"Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.Last Update: September, 2018

Index Grids dataset current as of 2003. map grid.

This map shows the USGS (United States Geologic Survey), NWIS (National Water Inventory System) Hydrologic Data Sites for Grand County, Utah. The scope and purpose of NWIS is defined on the web site: http://water.usgs.gov/public/pubs/FS/FS-027-98/

The Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) Database depicts flood risk information and supporting data used to develop the risk data. The primary risk classifications used are the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event, the 0.2-percent-annual- chance flood event, and areas of minimal flood risk. The DFIRM Database is derived from Flood Insurance Studies (FISs), previously published Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), flood hazard analyses performed in support of the FISs and FIRMs, and new mapping data, where available. The FISs and FIRMs are published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The projection is NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_12N with the coordinate system name as Universal Transverse Mercator. The horizontal accuracy meets Guidelines and specifications for DFIRM production.

This map shows specific water-quality items and hydrologic data site information which come from QWDATA (Water Quality) and GWSI (Ground Water Information System). Both QWDATA and GWSI are subsystems of NWIS (National Water Inventory System)of the USGS (United States Geologic Survey). This map is for Grand County, Utah. The scope and purpose of NWIS is defined on the web site: http://water.usgs.gov/public/pubs/FS/FS-027-98/

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Service Protocol: Link to the ScienceBase Item Summary page for the item described by this metadata record. Application Profile: Web Browser. Link Function: information

No abstract available

no abstract provided

This is a comment on the preliminary Congressional Commission redistricting map. Along with providing feedback on that map, it offers a draft alternative that better meets the criteria of the Colorado Constitution. As background, I participated in redistricting initiatives in South Bend, Indiana, in the mid-1980s and for Indiana legislative seats after the 1990 census. I didn’t engage with redistricting during the rest of my 20-year military career. After retiring, and while serving as Public Trustee for El Paso County, I participated in redistricting efforts at the county and city level. I also stood for El Paso County Clerk in 2010. I have lived in Colorado since 2000. The draft alternative map is created using Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA) and can be found at https://davesredistricting.org/join/346f297c-71d1-4443-9110-b92e3362b105. I used DRA because it was more user-friendly in that it allows selection by precinct and by city or town, while the tool provided by the commission seems to allow only selection by census block (or larger clusters). The two tools also use slightly different population estimates, but this will be resolved when the 2020 data are released in August. These comments acknowledge that any map created using estimated populations will need to change to account for the actual census data.

