Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Payroll topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County IT director warns twice-monthly school payroll will add costs and operational strain
Summary
Susan Wright, the county IT director, told supervisors moving school payroll to twice-monthly would increase printing and system costs (estimated $38,000) and create timing and summer-payroll complexities; the board asked staff to study logistics before changing pay schedules.
Susan Wright, the county IT director, told the Board of Supervisors that the county currently absorbs the school payroll’s printing and processing costs and estimated that running school payroll twice a month would roughly double those direct expenses. "So that's where the 38,000 came from," Wright said, citing checks, direct-deposit slips, toner and system dues that would be incurred if the schools shifted to a twice-monthly pay schedule.
Wright described practical constraints: the county’s bank requires payroll files three full business days before payday; summer payrolls and separate 10-, 11- and 12-month contracts create additional runs; and the county processes three payroll types (county, social services, school). She said the payroll software can handle two runs per month but warned the school division must reliably submit data on time to avoid employees missing paydays.
Board members reviewed survey results Wright presented: roughly half of respondents said they preferred bi-monthly pay, while a majority indicated they were neutral or unconcerned. Supervisors and school leaders agreed the change should not be rushed. The board asked school and county payroll and finance staff to work together and return with a detailed plan that clarifies costs, necessary staffing changes and any policy updates (for example, making direct deposit the default or adopting payroll cards) before making a final decision.
Why it matters: Changing pay frequency affects roughly 400–500 school employees, requires software, policy and procedural adjustments and carries recurring costs. The board did not approve an immediate change and requested further analysis and a clear implementation plan before proceeding.
