![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
rosif3r.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
davis_squarewhat follows is the actual email I sent them last night:
I find it amusing that in troubled economic times your Traffic and Parking Dept. has set up a situation where the most efficient ways to get monies into your coffers from parking violations are the least likely to be used, due to the the $3.00 "convenience fees" you assess for online and phone payments. However, since a stamp is still way cheaper than $3.00, I'm planning on mailing my payment in, which means you'll just have to wait for the USPS to get it to you. And unless you are paying the credit card companies some excessive amount for every transaction, you would not be losing much (and would be getting your monies faster) if you didn't charge an extra fee for an automated system to process your payments, rather than wait for people to mail them in or bring them in to the Holland Street location in person. Not to mention the staffing costs of the people manning the windows or opening the envelopes.
(I will mention as an aside here that I work for a large company that processes thousands of payments daily from our customers, and while we do charge a convenience fee if they pay with a phone representative, we waive that if they pay with the automatic phone system or on our website, specifically because of the inherent cost-saving efficiencies (for the company) built into those methods. Also, unless you charge a "convenience fee" for processing a credit card transaction at the Holland Street location, you're also setting up a system where you are rewarding people for coming in person, clogging up your office, and justifying the staffing of your walk-up windows (and your mailroom))
Also, after finding out that the website charged a 3.00 fee for a credit card transaction, i tried to use the automatic phone payment line (not realizing that it too wanted to ding me $3.00). I find it interesting that it waited until the absolute end (luckily I caught it before I OK'd the transaction) before it told me that this method also charged a 3.00 fee. In fact, it doesn't explicitly say that - it just gives you a total that's $3.00 higher than the amount of your ticket and asks if that's OK. I personally find that a little underhanded, as by this point (after minutes of entering info into a phone menu) a goodly number of people will probably miss the distinction and just OK the transaction without realizing that they've been charged extra. I'll mention as well that the letter you sent me with options on how to pay make no mention of the fact that two of the four methods penalize people financially if they are used.
I also find it extremely interesting that the Somerville Public Library, according to your own website, does not share your policies vis a vis credit card transactions (from the website: "Pay library fees: No service charges for credit/debit cards!!") So, I have to ask: Did the Library get a special dispensation from the credit card companies? Or are they taking a financial hit to accept fines in the most efficient manner possible, for both the public and the library staff? It makes one wonder exactly how much money Traffic and Parking is actually paying for these transactions to the credit card companies, since they obviously feel that they can't afford it without charging the public an extra fee, but the Library seems OK with it.
I really don't expect you to reevaluate your policies based on one email. But you may want to think about the fact that your public image has already been going down the tubes in light of your increasingly rapacious ticketing practices - it doesn't do your image any good to make people think that you're either charging the convenience fees because you're greedy (or at least greedier than the Public Library), or because you want to encourage inefficiencies that perpetuate your own staffing needs. Just a thought.
I find it amusing that in troubled economic times your Traffic and Parking Dept. has set up a situation where the most efficient ways to get monies into your coffers from parking violations are the least likely to be used, due to the the $3.00 "convenience fees" you assess for online and phone payments. However, since a stamp is still way cheaper than $3.00, I'm planning on mailing my payment in, which means you'll just have to wait for the USPS to get it to you. And unless you are paying the credit card companies some excessive amount for every transaction, you would not be losing much (and would be getting your monies faster) if you didn't charge an extra fee for an automated system to process your payments, rather than wait for people to mail them in or bring them in to the Holland Street location in person. Not to mention the staffing costs of the people manning the windows or opening the envelopes.
(I will mention as an aside here that I work for a large company that processes thousands of payments daily from our customers, and while we do charge a convenience fee if they pay with a phone representative, we waive that if they pay with the automatic phone system or on our website, specifically because of the inherent cost-saving efficiencies (for the company) built into those methods. Also, unless you charge a "convenience fee" for processing a credit card transaction at the Holland Street location, you're also setting up a system where you are rewarding people for coming in person, clogging up your office, and justifying the staffing of your walk-up windows (and your mailroom))
Also, after finding out that the website charged a 3.00 fee for a credit card transaction, i tried to use the automatic phone payment line (not realizing that it too wanted to ding me $3.00). I find it interesting that it waited until the absolute end (luckily I caught it before I OK'd the transaction) before it told me that this method also charged a 3.00 fee. In fact, it doesn't explicitly say that - it just gives you a total that's $3.00 higher than the amount of your ticket and asks if that's OK. I personally find that a little underhanded, as by this point (after minutes of entering info into a phone menu) a goodly number of people will probably miss the distinction and just OK the transaction without realizing that they've been charged extra. I'll mention as well that the letter you sent me with options on how to pay make no mention of the fact that two of the four methods penalize people financially if they are used.
