Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/07/15 - ADMIN - Minutes - Community Technology Advisory Commission - Regular Community technology advisory commission meeting July 15, 2026 6 p.m. Community technology advisory commission Minutes Members present: Elsa Anderson, Reid Anderson, Edward Bulliner, Rudyard Dyer, Lindsay Keogh, Konnor Slaats, Kayla Stautz Members absent: Ben Straus, Tom Marble Staff liaison: Jacque Smith, communications and technology director 1. Call to order – roll call The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. Members introduced themselves. Chair Slaats noted he has served on the commission since 2021 and works in product operations. Commission Member Stautz said she has been on the commission for close to a year and works as general manager of the consumer business for a technology company. Commission Member Reid Anderson noted he works as a software engineer and has been on the commission for just under a year. Vice Chair Dyer noted he has lived in St. Louis Park for over a decade, has served on the commission since 2022, and works in due diligence at an alternative investment management company. Commission Member Bulliner introduced himself as new to the commission and to St. Louis Park, having moved here approximately a year and a half prior. He noted he works in geographic information systems software, has a background in statistics and data science, and previously worked in government. Commission Member Keogh introduced herself as new to the commission and noted she works as a product manager, focused on search and digital experiences. Commission Member Elsa Anderson introduced herself as a 16-year-old high school junior. 2. Approval of minutes – April 15, 2026 It was moved by Commissioner Slaats, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the April 15, 2026, minutes. The motion passed. 3. Presentations – none 4. Business Review and approve purpose statement Ms. Smith displayed the current purpose statement alongside a proposed draft for the commission's review. The draft statement introduced language around city-provided public- facing technology. Chair Slaats expressed a preference for broader language, suggesting that a focus solely on public-facing technology could exclude relevant matters such as technology by outside entities which the city may have to respond to, for example, data centers. He proposed language referencing how technology can improve resident services and enhance quality of life. Commission Member Keogh agreed that framing the purpose around residents and quality of life would appropriately capture the commission's advisory scope, noting that the draft reflected the city's strategic direction and the increasingly interwoven role of technology across city functions. Vice Chair Dyer suggested the language could also acknowledge technology that could negatively affect quality of life. He proposed morphing the original and draft statements to reference how city-provided technology can affect residents. Commission Member Bulliner noted the importance of a holistic perspective and acknowledged that back-end systems often affect public-facing outcomes. Commission Member Reid Anderson suggested simplified language referencing city-provided technology without the public-facing qualifier. After discussion the commission agreed to modify the draft to reference how technology can improve resident services and enhance quality of life, removing the public-facing qualifier while retaining the general structure of the draft statement. The revised statement was approved, as follows: “The Community Technology Advisory Commission advises the city council and other city bodies on how technology services can improve resident services and enhance quality of life. By researching emerging technologies, assessing their potential impact, and recommending solutions grounded in clearly defined problems, the commission helps ensure that technology decisions support the city’s long-term strategic goals.” Work plan items: background, workgroups, progress Chair Slaats provided background on the commission's work over the past year. He described the commission's role as an advisory body to city council and noted that a meeting with council in April 2026 helped clarify expectations, with a follow-up council meeting scheduled for September 2026. He explained that the commission had split into two workgroups: one focused on artificial intelligence and one focused on evaluating the city's digital presence, including the city website and the My St. Louis Park app. Chair Slaats then presented a proposed framework for how the commission might structure its future work. He described a multi-stage process involving three phases: signals, exploration and active work. In the signals phase, commission members would bring forward brief summaries of technology trends, peer city activities, policy developments or resident-relevant issues. These would be submitted to Ms. Smith in advance of meetings for distribution with meeting materials and discussed at the start of each meeting, with the commission deciding collectively whether to watch, explore further or set aside each signal. Chair Slaats suggested that two members might bring signals per meeting but that anyone could contribute. Commission Member Bulliner expressed support for receiving advance materials so members could formulate informed opinions prior to discussion. Commission Member Reid Anderson noted the framework helpfully defines what substantive commission work can look like for members who wish to contribute more. Commission Member Stautz noted that technology evolves quickly and that the framework would allow the commission to be more current and relevant. She also confirmed her understanding that all three stages would operate simultaneously, with work moving through the pipeline. Commission Member Keogh noted the framework allows work to be taken in manageable increments and raised the question of how resident voices might be incorporated into the process, acknowledging that was likely a future consideration. In the exploration phase, one or two members would draft a one-page framing of a potential topic, working toward a clear problem statement. Chair Slaats offered an example question related to the digital channels workgroup: what principles should the city use to determine if a resident-facing digital service provides sufficient public value. Vice Chair Dyer indicated he was open to reframing or restarting the digital channels workgroup given the extended period of limited progress, much of which was due to waiting for the city's website redesign. He noted the commission had previously reviewed website analytics and encountered questions about the overlap and distinction between the city website and the city’s app. Vice Chair Dyer suggested that a one-page exploration document could be a useful way to reframe that work with new members. In the active work phase, a lead commission member would outline the project and identify key decisions, with two or three contributors drafting sections. The full commission would then critique, debate and approve a final version for submission to council. Commission Member Stautz asked whether it would be worth attempting the signals component before the next meeting as a trial. Chair Slaats agreed it would. The commission decided to ask members to submit signal summaries to Ms. Smith by Aug. 12, 2026, ahead of the Aug. 19, 2026 meeting. Ms. Smith noted the timing is well suited to the upcoming September council meeting and suggested that the next meeting agenda include discussion of how to present the commission's new direction to council. Chair Slaats noted the draft AI paper compiled by Commission Member Stautz would be distributed with the next meeting packet for review and discussion, along with the framework document he had emailed the prior evening. Regarding the AI workgroup, Vice Chair Dyer noted progress had been set back when a former member departed. Chair Slaats indicated the workgroup was approaching completion and that distributing the draft ahead of the next meeting would allow the full commission to review and provide feedback. Ms. Smith confirmed she would distribute all relevant materials to members in advance of the Aug. 19, 2026 meeting. She also noted she would resend calendar invites for upcoming meetings to all members. Ms. Smith provided an update on the city's website redesign, noting a soft rollout is scheduled for Aug. 17, 2026. She described improvements including enhanced accessibility, improved search functionality and better mobile responsiveness. 5. Communications and announcements There were no communications or announcements 6. Adjournment It was moved by Chair Slaats, seconded by Commission Member Dyer, to adjourn. The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m. These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited and finalized by a city staff person.