Richmond assessor briefs council on annual reassessments, flags underpriced parcel at 2001 Bridal Avenue

City Assessor Richard McKeithen told Richmond City Council at an informal session that his office conducts annual mass appraisals for the city and must set assessments at 100% of market value under state law. The presentation described the three standard appraisal approaches the office uses—sales comparison, cost and income—and noted the office follows industry standards from the International Association of Assessing Officers.

McKeithen said the assessor’s office handles valuation "in an environment of equalization," and cited Section 58.1‑3201 of the Virginia Code when explaining the requirement for annual taxation of real property. "I don't get to say that it's not going to be done at 100% of market value. I have to do them at 100% of market value," McKeithen said.

The briefing included a staff update on the assessor’s new software. Charles Evers, deputy assessor, said the office is now live on new software called Vision Grama and has frozen legacy data to complete the conversion. "We are now live with our vision Grama software," Evers said, and staff will study market sales over the next three to four months to complete the 2026 reassessment.

Councilmembers used the presentation to press specific valuation questions and to flag a parcel identified in the city's biannual surplus-property list: 2001 Bridal Avenue. McKeithen said the parcel contains about 21,436 square feet and the current assessed value in city records is $80,000. He added the assessor's records show a demolition permit around 2007 and that the parcel is currently recorded as vacant land.

Councilmember Gibson described comparisons with four smaller parcels across the street and questioned whether the Bridal Avenue land is underassessed. Gibson said four parcels on West Robert Street—each about 0.11 acres—are each assessed for land at roughly $80,000, and that their land assessments increased from about $22,000 in 2012 to significantly higher amounts since then. Gibson told colleagues she expects the Bridal Avenue parcel could be worth "anywhere from $320,000 to $400,000" if valued consistently with nearby sales and changes since 2012. Gibson also noted Zillow’s listing appeared to show an improvement and a much higher estimated value.

McKeithen and Evers said staff will analyze the Bridal Avenue parcel further. McKeithen said the parcel has transitioned in classification from multifamily to commercial and that the office needs to complete GIS work, floodplain checks and sales comparisons before changing the assessment. "We want to make absolutely sure that everything that we have seen is actually true," he said.

Councilmembers asked about effects of assessments on homeowners and affordable housing. McKeithen said assessments are for tax purposes and do not control development transactions; the tax rate, which the assessor does not set, is the tool the city can use to offset changes in assessed values. McKeithen also noted that for properties subject to affordable-housing rent restrictions, the office uses the restricted rents when valuing those parcels rather than full market rents.

Evers said public-facing services will improve after the software transition: "It is live data now...our vendor has changed their website vendor. So we should have a better website...Give us one to two months, it will look a lot better." McKeithen and Evers told councilmembers they will provide follow-up details as staff completes GIS work and the upcoming reassessment analysis.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to allow Council Member Stephanie Lynch to participate electronically (per Council Rules of Procedure rule 3(d), (4)(b)): motion approved by recorded roll call. Vote recorded as: Mr. Bridal — yes; Miss Gibson — yes; Miss Jones — yes; Miss Robertson — yes; Miss Trammell — yes; Vice President Jurden — yes; President Newbill — yes. (Mover/second: not specified in transcript.)

- Motion to allow Council Member Sarah Abubaker to participate electronically (per Council Rules of Procedure rule 3(d), (4)(b)): motion approved by recorded roll call. Vote recorded as: Mr. Bridal — yes; Miss Gibson — yes; Miss Jones — yes; Miss Robertson — yes; Miss Trammell — yes; Vice President Jurden — yes; President Newbill — yes. (Mover/second: not specified in transcript.)

- Consent‑agenda continuances and scheduling actions: Council reached consensus to continue numerous consent and regular‑agenda items to later meetings (dates recorded in the docket). Items continued included: Ordinance 2020‑4312 (continued to April 14); Ordinance 2020‑4329 (continued to April 28); Items 3–5 (Planning Commission recommended approval; noted on the record); Ordinance 2025‑025 (item 6, continued to March 10); Items 7–14 (continued to March 24 due to cancellation of a standing committee meeting); Resolution 2024‑R40 (item 15, continued to March 10); Ordinance 2024‑4187 (item 16, continued to April 28). These continuances were announced by the clerk as consensus items; no separate roll-call votes were recorded in the transcript.

What this means

The assessor's office will continue work on the 2026 reassessment using sales from the past year and the new Vision Grama system. Councilmembers requested further follow-up on specific parcels flagged in the city's surplus property review, and staff pledged additional analysis on 2001 Bridal Avenue before any assessment change. The council did not act on Resolution 2024‑R40 during this session; the clerk noted council rules preclude acting on a paper the same evening as its presentation.

Councilmembers and staff said they expect residents to have follow-up questions as the reassessment process proceeds, and McKeithen encouraged members to contact the assessor's office with specific inquiries.