WLIA 2013: Results of the Wisconsin Aerial Imagery Business Plan Project

199 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
199
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

WLIA 2013: Results of the Wisconsin Aerial Imagery Business Plan Project

  1. 1. Results of the 2012 Aerial Imagery Business Plan ProjectImage: aerometric.com Jim Lacy Wisconsin State Cartographer’s Office WLIA Annual Conference February 14, 2013
  2. 2. The Project• Research and gather opinions on past projects• Survey, meetings, Webinars, interviews• Develop program “blueprint”
  3. 3. Status?• First public draft in mid-March• Multiple ways to provide feedback orthoplan.sco.wisc.edu
  4. 4. Resolution and Repeat Cycle• One-foot is the most common need• Accuracy matters!• Three year repeat cycle preferred• How critical are census years??
  5. 5. Potential Coverage for 3-Year Cycle
  6. 6. Program Models• WROC• WROC 2.0• Distributed• Service Bureau
  7. 7. WROC• Procurement process led by RPCs• Bottom-up model• Everybody negotiates their own contract, bill paid direct to vendor• Products vary between jurisdictions
  8. 8. WROC• High-res products typically not in public domain• No statewide product unless significant partner funding acquired• All flying in one season• Unknown number of participants at the start
  9. 9. WROC 2.0• Procurement process led by RPCs• Bottom-up model• Establish a formal governance structure• Identify sustainable funding that is distributed directly to counties for a base product (i.e., a grant program)• Statewide coverage presumed, since everybody gets funding for a base product
  10. 10. WROC 2.0• Everybody negotiates their own contract, bill paid direct to vendor• High-res data are public domain, distributed via WisconsinView• Three year repeat recommended... 1/3 state flown each year
  11. 11. Service Bureau• Develop a “Service Bureau” within a single state agency, presumably the GIO• Top-down model• Staff supported through overhead fees and some in-kind• Service Bureau handles all communication with vendor
  12. 12. Service Bureau• QA handled primarily by Service Bureau• Single contract• Buy-ups optional• Bill is paid to the Service Bureau, they pay vendor
  13. 13. Distributed• Responsibility shared across multiple organizations• Blend of top-down, bottom-up• Governance by committee• Product specs by committee• Day-to-day coordination handled by a “Management Group”
  14. 14. Distributed• Single contracting handled by a separate “Contracting Group” to ensure best pricing• Bill paid to Contracting Group if you do a buy-up• Compromise of cost savings, but retain local control• QA by counties and cities
  15. 15. Funding• Needs to be cost-neutral• WLIP? (commence tomato-throwing)• Police and Fire Protection Fee?• Ad-hoc partner funds• State agencies?
  16. 16. Next Steps?• Need to reach consensus on program models• Funding options needs more work, and significant outreach• Target implementation for 2018
  17. 17. Jim Lacy State Cartographer’s OfficeUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Lacy@wisc.edu (608) 262-6850

×