Airlines Parking, Inc v. Wayne County

Wayne 527 Parking Airlines PARKING,INC v WAYNECOUNTY AIRLINES April 11, (Calendar 2). Argued No. Decided No. 98890. Docket July 16, Rehearing 1204. denied 453 Mich 1996. Inc., Parking, brought original action in the Court of an City Appeals pursuant against the of Rom- to Const art County, Michigan, contending ulus, Wayne that the and the State of subject Airport Parking a to 31 of the Headlee Tax Act is imposition prohibits or the a local tax increase Amendment majority qualified electors of new local tax without a vote of the a P.J., Court, governing D. E. and a local unit. The Holbrook, Jr., JJ, orders, granted unpublished the defend- and Sawyer Neff, summary 167321). disposition (Docket The for No. ant’s motion explanation Supreme of the rea- Court remanded the case for an denying plaintiff’s rehearing. 447 Mich 985 motion for sons for unpublished order, remand, Appeals, (1994). On the Court of in an plaintiff’s untimely claim and concluded that stated that the was airport parking Supreme tax is a state tax. The Court held abeyance pending Taxpayers decision in Allied Consti- case Co, review, Wayne (1995). Taxation v 450 Mich 119 After tutional case, appeal granted plain- light to the and in of that leave to was tiff, whether the tax was unconstitutional under the limited to Amendment, 9, § 31. Headlee by opinion by joined In Justice Chief Justice Brickley, an Boyle, Supreme Court held: and Justices and Mallett, Weaver, Riley, by law, airport parking a tax authorized state tax is Wayne administered, collected, and distributed the state. The County airport regional the entire of this state. benefits currently Wayne County Though and Romu- tax is allocated to solely payments lus, language of the statute does not limit levied under the Headlee localities. The tax is not local tax these by majority and, thus, is not to a vote Amendment governments. of these local electors of either Airport Parking tax on each 1. Tax Act levies excise facility airport parking parking located within five transaction at an facility airport facility, regional that services defined as a miles of a Metropolitan enplanements. Detroit million or more annual four currently Airport that fits the defini- is the in the state Mich tion, state, collected, appropri- the tax distributed Wayne County legislative Romulus, ated act to where the airport is located. 2. The Headlee Amendment establishes tax limitations on state governments prohibits by and local tax increases governments park- approval. airport local without direct voter ing tax, tax, by Legis- tax an is not a local but is excise enacted the requires appro- continuing lature and administered the It a state. priation year year, from and revenues are to redirection Legislature. exclusive, language application the Its is not and its any is not limited one location. The fact that certain individuals appropriation necessarily imply from benefit an does not the that appropriation lacking public purpose a is or that the tax has a purpose. local recipient proceeds, 3. The claim that the of the tax than rather entity tax, levying the the determines the tax or whether is state purpose. local is refuted the structure the amendment and its Thus, accepting plaintiffs argument recipient that the end-user proceeds tax determines a tax whether is state local would have negative allowing Legislature classify effect of taxes it appropriates government to local units of local as taxes and cir- cumventing taxing cap, something plainly pre- the state the state is doing cluded from under the Headlee Amendment. Affirmed. joined by dissenting, Justice Cavanagh, Justice that stated Levin, may Legislature impose specific activity spe- not a tax on a in a generate financially cific location in order to revenue to assist specific county specific municipality activity and the in which that Legislature’s purpose financially relieving occurs. The distressed Wayne County reasonably imposing not related to tax excise airport parking private Metropoli- lots located in the Detroit Airport Thus, Airport Parking

tan area. Tax Act be should Amendment, found to be unconstitutional under the Const Headlee 1963, 9, 31, approval. art because it was levied local without voter A. Philip for plaintiff. Gillis Miller, Canfield, & Paddock Stone B. (by Jay Ris- ing and Carl H. von Ende) Granholm, Jennifer Corporation Counsel, Wayne County. &

Cox, Hodgman (by Stephen Giarmarco J. Hitch- City for the cock) Romulus. Wayne Parking Opinion of the Court Kelley, Attorney Thomas L. General,

Frank J. Bishop, Casey, and Ross H. Assis- General, Solicitor Attorney Michigan. General, for the State tant granted in this case to determine J. We leave Boyle, Airport Parking Act, 248, Tax 1987 PA whether seq., seq.-, 7.559(101) violates et et MCL207.371 §9, art Const 31.1

Specifically, we must determine whether Parking parking a tax” on Airlines “local tax levied subject to the section of the Headlee and therefore prohibits a local tax increase or the Amendment majority imposition of a new local tax without vote qualified governing unit. We electors of airport parking tax is not a local conclude that the therefore, does not violate Const and, § affirm the decision of the Court of Thus, 31. we Appeals.

i operates Parking, Plaintiff, Inc., Airlines owns and airport parking facility Romulus, which is in an in Wayne County. facility The is located within five miles Metropolitan Airport (Metro). Plaintiff Detroit of Appeals2 original brought Court of an action the 1 9, popular Const art Amendment is the name for The Headlee §§ 25-34. 2 Department dispute plaintiff of Trea between the and the An earlier penalties catalyst present sury the case. Plaintiff was assessed was the for payments Department for several late of interest the of Revenue and January timely paid tax, and had been due but not the June, disputed February, 1988, April, May, Plaintiff the and and 1989. Michigan petition on Novem charges Tax Tribunal and filed a with the payments. delinquent 8, 1989, the ber for redetermination of petition Department Treasury responded the with a motion of to granted 30, 1990, summary disposition. the the Tax Tribunal On March for appeal motion, finding plaintiff of the final determination that failed to the 530 452 Mich 527 Opinion of the Court pursuant against to Const defend City County Wayne, ants, Romulus, of and Michigan, contending State that the tax is a subject “local tax” to of the Headlee Amendment, prior approval by majority and therefore of local voters. Appeals granted Court motion defendants’ summary disposition initially plain- granted

for rehearing, tiff’s rejected for but, motion after review, further application the appeal Plaintiff motion. filed for jurisdic- leave to with this Court. We retained Appeals tion and remanded the case to the Court of explanation denying for an of the for reasons plaintiff’s rehearing (1994). motion. 447 Mich 985 In response, Appeals plaintiff’s the Court of stated that untimely alternatively rejected claim was its con- tention that the tax was a tax” “local under the cur- rent constitution.4

