HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/04/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Community Technology Advisory Commission - Regular Community technology advisory commission meeting
April 15, 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: March. 18, 2026
3. Workplan items
4. Communications and announcements
5. Adjournment
Community technology advisory commission meeting
March 18, 2026
6 p.m.
Community technology advisory commission
Minutes
Members present: Reid Anderson, Rudyard Dyer, Shane Leverenz, Konnor Slaats
Members absent: Kayla Stautz, Benjamin Straus, Tom Marble (school district liaison)
Staff liaison: Jacque Smith, communications and technology director
1. Call to order – roll call
The meeting was called to order at 6:05. A roll call was conducted.
2. Approval of minutes – Feb. 18, 2026
It was moved by Commission Member Slaats, seconded by Commission Member Leverenz, to
approve the Feb. 18, 2026, minutes with one change. The motion passed.
3. Workplan Items
Chair Slaats provided updates on the AI workplan item, noting that Commission Member Straus
and Commission Member Stautz were absent but had been working on the project for an
extended time. He indicated he would send notes to fill in team members on current progress
and suggested comparing notes on everyone's contributions at the next meeting.
Commission Member Leverenz reported that he had not made progress on their project but had
reviewed helpful information provided by city staff about the mystlouispark app. He planned to
use this information to document the current status of the city app including its features,
management structure, and costs as a baseline for future work.
Vice Chair Dyer acknowledged he had not made significant progress either but had examined
other city websites. He found the St Louis Park website significantly better than comparable
cities. He expressed difficulty in identifying needed improvements without being an active app
user and suggested conducting a public opinion poll to gather resident feedback on desired
features rather than brainstorming changes internally.
Commission Member Leverenz noted that during the previous meeting he and another member
had documented all app features by going through the application systematically. He found it
interesting that the communications team provided download statistics showing approximately
17,000 app downloads, with 6,000 users submitting requests since the app's 2014
implementation.
Chair Slaats questioned whether the download figure represented cumulative downloads since
2014. Commissioner Anderson stated that in the last two years there had been 1,000 iOS
downloads and approximately 1,000 Android downloads.
Commission Member Leverenz suggested a resident survey could be valuable for gathering
feedback on desired features. Ms. Smith noted that website redesign research might already
include relevant information since the new design will provide a better mobile experience that
functions similarly to an app. She emphasized the importance of understanding that the app
serves as customer response management beyond just providing general city information.
Chair Slaats observed that an assessment review could incorporate multiple elements including
capabilities evaluation, expansion opportunities, integration possibilities, modifications, and
comparisons with other cities. He suggested these components could be combined with a
potential survey as a comprehensive approach.
Commissioner Anderson discussed integration opportunities, noting his professional background
in system integration. He identified the lack of integration with key systems like utility billing,
task tracking, and solid waste collection as areas for improvement. He proposed that
recommendations could focus on automating app submissions directly into relevant city systems
to reduce staff workload and improve resident responsiveness.
Commission Member Leverenz supported this approach as it would create efficiency gains for
staff members who currently manually transfer information from the app to other systems.
Chair Slaats emphasized the importance of maintaining policy-level focus rather than getting too
detailed in technical functionality. He stressed the need to consider how recommendations
might influence future policy decisions.
Commission Member Leverenz clarified their goal is educating city council members about the
app's current functionality, costs, and considerations while providing information about other
cities' approaches. He suggested recommendations could include directing staff to conduct a
citywide survey for more detailed app usage information.
Ms. Smith explained that policy recommendations would be valuable for budget requests, which
become policy questions affecting city levy decisions. She noted that external assessments help
support budget proposals.
Commissioner Leverenz proposed that integration recommendations should focus on creating a
closed loop where user submissions go directly to appropriate staff and completion notifications
return to users automatically. Chair Slaats agreed this represents a policy question about
whether the city wants to achieve best-in-class status and suggested benchmarking against
other cities' spending and available products.
Commission Member Leverenz acknowledged making no substantial progress on the work plan
and hoped for updates at the next meeting.
Chair Slaats reported extensive research on AI applications across various cities including South
Africa, Cincinnati, and Ann Arbor. He noted having approximately 40 different use cases
covering multiple municipal divisions. The team's approach involves examining use cases across
different city departments rather than focusing on specific implementations.
Chair Slaats outlined their research framework covering internal city operations, chatbots for
internal and external use, public works applications including traffic cameras and automated
pothole detection, facilities and utilities management, public safety, planning and zoning, public
engagement, external resources including AI coalitions, and agentic AI applications.
Commission Member Leverenz mentioned Albania's appointment of an AI government minister
to oversee public procurement and combat corruption, representing the first country to have an
actual AI employee. He noted this as an interesting use case for AI in checks and balances.
Ms. Smith suggested considering the potential negative implications of AI tools beyond its
beneficial applications, such as how data is collected and aggregated on individuals.
Chair Slaats welcomed this perspective as a timely addition to their considerations section,
noting the importance of examining both positive applications and negative risks.
Commission Member Leverenz supported including awareness of negative consequences and
potential pitfalls alongside optimistic outlooks. He described the "nightmare scenario" method
used in strategic planning to identify worst-case outcomes and potential risk mitigation
strategies.
Chair Slaats shared an example of enterprise AI model concerns where extensive use could
result in companies owning employee thought processes and work products, though he noted
this may be less relevant for municipal applications.
Ms. Smith confirmed that city employees are likely using various AI tools since access is not
blocked, though Microsoft Copilot access is limited due to government cloud restrictions and
cost considerations.
Vice Chair Dyer inquired about potential collaboration with other commissions, specifically
regarding data center development concerns raised in communities like Rosemount. He noted
environmental and community impact issues that might warrant joint discussion with the
environmental commission.
