Skip Maine state header navigation
Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation
 |
| Home | Contact Us | GeoPortal | Site Map |
|
|
Home October 18, 2006 Board Meeting
Maine Library of Geographic Information Board Meeting
|
Details Follow |
|
Bond Funds |
|
Match |
|
|
Priority |
Project |
FY07 |
FY08 |
FY07 |
FY08 |
NOTES |
1 |
Complete orthophoto project |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier B |
$270,000 |
|
$270,000 |
|
Federal Match |
|
Tier C |
|
$330,000 |
|
$330,000 |
Federal Match |
|
begin update cycle |
|
$250,000 |
|
$250,000 |
Likely Federal Match |
2 |
Parcel Grants |
$750,000 |
$750,000 |
$750,000 |
$750,000 |
Municipal Match |
3 |
Conservation Lands Maps |
$200,000 |
$200,000 |
|
|
|
4 |
Zoning Maps Grants |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
|
|
|
5 |
Update Statewide Land Cover |
|
$100,000 |
|
|
|
6 |
DFIRM Production |
$300,000 |
$430,000 |
$300,000 |
$430,000 |
Federal Match |
7 |
Development Tracking |
$250,000 |
|
|
|
|
8 |
Build Statewide GIS Network |
$150,000 |
$150,000 |
|
|
|
9 |
Standards, Conformity, and Upgrades Validation |
$100,000 |
$200,000 |
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL |
$2,070,000 |
$2,460,000 |
$1,320,000 |
$1,760,000 |
|
|
TOTAL |
|
$4,530,000 |
|
$3,080,000 |
|
For more information on the funding report please see the 2005 Annual Report at: http://www.maine.gov/geolib/Annual%20Reports/annualreport2005.htm
A question was asked regarding Priority #8 and #9 as to what they were (see description below).
Priority 8. Building a Statewide GIS Network
The Board will develop a virtual network of GIS nodes linked through common standards such as the Open GIS Consortium (OGC) standards for web holdings. The strategy is to implement a grant program whereby organizations that have GIS holdings make the information available using OGC standards. The grant program would be separated into two tiers.
Priority 9. Build Conformity and Validation Tools.
Standards conformity validation applications will allow the State to determine rapidly if the data submitted by any collaborating entity meets the Board standard for that data layer. Current GIS softwares provide very limited validation tools for Quality Assurance/Quality Control of the spatial data and of the related attribute information. Consequently, GIS users, especially state governments, traditionally invest a large amount of time attempting to evaluate the quality of data. Validation tools automate this process, saving staff time and scarce funding. Typically in validation programs, data sets are auto-scanned for spatial errors and attributes outside set parameters; simply put to see if anything "sticks out". If the data passes the conformity test, then it can move forward in the process for eventual inclusion into the GeoLibrary. If the data does not pass, it would be returned to the supplier, perhaps with a report card, so that its deficiencies can be addressed. While automated tools will be important, there will also be a need for accompanying manual quality assurance/quality control procedures.
An extensive discussion of the bonding funding included the following comments:
We need to speak to the intent and get more data online, linked and accessible (create nodes). Need to focus on data being compliant; may need to revisit the language for 8 and 9 and move #8 to the top. A comment was also made to move #9 to the top of the priority list. Data needs to be up to par.
A different perspective for moving 8 and 9 further up the list would be to give some quick hitters; the Board would be in a position to get funding for some quick hitters to move stuff out the door.
Liz noted that layers are a critical and important to the work being done by agencies; layers need to be up toward the top as well; layers are expensive to produce; monies would be matched; funding go to state needs.
It was felt that if none of this money happened, land cover would get done as many programs in the state are using land cover. Which ones won't get done if there is no money?
The goals should be statewide (orthoimagery, parcel grants, conservation lands). To get voluntary submission of parcel data is there another way for incentives? We could institute round 3 of the parcel grants and just do rapid grants. There is data sitting there that needs to be cleaned up and submitted.
If a town already has digital parcel data - why would they care to put this data on the state portal? Many towns do not have the hosting capability.
Task: Dan will check the funding on the orthophoto project Tier b and Tier C to have the funding picked up by USGS, Homeland Security and IBC.
What about funding to follow up on the County project - could parcel identification system tie in with the counties; what about identification of conservations records; could the system be modified to incorporate that information; this form of information be part of the title documents.
It was recommended to put a "Post It Note" on the side for the Board to take this up as a policy declaration later; the Board needs to adjust the paper work and take care of this problem; it might require a legislative act; it may not require any money.
Could this type of information be included in deeds? Could there be a mandate the tax number be included in deeds?
This is a starting piece for information management. This needs to be a sidebar; what would be the benefits or not be; get this over to the Legislature; could be substantial benefits. Write up a grant; this could be a future project for the Board; get standards in place for deed writing.
Parcel ID Reform: Dan will look for money to support this.
Could the title for #8 be changed to Expand Statewide GIS Network?
It was noted that 10 percent of bonding monies could be used for administering the bond. In calculating the GeoLibrary Board's bond request, was this 10 percent added to the funding request? Can the 10 percent come out of the figures we currently have?
It is important to look at MEGIS as they are doing the operational work for these things; a lot of people that have to do a lot of work.
We have a November timeframe to get back to the State Planning Office with a final report.
Regarding #7 Development Tracking - what will the money go for? Need other layers to be completed. A full report done by the SPO would be the best source for this information. A goal would be to start putting together the ability for development tracking. It was noted that development tracking is a high priority for the State Planning Office; we are not sure how to do it and get it done; we need to track where development is happening.
We could move 5 and 7 down and 8 and 9 up; parcel data needs to be standardized, needs to conform, needs to be validated and tracked. We are not done with the Portal and moving #8 up could bring about an issue.
Definition of #9: What does it look like out in the real world? Is it a person, do we need a new application, do we need a tool? Need to develop standards and build tools. We could hire somebody other than MEGIS. Bond money cannot be used to staff positions; we can build data or buy data with bond money.
The context of #9 would work to enable the data that is presented in the GeoPortal; data the GeoLibrary is funding needs to conform to standards and be consistent; need to get the data assimilated and integrated.
The Board, following an extensive discussion, moved forward with setting up priority lists and changing the priority order. Jim noted that a positive action requires 7 votes and the Chair abstains unless of a tie or to acquire the 7 votes.
Priority Lists
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
1 |
9 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
9 |
2 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
3 |
|
3 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
4 |
|
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
|
8 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
6 |
|
5 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
6 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
8 |
|
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
Comments:
The Board was encouraged to take positive action with a consensus in voting for the Board's priority list for bond funding.
Jim called for a straw poll for the 6 (A-F) priority listings.
A = no interest, dead
B = no interest, dead
C = no interest, dead
D = no interest, dead
E = 2 votes
F = 5 votes
A motion was made by Christopher to adopt the priority listing under the letter F and seconded by Will. The Board members voted unanimously to accept the F priority listing.
In closing the meeting, Jim Page (Board Chair) noted that Carmen Fournier was retiring and would no longer be attending the Board meetings and taking the notes. He asked the Board that the minutes record a great appreciation for all the work Carmen has done and accomplished on behalf of the Board, so done.
Special Note : I have enjoyed working with everyone on the Board. I have learned more than I ever knew about GIS and even what GIS was (data layers, parcel grants, orthoimagery, etc.). I do appreciate the opportunity given me to improve my note taking skills by serving the Board in this manner. The opportunity to design the Board's website also helped me to improve my skills in this arena. I wish the Board success in getting bond funding to allow them to move forward in the important work they have been assigned by the Legislature to do. Good Luck, Carmen Fournier
| Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved. |