Description of Draft Alternative

    My process started by

identifying large-scale geographic communities of interest within Colorado: the Western Slope/mountain areas, the Eastern Plains, Colorado Springs/El Paso County, the North Front Range, and Denver Metro. Two smaller geographic communities of interest are Pueblo and the San Luis Valley—neither is nearly large enough to sustain a district and both are somewhat distinct from their neighboring communities of interest. A choice thus must be made about which other communities of interest to group them with. El Paso County is within 0.3% of the optimal population, so it is set as District 5. The true Western Slope is not large enough to sustain a district, even with the obvious addition of Jackson County. Rather than including the San Luis Valley with the Western Slope, the preliminary commission map extends the Western Slope district to include all of Fremont County (even Canon City, Florence, and Penrose), Clear Creek County, and some of northern Boulder County. The draft alternative District 3 instead adds the San Luis Valley, the Upper Arkansas Valley (Lake and Chaffee Counties, and the western part of Fremont County), Park and Teller Counties, and Custer County. The draft alternative District 4 is based on the Eastern Plains. In the south, this includes the rest of Fremont County (including Canon City), Pueblo, and the Lower Arkansas Valley. In the north, this includes all of Weld County, retaining it as an intact political subdivision. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district; it is rounded out by including the easternmost portions of Adams and Arapahoe Counties. All of Elbert County is in this district; none of Douglas County is. The draft alternative District 2 is placed in the North Front Range and includes Larimer, Boulder, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. This is nearly enough population to form a complete district, so it is rounded out by adding Evergreen and the rest of Coal Creek in Jefferson County. The City and County of Denver (and the Arapahoe County enclave municipalities of Glendale and Holly Hills) forms the basis of draft alternative District 1. This is a bit too large to form a district, so small areas are shaved off into neighboring districts: DIA (mostly for compactness), Indian Creek, and part of Marston. This leaves three districts to place in suburban Denver. The draft alternative keeps Douglas County intact, as well as the city of Aurora, except for the part that extends into Douglas County. The map prioritizes the county over the city as a political subdivision. Draft alternative District 6, anchored in Douglas County, extends north into Arapahoe County to include suburbs like Centennial, Littleton, Englewood, Greenwood Village, and Cherry Hills Village. This is not enough population, so the district extends west into southern Jefferson County to include Columbine, Ken Caryl, and Dakota Ridge. The northwestern edge of this district would run along Deer Creek Road, Pleasant Park Road, and Kennedy Gulch Road. Draft alternative District 8, anchored in Aurora, includes the rest of western Arapahoe County and extends north into Adams County to include Commerce City, Brighton (except the part in Weld County), Thornton, and North Washington. In the draft alternative, this district includes a sliver of Northglenn east of Stonehocker Park. While this likely would be resolved when final population totals are released, this division of Northglenn is the most notable division of a city within a single county other than the required division of Denver. Draft alternative District 7 encompasses what is left: The City and County of Broomfield; Westminster, in both Jefferson and Adams Counties; Federal Heights, Sherrelwood, Welby, Twin Lakes, Berkley, and almost all of Northglenn in western Adams County; and Lakewood, Arvada, Golden, Wheat Ridge, Morrison, Indian Hills, Aspen Park, Genesee, and Kittredge in northern Jefferson County. The border with District 2 through the communities in the western portion of Jefferson County would likely be adjusted after final population totals are released.

Comparison of Maps

Precise Population Equality
    The preliminary commission

map has exact population equality. The draft alternative map has a variation of 0.6% (4,239 persons). Given that the maps are based on population estimates, and that I left it at the precinct and municipality level, this aspect of the preliminary map is premature to pinpoint. Once final population data are released, either map would need to be adjusted. It would be simple to tweak district boundaries to achieve any desired level of equality. That said, such precision is a bit of a fallacy: errors in the census data likely exceed the 0.6% in the draft map, the census data will be a year out of date when received, and relative district populations will fluctuate over the next 10 years. Both the “good-faith effort†and “as practicable†language leave room for a bit of variance in service of other goals. The need to “justify any variance†does not mean “no variance will be allowed.†For example, it may be better to maintain unity in a community of interest or political subdivision rather than separate part of it for additional precision. The major sticking point here is likely to be El Paso County: given how close it seems to be to the optimal district size, will it be worth it to divide the county or one of its neighbors to achieve precision? The same question would be likely to apply among the municipalities in Metro Denver.

Contiguity
    The draft alternative map

meets this requirement. The preliminary commission map violates the spirit if not the actual language of this requirement. While its districts are connected by land, the only way to travel to all parts of preliminary Districts 3 and 4 without leaving the districts would be on foot. There is no road connection between the parts of Boulder County that are in District 3 and the rest of that district in Grand County without leaving the district and passing through District 2 in either Gilpin or Larimer Counties. There also is no road connection between some of the southwestern portions of Mineral County and the rest of District 4 without passing through Archuleta or Hinsdale Counties in District 3.

Voting Rights Act
    The preliminary staff

analysis assumes it would be possible to create a majority-minority district; they are correct, it can be done via a noncompact district running from the west side of Denver up to Commerce City and Brighton and down to parts of northeastern Denver and northern Aurora. Such a district would go against criteria for compactness, political subdivisions, and even other definitions of communities of interest. Staff asserts that the election of Democratic candidates in this area suffices for VRA. Appendix B is opaque regarding the actual non-White or Hispanic population in each district, but I presume that if they had created a majority-minority district they would have said so. In the draft alternative map, District 8 (Aurora, Commerce City, Brighton, and Thornton) has a 39.6% minority population and District 1 (Denver) has a 34.9% minority population. The proposals are similar in meeting this criterion.

