Future CityBase partnerships

[patrickm02L]

As an employee of the City of Austin, I want to integrate the CityBase payments system into other Knack applications used by internal Transportation divisions, so that we can provide a seamless payment experience for our residents.

This issue is created because after the Shared Mobility Services CityBase payment integration, CityBase wanted to see what other projects that ATD had in mind.

• Met on 1/24 with CityBase (Alex, Jennifer F, Kiera W, MJ, , and FSD IT (Eva, Mark)
• Mentioned projects that have potential payment integration opportunities
  • Shared Mobility Services
  • Right of Way
  • Transportation Development Services
  • Affordable Parking Program
  • Special Event Barricade Program

Action Items: CityBase was supposed to follow-up with a quote after the call

[dianamartin]

2/27

• Followed up with CityBase and FSD IT

  Hi Everyone, Following up about this meeting, I believe there were some action items that were supposed to be sent over.

  • Citybase to send over quote of services for new project implementation?

This is not urgent, but just didn’t want this to fall through the cracks as I just remembered this was outstanding. Also wanted to know what the current CityBase/FSD IT workload schedule is so that I can relay to potential stakeholders. We do have some large projects at the moment so if there is more bandwidth in the fall, let me know what your plans are.

[dianamartin]

2/28

Kiera W. from CityBase replied

Reaching back out and copying Diana for awareness of our proposed options for ATD. If you'd like to discuss, let me know.

Below I've provided a high overview of the 2 different options that ATD may select from.

Option 1: support a generic configuration for Standard Checkout

• CityBase uses a generic “service type” in our application to support all Austin Transportation payments - current and future.

Pros

• Less costly
• Easily repeatable for future payments

  Cons

• Less distinction across the different obligations paid in Revenue Management , since there is one service type
  • Different finance groups manage these payments, so being able to clearly differentiate between the types of payments is important.
• Generic receipt contents
  • Contact phone numbers, “helper” text, things along those lines are the same for everyone.

Option 2: create unique “payment routes” for each new payment

Pros

• More flexibility in configuring receipts
• Separate service types in Revenue Management, making it easier for staff administration of payments

  Cons

• More costly
• Future, additional payments will also require some set up

Price Quote:

• Option 1 - Generic Payment Route: $8,000
• Option 2 - Unique Payment Routes: $8,000 x 3 = $24,000

3/1

I followed up

Remind me if that $8k or $24k is a once time implementation, annual maintenance cost?

Kiera replied 3/1

The $8k or $24k will be a one time implementation fee.

[dianamartin]

3/1

Mark reached out because he wants to talk before anything moves forward

Diana, can we schedule some time to talk before moving forward. I just want to make sure I'm in sync with y'all.

I replied

Of course, we’re not looking into starting this project any time soon. Maybe understanding your schedule would be helpful for us too. We were thinking late summer or Fall? Let’s chat whenever you’re available. Would you like me to schedule something?

[dianamartin]

Update on this

3/7

Kiera emailed

Good afternoon Diana,

I hope your week is going well. I wanted to follow up on which option Austin Transportation has decided to go with at this time so we can get everything updated on our end. If you have any additional questions that you'd like for me to address I'll be more than happy to do so.

3/8

I replied

Hi Kiera,

We are thinking Option 2 - Unique Payment Routes because we may have various stakeholders that are interested in a Knack <> CityBase payment integration that will not fall under the existing “Street Banner” category. We are hoping to schedule and align any new ATD projects with FSD IT’s priorities. We are meeting with Mark tomorrow to discuss.

Mark replied too

Hi Kiera & Jeannine,

Eva and I spoke with Diana and Peggy today and based on the current project plans that are competing for resources we are looking to pick this up in Aug/Sep time frame. We would like to meet in July or Aug to go over the two options and determine a plan and schedule.

[dianamartin]

10/23

On Aug 3 (8/3/23) Kiera emailed

Good afternoon Mark and Diana,

I hope all is well. I wanted to circle back on the Austin Transportation payments opportunity to see if this is something we can go ahead and more forward with now that we are in August. Our implementation and engineering team is ready to go whenever you are ready to pull the trigger, do you think we can forecast this project for this quarter? The pricing options are provided in this email thread as well and I think Diana mentioned going with option 2 the unique payments route.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Best Regards, Kiera

8/7/23 I replied

Hi Kiera, Thank you for following up with me, I’ve been out of town but have recently returned from vacation.

I’ve talked to Peggy about whether we are ready to pursue a Citybase project this quarter. Since we’ve last corresponded there have been significant changes on our side. Back in early March we had said that a Aug/September would be potentially be more likely. At the end of March, we were notified that our department was beginning a merger with another department effective immediately. This announcement has forced us to re-prioritize our resources and operational projects.

We think that picking up this conversation at the beginning of the calendar year would be a better, unfortunately now is not a good timeframe.