When the case Court, returned to this it in we held abeyance pending Taxpayers a decision in Allied Wayne Constitutional v Co, Taxation 119; Mich (1995). light 537 NW2d 596 review, After and in granted appeal case, that we leave to limited timely appealed, in a assessment manner. Plaintiff and the Court of Appeals upheld decision, Dep’t Parking, the Tax Tribunal Inc Treasury, unpublished opinion per Appeals, curiam of the Court of issued May 21, (Docket 129276), affirming holding noting No. plaintiff advantage opportunities not take did of the two distinct available statutory for administrative review under scheme. 3 Any taxpayer standing bring shall have suit in Michigan provisions Appeals State Court of enforce the Sec through 31, and, tions 25 of this if inclusive Article is sus suit tained, applicable government shall receive from the unit his maintaining costs incurred such suit. 4 Unpublished order, (Docket 167321). entered December No. Parking Wayne Co op Opinion the Court an unconstitutional airport tax was issue whether Amendment, 31. the Headlee tax under

n A. THE STATUTE seq.\ 207.371 et Airport Act, Tax MCL Parking provides: seq., pertinent part 7.559(101) MSA et hereby upon be collected from a levied and shall There providing airport person engaged an in the business of facility parking at the rate of 30% of the an excise tax 207.373; charge for the transaction. amount of the [MCL 7.559(103).] MSA parking levies an excise tax on each

The statute facility6 located airport parking at an transaction5 facility, which airport five miles of a regional within airport as an that services four is defined the act Metro cur- “enplanements.”7 million or more annual fits the defini- rently only airport in the state that collected, airport facility. a The tax is regional tion of appropriated by legisla- state, distributed “5 parking, storing, housing, keeping ‘Transaction’ means the or 207.372(f); 7.559(102)(i). vehicle for consideration.” MCL MSA motor facility” area, space, “Airport parking garage, parking means an facility structure, upon or other or in which motor vehicles are stored, parked, and that is located or housed for a consideration of a within the boundaries or within 5 miles of the boundaries facility airport facility. However, airport regional does not facility publicly spaces that is leased include owned metered or a exclusively employees employers or rented for the use of miles of the boundaries located within the boundaries or within 5 facility. regional airport 207.372(a); 7.559(102)(a).] MSA [MCL “7 4,000,000 airport facility’ ‘Regional means an that services annually.” 7.559(102)(h). enplanements 207.372(h); This MCL more volume, enplanements involves air traffic the number of definition apply. required airport parking before the tax would 452 532 Mich 527 Opinion of the Court Wayne County tive act for Romulus, county city in airport which the is located. parties not we argued ambigu- have nor do find ity in the statute. Plaintiff does not contend that 29 4, Const art is relevant his claim to and has § argued not briefed this issue.8 The issue before us is whether the tax violates 31 of the § Headlee Amendment.

B. CONSTITUTION “part Headlee Amendment was of a nationwide ‘taxpayers ... revolt’ to expansion limit legislative requirements placed put local to government, they freeze on perceived what was excessive govern- ment spending, and lower their taxes both at the local and the state level.” Durant v State Bd Ed, 364, 378; Mich present NW2d 662 For (1985). purposes, we observe that Headlee establishes tax limitations on state and governments pro- local System, City Romulus, 337; Avis Rent-A-Car Inc v (1977), NW2d 555 decided was before the date of the effective Headlee provision Amendment under a constitutional not issue here. Addition ally, distinguishable present Avis, Avis is from the In case. 1953 PA 189 provided property property. for a tax on leased as if it real were The stat exemption property included an ute from the tax if the leased real was airport in used connection with concession. The issue in Avis con legislative statute, requested by cerned amendment of the earlier City Romulus, exemption aiiport from exclude the tax concessions population. 1,000,000 in counties of over Id. at 343. The Court held that relationship classification did not bear a reasonable to statute, quoting approval of the with the trial court’s conclusion counly that “there is no in correlation between the which an passes through airport.” located and the traffic Id. at 348. The amendment, effect, government impose allowed a local a selective granted legislative exemption tax local had where the state a state-wide Avis, aiiport parking from the tax. Unlike the tax is a state- imposed tax, applies qualified counties, to all classifies volume of air port traffic, application by and does not allow selective local units of government. Opinion of the Court govern- both state and tax increases

hibits approval. 9,Art 25. without direct voter ments in violation that the tax was levied Plaintiff asserts of art 31: prohibition hereby prohibited from are Units of Local Government any when this levying tax not authorized law or charter existing increasing rate of an or from section is ratified when this rate authorized law or charter tax above that approval majority ratified, the without the of a section is voting qualified of that unit of Local Government electors 9! thereon.9 levy stated, proposal by government a local Simply increase the rate of an extant tax a new tax or beyond imposed by approved limit law must be by majority a of the local voters. the level of parallel fashion,

In Headlee controls taxation, the total amount of taxes limiting state year. may taxpayers any in fiscal imposed be on state approval without changed This limit cannot “be [of a] majority qualified electors,” Legislature and the any which, kind prohibited imposing from “taxes explains taxing governmental 31 further formula for local Section units: broadened, existing If of the base of an tax is the definition in unit authorized rate of taxation on the new base each máximum yield shall be reduced to the same estimated of Local Government prior gross on the base. If the assessed valuation of revenue as finally equalized, excluding

property new construc- as the value of improvements, by larger percentage than the increases tion and previous year, the in the General Price Level from the increase applied in each unit of Local maximum authorized rate thereto yield gross revenue from be reduced to the same Government shall existing property, Level, adjusted changes in the General Price existing rate on the have collected at the authorized as could been prior assessed value. 452 Mich 527 Opinion of the Court together state, with all other revenues of the federal aid excluded, exceed revenue limit established in §9, this section” of the amendment. Art 26.10It is undisputed that, tax, if limits of Headlee Amendment have not been exceeded. previously existing is built amendment on the

system, temporal point and the reference of the requirements imposed gov and limitations on state year §§9, ernment is fiscal 1978-79. Art and 30. temporal point reference for the limitation on government here issue is the date of ratifica tion, instance, November 1978. In each the lan guage provisions is linked to the determination entity government— of which state or local —the imposes question.* the tax levies However, theoretically possible because it is at least that the levy state could a tax that character, was local in entity question may imposing the tax in not conclu sively question. resolve the Headlee

We find no reason this case to conclude that the imposed tax is a local tax. It is excise “a tax tax, 10 preclude imposition The Headlee does Amendment not the of new taxes, provided revenue, together state the additional with other state rev enues, specified taxing caps. does not exceed the Headlee state 11 must, governments purposes taxing, Local for of local know which entity levying question case, tax. In in addition the this issue there are other limitations on taxes that if a tax do not arise is a state tax questions interpretation rather than local tax. Other of constitutional that application have arisen in the context to local tax 31 levies are Court, regarding not before the and we make no determination them other that, imposes than to observe because Headlee Amendment additional controls, system building existing previously in on an effect determined levels, point origin tax of the tax its is central to scheme. See Bai ley Muskegon Comm’rs, App 808; v Co 122 Bd Mich 333 NW2d 144 (1983), App Saginaw, 46; (1985), Fahnenstiel v 142 Mich NW2d 368 893 Twp, App 381; (1988), Saginaw Smith v Scio 173 Mich 433 NW2d 855 Dist, App 363; (1992). Co v Buena Vista 196 School Mich 493 NW2d 437 v Opinion of the Court Dooley v occupation.” in an engaging . . . the

upon 206; (1963), 121 NW2d Mich Detroit, 370 Legislature authorizes which the constitution the structural tax, a state has styled It is as enact.12 It purpose. a state tax, and serves of a state attributes by and is administered Legislature was enacted treasury and state collected state. It is funds are budget. in for accounted of the air- treasury to the credit in the state deposited and distribution is directed fund13 port parking city to a statu- county14 according qualified each penal- retains all interest and tory The state formula.15 requires The statute con- delinquent taxes. ties from provide legislature alternative means Art 3 allows “[t]he [to] tangible personal property designated in lieu of of taxation of real Every general general .... tax other than the ad valorem taxation ad upon property which be uniform the class or classes on valorem tax shall operates.” it tax, is not at issue tax is in contrast to an ad valorem The excise purposes, is defined as a an ad valorem tax in this case. For clarification proportion property value of commerce in to its tax levied on or an article Dictionary appraisal. Law or See Black’s as determined assessment property (6th ed), p “A between an ad valorem 51. basic distinction primarily regarded in rem in that the former is as and an excise tax is personam regarded in in nature.” Continental while the latter is as nature (1965). Twp, 170, 180; Corp Muskegon 135 NW2d 908 Motors 207.376; 7.559(106). MSA MCL “14 county provides public county’ to a means a services ‘Qualified airport facility.” 207.372(g); 7.559(102)(g). regional MSA MCL provides: 7.559(107)(1), (2), part, 207.377(1), (2); MCL month, day treasurer shall make each the state the first [0]n qualified county .... the fund to each distribution from day month, make a the state treasurer shall the first of each [0]n city regional air within which a from the fund to each distribution wholly port facility made under sub .... A distribution located city deposited general (1) (2) fund of the be or shall section qualified county. 536 527 Mich

Opinion of the Court turning appropriation16 year from year, and reve- nues are therefore redirection Legislature. Michigan Ass’n Cos v Dep’t Man- agement & Budget, 418 667; Mich 345 NW2d 584 (1984).17

By contrast, local taxes are collected gov- local ernment, directly by administered entity, year; §See 1028 of 1989 PA 181 for the 1989-90state fiscal 1990 PA 208, 1028, year; § 114, 1026, for the 1990-91state fiscal § 1991 PA for the year; 175, 1024, 1991-92state fiscal 1992 PA § for the 1992-93state fiscal year; 191, 1023, § 1993 PA year; for the 1993-94state fiscal 1994 PA year; 158, 920, the 1994-95state fiscal PA for the year. 1995-96state fiscal Each of these acts states: act, parking Revenue from the Act No. 248 of the Pub- 1987, being lic Acts of Michigan sections 207.371 to 207.383 of the Compiled Laws, appropriated is and shall be distributed in accor- dance with section 7 of Act No. 248 of the Public Acts of

being Michigan Compiled section 207.377 of the Laws. 207.377; 7.559(107) provides: MCL (1) . . . state treasurer [T]he shall make a distribution from the qualified county equal fund to each in an amount to the total deposit multiplied by amount on in the fund a fraction the numera- population qualified county tor of which is during of that immediately preceding year and the denominator of which is the qualified during total immediately of all counties year. preceding (2) .. . state treasurer shall [T]he make a distribution from the city regional airport fund facility to each within wholly which a equal located in an deposit amount to 20% of the total amount on generated the fund any minus the amount of revenue from air- port parking facility regional located within the boundaries of the airport facility divided the total number of cities within which a regional airport facility wholly located. Superintendent See also Oakland Schools Bd Ed v Public Instruction, 613, 620-621; (1974): 221 NW2d 345 dynamics budget change year year from on the expenditures required by basis of the revenues derived and the people Michigan. Responsible policy consequently fiscal also requires yearly revenues, spending goals reassessment of

priorities. Opinion of the Court by according to local spent government and the local Obviously, taxes, local levied local policy.18 fiscal appropria- would not be to state governments, of revenue or to discretion terms legislative tions distribution.

Additionally, provision allowing the act has a generated from the revenues assignment payments county. The locally obligations incurred debt of the to not be specifically provides that the act shall statute to “[r]equire to the state to continue construed imposed by this act impose and collect taxes [or] from or amend- prohibit repealing the state [l]imit MSA 207.378(3)(a), (b); this act.” MCL ing of the tax short, In all indicia 7.559(108)(3)(a), (b). control. prevailing indicate state is local plaintiff contends that the tax Finally, while we only users, it benefits local end conclude because lan- clearly purpose.19 the tax serves a state that 18Michigan governments is a home rule state. Home rule local are authority general vested with to act on all matters of local constitutional Ward, Wayne County: law. See A concern not forbidden reformed 1013, charter, L The home rule 1981 Det Col R 1014. Constitution, approved Michigan Counties were for home rule art 7, 17, villages, 7, 1-16, townships, art §§ § as well as art and cities 7, 21, counties, villages, § art have § 22. Charter and cities and levy public purpose. specific specific powers also statu- to taxes for See tory authority, cities, authorization, 117.3(f)-(i); taxation MCL home rule levy power 5.2073(f)-(i). have to and collect MSA taxes, Charter counties 5.302(15), townships, power grant 45.515; to MCL MSA levy money, 41.3; 5.3, villages, power for vote MCL taxes expenses, 69.1; general MCL MSA 5.1371. county. Wayne County Charter, Wayne County § 1.112. is a charter taxing authority adopted by Wayne County, general Under charter county Ward, supra specified at 1030. in 5.181. airport servicing Legislature apparently has determined that an imposes enplanements annual volume of traffic of four million or more County Wayne dep public (of burden on services incremental local park positioned of Romeo uties at metal detectors and the enforcement examples), ing that a are and that it is reasonable ordinances but obvious Mich 527

Opinion of the Court application exclusive, of the act is not and its guage applies not limited one act any location. The any county parking qualified facilities in providing facility. public regional airport services to a Although Wayne County county present only is the in Michi- statutory that has an gan airport meeting the defini- tion, statutory language applica- does not restrict tion of this tax the language to one locale as would tax act. plaintiff

