Davis County weighs modernizing purchasing‑card system vs. higher bank rebates

Davis County staff reviewed options Wednesday to replace an aging purchasing‑card platform, laying out a tradeoff between modern, automated systems that reduce staff workload and bank programs that return higher annual rebates.

Controller's office staff told the commission their current US Bank setup “is putting a lot of extra work on your staff” and that newer platforms could automate receipt capture, approvals and coding. “If you could just take your phone … you swipe your card at the restaurant, you take a picture, and you're done,” said Scott Hart of the controller's office during the presentation.

The staff presentation compared four vendors. Staff reported the county currently receives about “$25,000 a year back in a rebate” under the existing US Bank arrangement; Wells Fargo was described as providing roughly $18,000 annually in rebates while offering more modern features than the current system. Newer card platforms such as Grama and Ramp were described as offering substantially more automation and productivity gains, but some charge per card (staff cited a per‑card fee example of about $144) and show lower direct rebate amounts.

The controller's office cautioned that vendor estimates of productivity gains are not the county's audited savings: one vendor projected conservative productivity benefits of about $250,000 over several years but staff characterized those figures as vendor estimates, not firm county savings.

Commissioners focused on how the options would affect departments differently: a commissioner noted that a per‑card fee could penalize departments with many cardholders and encourage sharing cards, which would undercut productivity benefits. Staff confirmed most vendors can split transactions across multiple funds and provide level‑3 data for itemization and sales‑tax coding, and that several vendors offer integrations with the county's financial systems.

Rather than selecting a vendor at the meeting, commissioners asked staff to solicit preferences from department directors at a directors' meeting scheduled the next day and requested that staff include an additional vendor (Divvy) in the evaluation. The commission gave direction to gather department input and return with a recommendation.

The county will continue evaluating tradeoffs—maximizing immediate rebate revenue versus maximizing county‑wide efficiency—and return to the commission with more department feedback and comparative information.