1. Approval of the February 18th meeting minutes – Chair
2. Presentation of 2nd Draft Strategic Plan for Comment or Approval
– Bruce Oswald
3. CAT 3 Project Update – Nancy Armentrout
4. Review of the Unsuccessful Bond Initiative
5. Subcommittee Reports
• Financial – Larry Harwood
• Policy & Marketing – Marilyn Lutz
GeoPortal System Administrator Responsibility
• Technical
Status of the GeoPortal – Mike Smith
NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING:
Wednesday April 15th , 2009
10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Burton M. Cross Building, Conference Room 105.
MEETING MINUTES
Board Members Present
Nancy Armentrout
Michael Smith
Marilyn Lutz
Greg Copeland
Gretchen Heldmann (by phone)
Paul Hoffman
William Hanson, Chair
Daniel Coker, Co-Chair
Greg Davis
Stu Rich (by phone)
Jon Giles (by phone)
Aimee Dubois
Christopher Kroot
Staff
Larry Harwood
Visitors
Vinton Valentine, University Southern Maine (USM), Maine
GIS Users Group (MEGUG)
Bruce Oswald, James W. Sewall Project Team
Joseph Young, State Planning Office
Dan Walters, US Geological Survey
The meeting was called to order at 10:01
1. Approval of the February 18th meeting minutes
The Chair entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Mike Smith
moved to approve the minutes as written. Marilyn Lutz seconded.
The Board voted 11 in favor, none opposed, the Chair abstaining.
The motion carried.
2. Presentation of 2nd Draft Strategic Plan for Comment or Approval
Bruce Oswald of the Sewall Project Team presented the second draft
of the Strategic GIS Plan. The presentation is given here in outline
form with comments.
What we covered last time
Review project goals.
Strategic planning process.
Document format.
Plan overview.
- Approach/Recommendations
- Developing Champions
- Sustainable funding
- Proposed budget
- Measuring success
Assuming no new funds.
Task 1 – Update & Alignment
- Update & enhance the 2002 Strategic Plan.
- Review & document activities recommended in the 2002
Strategic Plan
- Update the overall strategic plan/approach
- Bring it into closer alignment with NSGIC Fifty States Coordination
Criteria.
- Focus on:
- Coordination with local governments, academia, private
sector
- Developing sustainable funding sources
- Cultivating political champions.
NSGIC’s Strategic Planning Criteria
1. Strategic and business plans
2. A full-time paid GIS coordinator and staff
3. Clearly defined authority and responsibility for coordination
4. A relationship with the chief information officer
5. A tie into national programs
6. Contracting authority and cost sharing mechanisms
7. An inter-governmental working environment free of "turf
wars"
8. A political or executive champion is involved in coordination
9. Sustainable funding mechanisms
10. Statewide coordination efforts that can be a conduit for federal
initiatives
Strategic Planning Process
(graphic on next page)
Graphics Additions and Modifications
(next 6 pages)
Budget for the Maine GIS Strategic Plan
Program/Operating Costs |
FY09 |
FY10 |
FY11 |
FY12 |
FY13 |
FY14 |
FY15 |
| Program Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parcel Grant Program* |
|
|
200,000 |
200,000 |
200,000 |
200,000 |
200,000 |
| Integrated Land Records System* |
|
|
300,000 |
300,000 |
300,000 |
|
|
Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program |
|
|
1,025,000 |
1,600,000 |
500,000 |
500,000 |
500,000 |
| High Resolution Elevation Data |
|
|
|
1,500,000 |
|
|
|
| Development of Municipal Service Applications |
|
|
75,000 |
100,000 |
25,000 |
|
|
| Zoning Maps Grants |
|
|
50,000 |
50,000 |
50,000 |
25,000 |
25,000 |
| Land Cover Updating |
|
|
|
100,000 |
50,000 |
25,000 |
25,000 |
| Conservation Land Maps |
|
|
200,000 |
200,000 |
50,000 |
25,000 |
25,000 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Operating Costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MEGIS Operating Costs |
|
|
206,000 |
212,180 |
218,545 |
225,102 |
231,855 |
| Statewide GIS Coordinator |
|
|
137,224 |
141,341 |
145,581 |
149,948 |
154,447 |
| Parcel & Data Assistant |
|
|
89,573 |
92,260 |
95,028 |
97,879 |
100,815 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Biennial Budget Totals: |
|
2,282,797 |
|
6,129,935 |
|
2,510,045 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Note - These numbers need to be coordinated with the final
figures from the ILRIS Plan.