To the extent suggests Legisla- that the impose ture is only purposes allowed to taxes state government, purposes and not for of local government, provision and that a constitutional would allow for a diversion of tax dollars state to plaintiff local governments, clearly is incorrect. Excise taxes and other state taxes are distributed to governments for local purposes under the Reve- nue Sharing Act, 141.901; MCL 5.3194(401), MSA as are state tax under gasoline dollars the tax act and other state taxes.20 directly by providing parking business which from benefits such volume defray part facilities within a facility radius five-mile should of the costs of a unquestioned economy. of value to the state’s That this fiscal relief indigent county

frees funds needed for health care and essential services negate purpose does not the of the tax. provisions sharing payments The act’s revenue direct from state tax, 206.499; 7.557(101) 7.557(1499), income MCL 206.1 to MSA tax, 7.522, 205.52; intangibles tax, 205.131; sales MCL MSA MCL 7.556(1), single tax, 208.136; MSA and the business MCL 208.1 to MSA 7.558(1) 7.558(136) government using specific to local units of a statu tory 141.913; 5.3194(411) 5.3194(413). formula. MCL 141.911 to Thus, is, required fact, governments, the state to return to the local a portion yearly certain of its revenue. remitting collecting itWhile is true that the of onus the tax to the facility owner, certainly parking state falls on the this is no different than any directly paid individual; example, tax that is not to the state for by employers, by retailers, income tax is collected the sales tax the use Opinion of the Court ignores argument functional end-user Plaintiffs may be matters fact that matters of local concern also public purpose The determination of state concern. preeminently legislative prerogative. We have purpose apple held that a to stimulate the state’s industry public, general is beneficial to the Miller v Apple (1941), Comm, 248; State 296 Mich 296 NW 245 public financing gubernatorial and that elec- public general welfare of and well tions for the power. Advisory Opinion Legislature’s within the Constitutionality 465, 1975 PA 396 Mich 496- (1976). 497; 242 NW2d 3 Secretary State, In Moreton v 588; (1927), building 216 NW 450 we found that the solely public maintenance of roads was not matter Rejecting gas of local concern. the assertion that the oline PA tax, now codified as MCL207.101 seq.\ seq., et MSA7.291 et was for the benefit locality expended, where the funds were public Court found that the interest divested the tax appropriation character, of its local and stated: say appropriation purposes highway To that a is for local locality

means that it is for the benefit of the where it is expended. purpose appropriations of these is not for the benefit of certain localities but the State at large. general ... It is a statute enacted for a State-wide appropria- make act does not [and therefore] purposes .... tions for local [Id. 589-590.] gasoline Moreton, Like the tax in revenues appropriated governments were to certain local highway repair and in which, turn, maintenance itself, consumers, property by municipalities. and the tax The tax however, directly by parking facility. is not bom 452 Mich 527 Opinion op the Court driving public benefited the entire in state, airport generated revenue tax is allocated to governments pro- those local that are involved in the major regional airport. Wayne vision of services to County provides Metro, services to which itself serves regional as a international, national, hub for air- lines travel for the entire state. Advisory Opinion,

In we observed that the fact appropriation that certain individuals benefit from an necessarily imply appropriation does not that the public lacking purpose. question is whether society large having has an interest those indi- viduals benefited. Id. at 496.

Likewise, the fact that these defendants benefit necessarily imply from a state appropriation does not tax; purpose. that the has a local The state has an provision major interest in the of services to a regional airport, which has an obvious economic ben- efit to the state.

Relying exclusively Youngblood almost Sexton, (1875), plaintiff 406; 20 AR 654 asserts that airport tax is a “local tax” because the monies col- pursuant exclusively lected to the tax come from the parking subsequently businesses21 and are dis- solely Wayne County tributed and Romulus on a monthly Youngblood basis. Defendants contend that inapplicable, given requirements, structure, purpose of the Amendment, Headlee and that the tax relatively straightforward ques- is not a local tax. The 207.376; 7.559(106). special See MCL Funds accumulate in a fund, holding parking fund, treasury. created within the state v 541 Opinion of the Court

tion Youngblood is whether requires Sexton the con- clusion that this tax is a local tax as that term is used in the Headlee Amendment. Because the Headlee subjects Amendment taxes and state taxation and to spending requirements, distinct the simple question profound has consequences.

The venerable holding Youngblood v Sexton rejected a a challenge liquor imposed liquor on dealers, payable city to the and collected the local sheriff. The Court concluded that the tax was a “local specific tax,” rather than a specific “state tax,” and therefore did not violate a provision of the then- existing constitution. provision Id. at 413. That speci- proceeds fied that specific from “state taxes”22 imposed by general law applied were to be to interest on education funds and to interest principal on state debt.23 provided The tax for in Youngblood was a general tax that was collected within a particular 22 Treasurer, 10, 16-17; Shivel v Kent Co (1940), 294 NW 78 stated: legislature given authority impose specific “The taxes which upon upon they shall operate. be unifonn the classes which ... A specific imposes specific tax is one which a sum the head or

number, weight measurement, or some standard of requires beyond listing no assessment and classification of subjects to be taxed.” language of the 1850 is as Constitution follows: 1850, provides specific taxes, except § Const “All state those mining companies upper peninsula received from the shall be applied paying upon primary school, university the interest principal other educational funds and the interest and of the state debt in provides the order herein recited . . . .” Article 10 further may specific accruing continue to collect all "[t]he taxes to the trea- sury existing provides legislature under laws” and art that “[t]he provide taxation, except property paying spe- shall a uniform rule of taxes, property pre- cific and taxes shall be levied on such as shall be by law . . . .” scribed 452 Mich

Opinion of the Court locality authorities, and handed over to the local purposes contingent credited to the local fund for upon, agreed general that the local authorities for the purposes supra government. Youngblood, of local “any by general 415. The Court noted that tax levied moneys put tax; law is a state but if the are to be uses, local substantial difference between by that action, and one levied local consists in this: tax, that in one case the state levies the and in the levy.” [the state] other authorizes the Id. at 414. Simply stated, Constitution, under the 1850 power levy specific state had the support “state taxes” to government power state and the to authorize levy specific by of “local taxes” to be collected governments purposes.24 local for local Id. at 413. We Wayne agree County’s with defendant observation Youngblood explained by that the in result the fact given compel that, the latitude to local taxation that specific was tax, deemed not to be a state the Court classify specific saw no need to taxes authorized any- the state to be levied on local communities as thing concluding specific but local taxes. In that state imposed by taxes did not include taxes law, state but government, allocated to local units of 413-414, id. at require- the Court likewise avoided the constitutional specific ment that all state taxes nominated as taxes be allocated to the reduction of the interest either the education fund or the state debt because either locally imposed compelled local taxes or state taxes for a local had the same effect. 24Additionally, municipalities power levy had some their own local Ironically, Youngblood argued taxes. in the defendants that the state- liquor municipality authorized tax was void as a local tax because the had levy Youngblood, supra no voice its and collection. at 414.

