Background
Recognition of the need for statewide data exchange, common applications and systems integration is illustrated through the formation of such organizations as the Health and Human Service Coordinating Council and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which is charged with combining three distinct adult criminal justice programs. Consolidation is driven by the need to reduce duplication of functions. Tax collection is one example of an operation duplicated in several state agencies, including the Attorney General's Office, the Comptroller of Public Accounts, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, the Texas Racing Commission and the Treasury. All state agency consolidation efforts, whether functional or service operations, will directly affect information systems.
Data administration is a management tool which can be implemented to facilitate data exchange, common applications and system integration internally and externally. Data processing managers who have long focused on cost-containment must now respond to questions that have less to do with computer efficiency and much more to do with information effectiveness. These issues are so far removed from the traditional role of the data processing manager that state law now requires that the agencies formalize the position of information resources manager.
Until the formation of the Department of Information Resources (DIR), there was no overall coordinating body to ensure strategic plans of agencies met those of the state or to uncover similar applications.
There is more than one way to integrate data depending on the nature of the environment and databases. Many technical approaches are available for implementation in state government.
Pragmatic data integration provides some solutions. "Existing information system investments can be leveraged through correct translation of user needs into system requirements, using rapid prototyping techniques and connectivity between disparate systems."[1] This type of technology provides interim relief in efforts to integrate data but does not eliminate the need to replace functionally inadequate systems.
Integrated offender tracking systems demonstrate distributed data integration systems. The six counties of Florida's 8th Judicial Circuit have built a packet-switched network that supports a Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS). The CJIS tracks offenders through the entire justice process from arrest through disposition of trial. The centralized data base is used to docket and schedule every case, to generate arrest, bail, sentencing and case management reports. The chief judge, state attorney, public defender and circuit clerk all can access either the local or centralized database. The project is expected to save at least $650,000 on data processing costs per year. [2]
The Texas Rehabilitation Commission (TRC) has developed a pilot project to demonstrate "Smart Cards", laser card technology, which makes it possible for a TRC client to carry necessary eligibility information on a card the size of a credit card. This pilot project is being used to demonstrate that it is possible to share client information from separate government agencies without violating the client's privacy.[3]
USAS Initiative Integrates Diverse Distributed Financial Systems. Texas' Uniform Statewide Accounting System (USAS) has been designed to accept detailed and summarized financial information from state agency internal accounting systems, via electronic media. Once in place, continuous management information should be available to the state's decision makers. Consolidated annual financial reporting will be available in a timely manner rather than compiling manual reports from each agency.
Geographic Information Systems facilitate data integration capabilities. Eighty percent of governmental record keeping is based on information containing a geographic reference. While most information systems are functional with only hardware and applications software in place, GIS requires large geo-referenced data files to become operational. Data are extracted by characteristic categories so that distinct presentation layers can be overlaid on one another. This enables data from several distinct databases to be presented as one cohesive, integrated map.
Trends in the State. In some cases, agencies and universities are exchanging information and developing projects together. The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB) is jointly developing a health-care payroll system with University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and UT Southwestern Medical Center. The Medical Branch has automation links with the following state agencies: M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, UT Health Science Center -- Houston, State Comptroller, Office of General Council UT System, State Purchasing and General Services Commission and UT System components. Cooperative efforts such as the health-care payroll system should be encouraged. This could be a possible solution to meet the payroll needs of other university health science centers.[4]
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) has granted access to Texas criminal history records to 21 other state agencies and some local governments. These agencies send over 70,000 requests monthly on magnetic tape to DPS for batch checks of individuals. After processing and depending on the level of clearance an agency has been granted, a printout of the criminal history is sent to the requesting agency for their evaluation.
DIR's common applications provide integrated applications and data for multiple state agencies. DIR's common applications -- payroll, accounting, inventory and common cash -- provide a single set of programs that are used by multiple state agencies. DIR's payroll system integrates payroll data across all payroll customers for statewide reporting to HRIS, FACTS, ERS, and TRS.
