Texas Geographic Information Office Notes: February 2017 DCS GIS Solutions Group Meeting

Notes: February 2017 DCS GIS Solutions Group Meeting

Date: February 8, 2017 ● 2:30 pm – 4:00 pm

Location: DIR Conference Room # 4 (Congress Conference Room)

Meeting Chair: Richard Wade, TWDB/TNRIS

Participants: Raj Nadkarni, TCEQ; Travis Scruggs, Jeremy Rogers (via conference line), Chris Bardash, TXDOT; Susan Seet (via conference line), CSEC; Greg Smithhart, TCEQ; Felicia Retiz, TWDB/TNRIS; Gayla Mullins, TWDB

Other Attendees: Michael Kersey, DIR; Kara Manton, Jennifer Sylvester, Jim Scott, AppGeo; Jack O’Connell, Google

Welcome and Introductions - Richard Wade

Google Imagery Service and AppGeo Appliance Updates - Kara Manton/Jack O’Connell

  • As of Jan 1, imagery now coming from Tile API with new contract. No major issues.
  • Updates from Google: Big Bend, Greenville, Rosenfeld, Sonora, and Stamford going into tile next week. Kara will email the list and dates.
  • Usage still consistent, TxDOT still biggest user. Over 320 unique user links.
  • Email update will come automatically from AppGeo to small group. By next month should have autoupdates working.
  • Jack – RW question on how historic imagery will stay live for us. Older than three years. Google coming on contract with DIR for storage options which should give us a solution. Will have different levels of storage, frontline, backup, etc. with different pricing structures. Google Cloud Platform formally managed by Jack – more than just storage. Going to get documented under contract with DIR. In the meantime, still have enough credits to keep what we currently have.
  • Raj – Interested in last 3 years over 5 years.
  • RW – Could lead to agencies putting historic data into GCP option.
  • Ed – Set retention periods on GIS data? Raj – TCEQ got exempt. Would like a full metdata on every dataset, specifically acquisition date. Would like to search by county or city.
  • Kara – There’s spatial metadata for every flight. Can build tool to search for those things.
  • Raj – What about State budget cuts?
  • RW – Will be cuts but we will fight for the exceptional items. Flood funding should be fine. Need to operate as if we’re going to keep going as is and at least maintained.
  • Raj – Idea to get endorsements from executive leaders for TX Imagery Service.
  • Jack – Working on contract now for DCS, expect it to happen in number of days. It’s a priority.
  • Jim – Had security briefing with Google and DIR recently. Good story for pitching to agencies.
  • Raj – Concerned anything new added to the new contract. Example, printing restrictions.
  • FR – New contract start working on in March.
  • Raj – Asking about color variatioins Kara Manton/Jack O’Connell

Parcel Data Study Update

  • Jennifer S. – Draft report, version 1, will be sent to TNRIS soon. Showed levels (1 – 5) of parcel data stewardship in order to approach their business planning. Review the vision for the study which is up for discussion. Which level can TX achieve? Etc.
  • Reviewed statewide appraisal survey results and agency survey results. Lots of value documented.
  • Showed other States research results. No state is doing this the same, example shared funding, purely private sector, etc…
  • Showed state of TX map of digital data available currently.

Next steps:

  • Submit Draft Report, Version 1 to TNRIS
  • Steering Committee Review Meeting with Dr. David Cowen – February 17th
  • Report Revisions à Report Draft Version 2
  • CAD data counted as the digital data along with GIS data. Could be an issue down the line for funding differences.
  • Some states have been working on this data type for 17 years. Not an easy
  • C. Bardash – Why did some respondents say they would not share their data? Jenn – Data is licensed or some flat out said no. RW – Vendors should be open to share the data with the state because they can provide data is a different way.
  • C. Bardash – Did States have legislative mandates? Jenn S. - Some did based on a transaction feed, some grant funding, at least some legislation for appraisal district for standards, etc.
  • Jenn S. – Several states completely done. Jennifer Sylvester

Cost Model and Possible FY18-19 Projects

  • RW – Been looking for ways to fund multiple data types. Been asking DIR if can be done in DCS program. They said yes. We need to able to charge for maintenance and upgrades for data all charged through the TX Imagery Service. FR put together a DRAFT document outlining the information with % cost share allocations per dataset. How can we use this for line items.
  • FR – If we have access $$ over $1.2M for the Google imagery, what can we do with that money?
  • RW – Proposing to add a charge for everybody (such as 20 or 25%) to addon to the base cost. Asking the Solutions Group for advisement on percentages. Described spreadsheet of 20% on top of each comprehensive State, Regional, and Local contribution for annual costs.
  • Ed Kelly – There would be a need for a reassessment of the cost model, perhaps on the biennium.
  • Raj – Legally, many agencies have MOUs among each other for GIS data. So how would data sharing work? Ed Kelly – Working on closing the loop holes for closing them. A need for a non-happy path to identify the risks moving through this process.
  • RW – Example, cityofpflugerville pay $5,000 for base but for $6,000 can get premium data
  • Ed Kelly – Option should be on or off. Base + Maintenance & Updates or not at all. Cannot get just the Base (unless that data is already in the public domain). Communicate the premiums well and will be much easier. Moving to more of a strict business model now.
  • FR – What about talking to entities where we won’t have premium lidar derivitives? Ed – Have to tailor the marketing strategy to the specific agencies.
  • RW – TWDB and DIR financial folks talking to all applicable channels to set up the program. May even go to the DIR Board.
  • FR – Would like comments and review on the draft document, especially on the premium services.
  • T. Scruggs – Suggest roadmap for identifying to customers: This is our Priority 1, Priority 2, etc.. What about Google parcel data? Aggregated and not available because proprietary. Proposed start time? RW – Early April to make marketing visits to agencies.
  • Sue Seet – On building footprints, had convo with TDEM that they really need these. This area could grow larger as well as indoor mapping.
  • T. Scruggs – Suggests Project TANGO from Google
  • Sue Seet – Spoke with Todd Early? Need champion at TDEM/DPS for this program specifically for indoor first responders.
  • Ed Kelly – Key part of the marketing is showing comparison between purchasing same data outside of this program.


  • Raj – On Esri contract, are current licensees grandfathered? RW – Need to have Esri clarify.
  • Richard Wade/Group Discussion

Next Meeting – March 7, 2017

Past Meeting Notes:

    Note: Meeting documents are provided for each month when a meeting is actually held. If there is no meeting, no notes will be available for that month. Documents are in order from oldest (top) to most recent (bottom), with a maximum of 12 documents available at any time.