GIS Strategic Plan Summary

Stages I and II
February 7, 2011

Appendix 2
Data Maintenance Strategy Report, December 16, 2009
Montgomery County Planning Department
Montgomery County, Maryland

Data Maintenance Strategy Report

December 16, 2008

Submitted to:

John Schlee
Geographic Information System Team Leader
Research and Technology Center
Montgomery County Department of Park and Planning
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Dedrick Annex
1400 Spring Street. Suite 500
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-2748
301.650.5603

Submitted by

KCI Technologies, Inc.

10 North Park Drive
Hunt Valley, MD 21030

TechGlobal, Inc.
654 Chestertown Street
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 3

DATA MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 3
Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 3
Data Maintenance Strategies and Recommendations ................................................................. 4
Budget Requirement and Funding Recommendation .................................................................. 5
SUMMARY OF JURISDICTIONAL SURVEY.......................................................................................... 8
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 10
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 10
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 10
Data Maintenance Strategy Objectives ..................................................................................... 10
Information Collection and Interviews ...................................................................................... 11
Survey of Comparable Jurisdictions .......................................................................................... 11
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ............................................................................................................ 12

SECTION 2 CURRENT PRACTICES ............................................................................... 14

LAND BASE DATA........................................................................................................................... 14
QUALITY CONTROL ........................................................................................................................ 14
RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................... 15
FUNDING ........................................................................................................................................ 16
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................... 17
SECTION 3 CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................... 18
TRENDS IN LANDBASE DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 18
Use of Digital Cameras ............................................................................................................. 18
Acquisition of Multispectral Orthoimagery ............................................................................... 19
Acquisition of LiDAR Datasets .................................................................................................. 19
Development of 3D Building Models ......................................................................................... 20
DATA AVAILABILITY ....................................................................................................................... 20
Commercial Products ................................................................................................................ 20
Data Sources from the State of Maryland ................................................................................. 22
SECTION 4 PLANIMETRIC DATA UPDATE OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23
DATA REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................... 23
PLANIMTERIC DATA UPDATE OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 25
Orthoimagery ............................................................................................................................. 25
Planimetric Data ....................................................................................................................... 27
Topography ................................................................................................................................ 31
Building Elevation Attributes .................................................................................................... 34
Impervious Surface Mapping ..................................................................................................... 36
Vegetation Mapping................................................................................................................... 37
SECTION 5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS ... 39
ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 39
2008 – 2009 (FY 2009) .............................................................................................................. 39
2009 – 2010 (FY 2010) .............................................................................................................. 39
2010 – 2011 (FY 2011) .............................................................................................................. 39
2011 – 2012 (FY 2012) .............................................................................................................. 40
2012 – 2013 (FY 2013) .............................................................................................................. 40
2013 – 2014 (FY 2014) .............................................................................................................. 40
2014 – 2015 ............................................................................................................................... 40
IMPLEMENTATION BUDGET ............................................................................................................ 41
FUNDING SOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 41
Funding from GIS Consortium .................................................................................................. 41
Supplemental Funding from State and Federal ......................................................................... 43
ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................ 44
APPENDIX A JURISDICTION COMPARABLES ........................................................... 45
OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 45
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 45
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ................................................................................................................... 46
Baltimore County ....................................................................................................................... 46
Prince George’s County Government ....................................................................................... 47
Prince George’s County Planning Department, M-NCPPC ..................................................... 48
Howard County.......................................................................................................................... 50
Fairfax County, VA .................................................................................................................... 51
NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS ............................................................................................................. 52
Knox County, TN ....................................................................................................................... 52
Westchester County, NY............................................................................................................. 53
Horry County, SC ...................................................................................................................... 54
Gwinnett County, GA ................................................................................................................. 56
SUMMARY OF JURISDICTION SURVEY ........................................................................................... 57
APPENDIX B JURISDICTION SURVEY QUESTIONS ................................................. 62
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 62
TIMELINESS .................................................................................................................................... 62
FUNDING ........................................................................................................................................ 62
ORGANIZATIONAL ........................................................................................................................... 63
INFLUENCES ................................................................................................................................... 63
ISSUES ........................................................................................................................................... 63
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this document is to evaluate Montgomery County‟s current planimetric/topographic

base mapping data maintenance practices and provide recommendations on future data maintenance
and funding strategies. The development of this document is based on the following activities and
analysis results conducted by the KCI team:

1. Online survey with participation by departments and agencies of Montgomery County

Government, Maryland-National Capital Parks and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) of
Montgomery County, City of Rockville, City of Gaithersburg, and Montgomery County
Public Schools;
2. Workshops and interviews with above entities that participated in online survey;
3. Industry current technologies;
4. Analysis of current practices and funding mechanisms;
5. Survey of comparable local and national jurisdictions.

DATA MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings and Conclusions

Based on our analysis, the team has drawn the following conclusions in regards to the current
planimetric data update practices:

The County‟s existing planimetric maintenance strategy is based on the analysis of

subdivision, construction permit and capital improvement project records to determine the
map areas (tiles) where the greatest activity has occurred. This data maintenance strategy
can no longer keep up with growing development activities in the County. A regular
scheduled countywide update strategy needs to be in place in order to meet County‟s
business requirements for the data.

The study revealed that new datasets need to be created to meet growing demands in GIS
data to support a variety of business activities. The new datasets include:

 2‟ contours need to be created from the 2008 LiDAR dataset in order to replace
existing outdated 5‟ contour data and provide better support of the County‟s land
development activities and reviews;
 Building elevation data needs to be captured to support 3D analysis and visualization
for planning, land development review, and emergency management and response
processes;
 A countywide impervious surface map needs to be completed to support many
business applications such as drainage planning and analysis, development review
 activities, DEP‟s County Council mandated annual Water Quality Protection Charge
(WQPC) program, etc.
 A countywide vegetation map needs to be created to support “GreenCity” analysis
and other applications throughout the County.
M-NCPPC has been fulfilling their commitments with dedicated resources in keeping the
County‟s land base updated since the creation of the data in the mid 1990s. However, the
planimetric updates have been solely funded by M-NCPPC through data sales. This funding
strategy will no longer sustain keeping the dataset current. If the funding strategy is not
changed, planimetric data assets will soon lose their value, and County will not be able to
continue to benefit from the investments made in the data acquisition. A secure and
dedicated budget needs to be established to fund ongoing maintenance of the data as well as
creation of the new data sets as demands arise.

Data Maintenance Strategies and Recommendations

The KCI team recommends the following data maintenance strategies for the County‟s planimetric
base mapping data:

Orthophotos – The online survey and interviews revealed that there is a great demand for up to
date countywide orthoimagery. The County‟s orthoimagery has been updated on a 2-year cycle
since 2002. The county should continue with this update cycle. However, the orthoimagery update
can be complimented by the Pictomery update which currently is also on a 2-year update cycle.
Updates can be rotated between the orthoimagery and pictometry, thereby; the users can get the
most updated imagery on an annual basis.

Planimetric Data – There are existing applications in the County that rely upon updated
planimetric data, building outlines, roads, pavement edges, and hydrographic features in particular.
We recommend the planimetric datasets be updated every 4 years. The update should be performed
on a countywide basis in the same year using the same photography that is used for the
orthoimagery.

Topography – Many business functions in the County, such as planning, land development
activities, development review and drainage analysis require more up to date and accurate
topography data. The county‟s existing 5‟ contour has not been updated since 2000. We
recommend that the County create a new countywide 2‟ contour to replace the existing contour
layer. The 2008 LiDAR dataset recently procured by the County can be used as source data for
creation of the 2‟ contour. In order to create a reliable and accurate topography dataset, we
recommend the LiDAR data be supplemented with breaklines. The topography dataset can be
updated every 5 to 7 years. A update should be accompanied by LiDAR data capture. LiDAR data
will not only be used as the source of the contour data but also for the 3D building data capture and
3D modeling.
Building Elevation – Building elevation data is required for 3D modeling. We recommend the 3D
building attribute be initially developed using the new LiDAR and then be updated as part of the
planimetric data update process.

Impervious Surface Mapping – This need has clearly been communicated by the users whom
participated in the workshops and through the online survey. We recommend that the County apply
an automated approach with manual edit/verification to capture the impervious surface features by
performing feature analysis using the existing orthoimagery. The future update cycle of the
impervious surface should be on a 2-year cycle which corresponds to the update cycle of the
orthoimagery.

Vegetation Mapping – The need for updated tree canopy data is also one of the requirements for
the GIS data to support a number of business functions in the County. For the creation of the
vegetation map, we recommend the County use National Agriculture Image Program (NAIP) leaf
on imagery. Orthoimagery can also be used as a source for capturing tree canopy features together
with the impervious surface features. We recommend the County develop a specification for both
impervious surface and vegetation mapping to clearly define the data requirements so that a sound
feature capturing method can be determined to meet the data requirement and database design. We
recommend a 2-year cycle for updating the vegetation map as well.

Budget Requirement and Funding Recommendation

Based on the data update strategy and recommendations, we have developed an estimated budget
and implementation timeline for the data updates and creation of the new datasets:
We recommend M-NCPPC and the County change the funding strategy for the GIS data
maintenance efforts due to the fact that the current funding source is not sufficient enough to keep
the datasets current. Through the survey of comparable jurisdictions, the team did not find any
jurisdictions that rely on data sales as the funding source for the GIS data maintenance efforts. In
addition, experiences from all jurisdictions surveyed have validated that this method of funding is
not sustainable.

A GIS Consortium should be established and funding for the GIS data maintenance should be
contributed by the members of the Consortium, especially for the data that is of common interest to
the members. Montgomery County‟s GIS started as a consortium with five entities, Montgomery
County Government, M-NCPPC, Montgomery County, Prince George‟s County Government, M-
NCPPC PG County, and WSSC. Although each entity has become independent from each other on
the GIS development, the interests of data sharing among the agencies still exist, WSSC in
particular. We recommend Montgomery County and M-NCPPC play leadership roles in resuming
the GIS Consortium relationship with WSSC. The GIS Consortium should also include inter county
agencies such as Municipalities of Montgomery County and other agencies in the County. A
Memorandum of Understanding needs to be developed to clearly define the roles and
responsibilities of each consortium member. The GIS consortium can be composed of the
following entities:

Montgomery County Government

Montgomery County Public Schools
 Montgomery College
Montgomery County Planning Department of M-NCPPC
Municipalities in Montgomery County (Gaithersburg, Rockville, etc.)
WSSC
The decision makers of the GIS consortium should meet twice a year to discuss the GIS budgetary
items and secure funding shares for the ongoing maintenance of GIS data that are of common
interest to all consortium members. A five year GIS budget should be created and adjusted each
year. A percentage of funding share should be determined based on the agreements among the
consortium members.

Montgomery County Government should also secure the funding for its GIS operations and support
to ensure that GIS is served as enterprise wide solutions to improve public communications and
increase working efficiencies. The limitations of the current GIS funding mechanism have greatly
hindered the County‟s ability to provide adequate services to its user departments and expand GIS
enabled enterprise solutions throughout the County. Montgomery County GIS funding should
either be secured as line items of the IT budget or funding contributed by each key user department.
SUMMARY OF JURISDICTIONAL SURVEY

A total of 5 local and 4 national jurisdictions were surveyed throughout the comparable study.
There are more similarities than differences in the implementation of enterprise GIS in the local
governments, both regionally and nationally that were interviewed. Key common components are
summarized below.

