*1 Further, if is in even the evidence COUNTY, voiding of the Dwight

sufficient to call for the ex rel. KNOX Executive, is entitled to defend KESSEL, County policy, National Union from showing a claim is excluded Plaintiff-Appellant, coverage pursuant paragraph v. act, it arose from an application because TENNESSEE; CITY, Lenoir LENOIR a director or or omission about which error Board, McCur Robert S. Utilities knowledge or information. It is officer had Denton, Clayton, Timothy ry, Wil Alice alleged unnecessary that each act or omis McNabb, Cheatham, Idus Thomas liam thereof, sion, knowledge or an insured’s Hamby, Defen Conner and Gerald 1823(e). writing pursuant dants-Appellees. of National Union’s foundation and basis policy fully contained in the ex defense is Tennessee, Supreme Court of otherwise, thereby allow clusions. To hold at Knoxville. ing FDIC to enforce under July honoring policy’s exclu policy without clause, “giving the FDIC sionary would be gold.” ability to transmute lead into Montross, Sav., FSB Dallas

Sunbelt do not

supra, 923 F.2d at 957. We believe congress given pow has the FDIC into

er to transform an insurance contract negotiable of a instrument. decision of

Accordingly, we affirm the Appeals reversing the chan-

the Court of summary judgment. This grant of

cellor’s to the trial court where

case is remanded present shall be allowed to

National Union misrepresentation and nondisclosure de- against both the FDIC

fenses against

Thompson estate.4 Costs are taxed appellants. DROWOTA,

REID, C.J., and O’BRIEN DAUGHTREY, JJ., concur. regarding parties an issue whether warranty 4. The raised therein made in the resentation policy insur- FDIC had negotiations ance, determined that of a contract the chancellor therefor, application policy or in or in two notice of claims in one vided behalf, shall be deemed or in his assured Obviously, is best years. of this issue resolution policy pre- or void the or defeat material left to the chancellor. misrepresenta- attaching, unless such vent its warranty actual intent to is made with tion or deceive, represented in- the matter or unless of loss. creases the risk

383 Chapter is chancellor held that constitutional, plaintiff appealed. agree We with the chancellor’s decision and affirm. begin analysis

We our with the firmly rule that in order for the established provisions XI, of Article Section 8 to come play, into the local act under attack must general contravene some law that has man Ruble, Deputy Director, Michael S. Law datory, Knoxville, application. statewide Leech v. plaintiff-appellant. 270, (Tenn. Wayne County, 588 S.W.2d Littleton, Nashville, Robert B. Terry 1979). Hence, specific question before Vann, Hathcock, Jr., Alfred L. Robert G. us is Chapter whether 205 conflicts with a Hinton, City, Lenoir defendants-appel- provision equivalents of the current lees. mandatory, ap statute that has statewide plication. OPINION Municipal The 1969 System Electric Tax DAUGHTREY, Justice. Law, Equivalent in Chap- effect at the time appeal, In this we are asked to declare adopted, ter 205 specifically authorized private unconstitutional passed act equivalents pursuant the distribution of tax governs 1970 that tax-equiv- acts. A section of that 1969 payments alent on property owned statute, superseded, provided now as fol- Lenoir Utilities utility Board. The lows: provides electric service both in Loudon Nothing in this shall be con- [statute] (where County located) Lenoir is change strued to any way amend in portions adjacent County. Knox Un- any private act as now or hereafter en- Chapter der the terms of 205 of the Private provides payments acted which 1970, Acts of the entire amount of the tax- of local taxes on the electric equivalent payments utility assessed to the any municipality paid municipality City, of Lenoir relates, which such act and such though even property giving some of the acts as from time to time amended shall payments rise to the located Knox remain full force and effect notwith- County. standing hereof. Seeking to share in the distribution of (1969). Hence, T.C.A. 7-52-306 insofar payments,

these Knox County brought suit Chapter may have conflicted with declaratory judgment, for a claiming that law, the 1969 tax it was not Chapter 205 of the Private Acts of 1970 challenge to constitutional under XI, violates Article Section 8 of the Tennes- XI, because, by Article Section 8 its own see provision Constitution. That of the terms, the 1969 statute was not intended to state constitution reads as follows: mandatory, application. have statewide Legislature power shall have no suspend any general 1987, however, By law for the benefit the Tennessee any particular individual, pass Assembly nor to apparently General had decided any law for the benefit of degree individuals that there should be some of unifor general mity regard inconsistent with the tax-equivalent law created with land; pass result, granting passed nor to law As a the “Mu individuals, rights, priv- nicipal System Equivalent individual Electric Law ileges, immunities, 1987,” exemptions 84, Acts Ch. codified as may be, by than such as the same law County 7-52-301—310. Knox §§ extended argues “general member of the communi- now that this statute is a ty, may bring who himself purposes able law” for state constitutional affecting only within of such law.... the distri- City, somewhat button Lenoir is there- Act differ XI, statute; they fore under superseded unconstitutional Article Sec- from those tion because these are not Except appear now in T.C.A. 7-52-304. in compliance general distributed with the 7-52-305, regard- for a new *3 law. ing amendatory contracts ten- the effect of municipality by dered to a the Tennessee least, Superficially, argument ap- at Valley remaining Authority, the substan- have pears purpose merit. In the and provisions dis- govern tive of the 1987 Act Act, construction of the 1987 the section therefore, sections, is these tribution. It purpose legislation stated of the new is “to question that of control the of allocation provide complete the law of this state with the tax this case between respect payments in lieu of taxes on the County City. Knox and Lenoir property [municipal] and of all operations systems_” electric T.C.A. 7-52- § provisions of the distribution Most 302(a). This also same section reflects a legislative a intent to con- Act reflect legislative “repeal specific intention trol of to allow the terms calculation but provisions any private of act or home rule regard to T.C.A. flexibility with allocation. government metropolitan charter or char- 7-52-306, example, compet- permits for § relating payments ter ... in lieu of per- ing taxing jurisdictions and to “make reading Id. taxes.” But a close of the full among form them contracts distribution “complete reveals that the term equivalent of the aforementioned tax preclude validity law” does not all parties contracts amounts.” The to such affecting acts private pay- distribution of “may on provide ... distribution Rather, to repeal ments. the intent such satisfactory basis is to the contract- 7-52-302(a), private qualified by acts is § ing parties,” must be “con- but contract as follows: respects sistent in all with the [calculation] (a) purpose provide The is of this provisions This sec- of ... 7-52-304.” § complete law of this State re- tion also validates all contracts and “estab- payments spect to in lieu of taxes on arrangements”1 lished that for distribution property of all electric were in existence on the effective date systems operated by incorpo- owned and the 1987 Act. towns, counties, by by rated cities or section, “payments entitled next metropolitan governments, and to taxing pre- jurisdictions,” sets out specific provisions any private act allocating statutory scribed method metropolitan or home rule charter taxing juris- among between thereof, charter, any part provided dictions which service relating to in lieu of in- taxes However, by applies only utility. cluding provisions relating to certain pre-existing there extent is no payments, such the distribution of “contract, arrangement autho- established provisions to repeal any but not ..., or rized or under 7-52-306 validated § private or charters or acts provisions act thereof. metropolitan government or home rule or added). 7-52-302(a) (emphasis T.C.A. § (emphasis charter ...” 7-52-307 § statutory that follow ad- added). questions: much how is to be dress two providing “operations Finally, after (calculation pay- in lieu of paid adjacent states” ments) and to must be whom question specifically Act addresses taxing one jur- when more than distributed (allocation by private act or home rule pay- “distribution isdiction involved metropolitan 7- ments). government charter” for calculation of formulas by payment accepted the tax- arrangement” is has been defined 1. An "established ing jurisdiction year municipali- for the fiscal or calendar which the 7-52-306 "one under year immediately year preceding fiscal be- ty has made a distribution to another understanding ginning July taxing jurisdiction by general 1987.” 52-309. This they’re doing, section does have the effect not affect and it also does repealing pri- allocation any distribution.” Floor of House debate provisions, vate acts and only charter Repre- Bill 689 the Tennessee House of those which “direct that the tax (March 23, 1987). sentatives amount to be taxing distributed to each that, regardless We conclude of its stat- district is to be an amount arrived at “complete ed intent to law” of applying the current ad valorem tax rate in municipal utility equivalents, the 1987 depreciated original district to the cost permits Act specifically the allocation of system’s tangible of the electric proper- payments among taxing jurisdictions to be ty-” We qual- conclude that it was this established means of a act such *4 repealer ified legisla- to which the Chapter opinion 205. We offer no as to 7-52-302, ture had reference in when § current, obviously the fairness of the one- stated an intent to provi- “certain arrangement Chapter sided contained in private affecting sions” of acts distribu- only 205. We conclude that if Knox Coun- tion, “but not repeal any provi- to ty arrangement, wishes to alter that it will sions of such Chap- acts.” Because have legislature, to address its case to the ter 205 does pro- not utilize the formula rather than the courts. 7-52-309, in scribed validity is not § affected repealer provision in this judgment of the trial court is af- section. appellant. firmed. Costs are taxed to the Moreover, because none of the Chapter in 205 conflicts with REID, C.J., and DROWOTA and Act, Chapter the 1987 205 is unaffected ANDERSON, JJ., concur. statute, the final section T.C.A. 7-§ 52-310, repeals “parts those O’BRIEN, J., separate dissents. See private act ... in conflict herewith ... to opinion. conflict_” the extent of such This vision, above, like the others discussed O’BRIEN, Justice, dissenting. clearly demonstrates although leg- that complaint in this case filed in was islature intended bring some uniformity by plaintiff, rel., County, 1989 Knox ex tax-equivalent payment schemes, es- Dwight Kessel, Executive, County against pecially in the calculation of amounts City Lenoir City Lenoir Utilities paid, there “gen- was no intent to create a supervisory Board as the board of the Mu- imposes eral law” mandatory, a state- nicipal Electric Plant of City. Lenoir wide method of distribution of action was for a declaratory judgment Indeed, validating (and, extent, to some rights determine County of Knox even encouraging) the existence of equivalent payments, pursuant receive tax acts, contracts, arrange- and “established seq. spe- 7-52-301 et The bill § ments” for the distribution of cifically requested chancery court competing jurisdictions, the General As- find and determine that Section 205 of the sembly negated any gen- intent to create a passed by Private Acts the General Assem- law, purposes XI, eral of Article Section bly year 1970 to be unconstitutional 8. This conclusion inescapable, only not XI, and in violation of Article 8 and Arti- § wording from the of the 1987 Act but also II, cle 28 of the Tennessee Constitution. § legislative from a review of the history of requested It was also that the Court find its enactment. point As the defendants out City and determine that the Lenoir Utilities appeal, in their on question during brief a Municipality City Board and the of Lenoir debate committee from a of the member County past to Knox were liable Representatives concerning House of equivalent payments, require legislation defen- existing effect of the new on practices comply dants to with the terms response drew this of T.C.A. 7-52-301, seq., in sponsor, Representative from the House et reference to such Bragg: grandfathers anything payment. John “It

