Skip Maine state header navigation
Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation
 |
| Home | Contact Us | GeoPortal | Site Map |
|
Maine Library of Geographic Information Board MeetingDate: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 Agenda Items 1. 10:00 -10:05 - Approval of the January 18 minutes - Jim 2. 10:05 - 10:35 - Subcommittee Reports
3. 10:35 - 10:40 - Term Expirations - Jim
4. 10:40 - 11:45 - Annual Report - Jim
5. 12:15 - 12:30- Other Business/Updates
Future Agenda Topics
NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: Wednesday March 15, 2006 10:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m., Burton M. Cross Building, Conference Room 105 MINUTESPresent * Attending meeting via conference call 1. Approval of January 18 minutes - Jim Page Liz made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by William. With no discussions, changes, or omissions the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes as written. Liz having to leave early for another meeting, the second item on the agenda was a report from the GIS Executive Council. 2. Other Business - GIS Executive Council Update - Liz Hertz Liz reported the Council was developing their Strategic Plan as a more unified document instead of driving the MeGIS workplan. The plan will focus on all agency GIS needs. The Council will also seek to strengthen the connection between the State and University System with respect to GIS opportunities and training opportunities for folks within the state system, as well as developing mentoring systems so agencies with a lot of GIS expertise could support agencies that are behind. There is a sense of moving on to look at some of the issues we have facing from a new perspective. Other items Liz noted were:
Conclusion : Dan will follow up on the second item. The vendor will be giving the GeoLibrary Board an update during the March meeting and GIS Executive Council members will be invited. 3. Other Business - Ken Murchison Ken brought up a discussion about having the Regional Planning Councils (RPCs) more involved under the umbrella of GIS. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss this further at the next GIS Executive Council meeting. We need to look at ways to make the most efficient use of assets and reduce redundancy at all levels. Maybe RPCs could enter into the state structure; this would be a mature topic for discussion at this point. Conclusion : Liz will send an email to Christopher Kroot (Chair for the GIS Executive Council) for the March meeting agenda. Conclusion: As a follow up to Ken's discussion, he would like to have comments, concerns, or insights folks may have in looking bringing business partners, agencies, municipalities to the state's GIS program. Will Mitchell talked about map server and the work the state of Kentucky is doing in regards to portal work, open source, and working with counties http://ogi.ky.gov/ . Liz brought up the issue related to the difficultly of maintaining IMS. There are ongoing issues with software upgrades no longer working and needing to be fixed. The State does not have the capacity to maintain IMS applications out of the box. A comment was made that not only ESRI products come in play at this point. David Blocher noted that research is being done to look at third party products to sit op top of IMS to cut down on the maintenance and development cost. We are looking for creative and cost effective solutions for IMS. Ray Halperin suggested it might be important enough to consider setting up a multi subcommittee (folks from the GeoLibrary Board, GIS Executive Committee, and Regional Planning Councils) to review and research to potential to distribute GIS services in the state to all constituents. Conclusions: 1) Ken was asked to solicit the level of interest and bring this information to the next GeoLibrary Board meeting. 2) David, Dan, and Ken will take this on an action item to move forward and report back at the March meeting. The Board is the key node between the state and outside entities. The planning and coordination level should be carried under the auspices of the Board. 4. Subcommittee Reports Finance - Jim Page A report of the bond expenditures was distributed and reviewed. The total amount of funds still under discussion was increased due to funds that will not be needed for the USGS ortho project (Dan noted there may be more funds added; we may know more at the March meeting). The Board members were asked to think about doing some major GIS work with these funds. The Board will revisit this in 2 or 3 months from now when we may have a better idea if there will be a fall bond. We need to look for a high return on the investment. . Conclusion: Board members were asked to put their ideas on paper and bring back to the Board. Dan reported that USGS had budgeted money for Tier 2 to complete the orthos. Conclusion: Dan will bring back to the March meeting the state match for Tier 2. Policy & Marketing: No update on the draft Policy for Acceptance of Data Sets from Outside Vendors. Will Mitchell asked if the parcel grants could be downloaded and a press release issued. This could also be bundled into the ortho viewer. Will volunteered to work on the press release and share it with Marilyn as the Chair for the subcommittee. A question was raised as to the relation between data sets and parcel data; would data sets be available at the same time? The response was yes. Would the information being published include names and addresses? This led to an