Lessons Learned
1. Most users feel that access to updated State and local geospatial
data is one of the major needs that must be addressed.
2. Geospatial data creation and maintenance is a need that Maine’s
geospatial community looks to the GeoLibrary to provide.
3. There is a significant need for other geospatial coordination
activities across the State.
4. We must all learn to adopt to the new economic realities.
What Does the Board Need To Do?
1. Increase its coordination activities and secure additional
help to do that;
2. Improve its name recognition across the State and to attract
champions and funding to complete these important initiatives.
3. Demonstrate how it is making a significant and measurable difference
for Maine.
4. Document its accomplishments and plans for going forward.
5. Demonstrate to key leaders in Maine how its plans will make
a difference for the State and why they should be funded.
6. Establish a coordinated campaign to promote the use of GIS.
7. Implement the plans quickly and effectively
Comment: The towns are a good source of data to post on the GeoPortal.
The advantage would be an economy of scale.
How Can the Board Do It?
- Determine a method to manage the implementation.
- Establish work groups.
- Implement the GeoPortal.
- Implement the communications plan.
- Develop a set of policies for: sharing; providing access to
public and private geospatial data; and notification on new and
updated data.
- Perform an annual inventory of geospatial data across the state.
- Develop simple-to-use web service templates for municipalities
to use through the GeoPortal.
- Position the Board to be able to implement an integrated land
records information system when funding permits.
- Position the Board to be able to create and update statewide
geospatial data: orthoimagery, parcel, unified roads, and elevation
data.
- Look for opportunities to “sell” GIS benefits.
Look For Opportunities To “Sell” GIS
- Broadband Mapping
- Stimulus Package
Several examples of other state’s approaches to marketing
GIS were displayed. Bruce also displayed examples of Maine’s
internet based stimulus fund tracking.
Task Highlights for 2009
April – June
- Determine Board’s best strategy for managing the initiatives.
- Select work group chairs and work group members for the Coordination,
Communication, Data, ILRIS, and Training/Education Work Groups.
In addition, add members to the Technology and Finance Committees.
- Finalize work group missions, deliverables and schedules.
- Hold work group “kickoff” meetings.
- Hold focus group meeting to identify potential champions.
- Launch the GeoPortal.
- Develop an announcement of all GeoLibrary standards and place
announcement on the List Serve and on the web site.
- Establish a “What’s New” section on the web
site.
- Initiate monthly “News Blips.” Post on the List
Serve and the “What’s New” section of the web
site.
- Develop plan to recruit champions.
July – September
- Develop policy to inventory State agency and local government
geospatial data.
- Develop policy for notification of new or updated geospatial
data via the List Serve and web site.
- Establish a “Training/Education” area on the web
site. Encourage GIS trainers, universities and other educational
organizations to post training educational opportunities on the
List Serve and the web site.
- Initiate a program to encourage county and local government
to post and share data through the GeoPortal.
- Develop campaign across the State to help others improve their
GIS capabilities and lower the barriers to implementing and using
geospatial technologies.
- Establish a coordinated campaign to promote the use of GIS in
State, county and local government as well as prominent private
sector companies.
- Initiate process to recruit champions.
October – December
- Inventory State agency and local government geospatial data.
Post results on the website.