Licensing agencies' data processing needs are very similar. DIR's baseline licensing software can be quickly customized to meet the needs of most licensing agencies. The cash receipting module provides a common approach in processing renewal fees and the transmittal of documents to the Treasury and Comptroller's Office.
Redundant data collection activities slow service delivery. One frequently cited example of redundant data collection occurs in the human services area. The process of determining whether or not a client or family is qualified to receive any health and human services, and the collection of information about those clients, is a costly and time consuming process. Portions of the eligibility process are often duplicated from one agency to another. Discrepancies inherent in the different agencies' eligibility processes increase the cost of providing services. Many of the same citizens receive services from different agencies. A woman on the Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Feeding Program may need unemployment services, Medicaid, and Aid to Dependent Children yet the client must apply separately at each agency even though much of the data has already been gathered.
It must be noted that in certain circumstances, redundancy may be justifiable.
* Lengthy transmission times may justify replication of data in performance critical applications;
* It may be cheaper to duplicate frequently queried fields than to transmit them;
* Additional requirements for accuracy (double precision, larger scale geographic information systems data, etc.) may force the duplication of data collection; and
* Highly sensitive or volatile information may require a mirrored storage system to insure data security.
The inability to exchange data can be due to incompatible software. The inability to exchange data easily or cheaply can be due to lack of common definition for terms. The inconsistency of data definitions in different systems forces the state to spend additional resources to enable agencies to share information. Additional programs must be developed, program utilities must be acquired to convert different data types between different computer systems, and additional processing time is required to transmit the final data to the agency requiring the information.
On occasion, federal confidentiality requirements restrict the exchange of data between state agencies. The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) requires that "access to (criminal history records) must be restricted to duly authorized criminal justice agencies or governmental agencies under the management control of a criminal justice agency."[5]
Security Problems. The 71st Texas Legislature mandates health and human services agencies to conduct a criminal history check on any providers of care services (such as home health care or child day care) to ensure the safety of clients. This check is usually achieved by the requesting agency sending a tape containing information about service providers to the Texas Department of Public Safety for processing.[6] This method of access allows state agencies to fulfill their obligations to check criminal histories while protecting the security of the NCIC network.
On other occasions, federal regulations require the exchange of data between organizations, e.g., the Attorney General's Office and the Texas Department of Human Services are required to exchange information pertaining to child support payments.
Current state law may also inhibit the exchange of data between agencies. The Confidentiality Work Group to the Technical Advisory Group of the Texas Health and Human Services Coordinating Council issued a report in April 1989 that details the statutes which restrict access to various records held by state agencies. State laws limit use of client information to purposes directly connected with the administration of the program and according to agency rules. The findings of this group include:
* Data which does not identify the client may be disclosed and is exchanged among health and human services agencies; and
* The issues of access underscore the need for a comprehensive information access policy.
Fragmentation and inefficiencies of systems development in state agencies also contributes to the redundancy of information systems applications. This is due in part to the independent selection of development methodologies by agencies. If all agencies used a standardized development methodology, information about applications could be more readily exchanged. It is also the result of independent rather than integrated applications development planning within an agency. Particularly in large agencies, one division may not know the full suit of applications available in another division nor be aware of the data sets already being created.
The Harris County Psychiatric Center estimates conservatively that it would recover approximately $500,000 annually in local funding for Medicare services if the center had fully integrated patient care and patient charge systems. The federal government requires the integration of patient care services and patient charge systems in order to qualify for Medicare reimbursements.
The failure to comprehensively involve the end user in all phases of the design process can hinder the effectiveness of systems developed:
In the pursuit of greater productivity, raising the effectiveness of the development process is even more important than increasing its efficiency...in many cases, the maintenance costs resulting from incorrectly or incompletely defined requirements exceed the development costs of the information system. [7]
Coupling this with an eight to 15 percent annual increase in maintaining the status quo within data processing shops makes ill-conceived designs all the more expensive.[8]
Recommended Policy
The state should develop a statewide information access policy to address the issues of confidentiality, security and privacy. The Department of Information Resources should formulate plans for a statewide information model based on the statewide plan for operation.
