Address Compliance and GPS

238 views
179 views

Published on

Presented by Wendy Schutz and Jessica Gormont, Jefferson County GIS/Addressing Office, at EPAN GIS Users Group Meeting in August 2013.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
238
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good morning.
  • Jefferson County began assigning 911 addresses to every structure in the early 2000’s & then the JC Addressing Ordinance was adopted in 2002 by the Co. Commission. The purpose of the ordinance is “to provide assignment of names to streets and roadways and implementation & maintenance of the posting of street signs and building numbers in Jefferson County, WV”The ordinance explains proper address display. On Structure & if greater than 50’ from road/eod 3” residential & 6” for commercial Contrasting backgroundEmergency responders asked our office to enforce the ordinance to make it easier for them to find people in the event of an emergency.
  • Before we began the compliance program, we wanted to let the citizens know it was coming. We began public awareness in 2009 and have continued with: Booth – set up a laptop, asked citizens about their address, handed out brochures on the ACP and explained proper display5th – went around to all the JC 5th grade classes and gave a fun presentation on the importance of proper address display. It was interesting to find out how many kids ratted on their parents for not having the address posted. Good Shepherd – after speaking to them about the display on their building, they wrote a really nice article in their Neighbor to Neighbor newsletter about the ACPPress Conference – invited the media to a conference where we discussed the program and had an article released in the Martinsburg Journal.
  • Before we presented the program to the Co. Commission for approval, we wanted to test the program to make sure we could present them with a detailed plan of action. We started field testing in Jan 2011 with 11 specific areas, each with a variety of characteristics in mind such as Subdivision, Commercial , Village & RuralWe were testing these areas to see how quickly they could be reviewed, to see how many people already had their address posted, would we be able to collect other information while we were out in the field And lastly we wanted to see what kind of display was already out there. And this is an example of what we found…
  • Our field tests provided some much needed information to make this program a success. We decided the best course of action would be 2 people on first checks and 1 for the others…During this time, we also attempted to use the hand held Juno. We used it for a period of time and decided that although it is an awesome GPS device – it wasn’t working for this project. While using the Juno, we were attempting to review 200-250 address points in a single field survey. We found it was much faster and efficient to write on a paper map than tapping keys with a stylus and panning the screen to see more area. Using a paper map printed from ARC was larger and many sections of an area could be looked at with a simple turn of a page. We determined that the Juno was too time consuming and at many times we found ourselves stopping on the edge of a road with cars zipping by. Safety was an important factor since we would be spending so much time out on the roads.
  • Jess
  • Jess
  • JESS
  • JESS
  • JESS
  • JESS
  • So after all the Public Awareness, field testing and after finally learning the ArcGIS software….We began the actual program with County Commission approval in Aug. 2011. We decided working north to south staying within the Fire Company areas was the best course of action as seen in this map. Since we don’t have jurisdiction within the towns, we are only reviewing the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County which includes over 18,000 address points.
  • The Address Compliance Program Process….1st survey – Helen & I Update map, spreadsheets & send 1st letters – 30 days2nd survey – I go back out, mark up same paper mapBack at office – same process – an additional 30 days3rd survey – NC rate has dropped dramaticallyBack at office –send violations to the handful of violators – 30 days4th & final survey Back at office – file criminal complaintGO TO COURT where a fine can be imposed of up to $500 dollars per day.
  • Jess
  • JESS
  • Jess
  • Jess
  • Jess
  • We have reviewed a total of 14,717 address points, 78% of the countyDuring the 1st review – 11,142 were already compliant with 3,098 being noncompliant.Currently out of the 14,717 addresses that have been reviewed, 12,976 have gone completely through the process. Out of the 12,976, only 40 are currently noncompliant. This means that 3,033 homes & businesses now have their address posted clearly so that emergency responders can find them quickly in the event of an emergency. Out of the 3,098 addresses that were once non-compliant, only 44 have reached the Criminal Complaint stage. Of the 44 criminal complaints , 36 have been dismissed because they have become compliant and we currently have 7 active cases. One fine was imposed by the magistrate but the property is also compliant. We have not lost a single case.
  • This is our current status map. The only thing I would like to mention is to take note that the bottom of the current side still shows a lot of red / non-compliant because that is the area we are currently reviewing and they are in the beginning of the process. After looking at this map, I don’t see how anyone can debate the effectiveness or success of this program.
  • The chart shows the decrease in non-compliant structures by review, broken down by fire boundary. Take note however, that only the fire areas listed have gone completely through the review process. BakertonMiddlewayIndependentFriendshipShepherdstownAs you can see, the number of non-compliant structures goes down significantly from 1st review to current review.
  • We have found that there are several additional benefits that come along with the ACP besides the obvious benefit of public safety. Some of these additional benefits include;Quality Assurance of the GIS Data: Educating Citizens: unknown or wrong addressAfter this program, not 1 citizen can say “We don’t know our address”. Maintenance of Road Signs:
  • 1st – JESS2nd – JESSInternal Support is Key! Police Officers & Emergency Responders do a blind call, report back, use info to educate citizen.Fire Co conducting a boot drive and alerting citizens that the ACP is coming their way!Elected Officials -Co. Commission does not feel like this program is a waste of time and instead feels that it is a great service to the citizens of Jeff. Co. Assessors office was critical for info needed during the program.Fellow Staff Members ; some are residents and spread info. about the ACP to their neighbors, HOA, church members, etc. Court: Prosecuting Attorneys & Magistrates are all on board and do not feel like this is a petty item that should not be in court. If you are thinking about doing a program similar to this in your area, DO NOT get frustrated. Even though we have had a few bad phone calls & a few unhappy citizens, the overall response has been positive. We’ve had many citizens who have actually THANKED us for letting them know they need to display their address. And in the end, when it’s all said and done…we know we are reducing emergency response time and because of that, we might even save someone’s life.
  • Address Compliance and GPS