- Provide monthly summaries of new data and data updates on the
List Serve and the web site.
- Encourage data developers to post data development plans on
the GeoLibrary List Serve. Post data development plans on the
web site.
- Provide training to select high school teachers as part of a
pilot program to enable them to use GIS to improve their ability
to teach courses.
April – June
- Work with the CIO, State Agency Stakeholders, MEGUG, and MMA
to encourage all application developers to post application development
plans on the GeoLibrary Board List Serve prior to starting work
and encourage application sharing/partnerships where practical.
- Develop budget proposal for next budget cycle.
- Integrate champions into plans to obtain sustained funding.
July – September
- Develop presentations, one-pagers and other documentation/demonstrations
needed to sell initiatives.
October – December
- Coordinate budget activities with the CIO and MEGIS.
- Initiate a training program to help users to take advantage
of Google or Virtual Earth.
Last Thoughts
- Provide better access to state agency and local government
geospatial data. Offer same opportunity to academia, not-for-profits
and the private sector.
- Put forth a significant effort to coordinate geospatial data
and application development, training and other activities across
the State.
- Establish an on-going program to provide and maintain new and
existing statewide geospatial data.
- Promote the use of GIS to those outside the geospatial community
to save money and improve services in both the public and provide
sectors across the state.
Next Steps
- Determine a method to manage the implementation.
- Establish work groups.
- Implement the GeoPortal.
- Implement the communications plan.
3. CAT 3 Project Update
Nancy Armentrout lead discussion of the Strategic Plan
just presented. This was the second draft of the plan and part one
of the CAT 3 Grant, the second part being the Integrated Land Records
Information System ( ILRIS). The first question to the Board was
if approval of the Plan be done by May. It was immediately suggested
that the Board be given 2 weeks to review the current draft. It
was also suggested that the draft Plan be put out for public comment.
The consensus seemed to be that public comment should follow a careful,
full Board review.
There was a wide ranging discussion of the Strategic Plan and matters
related to it. There was much consideration of the possibility of
engaging a Geolibrary GIS Coordinator as the Board members all felt
they had no time to deal with so many tasks. The opposite position
was that no money was forthcoming for a Coordinator and the Board
members should split up tasks between them. Dan Walters and Mike
Smith also indicated that their respective jobs included responsibilities
which could address a good portion of the Geolibrary’s coordination
needs. It was also suggested that some tasks could be done by the
Geolibrary stakeholders and perhaps other volunteers.
It was eventually decided to create a Summary Strategic Plan. This
would be more of an action plan revised and shortened from sections
of the full Plan (in particular Chapter 6). Nancy and Marilyn Lutz
agreed to try drafting this, if possible in time for the next meeting.
This document might well be shared with the public. Nancy asked
if the Board could accept the Strategic Plan at the next Meeting.
Christopher Kroot moved that the Board submit all comments on the
draft Strategic Plan to Will Mitchell (Project Manager) by March
31 and the plan be ready for approval at the April meeting. Marilyn
Lutz seconded. The Board voted 11 in favor, none opposed, the Chair
abstaining. The motion carried.
Nancy also reported that the ILRIS part of the project was in revised
draft form. The project team is working on the functional specifications.
The plan is to have something the Board can review by the May meeting.
She thanked everyone for their help and considerable input.
4. Review of the Unsuccessful Bond Initiative
Mike Smith reported that the Geolibrary bond initiative did not
make the cut into the Governor’s bond package. Mike Reported
that Chief Information Officer, Richard Thompson is not convinced
that bonds are the way to fund the Geolibrary. He thinks a better
way might be to fund some of the Board’s priority acquisitions
by “lease purchase” agreements. With these instruments,
the cost is paid off over a period years and funds may be easier
to obtain.
Mike handed out a 2 page exposition on a proposed US Geological
Survey coastal LIDAR collection for all of New England. This would
partner the states, USGS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
in a 4 to 6 year project at a cost of about $6M. Possibly this could
be a case for a lease purchase to put up a small amount of money
as match. He hoped the Board would at least support the proposal
and perhaps contribute a token amount of funding.
