Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

Home November 17, 2005 Agenda & Minutes


MEETING: Maine Library of Geographic Information Board
DATE: Wednesday, November 17, 2004
TIME: 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
LOCATION: Burton M. Cross Building, Conference Room 107

Note: The November 17 meeting will start at 10:00 a.m.

1. Approval of October 20, 2004 Board Minutes

2. Subcommittee Reports

a. Finance Committee

b. Policy Committee

c. Technical Committee

  • Parcel Grants, 2nd round
  • Update on the Orthophoto Project RFP

3. GPCOG Negotiation

4. Strategic Planning: Prioritizing the GeoLibrary Board’s present & future action items

5. Other Business/Updates

  • Maine Government Websites: State Templates

NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 – Burton M. Cross Building – Conference Room 107. NOTE: Conference Room 107 has been booked from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. if the Board needs to start at 10:00 rather than 10:30.


Maine GeoLibrary Board Meeting
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 | 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Burton M. Cross Building, Conference Room 107

Members in attendance
Jim Page, Chair
Marilyn Lutz, Co-Chair
Tom Howker for Dick Thompson
Jon Giles
Paul Mateosian
Robert Faunce
Will Mitchell
Ray Halperin
Ken Murchison (via conference call)
Dennis Boston
Members not in attendance
Barbara Charry
Robert Doiron
Dick Thompson
Staff to the Board
Dan Walters
Larry Harwood
Don Garrold, Searsport
Gary Higginbottom, private consultant

Ken conferenced in for the meeting from Caribou.

Before opening the meeting for business, Jim asked folks to introduce themselves, so done.

1. Approval of October 20, 2004 Board Minutes – Jim Page

A motion was made by Ray Halperin and seconded by Will Mitchell to approve the October 20th Board minutes as written. Hearing no discussions/amendments to the minutes, the Board (by a show of hands) voted unanimously to accept the minutes as written.

Note: Jim Page noted as a general policy matter, he would “not” vote on Board items. He would only vote if a tie breaker was needed or if 7 votes were needed for an affirmative action.

Before moving to item #2 on the agenda, Jim asked for an update on Board vacancies. It was noted that both Jon Giles and Ken Murchison had received their letters of re-appointment and appointment, respectively. The matter of Representative Ed Suslovic resigning from the Board was brought up for discussion along with the vacancy created when the Maine Science & Technology Foundation ceased to exist. With the Legislature having a lot of business and working on other state government issues, it was noted that this may have fallen between the cracks. In resolving the matter of Rep. Ed Suslovic’s resignation, Jim will contact Ed and ask him for nominations and send a letter to the President of the Senate (with nominations) asking for an appointment to be made.

2. Subcommittee Reports

Finance Committee – Jim Page

Jim reported on the Finance Committee noting that no meeting had been called. He noted there were two issues for discussion: one being the status of the bond money, and two determining the exact amount available for the Land Use Project. The amount to be allocated by the GeoLibrary was passed as noted in item 2b below.

Policy Committee – Marilyn Lutz

Marilyn noted that a lot of the work was done over the phone. She noted the Committee had drafted a mission statement for the GeoLibrary Board and a vision, which was handed out (Attachment #1) to the Board for review/discussion. A motion was made by Ray Halperin and seconded by Paul Mateosian to accept the mission statement as written. It was also noted that the motion was limited to the mission statement only.

Bob brought up for discussion the terminology being used in the document and how well would the public understand it. Would the average person have a clue about what it means? Would they know what spatial and geospatial data is? Ray noted that we do need to be very clear on who we are and what we do; he also noted “what’s in it for me” language is needed.

Marilyn noted that the Committee would be drafting goals and strategic initiatives for the Board. Paul noted the need to possibly include graphics (such as maps) in presenting the GeoLibrary to the legislature and the public. Ken noted that this was a living document and should be revisited from time to time. Jim noted the mission statement serves two purposes: 1) it presents what we do to our stakeholders, and 2) it guides the Board. He noted we may need to flush out the language depending on the audience. At this time Jim noted there was a motion on the floor to accept the mission statement as written and seconded. Sean thanked Marilyn for the work done and commented this was a great thing to start with. At this time the Board was asked to vote on the mission statement only. So doing by a show of hands, the Board unanimously accepted the Board’s mission statement as written.

