Benton County moves to four‑year property reappraisal after debate over 'ratio' impacts

BENTON COUNTY — The Benton County Commission voted to establish a four‑year property reappraisal cycle under Tennessee Code Annotated 67‑5‑1601, after a detailed presentation from county property staff and extended questions from commissioners and members of the public.

County property assessor Ryan Hall told commissioners the change is intended to avoid a state 'ratio study' in the second and fourth years of a five‑year plan that, in recent cycles, reduced the county’s taxable assessments for certain commercial and utility accounts while increasing the effective tax burden on some residential and tax‑exempt relief recipients. "This costed Benton County about $255,200 in tax revenue last year," Hall said of the personal‑property reduction. He added state‑assessed properties and utility adjustments together contributed what he estimated as roughly "just shy of $574,000" in reduced revenue to the county during the most recent cycle.

The measure passed after a motion by Commissioner Melton and a second from Commissioner Nunnery. The resolution cites Tennessee Code Annotated 67‑5‑1601. Mayor Mark Ward and Commissioner Preston both spoke during the discussion as citizens and as elected officials, pressing for clarity on who would be affected and how the county would absorb potential workload changes in a reappraisal year.

Why it matters: Hall said low‑income senior homeowners and disabled veterans who receive state tax relief saw direct increases this year — "about $50" for many seniors and "close to $300" for some disabled veterans, according to Hall’s figures derived from the trustee’s office. Hall explained the ratio study uses sales data to calculate a percentage that can reduce assessments applied to personal property, certain state‑assessed entities and utilities, creating an uneven effect across tax classes.

Supporters of the change argued a four‑year cycle would eliminate the second‑year ratio event and therefore blunt the intermittent reduction imposed on county taxable yield by that mechanism. "If you go with a four‑year, you don't have that second ratio because you're doing a reappraisal that year, so it fixes it without having that ratio," Hall said.

Concerns and context: Commissioners and members of the public questioned how much additional revenue residential revaluations had produced since 2020 and whether moving to a four‑year cycle would lock the county into a timetable that could disadvantage taxpayers if the housing market declines. Hall acknowledged the county’s appraised values have risen substantially in recent years and said the office would absorb added workload in a reappraisal year without requesting additional staff at this time.

The vote: Commissioners moved the resolution to the floor and approved it. The resolution language references state statute and the county will begin implementing the change according to the timeline in the adopted text.

Looking ahead: Hall said change notices will be discussed before they go out in March. Commissioners said they will monitor impacts on low‑income exemptions and overall revenue during the next budget cycle.