Communities of Interest
    Staff presented a long list

of communities of interest. While keeping all of these intact would be ideal, drawing a map requires compromises based on geography and population. Many communities of interest overlap with each other, especially at their edges. This difficulty points to a reason to focus on existing subdivisions (county, city, and town boundaries): those boundaries are stable and overlap with shared public policy concerns. The preliminary commission map chooses to group the San Luis Valley, as far upstream as Del Norte and Creede, with Pueblo and the Eastern Plains rather than with the Western Slope/Mountains. To balance the population numbers, the preliminary commission map thus had to reach east in northern and central Colorado. The commission includes Canon City and Florence

This vector shapefile is a polygon shapefile outlining the extent of the "NWT" project area, for the Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) project. The shapefile also covers the Green Lakes Valley portion of the Boulder Creek Critical Zone Observatory (CZO). Other datasets available in this series includes orthorectified aerial photograph mosaics (for 1953, 1972, 1985, approximately 1990, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008), digital elevation models (DEM's), and accessory map layers. Together, the DEM's and imagery will be of interest to students, research scientists, and others for observation and analysis of natural features and ecosystems. NOTE: This EML metadata file does not contain important geospatial data processing information. Before using any NWT LTER geospatial data read the arcgis metadata XML file in either ISO or FGDC compliant format, using ArcGIS software (ArcCatalog > description), or by viewing the .xml file provided with the geospatial dataset.

no abstract provided

no abstract provided

Citation Manley, W.F., Parrish, E.G., and Lestak, L.R., 2009, High-Resolution Orthorectified Imagery and Digital Elevation Models for Study of Environmental Change at Niwot Ridge and Green Lakes Valley, Colorado: Niwot Ridge LTER, INSTAAR, University of Colorado at Boulder, digital media. This vector shapefile is a source index map layer for the mosaic of orthorectified aerial photography from 1988 and 1990 for the Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) project. The index also covers the Green Lakes Valley portion of the Boulder Creek Critical Zone Observatory (CZO). The index polygons are attributed with source photo date and photo year. The mosaic is derived from approx. 1:40,000 scale, color infrared (CIR) photographs acquired by the United States Geological Survery (USGS) National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP). Other datasets available in this series includes orthorectified aerial photograph mosaics (for 1953, 1972, 1985, approximately 1990, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008), digital elevation models (DEM's), and accessory map layers. Together, the DEM's and imagery will be of interest to students, research scientists, and others for observation and analysis of natural features and ecosystems. NOTE: This EML metadata file does not contain important geospatial data processing information. Before using any NWT LTER geospatial data read the arcgis metadata XML file in either ISO or FGDC compliant format, using ArcGIS software (ArcCatalog > description), or by viewing the .xml file provided with the geospatial dataset.

Fifty-three types of surficial geologic deposits and residual materials of Quaternary age are described in a pamphlet and located on a map of the greater Pueblo area, in part of the Front Range, in the Wet and Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and on the plains east of Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Deposits formed by landslides, wind, and glaciers, as well as colluvium, residuum, alluvium, and others are described in terms of predominant grain size, mineral or rock composition (e.g., gypsiferous, calcareous, granitic, andesitic), thickness, and other physical characteristics. Origins and ages of the deposits and geologic hazards related to them are noted. Many lines drawn between units on our map were placed by generalizing contacts on published maps. However, in 1997-1999 we mapped new boundaries as well. The map was projected to the UTM projection. This large map area extends from near Salida (on the west edge), eastward about 107 mi (172 km), and from Antero Reservoir and Woodland Park on the north edge to near Colorado City at the south edge (68 mi; 109 km).

This record is maintained in the National Geologic Map Database (NGMDB). The NGMDB is a Congressionally mandated national archive of geoscience maps, reports, and stratigraphic information, developed according to standards defined by the cooperators, i.e., the USGS and the Association of American State Geologists (AASG). Included in this system is a comprehensive set of publication citations, stratigraphic nomenclature, downloadable content, unpublished source information, and guidance on standards development. The NGMDB contains information on more than 90,000 maps and related geoscience reports published from the early 1800s to the present day, by more than 630 agencies, universities, associations, and private companies. For more information, please see http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/.

