The finance committee reviewed a proposal discussed in building and housing to offer a limited discount to first-time property-abatement and grass-cutting violators to encourage payment and reduce assessments placed on property tax rolls. Committee members raised concerns about administrative burden, equity, and rising contractor costs for cutting overgrown lots; the committee took no action to change the ordinance.

Council member Ms. Weiser introduced the idea of offering a discount to first-time offenders to encourage payment before cases are certified as assessments. “Maybe we should start looking at considering coming up with a discount program that before we go to do the assessments we take all those 1-timers and send them a letter and say hey how about if we give you a 10% discount …” Ms. Weiser said, explaining the rationale to reduce assessments and clear small receivables.

Several council members and staff cautioned that the figures in the packet did not reflect current contractor costs and overtime. One council member said the city's current first-time fine structure already reduces the fine (a $100 fine for first-time offenders versus $200 for repeat offenders). Staff added that the city is currently using its own crews for abatement and that actual per-cut costs this year have ranged from about $62.68 to $187.60 depending on overtime and the time needed for overgrown lots. “I don't think we're really talking about a $140 fine at all this year. We're talking about a minimum of $62.68 to ... $187.60 per cut,” a staff member said.

Committee members also raised practical concerns: whether the discount would encourage deliberate nonpayment to wait for a discount; whether it would increase administrative workload in finance to track first-time status; and whether waivers for extenuating circumstances might invite claims of unfairness or discrimination without clear, objective criteria. The finance director noted the department can remove an assessment if the resident pays after certification, and staff said they would prepare data on the number of properties assessed in the prior year (one staff member said it appeared about 117 properties were assessed last year for nuisances).

The committee concluded with no change to the ordinance. Several members urged that, if changes are considered, the administration and staff provide updated cost calculations, a clear means to identify first-time offenders, and proposed objective criteria for any discretionary waivers. The item will be revisited only if committee members request it following review of updated data and proposed ordinance language.