Here is “Tossed out: Superior Court deems tribal tax-break bill unconstitutional.”
And State Superior Court Strikes Down HB 1287, and PILTs as “Taxes”
Here is the court’s order in City of Snoqualmie v. King County Executive (King County Super.):
3. The payment labeled “payment in lieu of tax” (“PILT”) in Section 8 of Engrossed Substitute House Bill (“ESHB”) 1287 is a property tax under Washington Law;
4. The PILT is subject to uniformity requirements in Article VII of the Washington Constitution;
5. The PILT violates the uniformity requirements in Article VII of the Washington Constitution because it is not imposed at an equal tax rate and does not produce equality in valuing the property taxed; and
6. Section 8 of ESHB 1287 violates Article VII Section 1’s command that “the power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended or contracted away.
Background materials here.
Five years ago, we at MSU conducted a study of what became an oral history of modern Michigan tribal-state relations under a contract with the National Congress of American Indians. Our former students did all the work — Alicia Ivory, Adrea Korthase, and Sheena Oxendine. For whatever reason, we never published the paper on our occasional paper website. The students interviewed many of the major players in tribal-state relations from the 2000s and before, including John Wernet, Jim Bransky, and Kathryn Tierney on the 2007 inland consent decree; Mike Petoskey and Kathryn Tierney on Michigan Court Rule 2.615; and Bill Brooks and John Wernet on the Michigan tribal-state tax agreements.
Here it is in its full glory, “Tribal-State Relations: Michigan as a Case Study”:
Michigan Tribal-State Intergovernmental Relations