National Geospatial Advisory Committee

1. National Geospatial Advisory Committee Partnerships Subcommittee December 2, 2009 National Geospatial Advisory Committee

2. Partnership Subcommittee Progress Report Subcommittee Members: Jerry Johnston (co-chair), Gene Schiller (co-chair), Bull Bennett, Michael Byrne, Dick Clark, Don Dittmar, Randy Johnson, Barney Krucoff, Timothy Loewenstein, Charles Mondello, John Palatiello Purpose: Develop recommendations to facilitate productive Federal / State / Local / Tribal / Academic / Private partnerships to facilitate the efficient and effective advancement of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). 10/13/2014

3. Partnership Subcommittee Agenda • Introduction (Jerry) • Legal Framework (Jerry) • Review of national situation from NCPPP paper • What we have learned about Florida • Next steps • Data Licensing Survey (Charlie) • Model partnerships in support of Parcels for the Nation (Barney) • Conclusion / Wrap Up • Next Steps • Parcels: Where do we go from here? • Legal Framework • Enlisting the help of experts (OGC, DOI attorneys) • Extending legal research to additional states 10/13/2014

4. Partnership Subcommittee Progress Report • Planned Activities/Next Steps From Summer 09 Mtg: • Extracted key information from submittals (continued) • What Works – Preliminary (see Attachment C: “NASCIO Keys to Collaboration: Building Effective Public-Private Partnerships”) (see Attachment D: “A Survey of PPP Legislation Across the United States”) • Establishment of favorable legislative, regulatory, and executive policy and procedure (OMB Circular) framework for creative partnership investments • Implementation of an integrated contractual framework to allocate risks among the partners, public and private in an equitable manner • Develop a model with the private sector to highlight benefits to all groups • Active engagement with political, staff and community stakeholders (need champions) 10/13/2014

5. Legal Framework • NCPPP Framework • Definitions • “More or less sustainable cooperation between public and private actors in which joint products and/or services are developed and in which risks, costs and profits are shared.” (SP Osborne, Public and Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective) • “An agreement between a federal, state, or local agency (public entity) and a private sector organization… objective is to leverage the collective expertise and resource to positively impact an issue that benefits the public… both organizations equally share the risk and reap the reward…” (US Chamber of Commerce) • “A contractual agreement between a public agency and a private sector entity… skills and assets of each sector are shared … for the use of the general public … shared risks and rewards” (National Council for Public Private Partnerships) 10/13/2014

6. Legal Framework • Florida Legislation of Relevance • FS 119 – Public Records • Ensure documents, etc. are available for open review • Potential issues with license restrictions on data • Trade secrets / confidential business information vs. full metadata • FS 472 – Land Surveying and Mapping • Partners need to comply by being licensed to practice land surveying and mapping in Florida • FS 286.011 – Public Business (Sunshine Law) • Has been applied to meetings of staff involved with evaluating proposals. Need to avoid disclosure of proprietary materials collected in RFP process. • FS 287.055 – Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act 10/13/2014

7. Legal Framework • Existing Florida PPPs for Geospatial • Primarily purchase of licensed data • FLDOT: Unified Basemap project • Developed partnership with Navteq, licensed data for all levels of government (State / Local) • Corrections and Updates fed from government back to Navteq • Not yet fully implemented • Florida Power and Light / Dade County • Geospatial data sharing, sounds like it hasn’t worked out well… 10/13/2014

8. Partnership Subcommittee Progress Report • Planned Activities/Next Steps From Summer 09 Mtg: • Extracted key information from submittals (continued) • What Works – Preliminary (see Attachment C: “NASCIO Keys to Collaboration: Building Effective Public-Private Partnerships”) (see Attachment D: “A Survey of PPP Legislation Across the United States”) • Establishment of favorable legislative, regulatory, and executive policy and procedure (OMB Circular) framework for creative partnership investments • Implementation of an integrated contractual framework to allocate risks among the partners, public and private in an equitable manner • Develop a model with the private sector to highlight benefits to all groups • Active engagement with political, staff and community stakeholders (need champions) 10/13/2014

9. Partnership Subcommittee Progress Report Local State/Fed Public • Planned Activities/Next Steps • Leverage existing Private Gov’t Public Models • Identify with how licensing as well as ownership of data can drive utilization and government/private/public benefit 10/13/2014

10. Action: Develop a model with the private sector to highlight benefits to all groups As a subset of the action Understand the needs of constituents in the partnership Engage our constituents optimally A survey was implemented to assess the key issues on data licensing Understand license versus ownership by segment Understand if partnerships are considered beneficial

