Providing that fiduciary financial institutions shall be overseen, supervised and examined by the office of the state bank commissioner as a chartered trust company, allowing a fiduciary financial institution to refer to itself as a trust company in legal or regulatory filings or disclosures to existing or prospective customers or investors and authorizing a fiduciary financial institution to exercise fiduciary powers and full trust powers and to engage as a trust company under state and federal law.
The amendments proposed in HB2133 impact several statutes including K.S.A. 12-16,125, K.S.A. 19-122, K.S.A. 72-1176, and K.S.A. 75-30,100. These changes facilitate local governments, such as cities and counties, as well as educational institutions to accept credit and debit cards more flexibly. By allowing surcharges to cover transaction costs, these entities can better manage their financial operations, thereby potentially increasing the acceptance of electronic payments and enhancing financial efficiency. This shift is likely to streamline the payment processes for taxes, fees, and other financial obligations owed to the government or educational institutions.
House Bill 2133 is a legislative measure that amends existing laws in Kansas regarding the acceptance of credit and debit card payments by various governmental bodies including cities, counties, and school districts. The bill allows these entities to impose a surcharge on credit/debit card transactions, covering the processing fees incurred when accepting such payments. It mandates that if a surcharge is applied, the entity must inform the payor about this fee prior to completing the transaction. The primary intent of the bill is to provide governmental institutions the authority to recover processing costs associated with card payments without being subject to previous regulatory constraints.
There may be contention surrounding the implementation of surcharges on credit/debit card transactions, as some stakeholders might view these fees as an additional burden on consumers, particularly in contexts where affordability is a concern, such as utility services or educational fees. Advocates for the bill contend that it allows local governments the ability to operate more sustainably in managing payment methods, while detractors might raise objections to the potential negative impact on low-income residents who may disproportionately feel the effects of additional transaction costs. Furthermore, discussions could arise regarding the transparency of fee disclosures and the implications for taxpayer trust in their government institutions.