Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-15-2011 - 7dORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: February 15, 2011 Action Agenda ~I Item No. ~ - Q SUBJECT• Addressing Ordinance Status Report DEPARTMENT: Information Technologies and PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No Attorney's Office ATTACHMENT(S): Addressing Ordinance Status Update INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Jones, Information Technologies, (919) 245-2285 Steve Averett, Information Technologies, (919) 245-2501 Annette Moore, Staff Attorney, 245-2317 PURPOSE: To receive a status report on the development and implementation of an addressing ordinance and to provide direction to staff on proceeding with necessary steps toward ordinance adoption, implementation, and enforcement. BACKGROUND: In 1987, Orange County staff began an effort to convert rural route addresses to a logical, grid based system. This effort lasted until 1991 with mixed results due to public resistance. In 1993, a proposed ordinance was drafted by the Orange County Planning Department that would have provided the authority to resolve the issues not previously corrected, but that ordinance was not adopted. In 2001, the addressing function was transferred to the Land Records Department. The Land Records director at that time immediately began an effort to consolidate all addressing sources, resulting in the MOAD (Master Orange Address Database). In 2003, an address verification project began under the direction of Orange County Emergency Services and the Land Records departments. The purpose of this effort was to verify all existing addresses throughout the County and document those streets and addresses that posed threats to service delivery. In September of 2007, the contractor hired to perform the verification returned its findings to the County, along with Orange County's first viable Geographic Information System (GIS) address point layer. The results indicated there were thousands of instances with addresses out of sequence, not addressed to the proper road, addressed to the wrong side of the road, not displaying the proper address, not displaying the address appropriately, or not displaying the address at all. In 2007, Land Records staff began a coordinated effort with legal staff to develop an ordinance that would provide the authority to correct the myriad addressing issues mentioned above. A draft ordinance was developed in December 2007 to be reviewed and commented on by staff. This process was halted due to multiple departmental reorganizations and staff retirements that took place between November 2007 and December 2010. During this time, the addressing function operated with minimal resources and worked to correct addressing errors without the aid of an ordinance to enforce required changes. In December 2010, two additional staff were consolidated into the Information Technologies' GIS division providing the resources necessary to manage the addressing function and revive development of an addressing ordinance. On January 3, 2011, the addressing function was effectively transitioned to GIS. Since that time, GIS staff has worked intensely to: a) comprehend the addressing model, b) learn the software and procedures necessary for the technical maintenance of addressing, and c) build relationships with the County's other addressing agencies and customers, including the towns. The GIS Manager is also working closely with Orange County legal staff to review and revise the draft ordinance that originated in 2007. An Addressing Ordinance Status Update is attached and includes a projected timeline for ordinance development and implementation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for the board to receive this report. Costs associated with implementing and maintaining an addressing ordinance will be developed as part of the implementation plan of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board proceed as follows: Recognizing the critical impacts that ineffective addressing systems can have upon a multitude of public and private service delivery functions, and understanding this is a multi jurisdictional issue involving all local governments, and assuming the County is best suited to implement corrective efforts, the Manager recommends the Board authorize the following: 1) Using the identified tasks as the basis to move forward, staff initiate contact with the towns and the postal service to ensure previously identified corrections are comprehensive; 2) Staff provide a draft ordinance as discussed and share that document with town staffs, seeking input and concurrence before bringing it forward for Board consideration; 3) Budgetary issues associated with completing the project be identified and presented to the Board for action; 4) An outreach program to those individuals affected by the pending corrections be initiated once appropriate steps and solutions are identified; and 5) Staff provide a quarterly update via Manager's Memos with regard to progress made, with recognition that each town and post office involved will directly impact the progress to be made. Summary: As this issue moves forward, various options may be considered to "ease" the implementation process toward a positive corrective outcome. However, ultimately some enforcement measures may be required to fully implement an effective system countywide. 