I also find it extremely interesting that the Somerville Public Library, according to your own website, does not share your policies vis a vis credit card transactions (from the website: "Pay library fees: No service charges for credit/debit cards!!") So, I have to ask: Did the Library get a special dispensation from the credit card companies? Or are they taking a financial hit to accept fines in the most efficient manner possible, for both the public and the library staff? It makes one wonder exactly how much money Traffic and Parking is actually paying for these transactions to the credit card companies, since they obviously feel that they can't afford it without charging the public an extra fee, but the Library seems OK with it.
I really don't expect you to reevaluate your policies based on one email. But you may want to think about the fact that your public image has already been going down the tubes in light of your increasingly rapacious ticketing practices - it doesn't do your image any good to make people think that you're either charging the convenience fees because you're greedy (or at least greedier than the Public Library), or because you want to encourage inefficiencies that perpetuate your own staffing needs. Just a thought.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-26 10:53 pm (UTC)moderator note
Date: 2010-03-26 11:40 pm (UTC)http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=75
no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 12:21 am (UTC)Re: moderator note
Date: 2010-03-27 12:22 am (UTC)Look! A clicky thing! You know you want to... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroll_wheel/)
You yourself might find it useful in the future. It might save you the trouble of taking time out of your busy day to not actually comment on an issue of possible community interest in any way other than to harp on its formatting (see, I used another html tag, if for no other reason than to exemplify the fact that I do, in fact, know how to use various html tags (nested ones, even) in an LJ post, but chose not to use the LJ-cut one in this particular post.).
I also notice you (and your fellow replier) didn't choose to comment in a similar fashion to
Re: moderator note
Date: 2010-03-27 12:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 12:40 am (UTC)Re: moderator note
Date: 2010-03-27 12:40 am (UTC)Anyway I also agree with your criticism of the payment surcharge. On a positive note, my parking passes came today and I was glad that the Somerville Parking Dept. has made it possible to renew by mail. Seems like they are trying to make things easier.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 12:45 am (UTC)Once you have the person opening the checks and dealing with them, I'm not sure there's much incremental savings to having fewer checks for parking tickets.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 12:48 am (UTC)Since the parking tickets and permits are all about revenue for the city the difference is substantial.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 01:00 am (UTC)Just be careful that all your stickers are up to date and that you park close in to the curb in a legal zone. We can complain and they are free to do nothing, but they still have the ticket-and-fine stick to wield.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 01:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 02:00 am (UTC)The library could put a minimum cap on the amount you can charge but this would violate their agreement with the credit card company (Visa/MC) and they could lose their ability to accept credit cards.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 02:25 am (UTC)Re: moderator note
Date: 2010-03-27 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 02:57 am (UTC)Re: moderator note
Date: 2010-03-27 03:42 am (UTC)"lengthy posts should be behind an tag."
Yes, the word "lengthy" is subjective, but pretty much everyone would agree that this post is lengthy.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 03:45 am (UTC)I always wondered this whenever I had to go to Holland St. or City Hall to make some stupid payment.
Re: moderator note
Date: 2010-03-27 03:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 05:13 am (UTC)Re: moderator note
Date: 2010-03-27 05:56 am (UTC)Personally, I think the surcharges are stupid. The presence or absence of a cut doesn't change my opinion of the topic, it merely makes it more or less convenient to read my friends page.
From your bio:
I do not like the tone of your response to my request that you place the majority of your post behind an LJ cut. Please be receptive to my telling you so. Unless you give me a reason to think otherwise I am going to assume that you were just having a bad day and move on; I encourage others to do the same.
By the way, check your clicky link. Firefox thinks it has an extra slash on the end.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 06:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 01:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 03:27 pm (UTC)It does drive me crazy when other places do it, too.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 05:47 pm (UTC)Then again, there are also costs for clearing paper checks, which are hardly ever passed on to the consumer. That's why banks have minimum deposit requirements, even on no-interest accounts.
Water bill
Date: 2010-03-27 05:48 pm (UTC)Re: Water bill
Date: 2010-03-27 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-27 06:40 pm (UTC)Re: moderator note
Date: 2010-03-27 07:29 pm (UTC)Therefore, this is just taking up space on my FL and an lj-cut would have been lovely indeed.
Re: Water bill
Date: 2010-03-27 09:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-28 02:32 am (UTC)In any case, I don't think any of us know enough to be sure.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-28 03:53 pm (UTC)http://www.merchantcouncil.org/merchant-account/operation/MasterCard_Convenience_Fee_Program.pdf
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 03:31 am (UTC)Why should the city (ie. us) subsidize your desire to use a credit card? You know it is possible to pay online using a check? You are not charged a fee in that case.
credit card fees
Date: 2010-04-05 10:42 pm (UTC)