NEARCMeeting State Parcel Standards- A Regional View from the Capitol Region Councils of Government

(CRCOG)5/11/2015

Kristen LaBrieProject Manager

Project OverviewClient: Capital Region Council of Governments (CRCOG)

Started as 30 town regionReconfigured to 38 town regionRegional Performance Incentive (RPI) Grant

Project Goals:Create regional parcel dataset

CT Level II Parcel Standard Implement a region-wide online map viewer (MapGeo)

Project Approach

Collect Source Data

Mismatch Resolution & Update to Current Conditions (COGO)

Convert Existing Parcels to Standard

Realign Parcels to ortho

QA/QC and Level II Validation Draft Data Submitted for Review Final Edits and Deliverables

MapGeo Implementation

Assess alignment & CAMA Match

CCRPA Towns

WINCOG Towns

Challenge 1: State StandardNo physical data model (geodatabase)

Used AppGeo model from CT Broadband Project

Vague Guidelines AttributionSpatial Accuracy

Adoption will be low, no 'teeth' for enforcement or incentives

No plan for future “updates”

Challenge 2: Source Data Collection

Some towns were great with providing data…

A lot of dealing with other GIS consultants Good relationships are helpful!

Town Clerk research for alignment and mismatch resolution

Several requests for data again or alternate formats (CAMA)

Challenge 3: Data ExpectationsHow much editing?

Document known issue areas with errata points Prioritized issues resolved with subdivision/larger plans Some towns started from scratch

Parcel layers variable accuracy I.e. Good match rate, poor alignment – meets standard?

Alignment of other layers (ex: Zoning, Open Space, Town boundaries)

Feature level metadata Mismatch resolution tracking

Challenge 4: REGIONAL Website(And more expectations)

Maps Tiling – Time consuming (and Bug in AGS 10.2.2)

Changes after tiling, subsequent corrections What layers to include?

Consistency region-wide vs. including all towns' data Use of state data, ex: roads Labeling vs anno (If provided!)

Varying requirements per town Attribute display (owner/assessment info) Links back to their own site can be complicated

Region’s decisions vs. member towns options “CRCOG’s website will provide exactly what we have now” Duplication of effort?

Stress the region-wide benefits

Challenge 5: StakeholdersCRCOG - Client

Draft Data ReviewCentral repository & Point of ContactPolitical positioning with “tough” members

Member MunicipalitiesSome will get large benefit (small, no GIS) vs. little to no benefit

(bigger, robust GIS)Encouraging maintenance in standard format

But if not…Automated ETL ToolsDifferent CAMA systems and different levels of detail within

Zoning, land use, condos, acreage

In ConclusionNew England is not really set up for Regionalization

How far can we really take it given gov’t structure?All Towns are unique

38 different parcel formats, 38 different CAMA formats…Towns might realize greater benefit by sharing more

Look beyond Town boundaryIf part of a county, would have to just do it their way

Regionally, still a long way to go... Like implementing 38 MapGeo sites, vs 1 Regional site

Challenges are many, but can be met with hard work, cooperation and good organizational skills!