Cass County, Indiana Not Ok with Sharing Parcel Data with State

About Directions

Special Announcement

Newsletter Sign Up

Calendar

Syndicate This Blog

RSS 0.91 feed

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed

Top Referers

myteams.dot.ga.gov (88)
planetgs.com (77)
www.thegisforum.com (71)
www.spatialsciences.org.au (32)
www.bloglines.com (27)

Our Points

Wednesday, August 20. 2008

Cass County, Indiana Not Ok with Sharing Parcel Data with State

The Cass County commissioners said "not so fast" (corrected per comment; originally said "no," ABS, 8/25/08) to the Indiana Geological Survey in response to a request for access to its parcel data. The article confuses me since at one point it says it'll cost $7000/year for the county to pay for the Web software: "for setting up and maintaining the Web-based technology." A grant would cover two years.

At another point the article says the state wants a copy. "It is always the citizens of your county who own that information," [State GIO Jim] Sparks said. "We're asking for a copy of it." The former implies (to me) the county serving up its own data (that would have a cost). The latter implies (to me) the state would take a copy (which would have a limited, if small, cost).

From what I read at the IndianaMap site actual copies of the vector data are hosted at the The Indiana Geological Survey, so it is a copy. The "Web-based technology" is elsewhere described as "data transfer technology."

The unfortunate part of this story (and many parallel ones) is that it's still tough to convince the data providers of the benefit of sharing.

- Pharos-Tribune via TMCNet

Posted by Adena Schutzberg at 06:00 | Comments (16) | Trackbacks (0) |

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

It is tough to convince county government to share data with concerns outside of the county (and I emphasize that), but when I worked in a small rural county, they were originally sold on GIS as a revenue generator. So, you can't blame citizen commissioners for wondering why they shouldn't get a little money for it. It gets exacerbated by GIS departments within IT, since IT doesn't generally get the sharing thing.

The second part of the equation is that I used to get calls from NAVTEQ for our road data all the time; they sell this data as a service and were willing to give us a whooping $50 after I said I wouldn't give it to them for free.

You want to convince county commissioners to share GIS data, make the argument that it will help provide county services for agriculture, development, infrastructure and emergency services- you know things that benefit citizens aka voters. Don't just demand it because you want it.

#1 mike on 2008-08-20 07:18 (Reply)

Mike is right on target with his comments. Local government decision makers are often unaware of the benefits dervied from sharing data. This level of government is sorely needs a policy education to quantify the benefits their citizens receive. An exchange MUST be premised upon a mutually appreciated benefit coming back to those involved needs to clearly evidenced and reinforced. The absence of this understanding will greatly impede the ability to respond to data sharing requests.

Let's face it...those framing our Constitution wanted divisions in government as part of the separation of powers. We can hold hands when it makes business sense for all involved. A policy focus directed to leaders at the local level would greatly facilitate understanding and awareness.

#1.1 Christopher B. on 2008-08-26 12:35 (Reply)

There has to be a give and take here. The counties sure don't mind taking money and/or resources from the state or even Feds. When the state asks, they get rebuffed? Come on! People need to get past their little turf wars.

Basically the IndianaMap is a baseline resource for the state and it's citizens. It's a push to get everyone working from the same page instead of multiple overlapping efforts.

KoS

#2 KoS on 2008-08-20 09:55 (Reply)

We've gone through the same things here in NC. If the State has it, it's subject to the public records law and must be distributed at cost. Many counties with an active real estate market sell their parcel data for as much as $1000, so they're very reluctant to give it away to the state just to see citizens then get it from the state for the cost of a burned CD.

#3 Andrew B on 2008-08-20 10:36 (Reply)

As a representative of a local GIS operation, I recognize that there are indeed benefits to sharing. But I'm a firm believer that both data providers (local gov) and data consumers (State / Fed) need to share not just data, but also the financial burden of maintaining that data. If the State / Federal folks really see value in the local data, then they too should be willing to financially support it. Otherwise, if they want it for free, then it is their job to clearly demonstrate why the locals should be willing to front the entire costs of its management.

#4 Keith S on 2008-08-20 12:49 (Reply)

Maybe I can help clear up some of the confusion. The Indiana Department of Homeland Security is offering counties over $14,000 this year to set up a web feature service (WFS) for their parcel data. The data can then be downloaded and transformed into a common schema in a single operation by the state from time to time. This is a way to keep data current and consistent for the entire state - a fairly elegant solution. Why this would cost $7,000 per year is a mystery to me. For us, it requires checking a box in our server software.

#5 Larry Stout on 2008-08-21 07:46 (Reply)

Thanks Larry! I was disappointed I could not easily tease out the tech behind the verbiage in the article or on the IndianaMap website.

#5.1 Adena Schutzberg (Link) on 2008-08-21 08:22 (Reply)

Why doesn't the state or any state for that matter, just pass a law giving them the authority to maintain and create those data layers?

Wouldn't that solve the issue at hand?

KoS

#6 KoS on 2008-08-21 08:50 (Reply)

The problem with that is that there are many regional perceptions of the constitutional order of states and local governments. In some states, counties and local entities such as school districts have much more local autonomy than in others: home-rule cities, "independent" school districts and other local entities created under the aegis of a state's constitution, and done locally, without any participation by the state's legislative body. Unfortunately, issues such as this one are susceptible to local perceptions about the roles of these entities--and so there can be conflict between state and local government over issues such as what data need be shared/what sorts of cost-recovery issues there are, etc. So much of this is driven by perception, and a (local) fear of (real or perceived) loss of autonomy. It is a dismal state of affairs.

