Normal requests
Check that the review item captures the agreed fields and lets staff trace information back to its source.
For Florida towns, villages, and special districts
Resident intake.
Built around your staff.
We connect one approved inbox to a staff review queue, test exceptions, and train your team. Your staff approve assignments and resident replies.
Municipal pilots from $2,449Typically 12 weeks elapsedSupport scoped separately
The starter workflow
From an incoming message
to a reviewable item.
Choose one intake source and a practical destination such as your existing request register or an agreed review queue. Confirm the available integration before quoting. An approved export may be enough for the pilot.
- Read approved submissionsUse only the inbox, records, and fields named in the scope.
- Prepare the handoffCapture the reported issue, source, location details, missing information, and possible duplicate matches.
- Put staff decisions firstSuggest a department and draft a clarification or acknowledgment. Staff verify and approve the next action.
This starter is for routine intake preparation. It is not an emergency reporting or dispatch service.
ILLUSTRATIVE OUTPUTAwaiting staff review
Drainage report
- Source
- Sample resident email and attachment
- Missing detail
- Street name or nearest landmark
- Suggested routing
- Public works, subject to staff confirmation
- Draft next step
- Ask the resident to confirm the location
Fictional example, not a customer result or live system.
Agree the test before the build
What would make this useful to your staff?
Set a baseline using the current process and agree representative test cases and acceptance criteria. These are items to design and test, not promises of perfect accuracy.
Uncertain requests
Test missing locations, conflicting details, and possible duplicates. Agree when the workflow must ask for review rather than infer an answer.
Failed handoffs
Test unavailable connections, unreadable attachments, and access problems. Agree how staff see the issue and continue work manually.
Compare staff preparation time, corrections, review effort, and missed handoffs on the agreed test set. Include operating costs when deciding whether to continue.
Other municipal workflows to consider
Local government
Expand only after the first workflow proves useful.
Start with the manager, clerk, and staff member closest to the task. Resident intake is one practical starting point. A different recurring process may be a better fit after assessment.
These are illustrative scopes for discussion, not customer deployments or a catalog of ready made products. Each requires its own permissions, system connections, review rules, and acceptance criteria.
Resident service workflow
A consistent intake summary and fewer lost follow ups.
Organize email and form submissions, extract the location and issue, flag possible duplicates, and draft an assignment or response for staff review.
Briefing and council support workflow
One view of open issues, deadlines, and decisions.
Collect department updates and approved packet materials. Draft a weekly manager brief, meeting summaries, and action lists for the manager or clerk to verify.
Permit intake workflow
Less time sorting submissions and chasing missing documents.
Check submissions against a staff approved document checklist, flag missing items, and prepare a status response. Staff review applications and make permitting decisions.
Records preparation workflow
A source linked review queue for each request.
Search authorized town records, organize possible matches, and track collection progress for the clerk. Staff review exemptions, redactions, retention, and release.
Facilities and stormwater workflow
A clearer picture of routine maintenance and unresolved issues.
Connect drainage complaints, inspection notes, asset records, and field photos. Draft maintenance tasks and track assigned follow up for public works staff.
Budget and grant support workflow
A recurring reporting pack with missing items clearly marked.
Assemble approved spending records, draft budget variance summaries, and organize grant deadlines and supporting documents for finance staff review.
Small cities and special districts can start with these same workflows. For schools and public safety administrative teams, we can scope document intake, routine correspondence, and staff reporting around their approved records and responsibilities.
Use cases
Illustrative examples only. Connections, outputs, and staff responsibilities would be defined and tested in a written scope.
Resident service workflowThree residents report the same blocked drain.
- Business value
- Give the service desk one accountable issue to track instead of several disconnected messages.
- Connected records
- Resident messages, location details, service categories, and the current request register.
- Proposed preparation
- Read the approved inbox, compare locations and times, and flag the reports as possible duplicates.
- What your team receives
- A linked issue summary, a proposed department assignment, and draft acknowledgments.
- Your decision
- Staff confirm the location, urgency, assignment, and outbound messages.
Briefing and council support workflowThe manager needs a Friday status brief before a council meeting.
- Business value
- Put unresolved actions and missing department updates in front of the manager before the meeting.
- Connected records
- Department reports, action registers, packet deadlines, and approved meeting materials.
- Proposed preparation
- Collect approved department updates, link open actions to their source records, and identify missing updates.
- What your team receives
- A draft brief listing decisions needed, overdue actions, and unresolved questions.
