City of Snoqualmie v. King County Executive Dow Constantine, 187 Wash. 2d 289

In 2014 the Washington Legislature amended RCW 84.36.010 to expand off‑reservation tribal property tax exemptions to include property used for "economic development."
When tribes accept the exemption, statute RCW 82.29A.055 requires a negotiated payment in lieu of leasehold excise taxes (PILT) to the county if certain conditions are met (exclusive economic development use, no taxable leasehold, off‑reservation, not federally exempt).
The Muckleshoot Tribe received an exemption for the Salish Lodge (an off‑reservation hotel) and negotiated a PILT with King County equal to 25% of the 2014 property taxes.
The City of Snoqualmie sued, claiming the PILT is an unconstitutional property tax that violates article VII of the Washington Constitution (uniformity clause and antisurrender clause) and is an improper delegation of taxing power; the trial court struck down ESHB 1287.
The Washington Supreme Court granted review and held the PILT is not a tax but a charge to compensate local governments for services to exempt tribal land, reversing the trial court; the court also found the city had standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge PILT	City: tax loss and tax‑shift give direct and representative standing	State: standing should be limited despite public importance	City has standing (direct under relaxed rules for matters of public importance and representative standing)
Whether PILT is a "tax" subject to art. VII	City: PILT functions as a property tax and must meet uniformity/antisurrender rules	State/Tribe: PILT is not a tax but a compensatory payment for services; statute frames it as a payment in lieu	PILT is not a tax; article VII tax requirements do not apply
Uniformity / Antisurrender / Delegation claims	City: PILT creates unequal taxation and surrenders legislative taxing power by allowing negotiated amounts	State/Tribe: If not a tax, those article VII constraints are inapplicable	Court declined cityʼs challenges because PILT is not a tax; constitutional tax provisions therefore inapplicable
Proper characterization of PILT (fee, tax, or other)	City: effectively a tax despite label	Tribe/State: a compensatory charge (not a tax or regulatory fee) tied to municipal services	Court: PILT is a charge to compensate municipalities for services (not a tax); analysis applied broad Covell factors to reach this conclusion

Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wn.2d 12 (2001) (article VII applies only to taxes)
Covell v. City of Seattle, 127 Wn.2d 874 (1995) (three‑factor test distinguishing taxes from regulatory fees)
Lane v. City of Seattle, 164 Wn.2d 875 (2008) (broadened application of Covell factors: purpose, use of funds, user relationship)
Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 97 Wn.2d 804 (1982) (not all governmental payment demands are taxes)
Arborwood Idaho, LLC v. City of Kennewick, 151 Wn.2d 359 (2004) (analysis of fee vs. tax; excise vs. property tax distinctions)
High Tide Seafoods v. State, 106 Wn.2d 695 (1986) (distinguishing property tax from excise tax)
City of Seattle v. State, 103 Wn.2d 663 (1985) (liberal standing rules for issues of public importance)