Colorado Community Anchor Institutions (CAI) Feature Class Summary This layer represents the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) State Broadband Data Development Program (SBDD) Community Anchor Institutions (CAI) which subscribe to broadband. Description Introduction This layer represents the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) State Broadband Data Development Program (SBDD) Community Anchor Institutions (CAI) which subscribe to broadband. ''Community Anchor Institutions'' consist of schools, libraries, medical and healthcare providers, public safety entities, community colleges and other institutions of higher education, and other community support organizations and entities. These locations may not offer broadband availability to the public (although most libraries and many schools, and community centers do) but rather offer an opportunity for policy makers to understand where community anchor institutions who have broadband access are which can help in identifying challenges and opportunities to reaching national connectivity goals. For additional information visit NOFA (Notice of Funding Availability) website: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/nofa.html Intent The primary source of information has been online address and location research, in combination with google maps and NAIP aerial imagery. Ideally, our end goal is to have every county maintain and provide data directly. The advantage being that local officials have more direct access to acquiring accurate data for their respective counties, and more experience within these counties. Secondly, it will allow each county to sustain accurate CAI data without being reliant on the state government. For example, if Hinsdale county sustained its own CAIs, it would not need to wait on the state to complete and update their CAI data. Achieving this goal will provide the counties in Colorado with accurate and useful data without the limitations of being bottle necked by a single data editing source. Process The existing CAI point data is edited and maintained using ESRI Arc Desktop 10.1. Points have first been verified for their spatial accuracy. They are overlayed onto NAIP aerial imagery. Using a combination of online sources, such as Google Maps and Google Earth, the address and location of each point is verified. If the point is inaccurately positioned, it is moved to the correct location. Attributes are also check for accuracy and updated. Sometimes street names or address numbers are not present, and must be identified through research. Presently a total of 5478 CAI locations have been researched and edited. We were unable to indentify the definitive location of 4% of these CAIs. This results in a favorable 96% accuracy rate thus far. This dataset will be continuously checked and improved upon as time goes on. In addition, CAI locations have been contacted in order to acquire internet speed test results. Currently 1356 of the total Community Anchor Institutions have speed test results. We will continute to add to this number as time goes on. Finally, this data will be accessible and modifiable via GIS services. This will allow county officials to actively edit the data. Data Fields The following items are the fields within the CAI feature class. There are several different field types within this dataset. The bold faced portion is representative of the field name, while the following text represents the type of the field as well as length, precision, and scale. Additionally, OBJECTIDand SHAPE are generated by Arc Map. OBJECTID- ObjectID Longitude- Double P38 S8 OITIndex- Short Latitude- Double P38 S8 AnchorName- String 200 FKProvider- Short FullAddress- String 200 KEY_- Short StreetAddress- 50 URL- String 100 Status- Short CAICategory - String 2 AddressNumber- Long CAIID- String 50 NumberSuffix - String 15 FullCensusBlockID- String 16 StreetPreModifier - String 10 TransTech- Double P38 S8 StreetPreDirectional - String 20 BBService- String 1 StreetPreType- String 20 PublicWiFi- String 1 StreetSeparator - String 10 CAIComments- String 255 StreetName - String 75 BBComments- String 255 StreetPostType- String 20 MaxAdDown- String 2 StreetPostDirectional- String 20 MaxAdUp- String 2 StreetPostModifier- String 20 SubScrbDown - String 2 SubAddress- String 50 SubScrbUp- String 2 Intersection- String 100 ActualDown- Double P38 S8 PlaceName- String 100 ActualUp- Double P38 S8 District- String 100 TestDate- String 255 County- String 50 ProviderNM- String 255 StateAbbrev- String 50 LocationChanged_Y_N- String 1 ZipCode- Long Done- String 1 Zip4- Short SHAPE- Geometry AddressLocDesc- String 255

