2008 michigan county gis survey results. the 2008 county gis survey thanks to all that participated:...

2008 Michigan 2008 Michigan County GIS County GIS

Survey ResultsSurvey Results

The 2008 County GIS Survey•Thanks to all that participated:

•To the Staff at CGI making all the calls when CGI was Still CGI (NOW CSS)

•To the Allegan County GIS Staff for assistingwith assembling and fine-tuning the survey

• The folks at MSU’s Remote Sensing & GIS Research and Outreach Services for data compilation.

•To all of you who took the time to complete this “monster”!

The 2008 County GIS Survey•The resulting Excel spread sheet was 643 columns

by 83 rows filling over 50,000 data cells.• It contains a wealth of information about existing GIS capacities, abilities, needs, strengths, and weaknesses• It will drive the strategic investments and efforts to make county and state GIS better, more efficient and better integrated.• The raw data and this “interpretation or analysis” will be made available to you via the MiCAMP website and other venues. • This presentation is focusing on highlights and trends.

The Evolution County GIS in The Evolution County GIS in MichiganMichigan

The Evolution County GIS in MichiganThe Evolution County GIS in Michigan

The Evolution County GIS in The Evolution County GIS in MichiganMichigan

The Mean (average) Age of County GIS in The Mean (average) Age of County GIS in MichiganMichigan

Is 10 Years!Is 10 Years!

108 GIS FTE’s are currently employed 108 GIS FTE’s are currently employed serving 60 Counties.serving 60 Counties.

From 0 to 60 in 20 years!

Where is GIS “housed” ?

•

The Michigan Public GIS The Michigan Public GIS BackgroundBackground

60 counties have or are involved in

Cadastral (parcel) mapping

=91.7% of the population

=92% of all existing parcels

=66% of Michigan’s geography

The Counties and County GIS in 2001 The Counties and County GIS in 2001 and 2008and 2008

Between 2001 and 2008 Michigan County Between 2001 and 2008 Michigan County Budgets increased by About ?Budgets increased by About ? 58 Percent58 Percent

Between 2001 and 2008 Michigan County Between 2001 and 2008 Michigan County GIS Budgets in creased by About?GIS Budgets in creased by About? 51 Percent51 Percent

Mean 2001 County GIS Budget as Percent of Mean 2001 County GIS Budget as Percent of General FundGeneral Fund 0.59 Percent0.59 Percent

Mean 2008 County GIS Budget as Percent of Mean 2008 County GIS Budget as Percent of General FundGeneral Fund 0.38 Percent0.38 Percent

•Rural GIS on a per Capita Bases is More Expensive Than in Non-Rural Areas

• Rural GIS on a per CapitaParcel Bases is Less Expensive than in Non-Rural Areas

Few County Functions CostLess and Contribute More

•Geography does not matter as much as Population

Ideally over time thesenumbers will climb!

Should include both tangible and intangible cost and

Benefits

Should be integrated withoperational aspects of allother county departments

Should include impact on local units of GovernmentTwp’s, cities and villages

Has Implications for Revenue Stream beyond GIS

Direct revenues never pay for entire GIS operations

Cost/Benefit analysis willreveal that many counties have Grossly under estimated the value of information that theyon average have generated over the last ten years

Archiving data about GIS data.

GIS Titles in County GovernmentGIS Titles in County Government GIS Director (5)GIS Director (5) GIS Coordinator (17)GIS Coordinator (17) GIS Analyst (8)GIS Analyst (8) GIS Specialist (6)GIS Specialist (6) GIS Technician (19)GIS Technician (19) Others: Cartographer. GIS Developer, Mapper, Others: Cartographer. GIS Developer, Mapper,

Property Analyst, Mapping CoordinatorProperty Analyst, Mapping Coordinator

GIS Titles in County GovernmentGIS Titles in County Government GIS Coordinator (17)GIS Coordinator (17)

GIS Technician (19)GIS Technician (19) Typically housed in Equalization, Information Typically housed in Equalization, Information

Technology.Technology.

Future GIS Skill Set and Position Title.Future GIS Skill Set and Position Title. The GIS Analyst ( getting information The GIS Analyst ( getting information

out, “mining” data sets)out, “mining” data sets)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%P

erc

en

tag

e I

nte

rac

tio

ns

Ad

min

Cl/

Reg

Co

urt

s

911

Dra

in

Em

erg

y

Eq

ual

Fac

. M

.

