Update values between full revaluations

Use simple interim adjustments—such as indexation, area-value updates, or targeted recalibration—to stop assessments from becoming stale between major revaluations. This helps preserve credibility and revenue without rerunning a full citywide exercise every year.

• Full revaluations are infrequent and assessments drift quickly.

• The city needs a manageable way to keep bills from lagging too far behind reality.

• There is at least some evidence base for interim adjustments.

• A legal or administrative basis for interim updates and a clear rule taxpayers can understand.

• Some data source that supports the interim adjustment rather than pure guesswork.

• Do not use formulaic updates to mask a deeply outdated base forever.

• This is not appropriate where the starting values are so poor that they first need a real reset.

Valuation reforms are usually easier to defend when they are presented as fairness and credibility measures, not simply as ways to raise more money. Sudden unexplained changes in bills tend to provoke resistance.

The full card would help the city plan interim update rules, data sources, governance, and communication so that assessments do not become stale while the city waits for the next full revaluation.

• Use simple location and property bands to improve fairness quickly

• Put revaluations on a rolling cycle.

Even a good revaluation quickly starts to drift if the city lets values stand unchanged for many years while markets, construction costs, or neighbourhood conditions move on. Interim updates help slow that decay. They do not replace a real revaluation, but they can keep assessments from becoming obviously stale between major rounds. The city’s challenge is to choose an interim rule that is understandable, evidence-based enough to defend, and simple enough to apply consistently.

• Full revaluations happen infrequently and the current values are drifting away from reality.

• The city needs a manageable way to keep bills from lagging too far behind market or cost changes.

• There is at least some evidence source the city can use for interim adjustments, even if it is weaker than what a full revaluation would need.

• Choose a rule that the city can explain and reapply, such as indexation, calibrated factor updates, or targeted zone adjustments.

• If the starting values are deeply flawed, treat interim updating as a temporary holding measure while a more substantial reset is prepared.

• Do not try to fine-tune interim updates beyond what the evidence supports; rough consistency is usually better than pseudo-precision.

• Whether the city will use broad indexation, targeted recalibration by area or property type, event-triggered updates, or a combination.

• How often interim updates should run and what evidence will trigger them.

• Whether any safeguards, caps, or staged changes are needed to smooth visible bill movements.

First 90 days

• Review how quickly the current values are becoming stale and which parts of the city or tax base are most affected.

• Select the most defensible interim rule the city can currently support with data and administration.

• Prepare a short explanation of what the interim update is and is not, so it is not confused with a full revaluation.

6 to 12 months

• Apply the first interim update on a test batch or pilot segment and check the operational and taxpayer response.

• Refine the rule if it produces obviously uneven outcomes or relies on evidence the city cannot refresh reliably.

• Build the update into billing and communications so taxpayers understand why values changed between major revaluation rounds.

12 to 24 months and beyond

• Repeat the interim process on the announced schedule and review whether the rule remains fit for purpose.

• Use the interim-update experience to identify where the city still needs a deeper valuation reset.

• Keep the distinction clear: interim updating supports but does not replace the next full revaluation.

• Confirm that the city has legal authority to apply interim updates and whether the chosen rule requires formal adoption or published notice.

• Document the evidence source and the method used for each interim update so later review is possible.

• Clarify how interim updates interact with any rights to objection or administrative correction.

• The city needs a stable source of update evidence, whether inflation-related, market-related, or cost-related.

• Billing and valuation teams need aligned timetables so interim value changes flow cleanly into the tax cycle.

• Customer-facing teams should know how to explain why a value changed even though a full revaluation has not yet occurred.

• Interim updates can become a crutch if the city keeps postponing the deeper valuation reset that is actually needed.

• Poorly justified adjustments can provoke distrust because taxpayers see movement without understanding the basis.

• If the city updates some values but not the records that support them, inconsistencies can widen rather than narrow.

• Time elapsed between full revaluations and interim updates.

• Share of the roll affected by each interim update and the average change applied.

• Taxpayer questions or disputes specifically linked to interim value changes.

• Evidence refresh rate for the chosen update rule.

• Use simple location and property bands to improve fairness quickly.

• Put revaluations on a rolling cycle.

• Tighten valuation data and quality control.

• How fast are current values becoming stale in your city?

• What interim rule could the city defend publicly today?

• What evidence will support the update each cycle?

• How will the city stop interim updating from becoming a permanent substitute for real revaluation?