Central GIS organization within IT

Large departments securing GIS support staff
Standards defined, duplication of efforts not practiced
Supported funding mechanisms, regular budget requests approved
Recognized need for scheduled data maintenance and update programs
Sales not expected to support program
Recognized benefit, no longer need to justify
Development, public safety, growing user base, accountability reporting is all driving
demand for more frequently updated data
Buildings, roads, and hydro are the most used planimetric layers and there is a commitment
to keep this data current. Orthophotography and Pictometry are important data sets also.
Orthophotography is generally moving to a 2‟ year update cycle
Development of 2‟ contours using LiDAR and breaklines. Topographic data is being
updated on a less frequent cycle in comparison to the planimetrics. Numerous organizations
have undertaken several LiDAR update cycles.
Use of other jurisdiction procurement vehicles can lead to efficiency
Use of State products has been beneficial
Use of multiyear contracts has provided efficiency in production and in standardizing the
update process.
Every county has appropriated, whether in line item form or by supported requests, dollars between
$100 –$500K annually or on a regular basis. These monies (even in years that have not entirely
been spent) are viewed as the necessary maintenance of the ever changing GIS data, especially the
base (planimetrics) that government is relying upon, many times for critical health/safety reasons.
Self funding mechanisms have been the exception, and the revenues gained have shown to be
inadequate to support a continuing operation. With the current technology and availability of
commercial products (i.e. Pictometry, Google Maps, TeleAtlas), the need for the government to
create expensive data is diminishing. The public also has the same availability of much of this data,
much of which is free, and the willingness or need to “buy” it from the government is also
changing. At this point, this survey concludes that local jurisdictions are not dependent upon sales
to support their GIS operation – either for resources or data.
Efficient procurement and maximizing existing contracts or partnering with a State agency has also
served County governments well. The State programs have allowed counties to acquire data more
frequently and inexpensively than perhaps budgets would allow. The detailed survey results for
each jurisdiction and conclusion of the survey is attached as Appendix A of this document.
 SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The Montgomery County Planning Department of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning
Commission (M-NCPPC) is undertaking a new GIS Strategic Planning effort that will guide five (5)
agencies that comprise the Montgomery County Interagency Technology Policy Coordination
Committee (ITPCC) on enhancing GIS resources and availability to better support the needs of
agency staff as well as the public. The initial GIS Strategic Planning was developed in 1996, which
defined application and database development priorities and data maintenance strategies. Since the
completion of the five individual Agency plans, and the Montgomery County Strategic Plan, there
have been many significant changes and opportunities in the GIS field as well as the changes in
business requirements and user‟s needs, which impact the demands for the GIS data and resources
required for keeping the data up to date. Therefore, an updated GIS Strategic Plan is required by
the ITPCC to address these changes.

The GIS Strategic Plan project contains 3 tasks:

Task 1 – The Current Status task is to provide ITPCC with a clear understanding of the current
status of GIS programs within ITPCC member agencies through the user surveys and interviews.
This task was completed through the use of an online survey in June 2008.

Task 2 – The Business Process Interagency Coordination Strategy task is to provide

recommendations on improving GIS information sharing among ITPCC member agencies in order
to reduce data redundancies and to ensure the data integrity, data consistency, and data quality
across the member agencies.

Task 3 – The Data Maintenance Strategy task is to evaluate the current data update practices and
provide recommendations on the data update strategy and funding sources based on changes in user
requirements, availability of technologies, and best practices. The data maintenance strategy will
primarily focus on the County‟s planimetric data maintenance and updates.

The creation of this document is the result of Task 3 defined in ITPCC‟s Request for Proposal.

METHODOLOGY

Data Maintenance Strategy Objectives

Currently, the M-NCPPC‟s planimetric data update strategy is based on the analysis of subdivision,
construction permit and capital improvement project records to determine the map areas (tiles)
where the greatest activity has occurred. A project area is defined each year where significant
amounts of changes have occurred. The advantage of this approach is that updates are focused on
the most rapidly changing areas and costs are minimized through a focused update approach. The
disadvantage to this approach is that it creates a “patchwork” quilt of tiles that reflect different
vintages. Also, many areas experience very long time periods between updates. Due to the
increasing land development activities throughout the County, the ITPCC felt that the current
update procedures and funding sources can no longer keep current with the County‟s development
pattern and speed. A new innovative update strategy needs to be developed based on industry
standards, new technologies, best business practices, new funding sources, as well as experiences
from other jurisdictions.

Information Collection and Interviews

Several information collection methods were employed to prepare the data maintenance strategy
document:

Information collection and analysis through the online surveys performed during Task 1 of
this project.
Information collection through user interviews and work sessions to identify the
requirements for the existing data, required enhancements, and new datasets.
Information collection through work sessions with the Montgomery County Planning
Department of M-NCPPC, custodian agency for the planimetric data, in order to understand
the current update processes and shortfalls as well as business requirements for future
updates.
Conducted a technology work session with selected users to discuss County wide contour
data, enhanced planimetric data features, LiDAR data and users, 3D data, and other newer
technologies that are applicable to the Montgomery County data requirements.
Analyzed the existing planimetric map data layers and their update frequencies to identify
the immediate update requirements and strategies.
Survey of Comparable Jurisdictions

The goal of this approach was to conduct a survey to both local and national jurisdictions that are
comparable to Montgomery County to identify industry best practices in data update practices,
update cycles, and funding practices. The KCI team and M-NCPPC jointly selected the following
local and national jurisdictions for the survey:

Local Jurisdictions

Baltimore County, Maryland

Prince George‟s County, Maryland
Prince George‟s County Planning Department of M-NCPPC
Howard County, Maryland
Fairfax County, Virginia
National Jurisdictions

Knox County, TN
Westchester County, NY
Horry County, SC
Gwinnett County, GA
Questionnaires were prepared (see Appendix B) and telephone interviews were conducted for each
jurisdiction. All jurisdictions were asked relatively the same questions. The survey results are
attached as Appendix A of this document.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

This document, Data Maintenance Strategy, presents the findings and recommendations for the
County‟s planimetric data maintenance and updates. It then presents a summary of the budget,
funding strategies, and action plans for implementing the update strategies. The document also
includes comparable jurisdiction survey findings as Appendix A that support the recommendations
made in this document.

Note that this report focuses on photogrammetric and remote sensing related datasets primarily.
These datasets are typically developed by a contractor and require very specialized equipment and
software. This report doe not cover parcel, centerline, address or other datasets developed and
maintained as part of current processes. The supplemental datasets are addressed in detail in the
Task 2 report.

The report is organized into 5 sections:

Section 1: Describes the background of the project and methodology that was used for the data
maintenance strategy, and organization of the report.

Section 2: Documents current practices for the planimetric data updates including the quality
control and quality assurance practices, existing resources for the data maintenance activities,
organizational issues in data updates and synchronizations.

Section 3: Provides current technology and technology trends in data capture and data conversion
from which the County could benefit from. It also provides the available data sources that the
County can obtain to meet the ad hoc project requirements.

Section 4: Documents applications that rely upon up-to-date planimetric data, the current
planimetric datasets, and recommendations on data update strategy and update cycle, and estimated
costs.

Section 5: Provides an action plan and budget for implementing the recommended data
maintenance strategy. This section also provides the funding recommendations and organizational
responsibilities for ongoing updates of the planimetric data.
Appendix A: Provides the survey results for the comparable jurisdictions. This section summarizes
the survey results based on the questions asked to each jurisdiction through the telephone interviews
and summary conclusions.

Appendix B: The questions asked to each jurisdiction when telephone interviews were conducted.
For hard to reach jurisdictions, we also sent the questions via e-mail and followed up with telephone
interviews later.
 SECTION 2
CURRENT PRACTICES

LAND BASE DATA

Montgomery County land base data contains orthoimagery, planimetric, topographic, parcel, and
street centerline datasets. This section is primarily focused on the orthoimagery, planimetric,
and topographic datasets. Montgomery County Planning Department is responsible for
maintaining and updating the planimetric and topographic datasets. The Montgomery County DTS-
GIS is responsible for procuring the orthoimagery. The datasets are stored and maintained in
ArcSDE 9.2 and it is accessible by County Departments and Municipality users through the
County‟s Intranet connections. The following table provides basic information about the datasets:

Dataset Scale/Accuracy Data Currency (year)

Orthoimagery 1’ pixel 2006
Planimetric Data 1” = 200’ 12% 2000, 27% 2001, 20% 2004, 41% 2006
Topography 5’ 2000/2001

The existing planimetric data of Montgomery County contains 28 data layers and 59 feature types.
Planimetric and topographic datasets were initially captured in the mid 1990s. The data has gone
through staggered updates since 1998. The database has gone through reconsolidation for the 2006
updates. Some of the features such as utility features and 5‟ contours are no longer updated from
the recent updates using 2006 aerial photos.

DTS-GIS makes a copy of planimetric feature classes and constructs property feature class (by
using P&P and cities‟ linkwork and tax account numbers and the state assessment database
extracted from the County mainframe computer) and serves up these feature classes via local area
network (at giga-bit per second) connections for County departments and wide area network
connections for MCPS and the cities.

QUALITY CONTROL

Planimetric data was initially created as a tiled database based on availability of the technology at
the time. The updates had been performed on the coverages and later converted to ArcSDE 8.3
feature classes. During the last update cycle in 2007, the M-NCPPC GIS unit converted all legacy
data from ArcSDE 8.3 to 9.2 and has gone through a rigorous quality control process to clean up the
data errors such as edge matching problems for the lines and polygon features introduced by the tile
boundaries. QA/QC was manually done by a single GIS specialist. The following checks were
performed on a tile by tile basis once updated areas were delivered by the data conversion
contractor:
 Merge the delivery area to QA version of countywide database in ArcSDE.
Check the attribute to make sure no missing values or values are populated correctly.
Conduct visual checks for the graphic feature capture using orthoimagery as background to
make sure the feature was attributed correctly.
Verify that the polygon and line works were corresponding to each other.
Check the topology errors, connectivity rules, dangle errors, and edge matching errors and
fix the errors discovered.
Check the inter-topology rules to make sure the features do not overlap.
Prepare QA/QC report based on the checking results.

Currently, the data has been cleaned up for the updated area (about 41% of County area) using 2006
aerial photos. The next step of the QA/QC for cleaning the legacy data errors will move to the
remaining areas of the County.

RESOURCES

The GIS team at the Research and Technology Center of Montgomery County Planning Department
is responsible for maintaining and updating the County‟s planimetric data. The planimetric data
update through the photogrammetry mapping has been contracted to a data conversion vendor
through a competitive procurement process. The contract is managed and overseen by a GIS
specialist of the GIS team. Multiple contractors have been used over the years. The current
contractor is the Sanborn Map Company. The responsibilities of the GIS specialist for the
planimetric update and maintenance are:

Defines the scope of services and update requirements for the data conversion contract
Defines update areas based on allocated budget
Manages data conversion contractor‟s delivery schedule and deliverables
Conducts Quality Assurance/Quality Control for the data delivered
Prepares QA/QC reports
Conducts Quality Assurance/Quality Control for the legacy data
Makes corrections for the legacy data errors
Merges the updated areas into Countywide database
Publish the updated planimetric layers in ArcSDE database
Migrates the planimetric data to the newest version of ArcSDE database on as needed basis
Prepares CAD tiles for newly updated planimetric layers as the data products
Enhances the planimetric data by adding additional attribute information such as building
height, place of interest, names for hydrologic features, etc.
Communicate the status of the project to department, management, and county staff.

Currently, M-NCPPC has only one GIS technical resource to manage the planimetric maintenance
activities, conduct data QA/QC, and make the corrections to the data errors with the assistance from
interns and other support staff from time to time.
FUNDING

The primary funding source for the County‟s planimetric data updates has been through the data
sales by M-NCPPC to the public for commercial usage. This funding mechanism was put in place
in 1995. M-NCPPC was able to generate an average of $100,000 revenue per year through the data
sales for the first few years. This revenue was able to cover the planimetric updates initially.
However, due to the rapid growth of development activities in the County starting in early 2000,
this funding source is no longer adequate to meet the growing demands for updated planimetric
data. In addition, as GIS data and technology became mature, availability of the GIS data sources
have been growing. Public users can now obtain some data for free from other GIS sources such as
the State of Maryland or use GIS mapping with the information online, such as Google Maps or
Microsoft Virtual Earth. Out of dated planimetric data might not be attractive for the public users.
Therefore, it could potentially cause decline in the data sales as well. M-NCPPC is experiencing a
revenue decline in GIS data sales. From fiscal year 2002 to 2007, the total funds collected from the
data sales were about $470,000 with an average of less than $79,000 per year. A sharp decline in
sales is observed in FY 2007. For the FY 2006, M-NCPPC was able to collect approximately
$92,000 in sales, however, in FY 2007, revenue generated from the data sales was only about
$56,000, a 39% decrease in sales.

Besides the downturn in sales of the planimetric data, some County Departments and Municipalities
(Rockville and Gaithersburg) had contributed funds for the purchase of 1998 and/or 2000
orthoimagery products. Several county agencies and City of Rockville funded the 2006 aerial
photography and orthophotography project, which was used as a source for the County‟s recent
planimetric updates. The following table provides the funding source and funding amount from
each agency that funded for the 2006 aerial photography and orthophotography project. However,
throughout the County, there is no formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in place as to
how the cost of the planimetric updates could be shared among the MCMAP Consortium
stakeholders. Inadequate funding has greatly hindered M-NCPPC‟s ability to keep the planimetric
data updated to support County and Municipality‟s daily business processes that rely on up-to-date
data.