386 by the moot rendered of 1970 has been filed motions parties

Subsequently both Equivalent law. passage of the 1987 The motion summary judgment. request that the limited to a plaintiff was on the recent cases of the most Two Acts of the Private find 205 Court Tullahoma in this State are issue XI, Article 8 1970 to be violation Tennessee, F.2d 683 County, v. Coffee Plaintiff Constitution. of the Tennessee 989, denied, Cir.1964), 379 U.S. (6th cert. amend the for leave to also filed a motion (1965); 698, 13 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. complaint prayed complaint. The amended rel. ex Shelbyville Bedford property relief for a rule as alternative 415 S.W.2d 220 Tenn. County, Board City Utilities owned Lenoir a case recites (1967). The Tullahoma applicable County Knox beginning subject, history of the lengthy on the Prior to action county taxes. Act of Valley Authority the Tennessee with court sus- complaint the trial amended amended 1935 1933, including Sec. summary motion for defendant’s tained (16 U.S.C.A. amended Sec. finding that T.C.A. judgment, analysis 831Z). The court’s 831i and §§ pay the utilities to seq., permitted the et paragraph Sec. pinpoints the fourth accordance, lieu of tax para This Act, in 1940. as amended *5 ruled Act. The court that Private graph provided: governed Acts of 1970 205 of the Private construed “Nothing herein shall be City Lenoir the lieu tax of Corporation authority of the limit the nor neither the statute Board and Utilities power to sale of contracts for the XI, 8 of Article Act violated the Private provide or permit municipalities, Constitution. the Tennessee may rates which power at the resale of judgment appealed the Plaintiff tax-equiva- to cover an amount include (1) issue, one Appeals presenting Court of in lieu municipality payments to the lent action of the trial court’s requesting review municipal taxes State, county, and of the Chapter 205 of determining that system property or upon any distribution 1970 was constitutional. Acts of Private agen- any municipality, by the owned defendants, Ap- of the Court motion of On thereof, upon proper a cy conditioned the case to this Court peals transferred municipality by the distribution of 17. The constitution- pursuant to T.R.A.P. lieu State by it in amounts collected of issue, it being only the ality the statute of distri- upon any such county taxes this Court. properly transferred to was being the property; system or bution the Chapter 205 of insists that Plaintiff either Congress that intention of Article 1970 violates both Private Acts of in which or the State municipality of the State of XI, Constitution 8 of the shall situated municipality forth in general law set Tennessee to the State proper distribution 7-52-301, seq., captioned as the et T.C.A. § equiv- portion county of Equivalent System Tax Municipal Electric municipality by the so collected alent Law of 1987. upon county prop- system or any such distribution hand, argue defendants the other On supplied). (Emphasis erty.” Acts of Chapter 205 of the Private pay- pertaining to the distribution Appeals con- Court The Sixth Circuit by Lenoir made in lieu of taxes ments amend- of the by the enactment cluded that does not contravene City’s System, Electric gen- a simply expressed Congress ment the System Municipal Electric of the the tenets proper should be intention that there eral They say Equivalent Law. of tax intend for Assembly did not General counties, did but made to the States appli- mandatory state-wide to have statute intention implement such not undertake provisions. of its cability as to all either effect to that by imposing duties States, municipali- T.V.A., upon upon question of that the quite clear It seems exclusively to local ties, leaving matter Chapter 205 constitutionality of Private regulation. expended control or municipal purposes Such distribution deter- exclusively by would be determined governing body city. mined of the municipality State or In the itself. ignored The Private Act T.C.A. § distribution, absence of a seq., provided tax-equivalents et municipality would be entitled to retain the computed among were allocated entire representing tax-equivalent fund taxing jurisdictions in which the munici- upon and no action lie would pality’s electric was located and county any part of the recover which such con- were See at of Tullahoma pay, ducted. The defendants did not nor F.2d, 687. The Court declined to fol plaintiffs did assert action to demand low the decision of this Court in Ruther payment, any tax-equivalent authorized County City Murfreesboro, ford complaint or directed until this filed in In City Tenn. 326 S.W.2d 653 State, Shelbyville v. Tenn. ambiguous The 1987 Act that some S.W.2d, 139,142 (1967),this Court cited the of its seem to be conflict with Tullakoma case with approval duty others. In such a case it is the law, interpreted effect that “[T]he construing give court in a statute to effect Courts, the Federal is the TVA Act does purpose. to the statutory TennJuris. Vol. require not cities make distribution under 23, Statutes, proper Sec. 36. When the view, the 1940 amendment. Under this application clear, entirely of a statute is not duty TVA has no with reference to the inquiry general the first is to ascertain the proper distribution of tax legislative intent. State ex rel. Lockert v. such is exclusively by determined *6 Knott, 124, (Tenn.1982). 