County updates rural addressing database, aims to meet NextGen 911 data standards

Peter Hurley, the county’s rural addressing coordinator, told the Grant County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 12 that he has spent the past six months cleaning and restructuring the county’s GIS address-point and street-centerline database to prepare for a transition from the legacy 9‑1‑1 system to NextGen 9‑1‑1. Hurley said the work includes correcting database errors the state flags, reconciling the county GIS with a legacy E‑911 dataset maintained by a private vendor, and creating public-facing online maps that county offices and residents can use.

Hurley said the county’s address-point match rate with legacy E‑911 records rose from well below current levels to above 70 percent, and that street-centerline exact-match rates are at about 55–57 percent. He said the county’s target is roughly a 98 percent match rate for both datasets and that, “in a couple of months, we should be there” pending continued cleanup. Hurley warned that some complex road layouts present persistent problems; he used Shasta Street as an example, showing overlapping centerline ranges, out‑of‑sequence address numbers and parity (odd/even) errors that can require readdressing to resolve.

County staff and commissioners discussed the implications for emergency response. Hurley and Planning Director Joseph (last name given in the transcript as Joe) said accurate address-point and centerline data are essential for routing emergency calls correctly, and Jesus Palacio, director of dispatch, was cited by Hurley as having reported real-world response problems in places like Shasta Street. Hurley explained that some errors must be fixed in both the county GIS and the legacy E‑911 dataset and that he directly coordinates corrections with the telecommunications vendor and the state.

Commissioners pressed staff about the legal and practical consequences of readdressing. Commissioner Fluss referenced a constituent’s concern and cited an ordinance code number (97‑02‑13‑a) that the county still uses. Hurley and Joseph said that the ordinance dates to 1997, contains language the county staff find confusing, and that the county can refuse or require a hearing for some renaming requests; they emphasized a need to reconcile the ordinance with current state law and enforcement practices. Joseph told the commission staff would prepare a draft ordinance for review and hoped to return with a proposed amendment in about 60 days.

Hurley also showed mapping products he creates for county projects, including parcel ownership maps, a LIDAR-derived hillshade and three‑dimensional road model used by engineers on the CPAR Road/Great Divide Wind Farm corridor, and examples of internal and public web maps that display parcels, address points and street segments with pop-up parcel metadata. He said the county does not perform legal property boundary surveys — survey work is typically supplied to the assessor by licensed surveyors — and that the county would contract licensed surveyors when a legal right-of-way or boundary question requires it.

Commissioners and county staff agreed the ordinance needs updating to avoid unintended address changes for residents while preserving public-safety benefits of clearly identified roads. Joseph said the county will prioritize an ordinance revision to align with current statute and enforcement ability and return to the commission with a draft.