Funding Agency Date Amount

DTS 3/1/2006 80,000.00
DTS - GIS 3/24/2006 14,321.36
USGS 9/30/2008 60,000.00
DEP – IT 02/24/06 15,000.00
DPWT – Transit $5,000 05/03/05 5,000.00
DPWT – Solid Waste 12/23/05 2,000.00
DPWT – Capital Development 03/17/06 5,000.00
DPWT – Operations 03/17/06 5,000.00
DPWT – Solid Waste 03/17/06 3,750.00
DPWT – Solid Waste 03/17/06 1,250.00
Liquor Control 01/17/06 3,000.00
 Rockville, City of 02/13/06 15,000.00
Total 209,321.36

ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Research and Technology Center of Montgomery County Planning Department and the
Department of Technology Service are the two main GIS groups that have been providing GIS
services and support to the County users. Montgomery County Planning Department is the
custodian of the planimetric data, however, due to inadequate funding to keep the planimetric data
up to date, some of the County departments started updating certain features of the planimetric data
independently. For example, due to the business demands of the public safety and emergency
services, Police Department, and Department of Fire and Rescue Services sponsored Department of
Technology Services (DTS) to update Building Footprints, one of the data layers of planimetric
data. DTS GIS staff have been updating the building footprints on daily basis and assigning a
building address as an additional attribute. These features (although termed footprints actually
represent the roofline) are digitized from orthophotography in a 2D environment. The sources of
information used by DTS include:

2007 Orthophotos
Preplans from Department of Fire Rescue
MVA Addresses
Building Permits
State Department of Assessments
Place of Interest Data Layer
Internet
Because the updates were not synchronized back to the source, the two datasets are growing apart.
Capture rules and accuracy also differ. Duplicated efforts in maintaining the two different datasets
for the same features creates inconsistencies in the database as well as inefficiency in the data
maintenance efforts. Users are unclear in many cases of the product they are using and the
timeliness of the data. Please refer to the Task 2 document for a more detailed discussion of this
issue.
 SECTION 3
CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of current technology and technology trends
for the land base mapping so that the County can adopt the technologies to make the data updates
more efficient and more cost effective. This section also describes land base products that are
commercially available and from the State of Maryland so that the County may take advantage of
them to meet the growing data demands from County GIS users.

TRENDS IN LANDBASE DEVELOPMENT

Since the Montgomery County landbase was initially developed there have been a number of
activities which have affected how photogrammetric landbases are being produced. These trends
have enabled many organizations to maintain their landbase on a timely manner, and more
importantly have enabled organization to enhance the quality, accuracy, and type of products being
made available. Many of these trends are already being incorporated into various aspects of the
Montgomery County landbase program.

Use of Digital Cameras

Large format digital cameras are now being used extensively for aerial mapping programs. These
cameras provide many benefits including:

Full integration of Airborne GPS (ABGPS) and Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) which
further reduces the amount of photo control needed
Greater Redundancy of Imagery which supports 3D modeling
More Information (e.g. 12 bit collection imagery
allows for greater visibility in shadow areas)
Reduced artifacts (lint, dust, scratches, etc) on the
imagery
Improved Accuracy
Lower Cost and quicker turnaround
Ability to provide pan-chromatic, full color and
CIR imagery
Ability to produce value extracted products

Applicability to Montgomery County

Montgomery County has been using digital cameras for the last several orthophoto missions. The
2002 and 2006 „true ortho‟ projects used multiple sensors. This should be continued and expanded.
There are a number of camera sensors in commercial use which should be considered. Previously
the County has restricted use of a digital camera to a single sensor (ADS40). It is also
recommended that 4-band imagery be acquired to support multispectral digital orthoimagery
production.

Acquisition of Multispectral Orthoimagery

In the past, color or black and white orthoimagery has been produced.
With the use of digital cameras it is now possible to acquire
multispectral imagery and to produce color, colorIR, and panchromatic
data products.

These ancillary products can be acquired as separate image products,

or as integrated 4-band multispectral products. The acquisition of
multispectral imagery supports remote sensing applications related to
impervious surface mapping, change detection, vegetation and land
cover mapping and also supports environmental applications related to
wetlands mapping, and vegetative stress analysis.

Applicability to Montgomery County

Multispectral imagery is currently being produced for both Baltimore

County, and Washington, DC. It is recommended that future digital
orthoimagery programs specify multispectral orthoimagery as a
deliverable. This will have a minimal impact (less than 10%) cost on the project.

Acquisition of LiDAR Datasets

LiDAR data has now become the primary method

for generating accurate topographic datasets as well
as producing digital surface models. In the past
Montgomery County has acquired LiDAR on a
watershed basis for specific projects. In 2008
comprehensive Countywide LiDAR data was
acquired.

Applicability to Montgomery County

The LiDAR data that was acquired by the County

represents a very dense terrain dataset. The point
spacing of the data is roughly 1-2 meters. This LiDAR data should be enhanced to support a new
updated contour (2‟) dataset countywide. The LiDAR dataset can also be used to support building
modeling by developing elevation attributes for each structure in the County. Other terrain analysis
and visual display applications can be supported extensively with this dataset. Due to the volume of
the data it may be necessary for specialized software to optimize use of large format LiDAR files to
be acquired.
Development of 3D Building Models

Many organizations are proceeding with the development of 3D datasets. This 3D work involves
3D visualizations that utilize imagery and a digital surface model (e.g. from LiDAR) and also
involves the development of 3D vector datasets (buildings and other planimetric features). There
are a number of ways in which building models can be developed including:

Architecture-Correct, Photo Realistic

Extruded Building, Photo Realistic
Extruded Building, Library Textures
Extruded Buildings, Generic Color (see
example)
Block Buildings, Generic Textures

Most large County organizations are

developing 3D models similar to the example
shown and enhancing that on an as-needed
basis. These datasets are being used for enhanced visualization, for public presentation, line of
sight analysis, and facility (cell phone tower) sitting.

The County has added elevation attributes to much of its existing data. This information has come
from the assessments database and reflects the number of stories for each structure.

Applicability to Montgomery County

With updated buildings and new LiDAR data the County can create a 3D model based on extruding
building polygons and their elevation above the ground surface. This should be done on a
countywide basis. Once a basic building model has been developed, project specific basis textures
can be added using oblique imagery or image libraries and building models can be more precisely
defined.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Commercial Products

Commercial Photogrammetric Data

For photogrammetric, planimetric, topographic, and digital orthophoto data there are limited
commercial products which are available for direct purchase by the County. Most of the large scale
commercial data products are centered on urban areas. For example both Sanborn and Earthdata
sell commercial 3D planimetric data for downtown Washington, D.C but do not speculatively
develop or market that data on a Countywide basis. Although many other organizations sell
orthoimagery, this is primarily public domain data with some value added work being performed.
Commercial Centerline Files

NAVTEQ (http://www.navteq.com) and TeleAtlas (http://www.teleatlas.com) are the primary

providers of commercial centerline files in the United States. Both firms provide centerline files
used extensively for in-vehicle navigation systems, routing web sites, and commercial and public
sector GIS applications. In addition to providing centerline geometry, additional data enhancements
such as points of interest and address points are available. Both firms have partnering programs
with public sector agencies to maintain their comprehensive datasets.

These datasets will not replace the need for the County to maintain their own accurate centerline
file. They can serve as a secondary dataset used to support routing applications. A detailed
evaluation of these datasets for Montgomery County has not been performed as part of this project.

Commercial Satellite Imagery

There are two primary commercial satellite providers that provide high resolution, large scale
imagery of the County. They are briefly described below.

DigitalGlobe's WorldView-1 satellite provides 50 cm panchromatic imagery and their

QuickBird satellite provides 2.4 meter resolution multi-spectral images.

GeoEye's GeoEye-1 satellite was launched September 6, 2008 and will shortly begin to be
able to provide high resolution imagery. The GeoEye-1 satellite will be able to collect
images with a ground resolution of 0.41 meters (16 inches) in the panchromatic or black and
white mode. It will collect multi-spectral or color imagery at 1.65-meter resolution or about
64 inches using four-band multi-spectral imaging capabilities. While the satellite will be
able to collect imagery at 0.41 meters, GeoEye's operating license from the U.S.
Government requires re-sampling the imagery to 0.5 meters for all customers not explicitly
granted a waiver by the U.S. Government.

Commercial satellite companies provide licensed data which minimizes the ability to use and
distribute this data. Although the resolution and accuracy has been improved it also does not equal
aerial imagery in terms of spatial accuracy and resolution. Although it is possible to obtain the
sensor models to perform planimetric and topographic feature extraction, this is not widely done on
a commercial basis by photogrammetric firms.

Our recommendation is that any satellite data be acquired either on an as-needed basis in response
to a specific emergency or natural disaster or as an interim product between update cycles.
Data Sources from the State of Maryland

Statewide Orthoimagery

In 2007 the State began development of a Statewide

orthophoto aquisition program. Imagery for Montgomery
County was acquired in 2007 (partial – the northern and
eastern most parts of the County) with the remainder flown in
2008. So far, County has received 172 WSSC tiles of 2007
images and is waiting for the remaining 500 tiles from 2008
flyover.

National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) 2007 Natural Color 1 meter Imagery

The State of Maryland has acquired orthoimagery produced

as part of the National Agricultural Imagery Program
(NAIP). NAIP acquires digital orthoimagery during the
agricultural growing seasons in the continental U.S. For
Montgomery County this data consists of 1 meter ground
sample distance (GSD) orthoimagery rectified to a horizontal
accuracy of within +/- 5 meters of reference digital ortho
quarter quads (DOQQS) from the National Digital Ortho
Program (NDOP). The tiling format of NAIP imagery is
based on a 3.75'x 3.75' quarter quadrangle with a 360 meter
buffer on all four sides. DTS-GIS currently is working with
Washington College to mosaic and re-tile these images for
Montgomery County.

Although not as accurate spatially as the County‟s existing orthophotos, this “leaf on” imagery can
be used for vegetation cover applications and other open space applications. It is available at no
cost to the County and may be accessed from the State DNR website:
http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/gis/data/data.asp#image

Key parameters are listed below.

Date: 2007
Scale: 1:12,000 (1" = 1,000')
Scale Tolerance: 33 feet on the ground
Custodian: Department of Natural Resources/Chesapeake and Coastal Water
Services
Data Type: Raster
Data Format: GeoTIFF
 SECTION 4
PLANIMETRIC DATA UPDATE OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section provides the data requirements from the County Departmental and Municipality users
based on the survey conducted online and interviews through the workshops. This section further
provides the planimetric data update options and recommendations based on current technologies
and data requirements from County users.

DATA REQUIREMENTS

Through the online survey and work sessions with County and Municipality GIS users, we found
that many existing business functions and applications require updated planimetric data. The team
documented a list of business functions that rely on the planimetric data in Table 4-1. Through the
survey and interviews, we found a number of enhancements to the existing data that are required as
well as new data sets needed to be created to meet the user requirements.

The applications listed in the table do not represent complete GIS applications used by every
County Department and Municipalities. The list only represents the needs of departmental and
Municipality users who participated in the online survey and workshops.

The online survey and interviews reflect the following land base mapping requirements:

More accurate and complete impervious surface data

More accurate tree cover and tree canopy data
Annually updated Countywide orthoimagery
LiDAR and 3D data for the planning and land development review process
Easy access to all data from a central data location with metadata to understand data sources
1st Order streams need to be captured for the planimetric data
Need countywide updated planimetric data. Patchwork updates of planimetrics does not
create a uniform and consistent basis for analysis for County‟s indicator program and
watershed analysis
Sidewalks and small driveways need to be captured for the planimetric data or a
comprehensive impervious dataset needs to be created
Topography is highly used because contours are used for land development activities
PLANIMTERIC DATA UPDATE OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the evaluation of the current planimteric data update practices, application requirements,
and technology trends, the KCI team provides the planimetric mapping update options and
recommendations for the following data features:

Orthoimagery
Planimetric features
Topography
3D Building Attributes
Impervious Surface
Vegetation Mapping

Orthoimagery

When the MC:MAPS landbase was initially

developed, digital orthophotos were not part
of the landbase, as the technology was not
fully mature until the mid-1990‟s. Since
that time digital orthoimagery has become
one of the key base or reference layers for
many mapping applications. A sample of
the Montgomery County imagery is shown.

