GUEST SUBMISSION: Property assessment systems have traditionally judged their success at the end of the taxation cycle. Assessment notices are issued, appeals are filed and outcomes are tested in formal review or tribunal settings.

If values are upheld, the roll is considered stable; if not, adjustments are made, and lessons are absorbed for next time.

That approach has long been accepted as normal. But it carries significant risk — financial, administrative, and relational — and it reinforces an adversarial dynamic that increasingly works against the interests of both taxpayers and municipalities.

There is an alternative. It starts earlier in the assessment cycle, before positions harden and disputes escalate, through what is best described as pre-notice consultation: a structured opportunity for assessors and taxpayers to review preliminary assessments, exchange information and resolve issues before formal notices are distributed.

Viewed through a modern governance and risk-management lens, pre-notice consultation is not an optional enhancement. It is a practical way to strengthen roll stability, improve customer experience and reduce avoidable conflict for everyone involved.

Rethinking roll stability: Outcome vs. Exposure

Historically, roll stability has been equated with the ability to defend assessment values. If the assessment authority prevails, the logic goes, then the assessment system has worked. But this framing conflates validation with risk management.

Appeals are not a neutral test. They are high-stakes, binary events that concentrate risk.

A single unfavourable decision on a large non-residential property or portfolio can materially affect municipal revenues, force the use of reserves, distort tax rates, and undermine public confidence. Even when the authority ultimately prevails, the cost is real: years of uncertainty, staff time, professional fees and strained relationships.

More subtly, an appeals-centric system perpetuates an “us versus them” mentality and erodes trust. Assessors learn to defend rather than explain, and taxpayers measure information disclosure based on tax impact rather than transparency. Communication becomes strategic rather than candid. Over time, the system trains participants to expect conflict.

From a risk perspective, this is a fragile posture. Managing risk by winning disputes assumes most of those disputes will break your way. Managing risk by reducing the need for disputes is far more efficient.

Pre-Notice consultation as risk management

Pre-notice consultation reframes the problem. Instead of treating appeals as the primary mechanism for validating assessments, it uses early engagement as a tool to reduce exposure before it materializes.

By sharing preliminary assessments and underlying assumptions in advance, assessors create space for factual correction and clarification at the point where change is still operationally feasible. By responding with current property data and market context, taxpayers and their representatives can help ensure final values reflect reality rather than inference.

This is not about conceding authority or negotiating outcomes. It is about deploying effort where it has the highest return: upstream, before assessments harden into positions that might need to be defended later.

In other regulatory and financial contexts, this approach would be uncontroversial. Risk is managed through early controls, transparency and preventative action, not by relying on post-event adjudication. Property assessment should be no different.

The taxpayer perspective: predictability and credibility

For taxpayers, particularly in the non-residential sector, the value of pre-notice consultation is immediate and practical.

Non-residential property taxes represent one of the largest operating expenses for many organizations. Owners must forecast these costs months in advance, not only for internal budgeting but to allocate operating expenses to tenants.

Waiting until formal assessment notices arrive compresses that planning into an already tight window and increases the likelihood of results outside of forecasts.

Pre-notice consultation improves predictability. Early visibility into likely assessments allows owners to budget with greater confidence, manage cash flow more effectively and communicate expected property tax impacts to tenants in a timely and credible way. Even where final values differ from preliminary figures, reducing uncertainty materially improves planning accuracy.

For tenants, this transparency matters. Occupiers increasingly scrutinize total occupancy costs, particularly in margin-sensitive sectors. When landlords can explain tax allocations by referencing preliminary assessments and documented engagement with the assessor, allocated costs are grounded in evidence rather than assumption. This reduces friction, supports smoother reconciliations and strengthens long-term landlord/tenant relationships.

Just as importantly, pre-notice consultation allows taxpayers and their advisors to demonstrate active stewardship. Documented engagement signals to tenants, lenders and investors that property taxes are being managed proactively, not passively passed through. That signal has reputational and commercial value.

The assessing authority perspective: Data, relationships, stability

The benefits of pre-notice consultation are not one-sided; assessing authorities also stand to gain from this approach.

Property assessment systems rely heavily on taxpayer-provided information. Early engagement improves both the quality and timeliness of that data. When discussions occur before notices are issued, the tone shifts from dispute resolution to problem-solving.

That shift reduces defensiveness and improves cooperation, particularly in complex commercial classes where accurate valuation depends on detailed, current information.

Better data leads to better assessments. Missing or outdated information is more easily identified and incorporated before the roll is finalized. Market context shared by owners and their representatives strengthens model calibration and improves consistency across comparable properties.

The cumulative effect of this consultation is greater roll stability. Assessments that are more accurate when issued generate fewer appeals, fewer mid-cycle corrections, and less volatility in the tax base. For municipalities, that stability translates directly into more predictable revenue forecasting, lower reserves held against uncertainty, fewer resources allocated to defending assessments, and less external pressure created by high-profile disputes.

Equally important is legitimacy. Transparency and early dialogue reinforce public confidence in the assessment system. When stakeholders understand how values are developed and see that information is considered before decisions are finalized, outcomes are more likely to be accepted, even when values increase.

Customer service as a performance metric

This reframing also requires assessing authorities to address an inherent contradiction in property taxation: prioritizing customer satisfaction in an adversarial system.

Pre-notice consultation does not mean compromising independence or treating assessment as a negotiated outcome. It means recognizing that clarity, responsiveness, and transparency affect compliance, trust, and system efficiency.

In addition, pre-notice consultation is not a concession to taxpayers. It is a service function that improves outcomes for both the assessment authority and the taxpayer. When questions are answered early, assumptions are explained, and data is reflected accurately, fewer issues escalate into formal disputes. The system runs with less friction.

In that sense, customer service and risk management are aligned, not in conflict.

Implementation realities: capacity and culture

Placing a greater emphasis on pre-notice consultation is not easy.

Assessment cycles are already compressed, with statutory deadlines and strained resources. Introducing or expanding pre-notice consultation requires earlier readiness of preliminary values, additional staff capacity, and careful workflow design. Done poorly, it can add pressure rather than relieve it.

There is also a cultural challenge. Many systems have evolved within adversarial norms on both sides. Shifting toward earlier, more collaborative engagement requires consistency and repeated evidence that participation is meaningful. Trust is built over time, through predictable and professional interactions, not through policy statements alone.

These hurdles are real. However, they are not valid arguments against pre-notice consultation — they are arguments for designing it carefully and measuring its impact honestly.

A different definition of success

Ultimately, the case for pre-notice consultation requires success to be redefined.

If success is measured solely by appeal win rates, adversarial systems will persist, and risk will remain concentrated. However, if success is defined and measured by roll stability, predictability and transparency, then early engagement becomes essential.

Under the latter definition, the strongest roll is not the one most successfully defended but the one that required the least defence in the first place.

Conclusion: Advocacy for a smarter risk posture

Pre-notice consultation offers a disciplined way to shift property assessment from reactive defence to proactive risk management.

For taxpayers, it improves predictability, strengthens communication with tenants and supports better financial planning. For municipalities and assessing authorities, it improves data quality, reduces exposure and builds public trust. For the system as a whole, it replaces unnecessary conflict with informed dialogue.

The question is no longer whether early engagement is appropriate. It is whether continuing to rely on the results of appeals as the primary tool for stability remains a defensible risk strategy.

Pre-notice consultation does not eliminate disagreement. It simply moves it to a place where it is less costly, less adversarial, and more productive for everyone.