioned that the original Land Information Board was created with members from agencies, cities and counties, and these people could be approached for support.

Metadata Standards
Shelby Johnson made the motion that the Board adopt the Minimum Metadata Content Standard Sections 1 and 7 as the metadata standard for the repository project. Suzanne Wiley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Miscellaneous Business
Susan Cromwell asked whether the Board would be interested in having the DIS Technology Investigation Center purchase a license for the metadata software (SMMS) to make it available for trial to interested agencies. Phyllis Smith said that it would be possible to set up the software at the UALR GIS lab for demonstration. Discussion of the software followed and it was decided that Phyllis Smith will make an announcement regarding the demonstration of the software.

The members had a brief discussion as to whether there was any support available through the Legislative Research Office in regards to writing bills. Susan Cromwell said she would ask Randy Martinsen to assign Jerri Derlikowski of that office to assist the Board.

Regarding the proposed state Geodetic Advisor, Bill Bush recommended that the surveying community be asked for their comments with a deadline and that they be invited to attend the next LIB meeting to make comments in person. He reiterated that there is federal money available to help with the expenses and that he has office space available. Mr. Bush said he would put this on the agenda of the Land Survey Advisory Board meeting to get their comments. Randy Jones said that the State Land Surveyors Association was meeting soon and he would talk to that group regarding the Geodetic Advisor. It was also decided to post for comments on the GIS Users Forum email list.

Susan Cromwell handed out a document that is being used by DIS to assist state agencies with Information technology planning as a sample to assist with the LIB planning session scheduled. Bill Bush asked if DIS could provide someone as a planning facilitator, and Susan said she will Melanie Lowery attend the planning session.

Suzanne Wiley recommended that continued discussion regarding a presentation be pursued via Email so as to get the project moving.

Bill Bush suggested that prior to the next meeting for strategic planning that each member put some ideas down on paper ahead of time.

Suzanne Wiley inquired as to when the Board should start writing legislation and Bill Bush said it would be good to get it in by the first of January, but that most likely this type of legislation would be coming in late March. He said that December would be a good time for the Joint Committee to review the Board proposals in December, and it would be good to talk to the individual members prior to that. Suzanne Wiley suggested that a presentation about the LIB projects be given to the Joint Committee prior to seeking Committee support for proposed legislation.

The meeting was then adjourned.