Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

Home > Meetings > 2008 Meetings > September 17, 2008

September 17, 2008 Meeting Minutes and Agenda


1. Approval of the August 20th meeting minutes – Chair

2. Strategic Issues and Potential Solutions – Bruce Oswald

3. Land Records Update, Counties Strategy – Rich Sutton

4. Bond Issues – Mike Smith

5. MEGUG & the GIS Community Stakeholder Database – Mike Smith, Dan Walters

6. Subcommittee Reports
• Financial – Larry Harwood
• Policy & Marketing – Marilyn Lutz
• Technical
Status of the GEOPortal – Mike Smith, Christopher Kroot


Nancy Armentrout
Michael Smith
Robert Marvinney
Marilyn Lutz
Gretchen Heldmann
Kenneth Murchison ( by phone)
Paul Hoffman
William Hanson, Chair
Daniel Coker, Co-Chair
James Page
Jon Giles ( by phone)
Aimee Dubois
Christopher Kroot

Larry Harwood

Dan Walters, US Geological Survey (USGS) & Maine GIS Users Group ( MEGUG )
Vinton Valentine, University of Southern Maine (USM) & MEGUG
Bruce Oswald, James W. Sewall Co Project Team, Rich Sutton, Reference Standard, JWS Project Team (by phone)
Will Mitchell, Mitchell Geographics ( by phone )
Joseph Young, State Planning Office

The meeting was called to order at 10:01

The Chair announced that today would be Jim Page’s last meeting as a Board member. The Chair commended Jim for his lengthy and extraordinary service to the Board, especially in his two terms as Chair of the Board.

1. Approval of the August 20th , 2008 meeting minutes
The Chair entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Jim Page moved to approve the minutes as written. Marilyn Lutz seconded. The Board voted 12 in favor, none opposed. The motion carried. (NOTE: unless otherwise indicated the Chair abstains from voting)

2. Strategic Issues and Potential Solutions
Bruce Oswald opened by asking for as much feedback as possible today from the Board. His presentation, with questions and comments is here presented in outline form.

The 2002 Strategic Plan – The “Five Pillars”
1. Development of Detailed Data Standards
2. Data Warehousing Infrastructure Improvements
3. Additional Investment in Statewide Data Development
4. Targeted Application Development
5. A Program for Expanded GIS Education, Outreach and Coordination
An “Overall Priority Listing” in 2 sortings was presented, too extensive to be reproduced here, detailing issues and action items for the Board, potential solutions, timeframe, priority, cost and work area ( “Pillar”). The Board was asked to review these and return comments later. Discussion turned to problems identified by the project’s “stakeholder surveys”.

Stakeholder Identified Gaps
Data Sharing
• Inability to find data easily
• Inability to easily get access to state and local data
• Difficulty in knowing when new data is posted
• Need for easier services for generating and understanding metadata

Data Development
• Updated imagery ( every 3-5 years)
• Statewide parcel data (updated regularly)
• One uniform roads (and addressing) dataset
• High resolution statewide elevation data

Stakeholder Identified Gaps
Coordination Activities-how is the Board coordinating GIS at a statewide level
• Data development
• Application Development
• Data Sharing
• GIS project partnerships
• Training
• Need for GIS Funding for development at local government level

Stakeholder Identified Gaps
• Who is the Board and what is it doing?( how is the Board coordinating GIS at a statewide level)
• How does the Board promote the use of GIS?
• What benefits does the Board offer?
• How can GIS users stay in touch with GIS issues, activities and opportunities occurring around the state?

• Where is training being given around the state?
• Who can I contact for help?
• How do I start a GIS program for my town?
• GIS is too complicated. How can I get its benefits without investing all the time for training?
Software Too Expensive
• How can I get access to GIS software that is less expensive?
• How can I share software or purchase it less expensively?