The Department of Information Resources should coordinate deveopment of common data dictionaries. The following steps should be considered:
* Identify a pilot project to develop staff skills (a grant proposal to EPA has been developed by DIR and the General Land Office for a pilot project for an EPA data elements dictionary; discussions are underway with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop a pilot Information Resources Dictionary System (IRDS) project based on GIS requirements);
* Develop an implementation process and plan;
* Take a small group through the process; and
* Evaluate results and benefits.
Fiscal Implications
The fiscal impact of enhancing database and applications integration is difficult to quantify. However, initial start up costs will be necessary before any significant savings is realized.
Geographic Information Systems
Should Be Adopted as a Data IntegrationTool
Background
"From 65 percent to 90 percent of information managed by public or private enterprises is spatially related. And if you can visualize an object, you can understand it better and handle the task easier and faster."[9] Records pertaining to land ownership, jurisdictional boundaries, the location of natural resources, cultural features, the population and its shifts all contain a spatial component. A significant amount of the state's resources -- money and people -- are applied to mapping activities.
Automated mapping systems provide drawings of geographic areas; however, these drawings lack useful information about the features that are represented. The computer systems which impart this information on maps and which also provide analytic functions are called a Geographic Information System (GIS). Once the boundary coordinates are entered in a GIS, the size of a parcel is automatically calculated and the database is automatically updated. A sophisticated GIS can create new information rather than just retrieve previously entered information. GIS integrates a variety of diverse technologies which include: (1) document scanning systems, (2) other images, (3) imaging systems, (4) computer assisted design systems, (5) video media systems, and (6) global positioning satellite technologies.
Today, most levels of government find that it is not cost-effective to continue manually producing maps. Surveying, drafting and all forms of cartographic activities are labor intensive and time-consuming. Therefore, each map is costly to produce. In addition, the redundant maintenance efforts as various agencies update maps can introduce inconsistencies. Manual operations can perpetuate errors by carrying over inaccuracies from earlier maps or by representing out-of-date data because of delayed update schedules. Land use is constantly changing. As soon as a map is prepared, it becomes obsolete. Some maps in state agencies can be updated only every 20, 30 or 50 years for lack of qualified personnel or other resources leaving the state in an untenable position related to accuracy and currency of records. Relying on a single original map also leaves the state in a vulnerable condition. The advantages of a computerized mapping system specifically address these issues. Automation permits the rapid production and maintenance of maps. GIS technology extended to its fullest potential can resolve many issues related to data integration.
GIS provides many solutions to many users. Frequently, GIS begins as an inventory tool, identifying and cataloguing a variety of resources. As the organization learns to use the system, the analytical functions of GIS can assume a more dominant role in the system's use. Ultimately, GIS can become a decision-support tool offering decision-makers a graphical interface (maps) that is easy to understand and interpret. To maximize its investment in GIS technology and to provide the highest quality support information for our decision-makers, Texas must plan now to employ GIS as a management-support tool.
Database Development Costs. The cost of data development forces GIS implementors to shop for data and/or partners. "Data base development ... is the single most expensive part of the implementation process, representing 75 percent or more of the total expenditure."[10] Studies in California focusing on state agencies developing GIS databases place the percentage even higher at 85 percent of total costs.[11] Across the nation, especially in county governments, multi-participant GIS projects are being devised. The purpose of these group efforts is to bring the price of data collection into the realm of fiscal reality. GIS implementation is a long-term commitment usually requiring two to three years before tangible results can be seen.
If an organization can acquire data that are suitable for its purpose, this time frame can be reduced. Costs can be reduced by establishing standards so that information can be readily exchanged. Standards can help ensure that layers of data will fit the base map in use. The unit cost of producing accurate, up-to-date maps will be lowered.
