Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Washington State Parcel Data User Survey Results Luke Rogers Rural Technology Initiative College of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Washington State Parcel Data User Survey Results Luke Rogers Rural Technology Initiative College of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Washington State Parcel Data User Survey Results Luke Rogers Rural Technology Initiative College of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, WA

2 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Intent Qualify and understand the need for parcel data Quantify current efforts by state, private and federal organizations Assess the interest in a statewide parcel database Build interest in a statewide parcel database effort

3 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Methodology Construct survey to collect quantifiable data and anecdotal observations about parcel data use Focus on state and federal agency use but also solicit local government and private organizations where possible Sent solicitations to UW-GIS, WAGIC, FMG and CPS-GIS lists

4 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Respondents 43 responses representing:  12 state agencies  5 federal agencies  8 local agencies  8 private

5 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Response Types

6 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 What software is most used?

7 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Reasons for parcel data use Most respondents had multiple reasons for collecting parcel data Land ownership is clearly the most motivating reason for collecting parcel data

8 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Public agency rationale If you represent a public agency, is there a law or mandate that provides the rationale for parcel collection or use?

9 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Comments about reasons why organizations collect parcel data Increased accuracy Decreased time associated with projects or ongoing initiatives Corresponding decreased cost

10 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 How is parcel data collected? How do you collect parcel data? Check all that apply. Total responses (N): 41 AnswerFrequencyPercentage Directly from the county assessor or GIS department % Download from county website (FTP or HTTP) % From a hired contractor % Purchased from a consultant or commercial business 37.32% Other: %

11 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 For what geographic extent is parcel data needed? Geographic extent varies widely among respondents Many have project specific needs which range from sub- county to the entire state For what geographic extent is parcel data needed? AnswerFrequency Washington State26 Single county / sub county9 Puget Sound4 Forestlands3 Western Washington2 USFS land and neighbors1 Southwest Washington1 Eastern Washington1

12 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 License agreements & Data sharing agreements State and local agencies tend to have a low percentage of license agreements Private companies tend to have a high percentage of license agreements Federal agencies have almost no license agreements or are not aware if they do Very few entities have data sharing agreements. The disparity among users may suggest proactive behavior.

13 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 How many counties do people have data for? Again responses vary widely having to do mainly with project specific work vs. ongoing initiatives Some have attribute data only and others have linework only

14 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 How many prohibit the sharing or re-distribution of parcel data? No clear trend or differential between public/private.

15 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 In what geographic data formats do you receive data? In what geographic data formats do you receive data from parcel data providers? Check all that apply. Total responses (N): 41 AnswerFrequencyPercentage Shapefile % ESRI Coverage % ESRI Geodatabase % ESRI ArcSDE Export file 37.32% AutoCAD % Other: paper, tabular, web app %

16 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 How often does your organization collect parcel data? Total responses (N): 42 AnswerFrequencyPercentage Weekly 37.14% Monthly % Quarterly % Annually % Less than once a year or as needed %

17 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Comments about collecting parcel and assessor data Needs tend to be project specific although there are a few ongoing initiatives Many users unsure about license agreements Inconvenience of collecting data causes some to utilize outdated information Appears to be a general perception of difficulty or hassle associated with acquiring and preparing parcel data

18 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Is parcel feature geometry important to your organization? Other:  Tax assessment  Compliance  Surveys  property lines  road planning  evaluation of forest fire protection assessment  identifying land owners at specified points  lease rights If parcel feature geometry is important to your organization, what is it used for? Check all that apply. Total responses (N): 42 Answer#% not important 00.00% spatial analysis % mapping % generating mailing lists % geocoding % Other: %

19 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Which assessor attributes are important? If assessor attributes are important which ones are used? Check all that apply. Total responses (N): 40 93% say attributes are important AnswerFrequencyPercentageAnswerFrequencyPercentage parcel ID number % owner state % owner name % owner zip % landuse % land value % site address % owner country % zoning % total value % parcel acres % legal description % site city % building sq ft % site zip % timber acres % owner address % residence status % building value % Other: % owner city % timber expectation value %

