WPC; Jb6>MA TԇQ~̄g=ڱ*y(ݜiGX._v/XSTEk[힙پMpPq?#] @H+Yz;|{B ?t~UJUD7m;VOMΦ{PBc}`#d-bf6 bȬRY6\@7Ss6[ 9wM؞p{ G[CU$R9DȒtv99t=ـyz$e㛓jFD>3of$Zε~g&fڹ& C'*tdhߤ ? 9AfƲB+ǿrgTkuՂ~ p5Fo7-rĝ1BYtpn@_QNV21 ?s_Eh :`/#.bVC6۫%<t b#\ % U@# 0c UN UN9 ^ z  w 4      Z m N79 0DEb000000000000000000000000000000000000 08888 B## 0@ D3 D- 0KDD AS 0 0DL AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular+s  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt8n_+.bk=3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U  R+$      1  ]  _Asthetwosistercasespreviouslydecidedinvolvedcentrallyassessedutilityproperty,directreviewofthefinal  decisionwasvestedintheMiddleDivisionoftheTennesseeCourtofAppealspursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated t section45322(b)(1).Bythatsamecodesection,thiscase,involvinglocallyassessedpersonalproperty,wassubject 8 toreviewintheChanceryCourtofDavidsonCountywiththedecisionoftheChancellorappealabletothisCourt.(#$  0      - -(|G2+$ !.8Hdd8         0  ] d(|3r$ !.8Hdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3r$ !.8Hdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Hdd8     _h  H8iXXdd8  Oa@ Q4HINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#HQ4+#Ԉ &   ӀJune26,2001Session L XiXH #HXXi#WILLIAMSONCOUNTY,etal.v.TENNESSEESTATEBOARD J OFEQUALIZATIONXiXH   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@Nos.00522III,00558IIIEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200003178_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember10,_2001_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<` A      XiXXXiInthiscase,aconsortiumofcountiesandcitiesappealsthedecisionoftheChanceryCourtof  DavidsonCountyupholdingtheactionoftheTennesseeStateBoardofEqualizationinapplying x depreciablelifeschedulesformingapartofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection675903(f)to d commercialandindustrialtangiblepersonalpropertyandinholdingthatpersonalpropertyisnot P constitutionallyrequiredtobevaluedatitsactualvalueintheimplementationofTennesseeCode < Annotatedsection6751509(a).Theonlyissuesbeforethiscourtaretheconstitutionalityof (x TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection675903(f)#XiXXXi9#XiXXXi#HXXi#XiXHԀandTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection675 d 1509(a).WeholdbothstatutestobeconstitutionalandaffirmtheChancellor.#HXXi##HH_#XiXH P - Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  (   #HXi #XiX.HWilliamB.Cain,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBENH.CANTRELL,P.J.,M.S.and  PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,J.,joined.  JeffreyDean_Moseley_,Franklin,Tennessee,fortheappellant,WilliamsonCounty,Tennessee. t  #HXXiw #XiXHJamesCharlesandJennifer_Clinard_Ԁ_Surber_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Metropolitan L"! GovernmentofNashvilleandDavidsonCounty. 8#" _Donnie_ԀE.WilsonandRobertB._Rolwing_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,ShelbyCounty, %` $ Tennessee. %L!% JeanDyerHarrison,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,TennesseeCityGovernmentsand '$#' TennesseeCountyGovernments. ($( PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;andJimmyG._Creecy_,ChiefSpecialCounsel, *%* Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,TennesseeStateBoardofEqualization. +&+ T.ArthurScott,Jr.andSuzanneS.Cook,Kingsport,Tennessee,fortheappellees,Appalachian \-(- PowerCompanyandKingsportPowerCompany. H.). #HXXi #XiXHBrigidM.Carpenter,Nashville,Tennessee;JamesW.McBride,Washington,D.C.;andStephenD.  0p+0 Goodwin,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe_Intervenors_/Appellees,CoalitionofPublicUtilities.  1\,1 Oa h   EverettB.Gibson,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe_Intervenors_/Appellees,ColonialPipelineCompany,  MCIMetroAccessTransmissionServices,Inc.,MCITelecommunicationsCorporationandNorfolk  SouthernRailwayCompany. t CharlesA._Trost_ԀandMichaelG.Stewart,Nashville,Tennessee,forthe_Intervenor_/Appellee, L  TennesseeAssociationofBusiness. 8  H  OPINION #HXXis#XiXH  ` #HXXi;#  XiXHXiXXXi  Thiscasefollowsinthewakeoftwosistercasesalreadydecidedbytheappellatecourts.The  8  firstofthesecases,InReAllAssessments1998,No.M199800243SCR11CV,2000WL1710174 $  (Tenn.Nov.16,2000),involvedcentrallyassessedpublicutilitypersonalpropertyequalizationfor   1998.Inthatcase,theSupremeCourtofTennessee,reversingtheCourtofAppeals,held: The   TennesseeBoardofEqualizationisauthorizedtoreduce(orincrease)theappraised(andtherefore   correspondingassessed)valueofcentrallyassessedpublicutilitytangiblepersonalpropertyaspart   oftheequalizationprocess,thepurposeofwhichistoequalizetheratiooftheappraisedvaluetofair p marketvalueofpublicutilitypropertyinanyparticularcountywiththecorrespondingratiofor \ industrialandcommercialpropertyinthatcounty.Id. H   ThesecondcasewasInReAllAssessments1999&2000,No.M200000399_COA_ԄR12CV,  p 2001WL1077948,(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.14,2001).Thatcase,againinvolvingcentrallyassessed  \ publicutilitytangiblepersonalpropertyassessmentsforthetaxyears1999and2000,wasreduced H inscopebythesupremecourtdecisionofNovember16,2000toachallengeoftheconstitutionality 4 ofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection675903(f)andTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection675   1302(b)(1).TheSeptember14,2001decisionofthisCourt#XiXXXi#XiXXXiԀupheldtheconstitutionalityofboth   statutes.    