Cost avoidance and the reduction of delays in implementation of state government GIS projects depends on interagency cooperation. GIS encourages users to rely on such individual areas of expertise as the U.S. Geologic Survey topographic maps, the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT) road maps and the Railroad Commission (RRC) oil and gas wells maps. Commonly, the exchange of information occurs on paper maps or magnetic tapes. In a decentralized computer (personal or other networked) system that fosters data integration, a GIS library can electronically network a variety of expert sources (state agencies). Each expert or custodial agency would provide layers of GIS information to the GIS library. This approach would not only provide new products, it would enable an additional recovery of investment in existing databases.
Role of DIR in GIS Statewide Coordination. House Bill 2736 enacted by the 71st Legislature states that state agencies may fail to get the most cost-effective results if acquisitions are uncoordinated. The Department of Information Resources (DIR) is responsible for statewide strategic plans and particularly GIS coordination to alleviate this potential problem. Several state agencies have already demonstrated their interest in supporting DIR's coordination effort at executive and technical levels. DIR is working actively to involve local and federal governments in its information exchange programs, also.
Short-term objectives of this work include the formation of an organizational structure for planning, coordination, standards and policy setting, the development of an on-line directory of digital geographic files, the sponsorship of a data exchange forum, a notification process within DIR rules and special projects. There are several DIR organizations for GIS coordination, including an advisory group established in 1990 with representation by 16 state agencies and universities; two technical subcommittees; and two special working groups, one reviewing legal questions related to GIS and the other looking at coordinating agencies development of uses for GIS.
In addition, the Texas Directory of Digital Geographic Data will provide GIS implementors with on-line access to metadata about GIS digital files available from various sources, including state agencies, local governments, federal government and private sector.
The GIS Data Exchange Forum provided education and a means for public input into the standards development process and focused on the development of standards to enable the exchange of GIS data. Additional forum objectives included.
* gathering metadata for the Texas Directory of Digital Geographic Data;
* encouraging the participation of local governments in GIS standards development;
* providing a networking opportunity for individuals and vendors; and
* providing a showcase for state agencies and universities to demonstrate their GIS projects (technology transfer).
DIR rules now include a notification requirement regarding the acquisition of GIS systems that fall below the thresholds for procurement review. This notification process about projects will capture information that will be available to others implementing systems.
Long-term objectives include the electronic delivery of GIS data to networked agencies, the production of a series of official base maps for state agencies and delivery of GIS products and new financing strategies for regional or functional groups sharing GIS equipment and/or databases.
Role of the Texas Mapping Advisory Committee (TMAC). TMAC was organized in 1958 to "assist the U.S. Geologic Survey by advising it of the collective opinion of the map users in Texas as to areas which should be included for priority consideration as new starts in the all-federally funded (SIR) 7.5-minute series mapping program."[12] Membership is drawn from state government, the professional surveying community, regional chambers of commerce and other segments of the population.
Role of Texas Natural Resource Information System (TNRIS). TNRIS was charted in 1972 as "a centralized information system incorporating all Texas natural resource data, socioeconomic data that is related to natural resources, or indexes related to that data that is collected by state agencies or other entities." TNRIS distri-butes maps, tape copies of some digital data files and maintains indexes to natural resources data. While the adminis-tration and funding of TNRIS is through the Texas Water Development Board, TNRIS activities are directed by a task force of 16 agencies. TNRIS works on pilot projects that have direct benefits for TNRIS. Occasionally, there are duplicate purchases of data sets among state agencies who are unaware of TNRIS's functions.
Trends at the Federal Level. A great deal of national attention is currently focused on GIS technology. According to Dataquest, Inc, the sale of the systems increased 29 percent to $1.41 billion in 1990 and will more than double by 1994.[13] This interest has been fueled by several factors. To automate the 1990 census, the Census Bureau developed a very important set of computer files called the TIGER files. These geo-coded files map the entire nation and form the base map for the 1990 census. These files also serve as base map for many GIS redistricting systems, an effort which will draw even more attention to GIS as the analysis provided by these systems is reviewed.
