The Oracle Tax Abatement Application in Saline Township
An independent evidence review: timeline, legal framework, and recommended actions under Michigan Public Act 198 — prepared for the residents of Saline Township and Washtenaw County.
Preliminary draft · July 13, 2026 · revised July 18 after the Board's two votes
Evidence Review & Recommended Actions (46 pages)
Dated timeline, statutes and verified case law, a full evidence inventory, outstanding records requests, and recommendations for the public, the Township Board, Washtenaw County, the applicant parties, and the State — updated after the Board's July 14 vote to approve a limited abatement and its July 17 vote, under threat of litigation, to rescind the limitation and approve the full $43.1 billion. For discussion and public comment — subject to revision and counsel review. Not legal advice.
Nov 19, 2025
Earliest lawful construction start for a May 19, 2026 application (MCL 207.559(2)(c))
Oct 1, 2025
“Installed” / “Started” / “Constructed” dates in the county's own permit record; even its fallback answer (11/17/2025) precedes the cutoff
$4.8B → $43.1B
Agreed settlement application vs. the application actually filed
383 acres
Grade change in the fall 2025 earthwork, per the county record
Executive Summary
In plain terms: Michigan law says a company can only get this kind of tax break if it applies within six months of starting construction. Oracle applied on May 19, 2026 and says construction started February 6, 2026 — but the county's own permit records, the state's permit files, and the developer's own applications show major site work beginning in the fall of 2025. If the fall work counts as “construction,” the application came too late.
On May 19, 2026, Oracle America Cloud Services, LLC filed an application with the Saline Township Clerk for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate under Michigan Public Act 198 of 1974 — a 50% reduction of real and personal property taxes for twelve years on a claimed $43.1 billion investment ($9.92 billion of leased real property improvements and $33.18 billion of machinery and equipment) at the Related Digital / Oracle / OpenAI data center campus under construction off West Michigan Avenue. After a packed July 8 hearing, the Township Board deferred action 5–0 to a special meeting on July 14, 2026. Under MCL 207.556, the Board was required to approve or disapprove by resolution within 60 days of receipt — approximately July 18, 2026.
Update — July 18, 2026, after two votes
July 14 — the first vote. The Board unanimously approved the abatement, but limited it to the roughly $4.8 billion scale in the settlement's own Exhibit D and attached a clawback provision. Related Digital responded that it was “evaluating the validity of the Board's actions.”
July 17 — the reversal. At a special meeting, the Township's special counsel told the Board the limitation violated the consent judgment and Public Act 198, asserted that “Related Digital submitted an executed application on May 18, 2026,” and warned that failing to correct it would mean suit, fee awards, and “consequential damages … easily … in excess of a million dollars” — requiring the Township “to assess the residents.” The Board then voted 5–0 — before public comment, in the meeting's first seventeen minutes — to rescind the limitation and adopt “the May 18th, 2026 application.” A Washtenaw County Commissioner thereafter objected “officially” on the record for an affected taxing jurisdiction.
The document question. The May 18 / Related Digital attribution conflicts with the application of record — filed by Oracle America Cloud Services, LLC and received May 19 — and each answer breaks a different leg of the Township's stated rationale: if Related executed the application, it fails the form's occupant-and-operator requirement; if Oracle did, the consent judgment's “shall approve” clause — which runs only to the Developer — never reached it. Section 6.8 of the revised report examines this, and each of counsel's arguments, against the meeting record.
Why this report still disagrees that approval was required. The consent judgment's approval machinery attached to the Developer's agreed Exhibit D application, on a step-chain that expired October 31, 2025 with time expressly “of the essence” — and Michigan Treasury's records confirm no such application was ever filed. What arrived seven months later was a different application, at nine times the agreed amount, from a tenant the judgment excludes from Developer obligations. And every step of the judgment is conditioned “in compliance with applicable law” — a settlement cannot compel a board to approve what the statute says it “shall not approve.” The Board faced litigation risk either way; what it did not face was a legal obligation to approve this application.
What likely comes next. The approval is not a certificate. The resolution and application now go to the State Tax Commission, which must independently determine qualification — including the six-month rule — against the county's own permit record, and which historically reduces amounts that do not qualify; residents and affected taxing units can file this evidence record with the STC's Property Services Division. Washtenaw County has its own paths: a Commissioner has already objected on the record, and under Michigan's data-center exemption statute the facility's 6% sales-tax exemption requires an approving resolution from each affected local unit — including the County, which has never been asked. Beyond that: revocation under MCL 207.565(2) remains available, the consent-judgment questions can be put to independent counsel and, if warranted, to the retained-jurisdiction court, and Senate Bill 793 — which would rewrite the commencement definition — is pending in the House.
The bottom line
The rule. The statute allows this abatement only if construction of the facility commenced after November 19, 2025 — six months before the application was filed. The applicant parties say construction commenced February 6, 2026.
The record. Washtenaw County's own permit record lists October 1, 2025 in past-tense fields — erosion control “Installed,” the gravel entrance “Installed,” “Land Cleared or Excavation Started,” sediment ponds “Installed,” “Road Constructed” — across a 383-acre grade change. Those are nearly the same activities the consent judgment itself lists under “Commencement of Construction,” and even the record's most conservative answer (“Has activity started? Yes — 11/17/2025”) precedes the cutoff. Related's own October 2025 wetland application calls the fall grading “Phase 1” of “the construction of an enterprise data center.” The timeliness question is decided by government records and the developer's own filings, not resident testimony.
The open question — and the trap. The one genuine uncertainty is legal, not factual: no Michigan court has decided whether site work “commences construction of the facility” under this statute. But the applicant parties are trapped either way. If the fall 2025 earthwork was construction, the application came too late. If it was not, it was performed for ten weeks without township zoning approval and without the performance bond the consent judgment required “prior to commencement of construction.” Whichever way the word is read, one of their own documents contradicts their position.
Two Stories, One Statute
The six-month rule (MCL 207.559(2)(c)) makes November 19, 2025 the earliest lawful commencement date for a May 19, 2026 application. The documented record sits on one side of that line; the applicant parties' claimed dates sit on the other.
- Aug 20, 2025
Record Developer's lobbyist tells EGLE in writing of “the need to start site work in October on buildings not impacted by wetlands,” twice acknowledging the grading proceeds “at our own risk.”
EGLE FOIA production, p. 22
- Sep 5, 2025
Record Soil erosion permit SESC2025-0405 (“Saline Data Center Phase 1B”) applied for with Washtenaw County.
Washtenaw County EnerGov record
- Oct 1, 2025
Record The county permit record's activity fields — in past-tense labels — carry this date: erosion control “Installed,” gravel drive/entrance “Installed,” “Land Cleared or Excavation Started,” sediment ponds “Installed,” “Road Constructed” — across a 383-acre grade change. These are nearly the same activities the consent judgment itself enumerates under “Commencement of Construction” (site clearing and grading, temporary road improvements, traffic staging, stormwater improvements) — and an October 1 start precedes the permit's own November 10 issuance by six weeks.
SESC2025-0405 record, captured Jul 13, 2026
- Oct 17, 2025
Record EGLE grants a hardship waiver “to allow Related to begin installation of Project Mitten” — “all construction commenced prior to the issuance of a PTI is entirely at the applicant's own risk.”
EGLE Air Quality Division waiver letter
- Oct 25, 2025
Record The developer's own wetland application calls the fall grading “Phase 1” — “only mass grading of the site” — of “the construction of an enterprise data center.”
“Mitten JPA narrative,” EGLE EnviroPortal
- Nov 10, 2025
Record County issues SESC2025-0405. The record's compliance fields separately answer: “Has activity started? Yes — 11/17/2025” — the most conservative reading available, and even it precedes the statutory cutoff by two days. Notably, November 17 is also the date of the developer's own U.S. Fish & Wildlife filing: on its own most favorable, internally consistent account, given to two agencies the same week, earth change began November 17.
SESC2025-0405 record, captured Jul 13, 2026
-
November 19, 2025
The statutory cutoff. For the May 19, 2026 filing, MCL 207.559(2)(c) requires that commencement of construction of the facility have occurred no earlier than this date. Every event above this line precedes it — including the county record's own “activity start” answer of November 17.
- Dec 8, 2025
Record First county soil-erosion maintenance inspection requested (passed Dec 19); seven more follow, roughly monthly — active earth change under county inspection all winter.
SESC2025-0405 inspection history
- Dec 10, 2025
Record The Township's own advisory-committee log records a crane on Braun Road, trucks staged on Michigan Avenue, and glare complaints about “construction trailer entrance lights.”
salinetownship.org data-center update log
- Dec 19, 2025
Applicant First building permits issued — the fallback anchor for the applicant parties' definition of commencement.
Township clerk correspondence, Jul 7, 2026
- Feb 6, 2026
Applicant Claimed commencement of construction (the general contractor's notarized notice of commencement) — and the claimed begin date for installing $33.18B of machinery and equipment. No building shell existed; first structural steel was not placed until late March 2026.
Form 1012; township counsel statement
- Late Mar 2026
Record First structural steel installed on the campus — seven weeks after the date the application lists for the start of equipment installation.
Data Center Dynamics, Jun 2, 2026
- May 19, 2026
Applicant Oracle America Cloud Services LLC files the tax-abatement application: $43.1B total claimed investment, versus the $4.811B in the consent judgment's agreed Exhibit D.
Form 1012, received by Township Clerk
- Jul 14, 2026
Record First vote: the Board unanimously approves the abatement but limits it to the settlement's original ~$4.8B scale, with a clawback provision. Related Digital says it is “evaluating the validity of the Board's actions.”