Before moving to the next subcommittee report, Sean asked for an amendment to Item #7, page 5, of the October 20th minutes. He noted that the first paragraph of Item #7 related to the Portal not the Orthophoto RFP and the second paragraph related to the Orthophoto RFP. With that note, a motion was made by Will Mitchell and seconded by Bob Faunce to amend the minutes as requested. The Board voted unanimously to amend the minutes accordingly.

Continuing the discussion on the vision statement, Marilyn reviewed each bullet with the Board noting that bullet one was about having all the data, bullet two referred to standards, bullet three included local governments, bullet four was to use the information to foster economic development, bullet five involved looking at various agencies/organizations to collect the data (is there a better way to do it), bullet six represents budgeting and is there a future, and bullet seven covers education and outreach programs.

Paul noted the vision was very good and brought up the subject of smart growth/growth management. Could the mission include growth management? Bob noted including an additional bullet for growth management.

Jon brought up a discussion regarding access to the information. Does providing access to data include collecting and storing the data? Following an extensive discussion, Jim Page asked if the Board wanted to make a motion to send back the vision statement to be revised. Ray made a motion to accept the vision as written with one bullet added to cover growth management…Ken seconded the motion.

Jon brought up the 4th bullet (Promoting “innovative” uses…) noting should we be promoting the use of GIS data in the every day to day business process. Should we go for just the “high ground”, maybe this could be covered in the growth management bullet. Ray noted that it was good to remember the long-term value is in the routine things that folks do day in and day out. The Board would need to annually review the mission/vision statements pending the political climate at that time. Marilyn noted that the InforME Board (that she sits on) has written three strategic plans pending political climate.

Dennis brought up bullet #1 (Stewardship of priority,). Jim noted accepting bullet #1 with the coma struck out. Ray Halperin moved to accept the vision statement to include a bullet for growth management and removing the coma after the word priority in bullet #1. Ken Murchison seconded. The Board voted unanimously to approve the motion.

Marilyn noted the Policy Committee would move forward to present goals and strategic initiatives to the Board at future meetings. Jim thanked the committee for their hard work.

Going back to the Finance Committee reporting, Jim noted the “Bond Expenditures” handout (Attachment #2) focused on the bond money as it related to what was encumbered, what was spent, and what was still on the table. Jim also noted this document was not meant to replace Dan’s working spreadsheet. Bob noted it was a good point to use when talking to the legislature to show them where the money has gone, where we want to go in the future, and thanked Dan for putting it together.

Jim commented he would initial and date the “Bond Expenditures” document showing that the Board had reviewed the document. He also noted that this report would be brought to the Board at every meeting, reviewed and discussed following the approval of the minutes. The Board also noted that the numbers would probably change in the course of the meeting and that folks could pencil in any changes.

At this time it was noted that item #5 Infrastructure improvements, data storage to be reduced from $125,000 to $70,000 with the $70,000 added to item #3 Land Cover Project making it a total of $120,000. Bob Faunce moved and Ray Halperin seconded to increase the Land Cover Project to $120,000.

Jim asked Tom Howker (representing Dick Thompson) if this resolution to move the money was okay. Tom responded the resolution was okay to move this money.

Paul asked what the purpose of the money shift was. It was noted the Board was trying to pay for storing data at MeGIS but cannot pay for services directly using bond money. Therefore, the Board would contribute more to the Land Cover Project and state agencies had agreed to pay for the storage. Jim noted this was an ad hoc solution to a long-term issue. He also noted the Board cannot use bond money to pay for data storage, but needs to come up with a better solution, but that this is not an issue that can be solved today. Ray noted the need for updating, and maintenance of data and that operating costs will not go away. Tom noted a proposal to make changes was needed and that the Board needs an ongoing stream of revenue but this resolution would buy the Board some time to work this out. Sean brought up an issue of conflict between the vision statement and the money to do it. Jim asked that this be moved to agenda item #4.

