Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Payroll Software Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Paycom HR/payroll presentation outlines automation gains and $79,000 annual price; commissioners ask for references and more data
Summary
Vendors from Paycom demonstrated an integrated payroll/HCM platform, projecting a 1,083‑hour annual staff time savings and quoting $79,000 per year plus a $12,000 implementation fee for the county’s product set; commissioners asked staff to gather reference feedback and bring numbers and comparisons back to the board.
Paycom representatives presented an integrated human‑resources and payroll platform during the March 18 work session and provided the board a preliminary price and claimed return on investment. The demonstration highlighted time‑and‑attendance automation, workflow approvals, applicant tracking and benefits reconciliation.
Why it matters: County staff said current payroll, benefits and time systems require multiple manual reconciliations that consume staff hours; Paycom’s pitch was that a single, integrated system would return significant staff time and reduce payroll errors.
What Paycom presented: Jack Darnell, Paycom Minneapolis sales manager, and Elliot Kane (regional lead) told commissioners the company’s platform is built as a single product (not multiple acquired modules) and stressed employee adoption and on‑site training. Paycom presented a conservative estimate of 1,083 staff hours saved per year through automation and listed product features including mobile clocking with geofencing, manager approvals from a phone app, automated benefit deductions, applicant‑tracking and onboarding built into the same system.
Price and implementation: For the proposed product set and a payroll population of 255 paid employees (biweekly pay), Paycom quoted an annual subscription of $79,000 and a one‑time implementation fee of $12,000. Paycom representatives said their pricing is based on paid employees per pay period and that non‑paid users (volunteers, applicants) would not generate charges. The vendors offered to provide references, usage metrics and to coordinate a reference call with neighboring counties that already use Paycom.
Board response and next steps: Commissioners and county HR staff praised the potential efficiency and control but raised concerns about the annual cost: the county currently pays approximately $30,000 across multiple specialty products, and the quoted $79,000 would create a material budget delta. Commissioners asked staff to obtain references (Morrison County and Wadena County were suggested), to gather employee‑level feedback from existing Paycom customers, and to return with a cost comparison and potential funding scenarios. Paycom representatives said they would provide client surveys, usage scores and facilitate reference calls.
Ending: No procurement decision was made. Staff will gather more comparative data, references and a clearer implementation/cost plan and return for further discussion at a future meeting; commissioners suggested bringing the matter back at the board’s April session for more detailed review.
