Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vendor Payments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee declines to pursue third-party check-payment vendor after initial discussion
Summary
After a committee discussion about a third-party vendor that would issue payments on the county—s behalf, members declined to invite the vendor for a follow-up presentation. Supporters cited fraud-protection benefits; opponents worried about transferring funds to an outside party.
Committee members discussed whether to invite a vendor (Tamarang) that would operate a third-party check-writing/payment service on the county—s behalf. Proponents said the vendor would add a second layer of vendor-account vetting and could respond to fraud risk without direct cost to the county; opponents raised concerns about turning over payment flows to a private vendor and the potential float or control issues.
Craig voiced skepticism, saying, "I don't like transferring the money to an outside source, hoping that they pay the bills, but we can do it in house." Supporters noted other counties (Rock Island, Madison) have used the vendor and reported success. The committee took an informal straw poll; the chair summarized "I got 2 no's, 1 yes, and Craig's a no," and concluded the committee would not pursue an immediate vendor presentation.
Committee members asked staff to circulate more written information if the vendor returns with further documentation, and some members said they were open to reexamining the service later. No formal motion was made and no vendor engagement was scheduled.