The federal government began its investigations in remote sensing (or reconnaissance) in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The states were in these activities early on. The federal use of GIS and related technologies was dramatically displayed in the strategic bombing which occurred during Desert Storm. Few missiles could have found their way through air ducts inside of buildings to their targets without such technology. This quality of performance suggests that the federal government holds large amounts of geo-coded data that might one day be available for other levels of government. The European community was dependent on U.S. satellites during Desert Storm and now intends to develop its own global positioning satellite systems.
Many federal agencies are using and developing GIS systems. The Department of the Interior (DOI) may have the most far reaching mapping effort underway in its U.S. Geological Survey area. The DOI also supports programs in the Bureaus of Land Management, Indian Affairs Mines, Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife, the National Park Service and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The Department of Commerce has sponsored the TIGER file creation with the Bureau of the Census and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just completed a program to chart off-shore waters in the Gulf of Mexico. The Department of Defense supports the global positioning satellites that have been employed by private as well as public organizations and the Army Corp of Engineers engages in frequent local/federal cooperative projects. The Department of Transportation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency all have GIS systems.
The federal government, realizing the redundancy of data collection in all levels of government, is seeking more and more cooperative efforts with state and local governments for the collection and exchange of GIS information. There are some federal funding programs in place to assist state agencies. Dollar amounts are currently so low and competition so high that few can actually profit by such programs. However, the Federal Geographic Data Committee, the federal GIS interagency committee, has acknowledged the opportunities associated with state/local cooperatives by forming the non-federal liaison coordinating committee. Certainly the process of updating the TIGER files will require the cooperation of local governments and the states. More and more programs for outreach to the states will be developed.
Trends at the Local and Regional Level. Large numbers of local and regional governments are now entering the GIS arena. Ten percent of the state's appraisal districts have implemented GIS systems. The counties are following suit. Environmental Protection Agency requirements for clean air standards account for some local interest. Escalating demands for land ownership and appraisal value information increase interest in GIS. The databases that these governments develop can and will be of value to the state of Texas as well as the federal government. Federal agencies are petitioned daily by local governments seeking assistance in the form of data or cooperative projects.
Trends at the State Level. An increasing number of Texas state agencies are considering the potential of GIS for their operations. Of the 13 agencies reporting GIS software of any type, only three did not purchase or develop the software in the last two fiscal years. One major state agency, the Texas Water Commission, is evaluating hardware and software for a major mainframe GIS application.
Currently, however, manual mapping remains the norm. Draftsman and trained technicians spend hours positioning identifying features on paper, mylar or linen maps. This manual mapping has the following disadvantages:
* It depends on field records and maps that are, in some cases, as old as the Republic of Texas.
* The same areas are mapped repeatedly for different purposes or on different scales.
* Different divisions within one agency unknowingly conduct related mapping efforts.
Automated mapping constitutes less than 20 percent of the state's mapping efforts at this time. Many of these products of computer aided drafting programs are simple drawings of an area or "dumb" maps. These maps have no intelligence about the objects they represent or those around them. For example, they don't know that a parcel of land must be a closed figure or that a road must have direction and length.
Less than 10 percent of state computer mapping systems are GIS systems. For the most part the GIS systems in use are PC-based or stand-alone workstation applications. Most of the organizations involved in redistricting effort have the advantage of GIS in their operations. The Texas Water Commission is preparing to develop and implement the first major mainframe GIS system among the state agencies. GIS research at Texas universities is diverse and thriving but for the most part, with notable exceptions, remains a teaching tool or small pilot projects.
In Texas a renewed interest in more aggressive environmental protection actions by government will initiate more interest in GIS technology. The need to track, monitor, and project the course of an off-shore spill was highlighted when the current legislature appropriated $25 million to the issue. GIS will provide the analysis and modeling capabilities required to manage responses to such events wisely.
Opportunities for Texas Using GIS. GIS can provide integrated information for state decision-makers. "GIS is best defined as a decision support system involving the integration of spatially referenced data in a problem solving environment. The most important part of this definition is the emphasis on integration." [14]
GIS can assist the Legislature by providing a comprehensive approach to the increasingly complex and critical decisions it must make. GIS can also help by displaying models of proposed solutions. If the Legislature must make decisions about industrial emissions that require the setting of technical limits, then GIS can assist by providing pictures of the effects of various proposed emission control levels.
GIS integration offers a more complete picture of the information to decision-makers. The state can prepare for a time in the not too distant future when the House and Senate will have a large CRT screen on the wall. The screen will display information from a state library of information drawn from the most authoritative agency sources. The information will be presented in graphics that can be easily understood and assimilated. Questions will be formulated and answered within minutes including what-if questions associated with modeling. This comprehensive support will be the result of state data processing departments managing information from a common geographic key. This service will provide each public or civil servant the information needed in order to make the wisest decisions for Texas now -- and for the future.
Recommended Policy
The state should develop a distributed GIS system using a central site to provide networking services for agencies implementing this system. The independence of agencies' data processing shops can be preserved by developing a distributed GIS system. Each agency would retain its ability to select and purchase systems most appropriate to its needs. The network would deliver requests for data layers and the data layers themselves between agencies. Such requests would not impact the operations of each individual shop since no action would be required on the agency's part. Each requestor would receive the most current version of each layer of data from the custodial expert building that data.
The central site would also produce and distribute a series of base maps. This series of maps would be based on a set of standard scales and projections appropriate to various classes of applications. The standards for this map series are under development now by the GIS Attribute Data Technical Subcommittee. In this centralized configuration agencies would continue the tradition of selecting and funding their own systems as long as they comply with standards that allowed their data layers to register (be compatible) with the other layers in the state's GIS library. With the delivery of a suitable base map as incentive, agencies would be induced to jointly plan system development, particularly if the purchase of data is monitored.
A central site could provide services and products to agencies that cannot secure them on their own. Agencies with only an occasional or read-only use of GIS could contract for pilot projects or on-line services. Agencies could call upon the center for expert assistance in feasibility and cost-benefit studies. Expensive equipment such as presentation quality printers could service the GIS community at large, if located at a central site. Basic public information requests could be serviced from this area lessening the impact of such demands on individual agencies.
The state should bring TMAC and TNRIS activities under a single umbrella of GIS coordina-tion. All GIS education programs should also be consolidated. The TNRIS mandate extends only to natural resources data. This functionality should become a program under the single umbrella, rather than a consortium-directed activity and the activities should be extended to include all mapping data. TMAC should be officially sanctioned by an executive order and have the activities administered by DIR.
GIS data integration is based on standards for GIS data documentation, exchange data formats, a data dictionary and guidelines for database designs among other topics. These standards are being developed by the GIS Technical Subcommittees. A statewide GIS database manager should be established to review, interpret and certify compliance of GIS standards prior to system development. The focus should be on data and applications rather than the operational demands of the GIS network.
The concept of data as a corporate asset among state agencies should be promoted. As agencies plan for GIS systems they should identify their expert data layers to be supplied to the state GIS network and to schedule mutually agreeable completion dates. To emphasize the corporate asset concept, the state should move forward on the interagency purchase of the original Texas land survey in a GIS format. This will assist a number of agencies in their mission-specific tasks, but more importantly it would provide centralized funding. The state already uses such an agreement to purchase economic data.
The state should seek Attorney General's opinions on issues associated with liability, Open Records requirements, copyright laws, service fees laws, and so on as related to GIS systems and the demands of public information requests. Draft legislation should be considered concerning cost recovery and the protection of electronic databases. The state should continue to pursue topics and bring them to the attention of agency data processing directors for comment.