Credits State of Colorado, Governor's Office of Information Technology (OIT) Archuleta County Baca County City and County of Broomfield Custer County Eagle County El Paso - Teller E911 Authority Garfield County Grand County La Plata County Larimer County Las Animas County E911 Authority Lincoln County Mesa County Moffat County Montezuma County North Central All - Hazards Region Pueblo County Routt County Use limitations None Extent West -109.011097 East -102.082504 North 40.994186 South 37.005858 Scale Range Maximum (zoomed in) 1:5,000 Minimum (zoomed out) 1:150,000,000 ArcGIS Metadata ► Topics and Keywords ► THEMES OR CATEGORIES OF THE RESOURCE  structure, location, health, utilitiesCommunication * CONTENT TYPE  Downloadable Data EXPORT TO FGDC CSDGM XML FORMAT AS RESOURCE DESCRIPTION No

DISCIPLINE KEYWORDS  Public Service Facilities Broadband Internet Service

PLACE KEYWORDS  Colorado

TEMPORAL KEYWORDS  2014

THEME KEYWORDS  Public Use Structures, Community Anchor Institutions, Essential Facilities, Landmark Features, Key Geographic Locations, Points of Interest, Structures, Public Buildings, Facilities of General Interest, Civic or Government Buildings, Public Service Facilities, Fire Station, Police Station, School, Library, Post Office, Town Hall.

Hide Topics and Keywords ▲ Citation ► TITLE Colorado Community Anchor Institutions (CAI) ALTERNATE TITLES  Colorado CAIs CREATION DATE 2012-08-31 00:00:00 REVISION DATE 2013-02-07 00:00:00 EDITION Early 2013 Local Review Edition EDITION DATE 2013-02-07 PRESENTATION FORMATS  digital map SERIES  NAME Colorado Broadband Map Database

COLLECTION TITLE Colorado Broadband Map Database OTHER CITATION DETAILS The locations and Internet broadband speeds of Community Anchor Institututions within the State are required deliverables to the National Telecommunications and Information Administrations (NTIA) in accordance with the State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program requirements found in Federal Register /Vol. 74, No. 129 /Wednesday, July 8, 2009 /Notices, pages 32548 and 32563. Hide Citation ▲ Citation Contacts ► RESPONSIBLE PARTY  INDIVIDUAL'S NAME Nathan Lowry ORGANIZATION'S NAME State of Colorado, Governor's Office of Information Technology CONTACT'S POSITION GIS Outreach Coordinator CONTACT'S ROLE  publisher RESPONSIBLE PARTY  INDIVIDUAL'S NAME Tudor Stanescu ORGANIZATION'S NAME Governor's Office of Information Technology CONTACT'S POSITION GIS Technician CONTACT'S ROLE  publisher

CONTACT INFORMATION  ► PHONE  VOICE (303)-764-6861 FAX N/A

ADDRESS  TYPE both DELIVERY POINT 601 East 18th Avenue Suite 220 CITY Denver ADMINISTRATIVE AREA Colorado POSTAL CODE 80203-1494 COUNTRY US E-MAIL ADDRESS tudor.stanescu@state.co.us

HOURS OF SERVICE 7:00am - 4:00pm Hide Contact information ▲

Hide Citation Contacts ▲ Resource Details ► DATASET LANGUAGES  English (UNITED STATES) DATASET CHARACTER SET  utf8 - 8 bit UCS Transfer Format STATUS  on-going SPATIAL REPRESENTATION TYPE  vector GRAPHIC OVERVIEW  FILE NAME ColoradoCAIs.png at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_O_LJbuRH4azB0RlZ1SUVKMXc/edit?usp=sharing FILE DESCRIPTION Colorado Community Anchor Institutions (CAIs) FILE TYPE Portable Network Graphic file (.png)

* PROCESSING ENVIRONMENT Microsoft Windows 7 Version 6.1 (Build 7601) Service Pack 1; Esri ArcGIS 10.1.1.3143 CREDITS State of Colorado, Governor's Office of Information Technology (OIT) Archuleta County Baca County City and County of Broomfield Custer County Eagle County El Paso - Teller E911 Authority Garfield County Grand County La Plata County Larimer County Las Animas County E911 Authority Lincoln County Mesa County Moffat County Montezuma County North Central All - Hazards Region Pueblo County Routt County

