Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/02/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Community Technology Advisory Commission - Regular Community technology advisory commission meeting February 18, 2026 6 p.m. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, contact Jacque Smith at jsmith@stlouisparkmn.gov or 952.924.2632, or the administrative services department at 952.924.2505. Community technology advisory commission The St. Louis Park Community Technology Advisory Commission is meeting in person in the Westwood Room on the third floor of St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person. Agenda 1. Call to order – roll call 2. Approval of minutes: Jan. 21, 2026 3. Workplan review and next steps 4. Communications and announcements 5. Adjournment Community technology advisory commission meeting January 21, 2026 6 p.m. Community technology advisory commission Minutes Members present: Shane Leverenz, Konnor Slaats, Kayla Stautz, Benjamin Straus Members absent: Reid Anderson, Nat Johnson Staff liaisons: Jacque Smith, communications and technology director School District Laison: Tom Marble, St. Louis Park Public Schools (non-voting member) 1. Call to order – roll call It was moved by Commission Member Slaats, seconded by Commission Member Stautz, approved 4-0 to call the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. Commission members present included Commission Member Slaats (Chair), Commission Member Dyer (Vice Chair), Commission Member Leverenz, Commission Member Stautz, School District Liaison Marble and Staff Liaison Smith. Commission Members Johnson and Anderson were not present; Commission Member Straus joined the meeting at 6:23 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes – Nov. 19, 2025 It was moved by Commission Member Slaats, seconded by Commission Member Leverenz, to approve the minutes from Nov. 19, 2025. The motion passed 4-0. 3. Review revised workplan and council advisory form Commission Member Slaats initiated a discussion about the workplan, noting that two items had been included: generative AI options and resident engagement technology evaluation. Commission Member Slaats mentioned a potential third workplan item related to public safety technology that had been discussed previously with Reid but was ultimately abandoned. Commission Member Leverenz recalled meeting with Reid where they discussed potential roadblocks to the public safety technology item, including issues with accessing police data and potential pushback on information sharing. Commission Member Slaats suggested they could move forward with the two current workplan items and potentially revisit the third item later. Commission Member Leverenz suggested it would be better to proceed with just the two established items rather than trying to create a new one right before presenting to the city council. Commission Member Stautz agreed with this approach. Ms. Smith noted that meeting time could be used as work time for the commission. The commission then discussed the two workplan items in more detail: The first item was described as a white paper/research report on generative AI for cities, exploring policy adaptations cities might need to make to be AI-compatible in the future. This would include examining peer cities and use cases for generative AI technology. Commission Member Stautz mentioned that several Twin Cities municipalities including Edina, Minnetonka and Saint Paul were part of an AI consortium they could research. The second workplan item would involve assessing the MySLP app, documenting existing features, capabilities, accessibility and integrations with other city software and technologies. The assessment would include researching industry best practices, examining peer municipality apps and determining whether there were opportunities to improve the app or if it was even necessary. Ms. Smith noted that the MySLP app included both information push to residents and work ticket tracking capabilities that allowed residents to submit issues. Commission Member Stautz asked whether the app and website used the same system for work submissions. Ms. Smith confirmed they did. It was moved by Commission Member Slaats, seconded by Commission Member Stautz, to send the two workplan items to the city council. The motion passed 5-0. After the vote, the commission briefly discussed how they would divide the work. The AI research group would have each member explore three of nine identified areas related to city operations, research how generative AI might impact those areas, and bring their findings together for discussion at the February meeting. The app evaluation group would conduct research on the existing MySLP app features, examine what other metro area cities offer and investigate industry standards, bringing their findings together to determine next steps at the February meeting. 4. Communications and announcements Ms. Smith indicated she had no communications items. 5. Adjournment It was moved by Commission Member Dyer, seconded by Commission Member Slaats, to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. The motion passed 5-0. These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited and finalized by a city staff person. Board and Commission Annual work plan Presented to council: February 18, 2025 Approved by council: 1 2025 work plan │ Communications and Technology Commission 1 Initiative name: Support citywide Vision 4.0 process Initiative type: ☒ Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐ Independent research project ☐ Gather community feedback ☐ Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐ Applicant-initiated ☒ Staff-initiated ☐ Commission-initiated ☐ Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐ Yes ☒ No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): None, all will be involved. If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☒ No Initiative description: Support the citywide Vision 4.0 process by participating directly and/or encouraging others to participate, and by sharing information with other community members about the process. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: 3Q 2025 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: None Staff support required: Communication from staff liaison about opportunities with Vision 4.0 Liaison comments: Plan to keep the commission informed about opportunities to assist with the citywide Vision 4.0 process.  Commission members received information from the community engagement coordinator throughout the Vision 4.0 process, including invites to participate in surveys and to host community meetings. Board and Commission Annual work plan 2  Commission member Benjamin Straus hosted a community meeting at his apartment complex.  Commission members reviewed the Dec. 8, 2025, Vision 4.0 council report presented to the city council, to inform CTAC additional workplan goals for 2026. 