Share and share alike: creating a cost-effective GIS

The high cost of developing geographic information system is prompting local governments to look into combining resources. But, while sharing has advantages, it does not come without obstancles.

From the time they are old enough to understand, children are taught to share. Now, cities and counties, which are notoriously territorial about many things, are learning that the lessons of childhood can be applied to them, with a payback that more than justifies the effort.

This is particularly true — and evident — in the development of geographic information systems. Indeed, the high cost of creating a GIS database is making local governments ignore jurisdictional lines as never before to join forces in unique sharing arrangements that bring the technology into the realm of the possible.

It’s not an easy change, but it’s definitely do-able.

attempting to create a GIS-sharing arrangement, local governments must answer three key questions:

* How and to whom will data be transmitted? Alternatives for data transmission include use of on-line access and/or aerial base maps.

Additionally, determinations must be made as to who can access the information — any local government agencies (utilities, streets, water, sewer, fire and police) or participating jurisdictions only, which then can transfer the information to requesting agencies.

* How will cost structure be determined? Are costs split equally among the participants, are they dependent upon the amount of information accessed or are they determined on a percentage basis depending on jurisdiction/agency use?

* How will revenue be disbursed? Participating jurisdictions may share revenues equally, or a formula may be worked under which the specific agency supplying the data receives the revenues from its use.

Overcoming Obstacles

“Local governments and utility companies are being encouraged to cooperate in unprecedented ways to develop geographic information systems because of the high costs and the benefits of sharing,” writes William Bamberger, GIS manager of services at the city of San Diego’s data processing corporation, in “Sharing Geographic Information.”

Designing, operating and managing a GIS requires considerable investment, and some agencies and departments initially invited into the sharing program are skeptical about spending the money.

But high costs are only one of the obstacles inherent in GIS development. Multi-agency programs pose the challenge of dealing with groups of managers with different goals, budgets and philosophies.

Decision-making often takes longer because finding a consensus is more difficult.

Most managers are willing to cooperate in theory, but they are reluctant to comply in reality because they fear losing control of their data, they feel their own programmers can handle the jobs on their own, and because, at times, there is a reluctance to step out on a limb and be perceived as a pioneer.

Ironically, many municipalities do not feel they will use the GIS data, but, once the system is up and running, they find they need access to the information.

If they have chosen not to participate in the program, the users must pay to access data per transaction, and per-use transaction costs are often higher than the costs of upfront participation.

Long-range-planning is an advantage here as is the ability to accurately estimate the need for use of the system.

Making Sharing Profitable

To create a GIS, local governments must automate their map graphics, symbols, line-types, colors, addresses, street names, water and sewer lines, gas and electrical lines, parks and bodies of water.

Sharing the data can reduce the costs of automated mapping and cut hardware and software expenses, as well as staffing requirements.

Additionally, sharing can cut the high costs of having to duplicate aerial photographs taken of streets and terrain. Cooperation in updating individual aerial photographs and keeping data current reduces redundancy as well, eliminating the possibility of overlapping data on the mapping system.

For instance, if a participating utility company takes an aerial photo in June, and in August, a developer adds structures that alter the utility lines, the GIS data sheet is subsequently altered.

The utility company must then take another aerial photo to make the GIS accurate. Once that photo is taken, and the data entered into the GIS, it is passed along to all participating agencies in the program.

Finally, city and county governments decide what data is considered public access information and what qualifies as fee-charge data.

Jurisdictions can sell data to outside agencies, as well as to private entities, such as survey crews and building developers.

Selling GIS data helps lower the cost of the program considerably, and the data is transmitted to a wider user group.

Sharing to save money

Before GIS, gas, electric and telephone utilities; water lines; streets; sewer lines; and cable districts were all manually mapped and placed on separate grid sheets.

The paper maze was cumbersome to work with, since each page contained limited data, and users were forced to flip back and forth from water lines to street names. A GIS eliminates paper grid sheets.