3 ADDt~~~l~ ~~DIIV_~-_I~ -~~~a~ ~~ate ~~~ cc ~~~ ~~~` ~a~°~` Prepared by Orange County Information Technologies February 2011 I. Brief History of Orange Co. Addressing II. Map and Table Illustrating Addressing Dispersion III. Specific Addressing Issues & Problems Caused by Non- conforming Addresses IV. Timeline for Implementing an Addressing Ordinance ~-,~~ ~~ Page 1 of 5 4 • 1987 Efforts began to convert Rural Route Box #'s to a logical, grid based system • 1991 Address conversion halted with many addresses not converted • 1993 Address Ordinance drafted but not adopted • 2001 Addressing function transitioned to former Land Records Dept. • 2001 MOAD created in an effort to consolidate the multiple address databases maintained by different county departments .and municipal addressing jurisdictions • 2003 Orange County began a project to verify all addresses, report all issues, and create a GIS address point layer • 2005 Contracted GTG to perform address and street centerline verification • 2007 GTG returned finished product to Orange County, including its' GIS address point layer, and recommended the county and municipal partners adopt an ordinance to correct the 3000+ errors • 2007 Land Records staff works with Human Resources legal staff to draft an effective ordinance • 2007 - 2011 Multiple reorganizations and retirements seriously impacted the addressing function, effectively delaying the development and implementation of an ordinance • 2011 Addressing was transitioned to IT-GIS with the appropriate staff necessary to manage the planning and implementation of an ordinance. Page 2 of 5 4~ .. ~~~,~~rswan o~,~4~c~r~ss~es HI GH OIJRHi4M - , 28 ~ressee - ~ t ~, . ~_ ,; ,,. _ w . .. .: ''' ..~_ _, -- --- CO. zzsax 33.8% ia% _ _ -- ~lL /UNC 26334 39.3% 20% 11022 16.4% (varies 5-30% "- ' i IUGH 5437 8.1% per jurisdiction) :.,~ ~~ ,- -` . 1534 2.3% T~ s 28 0.0% 09G t ' ~~r'Y` `'' ~~ ~ CHAP,EL'HILL 8~ UNC _ CARRBORO ~~~~~~~~ 11022 addresses ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ,~~'. 1 _ -' ~ .' ~ rr_ ~~. ~ k Address Count by Jurisdiction Map prepared by IT-GIS February 8, 2011 Page 3 of 5 6 Orange County has more than 2000 addresses that are: • Out of sequence • Not addressed to the proper road • Addressed to the wrong side of the road • Not displaying the correct house numbers • Not displaying the address in an appropriate manner • Not displaying the address at all And more than 100 streets that: • Have improper ranges • Have duplicate or phonetically similar street names • Do not have street signs posted • Are private drives that need names and address ranges assigned Issues Caused by Non-Conforming Addresses and Streets • Delayed response of emergency services increasing the likelihood of loss of life and/or property • Loss of revenue due to likelihood of improper assessment of real and/or personal property • Loss of revenue due to inefficient assessment of 3R fees • Inefficient Environmental Health and Building Inspections processes • Inefficiencies in identifying proper voting precincts for voters • Inefficiencies in verifying residency for libraries • Creates difficulties for Economic Development in identifying properties for potential customers • Less precise results for customer and issue based analysis for Planning, Health, Tax, DEAPR, etc. • Inefficient delivery of mail and package deliveries Page 4 of 5 7 Projected 7imelin~ for C?range CQUnty Addre~~ E~rdinanGe DevetQpment ~ lmplementatiQn The timeline below will be dependent on multiple factors that can potentially impact the completion dates in the projected timeline. These include but are not limited to: • Availability of staff resources. • Scope of adopted ordinance which will dictate the number of non-compliant addresses and streets. • Willingness of municipal addressing agencies to become partners, their own legal and political processes, and their intended level of shared responsibilities. • Potential complexity of developing a comprehensive enforcement process and the availability of enforcement resources. • Political process of adopting a new ordinance. • Availability of staff and resources to prioritize ordinance compliance during the grace period. Tasks and Projected Completion Dates: • GIS and Legal staff will review and revise the existing draft to create a formal draft. (January -February 2011) • Formal draft will be shared with municipal addressing agencies and UNC for review and comment. Based on previous conversations with municipal staff, there is a reasonable expectation the draft ordinance might be adopted by all of Orange County's addressing jurisdictions thereby creating acounty-wide statute for addressing regulations. (February -May 2011) • Begin formal discussions with relevant county departments (Tax, ES, Planning, Health, Sheriff, and Solid Waste) and potential municipal partners regarding enforcement procedures including reporting of violations, notice of violations, review of notices, levy of fines, fine collection, etc.). The length of the process will be dependent on the number and identities of addressing agencies that are considering adopting the ordinance. The availability of staffing and technology resources might also dictate when this task is complete. (March -December 2011) • Work session presentation of draft ordinance to BOCC for review and comment. (June 2011) • Formal presentation of addressing ordinance to Orange County BOCC for review, public hearings and, potentially, adoption. (August -September 2011) • If the ordinance is adopted, there will likely be a period of six months to allow for public education and advertising. This will effectively serve as a grace period to allow Orange County residents time to comply and allow staff time to prepare and train for enforcement. GIS staff will be actively contacting property owners with known issues to assist with a course of compliance. (September 2011 - February 2012) • Ordinance becomes effective and enforcement begins. (March 2012) Page 5 of 5