Good morning and welcome to the regularly scheduled Public Utilities Board meeting for
the City of Denton on March 9th.
It is 9 a.m. and the meeting is called to order.
Our first item is presentations from the public.
Do we have any presentations?
All right moving on to the consent agenda, does anybody have any questions about items
on the consent agenda?
Seeing none, the chair would entertain a motion.
We have a motion and a second.
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed sign the same.
Consent agenda passes unanimously.
Moving on to items for individual consideration.
Our first item is consider approval of the February 23rd minutes.
We have a motion and a second.
All in favor say aye.
Any opposed?
The motion carries unanimously.
The next item is item B, consider recommending adoption of an ordinance establishing schedule
of rates for electric service, I believe we have a presentation.
Hi good morning Chair, PV members.
My name is Melissa Cuevas with DME and we have our quarterly review of our energy cost
adjustment and our transmission cost recovery factor today.
So just a quick overview of what our current rates are.
So our native load ECA is currently set at 0.0462 cents per KWH and it does provide
a buffer, a balance buffer of plus or minus 20 million dollars.
We're not recommending any changes for this one.
Our large load ECA is currently set at 0.0577 cents per KWH and we are recommending a slight
increase to 0.0606 per KWH.
Our transmission cost recovery factor rates are shown below and we are recommending a
decrease to this as well.
So for our native load ECA balance, like I mentioned, our balance buffer is plus or minus
20 million dollars and we look ahead 12 months.
So we are recommending maintaining that rate, we'll be at a healthy balance of 16 million
by December of this year.
On the right is a table where it shows all the changes we've made since October 2023.
So didn't make any changes in '25 and again, we're not recommending a change for this quarter.
Our TCRF forecasted account balance, we are recommending a slight decrease to 0.0156 cents.
That'll leave our balance December of '26 at 2.8 million.
And then our table to the right just shows what the changes have been from October 23
and on.
So this shows a monthly rate impact.
So as you see, if we decrease the TCRF, there's going to be about a 1.5% decrease to our customers'
bills that'll show residential through our three commercial rate classes as well.
And so a few weeks ago, both PUB and City Council provided direction regarding how we change our commercial customers between rate classes based on their demand.
So for our ordinance, we did update the wording.
The new practice will be following the 12-month lock-in period.
We'll now be reviewing the accounts retroactively to determine if they should remain in that rate class,
decrease to GS general service small or increase to general service large.
So our recommendation is to maintain our native load ECA, increase our large load ECA to 0.0606 per KWH,
decrease the TCRF to the 0.0156 cents per KWH, and then make the revisions in our ordinance to follow what the direction was from PUB and council.
Any questions?
>> Mr. Rayner.
>> Does this correlate to what we had last Monday in discussing going back reviewing bills, whether they were overpaid or underpaid?
>> Yes, correct.
And there was a separate item on the consent agenda that you just approved that also addressed some of those items.
>> I was just curious.
Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> I have a question.
On the slides you had with the rate projections, it said as of October 23.
>> Yeah, so that's just what the changes have been.
>> I was just modestly confused since we're talking about it.
>> Sorry, no, yeah, that is just showing what changes we've made in the past.
So you guys can see, obviously, our goal is to keep our rates as consistent as we can.
But that's just reflecting any changes we've made since October 23 and now effective April 26.
>> Thank you.
>> Any further questions?
Mr. Newquist.
>> What's the target balance in the TCRF?
>> The TCRF, we don't have a target balance.
So essentially, let's say it's our transmission cost of service.
The total we kind of divided over 12 months and we pay that monthly.
Our year closes out in September.
So ideally, we'd like to be closer to a million around there, which is what this is forecasting.
>> Any further questions?
>> And Mr. Chair, we also have a close session item, as I mentioned earlier, that is a placeholder.
But certainly, you know, one of the recommendations here is to increase the EC for large loads.
So if there are questions regarding that, we would have to go into close session.
If there's none, then we can certainly proceed with your direction on this item.
>> I think it's been really beneficial for the PUB to see this quarterly.
You know, it's given us, I think, a good understanding.
You know, and every quarter, there's always the rates and balances of the accounts.
But usually, there's a little bit of education.
And so I feel like we've gotten pretty good education on, you know, the targets for the ECA accounts.
You know, and I think it's good to see this just kind of moving along on plan.
You know, seeing those fund balance projections, having a good idea.
You know, it feels like they're pretty stable.
We're changing rates, 0.02 cents.