The Chair directed that the minutes reflect the Board’s understanding that all the relevant state agencies involved in this exercise are in agreement that this fund shift is proper and legal.

At this time the previous motion to increase Land Cover Project from $50,000 to $120,000 was brought before the Board for a vote. The Board (with a show of hands) voted unanimously to pass the motion.

Technical Committee – Will Mitchell

Parcel Grants – 2nd Round: Will noted that Larry had sent out a note to the Committee in charge of this program asking them to review the criteria and make recommendations for the next round of parcel grants. Jim asked when the Parcel Grant RFP would be going out, Larry responded around the first of the year (January 2005).

Portal Project RFP: After reviewing the handout (Attachment #3) on the Maine GeoLibrary Portal noting background in support of project funding request, the Board pursued an extensive discussion. Will noted the $40,000 already budgeted for this project is well short of true costs, and a recommendation allocating $100,000 to support the project was brought before the Board.

Some of the issues/concerns covered during this discussion included:

Q. Would the portal host all the information or point to others hosts?

A. Both

Q. With the Board embarking on this, would it keep costing more and more? Is the $100,000 just getting started money? Is the Board taking on something very visionary and more than what we started out to do?

A. The $100,000 will not give us what we want in the long term, this will evolve over time and the $100,000 is a foundation to build upon, provides a good solid foundation.

Q. Are we obligated under the RFP or if we can’t get anything can the RFP be cancelled?

A. Because of a grant application specifically for OGC compliance, the GeoLibrary did provide a $25,000 match. We need to do something, possibly scale down the RFP noting what we would like to do and what we can do.

Will Mitchell made a motion and Bob Faunce seconded that the Board allocate an additional $60,000 to bring the project to $100,000.

Sean brought up a concern he had regarding sending out an RFP and then pulling it because we don’t get the right proposals. Ray noted that the State contracts are so designed to allow canceling the work if the project is de-funded and in reviewing proposals, the state does have the right to reject all or any proposals.

After extensive discussions regarding the RFP for the Portal Project which included allocating an additional $60,000, negotiating with the contractor, looking at functional requirements, having an option to back out should the need arise, scoring the responses, selection criteria, and having proper evaluation criteria to get the best value for the money, the Board voted unanimously to pass the motion to allocate an additional $60,000 to the Portal project and raise it to $100,000. It was also noted that issuing the authority to issue the RFP was voted and passed at the October 20th meeting.

Jim recommended that this being the first major project undertaking as a Board, Dan and Larry serve as project management under review of the Technical Committee to evaluate the proposals, and that a recommendation be brought to the Board for the selected bidder. Ray requested that it be a little more fixed, committee structure, having the Technical Committee name a review panel. With this request, Jim noted that Dan be on the proposal review committee and others as appointed by Will before issuance of the RFP. A recommendation for the bidder selected will be brought back to the Board for final acceptance.

The Board moved on to discuss the status of the Orthophoto project. The issue at hand for the Board to resolve is whether or not to put part or all of the remaining 2004/2005 project work (image collection and orthoimage creation) out to bid or stay the course with USGS for completion. Note: The 2003 aerial photography and orthoimagery production has been/will be completed by USGS as well as part of the 2004 aerial photography, and the money has been expended and/or encumbered by contract.

The discussion of funding mechanisms was complex but these points were made:

  • The USGS has estimated that they can provide $577,000 in cash towards the completion of the project in lieu of work-in-kind.
  • It was noted that the $265,000 rough estimate for the 2004/2005 orthoimagery production was a very low estimate. Dan noted this estimate did not come from USGS but was an extrapolation based on previous costs.
  • The USGS is asking for $91,000 for QAQC as a separate item
  • It is possible that the existing aerial photography contract could be canceled with approximately an additional $100,000 freed up there.
  • Continuing the project as it is currently is thought to require approximately $400,000 in additional funding.