Typically, digital orthoimagery is acquired

in coordination with a planimetric and
topographic update mapping program. For
Montgomery County the updates have not
been closely integrated from a contracting or production standpoint. Montgomery County DTS has
been responsible for the acquisition of the orthoimagery (specifications, contractor selection, quality
control, etc.) while M-NCPPC has been responsible for the planimetric and topographic map
components. Although the projects are not integrated from a production standpoint, since 2006 the
source photography used for producing the orthoimages has also been used to support the
planimetric map updates.

Current Orthoimagery

Since 1995, Montgomery County DTS-GIS has been responsible for acquiring orthoimagery on a 2
year cycle. The first orthophoto projects were done in 1995, 1996 & 1998 to cover the entire
county. The 2002 and 2006 orthos were true orthos; the 2004 were „traditional‟ orthophotos. The
most recent orthoimagery was done through the Maryland statewide 2007 imagery program. One
quarter of County was flown in spring 2007 and the other three quarters of County were flown in
spring 2008. Delivery of the 2008 imagery was expected in November or December of 2008.
However, for the spring 2008 Pictometry Image Library acquisition, the County also received
countywide 6” orthophotos (in WSSC tiles) on October 9, 2008. TIFF and SID files and image
catalogs have been published. Parameters for the current orthoimagery products are shown in Table
4-2. Also shown are the parameters for the statewide imagery.

Montgomery County State of Maryland

Orthoimagery Orthoimagery
Pixel Resolution 1‟ 0.5‟
Image Format Color – 3 band Color – 3 band
Accuracy 50 centimeters (1.8‟) at Assumed ASPRS Class I
CE90 (90% of pixels with
a circular error of 50
centimeters)
Availability of Source Available and being used Additional Cost and technical
Imagery, Control and for plan updates enhancement (not part of State
Aerial Triangulation contract)
Products
Camera Sensor Used ADS40 Digital Camera ADS40 Digital Camera
Imaging Time 2006 - Leaf off 2007/8 – Leaf Off

Note: Pictometry 6”
orthos were also received
as part of Image Library
project.

Update Strategy and Timing

A 2-year update cycle is recommended. This is a continuation of the existing process. A 2-year
update cycle of the orthoimagery should be coordinated with the County‟s pictometry update that is
also on a 2-year update cycle. The pictometry update can be procured in between the orthoimagery
updates. Therefore, the County will have updated imagery, orthoimagery or pictometry, on an
annual basis to better meet the user requirements.

The State of Maryland is investigating the requirements for but has not established an imagery
maintenance program. It is unknown if the State/County will be updated in 2010. Because of this
it is recommended that the County prepare for 2010 under the assumption a State maintenance
program will NOT be in effect. If the State does proceed with a maintenance program the County
can then piggyback onto that initiative.

Projected Costs and Contracting

The following table shows the cost of countywide aerial photo products that will be used for the
source of planimetric update as well as the cost of digital orthophotos.
 Product Estimated Cost
Aerial Photography, Control, Aerial $40,000
Triangulation
Digital Orthophotos (1”=100‟ scale, 4- $60,000
band, GeoTIFF)
Total $100,000

Montgomery County and M-NCPPC should jointly fund this effort. Additional funds should be
contributed by the municipalities, and by WSSC. Joint funding with the State should also be
pursued to the extent possible.

Technical Issues and Recommendations

As Montgomery County proceeds with future orthoimage acquisitions, the following technical
recommendations should be considered:

Standardize on 1”=100‟ products to ASPRS Class I Accuracy Standards acquired with large
format digital cameras
Standardize on imagery at 0.5‟ pixel resolution or better
Make sure the imagery that is acquired is suitable for planimetric and topographic updates.
This means that the source image and stereomodels, along with the ancillary control. Even
though the topographic data is primarily going to be developed and updated using LiDAR,
having the photography support topographic updates allows for intermediate updates to be
done as necessary during the planimetric update process.
Continue to minimize building displacement though effective flight planning
Utilize large format digital sensors. This should include a multitude of sensors (ADS40,
Vexcel, Intergraph). Previously, orthoimagery specification restricted image acquisition to a
single platform (ADS40)
Multispectral imagery 4-band issues: Future ortho missions should specify 4-band imagery
to support image analysis applications.

Planimetric Data

The planimetric dataset contains natural, cultural,

and transportation features. M-NCPPC is
responsible for contracting for acquisition and
updating the planimetric data. 2006 imagery
used for the 2006 orthophotography updates has
been used to support current planimetric updates.
Although 2007/2008 orthoimagery through
Maryland Statewide imaery program will be
delivered to the County soon, however, source
imagery, control and aerial triangulation products
are not part of the deliverables to the County. Therefore, the 2007/2008 imagery product can not be
used as source of the updates for the Planimetric Map. Future State level programs will likely
address this shortfall in future orthophoto programs.

The planimetric database reflects differing time periods based on when the source aerial
photography was produced.

M-NCPPC uses a comprehensive development activity system to identify and target “blocks” or
areas to update each year. Of the 622 tiles contained in the dataset approximately 364 tiles reflect
photography flown in 2004 or earlier and 258 reflect 2006 data. M-NCPPC is currently contracting
for additional updates (to be completed in 2009) using the 2006 photography.

This hybrid approach to updates has been very effective in terms of targeting updates and
streamlining costs; however, the main disadvantage of this approach is that the dataset reflects some
inconsistency in terms of timeliness, and more importantly the number of areas over 5 years old is
too large for a fast growing County.

Planimetric Features

Planimetric features were initially compiled at a scale of 1”=200‟. Accuracy is to National Map
Accuracy and ASPRS Accuracy Standards and is roughly +/-5‟. All individual features are
uniquely feature coded. The planimetric data is updated by a contractor and delivered in an ESRI
geodatabase format after which is merged into the County‟s ArcSDE database. M-NCPPC does
extensive QA/QC checks and data updates prior to loading it into ArcSDE.

After the data is finalized it is also translated into AutoCAD for use in engineering projects. Table
4-4 provides a list of planimetric feature datasets and feature codes.
FEATURES FTR-CODE FEATURES FTR-CODE
BLDG Dataset PLAN-PNT Dataset
Building Footprints 2000400 Large Single Trees 0700001
Building Under Construction 2000303 ROADS Dataset
Ruins 2000401 Hidden Roads 1700661
Trailer Homes 2000302 Paved Roads/Driveways 1700660
BRIDGE Dataset Road Fillets 1700662
Bridges 1700602 Road Intersections 1700663
Major Culverts 1700600 Unpaved Road/Driveways 1700231
CULTRL Dataset SPOTELEV Dataset
Athletic Courts 2000121 Spot Elevation 1500303
Athletic Fields 2000122 Water Elevation 1500304
Cemeteries 2000420 TOPO Dataset*
Dams 0500406 Hidden Contours 0200204
Fences 2000206 Index Contours 0200200
Golf Courses 2000123 Index Depression Contours 0200202
Landfills 2000431 Intermediate Contours 0200201
Major Road Retaining Walls 2000202 Intermediate Depression Contours 0200203
Noise Barriers/Walls 2000450 TRANS Dataset
Public Swimming Pools 2000451 Airports 1900403
Sand/Gravel Sites 2000609 Area Under Construction 1700233
Tank/Smokestacks 2000425 Hidden MetroRail Lines 1800615
HYDRO Dataset Hidden Railroads 1800205
Hidden Hydro 0500415 Hidden Roads 1700661
Lakes 0500421 MetroRail Lines 1800610
Man-Made Drainage Channels 0500414 Paved Structured Parking Lot 1700251
Ponds 0500422 Paved Ground Parking Lot 1700250
Reservoirs 0500101 Railroad Lines 1800201
Rivers/Streams 0500412 Sidewalks 1700232
Single Line Streams 0500413 Trails 1700211
NFEAT Dataset Tunnels 1700601
Agricultural Farm Lands 0700109 Unpaved Parking Lots 1700252
Agricultural Pasture Lands 0700107 UTIL Dataset
Open Lands 0700108 Major Transmission Lines 1900202
Standing Water/Marshes 0500111 Major Transmission Line Pylons 1900301
Woodlands (Trees) 0700101 Transformer Stations 1900400
A sample of the County‟s planimetric/topographic data is provided below.

The Topography and the Utility datasets are no longer being updated.

Update Strategy and Timing

Initially all data should be brought up to date to reflect the 2006 imagery.

On a longer term basis the planimetric data should be updated within a 3-4 year time period. This
could be a comprehensive update over a one-year time period or could be broken into a multi-year
period with the update area being targeted based on development patterns. This program would
begin in late 2010 or early 2011 after completion of the next phase of orthophoto updates (a 2010
update to the orthoimagery is assumed).

We recommend that the same photography that is used for the orthoimagery also be used for the
planimetric updates. This may be County acquired imagery or State level imagery.

Projected Costs and Contracting

The following cost layout in Table 4-5 is based on the recommendation of bringing the remaining
59% area (364 tiles) up to the 2006 timeframe and then conduct a Countywide comprehensive
update in 2010 to 2011.

Update Cycle Cost

Update Cost to bring to 2006 Timeframe $250,000
Comprehensive Update (2010-2011) $400,000
Technical Recommendations

As Montgomery County proceeds with future planimetric updates, the following technical
recommendations should be considered:

Utilize the photography used to produce 1”=100‟ orthoimagery and try to have the new
updates be completed to correspond to 1”=100‟ map accuracy standards
Continue to update all planimetric features for an area during the same time frame
Get updated buildings in a 3D environment

Topography

Existing contour data consists of 5‟

contour intervals. These contours were
“stream digitized” (versus being created
from a DTM). They were compiled as
part of the planimetric and topographic
base mapping process. They were
updated as part of the earlier planimetric
and topographic update programs. Since
the acquisition of aerial imagery in 2006
they have not been updated. Over 60%
of the existing contour data dates back to
the 2000/2001 timeframe.

Although the existing contours are of relatively low quality in terms of timeliness and accuracy,
they do reflect a high level of “cartographic appearance” in terms of contour smoothness. They are
also hydro enforced which means the contours reflect the hydrographic network/direction of flow,
and they are well integrated with hydrographic polygons.

Because of accuracy and data quality concerns with the existing topographic data, the existing
contour data needs to be replaced. It is no longer cost effective to continue to try to maintain this
dataset via photogrammetric techniques.

Existing LiDAR Data

During the spring of 2008 Montgomery County contracted for the acquisition of detailed LiDAR
data on a countywide basis with the funding from DEP, DOT, DPS and DTS. This highly accurate
topographic data was acquired to support watershed analysis, floodplain mapping, topographic
mapping, and terrain analysis applications. It also supports future contour generation and provides
a DEM for orthorectification purposes.
Deliverable products included:

LiDAR Intensity Images in GeoTIFF format

LiDAR Point cloud (1.4 meter point spacing Countywide) in both ASCII and LAS formats.
This contains all returns (first, last and intermediate).
Bare Earth Surface Model in a variety of formats (DEM, ASCII)
The LIDAR point data has an accuracy of 18.5 centimeters RMSE and has been verified through
extensive field verification.

Contour Production Options

New contours will need to be created on a countywide basis. These should consist of 2‟ contours.
The newly acquired LiDAR dataset should be used as a basis for producing the new contours.
There are three primary approaches to consider assuming the LiDAR data is used:

1. Generate contours using filtered bare earth LiDAR. This may be done in-house.
2. Generate contours using filtered bare earth LiDAR supplemented by a minimal set of
breaklines to support hydro enforcement.
3. Generate contours using filtered bare earth LiDAR supplemented by a comprehensive
set of breaklines.
Each of the approaches also involves decisions on cartographic aesthetics, smoothing, annotation
requirements and deliverable formats. We recommend Option 2 or 3 be undertaken so that high
quality, accurate, and aesthetically pleasing contours which are hydro enforced are produced. The
example below shows the results of producing contours with filtered data versus data supplemented
with break-lines and thinned and edited to support cartographic requirements.
 Contours: Filtered LiDAR Contours: Filtered Lidarw/breaklines

Technical Recommentations

We recommended that the LiDAR data be supplemented with break-lines. Break-lines are
typically placed along all major features in the landscape that affect the shape and accuracy of the
generated contours. This includes “hard” break-lines such as man-made edges of pavement, or
natural features such as the edges of water bodies, and also “soft” break-lines such as the tops and
bottoms of natural ridges and depressions in the landscape.