ARCGIS ITEM PROPERTIES  * NAME CAIs.DBO.ColoradoCAI * LOCATION Server=10.12.1.28; Service=sde:sqlserver:10.12.1.28; Database=CAIs; User=stanescut; Version=dbo.DEFAULT * ACCESS PROTOCOL ArcSDE Connection

Hide Resource Details ▲ Extents ► EXTENT  DESCRIPTION The State of Colorado, United States of America GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT  BOUNDING RECTANGLE  WEST LONGITUDE -114.996946 EAST LONGITUDE -96.104491 SOUTH LATITUDE 32.485329 NORTH LATITUDE 45.503973 EXTENT CONTAINS THE RESOURCE No

TEMPORAL EXTENT  BEGINNING DATE 2010-01-01 00:00:00 ENDING DATE 2010-12-31 00:00:00

EXTENT  GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT  BOUNDING RECTANGLE  EXTENT TYPE  Extent used for searching * WEST LONGITUDE -109.011097 * EAST LONGITUDE -102.082504 * NORTH LATITUDE 40.994186 * SOUTH LATITUDE 37.005858

EXTENT IN THE ITEM'S COORDINATE SYSTEM  * WEST LONGITUDE -109.011097 * EAST LONGITUDE -102.082504 * SOUTH LATITUDE 37.005858 * NORTH LATITUDE 40.994186 * EXTENT CONTAINS THE RESOURCE Yes

Hide Extents ▲ Resource Points of Contact ► POINT OF CONTACT  INDIVIDUAL'S NAME Nathan Lowry ORGANIZATION'S NAME State of

Vector polygon map data of city limits from Hall County, Nebraska containing 5 features.

City limits GIS (Geographic Information System) data provides valuable information about the boundaries of a city, which is crucial for various planning and decision-making processes. Urban planners and government officials use this data to understand the extent of their jurisdiction and to make informed decisions regarding zoning, land use, and infrastructure development within the city limits.

By overlaying city limits GIS data with other layers such as population density, land parcels, and environmental features, planners can analyze spatial patterns and identify areas for growth, conservation, or redevelopment. This data also aids in emergency management by defining the areas of responsibility for different emergency services, helping to streamline response efforts during crises..

This city limits data is available for viewing and sharing as a map in a Koordinates map viewer. This data is also available for export to DWG for CAD, PDF, KML, CSV, and GIS data formats, including Shapefile, MapInfo, and Geodatabase.

Legal lots of subdivisions recorded with the Hall County Register of Deeds office located within Hall County. Description of Edited field: 1- Edited from GPS data. (May still have potential issues)2 - Edited from GPS data.3 - Edited without a deed number. (Mostly IOLLs)Features edited from unverified data will not be tagged unless specified above.

