Digital Parcel Map Database Development Standards for Broad Use

1
Digital Parcel Map Database Development
Standards for Broad Use Moderator Dennis H.
Klein George Horning King County WA GIS
Local Perspective Carol Hall Metro Portland
Planning Agency Regional Perspective Cy Smith
Oregon State Geospatial Enterprise Office State
Perspective Dennis H. Klein Boundary
Solutions, Inc. Private/Public Perspective
2
Digital Parcel Map Database Development
Standards for Broad Use Moderator Dennis H.
Klein George Horning King County WA GIS
Local Perspective Carol Hall Metro Portland
Planning Agency Regional Perspective Cy Smith
Oregon State Geospatial Enterprise Office State
Perspective Dennis H. Klein Boundary
Solutions, Inc. Private/Public Perspective
3
George Horning King County WA GIS LOCAL
PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel Map Database Standards

• The Local Perspective is discussed framed around
  four main topics
• The current state of parcel mapping in King
  County. 
• Parcel map standardization is largely driven by
  local initiative to meet local need with little
  influence from state or federal agencies. 
• Meeting a standard to accommodate the broad use
  of parcel data is somewhat straightforward, but
  lack of consistency does have its costs.
• Increased commercial use of parcel data is
  causing local government to revisit data
  standards.

4
CONTEXT Parcel Mapping in King County,
Washington

• Over 600,000 parcels spread across 39
  jurisdictions means parcel mapping in King County
  is complex.
• Besides the King County Assessor, 10-15 cities
  are independently engaged in parcel mapping to
  varying levels of skill and sophistication.
• Cities maintain their own parcel map because in
  their view the county map does not meet some of
  their key business requirements.
• The key needs of the cities are precise
  positional accuracy and timely updates of parcel
  changes.

5
CONTEXT Parcel Mapping in King County,
Washington

• As a result, the typical citys parcel map will
  have greater positional accuracy and will be more
  current than the countys map.
• However, typical citys parcel map
• Will have less detail,
• Will likely lack any capacity to reconstruct
  historic parcel lines.
• Why the differences?
• Lack of policy shared by cities and county for
  setting commonly accepted map standards.
• The county follows the requirements of a state
  mandate to map parcels, while cities with no such
  mandate streamline their mapping tasks to meet
  their needs only.

6
NEED FOR MAP STANDARDSAt the Local Level
A single, countywide digital parcel map exists
for King County, maintained by the Assessor.
However, for a variety of reasons, this map is
not satisfactory to all local users. Several
cities independently maintain their own separate
versions of the parcel map. These maps are not
consistent across the county, as they do not
share common geometry or content. Local users
are the primary victims of inconsistent mapping
standards, when they attempt to share, analyze,
or combine city and county data. The need to
develop a single integrated King County parcel
map that would satisfy all users is locally
driven.
7
NEED FOR MAP STANDARDSAt the Local Level
There is no pressure on King County from
regional, state, or federal agencies to create a
parcel layer based on a compulsory standard.
These agencies are apparently content with the
current quality of data they can obtain from the
county, and are largely unaware of the issues of
local concern regarding the consistency and
currency of the data. A move to standardize on
an integrated parcel map in King County would
primarily benefit local users by Limiting
duplication of effort, Facilitating data
sharing, MOST importantly, improving data
quality and consistency.
8
NEED FOR MAP STANDARDSAt the Local Level
Impediments to creating the integrated
city/county parcel map are many, but the most
critical are Institutional inertia No
political will by decision-makers to fix a
problem whose solution will temporarily
inconvenience their internal operations. They
are getting their basic business needs met with
the status quo, so why expend the time, money,
and effort. Lack of staff resources No
available resources to deal with the bulge of
work that will be required to make the
change. Negotiating compromise The only
foreseen path for King County appears to be to
negotiate a unique arrangement with each city
that eliminates duplicate data maintenance and
integrates the citys and the countys parcel
data. This will take years of compromise.
9
NEED FOR MAP STANDARDSAt the Local Level

• A relentless process to create a single
  integrated parcel map sustained long enough will
  result
• In the Near Term Each city/county relationship
  will be unique.
• At the end of the Day A common universal
  template will likely evolve that defines the
  city/county relationship for the maintenance of a
  common parcel map.