Breaklines should be developed minimally to support hydro enforcement to make sure water bodies
are flat, reflect obstructions of impediments to flow, and correctly model bridges and culverts. This
process also ensures the direction of flow for the hydrographic dataset is correct.

There are several approaches to creating break-lines, including:

1. Photogrammetry Compiling from aerial

photography as part of the planimetric mapping
process.
2. LiDARgrammetry compilation utilizing the
intensity values from the LiDAR to derive
stereo models and an accurate pictorial to
extract breaklines. By using intensity images,
the source for the break-lines will have the same
accuracy as the LiDAR data.
3. Digitizing from Orthoimagery

Both Options 1 and 2 are in a 3D environment, the third option is in a 2D environment. In addition
to improved accuracy and correct hydro enforcement, each of these processes also results in an
improved cartographic representation.
Since the existing photography is several years old (or not readily available from the State) Option 2
and 3 are the most viable approaches. We recommend a pilot project be conducted to evaluate
Option 2 and 3 and more important to determine the level of break-line and aesthetic enhancements
that are desired. If Option 1 is undertaken it should be viewed as in intermediate product only.

Update Frequency

It is recommended that LiDAR and Contour data be updated every 5-7 years. Future updates should
involve a new Countywide LiDAR acquisition with an update of contours in areas of change by
LiDARgrammetry techniques. Areas of change can be identified by a comparison of the new
LiDAR DEM surface in comparison with the current (2008) surface model.

Topography Costs

The following tables present the cost option for the initial creation of 2‟ Contour and future cost for
updating the contour data every 5 to 7 years.

Contour Production Costs

Options Estimated Cost

Option 1: Filtered LiDAR $25,000
Option 2: Limited Breaklines for Hydro Enforcement $100,000
Option 3 Comprehensive Breaklines $250,000

Update Costs Future Long Term

Long term update and maintenance cost estimates are provided for future planning purposes.

Product Estimated Cost

LiDAR (2013 estimated) $150,000 (based on costs for 2008 project)
Contour Update (2013-14 estimated) $150,000 (based on costs for 2008 project)

Building Elevation Attributes

One of the biggest trends in the industry involves the

development of 3D datasets, particularly for
buildings. Buildings can be modeled at a variety of
levels ranging from full architectural representations,
to buildings that are attributed with an elevation.
Buildings may also be textured with photo realistic
facades, or may be textured with actual imagery. For
example some organizations are texturing buildings
with orthoimagery, oblique imagery, or street level imagery. With the total number of structures in
Montgomery County, development of complex, textured building models would be a very
comprehensive and costly effort.

Our team recommends that M-NCPPC /Montgomery County attribute buildings with an elevation to
support 3D modeling applications. More detailed building models can be done on a project specific
basis for a specific geographic area.

The LiDAR data provides a good basis to support automation of this task. For derived building
polygons the elevation can be defined as the highest point that is contained within a structure or the
average of all the points within a structure. Both highest point and average could also be done very
easily. This approach would be done in an automated manner with minimal data review. A detailed
design should be developed and piloted prior to undertaking full data processing.

Building elevations could then be updated as part of the photogrammetric update process. This is
on the 4 year cycle.

The example above shows how buildings will be able to be extruded and overlaid with the orthos
and other planimetric features.
Building Elevation Costs

It is possible for this work to be done in-house. There are an estimated 350,000 households in
Montgomery County. With 1/3 of the households being multi-unit structures, the number of actual
structures to be modeled is estimated at approximately 200,000-225,000 structures. This includes
both residential and commercial/industrial/public buildings. All of these building structures should
be attributed with an elevation attribute.

Product Estimated Cost

Building Elevation (Attributed) $40,000

Impervious Surface Mapping

One of the key requirements identified by

Montgomery County GIS users is the development of
an impervious surface dataset. Because of the
requirements of the water quality protection charges
(WQPC) program DEP has been updating county‟s
parking lots and driveways since 2002. The
planimetric data contains selected impervious
surfaces such as roads, buildings, parking lots and
some driveways. It does not contain features such as
concrete slabs, sidewalk polygons, all driveways, all
parking lots (gravel and paved, and many other
features. An additional limitation of the existing data
is that it is inconsistent in terms of its timeliness.

There are two approaches to developing an impervious dataset. They include:

1. Compiling impervious features via planimetric compilation techniques.

2. Developing an impervious dataset using semi-automated techniques by performing feature
analysis using the existing orthoimagery
Our recommendation is that the automated approach be implemented. Over time the County may
seek to add additional impervious features to the planimetric dataset. This approach can be faster
and more cost effective than the planimetric approach to impervious depending on the product
requirements.

With the semi-automated approach impervious surfaces are recognized based on its color, texture,
size, shape and pattern. Analysts train the software to recognize different types of impervious
surfaces and then direct the computer to find other areas that have similar characteristics or
properties. Once the computer has identified areas automatically, an analyst manually edits any
confusion, i.e. areas that appear to look like impervious surfaces but are not (i.e. baseball
diamonds). Finally, the dataset is quality controlled and the accuracy is assessed. Key
recommended parameters are defined below.

Parameter Automated

For on going updates of the impervious surface, we recommend that the data be updated very 2
years in order to meet the business requirements. There will be minimal cost difference between
developing a raster or vector dataset versus generating both.

Impervious Surface Costs

Based on the parameters defined above a cost estimate has been prepared. This cost assumes that
the 2007/08 State Orthoimagery would be used for the analysis

Product Estimated Cost

Impervious Surface $35,000

Vegetation Mapping

The County planimetric datasets contain woodland

polygons and other open and natural feature data layers.
It does not include a comprehensive vegetation dataset.
In Montgomery County the importance of vegetation and
canopy mapping is becoming more important to support
Green Infrastructure initiatives. Vegetation makes a big
difference in the environment because it:

Allows percolation of water

Evaporates water (transpiration and interception)
Filters air and water pollution
Impacts microclimate
Enhances quality of life
 Supports urban wildlife
Provides recreational opportunities

There is a need to monitor, plan and manage urban vegetation. Often times for a County level
application vegetation mapping would be done as part of an land cover /impervious feature dataset
program that contains the following feature classes:

Non-woody vegetation (Grassland, emergent wetland)

Woody vegetation (Trees, shrubs)
Impervious surfaces
Water
Barren
For a “CITYgreen” analysis, it is important to classify tree canopy wherever it exists. This means
that canopy is classified over pavement and buildings and involves the use of “leaf on imagery”. If
this requirement is to be met, ideally leaf on imagery (such as the NAIP imagery for the County)
would be used.

It is recommended that Montgomery County produce a comprehensive vegetation dataset, ideally

using either the leaf-on NAIP imagery or the most recent orthoimagery depending on final
application requirements. Use of LiDAR data for vegetation mapping is another option. The key
criteria for a decision is whether or not full canopy coverage is need. The LiDAR has the advantage
of also being able to derive canopy heights. If the orthoimagery is used it should be done as part of a
comprehensive program along with capture of impervious surfaces. Classifications can be
developed to support integration with the American Forests modeling software in use by M-
NCPPC. We also recommend that the update cycle for the vegetation map is very 2 years. If the
LiDAR is used for initial development and updating then it would be tied to the update cycle.

High resolution satellite imagery could also be used for vegetation mapping (leaf on or leaf off).
With the multitude of other sources available that can produce and equal product this solution is not
recommended.

Vegetation Mapping Costs

Based on the parameters defined above a cost estimate has been prepared.

Product Estimated Cost

Vegetation Mapping $35,000
 SECTION 5
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS

ACTION PLAN

Based on the data maintenance strategy and the budget status of M-NCPPC for FY 2008,
Montgomery County should be focusing on the following tasks for the planimetric data
maintenance and updates over the next few years:

2008 – 2009 (FY 2009)

Update the planimetric data for the 2000 and 2001 area of the County (total of 212 tiles)
using 2006 aerial photos.
Conduct a pilot data conversion for the 2‟ Contour using 2008 LiDAR data.
Develop specifications for contour, impervious surface, and vegetation mapping.
2009 – 2010 (FY 2010)

Update the planimetric data for the 2004 area of the County (total of 124 tiles) using 2006
aerial photos.
Complete contract procurement for the countywide contour, impervious surface, and
vegetation mapping.
Produce countywide 2‟ contours using 2008 LiDAR as a source.
Produce impervious surface map using 2007/2008 state orthoimagery.
Produce vegetation map using 2007 NAIP leaf on imagery.
Develop specifications for aerial photo, orthophotos, and planimetric data capture for a
countywide update.
Contract procurement to acquire new aerial photos to support new orthophotos and
planimetric updates.
Acquire new aerial photos in Spring 2010.
Produce Countywide orthoimagery.
2010 – 2011 (FY 2011)

Conduct countywide planimetric updates.

Add Building Elevation Attributes.
2011 – 2012 (FY 2012)

Acquire aerial photos.

Produce countywide orthoimagery.
Update countywide impervious surface map using new orthoimagery.
Obtain new leaf on imagery from NAIP if available and update countywide vegetation map.
2012 – 2013 (FY 2013)

Acquire updated LiDAR.

Update countywide 2‟ contour.
2013 – 2014 (FY 2014)

Update countywide vegetation map.

Acquire photography to support new orthophotos and planimetric updates.
Produce countywide orthoimagery.
Update countywide impervious surface.
2014 – 2015

Acquire photography to support new orthophotos and planimetric updates.

Update building elevation attributes.
IMPLEMENTATION BUDGET

The following table summarizes the budget estimations in fiscal years based on the timeline of the
above implementation:

FUNDING SOURCES

The survey of comparable jurisdiction reveals that costs of the GIS data maintenance are all either
centrally funded or funded through a consortium. Although some of the jurisdictions sell the data to
the public, none of the jurisdictions‟ GIS expenditures depend on the sales. In order to meet the
GIS data update schedule, Montgomery County must change its funding mechanism. The following
describes our recommendations on the funding.

Funding from GIS Consortium

The Montgomery County GIS program began in the mid 1980‟s as part of bi-county efforts with
Prince George‟s County and WSSC. Bi-County GIS Consortium was composed of 5 entities which
include Montgomery County, Montgomery County Planning Department of M-NCPPC, PG
County, PG County Planning Department of M-NCPPC, and WSSC. The consortium did have a
memorandum in place for sharing the roles and funding in the creation of GIS for the entire area,
with WSSC acting in the leadership role, as they had interest in both counties. Although over the
years, members of the consortium became more independent from each other the interest in working
together still exists, especially, between Montgomery County and WSSC. The interests are due to
the great desire and need in sharing the data between the County and WSSC. The major driver of
the data sharing is not only for the daily business operation, but most importantly for the public
safety and emergency service reasons. Emergency responses to the water main breaks during the
summer of this year are a classic example of the need in sharing the information in order to better
manage the emergency situation and respond to Citizen‟s requests and needs.

We recommend Montgomery County and Montgomery County Planning Department take the
leadership role in resuming the GIS Consortium relationship with WSSC. A GIS consortium should
be formalized through a Memorandum of Agreement within the County and with WSSC. A
funding source should be created through the members of the consortium for the data that are of
common interest to all parties. From the funding point of view, a consortium should be composed
of the following entities:

Montgomery County Government

Montgomery County Public Schools
Montgomery College
Montgomery County Planning Department of M-NCPPC
Municipalities in Montgomery County (Gaithersburg, Rockville, etc.)
WSSC
The decision makers of the GIS consortium should meet twice a year to discuss the GIS budgetary
items and secure funding shares for the ongoing maintenance of GIS data that are of common
interest to all consortium members. A five year GIS budget should be created and adjusted each
year. A percentage of funding share should be determined based on the agreements among the
consortium members. A sample of such an agreement used by IMAPS, a GIS Consortium for
Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, can be found online at
http://www6.indygov.org/imagis/docs/docs-2006/IMAGIS-Participants-Agreement-2006-Mar30-
07.pdf. For information about the IMAPS, please go to http://www6.indygov.org/imagis/. As our
Survey of Comparable jurisdiction reveals, Knox County (KGIS) is also a good example of such a
Consortium.