Opinion of the Court We disagree Youngblood requires the result advocated plaintiff for a fundamental reason: Youngblood was decided under the Constitution, which expressly permitted impose the state to purposes revenues for government. of local Under the current constitution, the state has power no to com- pel local governments impose a new tax. See art 9, 29. The resulting change relationship between governments mandated Headlee, expressly precludes the Youngblood approach, thus removing linchpin of plaintiffs analysis applies as it to state taxes not levied in lieu property taxes.25 As Wayne County defendant cor- rectly notes: opinions by Attorney support Plaintiff cites two tax General to its argument airport parking opinions that the tax is a local tax. Such are merely advisory precedential. question and not The taxes in are not new predate Attorney levies of state taxes and the Headlee Amendment. Both opinions Youngblood General controlling. OAG, 1979, 5,561, p cite as No (September 17, 1979), 388 concerns a three dollar tax on individual homes, Act, 243, mobile 125.1041; Trailer Coach Park 1959 PA MCL MSA 5.278(71), OAG, 1980, 5,729, p (June 25, 1980), and No 846 concerns a type property grade ore, of grade tax, tax on low iron low iron ore 77, seq.; 13.157(1) PA seq. MCL211.621 et et year Attorney reported In the same that the General on the trailer coach park tax, opinion regarding Amendment, 9, 31, another the Headlee art OAG, 1979, 5,562,p (September 17, was discussed in 1979). No A cau- tionary injected report by note was into that this caveat. should be “[I]t represents noted departure that the Headlee Amendment a new in terms government taxing of a constitutional spending. limitation on No Michigan yet interpreting court has addressed itself to the sections added by adoption provision.” of this Id. at 389-390. park distinguishable The trailer coach and iron ore taxes are from the airport park tax. property The trailer coach tax levied in lieu of local homes, exempt taxes on individual mobile which had been from local

property taxes. Similarly, property the iron ore tax is a form of tax. It involves remov- ing containing township’s prop- the land described as ore from the local erty entering description separate tax list and that land onto a list. 452 Mich

Opinion the Court meaningless Youngblood, The distinction which was tax, for has now become the foundation who “levied” the approval determining local electorate is nec- whether essary may be collected. before the tax

CONCLUSION inquiry, the crucial The Headlee Amendment makes entity purposes analyzing limitations, the tax for responsible levying tax. The claim that the entity recipient proceeds, rather than the of the tax levying tax, determines whether the tax is state or by is refuted the structure of the amendment local purpose. accepting Thus, and the structure of its recipient plaintiffs argument that the end-user proceeds state or local determines whether tax is negative allowing Legis- would have the effect of classify appropriates lature to taxes it units circumventing government as local taxes and plainly pre- taxing cap, something state the state (cid:127) doing under Headlee.26 cluded from airport parking tax is a state tax We hold that the by law, administered, collected, authorized County by Wayne regional the state. The distributed population of this state. benefits the entire currently Wayne Though allocated to the tax is County language of the statute does Romulus, solely payments to these localities. The tax not limit the Headlee Amend- is not a local tax levied under majority thus, is not to a vote and, ment governments. of either of these local of the electors Legislature, Funding Const for courts established reasoning a local tax when distributed to district would this be 600.9947; MCL and a state tax when distributed to circuit courts. courts MSA 27A.9947. Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, J. Appeals

We affirm the Court of conclusion that the airport parking tax is a state tax. Brickley, C.J., and Weaver, JJ., Riley, Mallett,

concurred with Boyle, J. (dissenting). The issue is whether the Cavanagh, may Legislature impose specific activity a tax on a specific generate location in order to revenue to financially specific county specific assist and the municipality activity in which that occurs. In this may case, I would hold that it not. I dissent because I Legislature’s purpose relieving fail to see how the financially Wayne County reasonably distressed imposing airport parking related to an excise tax on private solely Metropoli- lots located in the Detroit Airport Accordingly, tan area. I would hold that the Airport Parking seq.; Act, Tax MCL 207.371 et seq., 7.559(101) et is unconstitutional under the Headlee Amendment, Const 1963, art 9, 31,1because approval. it was levied without local voter

i Generally, interpreting there are two means of government’s constitutional limitation on the author- ity impose taxes. The first would be to determine language whether the statute violates the literal proscribes Const 31, units of government levying increasing from taxes approval. approach, without voter Under this the air- port parking arguably upheld could be under hereby prohibited levying Units Local Government are from any tax not authorized law or charter when this section is rati approval majority qualified fied . . . without of a elec voting tors of that unit of Local Government thereon. Mich

Dissenting Cavanagh, Opinion by J. imposed by 31, because it was Const by government. a unit of local Legislature and not by stating majority reject approach this seems may question tax in not entity imposing “the question.” Ante at conclusively resolve the Headlee approach, in fact this majority rejecting 534. If the has long with it because this Court agree then I See, beyond language. literal constitutional looked 517; Revenue, 357 Mich Lockwood v Comm’r e.g., imposed tax that (a legislatively 98 NW2d 753 (1959) was held to be unconstitu- styled was as a use tax improper tax). as an sales tional beyond form Indeed, proper approach is to look practical and to determine whether to substance the constitu- of the tax violates the intent of function explained: provision. tional Lockwood ground. we the consti- There is no middle Either construe literally accomplish limitation or we construe it to tutional objective manifest and intent. its Actually, no Which is to be our choice? there is choice Court, opinion unanimous of this written but one. The years ago, close to a hundred sets our Mr. Justice Cooley principles: enunciation of immutable course its change varying with the tides of “Constitutions do not people public opinion desire; therein the will of the changed inflexible law until their recorded is the same permissible action; and it cannot be to the own deliberative circumventions, courts that in order to aid evasions they instruments, in the main shall these principles, lay general literal down broad to a undertake to they public construction, great as if were ene- and technical duty every way standing progress, in the and the mies provisions good get around their whenever citizen was to damaging practicable, give thrust whenever con- them They people did in their must construe them as the venient. Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, adoption, arriving if the means of at that are construction power.” within their words, regard

