Boone County continues rollout of NeoGov HRIS amid questions about access, payroll and funding

Boone County officials and department heads spent much of a workshop session reviewing the county’s multi-year NeoGov human resources information system rollout, with staff demonstrating features for onboarding, training, performance reviews and reporting while elected officials and auditors pressed for guarantees about data access, payroll handling and future funding.

The discussion centered on whether NeoGov meets departments’ needs, what parts of the system should be mandatory, and how to protect sensitive personnel records. Megan, who presented the system and identified herself as the HR lead and the county’s NeoGov project manager, walked attendees through the dashboard, onboarding pages, e-forms, training catalog and reporting tools and said the county has been hiring through the system for roughly two-and-a-half years. “The purpose of this is really just to have a conversation on whether or not this system is meeting the needs of the county,” Megan said.

Why it matters: The county has invested staff time and budget into building NeoGov for multiple offices, and departments vary widely in their technology needs. Several elected officials and department heads said they want to avoid reverting to paper or to a failed shared drive while others, notably the auditor, raised operational concerns tied to payroll and record access.

Key discussion points and context - Functionality presented: Megan demonstrated NeoGov features including applicant tracking, onboarding checklists, e-forms (for direct-deposit and benefits changes), a training catalog, performance-review tools and reporting dashboards. She said the system can store desk-phone numbers, certification expirations and link out to benefit vendors such as KeyBank and dental/insurance vendors. - Data and continuity concerns: Multiple department heads asked whether information already entered will remain available if the county ends the NeoGov contract. Megan said contract funding was addressed at budget hearings and that the council had signaled support but that final funding decisions rest with the county council. “I’ve been told to continue on for HR and building it, and let’s move forward and we’re excited about this and we’re gonna make funding changes next year,” Megan said. - IT outage history: Staff said a prior IT incident (referred to in the meeting as an “IT surge”) caused loss of shared-drive data and was one reason the county is moving documents into NeoGov; NeoGov is cloud-hosted, which staff said protects against local server outages. - Payroll and auditor concerns: Auditor Debbie objected to implementing direct-deposit and payroll forms through NeoGov without clearer roll‑out steps and said payroll processing is an auditor function that should remain controlled by the auditor’s office. “Payroll comes to my office. That’s it,” Debbie said, adding that she had not been included in some of the rollout meetings she expected to attend and expressing reluctance to accept automated flows to payroll without further oversight. - Performance reviews and access: Elected officials pressed on who can view performance evaluations. Megan described current default access (manager and manager’s manager, plus specific HR admins) and said HR can run confirmation reports showing whether reviews were completed. Some elected officials proposed opt-in/opt-out choices or anonymous feedback mechanisms; Megan said HR retains employee records for required retention and recommended HR review evaluations to ensure they do not include inappropriate or potentially legally problematic content. “My job is to reduce your liability and protect you guys and the employee,” Megan said. - Training and onboarding: Megan said she conducts a 2–3 hour orientation with every new hire (except the sheriff’s department) and that the system can automate many onboarding steps so staff can complete forms before day one. Several departments reported they already use NeoGov for applicant tracking and onboarding; others have not fully adopted the performance and reporting modules.

Directions and next steps agreed at the meeting - Business-as-usual through the end of the year: Attendees agreed to continue using NeoGov while the county schedules a broader review in January to decide long-term funding and any replacement options. Several speakers asked for a countywide meeting of elected officials, department heads, HR and IT to evaluate usage and alternatives. - Schedule committee/decision meeting in January: Council members and commissioners will convene in early January for a focused session that includes IT staff (Sean), HR (Megan), the auditor (Debbie) and representatives of affected departments to determine whether to continue, modify, or replace NeoGov and whether payroll integration should be used. - Payroll handling until decision: For now, the auditor’s office will continue to perform payroll processing responsibilities and distribution of banking information, with NeoGov forms routed to the auditor’s payroll group only after the auditor’s office confirms workflows and access restrictions.

No formal vote was taken at the meeting; attendees described the session as an informational and planning discussion. Multiple officials asked for clearer documentation of what each office needs from the platform and for a cross-jurisdictional committee to produce recommendations for the council’s budget discussions.

Ending note: Officials said NeoGov has demonstrable benefits — centralized forms, faster applicant handling and customizable reporting — but the county must resolve auditor access and payroll protocols and confirm contract funding before fully committing other departments. A January meeting was set as the next opportunity to formalize a path forward.