Montgomery County Government should also change their current GIS funding strategy. Currently
the County GIS is managed and supported by the GIS unit of Department of Technology Services
(DTS). Organizationally, Montgomery County has sound GIS management and support structure.
However, due to an unsecured funding mechanism, it has greatly hindered the GIS unit‟s capability
in the data maintenance and user support activities as well as the ability in promoting and
implementing enterprise wide GIS with up to date GIS technologies. The GIS budget is often
competing directly against other IT initiatives. Due to other urgent IT needs in the County, GIS
funding is often cut in response to those needs. As GIS is an integral part of the IT in supporting
the County‟s business and GIS has been tightly integrated into Government operations,
Montgomery County should secure the GIS funding for the GIS data maintenance and enterprise
wide GIS applications in order to better support the County‟s business operations, public safety and
emergency management as well as regional data sharing efforts.

Based on the comparable study through the survey of similar jurisdictions, three commonly used
funding options that the County should consider:

1. Central Funding Mechanism – The GIS can be centrally funded as part of capital budget for
IT as data is one of the most important county assets, which should be managed and funded
as a county asset.

2. Budget Contribution from each Department – The GIS can be funded by each department
contributing a percentage of the total GIS budget on an annual basis, but centrally managed
by the Department of Technology Services (DTS) in order to maintain and provide
commonly interested data to all departments for the enterprise wide GIS. Departments
should continue to fund their GIS activities pertaining to their own business needs.

3. Charge Back System – A charge back system can be established so that departments will be
charged for the GIS products and services they receive from DTS.

Montgomery County Government should evaluate their current funding mechanism to determine
the best funding strategy for GIS. The portion of the funding should be secured and dedicated to
the GIS consortium fund for the GIS data maintenance activities for common shared data laid out in
this document.

Supplemental Funding from State and Federal

Montgomery County should continue taking advantage of the funding from both the State of
Maryland and the Federal government related to emergency services and homeland security. For
example, in the 2007/2008 Statewide orthophotography program, Montgomery County utilized
funding from the State Emergency Number Board System (ENBS) to obtain countywide
orthoimagery. If the State of Maryland continues with the Statewide orthophoto program, we
recommend the County continue to take advantage of the program by coordinating the statewide
program with countywide planimetric update schedule and adding the Aerial Photography, Control,
Aerial Triangulation as part of the delivery products so that products can be used as source for the
planimetric updates. USGS has also contributed funding to support small pilot project in
Clarksburg in 2003 and County‟s 2006 Orthophoto acqusitions.

The Federal government has several funding sources, such as Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
grants by the Department of Homeland Security, related to the public safety and emergency
management programs that requires coordinated efforts at the regional level. Most of the projects
that are supported by those funding sources require up to date GIS data as central part of the
databases and can be shared regionally. Montgomery County has been participating in some of the
regional level efforts. Our recommendation is to coordinate the data maintenance efforts with the
grant program to minimize the duplication and to streamline the data update process in order to
meet both local and regional needs in GIS data. The County should also use the grant program as
the driver to justify the cost of the data update and maintenance efforts.
ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

As land base data is being updated in 2 to 4 year cycles, in the interim, there is still a need for the
updates of the certain features, such as building foot prints, roads, pavement edges, etc., as land
development continues throughout the County. We recommend that the County establish clear
procedures and responsibilities for updating those features. A data portal should be established in
the county which should publish a uniform version of the database to the users. The database needs
to be versioned for the update process, however, the updated data must go back to the source and be
published through the data portal. The Business Processes/Interagency Coordination Strategy task
report will address these issues and procedures in more detail.
 APPENDIX A
JURISDICTION COMPARABLES

OVERVIEW

Montgomery County, Maryland is approximately 550 square miles, has a population approaching 1
million people, and is comprised of an urban/suburban/rural mix. The current
planimetric/topographic base mapping that is being used was originally created in the mid 1990‟s
and has been maintained and updated incrementally since 1998. Maryland National Capital Park
and Planning Commission Montgomery County (M-NCPPC - MC) was tasked with the
responsibility of maintaining and updating the data for use by every agency in Montgomery County.

In approximately 1996, M-NCPPC began a revenue program based upon the sales of GIS data to the
public. At the time, studies were conducted for the best practices on funding mechanisms for GIS
updates, and this strategy was endorsed by the Commission and the County. This program has been
used to fund the updates to the planimetric/topographic database since. Nationwide, very few
organizations are using a cost recovery approach for maintaining their planimetric/topographic data.

This section of the report compares jurisdictions of similar size and characteristics, GIS maturity,
GIS update needs, and funding structures. The task was to document this information in order to
propose and apply best practices methods to Montgomery County

METHODOLOGY

Jurisdictions were selected by agreement with M-NCPPC and the KCI team. The jurisdictions are
local and national jurisdictions that 1) met the criteria of similarity and proximity to Montgomery
County, and 2) had accessible GIS programs that have successfully been integrated into their
respective County structure and business processes. The goal was to gain an understanding of their
County characteristics, GIS data development, GIS updating programs, the organizational GIS
structure within the government, funding, and support mechanisms, and influences on their
program. Although the focus was on updating planimetric data for purposes of this study, other
crucial data layers were also discussed, such as property and address updates.

Phone interviews were conducted directly with the GIS Manager in each local jurisdiction and the
responses documented. The survey questions were approved by M-NCPPC and the questions are
attached (Appendix B). These questions served as a guide for a structured discussion with the GIS
Manager. In some cases there was more information and relevance to a particular area of
discussion. For the national jurisdiction, the report was compiled by a combination of phone
interviews and previously documented information. In all cases, each manager was asked the same
questions. The summaries of the interviews are documented below.
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS

The following Counties were included in the study: Baltimore County, Prince George‟s County,
Prince George‟s National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Howard County, and Fairfax
County, VA. The survey summary findings are below.

Baltimore County

Background

Baltimore County, MD sits adjacent to Baltimore City, similar to Montgomery County and
Washington, D.C.‟s position. The area is approximately 600 square miles (third largest county in
Maryland) with a population approaching 800,000 people. The County is an urban/rural mix, but
the suburban and rural areas are developing rapidly.

Timeliness

Baltimore County began a GIS program in the mid 1990‟s by initially creating detailed planimetric,
orthophoto, and property layers in a three phase (geographically) implementation. The entire
county was completed by the end of the decade and GIS became an integral part of the county data
resource.

The County has undertaken a series of data layer updates in a staggered order from 2001 to 2008.
In 2005/2006, there was a comprehensive update of the orthophotography and new LiDAR data was
acquired. After that project was completed the planimetric data and the 2‟ contours were updated
using the 2005 photography. This project began in 2007 and was completed in 2008. Orthophotos
are being updated again in 2008. After this project is complete, the countywide planimetric layers
will be updated using 2008 aerial photos. This includes buildings, roads, and hydro. The
topographic data will be updated at a future time The following table summaries the update
timeline and area:

Timeline Updated Data Layer Update Method

1990S Orthophotos, planimetric layers, property Initial data creation
layers
2001 - 2003 Orthophotos, planimetric, and property Staggered updates
layers
2005 - 2006 Orthophotos Countywide update
LIDAR data Initial data creation

2007 - 2008 Planimetric Data Countywide update

2’ contour
2008 Orthophotos Countywide update
2009 Planimetric (roads, hydro, buildings) Countywide update
Funding

The capital IT budget allocates monies directly to GIS as part of the IT budget. Other county
departments do not contribute to the fund.

Currently, there is an annual update program with the budget of $250K – $400K for GIS data
maintenance and updates. The program driver for the budget was due to the larger user base and the
many applications implemented that rely heavily on the GIS data. The GIS Unit also undertook a
major cost benefit analysis from 2006 to 2007 and the results are published on line at
http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Agencies/infotech/geographic_information_systems/strabusine
ssplan.html

The need has been recognized to support the data updates in a regular, predictable manner because
of the integration and dependence upon which users rely. Although the County charges a modest
fee for duplicating and distribution the GIS data to the public, the monies recouped are not required
to support the GIS updates or program. The value the GIS program brings to county government is
recognized and supported through the dedicated funding received.

Baltimore County is now following a procurement model where there is a prime contractor for the
overall management for the data conversion and quality control programs. The prime contractor is
responsible for managing the sub-contractors. In this scenario, a new contract does not have to be
negotiated or procured if any of the sub-contractor vendors should change. The County has
established a long term contract vehicle (10 years – renewable after each year) for this program.

Organizational

The GIS Unit was created and has resided within the IT organization under the direction of a GIS
Manager. The larger departments within Baltimore County have GIS analysts to support the
integration and operation within the department, but these people are also function as the liaison to
the enterprise GIS group.

Prince George’s County Government

Background

Prince George‟s County shares many similar characteristics with Montgomery County, the most
significant one being their organizational structure of the relationship between the County
government and the County Planning Department of Maryland National Capital Park and Planning
Commission. Originally, in the late 1980‟s, both Montgomery County and Prince George‟s County
were in a GIS consortium with WSSC. Each of the five entities (Montgomery County, M-NCPPC –
Montgomery County, PG County, M-NCPPC- PG County, and WSSC) had an equal role in the
creation of GIS for the entire area, with WSSC acting in the leadership role, as they had interest in
both counties. Over time, the structure changed where the counties became more independent from
each other and WSSC, and each one developed their own support and structure to maintain and
implement GIS. Now, M-NCPPC in Prince George‟s County and Prince George‟s County
Government have the same relationship to each other as that of Montgomery County – namely, M-
NCPPC is primarily responsible for the data and the County is a consumer of the data.

Funding

The County does not update the planimetric or property layers, but if a specific department other
than the Park and Planning Commission within Prince George‟s County Government has a need,
then money is requested and generally granted for their purpose. The Department of Environmental
Resources has made extensive use of this and augmented GIS planimetric data, mainly for
hydrographic mapping purposes. Hydrographic data is maintained and funded by DER continually
to meet the storm water management needs. In addition, the GIS unit is responsible to update the
County‟s address and centerline data.

Prince George‟s County enjoys a good relationship with MNPPC and communicates and shares data
between them. They do not have the need to have an independent funding mechanism for
planimetric data.

Organizational

Prince George‟s County government has a GIS unit within the IT Department to support its large
user base, and some of the bigger departments use GIS extensively, namely Department of
Environmental Resources.

Prince George’s County Planning Department, M-NCPPC

Background

This is the sister agency of Montgomery County‟s Park and Planning Commission and their
structure is very similar. This group is responsible for maintaining and updating Prince George‟s
County data, from planimetrics to the property and zoning layers. The responsibility for addresses
and centerlines are with Prince George‟s County Government.

Timeliness

M-NCPPC PG County posts their GIS data layers on a website. The initial planimetric data was
created in 1990s. Some planimetric layers from the original data created in 1993 still exist.
However, the planimetric layers are not updated except at replacement time. A replacement
mapping for major planimetric layers was done in 2000. The 2‟ interval topographic data was
created from LiDAR in 2001. Again, replacement mapping for the planimetric layers was done in
2005. The planimetric layers included roads, buildings, vegetation, pavement edges, and streams.
Metadata for the planimetric data is available on the website at www.mncppc.org/gisdict/index.htm.
State orthophotos were acquired in 2007 without charge to the County. If the State continues to
provide this service, Prince George‟s County is interested in receiving the orthophotos. The
following table summarizes PG County planimetric data update in time sequence:
 Timeline Updated Data Layer Update Method
1990’S Orthophotos, planimetric layers Initial data creation
2000 Roads, buildings, vegetation, pavement Countywide replacement mapping
edges, and streams
2001 2’ contour Creation of Countywide 2’ contour
using LIDAR
2005 Roads, buildings, vegetation, pavement Countywide replacement mapping
edges, and streams

Prince George‟s County Park and Planning Commission intends to acquire new planimetric layers
in the spring of 2009. The cost of this is not yet known, as the contract has not been procured.
There is an intention to examine other County‟s contracts and if the procurement vehicle is
acceptable to secure the data in this manner. Interviews are being conducted with users to gather
requirements for planimetric data, as this will determine which layers will be updated based upon
need, use, and identified requirements.

