meeting state parcel standards - a regional view from the capitol region councils of government...
TRANSCRIPT
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!