In California, the neighboring cities of San Ramon and Dublin greed to share a GIS project to save money and time.

Despite being in different counties, the two cities share common sewer, fire, gas and electric utilities, park systems and police zones.

Located on the southern border of Contra Costa County, San Ramon encompasses approximately 11 of the, county’s 30 square miles.

When it decided to create a GIS, San Ramon headed south to Dublin, a 4.8-square-mile city in Alameda County because of the number of services the two already shared.

“When San Ramon approached Dublin, the enthusiasm level was high,” says Dan Berman, project manager for the GIS participants.

“But Dublin did not have an automated GIS program, much less an updated mainframe, and Dublin’s limited number of PCs also contained out-dated software programs.

“Furthermore,” he says, “with digital data, showing tangible benefits to other jurisdictions can be a somewhat difficult proposition.”

Because of this, San Ramon created a series of charts to show Dublin the projected cost savings for each common agency and estimating that independent creation of a GIS would cost $250,000.

Combining resources with Dublin, San Ramon argued, would result in a total cost of only $125,123.

The smaller city agreed to chip in, and both parties benefit from lower cost (see chart, p. 26).

The sharing experience is not necessarily a recent phenomenon. In 1984, a partnership between the city and county of San Diego and the San Diego Data Processing Corporation (SDDPC), a non-profit, public-benefit corporation established and owned by the city was formed.

This partnership resulted in the San Diego Regional Urban Information System, more commonly known as RUIS, one of the first multi-agency GIS developments in the country.

RUIS now serves 17 departments, nine in the city and eight in the county, in the 2.6-million-resident, 4,200-square-mile area.

Development costs since creation of the partnership total $14.7 million, a figure that includes concept and design, applications, database conversion and maintenance and administrative costs.

Ownership of RUIS is split between the city and the county. Originally the costs were shared equally between the two, but now expenses are divided among departments on a per-use basis, a more equitable system since some of the departments access far more data than others.

The cost structure was changed to reflect the difficulty of gaining access to general fund monies, which were limited. Department budgets, on the other hand, tend to be more stable, RUIS discovered.

RUIS is currently entertaining the notion of selling its data to outside agencies, unlike many other partner, ships, such as the San Ramon and Dublin GIS program, for instance, which began releasing data as soon as the system was operating.

RUIS wanted to make sure public sector data was available and correct before concentrating on outside access or private enterprise. “RUIS is moving slowly on selling its data so we could serve the public better,” says RUIS Administrator Lisa Stapleton. The emphasis was on our citizens. Before we go into marketing the geographic data to outside users and private entrepreneurs, we wanted to make sure public information was available. The public came first.”

In fact, allowing access to outside agencies can cause headaches. While the sale of GIS data can bring in revenue and offset costs, it also requires the sharing parties to create cost guidelines and to decide what constitutes public-access data and what constitutes chargeable data.

Outside access is usually determined to be an essential ingredient in a shared GIS program, but implementing the specifics in the system can become tedious.

The importance of technology, however, demands that cities and counties take a long hard look at GIS. Since few can afford to go it alone, sharing would appear to make infinite sense for the municipalities.

Still, Bamberger says, “the datasharing issues are much more complicated than simply determining how data created by one organization can be used by another organization.”

The ability of different organizations to cooperate will determine what data is available and what technology is used.

“The major benefit of GIS technology is that unlike manually drawn maps, a single base map can be disseminated electronically, via PCs, to many users,” he says.

Cities, counties, special districts, gas, electric, telephone and cable companies all have common needs for geographic information.”

While most city and county governments realize that developing a GIS is a necessity, some are putting off the inevitable task.

Creating a GIS provides hope and answers for municipalities concerned with financial expense, computer technology and hardware and software equipment questions.

Not only does sharing a GIS with a neighboring municipality lower costs, it also provides a partner to help steer through the detours and roadblocks inherent in creating a GIS.