Funding

Funding has been requested on an annual basis, generally at the end of the fiscal year. To date, it
has been adequate. Although the GIS unit does not have a planimetric update line item in the
budget, as the need has arisen, the requests have been granted.

A fee is collected for the distribution of the data to the public, however, this is not to sustain the GIS
Unit. Although internal use of the 2‟ contour layer is not in high demand directly at the Park and
Planning Commission, the engineering community and contractors make use of this data set and the
fees collected can generate more than $50K a year. This data set is viewed as a “product” that was
created, rather than for internal use.

An indirect cost recuperation of the cost of GIS planimetric data has been in the collection of fees
through the development review process. Some of the income that is generated has been identified
to support the GIS program.

Organizational

PG-MNCPPC has established a central GIS Unit that is responsible for data and planimetric updates
for their organization and Prince George‟s County. Support GIS analyst capabilities exist within the
Commission, however, the management of the GIS is within one Unit.

Issues

Along with the need to maintain the currency of the data, a great challenge has also been to remain
technologically current with the advances in software and database management. Internal
resources are not always adequate and the level of training not as current the technology
necessitates. The balance between securing funding for data and software development has
presented itself as an identified issue.
Howard County

Background

Howard County sits adjacent to Montgomery County and is smaller (250 square miles) and less
populous (270,000). They too have mixed demographic and geographic characteristics, but are
primarily suburban in character.

Timeliness

There is a heavy emphasis on the road centerline and address data, as this is coordinated and
integrated with the 911 group. The criticality of these data sets necessitate that they remain current
and dependable. This updating is done on a daily basis by the GIS group working with the property
plats. Howard County is in the process of creating a MAR (Master Address Repository) with
validated roof top (building) addresses.

The orthophotos are used more regularly throughout the County. The 2004 orthophotos were
obtained by the County through the Maryland State contract. Orthophotos have been updated every
2 years since 2004. In 2004 a 2‟ contour topographic layer was created from LiDAR that cost the
County approximately $116K. In 2006, planimetric layers were updated from the improved
orthophoto (2006) resolution. The scale increased from 1” = 200‟ to 1” = 100‟. However, these
planimetric layers are not being updated regularly since. The roads, trees, sidewalks, tree edges,
and buildings over 10‟ by 10‟ are the most commonly used layers. The Pictometry data is also
updated every other year. The following table summarizes the updates in time sequence:

Timeline Updated Data Layer Update Method

Unkown Orthophotos, planimetric layers Initial data creation
2004 Orthophotos Countywide used State Contract
2’ Contour Creation of Countywide 2’ Contour from
LIDAR
2006 Orthophotos Higher resolution of Orthophotos
Planimetric mapping at 1” = 100’ Replacement of 1” = 200’ Planimetric
mapping

There are discussions to update the orthophotos and LIDAR in the spring of 2009. A plan to which
Howard County is prepared to commit is for the Pictometry to be updated in even years and the
State orthophotos obtained on the odd years. The planimetric layers that are in demand would then
be updated (maintained) in house from the orthophotos by GIS intern staff.

Funding

The funding has been adequate on an annual basis. This is achieved on a charge back system that
the County uses. The GIS group determines what the budget should be by coordinating and
managing requests with other agencies, and then sends the single budget request for funding with
the appropriate amounts that should become a charge back to the agencies and becomes part of the
operating budget. This system has been successful for many years and there is not a current reason
to alter it.

Organizational

Howard County has established a central GIS group within the IT organization and all the
development and data acquisition has been through this group. Major Departments do have their
own GIS supporting staff.

Fairfax County, VA

Background

Fairfax County is another suburban Washington, DC county experiencing rapid development and
demand for the GIS. The County is approximately 400 square miles with a population exceeding 1
million.

Timeliness

Initial planimetric data was created in 1998-1999 from 1997 aerial photography. Some of the
planimetric layers from 1998 are still in use. Countywide update for major layers was done in 2003
using 2002 aerial photos. Since 2003, ¼ of the county is updated annually, but this data is for
internal use only, it is not available to the public. Therefore, although the County has been
continually updated by ¼ of the geographic area per year, this is not posted on the website. The
complete list of data layers and accompanying metadata is
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/gisapps/metadata/default.asp

Fairfax County partnered with the State of Virginia and has committed to a 4 year (1/4 county per
year) update plan. New orthophotography was flown in 2007 and this will be used to update
planimetrics for the next 2 years. In 2009, the State of Virginia will again fly orthophotography,
and the remaining half of the County will be updated with this. This will be planimetric and 2‟
topographic with DTM data. The following table summarizes the data update timeline:

Timeline Updated Data Layer Update Method

1998-99 Orthophotos, planimetric layers Initial data creation
2003 Selected planimetric layers Countywide update using 2002 Aerials
Orthophoto Orthophotos using 2002 Aerials
2004 to 2008 Major Planimetric Layers Planimetric Layers: ¼ of County each
Orthophotos year
Orthophotos: every 4 years, currently
2007

Fairfax County makes substantial use of Pictometry data and views this as an important dataset.
Another recent plan is for the GIS centerline and address data to support the new 911 system. In the
next 9 months, the business process and maintenance procedures need to be standardized. Public
Works has responsibility for assigning the address, but the GIS Unit updates the data.

Funding

Fairfax County has allocated between $300 - $500K annually for the current 4 year plan. This is
capital funding, although the GIS program receives annual operating funds from the general fund.

Property and topographic data is available to the public for a fee, but this money goes into the
general fund and is not expected to support the GIS Unit.

Organizational

Fairfax County has established a central GIS Unit who are responsible for the database. However,
unlike some other jurisdictions, departments within the county develop and create data on their own
and can “put” it into the central database with documentation. This approach does not limit what
data gets created and when, but it must be accompanied by strictly developed metadata so that users
can understand exactly what they are viewing and using. This is viewed as a quasi data warehouse
model.

There is over 40 GIS staff at Fairfax County, with half of them working in the GIS Unit. The other
departments at Fairfax County have GIS support staff within their department.

NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS

Knox County, TN

Background

A county of approximately 500 square miles, Knox County has a consortium structure for their
mature GIS program. The City of Knoxville is encased by the County and the consortium consists
of the county, city and the utility board. This three member group has been functioning
successfully and is based upon the relationships and agreements in place. Communication and
adherence to the structure has been well maintained.

Funding

Each member of the consortium is contributing $100K a year, which has been adequate to meet
their schedule.

Timeliness

Knox County was initially mapped in 1990. In 2002 there was a major comprehensive update, and
now this is maintained by reflying 1/3 of County every year. This is achieved also by securing the
funds and procuring a 6 year contract with a vendor. The County is updating the orthophotos on a
Countywide basis every 2-3 years. LiDAR data is also being acquired within this same timeframe.
Planimetric and topographic data is updated on an annual basis covering 1/3 of the County each
year. The latest orthoimagery was flown in 2008. Updated LiDAR data was acquired in 2007.
Currently the planimetric/topographic updates are being performed.

Timeline Data Layer Update Method

1990 Orthophotos, planimetric layers, Initial data creation
property layers
2002 Comprehensive update Replacement mapping
including LiDAR
2002 Planimetric, topo, Refly 1/3 of county every year,
produce mapping for
2007 LiDAR Refly LiDAR
2008 Orthophoto Updates Replacement mapping
2008-11 Planimetric topo Update mapping 1/3 of County
each year

Organizational

A rigorous, internal quality control program in the KGIS is also a cornerstone of this unit. The
large user base, executives, and budgeting can depend on this schedule which has proven to be an
effective operational model. The area has been rapidly growing and the integration of a strong GIS
program has rewarded them over time. They also have a notable, comprehensive website that
disseminates timely information easily to the broad user community www.kgis.org

Westchester County, NY

Background

Another county of similar size and proximity to a major urban area with suburban and rural
characteristics that is rapidly growing is Westchester County, NY. A population nearing 1M
people resides on approximately 450 square miles with 250,000 parcels. The composition of this
county is urban, rural, and suburban mix. As the county experiences rapid growth, there is a robust
GIS program with many users dependent on the current data.

Timeliness

The GIS program has been active for over 20 years. The first datasets were products derived from
State and Federal agencies such as the USGS. The first planimetric data was produced from 2000
aerial photography at a scale of 1” = 100‟. These layers were building footprints, road centerlines,
pavement edges, hydrology, 5‟ elevation contours and DTM, and railways. Orthophotographs were
flown in the years 2000, 2004, and 2007. In 2004 and 2007, the orthophotos were acquired through
the State orthophoto program (NYSDOP). The County contributes some funding to the NYS
program. The 2000 planimetric datasets were updated in 2004 and enhanced. The following street
infrastructure datasets were added: light and utility poles, guard rails, road barriers, stone walls,
manholes, catch basins, and hydrants. Oblique photography for the County is currently being
considered. The next planned planimetric update is for year 2010. This does not fall on a standard
schedule, however. When updates are conducted, it is for the entire county. Quality control is
performed as a combination of contracted services and in-house staff. The updating is done entirely
by contract services.

Timeline Data Layer Update Method

1990 State and Federal data layer derivatives

2000 Planimetric , topo, and Countywide large scale data

Orthophotography at 1’ = 100’ scale creation

2004 Countywide Orthophotos, updated and Used State acquisition program

enhanced planimetric layers for orthophotography

2007 Countywide Orthophotography Used State acquisition program

for orthophotography
2010 Planned planimetric update Countywide

Funding

The 2004 planimetric updates cost approximately $500K, but this has included the major database
enhancements. There are no sales of data or GIS based products, but the data is used to leverage
data-sharing arrangements with other municipalities. The funding received to date has been
adequate and there are no plans to change it.

Organizational

GIS is a centralized function for the County within the IT department. The GIS group supports all
user departments. There are currently 57 County departmental users. Municipalities contribute
parcel data and sometimes other infrastructure data in exchange for planimetric and image data, as
well as system development advice. Support has been very positive from the upper levels of
management.

Horry County, SC

Background

Larger in area than the previously discussed counties, at approximately 1,100 square miles, the
population is 210,000. There is a mix of urban, rural and suburban characteristics. The county is
also experiencing rapid growth and uses GIS for much of their business management. Horry
County has been involved with GIS for about 10 years.
Timeliness

The initial mapping products covered the entire jurisdiction and consisted of imagery, planimetrics,
and cadastral layers. This has been expanded to include LiDAR, landuse/landcover, zoning, public
safety, site address – layers that have been built off of the base. There are software solutions
(Cityworks, EnerGove, OnBase, Manatron CAMA, and Motorola CAD) that are GIS centric and are
integrated into the County‟s business processes.

Beginning in 2002, an annual update program is contracted to a vendor to acquire aerial imagery
(½‟ pixel resolution) and planimetric updates countywide. The QA/QC of the deliveries is done by
County staff.

Timeline Data Layer Update Method

Late 1990s Orthophotos, planimetric layers, Initial data creation
property layers
Late 1990s - 2002 Layers continually added
2002 - Current Countywide Orthophotos, Countywide update every year,
planimetric new orthophotography annually

Funding

The cost of the update program is $300K annually. The majority is funded through the Stormwater
funding, since the planimetrics are needed to calculate impervious surface for the Stormwater fees.
There is a budget line item to cover the orthophotos and planimetrics with the IT department
contributing $100K towards the costs, while the balance is through the Stormwater funding.

Although Horry County does sell the data, it generates approximately $30K per year. This is not
enough nor expected to be a self sustaining operation. But of note, Horry County recently won a
South Carolina Supreme Court Decision giving local government the right to license the
commercial use of the data. They will be changing the licensing rates in the near future.

Organizational

There is an IT/GIS Department and the GIO function is performed by the Assistant CIO of the
Department. It is a centralized operation, where the cities can access the County‟s GIS from the
WAN. Most editing of the data is performed by the IT/GIS staff, including parcels and streets.
Most of the County departments utilizing GIS, apart from the ArcServer applications, and who use
the desktop version, have an analyst that is the Subject Matter Expert for their department.

Agreements are in place with the municipalities in the County. Prior to posting data, the
municipalities review the edits and quality control prepared by the County GIS staff. Horry County
is very GIS centric and applications read directly from the SDE databases.

Complete support has been shown from Division Directors in the funding and project involvement.
The GIS decisions are the responsibility of the GIO and CIO.
One of the biggest challenges facing the GIS program is adequate staffing. Additionally, the
compensation does not equal the private sector and it can be difficult to retain staff for this reason.