10
DATA SHARING NEEDSMeeting a Data Sharing
Standard for Broad Use
Relaxed standards for data sharing are fairly
straightforward and easy to meet for most
counties engaged in digital parcel mapping.
Such a de facto standard provides data in a
basic format that nearly any data requestor has
the technology to read and use, and nearly any
data author can produce. Common components
are Shapefile with a parcel number
field, ASCII or DBF version of the tax roll with
a parcel number field, Metadata for both. In
this scenario, after the data have been received,
the data requestor will bear the burden and the
additional costs of converting the data products
to meet more rigid protocols.
11
DATA SHARING NEEDSMeeting a Data Sharing
Standard for Broad Use
Rigid Standards for data sharing may be more
problematic for some local jurisdictions to meet.
An additional level of technical sophistication
is required, and they most certainly will need to
pass along the costs incurred to process and
format the data to meet the required
specifications. In this scenario, the data
requestor bears the cost up front for the data to
be prepared and delivered in the preferred
specification. In either scenario, the data
end-users cannot avoid bearing the price of
inconsistent standards. The lack of a remedy is
due to the absence of political will to step into
the GIS commons and give the problem the
attention it deserves.
12
EMERGING ISSUESfor Local Government

• Local governments, as the primary authors of
  digital parcel map databases, are faced with some
  emerging challenges
• Many private firms are taking the initiative to
  provide property based information and mapping on
  the Internet. As a result
• Local governments can no longer exert control
  over access to the data they author.
• Local government Internet parcel viewers, once
  omnipotent, are now only one resource among many.
  The government niche for providing this kind of
  information on the Internet will narrow and
  perhaps disappear.

13
EMERGING ISSUESfor Local Government
Data quality is of paramount importance. Local
government still controls the quality of the data
they author. They must work to ensure their data
is of the highest quality as it is disseminated
to a broader audience more removed from being
able to determine the quality of the data. Local
government will always be the best front line for
improving data quality. Metadata can no longer
be an afterthought. All data authored by local
governments should be thoroughly documented. All
attributes, characteristics, intended use, and
limitations noted.
14
CONCLUSIONSIt all comes down to this
While controlling data access will diminish,
local governments can shift the attention more to
making sure their parcel map database is the most
current, most accurate, most complete, and is
supported by competent instructions and
protocols.
15
Carol Hall Data Resource Center, Metro, Portland
OR REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel Map
Database Standards

• The Regional Perspective is framed around the
  following topics
• 1. What is Metro?
• 2. Metro Regional Parcel Map evolution 
• 3. Local standards vs Regional standard 
• Regional standard vs State standard
• Data sharing 
• Use of the Parcel Map in the region

16
CONTEXT Parcel Mapping in the greater Portland,
Oregon area

• Metro a regional government with a directly
  elected Council.
• There are over 562,000 parcels spread across 3
  counties and 33 cities.
• Washington, Clackamas and Multnomah Counties.
• Unlike King County, all the parcel mapping is
  done by the County Assessors and/or
  GIS staff.
• The regional parcel map is created at Metro from
  the data provided by the counties.
• Regional Land Information System - RLIS

17
Parcels for the 3-county region
18
CONTEXT The Evolution of Metros Regional Parcel
Map

• Metro had the first GIS in the region.
• The 3-county parcels were digitized using data
  from the electric utility.
• Metro collected digital data periodically from
  the assessor records.
• The assessors continued to maintain hardcopy
  tax maps according to state standards.
• There are state requirements for assessment
  records, but there are variations in the
  formats of the digital data.

19
The State of MAP STANDARDSAt the Regional Level

• Metro and regional partners set de facto GIS
  standards for the region.
• When the cities and counties developed their
  own GIS, Metro handed them the GIS data for
  their jurisdiction.
• For the most part, the original standards have
  been maintained.
• The formats of assessor data remain
  inconsistent.
• Metadata.

20
Primary Unique Identifier
Township Range Section Parcel
Record
21

The State of MAP STANDARDS At the Regional Level

• Standardization of the Parcel Map occurs at
  Metro.
• Why?
• Unique format of State ID and Record numbers is
  preserved.
• Parcel data is collected, integrated seamlessly
  and distributed quarterly.

22
The State of MAP STANDARDS At the Regional Level

• State of Oregon GIS Framework ORMAP.
• Providing regional parcels that conform to the
  state standard.
• Python script.

23
(No Transcript)
24
Data Sharing At the Regional Level

• Data sharing is widely practiced in the Metro
  region.
• Handshakes to Intergovernmental Agreements and
  Data Licenses.
• Incentives.

25
Users of Regional Parcel Data

• The Regional Parcel Data is distributed to 170
  subscribers of the RLIS Data.
• Governments, universities, NGOs, developers,
  title companies, utilities, NAVTEQ, etc.
• Web applications.
• Standard GIS data sets for the region.

26

Carol Hall GIS Program Supervisor Data Resource
Center Metro Portland Oregon hallc_at_metro.dst.or.
us www.metro-region.org
27
Cy Smith Oregon Geospatial Enterprise Office
STATE PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel Map Database
Standards

• Oregon has a statewide cadastral data exchange
  standard
• A 1 fee on every real estate transaction funds
  cadastral data development
• Local government has statutory authority to
  charge market value for geospatial data
• State is pursuing partnership with local
  governments that will improve data sharing

28
Oregons Cadastral Standard

• Data exchange standard developed through a
  lengthy consensus-building process
• Based on existing OR cadastral mapping standard
  and federal cadastral data content standard
• A shapefile with a parcel number field
• Optional real property table with parcel number
  field, limited assessment data
• Metadata for both

29
ORMAP Cadastral Program
Statutory program to develop a land information
system One dollar fee added to existing real
estate transaction fees Four development phases,
beginning with scanned tax lot maps and ending
with positionally accurate GIS parcel polygons
and database Phase 2 just completed, digital
parcels with PINs available on Web, searchable by
address Phase 4 scheduled for completion in 2008
30
(No Transcript)
31
Oregon Framework Themes
32
Cost Recovery in Oregon
ORS 190.050 allows local governments, under
certain conditions, to charge full market value
for geospatial data that is managed within a
GIS. To take advantage of law, local government
must enter in to an intergovernmental agreement
to share the data with at least one other
jurisdiction. Only a handful of local governments
take advantage of statute, but most want to
maintain the potential revenue stream.
33
Data Sharing Impediments
In Oregon, there are two primary categories of
data sharing impediments FUNDING Insufficient
funding by government at all levels for
development and maintenance. RISK Risk and
liability for local government when data it
developed is not in its control.
34
Data Sharing Partnership

• Oregon Geographic Information Council and
  Association of Oregon Counties recently agreed to
  collaborate on development of a partnership
  agreement.
• Provide better services to the citizens
• Equitably share in decision-making about
  Framework development maintenance
• Statutorily limit local government liability
  and risk regarding data sharing
• Identify and realize funding mechanisms for
  development AND maintenance of data

35
Dennis H. Klein Boundary Solutions,
Inc.PRIVATE/PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel
Map Database Development Standards for Broad Use

• Classic Private Sector Data Model
• Bumps and Grinds in the way of Easy Amalgamation.
• Re-Projecting Maps
• Joining GIS to Tax Rolls and Commercial Tax
  Records- ROW Annotation
• Naming Conventions
• - View Conventions
• Cleanest Version
• Emerging Most Common PracticeCadastral NSDI
  Reference Document July 2006

