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
Status of the GEOPortal – Mike Smith, Christopher Kroot
Kenneth Murchison ( by phone)
William Hanson, Chair
Daniel Coker, Co-Chair
Jon Giles ( by phone)
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
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
• 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
• 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
• Data development
• Application Development
• Data Sharing
• GIS project partnerships
• 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
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,
• 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
• 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
• Technical Committee – Portal/web services municipal
• Finance Committee – Board financial administration
• Policy Committee
( note: these are standing committees established some time ago)
Suggested New Work Groups
• ILRIS (Integrated Land Records Information System)
• Funding – responsible for securing funding for Board
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.
• Grow use of list serve to exchange information and solve issues
– document growth in number of users (Continual – start
• 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.
• 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)
• 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)
• Develop Standards
? Unified E-911 & DOT roads (3 months), Zoning (3 months), others
? 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.
• 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)
• Obtain a GeoLibrary Board statewide coordinator
• Launch the Portal & develop a full advertising/training
• 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
? non-GIS beneficiaries
• Meet statewide needs. Concentrate on benefits to county and
• 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
• 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
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
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
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
Project FY10 FY11
Orthoimagery 1,025,000 1,600,000
Topography Data 1,500,000
Parcel Grant Program 200,000 200,000
Records System 250,000 250,000
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
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,
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
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
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
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
• 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;
• 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.
|Statewide Digital Orthophotos
|High Res Topo
|Regional Service Centers
|Statewide Digital Orthophotos
|High Res Topo
|Regional Service Centers
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
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,
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
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
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 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.