For "Option A," while it would seemingly be "immediate" action on returning the dollars back to taxpayers, the process associated would be laborious, slow, and inefficient. Laborious because it would require an associated public hearing (according to state code), and the re-opening of an old budget all while council and City Hall would begin working through a new one. Slow, because the public hearings must have ample lead time, and Council must vote twice on financial matters (which in actuality takes a minimum of a month). In fact, your account would not realize this until early spring, if not later. This is because Council must consider fiscal policies at two separate meetings (a 30 day plus process) and have an associated public hearing. At the very same time, Council would be working through the upcoming budget and making policy decisions on that front. Here's another thought, and that is to say it would be wrong of Council to move foward with this relief without knowing the implications, first. Truly, this action would take a long time to fully implement.   Inefficient, because proponents of this approach cannot articulate how the funds would be returned to property owners. The only "solution" is to have checks mailed out, which has its own financial costs (postage, for one) and audit concerns associated (meaning, how can we ensure Mr. Smith is receiving his proper funds, not Mr. Jones'; bounced checks; and working through residents who have moved out of or around the city). Worse, it only lowers your two of four payments, rather than long-term relief. This option is also inefficient because it chips away at the broader conversation of "bold tax relief" as opposed to approaching this topic with one big swing aimed at the fences.  Finally, per my motion on January 24th, Council has already directed City Hall on this topic. As such, adding Option A to an upcoming agenda would not be proper. "Option B" offers that "one big swing aimed at the fences," is a cleaner approach, but is incorporated in the upcoming budget process. Being vested in the budget, this strategy can give off the perception that all of or a portion of the five Republicans are hesitant to return these dollars, which I know is not the case. This option also means that council has the full picture of the situation and can make the most informed decisions, as opposed to a quick action that may not produce positive returns. In weighing both options, I do submit that "Option B" makes a great deal more sense -- let's knock this out of the park!