Developing The Overall Priority Listing ( Bruce explains his methodology)
• Took items from all three lists
• Eliminated redundancies
• Captured intents
• Provided potential solutions
• Used results to develop start of implementation plan

Major Issues Facing the Board
• Lack of awareness of Board’s significance (activities)
• Lack of funding to continue projects
• Lack of enough emphasis on statewide coordination activities
• Lack of statewide GIS coordinator dedicated to implementing projects

Implementation Strategy
Obtain Broader Participation
• Involve many more individuals from the local government, private sector and state
• Insure that the concerns of local governments are heard

Establish Work Groups
• Pool of candidates provided by local/state officials, MEGUG, etc.
• Good work group leaders
? recognized and respected experts as leaders of work groups
? Leaders with leadership & people skills
? Invite participants
• Select individuals to have equal representation on committees both in terms of public/private, state/local governments and geography

Work Group Tactics
• Benevolent dictatorship model
• Each work group given objectives
• Importance of implementable results made clear
• Get attention
? specific deliverables outlines
? limited time frames provided for deliverables
• Build momentum
? Continuous victories/deliverables

• Active facilitation
• Provide non-partisan leadership
• Involve affected parties, expert & leaders

Constant Victories – build momentum, keep the focus
• Launch of the Portal
• Portal training program
• Post Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) data
• Announcements of data updates
• Post digital orthos to portal web service
• Establish monthly news blips
• Establish calendar of events

Getting Started
• Meet with CIO, political allies, etc
? inform them of direction & needs
? agree on direction
• Select ideal workgroup participants
• Invite leaders
• Work with leaders to finalize and invite workgroup participants
• Establish & charge work groups
• Time frame – 2 month
Additional comments: “communicate greatly” and “have leaders”

Board Committees
• Technical Committee – Portal/web services municipal template
• Finance Committee – Board financial administration
• Policy Committee
( note: these are standing committees established some time ago)

Suggested New Work Groups
• Coordination
• Communication
• ILRIS (Integrated Land Records Information System)
• Data
• Education/training
• Funding – responsible for securing funding for Board initiatives

Work Group Rules
• Meet bi-weekly (in person or on-line)
• Have one Board member in each work group
• Have bi-weekly deliverables
• Work group chair reports at each monthly Board meeting
• Each monthly report is provided to the Communications Group to include (as appropriate) in the monthly News Blip

Samples of Work Group Deliverables
• Encourage data sharing – Publicize the Portal through a continual program across the state – (Document downloads and use of Portal)
• Work with CIO, Governor’s Office and LURC to get LURC data posted! (3 months)
• Encourage partnerships by highlighting their positive impact (3 months – 6 months)
• Work with CIO (and local government) to establish annual data inventory (6 months)
• Obtain a staff person to assist in implementing GeoLibrary priorities (12 months)
• Work with the CIO to establish a policy (and a proactive program) for placing new data and updating existing data within the GeoLibrary/Portal. (6 months)

Coordination (continued)
• Grow use of list serve to exchange information and solve issues – document growth in number of users (Continual – start immediately)
• Establish monthly news blips to highlight achievements of the GeoLibrary. (3 months)
• Use those news blips to develop a “What’s New” page on the web site. Insure that it is updated weekly or better. (3 months)
• Establish a one page handout on Board achievements and their benefits. (3 months)
• Establish an activities calendar to list conferences, training, and related geospatial events. (6 months)

Communication (continued)
• Perform annual survey and listening Forums to determine user needs & advertise Board successes. (9 months) Insure input received is used as part of annual planning process.
• Develop a continuous campaign to have data and metadata posted to the portal.

• Establish an implementation team to oversee the implementation of ILRIS. (3 months)
• Establish a maintenance team to handle post implementation issues. (6 months)
• Work with the Communications Work Group to develop a campaign to encourage participation and highlight its benefits. (3 months)

Data Development
• Develop Standards
? Unified E-911 & DOT roads (3 months), Zoning (3 months), others as necessary
? Work with the Communications Work Group to communicate standards under development and as they are approved.
• Develop a continual imagery update program. (6 months – design program; 12-18 months – implement)
• Develop statewide parcel data – see ILRIS (6-12 months)
• Develop unified (E-911 & DOT) roads data. (12 months)
• Develop high resolution elevation data. (24 months)

The comment was made that updating the orthoimagery should go to the top of the list. This was favorably received. It was also suggested that something be added about participation in the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP).

Portal/Municipal Application Through Web Services
• Complete work on portal (3 months)
• Create web service templates for municipalities to use that provide simple zoning, planning, tax parcel and other applications for municipal governments that don’t require GIS expertise. (6 months)
• Establish a development tracking tool suite. (18 months)

Education / Training
• Establish an educational section on the web site. (3 months)
• Encourage trainers to post training opportunities to the list serve and the web site. (3 months)
• Provide a training program to help users take advantage of Google or Virtual Earth solutions to meet their base needs. (6 months)
• Develop (or adopt) a simple “getting started” kit for municipalities to use. Make it available on-line and provide basic on-line training with it. (18 months)

• Conduct survey to get obtain examples of uses, value of projects, quotes on successes, etc. (3 months)
• Work with the Communication Work Group to develop fact sheets on the benefits (w/quotes) achieved in Maine from GIS. (Refer to Indiana articles on ROI & Benefits) (3 months)
• Meet with legislative committee chairs and governor’s office. Develop solutions to their needs. (6 months)

Key Deliverables
• Obtain a GeoLibrary Board statewide coordinator
• Launch the Portal & develop a full advertising/training campaign
• Implement ILRIS
• Municipal Government Web Service Apps
• Follow Communications Plan
• Publicize results to beneficiaries
• Get LURC data placed on the Portal

It was pointed out that the parcel data for the unorganized townships is in fact managed by Maine Revenue Service, Property Tax Division not LURC, although the technicians of both work closely together. LURC is primarily responsible for zoning data.

• Expand your reach
? participants
? non-GIS beneficiaries
• Meet statewide needs. Concentrate on benefits to county and municipal governments
• Increase your through-put
• Publicize your victories
• Engage the legislature, the Governor’s office and others of significant influence

In conclusion the Board was asked for comments or specific suggestions, by e-mail if time does not permit today. The response was generally positive. Discussion was wide ranging but can be summarized as follows:

• The focus seems always to be on state and local government. It would be of political benefit to include academia, non-government organizations and industry, to broaden the base so to speak.
• The GeoPortal will take care of much of the data access and storage issues by linking to all manner of data providers.
• Another aspect of the portal is that we can create/host or connect to applications by groups as diverse as small businesses, conservation & watershed groups, etc.
• With GIS data there is a “producer class” and a “consumer class”. A more detailed list of each of these would be useful.
• There needs to be a way to fund operational costs. For example OIT is picking up some of the portal operation but that may change in the future.
• These new Work Groups may be too numerous to manage and find volunteers for.
• It will be difficult to prioritize these “Issues and Actions Items” – but not impossible.

Mike Smith briefly described the planned GIS Day displays in the Hall of Flags in the capitol building. This will be on November 19th and will focus on the Geolibrary’s contributions to municipal GIS. He would like to have 2 Board members there to represent the Geolibrary. Anyone interested should contact Bridgit Kirouac at the Office of GIS.

3. Land Records Update, Counties Strategy
Rich Sutton gave a short report on his work so far with the Integrated Land Records portion of the CAT3 project. He has fairly well completed the research phase and developed a conceptual framework for implementation. There are technical problems still to solve. He pointed out that the volume of deeds, plans and surveys stored in the county registries plus the parcel data maintained by the towns constitutes a huge pool of potential GIS data.

The first step is to put a geographic coordinate, most probably longitude & latitude, onto the physical deed documents before they are registered. This will give a basic geographic location to the deeds, a spatial component. Surveys, admittedly of great value to GIS, have not been fully addressed yet. It was pointed out that some surveys are tied to some sort of coordinate system.

Secondly is to address getting the municipal tax map data tied to the registry documents. With digital parcel data this is easier. The effort is aided by having an existing digital parcel standard in place.

Third it will be necessary to have “Records Coordinator” dedicated to the project. There is a precedent in a federal “State Parcel Coordinator” as a model for the position. There is the added advantage that federal agencies will look favorably on this familiar model. Overall the plan is to introduce a very small amount of effort – the minimum effort needed– into the registry workflow. A full time coordinator position will be needed. It will be very bad to start this project and then let it wither and die after promoting it.

Q: Why use lat/long? Why not state plane coordinates?
A: Lat/long seems to be the easiest to derive and the most likely to remain unchanged over time. It is also universally understood.
Q: What use will a point location be?
A: GIS softwares can still locate the property approximately and perform basic analysis, for example what other properties are within a certain distance.
Q: What is the legality of placing coordinates on deeds?
A: That seems uncertain. Some of the Board members have experience with this. We will have to work that out over time.

4. Bond Issues
Mike Smith cited documents already provided, an overall description of the bond items and a spreadsheet of figures, with the admonition that if the Board wished to move on this it must be voted on today. (see attachments A, B). The suggested bond request was as follows in outline:

Project FY10 FY11
Statewide Digital
Orthoimagery 1,025,000 1,600,000

High Resolution
Topography Data 1,500,000

Parcel Grant Program 200,000 200,000

Integrated Land
Records System 250,000 250,000

Regional Service
Centers 250,000 250,000

Program Management 100,000 100,000

Q: Does the ortho number include Quality Assurance/ Quality Control?
A: The vendor will be expected to do most of that. MEGIS will do a final check.
Q: What is the cost of the Federal Emergency Management Agency specification for LIDAR ?
A: Approximately $80 per square mile.
Q: Is not the amount for ‘regional centers’ to high? For example data loading of non state agency data will probably not exceed, say, $50,000?
A: That is possible; of course these are very approximate figures.
Q: Will Dick Thompson (state CIO) support us on the bond issue?
A: He has said he will advocate for us, yes.

It was suggested that the term “Regional Service Center” be changed to “Municipal and Regional Data Services” this being more politically palatable. This was acceptable to the Board. In further discussion it was decided to eliminate the category “Program Mgt (management)” altogether. It was also decided to increase all the remaining categories by 5%. (The final document is shown in attachment C.)

Gretchen Heldmann argued that the Board should put more money towards the High Resolution Topography Data so that we would have better chances at flying 0.5m LiDAR. 0.5m LiDAR would provide much more detailed information and would ultimately in the end create better flood maps, have better elevation data, better forest stand info, and more. Gretchen wanted to see $5.61M asked for this project. The Board discussed the issue and left the amount at the $1.5M.

Mike Smith moved to send the bond request as discussed to Dick Thompson along with the explanatory text. Christopher Kroot seconded. The Board voted to approve the matter, with 11 votes in favor except for Gretchen who voted Nay.

5. MEGUG & the GIS Community Stakeholder Database
Dan Walters, on behalf of the Maine GIS Users Group (MEGUG), presented a written proposal for creating and maintaining a comprehensive listing of the Maine GIS community. (see attachment D). Essentially MEGUG proposed to pull together all know listings, list servers and other contact venues into one grand list, to update and maintain that and to keep track of who on the list were members of MEGUG. In return they would use the listing to attract new membership and communicate ideas. The reaction was generally positive except for the question of how this related to the Geolibrary listserver. The answer was they are separate lists altogether and not related except that some listings would be on both. It was stressed that the Geolibrary listserver was important to the Board.

Gretchen Heldman moved to accept the MEGUG proposal as written. Christopher Kroot seconded. The Board voted 12 in favor, none opposed. Chair abstaining. The motion carried.

6. Subcommittee reports
Time pressing, the reports were held to a few minutes each
Financial – The updated one page financial sheet was merely recommended to the Board for their review.
Policy and Marketing – There was nothing to report.
Status of the GeoPortal – Christopher Kroot gave a very brief update on the progress of USM on their application and data loading. The portal is working and being modified.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:35

Attachment A

Recommendations for Bonding to Develop Required Geographic Information Systems Infrastructure for the Advancement of Economic Growth in the State of Maine

While most people may know of geographic information systems (GIS) as the technology behind Google Earth or car navigation systems, the truth is that it is a widely pervasive underpinning of infrastructure at all levels of government and is becoming even more widely used as a decision making tool in private industry daily. Its uses include public safety, education, E-911, emergency management, environmental planning, tax assessment, permitting, etc. In 2008, the Maine Geographic Information Library (GeoLibrary Board) commissioned a study to update their existing strategic plan and to develop a design for an integrated land records information system. As part of that study, Forums were held in cities across the state and an on-line survey conducted. Both efforts were designed to gain input people in Maine on their geographic information needs as well as the major barriers that they faced to being more competitive with others in this country. The results of those Forums and the on-line survey have led to the following recommendations for bond funds.