ThecaseatbarislimitedtoasecondattackupontheconstitutionalityofTennesseeCode  Annotatedsection675903(f)andanattackupontheconstitutionalityofTennesseeCodeAnnotated l section6751509(a). #  1      ׀TheChancelloraffirmedtheTennesseeBoardofEqualizationupholdingthe X  constitutionalityofbothTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection675903(f)andTennesseeCode D! Annotatedsection6751509(a). 0"    Onappeal,whereonlytheconstitutionalityofthesetwostatutesisputinissue,thereislittle $X" tobegainedbyrepetitionofthetwopreviousdecisions.Itsufficestosaythat,whentheSupreme $D # CourtofTennessee,in_In_ԀReAllAssessments1998,specificallyheldthattheTennesseeBoardof %0!$ Equalizationwasauthorizedtoreducethevalueofcentrallyassessedpublicutilitytangiblepersonal &"% propertyaspartoftheequalizationprocess,iteffectivelycuttheheartoutoftheappellants  argumentthatArticleII,section28oftheConstitutionofTennessee,subsequenttothe1972  amendments,requirespropertytobeassessedatitsactualvalue.Oncethisholding,predicatedas  itwasuponMarionCountyv.StateBd.ofEqualization,710S.W.2d521(Tenn.Ct.App.1986) t (permissiontoappealdenied),andSherwoodCo.v.Clary,734S.W.2d318(Tenn.1987),wasissued ` bythehighestcourtinthestate,neithertheStateBoardofEqualization,theChanceryCourtof L  DavidsonCounty,northisCourthadanybasisuponwhichtoconstitutionallyinvalidatethe 8  elaboratestatutoryschemepromulgatedbytheGeneralAssemblyandimplicitlyupheldbythe $ t supremecourt.  `   FollowingtheNovember16,2000decisionoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee,thisCourt  8  upheldtheconstitutionalityofbothTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections675903(f)and675 $  1302(b)(1)(Supp.2000)forreasonsarticulatedinpages14through20ofInReAllAssessments1999   and2000,2001WL1077948,at*1015.Itremainsonlytoaddressnowtheconstitutionalityof   TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection6751509(a).     Itisassertedbytheappellantsthatwhatthesalesappraisalratiodoesisundervaluepersonal p propertybyapercentagederivedfromrealestatevaluesontopoftheundervaluationalready \ resultingfromtheapplicationofthedepreciationschedulessetforthinTennesseeCodeAnnotated H section675903(f).ThepertinentprovisionofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection6751509(a) 4 (1998)provides: Theboardshallbyorderorruledirectthatcommercialandindustrialtangible  p personalpropertyassessmentsbeequalizedusingtheappraisalratiosadoptedbytheBoardineach  \ jurisdiction.Suchequalizationshallbeavailableonlytotaxpayerswhohavefiledthereporting H schedulerequiredbylaw. 4   In_In_ԀReAllAssessments1999&2000,weheld:   8  Useofsuchsalesratiosmayprovidetheleastunsatisfactorymethodofappraising  tangiblepersonalproperty,butsuchisalegislativedecisionunshackledby  constitutionalprohibition.Section6751509(a)oftheCodemandatesthatlocally l assessedindustrialandcommercialpersonalpropertybeadjustedbythesalesratio X  ineachcounty.Itnecessarilyfollowsthat,toachieveequalization,publicutility D! personalpropertymustlikewisebeadjustedundersection6751302(b)(1).Itisnot 0"  theprerogativeofthisCourt,oroftheStateBoardofEqualization,toquestionthe #l! reasonablenessofastatuteorsecondguessthepolicyjudgmentsofthelegislature.$X"     BellSouth_Telecomm_.,Inc.v.Greer,972S.W.2d663,673(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). $D # Id.2000WL1077948,at*15. &"%   Onceitisestablishedthat onehundredpercentofactualvalueisnolongerconstitutionally (#' mandatedbyArticleII,section28oftheTennesseeConstitution,thelegislativeprerogative )$(  evidencedbyTitle67,Chapter5,part15ofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedis,wiselyorunwisely,free |*%) ofconstitutionalinfirmity.TheconstitutionalchallengetoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection675  1509(a)mustfail.   #XiXXXi#XiXXXi  ThejudgmentoftheChancellorisinallrespectsaffirmedwithcostsassessedagainstthe t appellants.#XiXXXi0# `    `     h     ___________________________________ 8     `     h     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE