View
84
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presented by Wendy Schutz and Jessica Gormont, Jefferson County GIS/Addressing Office, at EPAN GIS Users Group Meeting in August 2013.
Citation preview
Address Compliance in Jefferson County
Wendy Schutz – Executive Administrative Assistant, Address Compliance Coordinator
&
Jessica Gormont, GISP – GIS Technician
Why are we doing it? Assignment of 911 addresses in
early 2000s Jefferson County Addressing
Ordinance - 2002 Every structure on/near front
entrance End of driveway if >50 feet from
public R.O.W 3” Arabic numerals for Residential 6” Arabic numerals for Commercial Contrasting background
Emergency Responders requested Ordinance Enforcement
Public awareness
Booth - Jefferson County Fair
Notices - county tax bills
5th grade presentations
EPOHOA
Local Churches
Comcast Government Ch.17
Good Shepherd - “Neighbor to Neighbor”
Website
Press Conference
Field Testing
Field testing started in January 2011
Chose 11 areas to test Subdivision, Commercial,
Village, Rural Various Fire Areas
Variables Time Compliancy rate Collection of other data Quality of displays
Field Testing - Conclusions Best course of action
2 people for 1st review 1 person for other reviews
Paper vs. Juno 1st review - 200-250 addresses Updating while driving Writing vs. Tapping & Panning Large paper maps easier to see SAFETY! SAFETY! SAFETY!
GIS Testing
What grades should we use?
Do we need other codes?
What fields should we include?
Who should do the GIS updating?
GIS Testing - Conclusions
Grades Main: C, NC1, NC2 Secondary: RMV, RN, F
Schema Physical Address First & Current Grades Comments Driveway: Paved vs Unpaved
GIS Testing – Teaching GIS
GIS Testing – Ughhhh!
GIS Testing – Leave Me Alone!!!
GIS Testing – Level = Expert!
Field Work
County Commission Approval Aug. 2011
North to South, sticking to Fire Co. boundaries
Towns not included
Over 18,000 addresses
1st FIELD SURVEY
1ST NOTICE LETTERS MAILED
2ND FIELD SURVEY
2ND WARNING LETTERS MAILED
3RD FIELD SURVEY
VIOLATIONS MAILED
4th FINAL FIELD
SURVEY
FILE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
COURT
Keeping People Updated Status Maps
What to include? Program Description Statistics
Statistics Excel vs GIS data
Single County vs Before/After
Keeping People Updated – Status Maps
Status maps Displayed in our office Added to quarterly reports for County Commission Uploaded to website
Keeping People Updated – Fire Meetings
The Results 14,717 address points reviewed (78%)
1st review = 11,142 - C 1st review = 3,098 - NC2
Current standings 12,976 completely through the
process Only 40 NC2 3,033 homes & businesses newly
posted
44 Criminal Complaint Cases 36 DISMISSED / 7 active cases Only 1 fine imposed – now
compliant!
1ST REVIEW 2ND REVIEW 3RD REVIEW CURRENT0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
421
118
354
565
169
487
648
213
6911
197
8234
6
745
245
92
3
BAKERTON MIDDLEWAY INDEPENDENTFRIENDSHIP SHEPHERDSTOWN
The Results
The Additional Benefits
Quality Assurance of Data Address removals (188) Addresses added (40) Illegal signage removed (28) New road names created (22) Gates/Obstructions mapped (23)
Educating citizens of their address Not posted due to not known
Maintenance of Road Signs Road signs repaired/replaced (83)
Lessons Learned
Public Awareness is imperative
Stay Consistent
Internal Support is key
Don’t get disheartened