Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Payroll Hr Software topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners review Paycom HR/payroll proposal; ask staff for cost‑savings analysis and revised offer before decision
Summary
Todd County commissioners on July 1 reviewed a Paycom payroll and human‑resources proposal that would consolidate multiple HR functions into a single platform; the board asked staff and the vendor for a detailed savings analysis and any revised pricing before deciding.
Todd County officials met July 1 with Paycom representatives to review a proposed countywide HR and payroll platform intended to replace multiple existing systems. The board did not vote but requested additional financial and operational detail before deciding.
Paycom’s representative described the product set being discussed: position and seat management; applicant tracking and background checks (background checks would be an on‑demand, per‑use charge); onboarding and e‑Verify; a learning module to push and track employee training; scheduling and time‑and‑attendance with manager approvals; payroll and general‑ledger mapping; benefits administration with carrier feeds; and government‑compliance tools (leave, FMLA, COBRA reporting). The vendor and county staff noted the implementation team would provide on‑site support during rollout and could run Paycom payroll side‑by‑side with the county’s current payroll during implementation.
Staff shared a pricing summary used for preliminary budgeting: the proposed package would cost approximately $65,000 per year on a three‑year locked term (with typical annual caps discussed) plus a one‑time implementation fee. The fiscal presentation allocated about $54,005 of the annual cost to Todd County, $7,754 to Todd‑Wadena Community Corrections and $3,298 to Todd County Development Corporation; the board noted those partner entities would need to approve funding in their own budgets. Staff also said they plan to apply for a third‑party implementation grant through Sourcewell (opens July 15) to offset the implementation fee.
Board members asked for more information before considering approval: they requested a side‑by‑side comparison showing current subscriptions and contracts that Paycom would replace, a calculation of recurring subscription savings and the monetized value of productivity gains (fewer separate systems to manage, reduced manual reporting), and a revised pricing offer if the vendor could make concessions. Commissioners asked staff to include hard examples of time savings, audit and reporting improvements, and background‑check cost comparisons.
No final procurement decision was made. County staff and Paycom agreed to provide a detailed spreadsheet of current software costs and the anticipated savings, plus any revised price offers, and to return with that material for discussion at an upcoming meeting (staff suggested July 15 as a possible date to reconvene).