631 S.W.2d 126 result, municipalities.” states and As a prime purpose The statutory interpre- of any regulation, absence of be tation is to ascertain and give effect to the 1970, (11) tween 1968 and at least eleven legislative intent and all rules of construc- relating Private Acts were enacted to these to achieve this end. State ex rel. yield tion payments.1 Wilkes, Rector v. 384, 222 Tenn. In Legislature passed 1969 the Chapter 425, S.W.2d Such intent must Tennessee, 237 of the Public Acts of reading be derived from a of the statute viding for tax-equivalent payments by mu- Coca Bottling Cola Co. Unit- entirety. its nicipalities operating system an electric and Woods, ed Inc. v. 473, 620 S.W.2d purchasing power all or of require- its (Tenn.1981), including caption ments for resale and distribution from the Dark, Act. See Dorrier v. 888, 537 S.W.2d Tennessee Valley Authority. T.C.A. 7-§ (Tenn.1976). specifically provided 52-306 nothing caption of Ch. No. Pub.Acts 1987 the Act should be construed change to or is as follows: any amend in way any Private Act then provide payments AN ACT To or providing enacted for effect thereafter property opera- lieu taxes on the and payments in lieu local taxes on the of for of systems tions all electric owned and system electric or operations electric of of incorporated operated by cities or any municipality to which the Act relat- towns, by counties, ed. by metropolitan or (Emphasis supplied). Any such Pri- Acts, governments; incorpo- to authorize such amended, vate as from time to time towns, counties, cities or and met- were to remain in rated full force and effect governments notwithstanding ropolitan to contract as to of Act. following year payments among of such Chapter 205 of the Pri- the distribution passed by taxing jurisdictions vate Acts local Legislature certain and val- for, directing payment existing tax-equivalents any of all idate contracts or exist- for, general ing arrangements into the fund of Lenoir to be established distri- Acts, exception County, 1. Each of these Private with the Loudon and Lenoir in Loudon involving provided equivalent of those the cities of Harriman and for tax distribution to County, they Rockwood in Roane the cities of and counties in which were situated. thereof; provide to distribu- metropolitan government chapter, every button for may tion in the absence or estab- municipality pay paid to be contract or cause of arrangement; provide lished system from its electric revenues for year payments each fiscal repeal all laws in herewith an amount of conflict (hereinafter taxes called including private act lieu of “tax any of equivalents”) system on its electric metropolitan govern- or or and home rule which, operations judg- electric in the pertaining ment charter governing the municipality’s ment of including provisions in lieu taxes of supervi- body after with the consultation any such relating to the distribution of sory body, shall the fair represent share payments; provide this act is government properly of the cost of to be liberally remedial in nature and shall be however, thereby, borne construed; Tennessee and amend following conditions and limitations: Annotated, Title Part Code (3) (4) Subsection and of Sec. 304 contain following language: System Tax Municipal Electric paid The total be as tax (3) amount to Equivalent Act of 1987 states year each shall be the com- purpose fiscal state, county, city all in lieu plete this State respect law charges local on the taxes or mu- property in lieu of on the taxes nicipality’s operations except electric of all electric operations systems (6) provided in subdivision operated incorporated owned and cities initial Accordingly, section. de- counties, towns, metropolitan after equiva- total tax termination such specific and to governments, paid lent amount absence act or home charges, such taxes or such total metropolitan rule charter or amount shall be reduced charter, any part thereof, relating to aggregate such amount taxes including cer- imposed charges year such fiscal provisions relating tain to the distribu- municipality’s on the payments, tion not to *7 the electric or for benefit repeal any provisions other of such respective taxing jurisdictions the parts (Empha- acts charters or or thereof. (including municipality) the which the supplied). sis is municipality’s system electric located Notwithstanding argument to defendants and in which such electric are contrary crystal the it is clear that the not such conducted, whether or taxes mandatory appli- Act does have statewide charges imposed by the re- other were provisions. of its The Act cability as to all taxing receiving spective jurisdictions authorizes, directs payment not only Any amount allo- the benefit thereof. taxing jurisdictions a munici- which jurisdiction any taxing such cated pality’s plant electric in service is located provided municipality, as other than detail, and sets out in for such the basis 7-52-306 or shall be in § § payments. by the aggregate reduced amount of pertinent 7-52-304 states in T.C.A. charges imposed any suck § for equivalents the tax authorized and year that that for benefit of fiscal they and conditions limitations under taxing jurisdiction. Only respective paid. paragraph are of this to be first remaining the aforemen- amounts after reads as section follows: tioned allocated amounts have been so actually paid shall be to the mu- equivalents reduced autho- 7-52-304. taxing nicipality respective and to such and limitations.— rized—Conditions jurisdictions: Notwithstanding any provision to the paid or 7- total to be as tax (4) amount appearing contrary 7-34-115 § § paid provisions equivalents (including that to be [repealed], 52-130 any taxing other municipality rule or and private act or home pre- jurisdiction) year, each deter- T.C.A. 7-52-309 considers certain § fiscal existing provisions mined in contained accordance with acts, Metropolitan shall home rule or part, to the be payment of tax adopted by set forth in a resolution the Government Charter taxing provides It municipality’s governing body after con- districts. supervisory body, repeal pre-existing for the of those distri- sultation with the municipality’s provisions in its shall bution accordance with pay municipality specifically direction and holds that there- taxing jurisdictions municipalities the amounts as after the shall allocate equivalent payment paid vided in the resolution. total tax for each year, taxing jurisdiction fiscal to each (3) Implicit in the text is of subsection accordance with the terms the Act. implication equivalent if the tax repealer T.C.A. 7-52-310 contains the paid by municipality may not a tax section, imposed by taxing jurisdic- the offended remedy provided