The literal construction without protection, their obvious is to make the consti- safeguard shabby hoax, than a tutional no more a barrier of easily destroyed words, by other words. This canon of con- reject. stitutional construction A we constitutional limita- effectuate, abolish, tion must be construed to not to protection sought (cita- it to be afforded. at 554-557 [Id. omitted).] tion Although majority applying seems to be this approach, ignore choosing I believe that it is gener- who realities of benefits from the tax revenue ated, the means and the extent to which the tax is scope applicability, limited in the of its and how the provisions wholly two are unrelated.

n Although this is the first time that we have consid- statutory really ered whether a tax is a local tax purposes challenge, a of Headlee Amendment the law replete determining statutory with cases whether taxes based on classifications2 are local or state taxes provisions. under various state constitutional See Validity statutory anno: based on classifications applies aiiport parking private parking The tax statute within five 4,000,000 enplanements miles of “an that services or more annu ally.” 207.372(h); 7.559(102)(h). enplanement MCL I this believe population classification, classification functions much a like which is a by long legislatures. However, recog device often state been used it has population nized that can be a classifications used “as mere cloak for Birmingham Harry, 458; Electric Co v . . .” laws . 215 Ala (1926). So 41 452 Mich 527 Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, The 98 ALR3d 1083.3 statutes, population —Tax with a common theme Amendment shares Headlee provisions. other constitutional Ed, 364, 383; In v State Bd Durant this Court described (1985), NW2d 662 the Headlee Amendment: striving gain their were more control over voters] [The expenditures taxing and over the of the state. own level of were concerned about the It that while the voters is evident they taxation, general were also concerned level of funding ensuring with control of local taxation taxpayers. people affected, the local The Headlee most taxes, funding, link Amendment is the voters’ effort to control. Headlee underlying of local control goal parallels people’s underlying intent

Amendment provides: 4, 29, Const any pass special legislature shall no local or act general applicable, act be made case where can applicable general be a whether a act can be made shall judicial question. special act shall take effect No local or approved until two-thirds of the members elected to and by majority serving in each house and of the electors vot- ing affected. thereon the district involving whether a classifi In those cases the issue of invalid, cation contained in a tax statute renders such a statute the variety grounds upon a different of attack courts have discussed of frequent validity argument as to of such such a statute. One the provisions prohibiting statutes has concerned state constitutional special laws, altogether in local or subject either certain cases and exceptions. Generally, qualifications and it to certain appears that a under which counties or munici well settled statute palities does not fall within are classified on the basis of special laws, against the inhibition local or where constitutional objects purposes to the and classification has reasonable relation legislation. of the [Id. 1087.] v Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, Kavanagh explained pur-

Chief Justice the historical pose 29, Const in underlying 1963, 4, Advisory art Opinion Constitutionality on 1975 PA 301, 286-287; Mich 254 NW2d 270, (1977): history provision, and rationale of this which first appeared 1908, in the Constitution of was set forth Jus- Attorney Dingeman Lacy, tice Brooke in General ex rel 329, 337-338; (1914): 146 NW 871 history “Considering legislation under the the Constitu- apparent 1850, grown up perni- tion of it had there practice part legislature passing cious of the local practice very important particu- acts. The was bad in two place, legislation lars. In the much of thus first enacted purely constituted a and direct unwarranted interference in principles affairs and invasion of the of local self- government. place, legislation affecting In the such second State, as it did certain limited localities in the the senators representatives usually from unaffected districts were complaisant, agreed to its enactment without the exer- intelligence judgment legislation cise of that which all legisla- entitled to receive from all the of the members many (principally ture. led This course abuses in amend- city charters), way ments to some of which found their into courts, and were there far as redressed so the Constitu- permit. tion then in would force mind, “With these evils Constitution 1909 [sic] adopted by people. reading was formulated and From a provisions quoted above and others of a similar char- acter, is, think, entirely it we clear that it was the settled purpose of the framers of the new instrument and of the people adopted people who it to forever to the insure right purely local, to control their affairs and to secure for general grave application legislation all attention and legislators.” collective wisdom the analogous purposes Given the underlying the I Headlee Amendment and Const approach believe we should the instant case in the 452 Mich Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, J. approached a Const that this Court has same manner provision, Under that challenge. 29§ statute, facially a neutral has been that challenge Wayne County or only applied to practicality which in local act. The really an unconstitutional Detroit, was in Dearborn has used was summarized test this Court 151, 155-156; Supervisors, Bd 275 Mich Wayne v Co of (1936): 266 NW 304 upon pop- legislature a number of laws a has enacted requirement, which, and without referendum

ulation basis county Wayne apply only prcesenti, or the could city been this court. of Detroit. Some of them have before they principles upon gen- have been sustained as are well established in eral laws or defeated as local acts this State and elsewhere. applied population has a

The first test to be is whether Mulloy of the In reasonable relation to the statute. Supervisors, Wayne NW v Co Bd [225 pointed (1929)], out: the distinction “Clearly, provision population, of its as to the act because applies Wayne county only. logi- If it is a reasonable and subject classification, considering legisla- cal basis of specified population may tion, unquestionably be made act; applicability general legislative the test of the will to be under such conditions the act not be construed legislation. legisla- as local But where the invalid population has no obvious relation to the tion is such accomplished, attempt purpose sought to be to make application legislative dependent act Attorney legislation. unwarranted and amounts to local Dingeman Lacy, ex rel v 180 Mich 329.” General general law, upon population, of a based The second test municipalities apply all if and when is that it shall other open they statutory population. It must have —“an attain the automatically through brought within end which cities are v Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, operation they required population.” its when attain the [Citations omitted.] Dingeman Lacy

This Court reaffirmed the test in System, Romulus, Avis Rent-A-Car Inc v City 337; factually Mich 254 NW2d 555 a case (1977), simi- lar There, to the instant case. the Avis and Hertz companies rental car had grants received of conces- Metropolitan sions at Detroit Airport pursuant to MCL 259.133; They MSA 10.233. also had leased land from and had built service buildings. 1953 PA 189 related to lessees taxing of what would otherwise tax-exempt be property by the (owned The airport). provided exception act public for concessions at airports that were public available for general usage. Romulus tried to tax Avis and Hertz for their use of the land at airport, but lost in brought by suits companies. Romulus then sought the assistance of the Legislature, passed PA 174, limiting exception airports “only to concessions at ” Avis, 1,000,000.’ ‘counties of over quoting 1970 PA 174. The Court restated the long- standing rule: population classification “must have a reasonable [A] legislation,

relation to the matter of the and must fairly apparent legislation differing furnish some reason for applicable municipalities having from that to other a sub- population.” stantial difference A classifica- is, tion “can never be sustained where it as in the case at bar, subterfuge.” a manifest [Id. 345.] The Avis Court held that 1,000,000 population limitation was unconstitutional. It reasoned: application exemption 1970 PA 174 limits the of the tax

granted requiring 1953 PA 189 the concessionaire to 452 Mich 527 Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, . appropriate. However, legisla- meet “basic tests.” This is discriminatory applicable only tion has a thrust. It is to air- ports only airports in counties with more than 1,000,000. require relationship We that a reasonable qualifications limiting between those and the of a tax exemption be demonstrated. It has not been demonstrated in this case. legislative in 1970 PA 174 was to withdraw a exemption airports from concessions at located in 1,000,000 people (only Wayne County).