Parcel Integration and Grant Program
One of the major initiatives of the GeoLibrary Board has been the development of an Integrated Lands Records Information System. This system is being advocated to make land records systems in Maine competitive with other states. It establishes an electronic system that integrates tax parcel information kept at the State, County and Municipal levels together to improve access to it and its overall usefulness to public and private sectors in Maine. It will significantly improve the capabilities of professionals in the legal, environmental, public safety, surveying and engineering communities to insure economic growth in Maine in an expedient, but open and environmentally responsible manner. By providing access to this information in a controlled, easy-to-use, organized manner, the state will make real estate transactions easier to perform, reduce the need for professionals to travel to government offices (thereby lower carbon emissions and improving efficiencies of those professionals) and make government more transparent to its citizens.
As noted above, the conceptual design for the Integrated Land Records Information System was initiated in 2008 by the GeoLibrary Board. The proposed program would build on that design and proceed in three phases: initiate a pilot project involving multiple counties to develop and test a system for several municipalities; continue* a grant program to create electronic tax parcel information for municipalities where that information currently doesn’t exist; and establish a tax parcel maintenance program for municipalities where electronic tax parcel information exists.

(*Note – Under a previous grant program bond funds were made available to municipalities to digitize property tax maps with awards to municipalities varying from $1,000 to $10,000, and requiring a minimum 1-1 municipal match for each dollar awarded. The first two rounds of awards have been completed with 120 municipalities applying for, and 74 receiving, awards.)

Digital Orthoimagery Program
Digital Orthoimagery consist of aerial photographs that have had all distortions removed by computer processing so that they have the scale and the measurement characteristics of a map with the qualities and characteristics of a digital photograph. Because of their “bird’s eye view”, orthoimagery makes it easy to recognize and understand the relationship of objects on the ground. It is widely used as a standard electronic base map on which other layers of information can be viewed and analyzed, and are also a source for capturing/drawing ground features to create GIS data layers for specific functions including road centerlines, building footprints, farm fields, forest types, eelgrass beds and utility and road corridors. This imagery is widely used by states across the country for economic development, public safety, E-911, emergency management, and environmental management.

Experience in other states has shown that statewide digital orthoimagery programs can reduce the per square mile costs of orthoimagery purchased by municipalities separately by up to 50%. However, this program has to have the flexibility to meet the needs of local government as well as State Agencies. This program would be designed to meet the minimum needs of state government on a statewide basis, but allow municipal governments to purchase upgrades to meet their needs on an incremental cost basis, thereby, saving them significant costs. In addition, it is envisioned that, by providing quality control and contract administration centrally, a higher overall quality product will result.

High Resolution Elevation Data Program
High resolution elevation data is used for a number of purposes. Some of the key ones involve inland flood prevention as well as coastal zone water inundation studies. This work is used to predict the impact of catastrophic failures as well. Most importantly, the output from its results can be used to save lives and lower economic losses. In addition, this important data can be used by engineering and surveying firms doing work in Maine as part of the site design process for locating new facilities. While parts of Maine already have acquired this data, much of the state remains with data with accuracies of + or – 10 feet in elevation. This program would seek to reuse existing data, where possible, and capture new data, where required. This combined data would then be “stitched” together to create a digital elevation model that would accurately depict the elevation changes across the state.

Data Access Improvement Program
One of the major themes that came out of the Forums and on-line survey was the lack of access available to state and local GIS data. Not knowing where existing GIS data is or not being able to access it easily is costing taxpayers in the state of Maine on a daily basis.

The first phase of this program would identify significant GIS data at all levels, assist state and local governments to make it compatible with national standards, and provide resources to work with data owners to make this data available to users across the state. This program would continue to build on the GeoLibrary’s new GIS Portal and provide access to this data to communities wishing to participate in this program. Communities wishing to take advantage of this program could eliminate much of the cost of the hardware and software needed to host this information.

