National Geospatial Advisory Committee

National Geospatial Advisory Committee

Partnerships SubcommitteeDecember 2, 2009

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).

04/21/23

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

04/21/23

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)

04/21/23

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)

04/21/23

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

04/21/23

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…

04/21/23

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)

04/21/23

Partnership Subcommittee Progress Report 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

04/21/23

Local

State/Fed

Public

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

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 optionsPercent Count

My own particular views 82.6% 294The views of my organization 17.4% 62

Are you a user or provider of geospatial data?

UserProviderBoth

When procuring data, is the data typically of U.S. origin

YesNoBoth (Mixed)

Owned Licensed.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

As a user or provider of geospatial data, what percentage is owned versus license data? [must sum to 100%)

Owned Licensed.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

As a user or provider of geospatial data, what percentage is owned versus license data? [must sum to 100%)

Owned Licensed.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

As a user or provider of geospatial data, what percentage is owned versus license data? [must sum to 100%)

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 ResponseAverage Total Count

Owned 77.77 21,542 277Licensed 34.21 7,458 218

Public Private Academic

Note scale difference 90% versus 80% maximum

Is ownership versus license a key decision factor in the sale or purchase of your geospatial data?

Yes

No

Is ownership versus license a key decision factor in the sale or purchase of your geospatial data?

Yes

No

Is ownership versus license a key decision factor in the sale or purchase of your geospatial data?

Yes

No

Survey Results on Public Private Partnerships

Is Ownership versus license a key decision factor in the sale or purchase of your geospatial data?

Answer All Percent Count Yes 49.9% 173 No 50.1% 174

PublicYes

PrivateYes

AcedmYes

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 ResponsesPercent Count

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

0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%

If sold or procured using a license agreement, what are the key features of the agreement (choose all that apply)?

Public

0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%

If sold or procured using a license agreement, what are the key features of the agreement (choose all that apply)?

Private

0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%

If sold or procured using a license agreement, what are the key features of the agreement (choose all that apply)?

Academic

Federal State Local Tribal Private0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

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?

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)

04/21/23

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

04/21/23

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

No Barrier to Entry

Natural Monopoly

Mass C

on

sum

er Market

Traditional Emerging

Private Sector

Lead

Map

Wiki

Creat

ive

Comm

on

s

Public

Sec

tor

Lead Public/

Private

Utility

Where Do Various Data Layers Fit?

Urban AerialPhotography

RoutingData

Rural Aerial Photography

SpeciesSittings

Stream Gauges

Topo

StarbucksLocations

HSIP 1w/ DHS buy up

04/21/23 NSGIC Annual Meeting, Barney Krucoff 19

No Barrier to Entry

Natural Monopoly

Mass C

on

sum

er Market

Traditional Emerging

Private Sector

Lead

Map

Wiki

Creat

ive

Comm

on

s

Public

Sec

tor

Lead

Public/

Private

Utility

Parcel & AddressData

04/21/23 Barney Krucoff, NSGIC Annual Conference, 10/6/05 20

No Barrier to Entry

Natural Monopoly

Mass C

on

sum

er Market

Private

Sector Lead

Map

Wik

i

Creat

ive

Comm

o

ns

Public

Secto

r Lea

d Public/

Private

Utility

Public Private Utility Model in More Detail

Cash

Data

Discounts/Licenses

04/21/23 NSGIC Annual Meeting, Barney Krucoff 21

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.”

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.

Problems Addressed by the Partnership

Problem Solution

Government can’t afford nationwide parcels

Get some cash from Internet media firms + enough public cash to cover rural areas & provide incentives

Current system rewards government data sellers over public domain providers

Every eligible government that meets standards gets the same fee

Licensed data is sticky, making it hard for various levels of government to work together

License includes government-to-government data sharing

Foster competition and innovation Government leverages the free market by licensing data

Other considerations

Problems Solutions

A 1-to-1 relationship between addresses & parcels is a “suburban legend”

Give users both parcels and addresses so they don’t try to substitute one for the other

This stuff is boring and expensive and few people pay attention

Cloud computing approach is efficient and novel enough to get attention

Include a Wiki/citizen participation component

Comments from citizens, real-estate agents, etc are channeled back the community which is the authoritative source of the data.

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