You know, that's like, that's a nice, that's not a shock to anybody.
And honestly, they're moving in the right direction too, which is nice.
So, I mean, I think this is, this has been a good process.
I feel like we're getting a good handle on it.
And with that, I would entertain a motion for approval.
We have a motion for approval.
>> Second.
>> And a second.
All in favor, say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
Our next item for individual consideration is management reports.
>> So, Mr. Chair, members of the PUB, so we, staff did provide to you a memo on the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant.
Certainly, if there are questions on Stephen and Matt are here as well.
So, if you have any questions on that.
And then we have, on the future agenda, we did make a change from the information we provided at the last meeting, a request by Mr. Rybak.
So, we did change their first kind of work session item to April 13 from March 23rd, because I believe he was going to be absent.
>> Thank you, sir, I did notice that, appreciate it.
>> Yeah, great.
And so, you know, I'll just continue to point out to you on that agenda the meetings that are scheduled for the upcoming budget process.
I certainly would encourage you to please, you know, make those notes on your calendars so that you can be here, a lot of good discussion coming your way.
And then finally, we did add to the new business action item the one request that we had on the electric commercial rates.
We are working on that.
My recollection was that that was not germane to today's action, but we will be bringing that back to you at the next meeting and then providing that to you probably in a memorandum.
And if you have questions, we can certainly address at that time.
With that, happy to answer any questions you may have.
>> Seeing no questions, I think we can move on to our work session.
We'll have a, let's see, receive a report and discussion on online credit card processing and cost recovery options.
>> Chair, members of the PUB, Matt Hamilton, Chief Financial Officer here this morning to present credit card processing and cost recovery options.
As you may recall, in the budgeting process last year, the city changed its methodology to a zero-based budgeting approach.
And in doing so, we went line by line through each of the departmental budgets and
identified areas both on the revenue and expense side where we felt like we could improve or look at additional options.
One of those areas in the customer service fund was in regard to credit card fees, which have been increasing year over year.
And so on July 14th of last year, we had presented a couple slides in regard to credit card processing fees and recovery options.
The board had some feedback, we took it to council.
Council also had some feedback and the direction at that time was to continue to look into options and what may be available.
So since that time, there has been a new option that has come available.
So we just wanted to provide an update for you this morning as we begin the budgeting process for
this year so that we can receive any feedback and direction as we start that process.
So just a little bit of background, the city of Denton has processed credit card payments for
over 25 years and we budget annually to recover those costs.
In prior to 2011, we did assess convenience fees to all online transactions,
but removed those fees in 2011 across all payment portals.
In 2014, due to the identification of rising costs associated with commercial cards which have higher interchange rates,
that led to the implementation of a 2.7% convenience fee for commercial utility online payments or by phone.
In 2019, the card brand rules changed,
restricting convenience fees to only flat amounts, so prior to 2019 we assessed the fee as a percentage.
In 2019, the card brand rules changed and they said you can no longer assess that as a percentage.
So in 2020, the PUB and City Council directed that convenience fees be removed when the city adopted its new
card processing contract with Wells Fargo Merchant Services, since the percentage was no longer allowed.
And since that time, card processing costs are absorbed through departmental budgets and funded through city revenues.
And so in the case of utilities, it is in the base rate of the utilities,
which then make a transfer into the customer service fund to pay that cost.
In 2025, October of '25, the card brand rules changed again,
this time presenting a new fee option that can be implemented on a percentage basis.
So I wanted to provide just an overview of current card processing costs.
There's three components that make up card processing costs.
The first is called the interchange rate.
This is a non-negotiable rate.
It's about one and a half percent plus a fixed amount per transaction.
The second is the card network assessment, which is also non-negotiable and is about a tenth of a percent to 0.15 percent of your monthly sales.
So each of these percentages are set by the card brands and networks.
So the city has no control or negotiation with the brands over those percentages.
And then the third component is the payment processor fee, which is fixed by contract.
And so when we go out and competitively bid our card processor, as we did with Wells Fargo Merchant Services,
there is some negotiation there that the city has.
What I wanted to illustrate was that the payment processor fees, which are the Wells Fargo Merchant Service costs,
are only five percent of the total cost that we pay in card processing fees.
So the city has very little, you know, input and influence in terms of card processing costs.
So why revisit the fees now?
Customer service and the utility billing component of it is 70 percent of the city's annual card processing costs,
primarily from online payments, and account for about $1.57 million annually in expense.
