It seems unreasonable to implement a fee for in-person utility payment service. The observation that such a fee would likely disproportionately impact economically disadvantaged populations makes the option all the more unsavory.Unlike online transactions, which have real added costs to municipalities that can be offset through a "convenience charge", in-person window transactions presumably have their costs already accounted for in the municipal budget. Adding a window service convenience fee targeting primarily economically disadvantaged populations is a patently bad idea. If costs are not being covered, I would look to other tools for offsetting cashiering costs, such as broader increase that is spread across all transactions cashier staff handle - a change to base fees, not a special penalty for interacting with staff.If the objective is simply to influence behavior (not recover costs), then I would think that education and reward is the way to go. Talk to the in-person users and find out why they do not use other methods and then take actions that reduce or eliminate any barriers. If there's not already an Internet kiosk in City/Village Hall, consider making one available to walk-ins for bill payment. Perhaps there could even be an incentive, like a small discount or perhaps a raffle to get people to start doing it, etc. Here in Oak Park (IL), for example, we do not charge convenience fees for online transactions. In addition, to encourage folks to get vehicle stickers online we actually provide a $5 discount. We encourage folks to use the payment methods that are most advantageous to our operations, but kindly accept payment through whichever mode a particular remitter finds most convenient.I strongly advise against an in-person service convenience fee.