New Haven’s finance committee on Nov. 1 voted to forward a recommended five‑year contract with ADP to the full council after staff described a one‑year pilot that the city says is already underway.

City staff told the committee the short pilot was agreed to so ADP could help the city produce correct W‑2s after implementation problems. “We’re looking at April 2026” as the tentative go‑live date, city staff said, adding that the one‑year trial is incorporated into the proposed five‑year price and that no payments have been made to ADP to date.

Committee members pressed staff on timing, procurement thresholds and overlapping vendor fees. One member asked whether the ADP contract year would start on go‑live; staff replied the contract would effectively include the trial year and training, and that the service agreement includes training and maintenance “built into the contract” for the five‑year term. Staff also said training sessions and on‑line refresher materials would be provided at no extra cost.

Several members raised the city’s existing relationship with Munis and asked whether the city would continue paying Munis for functions ADP would assume. City staff said they would pursue a reduction in Munis charges once ADP replaces payroll functions, noting Munis currently costs the city about $650,000–$700,000 a year and that termination clauses and early‑termination provisions are standard in city contracts.

Why it matters: The committee framed the contract as a modernization step intended to reduce payroll errors and IRS compliance risk. Staff said short‑term costs may rise because the city would temporarily pay two vendors while ADP comes online, but longer‑term cost avoidance and fewer payroll grievances were cited as anticipated benefits.

What happens next: The committee’s favorable recommendation moves the contract to the next stage where the mayor would sign, subject to council approval and any final negotiation of start dates and contract terms.

Attribution: Details and direct quotes come from the city staff presentation and the committee’s Nov. 1 discussion recorded in the finance committee transcript.