Use simple location and property bands to improve fairness quickly

Improve fairness by using simple bands based on factors such as location, use, size, or building type rather than treating very different properties too similarly. This is often the most practical first step toward a more defensible assessment system.

• The city currently uses coarse rules that ignore obvious value differences.

• There is not yet enough market evidence for advanced modelling, but basic location and property data exist.

• Management wants a visible fairness improvement without jumping straight to full mass valuation.

• A small set of agreed criteria and clear mapping between those criteria and bill calculations.

• A communication plan so taxpayers understand why similar properties may fall into different bands.

• Do not create too many bands that the administration cannot explain or maintain.

• This is weak where even the underlying property facts are highly unreliable.

Assessment reforms can become politically sensitive because they change how fairness is judged, not just how much revenue is raised. The city usually needs plain explanations, visible logic, and a route for taxpayers to question obvious mistakes.

The full card would help the city design the bands, calibrate them, explain them publicly, and avoid creating so many categories that the administration cannot apply them consistently.

• Start with an assessment method the city can actually keep current; Update values between full revaluations.

• Strengthen valuation evidence and methods

• These options improve how the city estimates values, especially where current assessments are crude, dated, or visibly unfair.

Where the city cannot yet support advanced valuation, simple bands can still improve fairness significantly. A small number of defensible categories based on location, use, size, building type, or similar features often creates a better and more explainable assessment than treating very different properties as if they were the same. The discipline lies in keeping the structure simple enough to apply consistently and to update without constant dispute.

• The current assessment method ignores obvious differences across neighbourhoods or property types.

• The city has some basic location and property information but not enough evidence for a more advanced valuation model.

• Management wants a visible fairness improvement that can be implemented sooner than full market-based valuation.

• Begin with a very limited set of criteria that taxpayers and staff can both recognise easily.

• If property facts are still weak, use bands first in the parts of the city where the underlying information is most dependable.

• Prepare a clear explanation of why different bands exist before applying them, especially where adjacent areas will be treated differently.

• How many bands the city should use and which factors should define them.

• Whether the city will band only land/location, or also building use, size, or construction type.

• How often band boundaries and values will be reviewed so they do not become stale or politically frozen.

First 90 days

• Review the current bill structure and identify the biggest fairness distortions that simple bands could address quickly.

• Choose a small first set of bands and test them on a sample of properties to see whether the pattern makes intuitive sense.

• Map the proposed bands clearly and prepare simple examples of how a property would move from the old system to the new one.

6 to 12 months

• Pilot the bands in one area or on one class of property and compare complaint patterns, bill spreads, and staff usability with the old method.

• Adjust the number of bands or the factor definitions if the first version is too coarse or too complicated.

• Prepare the communication materials and internal rules for applying and reviewing band assignments.

12 to 24 months and beyond

• Roll the banded approach into routine assessment practice and set a timetable for periodic recalibration.

• Use better evidence over time to strengthen or refine the band values rather than multiplying categories endlessly.

• Keep watching for parts of the city where a simple banded system has reached its practical limit and needs richer valuation support.

• Confirm that local rules allow the chosen band structure and that any changes to classification or value tables follow the required approval route.

• Document the basis for each band so the city can defend why properties were grouped as they were.

• Clarify the link between banding and any exemptions, reliefs, or special categories already in the system.

• The city needs clear maps, tables, or lookup tools so assessors and taxpayers can identify the correct band without improvisation.

• Quality checks matter because even a simple banded system can become inconsistent if different teams interpret the categories differently.

• Frontline staff need example cases, not just definitions, to explain band differences to taxpayers.

• Too many bands can recreate the complexity the city was trying to escape.

• If boundaries are poorly explained, taxpayers near the edge of a band change may feel singled out or unfairly treated.

• If the city treats banding as a permanent substitute for all further evidence gathering, the system can quickly become stale again.

• Number of properties assigned to bands without manual exception.

• Complaint rate linked to band assignment or band boundaries.

• Range of bill differences across obviously different property groups before and after reform.

• Frequency with which assessors require escalation because the band rules are unclear.

• Start with an assessment method the city can actually keep current.

• Update values between full revaluations.

• Create a clear, time-bound valuation review and appeal process.

• Which property differences are so obvious that taxpayers already expect them to matter?

• How many bands can the city maintain without confusion?

• What map or lookup tool will staff and taxpayers use to identify the right band?

• When will the city review the bands rather than letting them ossify?

• B. Strengthen valuation evidence and methods