Missouri GIS Advisory Committee Minutes – October 8, 2009

Missouri GIS Advisory Committee Minutes – October 8, 2009

Department of ConservationCredit Union Building9:00 a.m.

Call to Order

Called to order at 9:09 a.m.

Welcome and Introduction of Members and Attendees

Ex-Officio Members

Mark Duewellpresent
Tim Haithcoatexcused

State Members

Debbie Briedwellpresent
Colin Duewellpresent
Matt Hesserexcused
Renee Robinsonpresent
Jeff Schlossabsent
Tracy Schlosspresent
Tony Spicciexcused
Beth Struempfabsent
Arnold Williamspresent

Cooperating Members

Aaron Addisonpresent
Mark Allenpresent
Leslie Chamberlinpresent
Elizabeth CookTreasurerpresent (proxy for Ray Fox)
David DrumSecretarypresent
Ray FoxVice-chairexcused
Ming-Chih Hungpresent
Pam Kelrickpresent
Kevin Kuhlmannexcused
Jim LaScalaabsent
Steve MarshChairpresent
Greg Reszpresent
Diane Truepresent

Other Attendees

Josie Bock, Great River Associates
Dave Bullington, Surdex
Tim Donze, Surdex
Joe Eckmann, ESRI
Melissa Johnson, Cole County
Shannon White, University of Missouri

Approval of the Minutes

September minutes available on the web site. Motion to approve from Liz Cook, multiple seconds, approved by vote.

MGISAC Administration

State GIO ReportTim Haithcoat

No report


No changes submitted



Project Updates

Discussion Topic/Presentation

Update and discussion of the membership document

Tony is attending NSGIC

Update and discussion of the Missouri GIO Plan

Tim is unavailable

Discussion of State-focused point address data collection

Steve M: provided background information. Extended discussion (see below). Motion from Liz C that Chair summarize discussion in a letter to the GIO, to have one review by the committee prior to submission. Seconded by Leslie C. Friendly amendment from Steve M that a copy of the letter be sent to Matt Hesser, state demographer. Discussion. Friendly amendment withdrawn. Motion passed by vote. Steve M: send Tim H an email with your own thoughts.

Time/Money issues

  • Time/manpower it takes to reformat existing data into requested format(s)
  • What is the larger timeline that is in place? This may help those who are reading the request understand

the big picture and the need for the timeliness in their response.

  • For those counties selling or pricing data according to state statute, there are concerns that this

revenue stream will be counteracted if the data gets out of the hands of the state (see legal issues with sunshine laws below)

  • Some counties do not outright own their own data, they may have a binding contract with a company or

contractor that explicitly states the data can not be shared. Will the state be contacting those data providers? Will those locales need to provide that information?

Technical/Knowledge Issues

  • Some counties do not have GIS nor 911 therefore the data may not be in the electronic formats requested
  • Request to reformat data into a specific format (how do they get info out of the existing systems)
  • Merging multiple data sets if they are not already merged (i.e. assessors data + 911 data)
  • Addressing issues were not taken into account (ie. corn fields addressed for insurance purposes, 2nd homes

in vacation areas)

  • This may be an overwhelming technical burden for some counties that do not have the technical know-how or

wherewithal to support this request. If such data is needed, then there needs to be technical assistance support set up to aid in the process.

  • Each locale does this type of business differently and their workflows and processes are different thus it

is a more difficult task across the state

  • he addressing entity in each county is different and this should be taken into account (see related GIS

professional comment in Professional etiquette comments below)

  • Acknowledge the “shelf life” of the datasets

Legal issues

  • Concerns that when sharing data with the state for a specific intended purpose will not enable the state to

redistribute (or what will happen if the state forced to distribute through Sunshine law)

  • State MOU – if used and counties note they do not want parts shared
  • Members of MGISAC voiced the need for a decision from the AG’s office rather than an opinion (not in

writing) regarding data, data sources, digital assets and Sunshine law as it applies to the requested data and data sharing agreements

  • Privacy issues for those individuals in 911 databases where the data is not public knowledge (e.g. can the

state be requested to turn over to a mailing list service if “sunshined”?)

Professional Etiquette Issues

  • The perception of use of “sunshine law” to gain access to the data is seen as hostile
  • Perception of the state “strong arming” local government by hitting multiple fronts (local offices) with

letter (i.e. 911, county commissioners, assessors offices and GIS offices

  • Concern that ongoing efforts of the MGISAC and many counties and regions to enter into datasharing

agreements were counteracted by the letter (e.g. the letter sent seemed to move around existing structures that were in place and had been worked on for a long period of time; there was seemingly a lack of respect for how the “locals” do business)

  • Does the state know who participated in the LUCA process? Why was this not encouraged of all counties in


  • Letter needed to be more explicit in the benefits to the local governments from participating in the

request (e.g. any representation we get matters politically and monetarily at the local level; and the more money for the county may mean more money for data development in that county)

  • An expressed need for more coaching or handholding from the state-level in this process rather than blanket

letters out. It was suggested that it might be helpful to ask those counties who are struggling with providing the data requested what issues they are encountering in fulfilling the request.

  • Often starting with the GIS professional in a locale would have helped both the GIS professional and the

county in recommendations of how to approach the situation from their perspective

  • Concern from the GIS professionals that if the Congressional Seat is lost then the “black-eye” that will

result will be blamed on local non-responsiveness or inability to produce the data in the ways requested without taking into account the complexities of the data/time/money/technical/legal issues as a whole.

Subcommittee Reports

Data DevelopmentRay Fox

Liz C: subcommittee did not meet. Still working on state LiDAR business case, etc.

FinanceLiz Cook

Domain name credit received. Balance stands at $30,078.77. NSGIC dues still to be deducted, $3,000. NE Regional Workshop breaks still to be deducted, up to $100. Looked into conference insurance. Cost would be approximately $525 to cover terrorism, bad weather, venue damage, and a host of highly unlikely items. Does not consider it to be worth pursuing. Insurance to cover low registration does not exist. Discussion. Item tabled.

Funding & GrantsPam Kelrick, Tony Spicci, Mark Duewell

Mark D: have been approached by USGS about writing another partnership grant. Agree with Tim about looking at possibilities in the wider state (previous partnership grant was in the New Madrid fault zone). Discussion. Pam K: FGDC grants are posted with details. Category 5 (business case/return on investment) is intriguing. Discussion. Mark will send out a link to the grant category.

Homeland Security/Emergency ManagementDebbie Briedwell

No report

Local Government GroupMark Allen

No report

Outreach & EducationMark Duewell

Northeast Regional workshop on October 24. Registration full. Building support for a metadata class in St. Louis and Kansas City. Considering a regional workshop in the south central portion of the state, around Ava.

Strategic PlanningEric Foster

No report

Missouri GIS ConferenceTony Spicci

No report

Liaison Reports

GIT Architecture (MAEA)Tim Haithcoat

No report

Policy & LegislationTony Spicci

No report

MSDIS ActivitesMark Duewell

A lot of new data out and pending. Quarterly report will be published to day, fiscal report following shortly.

MAGIC ConsortiumTony Spicci

Awards and registration will open shortly.

Cooperating Agency/Organization Reports

Federal/NRCSLiz Cook

2009 true color NAIP is available, MrSID only at this time. CiR on the way. Discussion about MSDIS image server.

Federal/USGSRay Fox

Liz C: USGS is buying LiDAR data for Stone county, all USGS money, no idea why.

Missouri Association of Councils of Government

No report

Missouri Resource Assessment PartnershipDiane True

No report

Missouri Mappers AssociationJim LaScala

Steve M: attended quarterly directors meeting; discussed certification. MMA currently has a PMM certification, all pen-and-ink. MMA wants a GIS version of this certification. Not the same as a GISP; just a GIS version of parcel mapping certification. Discussion.

Missouri Society of Professional SurveyorsJohn Teale

No report

National States Geographic Information CouncilTim Haithcoat

No report

Round Table Discussionall

Mark A: What is the status of the Enterprise Google Earth? Arnold: IS dept seems sold on it, would rather use something else.
Leslie C: could we have forums on the web site?
Tim D: introduced Dave Bullington
Pam K: Iowa Rural GIS Summit was September 29-30, had 50 in attendance. Have some resources available, will see about going on the web site.
Joe E: Tuesday in Jefferson City, 9-12 at Doubletree, ESRI UC Highlight session. Register on the ESRI Events web site.
Tracy S: launched first Adobe Flex GIS application.

Announcement of next meeting

November 12, 2009 @ Conservation Credit Union


Adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

Comments are closed.