The second phase of this program would seek to develop a virtual network of GIS nodes with more technologically advanced municipalities, NGOs, etc., linked through common standards by network through the newly constructed GeoLibrary Portal. Preliminary plans have the grant program implemented in two tiers.

Tier A – Organizations that already have web enabled GIS data holdings would be eligible for grants up to $5000 to make their GIS data holdings compliant with current standards and thus viewable through a variety of desktop GIS applications (e.g. ESRI, MapInfo, Autodesk).
Tier B – Organizations that have GIS holdings that are not web enabled would be eligible for grants up to $15,000 to implement a web-based GIS server and to provide assistance with making their GIS holdings OGC compliant.

Develop Municipal Services Applications Program
Another of themes that was heard in the Forums and on-line survey was the difficulty in obtaining the software and expertise to effectively use GIS within local communities. This program builds off the GeoLibrary’s Portal’s web services and would develop 3-5 easy-to-use (non-technical) GIS applications that would be made available to communities to through the use of only a web browser. These applications would be based on a study of overall community needs, but could include services like: tax mapping, zoning, building permits, planning, economic development, efficient bus routing, etc. This would enable these communities to use these applications without having to invest in data hosting, software, expert staff or contract for the individual development of these applications by each community. In addition, using these applications would encourage the development of local data meeting acceptable standards.

Zoning Map Development Program
A comprehensive regional or statewide zoning data layer is a key component of economic development, development tracking, build-out analyses, and modeling of zoning options used by realtors, developers, business development groups, conservation organization and municipalities. While limited regional composites of zoning data have been made, comprehensive zoning data do not exist on a statewide basis. The Board would fund a program of grants modeled on the Parcel Grants Program to upgrade and submit digital zoning to the GeoLibrary in order to begin creation of a statewide zoning data layer. The relevant data falls generally into two types:
• Shoreland zoning data from each community would be automated and submitted for comparison to an established standard and insertion into the GeoLibrary. Because it is created by State statute and based on natural features, shoreland zoning is comparatively uniform. This part of the project would therefore lend itself best to a regional approach.
• General Municipal Zoning would be automated with zoning areas represented as polygons with attributes describing the municipal zoning classification. Maine municipal zoning does not have a uniform set of zoning codes. Therefore, as with the digital parcel data, standards will need to be developed by the GeoLibrary Board to guide data development. A State standard would not involve removing local codes from the data but would include both municipal and standard zoning information. Again, data from each community would be automated and submitted to the State for comparison to the standard and insertion into the GeoLibrary.

Land Cover Updating Program
Land Cover mapping indicates the dominant vegetation or ground cover within a particular 5m x 5m square grouped into areas of two acres or more. The GeoLibrary provided partial funding for the development of a recently completed Maine Land Cover dataset that is tightly integrated with Federal efforts to map land cover and imperviousness nationwide with tremendous cost savings. Data users include:
• biologists modeling species habitat for population management
• public and private planners studying growth and site location
• environmental specialists looking at storm water issues
• forestry planners studying forest composition and change
• emergency management planners
• meteorologists modeling air emissions.

These users’ tasks can be carried out in a more cost effective manner through remote sensing than through field mapping, with a statewide effort providing an added level of consistency. Updates every 2 to 5 years to assess change is key and with the last effort completed in 2007 there should be an update scheduled for 2008.

Comprehensive Conservation Lands Maps Development Program
The State does not now have an overarching mechanism to track conservation lands that are in State, federal, municipal and private ownership. Efforts are underway to address this gap, but without additional resources the gap cannot be closed. Funds will be used to update the current conserved lands/public access data and to develop a mechanism to increase and update the data annually. Efforts will include coordination with a steering committee, discovery and review of documents held by state and local entities, input of attributes into a database, geo-location of sites as necessary, development of FGDC -complaint metadata, and a mechanism to update the database.

The stakeholders interested in the status and quality of conserved lands in Maine is large and varied, include:
• legislators, municipal officials, planners, policy makers, the public, and members of non-profit conservation groups who need to assess current programs in order to invest resources effectively;
• permit reviewers for conserved lands who, under Maine statutes and rules, need to know the location and attributes including size, location, type of easements or restrictions, habitat types and view sheds to analyze the potential effects of new development;
• conservation organizations working under new policy directives such as the Maine Coast Protection Initiative (MCPI) and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plan who are challenged to choose projects that address multiple objectives such as public access, conservation of working lands and protection of high priority habitat types. Because each of the seventy MCPI partners has committed to a new framework for strategic land conservation, a variety of public and private conservation organizations would benefit strongly from better evaluative tools; and
• the increasingly more sophisticated eco-tourist who desires additional information about conserved lands beyond simple location information. With more visitors using the internet, a web-based coastal access guide would complement Maine’s efforts to claim additional market share of nature-based travelers.

Attachment B

Bond Funds    
Project FY10 FY11
Statewide Digital Orthophotos $1,025,000 $1,600,000
High Res Topo   $1,500,000
Parcel Grants $200,000 $200,000
ILRIS $300,000 $300,000
Regional Service Centers $250,000 $250,000
Program Management    
SUBTOTAL $1,875,000 $3,950,000
TOTAL   $5,875,000

Attachment C

Bond Funds    
Project FY10 FY11
Statewide Digital Orthophotos $1,076,250 $1,680,000
High Res Topo   $1,575,000
Parcel Grants $210,000 $210,000
ILRIS $315,000 $315,000
Regional Service Centers $262,500 $262,500
Program Management    
SUBTOTAL $1,863,750 $4,042,500
TOTAL   $5,906,250

Attachment D

Maine GIS User Group (MEGUG) Support for the Maine GeoLibrary Stakeholder Master Contact List

To develop and maintain a unified GIS stakeholders contact database which incorporates information from contact databases maintained by MEGUG, the Maine Office of GIS (MEGIS), the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the GeoLibrary Board. The Geolibrary Board has already consolidated its stakeholder list with MEGIS contact information and contact information gathered by the USGS as a part of their strategic planning project. A private vendor is currently maintaining the consolidated list for the Geolibrary.

Currently MEGUG utilizes a database and web-based applications to provide email broadcasts to its members and others to announce upcoming events and other issues. The database and applications will be expanded to permit the GeoLibrary Board, MEGIS and MEGUG to broadcast emails to the entire list or selected categories of users, as well as maintain their respective data.
1. Modify the existing database to incorporate the GeoLibrary list.

2. Add a field to attribute each record to ”owner”.

3. Add a separate field for MEGUG membership ID.

1. Modify MEGUG listing and conference registration programs to utilize consolidated list table.

2. Provide ability for MEGUG members to modify own information (name, affiliation etc).

3. Provide ability for GeoLibrary to add, modify and remove listees.

4. Provide ability for MEGIS to add, modify and remove listees

5. Provide interface for GeoLibrary to create and broadcast email to user’s list.

6. Provide interface for MEGIS to create and broadcast email to user’s list.

7. Provide interface for GeoLibrary to export/download complete listings in tab-delimited format.

8. Provide interface for MEGIS to export/download complete listings in tab-delimited format.

9. Develop web-based application to query the database by organization or person


MEGUG may need to move its database and web programs to a new server in the next two months. The modifications proposed would be timed to go on-line during this timeframe.

A select set of users will be identified (perhaps MEGUG Board members and GeoLibrary Board Members) who will be used to verify that the programs operate correctly. A series of email broadcasts will be sent to these persons to verify the programs. After successful operation, the remaining GeoLibrary listings will be loaded and ready for use.

MEGUG will be responsible for maintaining the records associated with MEGUG members.

MEGUG will continue to maintain the database and applications. MEGUG will work with MEGIS and the Geolibrary Board to expand capabilities as needed assuming that either MEGUG or other resources are available to undertake the work.

MEGUG will test all emails every six months and send returned emails to MEGIS and the Geolibrary Board for updating or removal. Corrective action will be taken within 30 days of notification.

MEGIS will update and maintain the records of state agency contacts that are not members of MEGUG

The Geolibrary Board will maintain the records of their stakeholders that are not members of MEGUG.

MEGUG, MEGIS and the Geolibrary Board will work together to encourage all of the contacts in the database to become MEGUG members or sponsors.