Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hr Payroll topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears pitch for web‑based payroll/timekeeping; commissioners ask IT security questions
Summary
County staff demonstrated a proposed web‑based payroll/timekeeping system referred to in the transcript as 'Floury's Vision,' noting features for mobile time entry and a quoted cost of $4 per employee per month (about $13,152 annually for 274 employees); commissioners asked for a security review before any decision.
County staff presented a web‑based payroll and timekeeping system during the March 16 meeting and commissioners asked staff to review security and pilot options before committing to purchase.
A county presenter (identified in the transcript as speaker 3) described the software's features: employees could submit timesheets, request time off, submit reimbursements and access W‑2 forms on a mobile device or desktop. The presenter said geofencing could be used to verify location for field staff and that supervisors could review and approve remotely. "It would make it so that the supervisors could review and approve timesheets," the presenter said, adding that remote access would reduce instances where department heads had to manually enter timesheets for remote employees.
The presenter gave a cost example based on a March 12 employee count of 274: at $4 per employee per month, the annual cost would be about $13,152; the vendor also quoted a $150 minimum setup fee. "There is an additional cost. It's $4 per employee per month ... the cost would be $13,152 per year," the presenter said.
Commissioners and IT staff raised security concerns. One commissioner asked whether the county firewall or the vendor would be responsible for filtering and protection; others worried about malware on employee devices and the county's exposure when a cloud‑hosted service is used. The presenter said the vendor offers two‑factor authentication and individualized access codes, and suggested a pilot limited to a few departments to test security and convenience.
Some commissioners supported an opt‑in approach so that only staff who need mobile entry would be added; others asked Taylor and Kyle (IT staff referenced in the discussion) to perform a security review and meet with the vendor to confirm controls.
What happens next: staff said they would arrange a security review with county IT staff and the vendor and return with recommendations, pilot options and potential cost negotiations.