11. Snapshot of Respondents Please indicate whether the questions answered throughout this questionnaire primarily reflect your own particular views, or those of the organization you work for. Answer options PercentCount My own particular views 82.6% 294 The views of my organization 17.4% 62

12. Survey Results on Public Private Partnerships As a user or provider of geospatial data, what percentage is owned versus license data? (must sum to 100%) Answer options Response Response Response AverageTotalCount Owned 77.77 21,542 277 Licensed 34.21 7,458 218 Note scale difference 90% versus 80% maximum Public Private Academic

13. Survey Results on Public Private Partnerships Is Ownership versus license a key decision factor in the sale or purchase of your geospatial data? Answer AllPercentCount Yes 49.9% 173 No 50.1% 174 Public Yes Private Yes Acedm Yes

14. Survey on Public Private Partnerships If sold or procured using a license agreement, what are the key features of the agreement (choose all that apply)? Answer options ALL Responses PercentCount Open/No Restriction 51.8% 116 Limited/Use Restriction 45.1% 101 Redistribution/Resale 24.1% 54 Annual License 14.7% 33 Multi Year License 12.1% 27 Perpetual License 19.6% 44 Seat License 10.3% 23 Site Wide License 12.9% 29 Corporate License 13.4% 30 Continuous Updates 13.8% 31 Public Private Academic

15. Survey Results on Public Private Partnerships Have you ever been involved with a project where third party funding from Federal, State, Local or the Private sector has been utilized to support geospatial content?

16. Partnership Subcommittee Progress Report • Planned Activities/Next Steps From Summer 09 Mtg: • Extracted key information from submittals (continued) • What Works – Preliminary (see Attachment C: “NASCIO Keys to Collaboration: Building Effective Public-Private Partnerships”) (see Attachment D: “A Survey of PPP Legislation Across the United States”) • Establishment of favorable legislative, regulatory, and executive policy and procedure (OMB Circular) framework for creative partnership investments • Implementation of an integrated contractual framework toallocate risks among the partners, public and private in an equitable manner • Develop a model with the private sector to highlight benefits to all groups • Active engagement with political, staff and community stakeholders (need champions) 10/13/2014

17. Partnership Subcommittee Agenda • Conclusion / Next Steps • Parcels: Where do we go from here? • Make Full Survey results sliced by different dimensions available on NGAC Communications website • Legal Framework • Enlisting the help of experts (OGC, DOI attorneys) • Extending legal research to additional states 10/13/2014

18. How a theoretical public-private partnership for parcels and addresses might work

19. Where Do Various Data Layers Fit? Map Wiki Creative Commons Private Sector Lead No Barrier to Entry Urban Aerial Photography Emerging Stream Gauges Starbucks Locations Species Sittings Routing Data HSIP 1 w/ DHS buy up Rural Aerial Photography Mass Consumer Market Public Good Emerging Traditional Topo Public Sector Lead Public/ Private Utility Traditional Natural Monopoly NSGIC Annual Meeting, Barney Krucoff

20. Map Wiki Creative Commons Private Sector Lead No Barrier to Entry Emerging Parcel & Address Data Mass Consumer Market Public Good Emerging Traditional Public Sector Lead Traditional Public/ Private Utility Natural Monopoly Barney Krucoff, NSGIC Annual Conference, 10/6/05

21. Public Private Utility Model in More Detail Map Wiki Creative Commons Private Sector Lead No Barrier to Entry Data Cash Mass Consumer Market Public Good Data Public Sector Lead Public/ Private Utility Discounts/Licenses Natural Monopoly NSGIC Annual Meeting, Barney Krucoff

22. Public Side • The lead federal agency: • Advertises a competitive RFP to license a national parcel map. • All governments (federal, state, local, tribal) are licensed to use the data per the RFP. • Commercial rights are retained by the winning bidder(s). • Select winner(s) based on “best value.”

23. Private Side • The winning entrepreneur(s) must: • Establish a cloud computing service and assemble all parcels into a national map and database. (see Dr. Sean Ahearn, parcel spec presentation to NGAC.) • Pay communities that are legal custodians of parcels ($0.?0 / year / parcel). This includes communities that already put their data in the public domain. Further subsidies may be paid for rural areas & public lands. • Don’t pay communities that don’t meet specifications, schedules or withhold distributions rights. • Where communities withhold distribution rights, create the data from public records. • Make money. Use/enforce the commercial rights to distribute national parcel data. This franchise is intended to allow bidders to in turn lower the price paid by the Federal government.

24. Problems Addressed by the Partnership

25. Other considerations

26. What other data sets could such a partnership be applied to?