Multiple Address – HCGUG SIG

 

 

Multiple Address Point Discussion

November 13, 2006

 

Edina City Hall

4801 W 50th St

Edina, MN  55424

 

 

 

Discussion Items

 

·        Introductions

 

·        General

  1. What is a multiple address?
  2. Uses – County and Municipal level

 

·        Available Multiple Address Data

  1. Municipal (Munic) level – sources, formats, currentness, etc.
  2. County level – sources, formats, data structure, currentness, etc.

 

·        Data Collection

1.      Potential participants

2.      Identify contact personnel – County and Munic

3.      Establish how the data should flow – Munic to County, County to Munic

 

·        Potential uses

  1. Proposed multiple address data collection project (internet)
  2. Others?

 

·        Other items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting Summary

 

 

I. Call to Order

 

Meeting was called to order at 13:00 hours.

 

Attendees:  Brooklyn Center, Eden Prairie, Edina, Hennepin County, LOGIS, and The Lawrence Group

 

II. Introductions and Opening

 

Attendee introductions were made, Scott Simmer, Hennepin County GIS Coordinator, opened the meeting.

 

III. Agenda Briefing

 

Hennepin County defined multiple addresses and explained they will be collecting such data in the near future.  They further explained multiple address data currently assists various agencies/departments at county, municipal, and regional levels.  Brooklyn Center stated that address points play an instrumental role in their crime-mapping efforts.

 

It was emphasized that municipalities’ cooperation in the data collection process is strongly encouraged but not mandatory.  Additionally, Brad stated the integrity of address data is proportionate to the level of effort a city allots to address record maintenance.

 

IV. Data Availability – General Discussion

 

Municipalities (or their designees) stated that address data is currently available in the following formats:

  1. Database files
  2. Address range database files
  3. Parcel centroids, with and without Property Identifications (PIDs)
  4. Address points (with and without PIDs) moved to their respective geographic location ex. Building, Driveway, Unit, etc.

 

Hennepin County indicated that all taxable occupiable units are maintained in both database file and point (centroids) featureclass formats. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V. Data Considerations – General Discussion

 

Further discussion revealed the following concerns about address data:

1.      Unit-level address data are maintained by some, but not all municipalities.

2.      There is a great probability that address data may not be current.

3.      Municipalities may not assign addresses.

4.      Municipalities may not adhere to addressing standards.

5.      Communication lags between departments may hinder address updates.

6.      Private-sector data sources may not supply new address data in a timely and orderly fashion.

 

VI. Data Collection – General Discussion

 

All attendees agreed that all occupiable units (apartments, dorms, suites, units, etc.) should be part of the multiple address collection process.

 

All attendees agreed that Hennepin County first collect sample data to assess the completeness, currentness, and various formats of Municipality-maintained address data.

The representatives from Brooklyn Center, Edina, and LOGIS agreed to supply said data.

Hennepin County will present their findings by mid-December.

 

All attendees agreed that Emergency Services representatives and more municipalities should be present before any data collection strategies are discussed in greater detail.

 

VII. Potential Multiple Address Data Uses – General Discussion

 

Brooklyn Center indicated that unit-level geocoding will be integrated into their crime-mapping workflow.

 

Hennepin County stated they had submitted a grant proposal to ESRI.  The awarding of the funds would support the development of a web-based multiple address data collection utility.

 

Hennepin County additionally indicated they had explored the development of a unit-level geolocation service however other work demands halted its development.

 

VIII. Adjourn

 

Scott Simmer ended the meeting at approximately 15:00 hours.  The continuation of this Special Interest Group (SIG) will be discussed at the next general HCGUG meeting held January 11, 2007, 09:30 – 11:30 hours, at the Ridgedale Library.