-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add new text to Payments Processor contracts page #548
Comments
Hi @AngellyTovar - we will need to change the text about Elavon's rates for out of state agencies, following a call I had with them today. I have made a number of changes below, including removing any references to extending California rates to non-California agencies. New proposed text:
Your monthly bill from your Acquirer will include a merchant service charge. This charge, paid directly to the Acquirer, is made up of three separate components: payment processing fees; interchange fees; and scheme fees. Payment processing fee rates are set in the EPAY MSAs, and rates decrease as the cumulative volume of transactions (across all merchants on the contract) increases. For Elavon, the current payment processing rate for transit transactions is $0.03 per transaction; and for Fiserv, the current payment processing rate is $0.014 per transaction. Interchange fee rates and scheme fee rates are published publicly and will vary depending on the type of card used during the transaction and the transaction amount. Ask your EPAY MSA vendor what the interchange rates are for transit. |
@AngellyTovar confirming the above content. Also, we don't have FAQ type content on the contracts page and I think we should keep it that way. What we could do is add a link from the contracts page back to the guide. We could link to a new section called Payment Processing or something on from the contracts page and add this content there. Let me know your thoughts and apologies for the delay on this. |
Hi @mrose914 - sorry to be a pain but I wanted to flag that we may be able to add back in some of the removed text about Elavon honouring the EPAY rates for out of state agencies. We're hoping to get concrete confirmation from the person heading up Mass Transit, this week. |
@jenro1 let me know if we got an update re: this content, thank you! |
Thanks for the nudge, both! Still trying to get clarity on this (latest email sent just last week). Let me follow-up again and see if I can get a response.... |
Please add the text below to the body text on the payments processing contract page (https://www.camobilitymarketplace.org/contracts/view?contracts-filter-product=Payment%20Processor)
State of California EPAY Agreement
You are free to complete a sole source purchase if your procurement rules allow you to do so. The important consideration is understanding certification timelines and costs associated with integrating the other parts of your system (your payment acceptance devices and transit processor) with the payment processor of your choice.
For California agencies, this information can be found in Elavon and Fiserv’s respective EPAY MSA agreements.
For out of state agencies, Elavon has agreed to extend EPAY Terms, Conditions and Pricing from California to other agencies. Please confirm with Elavon, as Cal-ITP will not have visibility of these terms. Similarly, California’s “transit program” interchange discount for regulated debit cards - administered through Visa and Mastercard - will also apply.
A payment gateway transmits card information from your transit processor to the acquirer to facilitate a transaction. If you decide to contract with Elavon, a gateway is provided as part of the EPAY agreement (Cybersource is the gateway provider). You may need to engage with the payment gateway provider as part of the initial set-up, but this will be facilitated by either your payment processor or your transit processor.
Other
Yes, please! Please ensure that your acquirer can process mass transit transactions (MTT), which are different from retail transactions.
No, but most transit agency boards need to approve contracts (your state DOT is likely not needed).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: