Coryell County to renew TimeClock Plus for one year while vendor and departments fix setup and integration issues

CORYELL COUNTY, Texas — Coryell County commissioners agreed during a workshop to pursue a one‑year renewal of the TimeClock Plus timekeeping system and asked the vendor to work with county staff to fix configuration and integration problems before any longer-term contract.

The action came during a workshop on TimeClock Plus, the county’s timekeeping software, where vendor representatives, county staff and department users described recurring configuration problems that have left some pay weeks open back to Nov. 10, 2019, and forced manual payroll entry for roughly 169 licensed users.

Why it matters: County officials said the current setup is creating extra work for departments that use the system for grants and payroll reconciliation. Fixing work‑week settings, accruals and job‑code mappings is a prerequisite to any seamless integration with the county’s current payroll software, eDoc, and the planned future system, Financial Intelligence.

Mister Saleem, the TimeClock Plus success manager assigned to the county account, told the court that the vendor has opened technical‑support tickets and that most of the problems stem from the initial system setup. "These 3 major concerns that Randy McFarlane reported, we can easily achieve them in TCP," Saleem said, listing correct work‑week start dates, negative PTO balances and the configuration to record comp time at 1.5 after 40 hours.

Rachel, administrative assistant for the Road & Bridge Department, told the vendor that unresolved historical weeks are the immediate blocker. "Once I close out the dates, my vacation, sick time, and comp hours would go back into the positive, or I can manually change, which I've been manually changing," she said, describing the manual work she has done to keep department payroll accurate.

Commissioner Matthews proposed a short‑term approach to create urgency on fixes: "What I would like to maybe do is that we approve a one year. And at the end of six months, if we have fixed all the problems ... then we would have an option to convert to the five year," he said. TimeClock Plus staff agreed to explore that option and to issue an annual invoice at the current rates while technical issues are addressed.

Key details discussed: - Licenses and billing: County staff reported the account currently lists 169 licensed users; commissioners said the court will confirm the number within about a week so the vendor can produce an invoice. Saleem said additional licenses can be added during the service year and will be prorated for the remaining months. - Historical open weeks: Vendor staff identified Nov. 10, 2019, as the earliest open week that must be closed and explained that closing weeks is required for accruals and comp‑time to post properly. - Hardware and support fees: The vendor explained that hardware (fixed time clocks) carries a one‑time purchase fee and a separate hardware‑support and maintenance (HSM) subscription; the vendor noted the county recently paid an HSM invoice in the low thousands. - Integration: TimeClock Plus said it can provide either a seamless integration with payroll software or a pay‑period export (CSV) that the county can upload to payroll. Integration with eDoc and future Financial Intelligence depends on those vendors’ formats and may require additional development and cost. - Department‑by‑department rollout: Commissioners and vendor staff agreed to prioritize Road & Bridge, which is the largest departmental user, and to collect a department contact list, per‑department priorities, job codes and permission profiles to guide configuration.

Direction and next steps: County leaders asked county staff to provide TimeClock Plus with a prioritized contact list, a permissions/user‑profile matrix by department, and a proposed license count. The vendor will continue technical support work with Randy McFarlane and Sherry (TimeClock Plus technical support) and will prepare an annual invoice at the current rate; the court will consider longer‑term pricing only after the configuration issues are resolved.

No formal vote was taken at the workshop; the court treated the matter as a procedural decision and a contractor coordination task rather than an ordinance or contract award. County officials said they will put renewal paperwork and any multi‑year proposal on the next regular meeting agenda for formal consideration.

The session closed with the court directing both sides to coordinate on a roadmap, with the vendor offering training resources and recorded webinars and the county providing department‑level requirements so staff can move from manual entry to an automated payroll workflow.