2008 michigan county gis survey results. the 2008 county gis survey thanks to all that participated:...
Post on 11-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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 The Evolution County GIS in MichiganMichigan
The Evolution County GIS in The Evolution County GIS in MichiganMichigan
The Evolution County GIS in The Evolution County GIS in MichiganMichigan
The Evolution County GIS in The Evolution County GIS in MichiganMichigan
The Evolution County GIS in The Evolution County GIS in MichiganMichigan
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
t
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
Browse Run Apps Edit
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
Browse Run Apps Edit
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
Don't Have Local County Contractor State/Fed Other
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
Don't Have Local County Contractor State/Fed Other
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
Static Local County Contractor State/Fed Other
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
Static Local County Contractor State/Fed Other
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
GIS / Management Interaction
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
GIS / Management Interaction
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
GIS / Management Interaction
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
GIS / Management Interaction
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
GIS / Management Interaction
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
GIS / Management Interaction
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
GIS / Management Interaction
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
top related