[{"_1":2,"_85":-5,"_86":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6748616,"mediaKeyId","5601449-17ac981ed077d792541f38cfda52a48f","parentId",5601449,"title","Davis County IT warns Esri license changes could double GIS costs; staff to inventory and consider consolidation","audioSeconds",721,"startMs",1613000,"endMs",2334000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5601449-17ac981ed077d792541f38cfda52a48f&start=1613&end=2334","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6748616/Utah/Davis-County-IT-warns-Esri-license-changes-could-double-GIS-costs-staff-to-inventory-and-consider-consolidation","mediaUrl","author","Davis County Commission","date","2025-08-19T08:30:00Z","article","Davis County's director of information services told commissioners during an Aug. 19 work session that the county's Esri geographic information system (GIS) licensing costs could rise sharply under the vendor's new pricing model and asked departments to inventory current licenses so staff can propose consolidation or alternate strategies before the contract renewal.

Jeff, the county's director of information services, told the commission Esri is currently charging the county roughly $150,000 a year for GIS licensing. Under the vendor's new licensing structure the county would face a roughly 50 percent increase to maintain the same functionality next year, and the company's published pricing could raise costs to nearly $300,000 a year by the third contract year. Jeff said he requested a stripped-down renewal quote that replicated the county's current license footprint; that quote came back at about $214,000, still roughly a 50 percent increase over the current cost.

\"Their new licensing structure by the third year of our contract will be double what it is today,\" Jeff said, explaining the shift toward named-user and subscription models that tie charges to users rather than machines or site licenses. He warned that the county's GIS footprint is the baseline technology for many departments — recorder, surveyor, library, sheriff \u0000 and that swapping platforms or rearchitecting integrations would carry high implementation costs and staff time.

Jeff outlined options for the commission and department directors: accept the price increase and request additional budget, switch to a lower-cost commercial GIS (with the risk that a vendor could later move to subscription or named-user pricing), move to an open-source GIS (which carries compatibility, support and maintenance risks), consolidate creator licenses and centralize GIS work on a smaller team, or outsource GIS work to vendors on a project basis. He said any transition would require licensing Esri for at least another year to allow time to rebuild the county's existing services on a new platform.

To begin the work, Jeff asked Cheryl to circulate a department-level list of current Esri licenses and named users and asked directors to consult with their staff on whether they can reduce creator licenses or rely on \"reader\" roles. Jeff said his team currently has three GIS specialists plus one developer assigned to integration work; the county holds about 50 creator-level licenses distributed across departments. He noted server components and other fixed costs mean license-count reductions do not translate to strictly proportional price cuts.

Cheryl will send each department its license list this week and Jeff said he would schedule a follow-up briefing for about two weeks out. Jeff also noted broader licensing pressure across county systems: Munis (ERP) is moving to a cloud subscription model and other vendors are shifting from perpetual to named-user subscriptions, which could increase county software costs beyond GIS.

No vote was taken; commissioners asked departments to review their license rosters and be prepared to discuss consolidation and procurement options at the follow-up meeting. Jeff set a practical deadline tied to the county's Esri contract: the county must have a plan before the contract renewal in January.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Work Session Meeting 08 19 2025 - 08 19 2025 Work Session Audio","oneSentenceSummary","Davis County IT officials told the commission on Aug. 19 that changes in Esri's licensing could sharply increase the county's GIS costs and asked departments to review and consolidate licenses before the contract renews in January.","taxTitle","Davis County Commission, Davis County Boards and Commissions, Davis County, Utah","taxId",67542,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6748620,"Davis County Commission approves refund for homeowner after residency coding error",518,222000,740000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5601449-17ac981ed077d792541f38cfda52a48f&start=222&end=740","/articles/6748620/Utah/Davis-County-Commission-approves-refund-for-homeowner-after-residency-coding-error","The Davis County Commission on Aug. 19 approved a property tax adjustment for a homeowner whose residence had been incorrectly coded as a secondary property, directing staff to process corrected tax notices and refunds for tax years 2023 and 2024.

The applicant, listed on the agenda as Robert Squire, told the commission he purchased the home three years ago and that county records show the parcel as a secondary residence; he said he paid the tax bills under that coding and asked the commission to correct the classification and refund overpayments. \"I've been paying property taxes as if it was [a secondary residence] for the last three years since I've owned the property,\" Squire said during his remarks.

The correction and refund recommendation came from Andy Hansen, Davis County assessor, who explained the county's primary residential exemption requires 186 consecutive days of occupancy for a newly purchased home. Hansen said the assessor's office would correct the county record for 2025 and supported adjusting 2023 and 2024 but noted the statute generally does not permit relief for most of 2022 because of the 186-day rule. The county attorney cited the governing authority for adjustments as Utah Code section 59-2-1337 and advised commissioners they have discretion to grant relief if they determine it serves the public interest.

A commissioner moved to approve the adjustment amounts that the assessor determines are proper under the law (the assessor identified 2023 and 2024 as qualifying years); another commissioner seconded the motion. Commissioners voted in favor. The assessor identified the amounts on the application as $2,881.88 for 2023 and $2,830.56 for 2024; staff were directed to calculate and process the corrected notices and refunds consistent with statutory requirements. The commission additionally motioned to table the second 13-47 application on the agenda to a future meeting.

Commissioners and staff discussed the practical causes of the coding error: title and escrow procedures, lender escrow practices and the county's process for marking a parcel primary or secondary. Hansen said title and escrow companies sometimes do not submit application paperwork at closing, and county staff said such errors occur a few times a year. Commissioners emphasized the shared responsibility between government and property owners to verify taxation classification, and the group noted concern about setting precedent when granting refunds for earlier years.

The motion directs county staff to: (1) issue corrected tax notices and refunds for the assessor's recommended years (2023 and 2024) including any applicable interest and penalties as allowed by law, and (2) process the tabling of the second 13-47 application to a later meeting. The county attorney and assessor will implement the commission's decision in accordance with Utah Code §59-2-1337.

The commission did not specify an exact roll-call vote tally in the public remarks; the clerk recorded the motion as carried with commissioners verbally indicating \"Aye.\"","The Davis County Commission on Aug. 19 approved a property tax adjustment for a homeowner whose parcel had been misclassified as a secondary residence, directing staff to process refunds for tax years 2023 and 2024.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Davis County IT warns Esri license changes could double GIS costs; staff to inventory and consider consolidation

Davis County Commission approves refund for homeowner after residency coding error