Run a quick property self-registration drive

Use a short, plain-language form and simple submission channels to capture the minimum facts needed to create or refresh property records. It is a practical first move when the city knows many properties are missing but cannot yet fund a full survey.

• The property list is clearly incomplete or contact details are outdated.

• The city needs a visible, low-cost early move before heavier fieldwork or system reform.

• Ward offices, counters, or a hotline can help residents submit and correct basic information.

• Basic authority to request property information for tax purposes, with a simple privacy notice.

• A workflow to check submissions, avoid duplicates, and create or update records quickly.

• Do not present this as land titling or proof of ownership.

• It will underperform where trust is very low unless paired with outreach or in-person support.

The political risk is usually low to moderate, but the city still needs to show that new records will be handled fairly and that residents are not being drawn into a process they do not understand.

The full card would help the city plan the registration form, the submission channels, the verification workflow, the communications approach, and the way new records would be checked before entering the roll.

• Fix basic record errors quickly

• Use a one-off registration amnesty carefully

• Carry out a targeted street and neighbourhood sweep.

This is often the lightest way to open the coverage problem. It does not solve every data weakness, but it gives the city a practical way to collect the minimum facts needed to create or refresh records. It also helps signal that the city is trying to widen the register in an orderly and understandable way rather than only pursuing arrears from those already inside the system.

Bring willing but currently unrecorded properties into the system quickly, while also refreshing stale contact information for properties that are already on the roll.

A city that knows the roll is incomplete but needs an affordable, visible first step before larger fieldwork or digital reforms.

A first wave of new records and corrected contact details within one billing cycle.

Approve one short registration form, a clear message that the exercise is for tax administration rather than titling, and one team to own intake and verification.

Revenue administration, supported by ward offices, front-office staff, and communications.

• The city already suspects that many properties are missing or that contact details are out of date.

• Ward offices, local counters, or a hotline can support taxpayers who need help completing a simple form.

• Leadership wants an early move that shows momentum without waiting for a large procurement or citywide survey.

• Keep the first version of the form short. Ask only for the facts that the city is ready to store, verify, and use.

• Decide who checks forms for duplicates, who approves new records, and how incomplete submissions will be followed up.

• If trust is weak, pair the registration drive with basic outreach and visible help points rather than relying only on self-service channels.

• Choose the submission mix carefully: paper at ward counters, assisted digital entry, online forms, USSD or SMS, or some combination.

• Decide the minimum evidence required. For an early registration drive, the city often needs light verification rather than a document-heavy process.

• Choose whether to run the drive citywide or first in wards where growth, poor records, or delivery problems are most visible.

First 90 days

• Draft and test the short form, instructions, and privacy notice.

• Choose the channels and train front-office or ward staff to explain the form consistently.

• Pilot in one or two areas first so the city can see what fields cause confusion and where duplicate records are most likely.

6 to 12 months

• Run the campaign for a defined period and monitor submissions daily or weekly.

• Verify records quickly enough that residents see a real outcome rather than a backlog.

• Use the first results to identify where self-registration works well and where fieldwork or data matching is still needed.

12 to 24 months and beyond

• Fold the form and its workflow into normal administration so the city can keep accepting new or corrected information.

• Simplify or adjust the form based on the first campaign rather than freezing a poor design.

• Use what the city learned to inform more targeted coverage work in harder areas.

• The city usually needs a clear legal basis to request property information for tax purposes and to explain how the information will be used.

• The messaging should clearly separate tax registration from land titling or proof of ownership so the process does not create legal confusion.

• A small verification team is critical; otherwise a registration drive simply creates a pile of unprocessed forms.

• Basic duplicate checking, even in a spreadsheet-based system, matters from the start.

• Communications and front-office staff need the same script so taxpayers hear one message.

• If the form asks for too much, the city will discourage participation and create a backlog.

• If the city cannot process submissions quickly, public trust will fall and field staff will be blamed for a problem that is really administrative.

• If the campaign sounds like a land-rights exercise, the city may trigger unnecessary fear or unrealistic expectations.

• Number of submissions received.

• Share of submissions verified and either added or used to update an existing record.

• Number of genuinely new properties added to the roll.

• Number of contact details corrected and ready for later billing or notices.

• This card usually works best alongside PT-COV-11 on fixing simple record errors, PT-COV-02 on cross-matching external data, and PT-COV-03 in areas where self-registration alone will miss too many properties.

• Which channels will actually reach missing owners or occupiers in your city?

• What is the minimum information you truly need before opening a record?

• Who will verify submissions, and how quickly can that team act?

• How will the city explain that this is a tax-registration exercise rather than a titling exercise?