Mike Smith moved to have the Geolibrary Board support the proposal
for LIDAR for New England. Greg Copeland seconded. The Board voted
11 in favor, none opposed, 2 abstaining. The motion carried.
Joe Young, the State Planning Office floodplain mapping expert
gave a brief dissertation on the proposed LIDAR project. Federal
Emergency Management Agency Region 1 (New England), always supportive
of regional efforts and very interested in flood data collection,
is on board. USGS has some funding to collect LIDAR and the project
would derive considerable funding from that.
Mike Smith moved to appropriate up to $20,000 for the LIDAR project.
Stu Rich seconded.
In the discussion that followed the Board was divided on the issue.
Those in favor argued that this was token amount, yet a sign to
the Federals that Maine was serious about the proposal. Those opposed
argued that it was unwise to appropriate funds, given the Geolibrary’s
financial status, and without knowing how much others would be willing
to pay or if the project would go forward.
Mike Smith amended his motion to appropriate up to $20,000 for
the LIDAR project, conditional on Federal funding being available.
Stu Rich seconded the amendment. By roll call the Board voted 8
in favor, 4 opposed, the Chair abstaining. The motion carried.
5. Subcommittee Reports
Financial
The financial sheet had one change. At the last meeting $13,000
had been appropriated to buy servers for the GeoPortal. This left
a total of $62,370.50 remaining as unencumbered.
Policy & Marketing
Marilyn Lutz read and explained the draft policy on GeoPortal System
Administrator Responsibility. This was in 5 parts and each was assigned
a number for the moment to aid discussion: 1. Server Management,
2. User Support. 3. Metadata Database, 4. Web Maintenance, 5. Changes
in the GeoPortal System. Discussion centered on what organization
would be responsible for each part.
There was some discussion of the Administrator doing part 3 as
opposed to larger number of ‘data stewards’ at the portal
nodes. It was thought by some that getting municipalities and others
to make FGDC compliant metadata was unlikely but the Administrator
would not be able to do it for them. Parts 1 & 4 were thought
to be the responsibility of the portal hosting site, most probably
University of Southern Maine (USM). Part 3 would be handled by the
Administrator and also possible part 4 depending on technical issues.
Part 1 would also include security and passwords. Part 5 it was
though could be left to the Technical Committee if the changes were
small but brought before the Board for approval if the changes were
substantial. This will be discussed again at the next meeting.
Technical
Christopher Kroot and Mike Smith reported that the GeoPortal was
progressing at USM using GeoNetwork, an open source portal software
described at the last meeting. The portal is much more functional
than indicated by the demo, which suffered technical problems, given
at the last meeting. The goal now is to finalize the portal.
Some wished to speak quite frankly and ask why the Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI) portal software was dropped in
favor of GeoNetwork without the Board voting on it. The response
was that perhaps it should have been, but ESRI had completely changed
their application in the newest version. The new version ( 9.3)
did not do what was wanted and had a new operating system. The Technical
Committee proceeded as they though best given the Board’s
general outline of what the GeoPortal should be.
It was pointed out that there still exists the list of functional
specifications for the portal, dating from the last contract. Apparently
a new functional list was created some time ago but was not immediately
available. The Technical Committee will look into this and certainly
the functional list will be used to test the portal.
Christopher suggested that the Technical Committee be split into
‘general’ and ‘technical’ subcommittees.
The technical group would have detailed knowledge of technical details
and the rest could focus more on overall functionality. At present
he asked for a listing of the committee members. The membership
at present is as follows: Christopher Kroot, Chair, Greg Copeland,
Gretchen Heldmann, Nancy Armentrout, Mike Smith and Stu Rich. The
Chair asked the Technical Committee to come back with a recommendation
on any new configuration.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:31
