Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Freestone County reviews Time Clock Plus demo; no procurement decision yet
Summary
County staff heard a demonstration of Time Clock Plus time-and-attendance software, discussed integration, offline and biometric options, pricing and phased rollout; staff raised security, training and workload concerns and scheduled follow-up for questions.
A Time Clock Plus solutions consultant demonstrated a cloud-based time-and-attendance system to Freestone County staff and elected officials and answered questions about integration, security and costs, but the county made no formal procurement decision at the meeting.
The presentation showed how the software captures employee hours via web clocks, mobile app punches with geofencing, badge/fob readers or biometric verification, and how it exports reports to payroll systems. The consultant said, "we integrate with payroll software" and described offline fallback on devices that synchronizes when connectivity returns.
County staff members pressed the presenter on several operational details that would affect deployment. A participant asked, "What happens if the Internet's down?" The presenter replied there is a "fallback mode on the device itself" so employees can still clock in and the device will push records when it regains connectivity. The presenter also described anti–"buddy punching" measures including fingerprints, badge readers and an optional camera on the device.
On mobile use, the presenter said the app can record a single geolocation at every clock in and clock out, not continuous tracking: "If they use a mobile app, there is a geolocation pin punch for every clock in and clock out. It's not a breadcrumbing where it continuously tracks the employee." The company representative also said the vendor is "SOC 2 compliant, soon to be SOC 3 compliant," and that data are hosted on Amazon Web Services.
Cost and rollout questions featured throughout discussion. The presenter said current pricing equated to about $61.20 per user annually (roughly $5 per month) and that planned pricing revisions would lower that toward $4.25 per month per employee; the draft proposal referenced 120 licenses. The presenter gave sample math for departments: 38 employees would be about $190 per month under current unit pricing. There was not a formal vote or budget authorization at the meeting.
Several elected officials and staff said parts of the county could benefit (dispatch, jail, custodial shifts and the sheriff's deputies who check in from home), while others said their offices already have routine schedules and would prefer automated, prepopulated time sheets instead of active clock-in requirements. One participant raised workload concerns: several offices are onboarding multiple new electronic systems and logins, and adding another system now could overwhelm staff.
County participants asked about opt-in deployment. The presenter confirmed that departments can be added incrementally: "If only certain departments chose to use it, it would just be those people that were using it," and managers can be limited to viewing or approving only their employees. The presenter explained reporting features — payroll exports, labor-cost reports and saved automated reports for grant or job costing needs — and an audit log that records edits and deletions with time and user.
Next steps were procedural rather than contractual. Staff agreed to schedule another meeting to compile further questions and to consider which departments would pilot the system before any countywide rollout. No motions or formal actions were recorded during the session.