- Your decision
- The manager and clerk check accuracy and approve meeting materials.
Permit intake workflowA permit submission arrives without one required attachment.
- Business value
- Keep incomplete submissions visible before specialist review begins.
- Connected records
- Submitted application, attachment register, department checklist, and responsible staff queue.
- Proposed preparation
- Compare the uploaded files with the department’s approved checklist and identify what is absent.
- What your team receives
- A completeness checklist and a draft request for the missing attachment.
- Your decision
- Permit staff verify requirements; the workflow does not approve or deny the permit.
Records preparation workflowThe clerk receives a request for maintenance invoices for one facility.
- Business value
- Give the clerk an organized review set while preserving control over release.
- Connected records
- Request scope, authorized records repositories, file metadata, and the collection log.
- Proposed preparation
- Search only authorized repositories within the requested scope, group possible matches, and log gaps.
- What your team receives
- A source linked collection list and a queue for document review.
- Your decision
- The clerk handles scope, exemptions, redactions, retention, and release.
Facilities and stormwater workflowA field note and a resident photo describe recurring ponding.
- Business value
- Keep field observations connected to the asset and its repair history.
- Connected records
- Asset register, inspection notes, work orders, dated photos, and resident reports.
- Proposed preparation
- Connect the location to authorized asset records and earlier work orders; identify missing observations.
- What your team receives
- A draft inspection task and a maintenance history brief.
- Your decision
- Public works verifies conditions and determines any response or repair.
Budget and grant support workflowA grant progress report is due and several expense records are missing.
- Business value
- Keep missing expense evidence and approaching grant deadlines in one preparation queue.
- Connected records
- Grant reporting checklist, budget lines, approved expenses, activity logs, and due dates.
- Proposed preparation
- Compare the approved reporting checklist with activity logs, invoices, and existing approvals.
- What your team receives
- A draft progress pack, a list of missing evidence, and a deadline reminder.
- Your decision
- Finance staff verify amounts, eligibility, and the final submission.
A fixed scope and a clear handoff
Designed for a contained first project
Municipal pilots from $2,449.
Agree the deliverables, exclusions, access, and measures before development. The consultation is free. The written quote separates development, software usage, hosting, and ongoing support.
Choose the simplest fit
Walk through the real task. If your existing software or a general AI tool is enough, start there.
Connect the actual work
Configure the agreed sources, preparation steps, review queue, and staff approval points.
Work through exceptions
Try ordinary requests, missing information, duplicates, and connection failures with your staff.
Make ownership clear
Train staff, document operation, and agree who handles issues. Ongoing support is scoped separately.
Named pilot deliverables
The written scope identifies one intake source, a defined request category or set of categories, and a staff review destination. Connections depend on the permissions and interfaces available in your systems.
- A map of the current process, named owners, and agreed acceptance criteria.
- The configured intake workflow and review queue, with links to source records where available.
- Agreed tests and a record of results, corrections, and unresolved limitations.
- Staff training, operating instructions, and an agreed handoff.
Exclusions and separately priced work
The starting scope does not imply a replacement for your records or work order system, unrestricted access to every department, automatic public responses, emergency dispatch, or decisions on permits, payments, or records release.
Additional sources, custom integrations, data cleanup, hardware, software usage, hosting, ongoing support, and later changes are identified and priced separately where needed. The written quote controls what is included.
Timeline and client responsibilities
Municipal pilots typically take 12 weeks from signed scope to handoff. This is elapsed calendar time, not a dedicated engineer or a promise of full time staffing.
System access, usable sample data, purchasing steps, and timely staff reviews affect the schedule. Responsibilities, milestones, and any dependencies are agreed before development.
Local models and access
Client data is hosted in aidefi’s on premises data centers or on the client’s premises. Models run locally. Data does not enter cloud services unless otherwise noted in the project arrangements.
Confirm personnel, permissions, required controls, and any exceptions before granting access. Review project and website data handling.
How towns buy a pilot
We work with your manager and purchasing staff to confirm the appropriate route under your purchasing policy. aidefi is not currently an awarded cooperative contract supplier.
Free consultation
Bring the process.
We will assess the fit.
Talk with Houston May, Principal Technical Lead, about the inbox, review owner, current software, and one useful outcome. If an existing tool is sufficient, we will say so.
Share the workflow and preferred meeting format. Meeting times are arranged by email.
Discuss your town’s workflow