Vice Chair Dyer suggested cross-collaboration with the environmental commission could provide
educational value about data center benefits and concerns including job creation and
development opportunities versus environmental impacts.
Commission Member Leverenz expressed interest in learning more about data center issues,
acknowledging that while he has technology understanding he was unclear about specific
community concerns regarding power and water consumption.
Ms. Smith indicated this could be added as an additional work plan item pending planning
department consultation about zoning processes for existing and potential data centers.
Chair Slaats confirmed he could communicate individually with team members working on AI
projects while maintaining compliance with open meeting requirements. He planned to share
compiled research notes with team members for the next meeting's collaborative discussion.
Commission Member Leverenz clarified open meeting law restrictions regarding email
communications, confirming that one-way information sharing is permissible but back-and-forth
email discussions among multiple members are prohibited.
4. Communications and announcements
Ms. Smith announced that terms for Commission Member Leverenz and Commission Member
Straus end in May and they should have received reappointment materials from Pat Coleman.
Ms. Smith noted that the annual council meeting will occur in September rather than April this
year. The chair and vice chair will attend with other members welcome to participate.
Ms. Smith reported that a work group of council members and city staff is reviewing 2025
updates to boards and commissions to assess improvements in communication and advisory
body effectiveness. The review focuses on implementation results, challenges, and needed
adjustments for 2026 including commission check-ins, communication tools, work plans,
information resources, and bylaws. The group will reconvene with a full recap to follow.
5. Adjournment
It was moved by Vice Chair Dyer to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed; meeting adjourned
at 6:43 p.m.
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
SRM Customer FAQ
💬Your account team is your guide.
Every question in this FAQ can be explored further with your dedicated Accela account
team. Don't hesitate to reach out at any stage of the process.
🔄Upgrading to SRM
Is there a cost to upgrade?
No. The upgrade to the SRM Mobile App is included at no additional cost. Your new SRM
contract will be priced in line with your current agreement, and your account team will walk
you through any details before you sign.
What do I need to do to prepare?
Your account team will guide you through every step. To get started:
Schedule a discovery call with your account team
Choose a preferred upgrade timeframe
Access the sandbox environment when available to explore the platform before go-live
ACCA ¨ SR C RQ S MAAM
‹ert ¨ ou ee to o† out u ¨r ¨ to SRM ¨e tt ¨ te most
out o¯ Ae s ‹ o er t os t¯orm§
3/31/26, 1:52 PM SRM Customer FAQ
1/5
How long will the migration take?
Migrations typically take 2–4 months
depending on your configuration. Your
account team will confirm a timeline
during your discovery call.
Who will support us during the
upgrade?
You'll have a dedicated account team
and a Professional Services team with
you throughout — from planning through
go-live.
Will both systems run at the same
time?
No. The migration is designed as a
clean cutover, so you won't need to
manage two systems simultaneously.
Will our URL change?
Yes, but Accela can redirect traffic from
your existing URL to the new platform so
residents experience a seamless
transition.
What gets migrated automatically?
Your existing data, configurations, and integrations move to SRM Mobile. The result is a fully
configured environment, a public-facing portal, and a branded mobile app — all ready at
launch. Specific details are confirmed during discovery.
Will our residents need to create new accounts?
No. Resident accounts — including usernames and passwords — are migrated automatically.
Residents pick up right where they left off.
How will residents know to download the new app?
Accela provides communication templates to help you notify residents. Your account team
will review your specific outreach needs during discovery.
3/31/26, 1:52 PM SRM Customer FAQ
2/5
Will our SSO setup carry over?
SSO requirements are reviewed during
discovery and addressed with a plan
specific to your agency.
Will pricing increase at renewal?
Your new contract pricing will not
exceed typical step-ups from your
current agreement. Optional add-ons
are available but never required.
What training and documentation will be provided?
Accela will provide user guides, documentation, and training aligned with the full product
suite. Your account team will share a training plan as part of your onboarding.
🏙About SRM
What is SRM?
SRM is Accela's citizen request management platform — not just a standalone 311 tool, but
part of a full civic operations platform. It includes:
SRM Mobile App — iOS and Android app for resident requests
SRM Civic Apps — staff-facing tools for managing requests
Public Portal — web-based intake for residents
Civic Platform integration — connects requests to permits, code enforcement, and
asset management
AI capabilities — text classification and image recognition (available by tier)
iOS & Android WCAG 2.1 AA ArcGIS Maps AI-Ready
3/31/26, 1:52 PM SRM Customer FAQ
3/5
What can residents do in the SRM Mobile App?
Submit service requests from iOS or Android
Search by keyword or browse by category
Submit anonymously (for eligible request types)
Receive push notifications and email confirmations
View ESRI ArcGIS maps for location-based requests
Log in with a unified account that also works on the Public Portal
What about accessibility?
SRM Mobile is WCAG 2.1 AA compliant,
ensuring it's accessible to residents of
all abilities.
What languages are supported?
The mobile app displays in the
resident's device language. Additional
language packs are available by plan tier
using customer-provided translations.
What third-party integrations are
supported?
SRM supports integrations including
iWorq and Tyler EP & L Enforcement
via open APIs. Your account team can
confirm compatibility.
What if we're not ready for Public
Portal yet?
No problem. Service requests are also
available through ACA (Accela Citizens
Access), which works as an interim web
solution.
What features from PublicStuff are not in SRM?
SRM was redesigned for streamlined, modern workflows. A small number of PublicStuff
features were intentionally not carried forward, including public request feeds, social-style
commenting, satisfaction ratings, Facebook login, and per-request privacy toggles. Your
account team can discuss your specific use cases during discovery.
3/31/26, 1:52 PM SRM Customer FAQ
4/5