36
Classic Data Model Entering an address and
being returned a parcel map with - Subject
parcel boundary in the center of the
screen.- Display of linked tax record
attributes - Street names displayed within
ROW.
37
Typical Countywide Seamless Parcel Database
38
QUESTION
What are the Bumps and Grinds in the way of
39
QUESTION
What are the Bumps and Grinds in the way of doing
this easily?
40
BUMP AND GIND 1. No or Bad Map Projection
Files Some deploy data without a projection
description (i.e., .prj). Some deploy with a
projection file but it is wrong because the
out-of-the-box digital parcel map does not
re-project correctly. Some deploy without
description file but state the projection in the
supporting metadata record but it is
wrong. FINALLY, some deploy with a correct
description file and/or correct metadata. Hats
off to you for eliminating a big bump and grind.
41
BUMP AND GIND 1. No or Bad Map Projection Files
Stanley County, NC TIGER FILE COUNTY
BOUNDRY NAD83 Lat Long World Degrees
Stanley County, NC With Parcel File Re-Projected
to View it within the TIGER County Boundary.
IF YES, Projection file Correct. IF NO,
Projection file Needs Correction.
42
BUMP AND GIND 2. No Street Annotation Many
deploy with the digital street centerline map
produced by the data sponsor agency. This
eliminates the Bump and Grind of not having
common protocols for street annotation.
43
BUMP AND GIND 2. No Street Annotation When all
locally produced street centerlines are available
in universal format (SHP), then all maps can have
high quality standard right-of-way annotation.
Digital parcel maps require In-ROW annotation so
that the display of the parcel boundaries is
uncluttered by street annotation.
44
BUMP AND GRIND 3. Not Able to join Tax Rolls to
the GIS.Surprisingly, many jurisdictions have
never thought to do this and when they try, they
cant, but is a must for map amalgamation.
45
BUMP AND GRIND 4. Not Able to join Commercial Tax
Records to the GIS.Much more often, APN/PID/PIN
attribute protocols used by the GIS have no or
little commonality with the one shared with
financial institutions.
46
BUMP AND GRIND 5.Inconsistent Theme / Layer
Names Emerging Most Common Practice Theme 1.
Parcels.shp Parcel Layer Theme 2.
Roads.shp Street Annotation Layer (Row
Annotation) Theme 3. County.shp County Boundary
(quality assurance)
47
BUMP AND GRIND 6.Inconsistent Field
Names Emerging Most Common Practice APN
PID/PIN/PARNO index field name (MANDATORY) Only
mandatory field in Database Table. Equals values
Assessor shares with title companies. FULLSITUS
(NOT MANDATORY) Street Number, Street Name,
City, Zip
48
BUMP AND GRIND 7.Inconsistent View
Conventions Emerging Most Common Practice Only
one view. View name Name of Jurisdiction (i.e.,
Montgomery County, MD)
49
BUMP AND GRIND 8.Share Cleanest Version Post
for download same data as used in GeoServer.
Data cleaned for loading in data Sponsors
Enterprise GeoServer posted for download by
public to assure highest quality and easy loading
in other GeoServers with minimal loss of parcel
features.
50
PRIVATE SECTOR INTERESTS Easy assemblage of
multi-county spatial databases including joined
tax record data. Statewide and National Cadastre
suitable for supporting - Insurance
Operations - Banking/Financing Operations -
Appraisal / Investment Due Diligence
Operations - Emergency Response / Remediation
Operations - Others
51
Cadastral NSDI Reference Document July
2006http//www.nationalcad.org/data/documents/Cad
astral20NSDI20Reference20Document20v10.pdf 5.
3 Cadastral NSDI Parcels Elements of the
Cadastral NSDI Parcels is as follows. Metadata -
The metadata will contain information about the
entire data set such as the - Data
steward - Parcel contact - Basis for the
assessment system (sale price, use, market value
etc) - Version Date - Assessment classifications
- Other
52
Cadastral NSDI Reference Document July
20065.3 Cadastral NSDI Parcels Elements of
the Cadastral NSDI Parcels is as follows. Parcel
Outline (Polygon) - This is geographic extent of
the parcel, the parcel boundaries forming a
closed polygon. Parcel Centroid - This is a
point within the parcel that can be used to
attach related information. This may be a visual
centroid or a point within the parcel. It may not
be the mathematical centroid as this point needs
to be contained within the parcel
polygon. Parcel ID - A unique identifier for the
parcel as defined by the data steward or data
producer. The parcel identifier should provide a
link to additional information about the parcel
and should be unique across the data stewards
geographic extent.
53
Cadastral NSDI Reference Document July
20065.3 Cadastral NSDI Parcels Elements of
the Cadastral NSDI Parcels is as follows. Source
Reference - This is a pointer to, or an attribute
describing, the source reference for the parcel.
This could be a deed, plat, or other document
reference. Source Reference Date - The date of
the Source Reference, which is essentially the
last update date for this parcel. The entire data
set may have a last updated date or an unloaded
for publication date that is different than the
specific currency or update date for each
individual parcel. Owner Type - The type of
ownership is the classification of owner. In some
local governments tax parcels are tagged as
either taxable or exempt and the owner
classification is not known. In these cases an
owner types of taxable and exempt may
be Improved - This is an attribute to indicate
whether or not there is an improvement on the
parcel.
54
Cadastral NSDI Reference Document July
20065.3 Cadastral NSDI Parcels Elements of
the Cadastral NSDI Parcels is as follows. Owner
Name - An indication of the primary owner name,
recognizing that there may be multiple owner
names or that some owner names may be blocked for
security reasons or that some jurisdictions may
not allow the distribution of owner names. For
publicly held lands the owner name is the surface
managing agency, such a Bureau of Land
Management, Department of Transportation,
etc Assessment / Value for Land Information -
This is the total value of the land only. The
basis of the value, such as market value, resale
value, sale price or use value should be
described in the metadata. Assessment / Value
for Improvements Information - This is the total
value of improvements on the parcel. The basis of
the value, such as market value, resale
value, sale price or use value should be
described in the metadata. Assessment / Value
Total - This information is the total value of
the land and.