9-1-1 Association GIS Committee Meeting

February 3, 2015 9-1-1 Association GIS Committee Meeting 2:30 Call to Order

Attendance  Jason Horning - present  Bob Nutsch - present  Karla Germann - present  Terry Volk - present  Karen Kempert - present  Darrel Nucech - present  Phil Peterschick - present  Daryl Masten - present  Stacey Swanson - present  Liz Beck - present

Approve Minutes Motion to Approve – Karen Seconded – Stacey

NENA GIS Data Model Status – Jason Jason provided a status update. NENA still working on their document (since 2010) and a review of updates has been provided as of last January. There have been 152comments have been provided, but there could be more as time goes on.

Seamless Base Map / Service Boundary Update – Phil Phil relayed that GeoLink server is being set up, and will be sending email to State Radio counties, then Phase I, 2, 3 and 4 counties, except NE corner of state.

Service Boundary update – State Radio counties have been delivered. Temporary DES staff at DOT completed all of the road layer. Submitted existing boundaries to Jason, and will be working on MSAG next. DES base map imagery may be accessed via the GIS Hub. Bob said that the cache service is to be done soon. ND GIS Data Requirements Final Discussions and Approval- Everyone Liz inquired about dual response services for one area. Jason explained that for emergency response layers, there can be polygons for every agency, and there can be overlapping polygons, using less than 32 characters for the responder name in the ESN ELT for E9-1-1 is require but not for NG 9-1-1, and abbreviated if necessary in the ESN ELT. Fields were reviewed in further detail. PSAP polygons cannot be overlapped.

Phil addressed EMS/Fire Districts – does Health or Insurance agency have other constraints that need to be considered? Will need to be looked at.

Jason talked about how calls will come in via LOST and ECRF in relation to ANI/ALI.

Phil - QR boundaries have been developed, and will be aggregated into the EMS layer in the (very distant) future for NG purposes. Jason said that mapping applications at the local level will be referenced by the local entity for more information for QRUs.

Elevation data will be looked at by Daryl Matsen and information given to Jason.

Terry Volk had an addressing question. The Burkle system in the Lake Metegoshie area is not used, as it was pre-1993. Suggestions? Jason suggested selecting a location off a primary road, and to provide a lot number, with notes in the document. Example for lots 1-10, west direction, lots 11-20 east direction, etc. Phil also didn’t see a need for Terry or others to change their addressing that was developed pre-1993.

Stacey referenced Page 20 – restricted roads, or seasonal can change periodically. Jason said that “on/off” road status is based on closures used for routing. There was a conversation on whether there should be another category of road such as “seasonal”. Phil emphasized that the fields exist for routing. Additional GIS work would be needed if incorporated into the road centerline layer, however each county can create extra fields in their own local data.

Stacey also asked about bridges, as some can be closed, and affect routing. Jason - Should restrictions for roads be developed? Bridges are a point restriction. Phil wondered if folks shouldn’t be surveyed to learn how counties are using closures. Jason mentioned that by changing speed limit down to 1-5 MPH, that it will force a reroute. Extra fields would be needed to support this kind of need. Phil leans toward counties aggregating road centerline data with their own fields, and managing this at a local level. The Road Centerline Local ID Description was referenced from page 9 of the document.

Road Centerline Field Data Type Description Local ID Text (100) An identifier provided by the GIS source provider for the (LOCAL_ID) purpose of linking records back to locally managed data. It is preferable that the GIS record’s LOCAL_ID not change over time.

A field for FIPS code was discussed along with unique identifiers, for counties to use locally. Phil questioned how is this different than the source code, i.e. Cass. Jason - source code is intended to be used for a county or PSAP name, such as Lake Region. Consensus steered towards using the Source provider and their own local ID. When a county extract records from DES, they could be linked to internal local database.

Phil also commented that road ownership is shared at jurisdictional lines, so it’s hard to assign a FIPS to left and right side between jurisdictions. Jason wondered if language shouldn’t be added for counties that use different addressing. He suggested that at our next meeting March 3, to capture recommendations and share at the 911 Association meeting March 4 & 5.

Other Business – no other business

Adjourn @ 3:28 PM Karen motioned to adjourn Bob seconded

Conference Bridge: 701-328-9754 There is no pass code