Olean committee weighs buying iWORKS complaint module to let residents file and aldermen view code cases

Olean Finance Committee members discussed adding a complaint module to the city's iWORKS case-management system that would let residents file code-enforcement complaints online and provide aldermen read-only access to summaries of those complaints.

The discussion, prompted by recurring constituent frustration with long response times for sidewalk and right-of-way problems, drew questions about who would see complaint notifications, how the system would route issues to the Department of Public Works (DPW) and whether the module would deliver the read-only access aldermen were told it would when the system was first purchased. Committee members said the additional module was estimated at about $3,100 per year.

Why it matters: Committee members said the ability for residents to file complaints online and for aldermen to track the status of those complaints could reduce follow-up calls from constituents and make enforcement work more transparent. But several members said they were concerned that the council had been told read-only access was included previously and that the city might be billed for functionality the council expected to already have.

What officials said: The committee heard that if the complaint module is purchased, supervisory staff and code-enforcement officers would have access to cases. The chief said the department would be given access and that a supervisor (Captain Bauer) plus two code-enforcement officers (Sean and Ryan) also would see cases on the system. Committee members pressed whether the system could automatically notify the alderman for the ward where a complaint originated; that capability was not confirmed during the discussion.

Members also explored how the system should handle reports that fall under DPW responsibility rather than code enforcement, such as icy sidewalks and potholes. Several committee members said sidewalks and right-of-way issues often create confusion about whether the DPW or code enforcement must respond; one member described icy sidewalks that had remained untreated for weeks and said residents expect clearer timelines.

Operational questions remained unresolved. Committee members asked whether the iWORKS module would support free-text problem descriptions or require reporters to pick from a drop-down list, and whether the system could forward items automatically to DPW when appropriate. Staff suggested following up with the vendor for a focused demonstration and pre-submitted questions so the vendor could show how resident filing, routing and alderman notifications would work in practice.

Next steps and context: Because of a current spending freeze, members said they would not approve the purchase immediately. Several members suggested bringing the vendor back for a short demo that shows a resident filing a complaint and the read-only view an alderman would see. One committee member said he would bring a resolution asking the mayor to sign the purchase at the start of the next fiscal year if the committee supported it.

Votes at a glance: The committee took several routine procedural votes during the meeting. The minutes from the previous committee meeting were approved; a motion to enter executive session to discuss purchase of real property was seconded by Alderman Robinson and carried; and a motion to adjourn was seconded by Smolley Beard and carried. No substantive action to purchase the iWORKS module was taken at this meeting.

Community impact: Committee members tied the iWORKS discussion to constituent complaints about icy sidewalks and sidewalk maintenance in business and residential districts. Officials noted existing enforcement deadlines (discussed in the meeting as a 24-hour timeline for some cases) and said clearer routing in the case-management system could reduce delays and the need for repeated resident follow-up.

Meeting context: The discussion took place during the Finance Committee meeting called for Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2025. Committee members repeatedly returned to earlier minutes and prior vendor presentations in which read-only alderman access had been referenced; several members said the earlier statements in the minutes had been ambiguous and recommended a vendor demonstration to resolve the remaining technical and workflow questions.