The costs associated with card processing continue to significantly increase up 20 percent from fiscal year '24 to '25,
from $1.3 million to about $1.5 million.
So utility payments are governed by MCC 4900.
MCC stands for Merchant Category Codes.
And these are assigned by the card networks to categorize merchant transactions for processing, fee calculation, and compliance.
MCC 4900 specifically identifies transactions as being utility payment related.
And MCC 4900 is important because it has a reduced interchange rate compared to retail rates.
Previously, only a convenience fee was permissible with MCC 4900,
but it provided limited flexibility in how it was applied, specifically only as a flat fee, not as a percentage.
Changes in card processing rules in October now allow for what's called a service fee with MCC 4900.
So comparing the two options, the convenience fee and service fee are both allowed under MCC 4900 for that discounted interchange rate.
The convenience fee, as I had mentioned, is only a flat fee.
The service fee can be implemented as a flat or a percentage.
Both can be applied to online transactions.
The convenience fee cannot include recurring payments.
It could only be applied to one-time payments.
The service fee could be applied to both recurring and one-time payments.
Neither of these two fees can be tiered.
So, for example, you know, if your bill is from $0 to $100, you pay one percentage. If it's over $100, you pay a separate percentage.
Or, you know, as, you know, one customer type, you pay one percentage and another customer type pays another.
So neither fee can be set up in that manner. The fees need to be consistent.
However, both fees can be segregated by account type. And what I mean by that is that a fee could be implemented only for residential or only for commercial, or it could be applied to both.
The convenience fee must be applied to e-checks, whereas the service fee would not include e-checks.
So as a summary, the convenience fee, flat fee only, has to essentially include all payment avenues.
The service fee can be applied as a percentage and would not include e-checks.
So taking a look at these two options, the convenience fee, again, flat fee only, applies to all payment types, including e-checks, and excludes recurring payments.
The estimated rate to recover fees with a convenience fee implemented, the fee would be about $2.90 per transaction.
The second option is a service fee, and this is the new fee under the new visa rules.
Percentage or flat fee includes the recurring payment, excludes e-checks, and the estimated fee,
if it applied to all card payments, would be 1.55% or 2.6% if it only applied to commercial card transactions.
So taking a look at online card volumes by utility customer type, what we've provided here at the top is fiscal year 2024 for commercial and residential,
including the number of transactions, the amount processed, the average payment amount, and the fees paid by the city for those transactions.
And then in the bottom half is fiscal year 25 with the same information, and at the bottom, the year over year increase in each of those categories.
So as you can see, the number of transactions between 24 and 25 increased 83,125.
The amount processed also increased by about $24 million, and the fees paid by the city increased $264,000, which represents about a 20% increase.
So the increase in fees is driven largely by an increase in the volume of transactions that we're handling.
But one important component of this is you'll notice that, for example,
in 2025, the number of commercial transactions, $32,000, represents a much smaller proportion of the total transactions of $664,000.
But the fees paid by the city are over a million, and so it represents about two-thirds of the fees there, excuse me, that are paid.
So just talking a little bit about implementation, if direction is provided by PUB and
the city council to proceed with implementing one of the two fees,
staff will initiate a marketing campaign to educate customers on the fee and payment methods which do not incur fees.
So for example, with the service fee, e-checks do not incur any fee.
Staff will work with our vendors to implement the fee modules.
This is estimated to take about six months as we work through contracts and
ensure that everything is up and running, as well as ensuring that
customers are well-educated on options that don't incur a fee.
And then the fees, if that direction were to be provided relatively soon,
March, April, the target would be to implement it at the first of the fiscal year, October 1st.
However, that would, of course, be dependent on further discussion and direction.
So today we're looking for feedback and direction from the board on the recovery of credit card processing costs.
Essentially, there are three options.
Option one is to leave it status quo and to maintain cost recovery through the utility department budgets.
The cost would be recovered in the utility base rates.
Option two is to implement a convenience fee.
This would be a flat fee assessed for non-recurring online payments, including e-checks.
And option three would be to implement a service fee, which would either be a flat or
percentage on all online payments, but exclude e-checks.
And then additionally determine if the fee, if one is chosen, whether it applies to residential commercial or both.
And with that I'll stand for any questions.
>> Mr. Rainer?
>> Could you go back to slide two, please?
So we had, I'm just looking at timelines.
Who controls, you had indicated we have no control, is it MCC did you say, or?