tion. Thus a for failure conflicting Repeal —Ex- comply. cept expressly pro- as herein otherwise vided, acts, including parts all acts or 7-52-307—mandates act, rule, parts any private or home municipality’s governing body, in the reso- charter, metropolitan government in con- 7-52-304(4) provided lution for in shall flict are to the extent of such herewith equivalents] direct [tax repealed. conflict herewith taxing jurisdictions in which its electric plant only excep- in service is irrefutable, located. Act, It is that the as stated in being tion to the extent such tax caption, was intended to for the taxing jurisdictions] laws, are conflicting including [to of all contract, provided otherwise estab- any private act or home rule or arrangement, provi- lished or distribution metropolitan pertain- charter any private sions of act or home rule or ing taxes, including in lieu of Metropolitan Government Charter. provisions relating to the distribution of

No other reasonable construction can be given the Act. The rule is set out caption unambig- of an Act is Where Oyster Anderson Fish Company & susceptible only interpreta- uous and one Olds, 197 Tenn. 277 S.W.2d 345- tion, enlarged by construction cannot be legislative intent controls to cover matters not set out therein. [T]he Chicago construction of statutes. Rector, & supra, p. ex rel. Evans, Southern Airlines Inc. v. *8 equally It is certain that this is Court 218, (1951). Tenn. 240 S.W.2d 249 express purpose bound statement of whole, statute should be construed as a contained 7-52-302. giving effect Tiger to each word. Creek suggest legislative that the Defendants Tiger Bus Line v. Transportation Creek history in the enactment of the statute Ass’n., 654, 187 Tenn. 216 S.W.2d 348 an intent not to somehow evinces disturb (1948). The court should and will assume existing prior passage. quo the status to its Legislature that the used each in the word history If to consider the it were feasible purposely statute and that the use of these dispositive it of this case would be neces- conveyed words some intent and had a sary transcript into account the take meaning purpose. and Flowers v. Aetna proceedings legislative before various Co., Surety Cas. & 186 Tenn. upon committees and the House Floor: (1948). In construing S.W.2d 595 a statute 3 March 1987. Senate State and Local give the court should it the construction Government Committee. tran- promotes [True purpose object and script]. Theatres, the Act. Knoxtenn Inc. v.

Dance, Thank-you 186 Tenn. 208 S.W.2d 536 Mr. Chairman [Dunavant] gentlemen and of the committee. This years vote, long-long bill a result of a like to comes as and I’d motion discussion, study compromise and with move it on out. TML, county people, services Mr. 18 March HB # 689. Chair- association of adviso- utilities TN man Calendar Bragg addresses the Com- ry Intergovernmental Council on Rela- transcript] mittee. is a true [This provides is tions. What it does it Chairman, Mr. members of Commit- uniform method tax distribution tee. I have two bills that have been [we] various levels of state and working years by five on for about mandatory something it is it is not but Advisory In- Tennessee Commission on glad I’ll that’s been worked out. ter-government Relations. We have fi- to, go you if over it item item like me nally agreement an with worked out those but it does have all endorsements. League Municipal and Tennessee Dunavant, Haynes] Sen. this [Sen. separate, method a uniform TVA—for changes presently, we have obvi- what lieu determining payments in tax- of es on so, ously, it if who does hurt? Its municipally owned all got somebody. to hurt agreed departments. Everybody’s to it if the [garbled] Ahhh.... [Dunavant] and it result of alot hard work optional, any- I don’t think it would hurt like to people alot of would move it —I body. provision— The hold harmless to the floor. there harmless in this is a hold Rep. 1987—House March floor— Ahhh, different so that two sections— # Bragg HB 689 moves to conform to SB case, there no harm done in would be Rep. following Bragg made 932— speech, ahhh, taxing distribution were to be transcript] [true get changed. you spe- If want to more Speaker, Ms. of the house—this members it, Harry pres- cific Dr. on ahhh Green is years is the bill result of about work of specific ques- ent more and can answer Advisory on Inter-Gov- Committee tions Do on that. [Dunavant Green] composed of ernmental state relations — you anyone know hurt. [Dunavant officials, officials, county city officials hurt, no one He knows committee] simple offers a and uni- citizens. It Mr. Chairman. evaluating municipal way form House State March 1987. and Local departments city owned electric holds —it transcript]. Government. [True there and counties harmless that will be Bragg] I have two bills that [Chairman it also payments, no less sets a identical, except are one deals with amount of tax of taxes gas electricity. deals with and the other and, said, agreed Ias it has been dealing gas, gas, the one num- really (sic) parties It’s all concerned. gas. I is on the ber believe of, legislation, pieces I call it landmark is, basically began, was situation this get simplified, across this everything started because of the situation of elec- gov- great state. It’s of benefit local explained I dif- tricity. there are ernments, Valley Tennessee Authori- ferent formulas across Tennessee negotiations ty has been involved municipal in lieu of taxes on add, might I to work bill out. *9 This has systems. owned been worked in the passed Senate on Consent Cal- the League, Municipal out the TN Val- with supplied). (Emphasis endar. Ad- ley Authority by work the —and foregoing Factually, comments do the

