Tax rebate fumble impacting nearly 60,000 Richmonders won’t be resolved until end of June

RICHMOND, Va. (WRIC) -- The faulty tax rebate check process that has impacted tens of thousands of Richmonders will not be resolved until the end of June, according to city officials.

The city recently deployed a special property tax rebate program meant to reward a four-cent reduction per $100 of assessed property value to Richmond property owners. Rebates were meant to be calculated and awarded based on properties owned in 2024.

However, this process had several errors, resulting in thousands of incorrect checks being issued and tens of thousands not being sent out at all.

The city first notified the public of "several thousand" residents receiving checks with the wrong name printed on them on March 25. Then, just over a month later, the city clarified that the number of checks printed with the wrong name was about 8,300.

PREVIOUS: City auditor to look into Richmond rebate check process, former employee concerned

It also announced that more errors had been found throughout the process. This included a then-unspecified number of checks going to the wrong people and about 200 checks being issued for properties that didn't exist in 2024.

The city official who oversaw this process was the city’s Director of Revenue Administration, Jamie Atkinson. She has since resigned.

The director of the city's Department of Finance, Sheila White, was meant to provide more detailed information on this process, how many people were impacted and when residents should expect a resolution during a city council meeting on Monday, May 5.

According to the city's interim chief administrative officer, Sabrina Joy-Hogg, White was too busy to attend. She provided the update in White's place.

How many people were impacted? How many checks were wrong?

About 59,000 tax rebate checks in total were printed, according to Joy-Hogg. When the issue of the payee name was discovered, about 36,000 were held back -- meaning about 23,000 ended up being mailed out.

Of the about 8,300 checks addressed to the wrong payee -- that being "Hartshorn Community Council" -- Joy-Hogg said about 3,100 were sent out to residents, while about 5,000 were held back.

Approximately 2,000 checks were sent to the wrong person. Specifically, they were sent to a property's current owner when they instead should have been sent to the person or organization who owned it -- and therefore paid taxes on it -- in 2024.

Joy-Hogg added that all of the math behind the tax rebate checks -- that being the rebate calculations, themselves -- was reviewed and found to be accurate.

Of the about 23,000 checks that were sent out, about 15,000 checks were successfully cashed, leaving about 8,000 uncashed.

When the primary error was initially discovered, the city's Department of Finance did not issue a "stop payment," which would have prevented residents from cashing their checks. A stop-payment was later issued when the department began to see checks being cashed, Joy-Hogg said.

If you try to cash a "bad check," it will be declined and you will typically be hit with a fee from your bank. The city opened an application via RVA311 for any residents who tried to cash a check with their name on it and were charged such a fee.

As of Monday, 69 people have applied for such a refund, according to Joy-Hogg. She said these applications will need to be reviewed and the related checks will need to be verified before refunds can be issued.

Joy-Hogg said she imagines little to no additional applications will come in, as the city is currently working with financial institutions on a check-by-check basis to clear valid checks.

Anyone who still needs to apply for such a refund can do so either by calling 311 or submitting a ticket online. The deadline is May 31.

When will this issue be fixed and correct checks sent out?

According to Joy-Hogg, all of the checks are valid for 90 days, meaning they will go "stale" -- or expire and no longer be cashable -- on June 16.

On June 17, the city will begin the process of reprinting all checks. If you received a valid check and cashed it, you will not receive a new check. Residents who did not receive a check at all, as well as residents who received a check but did not cash it for any reason, should receive a new check by June 30.

Joy-Hogg said the city is choosing to wait until all checks expire to avoid problems with any of the checks that are still in circulation.

Councilmembers were not happy about this timeline.

"[I believe that] how it feels for residents is that the city is really good at taking their money, but not so good at giving it back," said councilwoman Kenya Gibson.

She added that the delay was "disappointing," to which Joy-Hogg agreed.

What caused these errors in the first place?

Joy-Hogg said that "[quality control] was not sufficient" during the tax rebate check process and that the checks were not reviewed and verified by multiple people.

She added that quality control procedures and standards of practice (SOPs) have been drawn up to guide it going forward, as they did not exist prior to the program's launch.

Councilwoman Ellen Robertson questioned why SOPs for this process were not created before said process began. Joy-Hogg said this was because a program like this is "not a usual occurrence."

This program was the result of an ordinance passed by city council. Robertson asked if it was city policy to put SOPs in place before an ordinance is carried out.

"In the perfect world, yes," Joy-Hogg said.

"But that wasn't done in this case?" Robertson asked.

"Correct," Joy-Hogg said.

Robertson expressed doubt in the city's ability to resolve these issues with accuracy.

"Honestly, I'm not feeling any real comfort that the taxpayers... that we won't continue to have some glitches that haven't been addressed," Robertson said.

Debate sparked about Atkinson's resignation

Questions were also asked about Atkinson's resignation after less than a year on the job.

When the initial March 25 communication came out, it included Atkinson acknowledging the error and apologizing for it. She also later appeared before city council to do the same.

Councilwoman Sarah Abubaker said that, at the time, her position was that ownership like Atkinson's was "what we [Richmond] need at city hall." Then, a month later, Atkinson resigned.

"It sounds like the people who are trying to make change and point out issues are the ones that seem to be falling on the sword," Abubaker said. "Is that observation about culture accurate? What made them leave the city when it seemed like they were committed to identifying problems and remediating the process?"

Joy-Hogg said she could not comment on a personnel issue aside from saying that Abubaker's position was "not accurate."

Later during the discussion, Gibson pressed the matter again. She noted that Atkinson's resignation "surprised" her and expressed confusion about why she had resigned a month after taking ownership of the initial mistake, saying the "circumstances have not really changed that much."

"My concern -- my worry, is that we are here because of so much transition in the Department [of Finance,]" she said. "In [a city council committee], we looked at [city] departments that had high turnover rate[s] and this is certainly one of them. And I am concerned that her registration is not going to help this -- it might make it worse."

Gibson then asked if Joy-Hogg could confirm the timeline of Atkinson's resignation, as her understanding was that she submitted her resignation a week before the city announced its discovery of the additional errors.

Joy-Hogg refused to answer, again saying she could not comment on personnel issues.