Thanks to Larry Spencer, OpenCdA has learned there is an ongoing discussion between the Kootenai County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (Tribe). The two parties would like to reach an agreement regarding payment in lieu of taxation (PILT) on fee lands owned by the Tribe and its members, lands which are located in both Kootenai County and the Coeur d’Alene Reservation. PILT is Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries. The negotiation would also include solid waste disposal fees. If you pay property taxes to Kootenai County, you should pay close attention to the progress of this proposal.
Simply put, if tribal land is held in the trust, it is not subject to Idaho property taxes regardless of where it is located. If the land is fee titled, it is taxable, and the County is supposed to collect property taxes even if the land is on the Reservation or owned by a tribal member. According to the U.S. Department of Interior, Kootenai County received $580,098 on 241,943 acres of land in 2010.
The Tribe has proposed that the BOCC credit payments and in-kind services and contributions it makes to the County, any city in Kootenai County, or any other taxing district located entirely or partially within Kootenai County during each fiscal year as partial payment of the PILT for the following fiscal year. So for example, if the Tribe donates goods valued at $1,000 to the Worley Fire Protection District or the Community Library Network or North Idaho College or any other similar entity, the Tribe would like to reduce its tax obligation by the value of its donation.
The Tribe has drafted a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which was drafted but not signed or ratified by either the BOCC or the Tribe in 2010. The MOU does not address all possible issues. For example, the 1992 Class III Gaming Compact By and Between the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and the State of Idaho provides (at Article 20, Section 20.2) that
“The gaming operation shall contribute 5 percent (5%) of net revenues from authorized Class III gaming for the financial support of education. […]”
Would that contractually agreed payment reduce the amount of the property tax payments due by the Tribe? Should it?
There are legal questions as well. In an email exchange with Kootenai County Assessor Mike McDowell, Idaho Tax Commission employee Carl Olsson said:
“If the property in question is taxable, then the county is without power to enter into an MOU with the Tribe to substitute some form of PILT for legally valid property taxes. The county has neither the constitutional nor statutory authority required. A PILT might pass muster only for those properties which are not subject to property tax.”
The BOCC is considering the Tribe’s proposal and would benefit from public input.
I have the .wav file of the September 15, 2011, BOCC meeting which included Malzahn and McDowell as well as Braden. Unfortunately, at 172 MB, it is too big to post on OpenCda. Once a relatively minor item had been considered, the bulk of the meeting discussed the issue in this post. Listening to it, I was struck by the contrast with CdA City Council meetings. The BOCC meeting was a give-and-take discussion which revealed very human uncertainties and concerns. There were disagreements, exactly what you would expect and hope for in an unscripted public meeting. But it was the disagreements that identified and clarified the issues that needed to be resolved.
In contrast, CdA City Council meetings are tightly controlled. Questions from the Council are clearly scripted, often supplied by toadies like Troy Tymesen so he can stroke the ego of a councilmember with “Good question, Councilman Edinger/McEvers/etc.”
The BOCC needs to hear from citizens on this issue. The BOCC is not there to be the Tribe’s best friend or worst enemy. It exists to administer the County government in collaboration with other elected and appointed officials and the citizens.
Comment by Bill — September 21, 2011 @ 8:24 am
Well let us hope that the voters clean house in November. When that occurs, and only then, will the Cda City Council Meetings begin to resemble the BOCC meetings. The down side, if the council incumbents are re-elected is that such a result will be viewed as a mandate for more of the same approach. In that case any citizen input will be of less value than the proverbial ‘…on a boar.”
Encourage everyone, whether you know them or not, to ‘retire’ the incumbents from the Cda City Council.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — September 21, 2011 @ 8:44 am
Bill, you said “PILT is Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries.” That is not exactly correct. PILT is any type of payment in lieu of taxes, and in this case the Federal Government is not involved. The PILT paid by the feds is not for Indian Lands, nor for BIA property. It is only for “lands administered by the BLM, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (all agencies of the Interior Department), the U.S. Forest service (part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture), and for Federal water projects and some military installations.” (From your link)
The real problem here is that the Tribe did not tell the BOCC that their intent was to claim the casino profit sharing dollars as a reduction of the PILT. They are required to pay by agreement with the state to pay 5% of net profit, and then they are trying to trick the county into an agreement that would allow those same dollars to be counted against their property taxes. I talked to Todd Tondee and he asked me how I would feel if the state told me I hade to pay 5% of my business income to education, and I told him I would be fine with that if I was approved to have a casino! 😉
Comment by Larry Spencer — September 21, 2011 @ 12:55 pm
Larry,
The definition you said was incorrect came from the U.S. Department of Interior’s PILT website.
Comment by Bill — September 21, 2011 @ 1:02 pm
Bill, There are many PILTs, it is not a federal government thing any more that the word “tax” is a federal thing.
Comment by Larry Spencer — September 21, 2011 @ 1:35 pm