visory Intergovernmental of Commission contents not conform to the actual of that, that, I and I think know Relations subject Caption to The Munici- Bills. The agreement it’s a we’re in Bill, passed Company as Ch. 220 pal Gas in payment for uniform across Tennessee states, Acts of by municipal, locally lieu taxes local of payments for provide AN ACT To owned, But to the gas systems. leaves it property and of taxes on the the amount of entity local to determine operated gas owned and passes payments systems of of all just It money.

n towns, permits in incorporated language cities or coun- The the 1987 statute ties, by metropolitan governments; or pro- to no to other conclusion than its intent incorporated authorize such cities or tax-equivalents properly rate the calculated towns, counties, metropolitan gov- in among taxing jurisdictions accor- ernments contract to as to distribu- concluding part dance terms. with its The payments among tion of such certain lo- that, specifically except act states taxing jurisdictions cal any and validate therein, expressly provided parts acts or all for, existing existing contracts estab- acts, including private act, parts any of of arrangements for, lished distribution government rule, metropolitan home thereof; provide to for charter, are to the conflict therewith absence of contract or ar- established repealed. extent of conflict Private such rangement; to for of Chapter no purpose 205 serves than including all laws in conflict herewith exclusively to distribute to Lenoir private any of act or home rule or equivalent payments tax the Le- made metropolitan per- charter System. noir There is no Electric taining payments to of lieu taxes ex- repeal. doubt about its cept provisions relating to the dis- complaint prays payment for the of any tribution payments; such of past equivalent payments, including act vide that this remedial nature penalties and interest. The record indi- construed; liberally shall be and to part cates that no effort was made on the Annotated, amend Tennessee Code Title County tax-equiva- of any Knox collect 7, Chapter 39. lent until latter two Bills were filed the same simply exchange At that time there was an sponsors. gas statute, “repeal[s] of correspondence parties. between specific provisions any private act ... or The Public Acts of 1969 effect. were thereof, any part relating payments specifically provided T.C.A. 7-52-306 except provisions lieu of taxes relating private efficacy any continued act any payments.” distribution of such then in place enacted therefore involving The Bill Municipal Sys- Electric provided in lieu of taxes on relating tems include to the dis- systems the electric of municipalities. No tribution such pay- further action was taken to enforce Municipal T.C.A. 7-52-302. The Elec- approximately year ment until and a half tric Purpose Plant statute —Construction Tax-Equiv- after the enactment the 1987 “repeal[s] specific provisions passage alent of that Act Law. Until relating act ... lieu legal efficacy Private including certain re- question. debatable lating to the distribution However, would it was law. It payments." ... tax-equiva- reasonable for the division of It is appropriate to look the two stat- begin lent as of the effective utes to establish intent. Reyn- See Hart v. Equivalent July date of the Act on 1 olds, al., et 48 Tenn. The 1987. comparison in this case beyond establishes I dissent. equivocation legislature the intent of the seq. the enactment of T.C.A. et general

It is the rule that acts superseded

are held to be as far as is

necessary give general effect to a statu-

tory plan applicability. of statewide *10 Word,

ex rel. Strader 508 S.W.2d (Tenn.1974).