20 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Other important assessor attributes mobile home, utility types, septic type, number of housing units, year built, bedrooms, number of floors, structure type sales history, sale price, land and building values from previous years forest fire protection assessment, fire district number, forest patrol/protection acres building permit information if available, such as: permit ID, permit type, permit issue date, permit completion date, issuing authority vacant/undeveloped status, boundary line adjustments, legal descriptions, plat info, taxing jurisdictions, township-range-sect- qtrsect, document numbers, water well number, special restrictions on property, land type, site city (legal city), tax account numbers

21 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 How is parcel and assessor data shared? Other ways data is shared  Librarian   FTP  CD/DVD  SQL Server How is parcel and assessor data shared in your organization? Total responses (N): 43 AnswerFrequencyPercentage not shared % network file system % ArcSDE % ArcIMS 49.30% Other: %

22 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Are derivative products created from parcel data? Does your organization produce derivative products from parcel data? Total responses (N): 43 AnswerFrequencyPercentage yes % no % unknown 49.30%

23 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Examples of derivative products impervious surfaces, land use, risk models and assessments, planning priorities, build out scenarios, developments, population estimates, housing density conservation, suspected septic systems, habitat improvement opportunities real estate classification/prospects, economic development annexations, forestlands, crime analyses, election maps, fire risk normalized statewide parcel database

24 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Are derivative products publicly available? If your organization does produce products from parcel data are they currently available outside your organization? Total responses (N): 43 AnswerFrequencyPercentage yes % no % unknown % If derivative products are not publicly available, could they be made available to the counties that provide parcel data? Total responses (N): 32 AnswerFrequencyPercentage yes % no %

25 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 What prohibits organizations from sharing products with counties? Other: network security, incomplete products, no mechanism to share/distribute, restrictive license agreements, confidentiality, staff resources, business advantage If no, then what is prohibiting your organization from sharing the information back with the counties? Check all that apply. Total responses (N): 13 AnswerFrequencyPercentage Lack of interest from the counties % Legal issues % Liability % Metadata not completed, irresponsible to share % Other: %

26 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Comments about the way parcel data is used or shared Project specific data rarely shared due to privacy/completeness/interest Map products may be shared but the underlying data is not General suggestions that sharing is good and should be encouraged but time/money, privacy and liability are concerns

27 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Cost estimates AcquisitionPreparationManagement Responses Mean $ 10,937 $ 16,363 $ 6,486 Median $ 1,500 $ 4,800 $ 1,000 Mode $ - $ 1,000 $ - Min $ - Max $ 160,000 $ 180,000 $ 60,000 StDev $ 32,178 $ 38,281 $ 14,996

28 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Value of parcel and assessor data to organizations Agencies tasked with legislative or legal mandates view the data as critical and many state it would not be possible to do their jobs without it. General perception of efficiency and improved accuracy “The associated value is intangible in that it is both hard to value and invaluable.“

29 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Assuming it met your needs and was available for your use, what dollar value would you place on an integrated, normalized statewide parcel database with a limited set of assessor attributes? Value if Available Responses 25 Mean $ 25,258 Median $ 1,700 Mode $ 500 Min $ - Max $ 500,000 StDev $ 99,526

30 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 If an integrated database was available for your use, how often would updates be desired? If an integrated, normalized statewide parcel database was available for your use, how often would updates be desired? Total responses (N): 41 AnswerFrequencyPercentage Weekly 49.76% Monthly % Quarterly % Annually % Other: 49.76%

31 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Any additional comments about the costs of parcel data collection? Many organizations have no funds to acquire or manage parcel data Many organizations acquire data infrequently due to costs and hassle. Would get updates more often if it was convenient. Consistency among counties desired

32 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Additional comments Concern that a statewide database would be large  Desire to be able to acquire regions or sub- county areas Majority of respondents see value in statewide database Some confusion with cost data expressed

33 ESRI UC Paper #1472, August 2006 Next steps Summarizing survey results into a brief document Constructing a survey of county data producers Drafting possible data standard Drafting a catch-all pass-thru license agreement


Download ppt "Washington State Parcel Data User Survey Results Luke Rogers Rural Technology Initiative College of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google