Fin

ance HD

HR IT

MS

U E

xt

Par

ks

Pla

n E

co

Pro

s

Ro

ad C

.

Sh

erif

f

Tra

nsp

Tre

as

Departments

GIS Program Scope by County Population

Pop. Over 50,000 Pop. Between 20,000 and 50,000 Pop. Below 20,000

Computer Operating System

Linux UnixWindows NT

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows 2000

Windows XP

Windows Vista

MAC OS x

Not Sure

2 0 2 0 0 3 48 1 0 0

Primary GIS Software

AutoDesk Map Idrisi Accuglobe Intergraph ERDAS MapinfoESRI Arc Info

4 0 0 0 0 11 0

MaptitudeESRI ArcView Smallworld

ESRI ArcGIS

TNTMips

Genamap Other

0 10 0 27 2 2 0

The Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc.® (OGC) is a non-profit, international, voluntary consensus standards organization that is leading the development of standards for geo-spatial and location based services.

I think we have surplus Sub-Meter GPS capacity

Borrow a unit from yourneighbor!

No regional self-sufficiency

Often a cost effective GIScapacity generator

Programmers are expensive if you can not keep them busy all the time

This will Change DrasticallyIn the Future.

I Think

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

enta

ges

Adm

in.

Cle

rk /

Reg

.C

ourts

E 91

1D

rain

Com

.Em

erge

ncy

Equa

lizat

ion

Facl

. Pub

licFi

nanc

eH

ealth

Dep

t.H

uman

Res

.In

form

atio

nM

SU E

xt.

Park

sPl

an /

Econ

Pros

ecut

orR

oad

Sher

iffTr

ansp

orta

tion

Trea

sury

Standalone Installs / Seats in County Departments

Browse Run Apps Edit

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%P

erce

nta

ges

Ad

min

.C

lerk

/ R

eg.

Co

urt

sE

911

Dra

in C

om

.E

mer

gen

cy

Eq

ual

izat

ion

Fac

l. P

ub

licF

inan

ce

Hea

lth D

ept.

Hu

man

Res

.In

form

atio

n

MS

U E

xt.

Par

ksP

lan

/ E

con

Pro

secu

tor

Ro

adS

her

iffT

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Tre

asu

ry

Standalone Installs / Seats in County Departments with County Populations over 50,000


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cen

tag

es

Ad

min

.C

om

mis

.

Cle

rk /

Reg

.

Co

urt

s

E 9

11

Dra

in C

om

.

Em

erg

ency

Mn

gt.

Eq

ual

izat

ion

Fac

l. P

ub

lic

wo

rks

Fin

ance

Hea

lth

Dep

t.

Hu

man

Res

.

Info

rmat

ion

Tec

h.

MS

U E

xt.

Par

ks

Pla

n /

Eco

nD

ev

Pro

secu

tor

Ro

adC

om

mis

sio

n

Sh

erif

f

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n

Tre

asu

ry

Standalone Installs / Seats in County Departments with County Populations between 20,000 and 50,000


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

enta

ges

Adm

in.

Cle

rk /

Reg

.C

ourts

E 91

1D

rain

Com

.Em

erge

ncy

Equa

lizat

ion

Facl

. Pub

licFi

nanc

eH

ealth

Dep

t.H

uman

Res

.In

form

atio

nM

SU E

xt.

Park

sPl

an /

Econ

Pros

ecut

orR

oad

Sher

iffTr

ansp

orta

tion

Trea

sury

Internet Mapping in County Departments

Browse Run Apps

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%P

erce

ntag

es

Adm

in.

Cle

rk /

Reg

.C

ourt

sE

911

Dra

in C

om.

Em

erge

ncy

Equ

aliz

atio

nFa

cl. P

ublic

Fina

nce

Hea

lth D

ept.

Hum

an R

es.

Info

rmat

ion

MS

U E

xt.

Par

ksP

lan

/ Eco

nP

rose

cuto

rR

oad

She

riff

Tran

spor

tatio

nTr

easu

ry

Internet Mapping in County Departments with County Populations over 50,000

Browse Run Apps

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pe

rce

nta

ge

s

Ad

min

.C

lerk

/ R

eg

.C

ou

rts

E 9

11

Dra

in C

om

.E

me

rge

nc

yE

qu

aliz

ati

on

Fa

cl.