    1. 1. Address Compliance in Jefferson County Wendy Schutz – Executive Administrative Assistant, Address Compliance Coordinator & Jessica Gormont, GISP – GIS Technician
    2. 2. 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
    3. 3. 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
    4. 4. 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
    5. 5. 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!
    6. 6. GIS Testing  What grades should we use?  Do we need other codes?  What fields should we include?  Who should do the GIS updating?
    7. 7. GIS Testing - Conclusions  Grades  Main: C, NC1, NC2  Secondary: RMV, RN, F  Schema  Physical Address  First & Current Grades  Comments  Driveway: Paved vs Unpaved
    8. 8. GIS Testing – Teaching GIS
    9. 9. GIS Testing – Ughhhh!
    10. 10. GIS Testing – Leave Me Alone!!!
    11. 11. GIS Testing – Level = Expert!
    12. 12. Field Work  County Commission Approval Aug. 2011  North to South, sticking to Fire Co. boundaries  Towns not included  Over 18,000 addresses
    13. 13. 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
    14. 14. Keeping People Updated Status Maps  What to include?  Program Description  Statistics  Statistics  Excel vs GIS data  Single County vs Before/After
    15. 15. Keeping People Updated – Status Maps  Status maps  Displayed in our office  Added to quarterly reports for County Commission  Uploaded to website
    16. 16. Keeping People Updated – Fire Meetings
    17. 17. 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!
    18. 18. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 1ST REVIEW 2ND REVIEW 3RD REVIEW CURRENT 421 118 35 4 565 169 48 7 648 213 69 11 197 82 34 6 745 245 92 3 BAKERTON MIDDLEWAY INDEPENDENT FRIENDSHIP SHEPHERDSTOWN The Results
    19. 19. 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)
    20. 20. Lessons Learned  Public Awareness is imperative  Stay Consistent  Internal Support is key  Don’t get disheartened

    ×