11/22/2024- County-wide road updates were completed in Golden Valley and Billings Counties. Intersecting routes throughout the state were cartographically realigned in preparation of MIRE intersections 6/27/2024 - The data was prepared for HPMS submittal which included updated 2023 AADT values and to keep certain segments consistent with HPMS segments, mainly sample sections and the NHS, values of "BOTH", "NHS" and "SAMPLE" were added to the field HPMS_ROUTE_ID to distinguish these segments from other segments. 3/19/2024 - Miscellaneous updates were done in Dunn County. County wide updates to Grand Forks and Golden Valley counties along with route realignments at intersections throughout the state.12/04/2023 - County wide updates to Walsh, Dunn and Grand Forks Counties and various updates to county/local roads throughout the state including street names in Westhope8/23/2023 - Function Class changes were updated in McLean and Mountrail Counties. Function Class updates also occurred in the cities of Fargo, Valley City, West Fargo and Williston. County-wide updates completed for: Towner, Cavalier, Pembina, Pierce, Benson, Ramsey. 2022 AADTs updated. A road was also removed in Bottineau County at the request off a landowner.5/19/22 - Dunn County contacted the NDDOT with data updates ,Rolette County was updated, and the 2021 AADT's were updated. 2/14/22 - Contacted by the Dunn County Road Dept., updates were made on newly paved road segments. 1/20/2022 - Since the August 2021 update, Morton, Stark, Hettinger, Bowman, Adams, Slope, Grant and Sioux Counties have been updated using 2020 imagery. Surface type has been checked and updated on all functionally classified roads statewide. Function Class changes have been made in the Bismarck/Mandan Metro, Grand Forks County and Burleigh County.6/15/21 - Since the 2019 update, trails and seldom used trails were updated statewide using 2018,and 2019 imagery. Steele, Traill and Griggs Counties have also been updated using 2020 imagery. Surface type has been checked and updated on all functionally classified roads statewide New roads added includes roads in the Fargo, West Fargo, Grand Forks, Jamestown, Bismarck, Mandan, Minot, Dickinson, Watford City and Williston. Ownership on Federal jurisdiction roads were also updated based on an dataset received for FHWA in conjunction with the HPMS submittal. HPMS (Highway Performance Monitoring System) fields were also added in an effort to integrate the roads county data into HPMS and MIRE (Model Inventory Roadway Elements). 9/14/20 - Added the following fields - AADT, AADT_YR, HPMS_MAINTENANCE_OPERATIONS, HPMS_THROUGH_LANES, FUNCTIONAL_CLASS (replaces FUNCTION_CLASS)8/13/19 - The following counties were updated by using a variety of aerial photography: Eddy, Foster and Barnes. Seldom used trails have been added to Barnes, Benson, Billings, Bottineau, and Bowman Counties. Mercer County had (2) 61STAvenues, this has been corrected.12/26/18 - The following counties have had their roads updated by a variety of aerial photography, McHenry, Wells, Kidder, Cass (with aid of Cass county website) and McKenzie (with aid of McKenzie County GIS Coordinator)8/14/18 - Counties updated using 2017 NAIP Imagery are Ward, Mountrail, Burke and Renville counties. Seldom used trails are also being digitized into the dataset. They are being added as counties are being checked, so it will take some time for all seldom used trails to be added statewide. Also since the last update, all local roads that are in the corporate boundaries have been broken at the boundaries so it is easier to query to determine which roads go with each community.5/21/18 - removed CITY_INT_ID column - no longer used because of CITY_FIPS and HPMS_URBAN_CODE attributes. Removed SERVICE_LEVEL field, never used/maintained.4/19/18 - added HPMS_OWNERSHIP and HPMS_FACILITY fields for HPMS submittal1/24/18 - added CITY_FIPS and HPMS_URBAN_CODE attributes/domains. These columns will replace CITY_INT_ID and SOURCE_ID columns (eventually).11/15/17 - Williams, Divide and Bottineau counties have been updated. Great effort has been taken to update attributes and QC null fields. Functional Classified roads in Bismarck and Mandan have been updated as have local roads in Bismarck, Mandan, Williston, Fargo – West Fargo and Minot. 