Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

Home > Meetings > 2007 Meetings > April 18, 2007

April 18, 2007 Meeting Minutes and Agenda


•  Approval of the March 21 st meeting minutes - Chair

Subcommittee Reports

•  Financial - Dan Walters

•  Policy & Marketing - Marilyn Lutz

•  Technical - Will Mitchell

•  Status on the GEOPortal - Will Mitchell

•  Guidelines for Portal Administrator - Marilyn Lutz

•  Orthoimagery Project / Purchased ortho products- Larry Harwood

•  Parcel Grants - Larry Harwood

Geolibrary Funded Grants

GIS Stakeholders Group

Geolibrary Funding



Jim Page, Chair

Marilyn Lutz, Co-Chair

Gretchen Heldmann

Elizabeth Hertz

Christopher Kroot

Will Mitchell

Sean Myers ( by phone )

Ken Murchison ( by phone )

William Hanson


Larry Harwood


Mary Cloutier, OIT

Matt Davis, ESRI


The meeting was called to order at 10:13


1. Approval of the March 21, 2007 meeting minutes

The Chair entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Liz Hertz moved to approve the minutes as written with Christopher Kroot seconding. The Board voted unanimously in favor. The motion carried.


3. Geolibrary Funded Grants

The Chair moved to topic 3 to accommodate some Board members.


The FGDC Category 3 ( Cat 3 ) grant application was approved; the Category 5 grant has not been approved and it seems unlikely that it will be. The total funding from the Geolibrary will be $15,000. The Total budget is as follows( Not having the figures to hand, staff incorrectly cited a total of $30,000 ):

•  GeoLibrary will contribute $15,000 in cash match.

•  MEGIS will contribute $10,000 in-kind through staff resources

•  Reference Standard will contribute $2,000 in-kind through staff resources

•  This in-kind match will secure 2:1 funding ($50,000) for a total of $75,000.

•  With over-match input, total project value will be $77,500.


Discussion began on whether additional money could be added to the Cat 3 grant and if that would allow for expanding the focus of the grant. The Resolve23 study it was noted was limited in scope. It was assumed that the Cat 5 grant would not be awarded and perhaps some of the funding appropriated for that could be applied to the successful grant. At this point the Chair and Ken Murchison each noted that in voting funds for the Cat 3 grant they would have to recuse themselves.


There was a discussion of what the goals of the expanded ( Cat 3 ) grant might be. This reopened the standing issues of the strategic focus of the Geolibrary. Two points stood out on the discussion 1) public-private partnerships with the Geolibrary and 2) non-state agency stakeholders in the Geolibrary. The question of RFP writing for the grant was brought up. It appeared that small group from the Board working with Dan Walters or David Blocher would be acceptable. Some guidelines drawn from the discussion:


1) The grant is to the Geolibrary

2) The Board determines the strategic direction

3) This can help define the strategic direction of the Geolibrary

4) This can be a tool for education of decision makers.


The Chair invited the Board to review the Cat 3 grant ( staff will circulate ) and come up with 2 or 3 ideas for expanding the focus of the grant. There will be an item on the next agenda to discuss these.


Discussion shifted to financial matters. It was pointed out that the original funding idea proposed for the Geolibrary was a small fee on property transfers in county registries. One of the justifications was that the automation of parcel data in registries and its tie in or index to deed transfers would be a great economy. This has been done in other states and to a large extent in New Brunswick and Quebec . It was suggested that as the Board members read the Cat 3 grant they contemplate what legislation might develop from that study much as the Resolve23 study suggested legislation in a very general way.


4. GIS Stakeholders Group

The Chair moved to topic 4 to accommodate some Board members.


Christopher Kroot described the salient points of the GIS Stakeholders Charter.

1) The former GIS Executive Council had oversight of MEGIS core functions. The Stakeholders Group advises the Chief Information Officer and senior agency management in the use of GIS.

2) The GIS EC charter was outdated. The new Stakeholders charter allows for more flexible membership and designees.

3) The functions will be updated as needed. Conditions have changed since the last Memorandum of Agreement.

It was suggested that the Stakeholders and the Board form a sub-committee to work on merging the two 'strategic plans' and drawing up a new MOU. The MOU would be signed by the Chief Information Officer. The Chair agreed to contact Dave Blocher on this matter.


2. Subcommittee Reports



Nothing has changed on the financial page and there remains approximately $65,000 unspent. The Chair noted that remaining funds must be spent by November 2007 and requested that staff find whether or not encumbering funds would be sufficient or whether they would actually have to be spent.



Status on the GEOPortal .

Will Mitchell reported that work on redesigning the portal interfaces has been re-started. MEGIS staff produced some rough mockup pages that have stimulated renewed discussion of the portal GUI. Sean Myers said he had a graphic artist available if needed. A conference call of the technical committee is scheduled for Friday with Ionic to kick off the renewed effort. The focus will be on the basic workflow of the portal and a timeframe for completion. Gretchen Heldmann and Christopher Kroot asked to be included in the call.


Guidelines for Portal Administrator .

There has been no progress to report on this item.


Orthoimagery Project.& Photo Products

There was nothing new to report on the orthoimagery. The aerial photo products have all arrived although there is a small problem with control data in one area. That is being investigated by Photo Science.


Parcel Grants.

There is a backlog towns to do QAQC on received data: Friendship, Ogunquit, Hermon, Saco , Turner and Lovell. Others are reportedly on the way in.


Policy & Marketing

Policy matters were discussed in some detail at the last meeting. There was little to further report today. The Policy on Dissemination of Geospatial Data: Fee Setting was made available in the data packet for the meeting. Board members were encouraged to read it over for future discussions.


5. Geolibrary Funding

The Board briefly discussed the unfavorable results of the attempt to get bonding in the recent bond package proposed by the Governor. The consensus was that bonding was not a viable in the future. Probably pre-written legislation is needed. The Chair made three summary points:

1) In retrospect, it was probably naïve to expect the Geolibrary proposed bonding to be "carried" by others.

2) The economic situation of the state at this point in time certainly limited the chances.

3) The Board must now look to the legislature for funding.


Adjourned at 12:30