Mike Coffman Benson M. Stein
Mike Coffman Benson M. Stein
State Treasurer Deputy Treasurer
ASSOCIATION OF COLORADO COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS
I. Conducted a survey of County Treasurers - June 2, 2004
A. Questions included
1. offering credit card services
2. offering e-commerce services via a web pages
B. 40 responses
II. No credit card services - 25 counties
A. Intriguing list of obstacles
1. costs – especially for tax payments
2. no demand – contrary to frequent statements
3. chargebacks
a) significant processing issue – charge back occurring after tax payment certification has been issued
4. disclosure of fees – conflict with MC/Visa rules of no fee disclosure at point of sale
5. Reconciliation impact – time required increased 2-3 times from test project
6. State experience
(1) similar experience with limited project for real estate licenses
(2) often overlooked part of electronic payment processing
(3) significant issue at the State
(4) if automatic reconciliation with county’s accounting system is not part of the implementation plan, electronic payment service will be restricted or dropped
III. No-electronic commerce services
A. 30 counties did not offer web page electronic commerce services
B. Credit card / e-commerce implementation plans
1. this year – 0
2. next year – 2
3. indefinite – 26
4. soon – 1
5. never, I hope – 1
IV. Counties providing credit card services
A. 14 counties
B. Accepted for taxes, fees, and other
C. All accept MC/Visa, and most accept Am Express and Discover.
D. Discount rate often blank on survey. 3 more than 2%; 1 less than 2%
E. Most are not taking advantage of the State’s master agreement with its low, low rates for over-the-counter transactions
V. Counties providing e-commerce services.
A. 9 counties providing web page e-commerce services
B. Accepted for taxes, fees, and other
C. Assume all accept credit cards
D. Vendors
1. Certified payment.net
2. Financial Settlements
3. Official payments
4. State payments.com
5. Wells Fargo – E POS
E. Vendor fees – samples, not summary or average data determined
1. Paid by taxpayer: 2.50% 3% 3.49% up to 4%
2. Some counties experienced significant taxpayer resistance to convenience fee
VI. Convenience fees for credit card transaction - State statute
A. Change to Section 24-19.5-103
B. Government may charge a convenience fee
1. Not exceed cost of providing the service
2. In accordance with the Treasurer’s master agreement
3. In accordance with rules of credit card provider
C. Provisions produce a dilemma
1. if restricted to flat fee, unlikely to recover cost or easy to exceed costs
D. External vendor usually charges a percentage, and deposits statutory payment
VII.State’s Credit Card experience
A. Current Master Agreement established in 2000; will be re-bid in 2005
B. Implementation much slower than expected
1. cost of service
2. TABOR impact – collect $0.98, but have to refund a $1.00
3. reconciliation issues
VIII.State portal project
A. Senate Bill 04-244 Section 24-37.7-101
B. Establishes an independent State government authority to develop and implement a State portal service to provide electronic information, products, and services
C. Authority to be governed by a board that includes a representative of local government appointed by the governor
D. Authority may
1. borrow money and issues bonds
2. purchase, lease, acquire property
3. fund its operation from
a) federal moneys
b) web site advertising
c) donations
d) bonds
4. may not increase or decrease any fee authorized by law charged by a State agency or local government