Data Sharing Partnership

1
Data Sharing Partnership

• Round 1 Process
• Summary

2
Partnership Characteristics

• Funding for data development updates
• State collects data and translates to
  standardized format no added work for local
  governments
• Statewide base of consistent, integrated,
  standardized, updated data
• Formal agreement outlining roles, with periodic
  review and out-clauses
• Quid pro quo
• Voluntary participation, no unfunded mandate
• Phased development approach
• Limit risk exposure of local government partners
• Intuitive interface for all partners and public

3
Barriers

• Funding
• No inventory of existing or needed data or
  technology
• Risk/liability issues
• Privacy/confidentiality issues
• Roles/responsibilities not defined

4
Opportunities

• State could offer
• Funding mechanism for money from locals, feds,
  private sector, others
• Data graphics, attributes, imagery
• HW/SW/Infrastructure centralized accessibility
• Metadata assistance
• Translation, reformatting assistance
• Better coordination to achieve efficiencies

5
Concerns

• Incentives may be difficult to demonstrate
• Liability/risk
• Locals cant take on more work
• Update frequency differs for each data set
• Data may be misused or misapplied
• More data may mean more work to support
• Privacy

6
Next Steps

• Conduct inventory of existing and needed data,
  technology, expenditures
• Articulate and demonstrate incentives
• Ask Legislature to establish Work Group
• Determine and articulate phased approach
• Define possible sharing mechanisms
• Involve citizens