Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Payroll And Human Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kossuth County supervisors defer payroll schedule change after staff, auditor raise employee-hardship concerns
Summary
The Kossuth County Board of Supervisors discussed options to fix a long-standing mismatch between pay periods and payroll reporting but took no action. Staff will consult the county payroll attorney and department heads before the board decides whether to transition to a new pay schedule beginning in a fiscal year or phased approach.
Kossuth County supervisors discussed whether to change the county's pay schedule to resolve a long-standing mismatch between pay periods and payroll reporting, but the board took no action and directed staff to consult the county payroll attorney and department heads.
The county auditor told the board an auditing firm flagged that the county could not produce a report because time sheets and pay periods do not match, and recommended the county correct that discrepancy. Auditor Tammy said the change "had to be fixed," and described a proposed calendar that would shift the county to a monthly payroll paid on the 20th beginning in February to resolve prepaid pay issues.
Why it matters: The board heard repeated concerns that switching pay schedules mid-year could cause hardship for employees and complicate salary reporting and retirement calculations. Several department heads and board members urged more study and a phased transition tied to the fiscal year or a move to biweekly pay to reduce employee disruption.
Discussion and details: Tammy told the board that the county currently found three employees who had not been prepaid and that elected officials are excluded from the proposed schedule because they are not treated as county employees under the payroll system. She described a packet with calendars to illustrate the February transition and said department heads recommended keeping monthly pay but changing the timing to cure the prepaid issue.
A county colleague who consulted the auditing firm said the auditor's guidance is a recommendation, not a legal requirement, and that biweekly pay is considered the "best internal control" long-term. That colleague also suggested consulting payroll attorney Mike Galloway and other counties that have made similar transitions and recommended starting at the fiscal year to avoid distorting calendar-year wages used for retirement and benefits calculations.
Board members repeatedly raised employee hardship concerns. One department head said multiple employees called to say "I can't do this," arguing a midyear snapshot could take more from workers whose pay increases on July 1. Another speaker said the board should provide employees the dollar amount that has been prepaid to reduce confusion.
Outcome and next steps: The board agreed to take no action at the meeting and asked staff to consult the payroll attorney, revisit the proposal with department heads (with the option for some supervisors to participate in that review), and return with outlined transition options and timelines. No formal motion to change the payroll schedule passed.
Ending: Supervisors said they want a plan that minimizes hardship and ensures consistent internal control. The board left the item open for further study and legal review before any formal vote.