Implications
"It is the political and institutional issues more than the technical ones that have been the major obstacles to the introduction of GIS technology. A GIS is not 'bought', it evolves and becomes part of the information system of an organization. Its introduction fundamentally changes the way an organization can and will use data. It affects the political power structure of the organization as much as it affects the mechanics of work".[15]
Texas state government is well-known for the autonomy of individual agencies. Agencies are accustomed to working exclusively within their mandates and individual budgets. The processes of interagency cooperation and planning are not familiar. The logistics for funding and purchasing equipment and services do not lend themselves to cooperative purchases.
The diversity of hardware systems and database management systems form another barrier. The inventory of state-owned computer equipment is diverse. Some agencies and systems do communicate and exchange data, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately, traditional concepts of data ownership further compound this situation. Agency personnel may well view data gathered by that agency as their data rather than as data gathered at the expense and for the benefit of a larger constituency.
To the uninitiated, GIS may appear to be only elaborate computer graphics using maps as output. The process of understanding GIS and implications is time-consuming and its associated technologies often further obscure understanding of basic issues and possibilities. The complexity of the technology and the complexity of the problems it addresses often slow "big picture" awareness. Conditioned by traditional computer systems, those trying to understand the technology may well miss the role of data as a critical component in the implementation phase of a new GIS. Education in a non-competitive setting is limited.
Legal and liability issues associated with open records laws and the distribution of electronic and paper data lack clarification. Local governments perceive a need to protect the electronic databases in order to insure their cost-recovery based operations. The initiatives to establish legal precedent may drive changes in open records opinions and legislation. One strong opinion in the GIS industry is with a GIS, records and reports generated from the database used in the course of setting public policy and decision-making are obviously public information and should be available to the public under open-access laws, with some exceptions. But it does not necessarily follow that the raw data used to generate these reports is subject to public access.[16]
Finally, there is a lack of enticements and enforcement capabilities to ensure cooperative planning and purchasing. While GIS systems implementation virtually forces organizations to look elsewhere for data, an agency might well pursue its own imperative without concern for the state's strategic goals.
Fiscal Implications
Purchase of the Original Texas Land Survey in GIS form. GIS technology requires large amounts of geo-coded data. Agencies are planning on implementing this technology within a cooperative framework of inter-agency planning in order to reduce the risk of redundant data collection activities or purchases. One data set notable for its long standing use as a record keeping framework is the Original Texas Land Survey (OTLS). One agency estimates that it would require an additional work force of 20 people and $2.8 million to construct a GIS version of this data set. By pursuing interagency cooperative planning, this cost will not be duplicated.
State agency cost avoidance. Several state agencies have identified a need for the OTLS and have determined that the private sector could provide a GIS version of the data for approximately $2,362,500. The delivery of this data in August of 1993 would allow the Railroad Commission (RRC) to divert the personnel resources currently occupied with digitizing the data to full-time well spotting activities providing a cost avoidance of $352,000. In addition, the early delivery would facilitate the possible discovery of one or more horizontal wells bringing in an additional $1,326,650 in severance and sales taxes each.
The Texas Water Commission (TWC) will require this data set to locate water wells and their proximity to gas and oil wells. The proposed purchase would save TWC the cost of constructing the data set itself or purchasing the data set. The GIS version would save 50 percent of staff time realizing annual savings of $70,000. The cost of converting Railroad Commission data, $300,000, to a GIS format would also be avoided. Finally, the General Land Office (GLO) anticipates cost avoidance of $153,000 annually in reduced staff requirements, accelerated production of maps used to locate Permanent School Fund lands for lease/sale/trade, and the replacement of worn manual maps.
Local Government Fiscal Impact. The State Property Tax Board (SPTB) supports the local appraisal dis-tricts and the Texas Education Agency (TEA). While SPTB has not yet developed plans for a GIS system, it speaks for the appraisal districts need for this data set. Once in the state's possession, the OTLS would be available for reproduction costs to any local governmental entity. An estimated average cost for a county's subset of this data on the open market would be $1,800-2,200. At least 210 appraisal districts have not yet automated and nearly that many county clerks or tax collectors would conceivably require this data. The potential savings for local governments could exceed $84,000.
Endnotes