Gwinnett County, GA

Background

Gwinnet County, GA has a 2007 estimated population of 776,380 with 266,000 parcels on 437
square miles. It is considered primarily a suburban county. The GIS program has been functioning
for 19 years.

Timeliness

Initially the entire county was mapped with basemap planimetric and topographic data. This has
grown to include over 100 layers currently including the planimetric, topo, orthophotographs,
LIDAR, DEM, parcels, boundaries, public safety, etc. Pictometry is also a data set. The landbase
data (orthophotos, planimetric, topographic, LiDAR) is updated annually, mostly to support the
Stormwater Management fee calculations of impervious surfaces. This includes digital aerial
photography, 2‟ contours, DEM, LiDAR. The entire county is updated every year. The scale of the
database is 1” = 100‟. Updates are contracted to a mapping firm; quality control is in-house,
sometimes using interns or contractors. The update to impervious surfaces and orthos is complete
by May 15 and updates to remaining products by December 30 of each year. This is all based upon
new photography. Rapid suburbanization and stormwater billing have driven the need for this
cycle.

Updates are contracted to a mapping firm under a 4 year maintenance contract. The County works
with the contractor by providing area polygons in which major changes have occurred.

Timeline Data Layer Update Method

1990s Orthophotos, planimetric layers, Initial data creation
property layers
1990s - current Layers continually added Staggered updates
Current Countywide Orthophotos, 2’ Countywide update every year,
contour, planimetric new orthophotography annually

Funding

The costs are approximately $500,000 annually. This includes all of the products and new flights
for LiDAR and new aerial photography. The funding is received through the County budget. This
comes from a basemap update operating budget item. Multiple departments contribute to this item.
The basemap funding is adequate to support the program and there are no plans to change it.

There is a digital data sales policy which offers 6 datasets at $100 per set and custom maps. The
annual revenue is unknown.
Organizational

There is a central GIS Unit for support and maintenance under ITS. Every department in the county
uses GIS to some degree. Many update their own data and create maps/analysis. There is a GIS
Community of Interest in place which has representatives from each participating department. Data
ownership agreements were made through this group. The GIS Community of Interest
representatives consists of all upper management staff and they provide guidance and oversight.
They also work together to create the GIS Strategic Plan. Also, the commissioners and department
directors are all very supportive of GIS, because the realize the results are indispensible

Throughout the County approximately 500 users view GIS and Pictometry but only about 30 people
are permitted to edit data. Central GIS staff quality controls data prior to releasing to all viewers.

The program is driven mainly by State and Federal mandates and integration with major business
systems. The original program necessitated a major change due to a failed software vendor.

GIS at Gwinnett County is successful due to the enterprise approach. Every department and agency
uses GIS in a variety of ways to perform the business functions. Some use GIS simply to find
which city a property is in to determine fees, while others perform detailed analysis to support
comprehensive planning. There is also integration with major business systems such as the Tax
system (Manatron), the ERP/CRM system (SAP) and permitting application (Accela), to best
leverage GIS and each of these systems.

Although challenges have come in the form of budget and staffing, keeping up with new technology
is the biggest challenge for the near future.

SUMMARY OF JURISDICTION SURVEY

A total of 5 local and 4 national jurisdictions were surveyed throughout the comparable study.
There are more similarities than differences in the implementation of enterprise GIS in the local
governments, both regionally and nationally that were interviewed. Key common components are
summarized below.

Central GIS organization within IT

Large departments securing GIS support staff
Standards defined, duplication of efforts not practiced
Supported funding mechanisms, regular budget requests approved
Recognized need for scheduled update programs (data maintenance)
Sales not expected to support program
Recognized benefit, no longer need to justify
Use of commercial products (Google Earth, Pictometry) part of program
 Growing user base
Good communication is important
Development, public safety, growing user base, accountability reporting is all driving
demand for more frequently updated data
Buildings, roads, and hydro are the most used planimetric layers and there is a commitment
to keep this data current. Orthophotography and Pictometry are important data sets also.
Orthophotography is generally moving to a 2 year update processs
Development of 2‟ contours using LiDAR. Topographic data is being updated on a less
frequent cycle in comparison to the planimetrics. Numerous organizations have undertaken
several LiDAR update cycles.
Use of other jurisdiction procurement vehicles can lead to efficiency
Use of State products has been beneficial
Use of multiyear contracts has provided efficiency in production and in standardizing the
update process.
The Baltimore/Washington/Northern Virginia corridor makes extensive use of GIS. These
jurisdictions have been active with implementing GIS for over a decade, in some cases, more. The
first step in the implementation was to develop the data upon which all the applications and analysis
can be built. This represents a large investment and is the most expensive initial component of the
GIS implementation. Although perhaps not at the outset, currently each jurisdiction has recognized
the need to consistently fund and maintain the investment in data. Without current data, the benefit
of GIS quickly diminishes and the investment in the software applications begins to also lose value.
Complimentary to that is how Counties have embedded GIS as a function within larger business
applications, such as development review, public safety, and website information.

The jurisdictions have been successful in integrating GIS in various departments with the data and
applications reliably solving many business processes and needs. GIS Units have consistently been
established in the Information Technology Departments; again, as each jurisdiction recognizes that
this is an enterprise resource that needs central management that cannot be achieved through any
single business department. GIS has proven to be a technology that enables government to achieve
the many benefits that were initially proposed in the early years of GIS development. Because of
this, all the counties surveyed have committed to funding the GIS operation, and specifically the
data update. It is either a line item in the budget or there are established mechanisms to receive the
appropriate funds for cyclical updates on a scheduled basis. Although a single “best practice” does
not appear as the definitive guide, the common understanding that the data must be maintained and
refreshed, just as technology refreshes are becoming standardized, is the one that applies to all of
these local jurisdictions. All recognize the necessity of this commitment, and the best practice has
become the one that most suits the County budget and resource allocations.

Because the technology and data development methods have and are changing, the needs are also
changing. Where there once was a need to capture every detailed planimetric feature, the real
business use of this data over time has shown that currently it is not necessary with the availability
of other data. Pictometry is a good example of a newer technology and data that is cheaper and
better for many users than vector planimetric layers. Users have figured out what specific layers are
indispensible (i.e. property, addresses, buildings and roads) and what information could be obtained
in another form such as Pictometry. However, since the government has such a breadth of
information that it needs to perform services to constituents, most data layers will have a use within
county government. When specific planimetric needs are identified, generally the agency will
coordinate with the central GIS group and either develop the layer adhering to standards or cede the
management of the data conversion to the GIS group.

Another recognized issue with the data and data maintenance is that duplicate and conflicting data
causes problems. The centralizing of data with standards and documentation that is reliable is very
important. With this approach, funds will not be wasted and extremely importantly, data will be
correct. Therefore, it is important that one group is responsible for managing the data and updates.
Even when departments within a county update their information, the database is centrally managed
and accessed. Experience has shown that this causes problems if not done this way.

As with any enterprise resource, communication is paramount to the successful long term benefit of
it. A central GIS Unit needs to have effective and complete communication about the status of the
data (whether good or bad) and known, standard procedures upon which people are basing
decisions. This is often difficult to achieve in a large government structure, but the goal is to
continue to strive for optimum mechanisms to communicate.

Every county has appropriated, whether in line item form or by supported requests, dollars between
$100 –$500K annually or on a regular basis. These monies (even in years that have not entirely
been spent) are viewed as the necessary maintenance of the ever changing GIS data, especially the
base (planimetrics) that government is relying upon, many times for critical health/safety reasons.
Self funding mechanisms have been the exception, and the revenues gained have shown to be
inadequate to support a continuing operation. With the current technology and availability of
commercial products (i.e. Pictometry, Google Maps, TeleAtlas), the need for the government to
create expensive data is diminishing. The public also has the same availability of much of this data,
much of which is free, and the willingness or need to “buy” it from the government is also
changing. At this point, this survey concludes that local jurisdictions are not dependent upon sales
to support their GIS operation – either for resources or data.

Efficient procurement and maximizing existing contracts or partnering with a State agency has also
served County governments well. The State programs have allowed counties to acquire data more
frequently and inexpensively than perhaps budgets would allow.
The following table summaries the findings for the local and national jurisdictions surveyed

Jurisdiction Size Orthophoto Data Replacement Annual Funding Self Program Management
Update Update or Budget Source funding Driver
Cycle Cycle Maintenance GIS
Mapping program

Baltimore 600 SQM Every 2-3 4 – 5 years Update $250K – County No Large user GIS Unit within
County, MD 800,000 years $400K capital base and IT Department
population funding many GIS
applications
throughout
County

PG County, 485 SQM State 4 -5 years Replacement Requested as County No Stormwater GIS Unit within
MD 880,000 program, needed budget management IT department.
population every 2 – 3 engineering, Database
years and management
development with M-
community NCPPC PG

Howard 250 SQM Every 2 Every 5 Replacement Requested as Chargeback No 911 and Central GIS
County, MD 270,000 years years needed from County development Unit within IT
population departments review department
to operating integration
budget

Fairfax 400 SQM Every 2 ¼ county Update of ¼ $300 - $500K County No Rapid Central GIS
County, VA >1M years per year County annually capital development Unit within IT
population annually funding and planned department
integration
with 911
system

Knox 500 SQM Every 2 – 3 1/3 of Update of 1/3 $300K $100K from No Large User Central GIS
County, TN years County county annually annually each base, Unit within IT
annually consortium Consortium department
member – agreements
City, County,
Utility Board
Jurisdiction Size Orthophoto Data Replacement Annual Funding Self Program Management
Update Update or Budget Source funding Driver
Cycle Cycle Maintenance GIS
Mapping program

Westchester 450 SQM Every 3 – 4 Every 4 – 6 Update $500K for County No User base, Central GIS
County, NY 1M years years replacement budget development Unit within IT
population mapping activity department

Gwinnett 437 SQM Annually Annually Update $500K County No Integration Central GIS
County, GA 776,000 maintenance budget with major Unit within IT
population contract with business department
mapping firm applications,
analysis
functions

Horry 1100 SQM Annually Annually Update $300K County No Calculation of Central GIS
County, SC 210,000 maintenance budget – impervious Unit within IT
population contract with Stormwater surface for department –
mapping firm fees stormwater GIO and
contribute fee, integration Assistant CIO
$200K, IT with major are the same
contributes business person
$100K applications
 APPENDIX B
JURISDICTION SURVEY QUESTIONS

BACKGROUND

1. What is the size of the jurisdiction? (Population, number of parcels, square miles)

2. What is the composition - urban, rural, suburban, or mix?

3. How long has your jurisdiction been involved in GIS?

4. What were the initial mapping products? Did it cover the entire jurisdiction?

5. What products does the jurisdiction have now- i.e. orthos, planimetric, LIDAR, etc.?

6. What commercial products and licenses does the jurisdiction use - i.e. Pictometry, Google
maps, etc.?

TIMELINESS

7. How often is the planimetric data updated? Is there a standard update schedule? The entire
jurisdiction Or stages? If stages - what are the stages?

8. What scale is the database?

9. Is updating done in house or contracted? How is quality control performed?

10. What is the cost of updates? Especially the planimetric updates

FUNDING

11. How is it funded currently?

12. Do you sell data /GIS based products? How much revenue does it generate?

13. Is there a budget line item for GIS database updates (need to specify orthos, planimetric,
other)?

14. Is it from a single department or multiple departments or other mechanisms?

15. Is it adequate or is more funding needed?

16. Are there plans to change it?

ORGANIZATIONAL

17. Where does GIS fall within your organization (IT, public works, planning)? Is it centralized
or decentralized? Is all GIS performed within a single department?

18. If decentralized, are there any partnerships in place with other agencies concerning data
maintenance?

19. Are there any partnerships/consortiums in place with other jurisdictions, either neighbors or
state/regional level?

20. What update agreements (in house or licenses) are in place? How are they enforced?

21. What is the size of the GIS user base? Do they contribute updates? How is quality control
maintained?

INFLUENCES

22. What are the program drivers?

23. Have there been influences that necessitate changes in the basic program? If so, what are
these influences (political, economic, or growth)?

24. How involved/interested is senior management/governing councils in GIS? What oversight

is provided?

ISSUES

25. What is the biggest problem/challenge facing you GIS program at this time?

26. What do you see as the biggest problem/challenge in the near future?