1. A Standardized Official Address and Point for Every Occupiable Unit? Metro Wide? Are we Nuts? MetroGIS Address Workgroup Mark Kotz, Metropolitan Council MetroGIS Address Workgroup Mark Kotz, Metropolitan Council January 12, 2006 Hennepin County GIS Users Group January 12, 2006 Hennepin County GIS Users Group

2. Database with every occupiable unit Accurate “official” address and point Neighboring communities sharing this data Updated weekly or daily. Imagine If...

3. Vision of the MetroGIS Address Workgroup More Detail in Paper (online) Vision of the MetroGIS Address Workgroup More Detail in Paper (online)

4. There is a need It will be a benefit to cities Will not be easy – long term vision. What we Believe…

5. “Occupiable Unit” is… Addressing authority is… Definitions

6. Do we need better Address Data? Workgroup Investigations and Conclusions The Vision The Key = Local Government. Overview

7. Tabular addresses (no geography, not regional) Street centerlines with address ranges Parcel data. Existing Address Data

8. Street Centerlines with Address Ranges

9. Parcel Data

14. MetroGIS Forms Address Workgroup March, 2004 Eberle Seen on Mars Kotz wins Tour de France

15. Active Workgroup Members Dave Brandt, Washington County GIS Chad Bargo, City of Maplewood Gordon Chinander, Metro Emergency Services Board Amy Geisler, City of Ramsey Planning Jeff Gottstein, Woodbury PD Peter Henschel, Carver County GIS Deb Jones, Falcon Heights & Ramsey Co. User Group Joel Koepp, City of Roseville Mark Kotz, Metropolitan Council Christine Meyer, St. Paul Water Utility Erin Naughton, Minneapolis GIS Nancy Read, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Lynn Rohe, Scott County Planning/Zoning & PSAP Todd Sieben, Washington County Surveyor’s Office Scott Simmer, Hennepin County GIS John Slusarczck, Anoka County GIS Kent Tupper, Dakota County GIS Ben Verbick, LOGIS

16. Defined scope = “situs” address of occupiable units Understand how addresses are created & flow Stakeholder surveys County data flow diagrams Analyzed results & compared to unmet needs Developed a vision to meet the needs. Investigations & Conclusions

17. All 7 counties Cities Carver, Ramsey & Scott counties + Minneapolis Anoka county: School district, busing company, electrical utility, ambulance service, solid waste service. Stakeholder Interviews

19. Most addresses created at city level Many addressing authorities, many processes Address “Records” vary tremendously Records updated right away. Conclusions

20. Data flow is complicated & different everywhere Outflow is inconsistent between sources Standard process wanted Single “official” source desired by many. Conclusions Continued…

21. Point datasets of occupiable units & addresses Created by each official addressing authority Compiled into regional dataset Available for free to metro government Other access determined by local authorities. The Vision Proposes…

22. Street naming & address assignment = out of scope Database includes parcel relate Standard data transfer format. Key Aspects of Vision

23. MetroGIS helped write data content part Second review comment period ends Monday Broader review expected in the spring http://www.urisa.org/address_data_standard.htm National Address Data Standard

24. New points added when official (building permit) Multiple avenues to create, maintain, store data Potential Internet maintenance application Pilot study recommended (next step). More Key Aspects…

25. Organizational roles Addressing authority Intermediate aggregators Regional custodian Facilitated approach Regional data standard Starter dataset from parcel points Online editing application Implementation Concepts

26. Cities & Counties = official addressing authority! They know their jurisdiction They update their address records quickly Strong connection to emergency responders. Local Government is Key

27. Existing distribution process Single official source = others can clean up data Allows creation of regional applications Mailing labels for occupants Cascading address matching/geocoding Helps their emergency responders. What’s in it for Them?

28. Way to track occupiable units Availability of data across borders Several already starting. What’s in it for Them?

29. Continuous maintenance Impact on current workflow & procedures Might be a paradigm shift Workload & expertise varies by city. Resources & Challenges

30. Clear government need single source of accurate “official” address emergency response track occupiable units Must be embraced by local government Will be difficult for many – think long term. Summary

31. Questions? Feedback? Mark Kotz mark.kotz@metc.state.mn.us Vision Document on Web at: http://www.metrogis.org/data/ info_needs/street_addresses/add_wkgp.shtml