1. Data Sharing Policies and Licensing Will Craig University of Minnesota & NSGIC

2. 35W Bridge Collapse Wednesday, August 1, 2007 115 drop in seconds 13 killed, 145 injured Mayor and Governor declared Disaster – Bush Emergency Neither city nor county would release adjacent parcel data to R&R teams

3. Census Addresses Addresses cannot be shared Title 13 of US Code Baldridge v Shapiro, 1982 LUCA, 1994, but no retention Could undermine Census Could bring harm to individuals Address Points added in 2010 $444 million No plan for updating NSGIC pushing for release & joint maintenance Craig, 2006

4. 2010 CA County Parcel Prices Extreme$375,000Orange County Other Fee > Cost of Copy $650 - $2,8504 counties Privately Maintained $1,500 - $13,400 4 counties Fee = Cost of Copy or Free $0 - $15028 counties Recently revised policy $020 counties Joffee, personal communication

5. Santa Clara County, California Charged $250k for this data; license allowed no sharing Sued by non-profit under CA sunshine law County claims copyright, national security County loses lawsuit, 2009 Must pay $500k to non-profit for legal fees Headline screams Hoarding Map Data Wired, 10/14/09

6. Lost NEPA Data National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires use of [state/local] data in Environmental Impact Statements That data is improved and augmented, but never shared. Why? No NEPA policy Metadata hurdle No host site No license requirement

7. Open Data Pays Dividends Washington DC releases data to public in 2008 Holds Apps for Democracy 30 day contest with $50k in prizes Gets $2.6million value in 47 apps for iPhone, Facebook and web Round 2 coming up

8. Open Access Advantages Diverse channels for dissemination Decreased end-user costs for raw data Easy market entry for small innovators (Value Added Resellers) Rapid development of NSDI Drawbacks Limited supply of products & services Difficult to recover development costs Few fiscal incentives for data enhancements Unregulated re- distribution of data Lopez 1996

9. Open Access Stakeholders Winners End users Smaller redistributors Smaller users, eg non-profits Requestors of raw datasets Losers Public agency selling data Partners seeking exclusive distribution rights Others seeking exclusive partnerships Lopez 1996

10. Cost Recovery Advantages Reduced cost & increased revenues to agency Incentives for govt. data production Improved govt. data products & services Consistency of govt. data & standards Drawbacks Increased cost to users Monopoly supply of primary data sources Creaming of lucrative data products Decreasing compet- itiveness of data market Lopez 1996

11. Cost Recovery Stakeholders Winners Public agency owners Exclusive partners Large industries with resources to buy Smaller players with privileges Losers End users Non-exclusive redistributors Other public agencies Small firms, etc without privileges Lopez 1996

12. Open Records & Tax Base Growth Why Correlation? Improved operations (banks, Realtors, etc.) Attraction of outside $ Improved built environment Reduced insurance premiums Klein 2009

13. Fee Structure Options Average Cost X = Total Cost n = Est. # of buyers then... Fee = X / n Marginal Cost Fee = out-of-pocket costs of serving one customer (staff time & materials only)

14. Ten Ways to Support GIS without Selling Data 1. Capitalize new economic development 2. Tap into better sales/prop tax collections 3. Tap into related fees; e.g. deed recordation 4. Tap data collection parts of new programs 5. Royalties from VAR sales 6. Sell services to other agencies 7. Pay from programmatic savings 8. Pay from infrastructure mgmt. cost savings 9. Allocate costs to operating budgets 10. Allocate funds from general budget Joffe 2005

15. Licensing Geographic Data and Services 2004 Mapping Sciences Committee, National Academy Good reasons to license Retain credit/Attribution Restrain no-effort resellers Limit liability - disclaimers Formalize relationship Can still be free Caveats on licensing Standardize, simplify Limit use on data used for regs or policies that affect citizen rights

16. A Process Framework for Developing Local Government Data Access Policies South Carolina Solution Geospatial Administrators Association of South Carolina Assist local government in establishing a data distribution policy Defines a process Have a well thought out policy that fits their perspective and objectives GAASC 2009

18. Improving Data Exchange MnGCGI 2003 IssueSolutions Private/Confidential Make anonymous, Summarize, or non-disclosure agreement Cost recovery Estimate & document Liability Disclaimer Redistribution What limits? Derived products? Documentation Metadata Technical support Charges Distribution mode Web vs. CD vs. custom

19. Which Randy Johnson is right? ~$90,000/yr sales What are the internal benefits to Hennepin County? Community benefits Cost/Benefit analysis FGDC 2010 CAP grant Results next year Hennepin County MN

20. Lets discuss

21. Bibliography Craig, William J. 2006. A Master Address File for State and Local Government, URISA Proceedings.A Master Address File for State and Local Government GAASC. 2009. Guide to Developing GIS Data Access Policies, South Carolina GISGuide to Developing GIS Data Access Policies Joffe, Bruce. 2005. Ten Ways to Support GIS Without Selling Data, URISA Journal.Ten Ways to Support GIS Without Selling Data Klein, Dennis. 2009. Broad Use of Digital Parcel Maps and Property Tax Base Growth, Fair & Equitable, IAAO, March. Lopez, Xavier. 1996. Stimulating GIS Innovation Through Dissemination of Geographic Information, URISA Journal.Stimulating GIS Innovation Through Dissemination of Geographic Information Mapping Science Committee. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services, National Academy Press.Licensing Geographic Data and Services MnGCGI. 2003. Making the Most of Geospatial Data Exchange, Minnesota Governors Council on Geographic Information.Making the Most of Geospatial Data Exchange