Allow payment in installments for eligible taxpayers

Let taxpayers who struggle with annual lump sums pay in smaller, scheduled installments under clear rules. This helps the willing stay inside the system and can reduce avoidable arrears without weakening the bill itself.

• Many taxpayers are willing but cash-constrained.

• Large annual bills push otherwise-compliant households into arrears.

• Leadership wants a fairness measure that still protects revenue.

• A simple legal or administrative basis for payment plans.

• A register that tracks installments and reactivates penalties when plans fail.

• Do not open broad installment plans if the city cannot track partial payments reliably.

• This should not become a disguised waiver for chronic non-payers.

This measure is easiest to defend when it is clearly targeted at taxpayers who are willing but financially stretched. Without guardrails, it can be criticised as softness toward chronic non-payers.

The full card would help the city plan eligibility rules, payment-plan agreements, tracking of partial payments, and the conditions under which penalties resume if a plan fails.

• Apply late-payment penalties consistently

• Set up a help desk and quick fixes for billing mistakes.

Some taxpayers do not default because they reject the tax; they default because the annual lump sum hits at the wrong moment or in too large an amount. Well-designed installment plans allow these taxpayers to remain inside the system while protecting the underlying liability. The key is structure: the city needs clear eligibility, a visible payment schedule, and an automatic return to ordinary enforcement if the plan fails.

• Many taxpayers appear willing to pay but struggle with one large annual bill.

• Households or small owners are falling into arrears because timing, not total liability, is the main barrier.

• Leadership wants a fairness measure that helps the willing without writing off the tax.

• Keep the first version tightly bounded, such as owner-occupiers, pensioners, or another clearly defined group, so the city can manage the process.

• If system capacity is weak, start with a paper or spreadsheet register for approved plans before automating more complex plan logic.

• Set a small number of rules that staff can apply consistently, rather than a long case-by-case discretion model.

• Which taxpayers should qualify automatically, which should apply, and which should remain outside the scheme.

• Whether the city will require a down payment, how many installments it will allow, and when penalties restart if a payment is missed.

• How installment plans will be displayed on the account so that reminders, penalties, and collection visits do not clash with an active plan.

First 90 days

• Identify the main taxpayer groups for whom cash-flow timing is a real problem and decide whether the city wants a narrow or broad first scheme.

• Prepare a short agreement form and a simple ledger process for recording the approved plan, due dates, and consequences of default.

• Train frontline staff on the difference between an installment plan and a waiver so taxpayers receive one consistent message.

6 to 12 months

• Pilot the scheme on a limited group and monitor whether taxpayers complete the plan or simply postpone default.

• Refine the eligibility and the down-payment rule if the city is admitting too many weak cases or excluding too many viable ones.

• Ensure that installment accounts appear correctly in reminder and overdue systems.

12 to 24 months and beyond

• Bring approved plans into the routine account-management system so the process is not dependent on one officer or one spreadsheet.

• Review annually whether the scheme is helping the intended taxpayers or drifting into a general delay culture.

• Use the results to decide whether to keep the scheme narrow, expand it slightly, or tighten the guardrails.

• Check whether local rules already permit payment plans or whether a short local instrument is needed to formalise them.

• Clarify who may approve a plan and under what conditions, because informal promises at the counter often create later disputes.

• If penalties are suspended while a taxpayer stays on plan, that rule should be stated clearly and applied consistently.

• The city needs a register of all approved plans, due dates, amounts paid, and missed installments.

• Staff must know how to explain the scheme without implying that any taxpayer can negotiate liability informally.

• The help desk and overdue teams need visibility on plan status so they do not send contradictory messages.

• If eligibility is too loose, the city can accidentally create a general expectation that everyone may delay payment without consequence.

• If partial payments are not posted correctly, the scheme can create more complaints than it resolves.

• If missed plans do not trigger a return to ordinary penalties and enforcement, the city loses credibility quickly.

• Number of taxpayers admitted to the scheme.

• Share of approved plans completed on schedule.

• Value of arrears prevented or resolved through plans.

• Share of failed plans that moved promptly back into ordinary enforcement.

• Apply late-payment penalties consistently.

• Set up a help desk and quick fixes for billing mistakes.

• Offer a small early-payment discount.

• Which taxpayer groups is the city trying to help, and why are they struggling now?

• What is the minimum down payment that makes the plan credible?

• How will staff know when a plan is active, failed, or completed?

• What safeguard will prevent installment plans from becoming informal waivers?