The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025/05/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Community Technology Advisory Commission - Regular Community technology advisory commission meeting May 21, 2025 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 administration department at 952.924.2525. 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 26, 2025 3. Business • Recap of April 14, 2025, city council study session discussion • Discuss League of MN Cities + NLC mailing lists on technology/impacts to cities • Discuss whitepapers + value prop idea for CTAC • Community outreach on tech idea • Roadmap ideas 4. Staff updates • Boards and commissions items • Vision 4.0 5. Commission member updates 6. Next meeting: • July 23, 6 p.m. 7. Adjournment Community technology advisory commission meeting March 26, 2025 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 administration department at 952.924.2525. Community technology advisory commission Minutes Members present: Rudyard Dyer, Drew Keogh, Rolf Peterson, Mike Siegler, Konnor Slaats, Benjamin Straus Members absent: Nat Johnson Staff liaison: Jacque Smith, communications and technology director Guest: Marcus Paul, elections specialist 1. Call to order – roll call Keogh moved, Dyer seconded a motion to start the meeting. Meeting started 6:02 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes – January 22, 2025 Peterson moved, Slaats seconded a motion to approve the minutes as written. All voted in favor. 3. Business Candidate filings Marcus Paul, elections specialist, gave a presentation about 2025 candidate filings for city council and school board. Keogh asked Peterson, who is a former school board member, what was involved in that role. Peterson shared his experiences including training that was received from a state association. Paul provided information about how the city onboards new city council members. Peterson asked Paul if local elections would ever to be switched to even years to save money. Paul said ranked choice voting for city council members was a way to save costs; it would be challenging to run an RCV election alongside other offices in even years due to limitations of ballot machines. Dyer asked if there was a city council member job description on the city website; Keogh agreed that would be a good idea. Review workplan items Keogh gave an update on the first workplan item about the Vision 4.0 process. He shared his experiences attending the three ambassador cohort sessions. His takeaways were related to the need for better intracity transportation between commercial areas as well as more public transportation options; affordable housing; pride in the community; and reconstruction of Minnetonka Boulevard to create more of a “Main Street” feel. Dyer asked if there might be potential for CTAC to assist in educating and communicating about transportation opportunities. Siegler questioned if that is the role of CTAC; it might be more of a city planning function. Smith said she would send information about upcoming training sessions for residents to hold their own Vision 4.0 small group meetings. On the second workplan item, Smith reported that staff are reviewing several proposals received for the city’s website redesign and will involve the commission at a point where their expertise and feedback are needed on a draft web redesign. For the third workplan item, Smith reported on progress of Equal Access to Broadband legislation at the state level, which would allow franchise fees to be charged on broadband providers. Prep for April 14 discussion at city council study session Smith shared procedures for CTAC’s discussion about its work plan with the city council at the April 14 study session. The chair and vice chair, along with the staff liaison, will participate in the discussion. Other CTAC members are encouraged to attend and sit in the audience. Siegler advised bringing detailed information about the workplan items and how they align with the city’s strategic priorities. Keogh suggested to Slaats that they work on bullet points for the discussion and ask for feedback from the group. Smith cautioned against having a group discussion among a majority of commission members by email due to open meeting laws. 4. Staff updates Smith reminded Commission Members Slaats, Dyer, Keogh and Peterson that their terms expire May 31, 2025, and that they should have received information about the boards and commissions reapplication process. Peterson said he had not received anything, likely because he is a school board appointee. Smith said she would check with the city’s community engagement coordinator for more information. 5. Commission member updates - None 6. Next meeting: May 21, 6 p.m. 7. Adjournment Keogh moved, Siegler seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting, all voted in favor. Meeting ended at 6:34 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Jacque Smith, liaison Drew Keogh, chair 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. Board and Commission Annual work plan 2 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. 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: 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): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☐ No Initiative description: 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 Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Board and Commission Annual work plan 5 5 Initiative name: 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): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☐ No Initiative description: 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 Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Initiative Origin Definitions Board and Commission Annual work plan 6 • 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. • 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. Board and Commission Annual work plan 7 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