#6.1 Robert White on 2008-08-25 13:50 (Reply)

Local data is better than state data. It is more detailed, more accurate, and more current. When you transfer property, you go to the county courthouse, not the statehouse.

#7 Larry Stout on 2008-08-22 16:40 (Reply)

Very true Larry. But, the famous word but. Don't the counties already, in some instances by state law, have to provide information/data collected to the state? Have to love those unfunded mandates!

A few years ago in the news, some counties weren't providing information to the state. The county officials by law had to provide that information to the state, even though it was collected by the county and at a county level.

If memory servers me right, it was crime information or the like.

In essence, it's already being done. Whether it's county to state or even state to Fed.

I can understand it's a issue for a county, whether in time or money. Some have more resources, like Hamilton, where others have less, like Cass.

Also, in closing, I'm not suggesting the state pass a law. Rather, there is the option on the table, if someone at the state level wanted to consider it.

KoS

#7.1 KoS on 2008-08-23 07:50 (Reply)

Imagine a county that shut down county roads to any travelers except county residents. Such a county would likely have the state and federal governments step in and threaten to shut down any funding for nearby state and federal highway maintenance.

Counties that withhold publicly financed GIS data from citizen, commercial, or other government entities are ignoring the fact that they participate in a developing federal and state information infrastructure. The maintenance and contribution of that infrastructure is typically not for the immediate financial gratification of the county, nor is it built solely for county residents or (worse) county government officials. The quality and completeness of that infrastructure determines the long term fiscal and social viability of that county's government and residents with respect to the communities around them.

Counties who limit or shut down access to publicly funded geospatial data should consider that the long term result of their effort is simply to retard their participation in healthy state and federal government infrastructure. That infrastructure ultimately serves the citizens of the county and helps support the flexibility and capability of the county to respond to changing local and national conditions.

#8 Chris Andrews on 2008-08-25 13:02 (Reply)

The state of Alabama has Virtual Alabama, a Google based enterprise systems covering the entire state. They have parcel data for about a forth of the state at this time and aerial photography for the entire state. The way they view this is that this is essential information for emergency responders. It also provides a vital resource for viewing before and after a disaster occurs. They are able to get the Civil Air Patrol to fly disaster areas withing 24 to 48 hours. Then they can view the before and after extent of damage, including who's property is involved.

#9 Tim Heinse on 2008-08-25 13:52 (Reply)

Minor correction to the article: The request did not come from the Indiana Geological Survey as originally published first by Logansport Pharos-Tribune, Aug 19, 2008. The data participation request was a joint request by the Indiana Geographic Information Office, Indiana Geographic Information Council, Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, and Indiana Department of Homeland Security. The Indiana Geological Survey is an IndianaMap partner, and host of the IndianaMap Interactive www.indianamap.org. It was reported that a representative of the Indiana Geological Survey presented the request, however, in fact it was Jim Sparks, the Indiana GIO. Commissioners haven't said "No" yet, rather "Cass County commissioners decided they needed further discussion" before making their decision.

The rest of the discussion about all the reasons pro and con / complexity of the issue is nonetheless true. With more than 15 counties (of 92) having said "yes" to this first formal request for local participation in the IndianaMap, progress is being made, slowly but surely

#10 Jill Saligoe-Simmel (Link) on 2008-08-25 15:35 (Reply)

I understand the reluctance of local government to share data with state, federal, and other agencies. This is something that we are working through here in Delaware County. We have spent an enormous amount of money (millions over the last decade)creating very accurate GIS data, including cadastral, elevation, and orthophotos. It is sometimes hard for elected officials to grasp the intangible benefits of making this data that WE paid for available at no cost to other agencies. As GIS is being used more heavily by our economic development and other local agencies, the benefits are becoming more evident. Luckily for us, we have mechanisms (a great local MPO, non-reverting GIS-specific funds)in place that allow us to purchase much of our data, but hardware is another matter. The 14k grant from IDHS is allowing us to purchase the web servers and other hardware to not only stand up the services that IDHS wants, but allow us to serve out our GIS data ourselves, without having to pay a private firm for hosting these services.

#11 Kyle J (Link) on 2008-08-26 12:22 (Reply)

Always a fun topic.
We are a county agency that is funded almost completely from county level property taxes (an actual percentage line item on the bill). We also get a very small amount from subdivision permits. That’s it, no other source.
We are constantly getting state and federal (we are near Washington, DC) requests for the all of our data, Property, zoning, aerial, Topo, lidar, you name it they want it… Until you tell them it isn’t free. Then all of a sudden you’re the bad guys! And then they start cutting back, gee maybe we don’t actually need that 400+GB worth of aerials on DVD’s like we requested (happens at least once a month).

Unfunded State level mandates aside (we already have many), we get State and Federal data since we all pay those taxes. But the state and fed’s don’t pay property taxes in the county (nor do the other state citizens), so if the reason for the data requests doesn’t benefit the county citizens they are denied access.
We all need to be careful when we compare GIS data sources to things like roads or crime data. The local public works, police, fire, etc almost always are receiving some form of state funding. Many counties couldn’t even support a 911 call center without state funding. The state has a very vested interest in such data, but more often than not they want our GIS data so they can add it to their websites as background data.

You have the added complexity in our area that we (and other counties) have invested millions in GIS. Other nearby counties with similar funding sources have not. So they have spent millions of dollars on other programs that we made sacrifices on. So now the State wants our data for free, but they can’t even go after the counties who don’t have it to give. From our standpoint (and that of those often-demonized county officials) is that it must benefit the people who paid for the data (our county citizens) otherwise why are they paying for it in the first place?

#12 B Green on 2008-09-02 06:28 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Advertisers

Polls

What's your opinion of the quality of Google's "new" U.S. dataset?

	November '09
Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30