Pu

blic

Fin

an

ce

He

alt

h D

ep

t.H

um

an

Re

s.

Info

rma

tio

nM

SU

Ex

t.P

ark

sP

lan

/ E

co

nP

ros

ec

uto

rR

oa

dS

he

riff

Tra

ns

po

rta

tio

nT

rea

su

ry

Internet Mapping in County Departments with County Populations between 20,000

and 50,000

Browse Run Apps

Standalone Installs / Seats Internet Mapping

BrowseRun Apps Edit Browse

Run Apps

Admin. Commis. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Clerk / Reg. 5 0 0 5 0 0 0

Courts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E 911 6 6 2 14 1 1 2

Drain Com. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Emergency Mngt. 12 0 0 12 0 0 0

Equalization 10 5 6 21 4 2 6

Facl. Public works 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Finace 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Health Dept. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Human Res. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Information Tech. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MSU Ext. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plan / Econ Dev 1 1 0 2 0 0 0

Prosecutor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Road Commission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sheriff 12 0 0 12 0 0 0

Transportation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Treasury 4 0 0 4 0 0 0

Summary 50 12 8 5 3

In Counties withA PopulationBelow 20,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%P

erce

nta

ges

Par

cels

Roa

dA

ddre

ssB

uild

ing

Hyd

rolo

gyC

ount

yC

ount

yC

onto

urs

Non

-US

GS

Pub

licIn

dus/

Com

mO

rthos

inS

oils

2000

Loca

l Zon

ing

Fut

ure

Land

100

year

Res

iden

tial

Haz

ardo

usE

nvirm

.C

emet

erie

sS

choo

lsS

choo

lV

otin

gE

mer

genc

yW

etla

nds

Sec

tion

County GIS Layers and Source

Don't Have Local County Contractor State/Fed Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Pe

rcen

tage

s

Laye

rPa

rcel

sR

oad

Addr

ess

Poin

tsBu

ildin

gH

ydro

logy

Cou

nty

Dra

ins

Cou

nty

Con

tour

sN

on-U

SGS

Publ

icIn

dus/

Com

mO

rthos

in L

ast

Soils

2000

Cen

sus

Loca

l Zon

ing

Futu

re L

and

100

year

Res

iden

tial

Haz

ardo

usEn

virm

. Con

t.C

emet

erie

sSc

hool

sSc

hool

Dis

trict

Votin

g D

istri

ctEm

erge

ncy

Wet

land

s

County GIS Layer Origin in Counties with Populations between 20,000 and 50,000


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Pe

rcen

tage

s

Parc

els Road

Addr

ess P

oints

Build

ingHy

drolo

gyCo

unty

Drain

sCo

unty

Conto

urs

Non-

USGS Pu

blic

Indus

/Com

mOr

thos i

n Las

t Soils

2000

Cen

sus

Loca

l Zon

ingFu

ture L

and

100 y

ear

Resid

entia

lHa

zard

ous

Envir

m. C

ont.

Cem

eterie

sSc

hools

Scho

ol Di

strict

Votin

g Dist

rict

Emer

genc

yW

etlan

dsSe

ction

County GIS Layer Origin in Counties with Popluations under 20,000


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

enta

ges

Parc

els

Road

Addr

ess

Build

ing

Hydr

olog

yCo

unty

Dra

ins

Coun

tyCo

ntou

rsNo

n-US

GS Publ

icIn

dus/

Com

mOr

thos

in L

ast So

ils20

00 C

ensu

sLo

cal Z

onin

gFu

ture

Lan

d10

0 yea

rRe

siden

tial

Haza

rdou

sEn

virm

. Con

t.Ce

met

erie

sSc

hool

sSc

hool

Dis

trict

Votin

g Di

stric

tEm

erge

ncy

Wet

land

sSe

ctio

n

County GIS Layer Maintenance by Source

Static Local County Contractor State/Fed Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Pe

rcen

tage

s

Parc

els Road

Addr

ess

Build

ing

Hydr

olog

yCo

unty

Coun

tyCo

ntou

rsNo

n-US

GS Publ

icIn

dus/C

omm

Orth

os in So

ils20

00Lo

cal

Futu

re L

and

100 y

ear

Resid

entia

lHa

zard

ous

Envir

m.

