Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Countywide Addressing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tompkins municipal reps back exploring countywide 9‑1‑1 addressing; consensus to proceed with study
Summary
Representatives from multiple towns said they support exploring a county-managed, standardized addressing system to resolve misnumbering, duplicate names and emergency response confusion.
Representatives from towns and the city on May 16 expressed support for exploring a countywide 9‑1‑1 addressing system and noted several recurring local problems such a misnumbered roads, duplicate road names across municipalities and addresses that are out of sequence.
Mark reported he had spoken with Michael Stitely, who suggested two conditions for a countywide system: unanimous buy-in from municipalities and authority to correct historical addressing errors. Multiple municipal representatives said they would welcome the county taking on the work if it produced a single, consistent addressing scheme.
Speakers described practical problems the change would aim to fix: roads where numbers on one side run in the hundreds while numbers on the opposite side run in the thousands, municipal boundary roads with different numbering rules, and individual properties already having conflicting town/county records. Several officials said code officers support a unified system to reduce ad hoc, town-by-town fixes.
Participants acknowledged there will be resident inconvenience — changing longstanding house numbers — and noted recent local experiences: one town reported initial resistance but said delivery of new 9‑1‑1 signage and information helped residents adopt new numbers without major issues. Officials also raised the need to coordinate with private mapping providers (for example Google Maps) so maps and navigation update after renumbering.
Meeting participants asked for a formal next step. The group agreed there was no recorded opposition during the discussion and that the committee secretary should record a consensus to look into county administration of addressing. Mark was asked to follow up with county staff and to arrange a more in-depth presentation from county addressing staff or consultants when available.
No vote or ordinance change was taken at the meeting; the item was recorded as a consensus to investigate next steps and to seek further technical detail from county staff or vendors.