2 Initiative name: Participate in city website redesign review process Initiative type: ☒ Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐ Independent research project ☐ Gather community feedback ☐ Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐ Applicant-initiated ☒ Staff-initiated ☐ Commission-initiated ☐ Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐ Yes ☒ No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): None, all members or a small group will be involved. If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☒ No Initiative description: While the exact process for the redesign has yet to be determined, we plan to draw on the expertise of the CTAC by involving members, or a small group of members, in potential user group testing or other review of a draft redesign of the city website. Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: 3Q 2025 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: None Staff support required: Staff liaison Liaison comments: The primary goals of the redesign are to ensure compliance with upcoming ADA requirements, ensure mobile accessibility and improve search function. CTAC will be asked to focus on these items in its review.  CTAC members Konnor Slaats and Kayla Stautz each participated in one of two user experience workshops Sept. 9 and 11, both two hours each. Both were provided with recordings of the workshop they didn’t attend, and provided comments on user feedback, as well as suggested wireframe and design elements. Board and Commission Annual work plan 3 3 Initiative name: Stay informed about pending legislation affecting cable and technology Initiative type: ☒ Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐ Independent research project ☐ Gather community feedback ☐ Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐ Applicant-initiated ☒ Staff-initiated ☐ Commission-initiated ☐ Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐ Yes ☒ No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): None, all will be involved If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☒ No Initiative description: CTAC is asked to stay informed about pending legislation that may affect the city’s cable franchise, or other technologies vital to the community such as broadband. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: Ongoing This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: None Staff support required: Information and updates from staff liaison Liaison comments: Staff liaison will stay informed of pending legislation through contact with state and national advocacy organizations, as well as through the city’s legislative staff and lobbyists. Information affecting cable and technology will be shared with CTAC members. Board and Commission Annual work plan 4 4 Initiative name: Whitepaper – Future of Generative AI for Cities Initiative type: ☐ Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☒ Independent research project ☐ Gather community feedback ☐ Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐ Applicant-initiated ☐ Staff-initiated ☒ Commission-initiated ☐ Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐ Yes ☒ No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): Konnor Slaats, Kayla Stautz, Benjamin Straus If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☒ No Initiative description: This is a proposed whitepaper seeking to explore the question: how might cities need to adapt to be generative artificial intelligence (AI)-compatible in the future? The whitepaper will explore policy adaptations cities, including St. Louis Park, may need to make in a generative AI-enabled future. Peer cities and use cases for generative AI tech will be explored in areas such as public works, public-facing chatbots, planning and zoning, external resources and coalitions, and public engagement. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: Q3 2026 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Board and Commission Annual work plan 5 Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: CTAC has reviewed the generative AI guidelines generated in November 2024 for city staff, and is aware of the data assessment project conducted in 2025 to move the city toward the goal of having reliable, organized data to “feed” any future generative AI project. Data cleanup will continue in 2026. 5 Initiative name: mystlouispark (city customer response management system) assessment Initiative type: ☐ Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☒ Independent research project ☐ Gather community feedback ☐ Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐ Applicant-initiated ☐ Staff-initiated ☒ Commission-initiated ☐ Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐ Yes ☒ No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): Rudyard Dyer, Shane Leverenz, Tom Marble (school district staff liaison) If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☒ No Initiative description: The commission team members will conduct an assessment and review of the current MySLP app. We will document the current feature set, capabilities, accessibility (language options), and integrations. Research will be conducted on industry best practices and peer municipality apps to determine if there are any opportunities to expand, further integrate, or modify the existing MySLP app in any way to provide more or better benefits to residents. We will also examine whether the MySLP app is even necessary. The end deliverable will be a report outlining the current condition and capabilities of MySLP with recommendations for any changes, enhancements, or modifications to the platform. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Board and Commission Annual work plan 6 Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: City staff are currently evaluating this product for compatibility with other software being used in the city for tracking work requests internally, in an attempt to eliminate duplicate efforts. Initiative Origin Definitions  Applicant-initiated – Project initiated by 3rd party (statutory boards)  Staff-initiated – Project initiated by staff liaison or other city staff  Commission-initiated – Project initiated by the board or commission  Council-initiated – Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council Strategic Priorities 1. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. 2. St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. 3. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. 4. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. 5. St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement Modifications  Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways:  Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session. Board and Commission Annual work plan 7  If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city council approval at a council meeting.  The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion. Future ideas Initiatives that are being considered by the board or commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the board or commission decides they would like to amend a work plan. Initiative Comments