Cem

eter

iesSc

hool

sSc

hool

Votin

gEm

erge

ncy

Wet

lands

Sect

ion

County GIS Layer Maintenance by Source in Counties with Populations over 50,000


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Pe

rcen

tage

s

Parc

els

Road

Cent

erlin

esAd

dres

s Po

ints

Build

ing

Foot

prin

tsHy

drol

ogy

Coun

ty D

rain

sCo

unty

Drai

nshe

dCo

ntou

rs u

nder

10 fe

etNo

n-US

GS

DEM

Publ

icFa

cilit

ies

Indu

s/Co

mm

Faci

litie

sO

rthos

in L

ast

5 ye

ars So

ils20

00 C

ensu

sBl

ocks

, Gro

ups

Loca

l Zon

ing

Futu

re L

and

Use

100

year

Floo

dpla

inRe

side

ntia

lW

ell L

ocat

ions

Haza

rdou

sCh

emic

alEn

virm

. Con

t.Si

tes

Cem

eter

ies

Scho

ols

Scho

ol D

istri

ctBo

unda

ries

Votin

g Di

stric

tlo

cal/s

tate

/Fed

Emer

genc

ySe

rv. #

Zon

esW

etla

nds

Sect

ion

Corn

ers

County GIS Layer Maintenance by Source in Counties with Populations between 20,000 and 50,000


GIS / Management Interaction

How many times have attended Department Head / Director’s Meeting this past year ?

Statewide Mean Score 3.9

Counties populations over 50,0005.41

Counties with pop. between 20,000 and 50,0003.13

Counties with populations below 20,0002.08


How many times have you attended Board How many times have you attended Board of Commissioners Meetings in the past of Commissioners Meetings in the past year?year?

Statewide Mean Score 3.5

Counties populations over 50,000 4.37

Counties with pop. between 20,000 and 50,000 3.39

Counties with populations below 20,000 2.08


How many times have addressed the Board of Commissioners directly on GIS Matters in the past year ?

Statewide Mean Score 2.6Counties populations over 50,000 3.44Counties with pop. between 20,000 and

50,000 2.65Counties with populations below 20,000 1.16


How many times have you met with the county administrator or their equivalent in the past year ?

Statewide Mean Score 4.20Counties populations over 50,000

5.86Counties with pop. between 20,000 and 50,000

3.52Counties with populations below 20,000

2.66


How many times have you interacted with members of the Board of Commissioners

outside of official meetings this past year ?

Statewide Mean Score 3.6Counties populations over 50,000 4.79Counties with pop. between 20,000 and 50,000 3.39Counties with populations below 20,000 2.50


How many times have you been directed or “commissioned” to execute special GIS projects by the county administrator or a board member ?

Statewide Mean Score 3.6Counties populations over 50,000 4.79Counties with pop. between 20,000 and 50,000

3.39Counties with populations below 20,000 2.50


How well do you think following people understand How well do you think following people understand GIS and its Potential? (1 Poor – 5 Excellent)GIS and its Potential? (1 Poor – 5 Excellent)

StateState >50K>50K 20-50K20-50K<20<20

County BoardCounty Board 3.03.0 2.952.95 3.333.33 3.53.5

County AdministratorCounty Administrator 3.13.1 2.862.86 2.902.903.873.87

IS/IT DirectorIS/IT Director 3.53.5 2.82.8 3.253.25 3.003.00


How confident are you that your county’s total investment and commitment to its GIS program is secure for the next three years?

Low 1 - High 5

Statewide Mean Score 3.5Counties populations over 50,000 3.7Counties with pop. between 20,000 and 50,000 3.6Counties with populations below 20,000 3.0

Future of County GIS in Future of County GIS in MichiganMichigan

Better data integration into key county Better data integration into key county functions andfunctions and

other departmentsother departments

Increased neutrality/centrality of GIS capacity Increased neutrality/centrality of GIS capacity in Countyin County

Better and cheaper interaction with public Better and cheaper interaction with public and local units of government via private and local units of government via private sector web based sector web based

mapping engines such as Virtual Earth and mapping engines such as Virtual Earth and Google EarthGoogle Earth

Thank You

2008 michigan county gis survey results. the 2008 county gis survey thanks to all that participated:...

Documents

gis data

county gis surveythe

county gis surveythanks

gis analyst

gis technician

gis specialist

percentrural gis

gis developer