counties over legislative airports conclusion must have been that these will exemp- attract concessions without the lure of a tax attraction, however, county tion. The is not a function of population. depends flowing It on the volume of traffic through aiiport. legislation, exemption Under this withdrawn not from concessions at Metro but also apply Wayne County airports— could to the other two City Municipal Airport. Detroit and Grosse He It is difficult legislative to “reconcile the legislative intent . . . with the scheme.”

The trial court in Hertz noted that the defendants had supplied “figures enplanement deplanements on and which majority show overwhelming Michigan’s passen- that the of ger place Metropolitan Airport.” air traffic taires at Defend- pop- ants said this was because Metro “is in the state’s most county.” aiiport ulous The court said that the traffic was dependent Wayne County’s not population. related to or The trial court in Avis said “there is no correlation between county in which an is located and the traffic passes through airport.”

We relationship do not see a reasonable between the withdrawing exemption aiiport of a tax from concessions county aiiport and the size of the where the is located. We legislation gen- believe the is a local act an area where a applicable. eral act could be made [Id. 347-348.] reasonable-relationship long test has been used by many respect determining state courts with Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, population

whether a statute with a classification was really a local act or local tax.4 Such statutes have been sustained where the court found a rational rea populated extending not statute to son for municipalities. less Chicago, 261, Alexander v 14 Ill 2d density (1958) (population 268; 151 NE2d 319 was rationally park found to be related to maintenance services); Engberg, Hassler v 233 Minn 513- density (1951) (population 514; 48 NW2d 343 proximity may buildings risks). affect fire In con trast, similar statutes have been struck down where the court did not find such a reason. Sivort Co v (1939) (“the Fla State, 179, 184; 186 So 671 basis attempted for the classification finds no reasonable justification in connection with the matter of Act”). City Comm’rs, Koons v Atlantic Bd explained: (1946), NJL 332-333;47 A2d 589 authority may law-making subdivide the common-

[T]he municipalities validity classes; law into subordinate and the legislative depends upon of such classification the existence distinguishing qualities and attributes related to the sub- ject legislation. constituting matter of the The characteristic reasonably appropri- the basis of the classification must be object upon ate to the of the law. Unless it rests distinctions merely illusory, that are substantial and not the classifica- wanting generality. tion is in the virtue of constitutional statutory logical test is whether the class has a and reasona- basis, artificiality arbitrariness, embracing ble free from omitting naturally falling category. all and none into that Is 4 See, Co, e.g., 375; (1941): Miller v El Paso 136 Tex 150 SW2d 1000 population classifying Resort to brackets for the sub- jects legislation permissible spread where the enough class, segregate is broad to include or a substantial and leg- where the bears some real relation to the islation and affords a fair basis for the classification. 452 Mich

Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, legislation equally the of such a character as that it is appropriate statutory forming class, to all and is that circumstances, class embracive of all like situation and If, and therefore natural members of the class? viewed in light legislative necessity design, propri- of the ety reasonably appears, of the classification it is not within the constitutional interdict. Arlington Bd,

Green v Va 284, 287-288; SE2d 516 (1952), echoed similar test:

The test of reasonableness of classification is said to be whether it embraces all classes to which it relates. The basis of the classification involved must have a direct law, present relation to the of the and must a dis- class, truth, tinction which renders one distinct or differ- may ent from apply another class. . . . Laws be said to ato only, may point class and that class be in of fact a small one, provided the classification itself be a reasonable and arbitrary one, apply not an and the law be made to to all of persons belonging to the class without distinction. [Cita- quotations tion and internal omitted.] These cases support would a two-pronged test for determining enplanement whether the instant classifi- cation is a cloaked local tax: (1) the classification open-ended must be so that other counties, munici- palities, airports, in a situation similar to that which is the aim statute, fall within class, (2) classification itself must bear a reasona- relationship ble puipose to the of the statute. I turn first to the relationship between the Legislature’s pur- pose in Airport enacting Parking Tax Act and the number of passengers enplaning at Detroit Metropoli- Airport. tan Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, J.

m part tax was a airport parking package The Wayne County’s at financial addressing bills aimed sit- uation, County’s request. House Wayne Legislative at Analysis, HB 5164, 5166, 5168, 5170, 5171, 5198-5200 problem (January 22, 1988). Legislature The that the address was seeking was described as follows: Wayne County help seeking is the state’s with its massive problems. County budget officials, possibility faced with the bankruptcy, threatening layoffs are drastic cuts and in services, enforcement, care, essential such as law health libraries, parks. county contemplating closing The county jail prosecutor’s cutting staff, floor of the anti-drug trafficking just moves that would frustrate efforts underway. According to House Taxation Committee staff reports, Wayne County $49 owes the state million from a agreement $60 debt settlement 1984 and some million $15 expected A accumulated since then. million shortfall is county hospitalization (rch) budget. the 1988 resident $52-72 (e.g., Another million is owed to non-state sources anticipation payroll). county’s notes issued to meet budget recurring $10 operating has a million deficit. The problems complex, causes of the are manifold and but providing there is little doubt that the cost of health care to major indigents county’s is a contributor to the fiscal woes. program expected year $32 The rch was to cost million this (slightly paid by $19 state), over million to be but County $50 (Wayne instead will cost about million! officials say largest program, County, second in Oakland rch $2.5 million.) among counties, Wayne Michigan’s cost Alone County required open-ended indigent to run an health program care where demand determines costs. While the county reforms, way long-term budget including needs costs, control health care and new sources of revenue with growth potential, it also needs immediate relief from its overwhelming difficulties. [Id. 1.] 452 Mich

Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, legislative history reveals that the revenue airport parking generated help from the Wayne County tax was fully

avoid financial disaster. I would agree Wayne that the state has a vital interest in County’s stability. But, financial “[a] laudable does not validate unconstitutional means.” Dearborn, 275 Mich 158. problems