>> So MCC is just a merchant code that is assigned by the card brands.
But essentially who is dictating the rates are the card brands.
So Visa, Discover, MasterCard, Implement, go for it.
>> I remember that, so if I may.
So really this is just a history, excuse me, a history of having to deal with requests to the card companies.
This isn't something that the city has come up with or just kind of plod along to see what needs to be done.
>> Yeah, I think over the course of time the city has periodically looked at these expenses.
And as we've seen changes from the card brand,
either implemented or removed fees to recover those costs.
>> And I bring it up only that I'm trying to prevent us from being the villain.
I know Tony appreciates that, so that's what we try to do.
May I?
Slide three, please.
So these are the three changes or the three processes we can go through.
Is that correct?
Am I looking at that right?
>> So these are the three cost components that make up the payment,
the expense associated with accepting card payments.
>> And so if I may ask, is this represents commercial and residential or?
>> This would, yes.
>> This is everybody.
>> This would apply to everybody.
>> Okay, very good.
And could I go to slide four?
I was curious, you had mentioned, I think you did, a 5%, but I can't remember what it was associated with.
Do you remember the conversation?
>> Slide five percent, I don't, I'm sorry.
>> Okay, that's all right, no, slide five then.
So this is, once again, you're looking at either we can go with the convenience or the service, but I guess it leads back to,
is this something that the card company could have us flip back and forth on, or how consistent is this?
I know we're planning on doing it on October 1st, and so are we going to have this conversation possibly by September of the next year because of card requirements.
How flexible does this have to be?
>> That's a great question, and the answer is that the card brand rules could change at any time.
So we are subject to those card brand rules as a merchant accepting card payments.
So the card company's looking at everybody where we may be, we could possibly go with a separation of residential versus commercial.
>> Yeah, so the card brands essentially establish broad rates based on each of those different MCC categories.
The MCC 4900 is simply a discounted rate
that the card brands charge the interchange fees because they're utility payments.
And they recognize that it is an expense that is necessary in many cases.
So they set those overarching fees.
The city's control is simply how to pay for those fees when we accept card payments.
So as I mentioned, the cost recovery could either be in the base rates as they are now.
And so that gets plugged into the utility performance, and
that ultimately gets calculated down to a cost of service rate.
Or these are two options where individuals who are choosing to use cards for
online payments would be the ones who specifically pay for
that fee rather than broadly spreading the cost to all customers.
>> If I have one more question, Mr. Chairman.
Slide nine, I think.
Go back two slides, please, sir.
I was looking for a chart there.
You had indicated, if I wrote it down right, is it the thought of the expenses hit at 2025,
roughly two-thirds of the increase was based on or was the results of residential use?
Did I hear that right?
No.
>> No, sorry, two-thirds of the total fees paid by the city,
so a million of the one and a half million.
>> Yes.
>> Was incurred by commercial business card use.
>> Wrong horse.
Okay.
>> And so as we look at the fees that we pay, each individual card type shows up with a different line,
a different expense of I have a silver card, and you have a gold card, and someone else has a world elite card.
Each one of those cards has a different fee that is paid by the merchant at the time that we make a card payment.
And so the commercial business type cards have higher rewards that are offered and obviously larger payment amounts,
so the costs associated with accepting those cards are much higher.
>> Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any other questions?
Mr. Rybak?
>> I don't have a question.
Since we're being offered to give some direction on three different options, I'm torn about which way to go.
The flat fee seems more residentially favorable.
They would know every time they make a payment that there would be this, whatever it is,
a dollar and a quarter, 273, whatever the number turns out to be.
On the other hand, if somebody's paying a bill for 80 bucks and somebody's paying a bill for 190 bucks,
then is that really fair to have the flat fee?
So I'm a little bit torn on which way to go.
>> Could you return to the table of costs there?
So just -- these are all cards.
This doesn't include e-checks.
>> That's correct.
>> Yeah, and just the math here.
The commercial is a little over 2%, like 2.2%, just a million in fees on 44 million transacted.
But then the residential is 500,000 in fees on 107 million.
So that's like point -- that's like less than half a percent.
Is that -- so there are, I guess, of some rate -- some card types that have even lower than that 1 point whatever percent, 1.7%?
>> Yeah, it just depends on what that card is.
And this does encompass all cards.
And so, you know, if there were to be, you know, a debit card that was processed online as a credit card where, you know,
they didn't enter a PIN, a point of sale, it would encompass that as well.
