Skip Maine state header navigation
Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation
|Home | Contact Us||
Site Map |
Home December 18, 2002 Agenda & Minutes
GeoLibrary Board Meeting of December 18, 2002
Board Member Attendees as follows:
Dennis Boston, Central Maine Power
Not in Attendance:
Jim Damicius, Maine Science Tech. Foundation
Non-Board Member attendees:
Dan Walters, DAFS/OGIS
John Holden welcomed and thanked the Committee and Guests for their attendance.
Motion to approve minutes of the November 21h meeting
John presented the minutes of the November 21, 2002 for approval as written. Ray Halperin motioned to approve and Paul Mateosian seconded the motion for approval. There were no discussions only grammatical corrections. The minutes were unanimously approved by the Board.
Posting of the Minutes on the Website
Harry Lanphear motioned that the minutes not be posted on the website until it is approved by the Board. John Holden seconded the motion for approval. It was unanimously approved by the Board not to post the minutes until final approval vote by the Board.
Dale McCormick and Adam Krea from the Treasury’s Office attended the board meeting to discuss the process of issuing bond money and the Federal funding requirements.
The bond money is issued quarterly by the Treasury’s office and due to interest rates, they request the board only ask for the amount of money needed at the time. A plan is not required but is helpful to the Treasury office to ensure timely issuance of the bond money. If the federal match does not come through the Board will not receive any part of the bond funding. There is a 5 year window in the issuance of bond money, if the Fed’s decided to delay the issuance of the Federal match it will not be a problem. You will not be able to apply other funds to meet the federal match due to the condition of the bond and the deceit to the voters. Mr. Krea also suggests we consult with Ed Karass for guidance due to this bond being under the DAFS umbrella.
If the board has to obtain a new referendum the AG’s office will lend a helping hand in writing up the language.
Mr. Crombie from the Attorney General’s Office stated that the private members of the Board can not be a part of any written process of an RFP. As far as the voting process is concerned, use your common sense; if you feel uncomfortable you should raise a question or simply excuse yourself from the voting process.
Imagery Subcommittee Report
John Guiles presented a summary report of the subcommittee’s recommendation of the orthophoto specification for the GeoLibrary Board. They have recommended that the Board allocate a portion of the recent GIS bond money to purchasing statewide aerial orthophotos. The specifications are as follows:
Tier 1 (basically organized townships)
Tier 2 (basically unorganized townships)
Comments & Questions
Due to development mapping and the needed resolution to get more detailed.
The committee felt that if it were at all possible, to be useful to any municipality, regardless of size, a high standard was required in both Tier1 and Tier2.
Develop a 5 year cycle. The usual standard is to update ortho photos every 5 years. This would probably be done in sections every year with any given area being reflown every 5 years.
It still will not be totally affordable but some of the cost will come down.
Cover the original proposal. We could do the three Tiers as originally proposed in the Needs Assessment report or a smaller area at the standard proposed by the committee.
Actually the committee tried not too be concerned with funding, but to develop a useful standard. The original recommendation was to find additional sources of revenue.
The subcommittee did not consider that, but they can.
This is just a recommendation from the subcommittee and does not need to be decided on now.
We have to structure the RFP right to allow the bidder’s to be flexible.
It does have some to do w/the terrain model. If we use a different model due to the hold on the federal funds it could have a cost savings or it could have a cost increase. It’s hard to tell at this point.
Photo scale – allows for setup & helps the smaller towns afford startup costs.
In closing it was recommended by Dan Walters to take back the comments of the Board to the subcommittee to come up with some new figures. Also, talk with USGS on NAPP. Discuss the support we have from Senator Snow & Collins office and the question of what if the funds were delayed.
2-Year Work Plan
Dan presented to the Board a 2-year work plan (handout attached).
Development of Detailed Data Standard:
Data Warehousing Infrastructure Improvement – timeline Jan 2003 – Mar 2003:
Additional Statewide Data Development:
I. A technical committee can begin work immediately on standards for digital parcels and related data layers. This should be completed by February or March of 2003
II. Upon acceptance by the Board, grants can be made immediately to municipalities having existing digital parcel data to bring that data up to standard for inclusion in the Geolibrary.
III. Depending upon the availability of high resolution orthophotograhpy or some other acceptable base at a somewhat later date ( projecting Fall of 2003) the board can make grants to municipalities for new automation of parcel data.
Targeted Application Development:
Additional ArcIMS services should be developed to provide users the ability to do routing, geocoding, and edit capabilities for trusted users. An additional server may be required for routing and geocoding ($45,000 Windows server).
The items below have not been included in the two-year work plan as there is insufficient funding unless additional matching funds or grants can be found:
Ongoing Operational Costs & Current Funding Sources:
The board should consider submitting to the legislature a new bond to replace the one we have now in case we do not get the federal match. Especially if we have a plan for on going 5 year updates of the imagery we decide on. We need to also discuss with BIS about further funding of the enterprise fund for staffing purposes.
John Holden proposed to the board to create a subcommittee to work with Larry on standards and based on Dan’s presentation it sounds as if we can pull existing standards to create new standards. This committee will be on a voluntary basis’s due to funding issues.
A motion was made by Ed Suslovic to create a subcommittee to review standards (standards for digital parcel mapping data) and bring back their recommendations back to the board. Just to clarify the board wants the standards for the data that goes into the library including the parcel. Jim Page is willing to offer one of his employee’s to sit on the subcommittee as long as this is not a contract base committee and will not compromise the company’s ability to bid for any parcel projects that come out of the board.
Meeting Closing questions or comments:
Paul questioned the no dollars in the development tracking application and the State Planning Office made a bulk effort to move this forward, are they going to be comfortable with a zero in the budget column?
Next Meeting items:
In Closing the next Geoboard meeting will be held on January 15th from 10:00 – 12:00 pm here at the Burton M. Cross Office Bldg. in Room 107. John Holden motioned meeting to adjourned and seconded by Harlan Onsrud and Paul Mateosian.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00pm.
|Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved.|