extensive discussion on what the policy was, if any, on publishing names and address from the parcel data. Board staff was asked to review the standards and research the Board minutes to affirm what was agreed to by the Board to include or not include in publishing parcel data. Conclusion: We need to site the standards and get a letter out to the towns and allow them 10 days to respond in favor of or opposed to publishing the parcel data with names and addresses. The information requested from the towns included 6 fields that were to be populated after a public hearing and other fields were optional. The fields in question are owners name, address, city, state zip code and country. It was noted the standards were included as an addendum to the contracts. Currently the parcel data is available to state agencies only; has not been published for access by the public. At this time, Paul requested that the fields containing names and addresses be stripped. Will made a motion to strip the fields containing names and addresses and the 4 other fields containing sensitive information from all parcel data, the motion was seconded; Board members voted and unanimously approved this motion. Second Round of Grants: The letters of acceptance/rejection have been sent out. The contracts have not gone out. We will include a document with the contract asking towns to let us know if they do or do not want the parcel data published with names and addresses. Conclusion: Larry will send out letters to towns from the first round regarding publishing names and address from the parcel data. He will also prepare contracts and document for publishing names and addresses to go out for the second round. Technical Report - Will Mitchell Will reported the kickoff meeting for the GEO Portal went very well; proceeded with technology time at MeGIS; got off to a good start; will be seeing the contractor again one month from today. Dan reported IONIC is working with GIS and database folks. They did have some configuration issues but the project is on track and moving along very well. There are some interface requirements that have to be completed. Dan will work to bring the contractor to the Board's March meeting for a status update. Dan noted he was impressed with the contractor; they have a good technology and are component; we have established a good working relationship. Conclusion: Dan will set up a presentation by Ionic at the March Board meeting and invite the GIS Executive Council members. Updates on Orthos: Larry noted the orthos have been delayed once again. USGS reported to Larry the need to correct low flying areas because an entire section was not up to the USGS standards. We are not talking about a re-flight. We will ask USGS to send us the accepted imagery. Perhaps we could request a list of quads on what we will and will not get. Conclusions: A request was made to post the status map on the Board's website. Request for map development: Jon Giles Jon Giles informed the Board he has been contacted by GIS firms to do some map development from the orthoimagery. Jon discussed the possibility of getting the scanned film,. He offered to have is firm act as the transferring agent to get the film here in Maine . Dan noted it was a great idea but would be hard to get it from USGS for free. It was also noted this would be a value to Maine businesses and communities. What is the provision for distributing? It would be labor intensive to make it available on portable hard drives or DVDs. There would also be the concern of maintaining and making it available. There is the option to make it available for folks to download themselves. Could the reproduction business be a revenue stream for the Board? Conclusion: Board agreed this would be a significant endeavor to research and follow up on. Update on Consultant Services/County Commissioners - Dan Dan reported the last meeting was held the end of January. There was good representation at the meeting; it was a good meeting with good discussions. Registry folks seemed interested and are waiting to see what we are doing vs. what they are doing. There is a growing interest by counties for GIS. The contractor's final report should be available end of this month; published first week of March. Following Dan's report, a discussion on whether the Board can take or should take action on the report was held.
Conclusion: Circulate the contractor's final report to the Board for review/comments prior to publishing. Dan will work to get the report to Board members for review on or before March 10. Term Expirations Larry reported on the following issues regarding Board membership:
Annual Report - Jim Page
Will Mitchell made a motion to approve the draft report. A question was asked if anything happened is we did delay for another month? Response was probably nothing. Jim would like to keep the dialogue with Tim at SPO moving forward. Paul seconded Will's motion to accept the draft report. Jim asked the Board to vote on approving the annual report conditional on: 1) write and attach a cover letter; 2) attach latest version of the ortho survey; 3) bind a copy of the brochure; and 4) attach a list of GeoLibrary presentations in 2005. The Board voted 6 in favor to approve the annual report; 1 abstained; and the Chair voted to approve leaving a vote of 7 yea and 1 abstained. The annual report was approved pending the 4 items noted above be accomplished in order to finalize the report. March agenda items:
|
| Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved. |