So, yes, the residential costs are significantly lower than the business cards.
Or I guess I should say retail consumer cards are less expensive than the business cards to accept.
>> Yeah, I feel like, I mean, customers have the ability to choose.
Maybe they have some constrained choice, but they have the ability to choose how they pay.
You know, e-checks, I think we talked about previously last time we had this presentation,
that they're like 10 or 15 cents a check with no percentage extra.
>> That's correct.
>> So, we do, we are assessed a fee for processing e-checks, but it is very minimal.
And so, all the e-checks that we process, I don't recall the exact dollar amount, but it's, you know,
in the thousands or tens of thousands, not in the millions.
>> Yeah, and so, obviously, we would prefer to steer customers to that.
You know, if everybody did that, we'd save one and a half million dollars a year out of our utility budget.
You know, and some people can't or won't.
I have, personally, I don't like the term e-check because, like, that sounds complicated.
I'm familiar with ACH payments.
So, to me, it's just an ACH.
So, I don't know if maybe in communicating that, some people might know one term better than the other, just to.
But I think that our goal should be to steer our customers,
our citizens toward the lowest cost option while giving them the options.
But if they want an option that costs more, they can pay that fee and not put it
on the backs of all the other rate payers.
And I don't think, I mean, for fairness, I feel like a split rate between residential
and commercial would be fair at approximately the recovery rate.
So, half a percent and 2 point whatever percent.
The goal being just to recover those fees.
Yeah, and so here you have kind of either everybody pays one and a half or commercial pays 2.6
and residential pays nothing.
You know, I feel like it's fair for a residential user who might have a $500 a month utility bill.
And if they want to pay with their gold card, they can pay half a percent
or three quarters, whatever 1%, whatever that rate would be.
But that doesn't mean necessarily that commercial should be subsidized
if commercial does have twice the fees on half the transactions.
So, I would say a split rate targeting just fee recovery based
on the rate class would be my preference.
So, just to clarify, when you say a split rate, are you referencing this, the 1.55 for all card transactions?
Whatever we implement, if it's for residential and commercial, it has to be the same rate.
So, it would be this 1.55 across all card transactions.
Or, because there are separate what's called MIDS or merchant IDs between residential and commercial
that can be set up, we would assess only the commercial accounts,
the 2.6% residential would not have a fee.
If we were to implement a fee on the residential side, it would really need to be that 1.55 to be consistent.
We can't have a residential account rate and a commercial account, we either have to have one rate.
We have one rate, but we can say these customers are excluded, I guess.
>> Right.
>> I don't know which one's better then.
>> I guess, from my perspective, the residential average card bill uses $169.
At 1.55%, that's $2.62.
That's cheaper than $2.90 on the previous slide.
Furthermore, so we can charge them $2.90 flat fee, including E-checks, or we can charge them $2.62,
the average bill, and give them a freeway out by using an E-check if we use the service fee route.
Am I looking at that right?
>> Well, the $2.60 is a percentage, though.
>> No, but 1.55% of $169.23 is $2.62.
So, almost $0.30 cheaper per average card transaction, right?
And gives them the opportunity to not have to pay a fee at all if they go to the E-check route.
>> And that would be for all cards?
>> Yeah, I was just thinking of residential.
I mean, are the commercial customers going to flinch either way?
Probably not a whole lot.
But if we're talking about -- and for now,
we've just delivered a $2.00 rate decrease to the small customer, right?
So, in a way, we almost washed the whole thing out.
We're short a little bit, but to me, the service fee provides a free option.
It provides an option that's actually cheaper than the community.
For now, on the average customer, it's kind of the best of all worlds, I think,
to do 1.55 on all with the free E-checks.
>> So, your goal would be to try to help drive the customer
towards the lower cost auction of the E-check?
>> Yeah, yeah.
>> And that would be through advertising.
>> Right.
>> That'd be up to you for the advertising to give that education for the customer.
>> Yes, and that would be the city's goal as well.
I mean, ultimately, at the end of the day, we want to reduce our expenditures to the greatest extent possible.
And so, if everybody were to move to E-checks, this really wouldn't be a discussion.
I mean, we wouldn't incur that $1.5 million in credit card fees, everyone would be on E-checks.
So, yes, that education component would be very important.
We absolutely make sure that all customers are aware and encouraged to look at the, you know, options that do not incur a fee.
>> Like everywhere you have pay with credit card underneath its star, save 1.5% with an E-check.
Any other feedback?