1/25/17 - started to maintain roads in Esri's Road and Highways. The shapes now contain measures in miles along with the associated linear referencing/roads and highways fields. Removed INSET_ASSOC field and added COUNTY_FIPS field.Updates include the counties of Emmons, Logan, McIntosh, Lamoure, Dickey, Ransom, Sargent and Richland. These counties were updated using a combination of the available NAIP aerials, the DES aerials, and by car within the insets. In addition to these updates, the whole county dataset was edited using Data Reviewer checks. The checks ran included unnecessary nodes, non-linear segments, invalid geometry, Duplicate vertices with a tolerance of .5 meters, polyline closes of self, checked for cutbacks using a 15 degree minimum angle, checked for polyline length check using a distance less than 10 meters, checked for multipart lines, inspected dangles with a tolerance of 10 meters, and checked for orphans. All checks were inspected and fixed where appropriate.7/16/14 - updates include: Traill, Barnes, Stutsman, Kidder, Bowman, Slope, Stark, Hettinger, Adams, Grant, Sioux and Morton. These datasets were updated using a combination of the available NAIP aerials, the DES aerials, and by car within the insets.10/22/12 - city streets were updated in Bismarck, Dickinson, Minot and Williston. GIS data from the city of Bismarck was used to update Bismarck, GIS data and 2012 aerial photography was used to update the city of Williston, Minot’s city map and the 2010 aerial photography from Ward County was used to update Minot, and 2011 aerial photography and Dickinson’s "working" city map was used to update Dickinson. The counties updated were Williams, Burke, Bottineau, Mountrail, Ward, Wells, Eddy, Foster, Griggs, Steele, and Cass. At the time of this updated, approximately 50% of Stutsman and 50% of Traill Counties are updated. Williams, Bottineau, Ward, and Mountrail roads were inspected from the air and the 2009 NAIP photos were also used to assist the updates. The roads in Williams County were also recoded to match Williams County naming conventions. Williams County CADD map which is on the Williams county web site was used in updating the road names. In Ward County, the 2010 image from Ward County was used to assist in updating Ward County. The 2010 NAIP photos were used to update Wells, Eddy, Foster, Griggs and Steele Counties. Cass was updated with the assistance of the Cass County GIS layer and the 2011 Cass county imagery. 10/3/2011 - County roads were edited in the cities of Fargo, West Fargo, Horace, Minot, Bismarck, Devils Lake, Grafton, Williston, Valley City, and Dickinson. Also, a part of Ward and Mchenry Counties was edited and the county of Renville has been updated. The business routes through Bismarck and Jamestown were also edited. 5/9/2011 - Updated streets in Bismarck, Mandan, Jamestown, Dickinson, West Fargo ( not quite finished yet), and Valley City. Also, corrected the north - south roads in Township 144N Ranges 49 - 53 E, (in Traill County) 10/5/10 - The original Roads_County data was maintained in two separate ArcInfo coverages and then combined each year and exported to the NDHUB infrastructure. These two coverages have now been combined into one SDE feature class and is being edited within the SDE environment. The following changes have been made to feature class. Deleted all the A1 and A2 Fields so a person would have to hunt back and forth to find a road name. Road names consist of the following fields: RTE_ID, STR_TYP, SUF_DIR, & LAN_DIR. The CMC route numbers were moved from the A1_ prefixed fields to the CMC field to better track the CMC route. Created a County Highway field so we can enter the county road number. It consists of the counties name and number. This is still a work in progress. Created FS_RD_Number and FS_RD_Name fields to better track Forest Service roads. Created Bia-RD_Number and BIA_RD_Name fields to better track Bureau of Indian Affairs roads. The following field changes are used for NDDOT specific processes: Created a service level field which is something that may be used in the future. Currently it contains how Walsh County prioritizes their roads. Created a Through and Connecting Route field so we can so select routes through the towns and cities. This was created exclusively for the county base maps. Created an Inset Associated field. This was created so the information in the rd_misc would come into the county routes. In the future, it is planned to be deleted. 6/18/09 - Updated county routes from aerial observation and photo interpretation using 2003, 2005, 2006 NAIP photos and 2008 photography from Designs camera. Counties updated were Golden Valley, Billings, McKenzie, Dunn, Mercer, Oliver, McLean, Sheridan and Burleigh. City streets were rectified in these counties using the 2003 NAIP photos. Observations were performed by Steven Nelson. 4/17/08 - Updated road surface types in NE. Rolette, Pierce, Benson, Towner, Ramsey, Cavalier, Pembina, Walsh, Grand Forks and Nelson from the 2006 aerial observations by Dewaine Olson 2/13/07 - Updated via 2004 NAIP photos: Barnes, Cass, Eddy, Foster, Griggs, Kidder, Steele, Stutsman, Traill, Wells. Combined Misc Roads and County Roads. Blank fields mean unknown attribute. Use P_STREET_NAME for dynamic labeling. We are also in the process of removing all proposed roads. 12/28/05 - Counties updated: Emmons, Logan, Mcintosh, Lamoure, Dickey, Ransom, Sargent, Richland, Divide, Williams, Burke, Mountrail, Ward, Renville, Bottineau, and Mchenry This data came from the NDDOT's Mapping Section. The original data was digitized from hand scribed maps and registered