I find that none of the described that the Legislature sought to address are related to Detroit Metropolitan Airport parking. Indigent health care indigent costs, which are a function of the number of wholly residents, are unconnected to the volume of passengers enplaning Metropolitan Airport, at Detroit just airport as the volume of concessions at an is population county unrelated to the of the in which airport Avis, sits. I 348. do not believe majority genuinely say airport that the can that this parking serving tax serves a state related to major airport.5 provides:

Further, the statute (1) Beginning January 1, 1988, through December day on month, the first of each the state treasurer shall make a qualified distribution from the fund to each county equal in an amount deposit to the total amount on multiplied by the fund a fraction the numerator of which is population qualified county during that the immedi- airport parking To further underscore that the tax is not a function of maintaining airport, provides: I note that the statute by qualified county The distribution received under this act operation does not constitute revenue the use or the air- from

port county any located within that pledge of, and is not upon, lien or use restriction of revenue received or derived county operation airport. 207.382; from the use or of that [MCL 7.559(112) (emphasis added).] MSA Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, year ately preceding and the denominator of which is the qualified during the imme- total all counties year. diately preceding January day 1, 1989, (2) Beginning on the first of each month, treasurer shall make a distribution from the state city airport facility regional the fund to each within which a wholly equal located in an amount to 20% of the total deposit in the fund the amount of reve- amount on minus any airport facility generated parking nue from located airport facility regional of the within the boundaries divided regional the total number of cities within which a facility wholly Any surplus remaining located. funds after (1) the distribution shall be distributed in accordance with (1), above. After the distribution is made under subsection day month, each first the state treasurer shall qualified county make a distribution from the fund to each equal deposit in an to the amount total amount on (1). fund after the distribution under subsection (3) (1) (2) A distribution made under or subsection shall deposited city qualified general be in the fund county. (4) provided by (2) The distribution subsection shall not taxing impose be made if all units are law authorized imposed taxes and the collection is made of taxes under 1953, being Act No. 189 of the Public Acts of sections Michigan Compiled Laws, 211.181to 211.182 of the on con regional airport facility. 207.377; cessions at a [MCL 7.559(107) (emphasis added).]161 money way is in no for maintaining earmarked produced airport parking the that the that is the sub- ject Instead, Wayne of the tax. it is distributed to County’s general Moreover, and Romulus’ funds. assuming arguendo county city that another or could qualify statute, ever under the the amount that would 6 211.181; 7.7(5) applies tax-exempt or users of MCL to lessees property: i.e., parking operating public airport the rental car lots property. 452 Mich 527 558 Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, be would be a of the distributed function county enplanements. Sim- the number —not of ilarly, qualified the amount distributed to cities would be a function of the of and both number cities populations again, their the not number — enplanements. any event, by

In design, Legislature the intention- ally airport apply drafted the statute parking tax to only parking Metropolitan to in the Detroit Yet, area.7 majority Wayne County’s even if the was correct that financial distress serving airports,8 was related to its apparent there is no reason excluding for from the create, January 1, 1988, Bill 5170 House would effective an excise operators airport parking tax on the percent at facilities the rate charge parking. (The apply the would to tax Metropolitan Airport.) Parking Detroit facilities within the bounda airport ries of or five the within miles of the boundaries would be special go to the tax. The to a revenue would state fund monthly. During 1988, go and be distributed the distributions would entirely Wayne County. percent go As of to would to the city airport (Romulus) in which the located is the remainder to county. county assign pledge por the A could some or all of its pay obligations tion to off under the Fiscal Stabilization Act or Rating city Shared Credit Act. The distribution to would not be city collecting airport if made is taxes on under concessions Analysis, supra (emphasis Public Act of 1953. at 3 [House added).] majority airport parking finds is that the tax a state tax because it “styled tax, tax, aas state has structural attributes of a state purpose.” agree majority serves a state Ante at 535.1 this tax with tax, passed Legislature, “looks” a state it like that was that it facially appears apply qualified municipalities, to all counties and entity. However, majority that it is administered a state collection clearly purpose,” has that the tax serves a state “conclude[d] id. specifying purpose majority without “clear” what that state is. The seems suggest support that the revenue intended to cities in counties and providing major airports. true, services to Id. If at 539-540. that were then agree airport parking I would that an tax have a would valid state strong maintaining airports. However, because has interest in generated go servicing parking the revenue does not airports. directly goes general The revenue into nonearmarked funds. Wayne Parking 559 by Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, J. airports private parking at facilities taxed class the Metropolitan Wayne County other than Detroit Airport. majority’s analysis, Lockwood

In to the contrast airport park- apply an “acid test” to the would have us ing tax: acts, must, put taxing we to the acid

When we these as “practical operation,” examination in terms of their test of we, duty, through again is our “look forms and when as substance,” find? at labels to what do we behind [Id. 558.] pro- following. Legislature wanted to I find the Wayne County assistance, with financial at vide directly request. Wayne County’s However, to do so by require approval houses of would two-thirds both pre-Headlee Legislature.9 Amendment Under levy Legislature constitution, the could not local approval houses. Const without two-thirds of both § Amendment, art 29. Under the Headlee 1963, 4, Wayne County imposed could not have a local itself approval. Const art tax without direct voter 9, attempt in an to circumvent the Therefore, 31. requirements approval of local voter and two-thirds approval Legislature houses, of both drafted a tax enplanements. Apply- classification scheme based on ing I tax, the acid test of examination to this would subterfuge Legislature which the find a manifest money purpose. sought Moreover, to raise for a local rationally related to the the means chosen are not by Wayne County. problems budgetary Further, faced enplane- connection, if were a rational even there requires appropriations approved to be Const Legislature. two-thirds of both houses Mich Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, private parking ment classification has excluded airports naturally other that would seem fall within county city providing of a burden services to airports. such, As I find that classification itself is arbitrary. purpose

Absent a reasonable relation between the employed impos- of the tax and the classification ing the the tax tax, cannot held to be have a constitu- By purpose. major- upholding tional state ity this tax, loophole, opening through has is, created which the intent of the drafters of the constitution people adopting and of the the Headlee Amendment protecting local control local over concerns can be defeated.

IV I would hold that this tax is unconstitutional in vio- lation of the Headlee Amendment’s of ensur- taxpayer ing local over control I taxes. would Appeals. reverse the decision of the Court of Levin, J., Cavanagh, concurred with

Case Details

Case Name: Airlines Parking, Inc v. Wayne County

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 16, 1996

Citation: 550 N.W.2d 490

Docket Number: 98890, Calendar No. 2

Court Abbreviation: Mich.