>> So, if we have an increase, not of our own choosing, could we, I'm thinking that 1.55% versus the $2.90.
We, in a sense, have about a 30-cent buffer to help absorb depending on how high the percentage is.
Would that be a fair formula, not one we follow, but would that, does that make sense?
>> I think, yeah, I think that's a point well taken, that that option would be less expensive based on that average residential payment.
And so, if expenditures were to increase, that would provide a buffer.
I think the one note I would make is that the fee increases that we're seeing, and all, sorry, let me return to the table on slide seven.
The fee increases that we're seeing, that 20% year over year increase is largely driven by the volume of transactions.
And so, it's not driven by the card brands and the interchange fees increasing.
It's the, you know, we're seeing more and more and more customers using credit cards to pay the utility bills.
So, ease of payment and lack of money in the bank, not that we can control any of that, but that's what's, that's what we're looking at.
The reason for the, I think that's a driving force to you.
>> I only have one ACH payment a month, which is to my credit card company.
If I can get as many American airline miles as I possibly can with my American card, I'm going to do that, particularly with business travel, because they can pay for my vacations.
But yeah, to me, it's convenient and I don't care. I'll pay $3 to not have to put in a routing account number.
>> I don't mean to be splitting hairs, but I'm just, I'm looking at a way for helping, we're selling this.
Thank you. You, not me.
>> Yeah, I think it sounds like we're kind of coming to a consensus on the 1.5% for all customers and whatever, you know, encouraging customers to use the lower cost options.
We're going to, we're going to charge a 1.5% fee for card users and our utility rates will decline because we will be paying that, that 1.5 million approximately will be covered by that fee.
So, that's that much less that has to be recovered out of our utility rates.
>> Yeah, in terms of that trade off, you know, it would certainly relieve pressure in the operating budgets of the solid waste, water, wastewater, and DME budgets.
You know, is it a one to one, you know, that's all going to get netted out and influenced by, you know, the budget process.
You know, certainly there's needs to increase, you know, fund balances back to certain targets.
There are needs for additional services and things that would, you know, be identified in the budget process.
So, I think at the end of the day, you know, if we were to keep the recovery as it is now, it's just that much more pressure on the operating budget.
And so, just something to consider.
>> Well, considering this amount, we're talking about a million and a half dollars, which seems like a lot sitting here talking about it.
But in the size of the total budgets of the utilities and how many dollars they're taking in, it's a relatively small percentage, is it not?
>> It is. So, of the 151 million total processed, it is, it's 1.5 million.
So, yes.
>> So, whether it's a service fee or a flat fee, we're not talking about an enormous amount of payments versus the total of payments that come in to the utility departments.
>> Correct.
>> And then I suppose this will be reviewed every, either in budget process or every year or two to, if that fee needs to be adjusted to match the cost.
>> That's a great statement.
I'm curious, you get an email from the credit cards in six months.
What is the general lead time they give us as to, do we immediately start making those additional payments or is there, how does that work?
>> So, in terms of card brand rule changes, you know, there is a time frame that we would need to make an adjustment and we would bring whatever change that is back to PUB and back to council in order to adjust.
As far as the fee changes, I'm not certain offhand, you know, I have not received --
>> A threatening letter?
>> Any kind of communication from card brands.
I think that we would primarily receive that communication through our card processor and we would evaluate, as was noted, in the budget process what fees are looking like.
As we look at year over year, the number of transactions, the amount processed and see if there's any change needed.
One item I do want to note is the service fee, that last bullet point, the estimated estimate was provided by Wells Fargo merchant services.
So Wells Fargo, as our card processor, would provide the calculation to the city by analyzing all of our transactions to say this is the fee that, you know, would be required in order to recover your costs.
So that communication would be with our card processor.
>> Thank you.
Do you need anything further from us?
>> I don't believe so.
Just to recap, I think what I heard in terms of feedback was a preference for a service fee at the 1.55% that would apply to both residential and commercial, all card payments.
I just don't understand.
>> A motion would be good.
>> Could you go back to that slide that we're supposed, oh, there it is.
Go back to the flat fee, one more over.
What is that, slide nine?
Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to second your motion.
>> So I think I move PUB recommend option three, implementing a service fee for all customers of approximately 1.5%, excluding e-checks.
>> I'll second that.
>> Okay, we have a motion and a second.
All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Any opposed?
>> Very nice.
>> Thank you.
I believe that is our last item of business.
And with that, we are adjourned.