Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Payments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utilities staff present three options to address growing online payment fees; PUAB backs full pass‑through
Summary
Utilities staff presented three InvoiceCloud options for credit‑card convenience fees — full pass‑through percentage, flat residential/percentage commercial, or city absorbs fees — and highlighted platform growth; the PUAB recommended full pass‑through while some staff prefer a mixed approach; staff will bring contract language to council.
Denise Clark of Utilities Customer Service presented proposed changes to the city’s convenience/credit‑card processing fees and described three options from the vendor InvoiceCloud on June 24.
Clark said InvoiceCloud proposed either: A) a full pass‑through percentage fee (2.75% with removal of the current high cap), B) keep a flat residential fee and use a percentage for commercial customers (residential fee increasing from $3.50 to $4.50; commercial at 2.95%), or C) the city absorb the percentage fee (2.95%). Clark explained that the platform has grown (23% increase in online revenue since 2023) and gave examples of how each option would affect a typical residential bill ($226) and a large $5,000 commercial payment under the current cap structure.
Under Option A, a residential customer with an average bill would see the flat $3.50 move to about $6.22 under a percentage pass‑through; large commercial customers could pay substantially less overall under a percentage model because the current $750 cap per transaction forces multiple transactions. Clark said the vendor had not increased fees since 2023 and had approached the city to negotiate changes rather than impose unilateral increases.
The Public Utilities Advisory Board (PUAB) recommended Option A (full pass‑through). Staff and the deputy city manager said a full pass‑through is the most transparent approach and consistent with a businesslike utility operation, but some city staff signaled a preference for Option B to reduce immediate impacts on residential customers. City Manager Troy Anderson framed the choice as a user‑fee decision: absorbing fees would shift costs to other services or taxpayers, while passing them on keeps fees tied to the users of the online payment option.
Staff also said two additional payment kiosks are being procured (installation and activation estimated at roughly four months plus 30 days) to increase no‑fee payment options; expanding unsecured night drops was described as riskier and more expensive to service. Clark agreed to provide data on how many customers pay online and staff said they would present proposed contract terms and a recommended approach to city council for approval.
No formal action was taken at the committee; staff said next steps include finalizing procurement/contract language and communicating payment options to customers.