There was an extensive round of discussions and suggestions regarding the options available to the Board to complete the 2004/2005 orthophoto project, what amount of money was actually available/needed to complete the work and the needed human resources. A motion was made by Ray Halperin and seconded by Marilyn Lutz for the Board to alter its course, undertake the completion of the ortho project, and issue an RFP to do so.

Some members noted they were not comfortable supporting the motion. There was a strong consensus that the USGS provide something in writing on their funding. A suggestion was made to kick it back to the Technical Committee to come up with a better proposal and hold a special meeting for further discussion. Jim called upon the Board to vote on the motion put forward. Doing so, the Board failed to pass the motion to undertake the completion of the ortho project.

The Chair referred the matter back to the Technical Committee with a strong suggestion that more definitive information be gathered for a report at the December meeting. In closing the discussion, Ray asked that the Board be provided with written materials showing the options available and the breakdown of the money available. Also, the Board would like Dan to have further communication with USGS as to how much cash they are actually willing to give should the Board use the RFP process to complete the ortho project.

Item #3: GPCOG Negotiation – Bob Faunce

Bob reported that a recommended settlement of $39,000 was reluctantly agreed to by GPCOG that still allows them to sell their product. At this time Jim said the Chair would entertain a motion to approve the settlement. Ray Halperin moved and Tom Howker seconded to accept the negotiated settlement with GPCOG. With a show of hands, the Board unanimously voted and passed the motion to accept the settlement of $39,000.00 with GPCOG and the Board.

Item #4: Strategic Planning: prioritizing the GeoLibrary Board’s present and future action items

Due to a lack of time, this section was postponed to the next meeting.

Item #5: Other Business/updates

Jim handed out (Attachment #4) the Table of Contents for the Maine GeoLibrary Annual Report for 2004 to the Board for review. He asked the Board to review the document and get back to him via E-mail with any comments they may have. Jim’s goal is to present the draft report at the December 15th meeting with approval at the January meeting.

The agenda item on Maine Government web site templates was deferred to the December meeting.

Before adjourning the meeting, Dan reminded the Board of the ongoing GIS Day at the Hall of Flags, Jim reminded the Board that the December meeting would also start at 10:00 a.m.

Meeting adjourned 12:30 p.m.


Attachment #1

Policy Committee

DRAFT: Mission and Vision Statements, Version2.

November 10, 2004

Mission: The mission of the Maine Library of Geographic Information (GeoLibrary) is to create an electronic gateway to public geographic information, and to expand and promote the value of geographic spatial data through widespread distribution and innovative use for the benefit of Maine’s citizens.

Vision: The Maine Library of Geographic Information provides state-of-the-art, comprehensive, and ever expanding access to public geospatial information and services, facilitating availability and access for all citizens. The vision for the GeoLibrary encompasses:

Stewardship of priority, statewide spatial datasets and the associated technology essential for sharing geographic data

Maintenance of the GeoLibrary Portal to ensure standards compliance with the Open GIS Consortium (OGC) guidelines and the developing open geospatial data construct

Facilitating the modernization and GIS development of local government land records

Promoting innovative uses of public geospatial information that fosters economic development

Multi-organization data-sharing cooperation that results in significant savings in the cost of creating and maintaining geospatial data.

Budgeting and revenue development that prioritizes the strategic importance of geospatial information.

An education and outreach program that advocates for the further development and recognition of Maine as a national center for GIS research, education, and industrial growth, serving researchers, nonprofit organizations, citizen groups, local and state government bodies, and others who collect and use geographic information.

