January 17, 2007 Meeting Minutes and Agenda
Present
Jim Page, Chair
Marilyn Lutz, Co-Chair
David Blocher
Will Mitchell
Nancy Armentrout
William Hanson
Elizabeth Hertz
Gretchen Heldmann
Ken Murchison (by phone)
Sean Myers ( by phone )
Christopher Kroot
Staff
Dan Walters ( by phone )
Larry Harwood
Visitors
Rich Sutton, consultant ( by phone )
Mary Cloutier, OIT
The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 and read the printed
agenda, adding one additional item: #9 the Annual Report.
1. Approval of the November 18 th meeting minutes
After a pause for review, the Chair entertained a motion
to approve. Elizabeth Hertz moved to approve the minutes as written with
Marilyn Lutz seconding. The Board voted unanimously in favor. The motion
carried. (note: unless otherwise indicated the Chair abstains from voting)
2. Subcommittee Reports
Financial
Dan Walters reported that littlehad changed ann that the total amount
of money remaining unspent or unencumbered was $70,000.00. He also noted
that due to the nature of the bonding, all moneys must be spent by November
of 2007. The Chair re-read the previous financial report.
Policy & Marketing
Marilyn reported that some progress has been made on a Public Rights
to Data policy which came out of a previous discussion on funding. There
was some discussion whether or not fees for reproduction could be figured
as a funding source; the nominal amount is 3 times the cost of reproduction.
It was noted that this is based on the old paper copy model. State agency
data is mostly freely available although InforME reportedly has some
options for management fees for service.
There was extensive discussion of state agency data, policies regarding
the same and how they developed. The Office of Information Technology
policy on data access was read and commented upon. The role of the GeoPortal
in data distribution was discussed; it was noted that the portal is a
node network connector not a repository as such and fees would not apply.
The Chair summed up by noting that the Board needs policies to support
its needs and resources to support many of the proposals discussed are
not available.
Technical
Status on the GEOPortal . Will Mitchell reported that in brief the GeoPortal
had been stalled but was now getting back on track with a new schedule.
The main problem has been the user interface. Sean Meyers summarized
a conversation he had with Ionic project manager Steve Smith ( per chance
at an ESRI Federal Users Conference in Washington ) about the GeoPortal
project. Sean put the two main problems as 1) the graphical user interface
and 2) the workflow by Ionic. The approach suggested is to use a storyboard
to guide the design and a new schedule has been extended out to April.
Members were invited to contribute to the storyboard/GUI process. Dan
Walters also noted that he has approved the 3 rd invoice from Ionic for
$15,000. The concensus was that when the Technical Committee needs input
from the Board they will ask at the appropriate time.
Guidelines for Portal Administrator . There was nothing new to report
to the Board
Orthoimagery Project. . There was nothing new to report to the Board
Parcel Grants. Two remaining towns on contract extension from round
1 are still not in. Several towns in round two have sent in data.
3. Purchase of Intermmediate ortho products
The contract has been extended. Photo Science has promised deliveries
by Feb. 20 th .
At this point due to time constraints the Chair jumped ahead to agenda
items 6, 7 and 8.
6. Grant Applications Report
Sean Meyers and Rich Sutton gave a joint report on the 2 federal grants
being applied for. There are 5 catagories of Federal Geographic Data
Committee ( FGDC ) matching grants. The proposal is to apply for two
of them: Category 3 (CAT 3 ) and Category 5 ( CAT 5 ).
The proposal for CAT 3 is to update the Maine GIS Strategic Plan - Resolve
23 to bring it in line with the National States Geographic Information
Council ( NSGIC ) criteria and to plan a unified structure to capture
and maintain property data to the parcel level statewide. This is a 50%
matching grant up to $50,000.
The proposal for CAT 5 is development of FGDC metadata and internet
mapping at the participating sites of Aroostook County and the City of
Portland . This is a 100% matching grant up to $50,000. These sites would
be published as open source Web Mapping Services ( WMS ) and added to
the federal Geospatial One Stop ( GOS ) portal as well as the GeoPortal.
CAT 5 would have the effect of supporting content for the GeoPortal.
7. Grant Funding Discussion
Considerable discussion ensued with questions put and answered by Sean
and Rich. Rich explained the mechanism of the grants. It was stressed
that these WMS sites would be usable by any brand software or completely "open
source". Some members were uncomfortable voting without seeing the actual
text of the grants. Rich agreed to e-mail the full text of the grants
and read the important parts of the narrative to the Board. It was also
noted that the grants can be "backed out of" by the Board if necessary.
The Geolibrary will be the grantee and OIT/MEGIS will manage the grants;
Dan Walters will be the named manager.
8. Grant Funding
Liz Hertz moved to appropriate $15,000 for the CAT 3 grant contingent
upon review of the narrative by conference call. Marilyn Lutz seconded.
In discussion and after a reading of the narrative, it was concensus
to remove the contingency. The motion and second were withdrawn
Liz Hertz moved to approve $15,000 for the CAT 3 grant. Dave
Blocher seconded. The Board voted 9 in favor, 1 abstention, the Chair
abstained. The motion carried.
Will Mitchell moved to appropriate $20,000 for the CAT 5 grant.
Ken Murchison seconded . Considerable discussion ensued. Rich
Sutton read the narrative of this grant. There was concern about how
the sites to be created by the grant would be maintained; the wording
was not found to imply maintenance. It was questioned as to how these
services could be used by small towns; Northern Maine Development Corporation
was cited as an example of such a "small outfit". The "open source" nature
of WMS was described in some detail. Marilyn described a UMO "geodata
commons" project as an example of such an undertaking. The
Board voted 9 in favor, 1 opposed, the Chair abstained. The motion
carried.
4. New Structure of the GIS Executive Council
Mary Cloutier passed out a document comparing the functions of the Geolibrary,
MEGIS, the GIS Executive Council and state agencies. She described this
as being based on the actual legislation for each organization. She also
noted several areas of overlap that exist bwteen them. Dave Blocher reported
that the GIS Executive Council has been made obsolete by the OIT restructuring.
The EC has morphed into a state agency GIS Stakeholders Group. This will
require a new charter - which the CIO wants to be complimentary with
the Geolibrary functions - and MEGIS will commit one staffer to the new
organization. The general charge of the Stakeholders group will be how
to represent the state agencies needs somewhat in the manner of the Executive
Council before them. The development and activities of the GIS Stakeholders
Group will be a regular item on future Board Agendas.
5. Status of GeoLibrary Board bond request
There was not much to add beyond the previous report. The bond request
was forwarded sent to Tim Glidden at SPO. Tim later requested a write
up showing how the bonding request supports the Brookings Institute Study.
The Chair read the aforementioned write up to the Board and it was favorably
received. Dave Blocher noted that the CIO will be asking for state support
for bonds to pay for, among many other things, increased data storage.
There was some discussion of how to promote the bond package to the legislature,
perhaps emphasising cost savings.
9. Annual Report
Time pressing, the Chair will update last year's report. He will be
asking for information from Larry, Dan and Mary Cloutier and other solicitations
from Board members may be requested.
Adjourned 12:30 .
The next scheduled meeting: Wednesday March 21 st ,
2007 10:00 to 12:30 , room 105 in the Burton Cross ( state office ) building.