Goals and/or Strategic Initiatives

(1) Database Development

(2) Portal Development

(3) Land Records Modernization

(4) Data Sharing and Distribution

(5) Education / Outreach


Attachment #2

Bond Expenditures

1. Bond total


2. Amount expended


Purchase orthoHF, payment complete


2003 aerial photography, payment complete


2004/2005 aerial photography, partial payment


Produce 10 meter digital elevation models, partial payment


Image processing software, payment complete


IMS server, aerial photography viewer, payment complete


Hard drive to back up imagery, payment complete



3. Amount encumbered by contract


Produce 10 meter digital elevation models


2003 orthoimagery production


2004/2005 aerial photography


Land cover project


GeoArchives project


Town parcel grants, first round



4. Approved by Board vote but not


GeoLibrary Portal

yet encumbered by contract


Town parcel grants, second round


county study



Total spent, encumbered or approved


Bond funds remaining


5. Amount under discussion


Infrastructure improvements, data storage


Standards conformity/data validation tools


Rough estimate 2006 aerial photography, Tier C


Rough estimate 2004/2005 orthoimagery production




Funds not under consideration

Total amount still under discussion


Prepared by: Dan Walters
Date: 11/16/04

Board Review: Initial by Jim Page
Date: 11/17/2004

Attachment #3

The Maine GeoLibrary Portal

Background in support of project funding request

One of the primary purposes for the establishment of the GeoLibrary was to guide the development of a statewide network specifically relating to geographic data.

Excerpt from the law;

The term "Maine Library of Geographic Information" or "GeoLibrary" means the statewide network officially sanctioned by the Legislature through this Act by which data custodians or their designees organize, catalog, and provide access to public geographic information to all levels of government and to the public.

The Technical Subcommittee of the GeoLibrary Board, (formerly referred to during major development of the Portal RFP as the Technical Subcommittee on Infrastructure, Interoperability, and Interface (TS-III)); was tasked with the development of an RFP for vendor services and technical solutions to build this Portal. In addition, subcommittee members and GeoLibrary staff will serve as a proposal review team in the vendor selection process and will be charged with some level of oversight in managing the successful development and implementation of the Portal project.

Excerpt from the RFP;

“The purpose of the portal is to provide registration, discovery and access to Internet-accessible services that provide geospatially referenced data, maps, and geospatially-enabled applications.”

The GeoLibrary is pursuing 3 things to date: 1. Data, 2. Standards, and 3. A System of Delivery and Access. This 3rd item is the focus of the Portal initiative.

It is the consensus of the Technical Subcommittee that the Portal is of crucial importance to the GeoLibrary’s ultimate visibility and success, as it will provide not only the web-based face of the GeoLibrary’s content, but also the architecture into which data custodians across the state can fit. We are attempting to create a new landscape in data sharing by leveraging advancements in Geospatial interoperability. The MEGIS data holdings, municipalTowns GIShosting web mapping services, parcel and other GIS data layers at the regional councils housing parcel mapping and other data, environmental and natural resource information at non-profits, and other GIS data sets with conservation planning resources, state agencies and MeGIS among others, all can plug into this envisioned network and can be made be accessible to our constituencies through the Portal. Our efforts will not replace any of these valuable and varied resources, rather the Portal will put a central face on them all, a grand ‘card catalog’ in library terms, and facilitate the exchange of these data sets, tie them all together. Moving forward, support of OGC standards based services throughout the state will foster ever greater participation in the GeoLibrary network.[SDM1]

In order to effectively build this fundamental tool, adequate funding is required from our current bond. The Technical Subcommittee has determined that initial suggestions of a $40,000 budget are likely well short of true costs, and recommends allocating $100,000 to support this project. These funds would be used to hire a contractor who will assist with the detailed design, Beat development, and final implementation of the portal.

More background.

The Federal Geospatial-One-Stop:

Data and Maps

Information on Project

Links to all State GIS Clearinghouses

Details on portal component direction;

The ESRI Portal ‘Toolkit’ that was demonstrated to the Board

Attachment #4



Table of Contents

1. Introducing the Maine GeoLibrary

1.a. The Legislative Mandate

1.b. Mission / Vision / Long-Term Goals

1.c. Organization

i. The GeoLibrary Board

ii. Relation to MEGIS, other agencies and stakeholders

2. Accomplishments and Goals

2.a. General Accomplishments

2.b. 2004 Accomplishments

2.c. General Goals

2.d. 2005 Priorities

3. Finances

3.a. 2004 Budget Report

3.b. Strategic Needs

3.c. 2005 Needs

4. Appendices