The Saline Post, Jul 15, 2026
- Jul 17, 2026
Record Second vote: special counsel tells the Board the limitation violates the consent judgment and PA 198, states that “Related Digital submitted an executed application on May 18, 2026” — the application of record names Oracle, received May 19 — and warns of suit and “consequential damages … easily … in excess of a million dollars.” The Board votes 5–0, before public comment, in the meeting's first seventeen minutes, to rescind the limitation and adopt “the May 18th, 2026 application.” A Washtenaw County Commissioner objects “officially” on the record.
The Saline Post, Jul 18, 2026; meeting recording and transcript
Every entry above is sourced to a government record, the developer's own filings, or contemporaneous reporting; the full sourced timeline — roughly forty entries — is in Section 3 of the report, and the evidence inventory in Section 5.
Principal Findings
Finding 1
The application's timeliness is seriously in doubt.
MCL 207.559(2)(c) forbids approval unless construction of the facility commenced within six months of filing — November 19, 2025 for this application. The county's own permit record lists October 1, 2025 in past-tense fields — erosion control “Installed,” the gravel entrance “Installed,” “Land Cleared or Excavation Started,” sediment ponds “Installed,” “Road Constructed” — and separately answers “Has activity started? Yes — 11/17/2025,” a fallback that still precedes the cutoff; the developer's own permit narrative calls the fall grading part of “the construction of an enterprise data center.” There is no reading of the county's own record under which the application is timely — the readings differ only on how early the work began and whether it was permitted when it began. Whether site work legally “commences construction” is an open question in Michigan — but the factual record is the government's own.
Finding 2
The consent judgment does not compel approval of this application.
Paragraph 14 obligated the Township to approve the agreed-upon Exhibit D application — executed by the developer, transmitted to the State Tax Commission “in all events no later than October 31, 2025,” time being of the essence. No such application was ever filed (Michigan Treasury records confirm none exists). The application actually filed came seven months later, from a tenant the settlement expressly excludes from developer obligations, at nine times Exhibit D's cost.
Finding 3
A township's abatement discretion cannot be contracted away.
The Michigan Constitution provides that the power of taxation “shall never be surrendered, suspended or contracted away” (Const 1963, art 9, §2). Abatement proceedings create no contractual entitlement (Charter Twp of Ypsilanti v General Motors Corp), local abatement consent is a discretionary legislative act (Bendix Safety Restraints v City of Troy), and the statute directs that a non-compliant application “shall not” be approved.
Finding 4
The leased-property posture requires proof not yet produced.
The real property is leased from an SPV owned 90% by Blackstone-affiliated funds and 10% by Related Digital. A lessee-applicant must prove direct ad valorem tax liability; State Tax Commission guidance says taxes paid “as additional rent” are “not acceptable” (see Delta Business Center, LLC v Delta Charter Twp). Moody's describes the Oracle leases as triple-net, with all costs recovered from the tenant.
Finding 5
The claimed equipment installation date is facially impossible — though the amount is plausible.
The application states that installation of $33.18B of machinery and equipment began February 6, 2026; the first structural steel was not placed until late March 2026 and the first data hall is not scheduled for service before early 2027. The dollar magnitude itself is consistent with market benchmarks (roughly $34M per MW of IT load) — the vulnerability is the date, and the absence of any way to verify the equipment will be Oracle-owned, Oracle-paid property.
Finding 6
The public numbers have been mutually inconsistent at every stage.
Four totals in seven months: $4.811B (consent judgment Exhibit D, October 2025); “$7B” (public statements, 2025); $16B (Related Digital's own April 2026 financing announcement and Moody's sources-and-uses); $43.1B (the application). The project is financed with $14B of 7.5% senior secured notes against a bankruptcy-remote SPV stack whose 90% owner was never disclosed in the township process.
Finding 7
The state sales/use exemption depends on the local abatement decision — not the other way around.
Under Michigan's enterprise data center exemption (MCL 205.94cc), the facility may hold its 6% sales and use tax exemption while receiving a PA 198 abatement only if the governing body of each affected local unit — township and county — approves the property tax benefit by resolution; the same statute requires municipal water and 90% clean-energy procurement. Denying the abatement does not threaten the state exemption; taking it without the required local resolutions would.
Finding 8
Neither vote was final.
The Board's July 17 approval transmits the application to the State Tax Commission — it does not issue a certificate. The STC must still review the statutory qualifications, including the six-month rule, before any certificate exists; it historically reduces certificate amounts for untimely costs, and revocation remains available under MCL 207.565(2). The evidence record should follow the dispute to Lansing.
What Happens Next — and What Residents Can Do
The Board approved the full application on July 17 under threat of litigation. That vote was a handoff, not an ending: no certificate exists until the State Tax Commission independently reviews qualification — including the six-month rule — against the record assembled here.
The record goes to Lansing
The Clerk now transmits the resolution and application to the State Tax Commission, which must independently determine qualification under MCL 207.559 before any certificate issues — and which historically reduces certificate amounts for costs that do not qualify. Residents and affected taxing units can file the evidence record with the STC's Property Services Division and ask that any certificate be limited to timely, verified, applicant-owned costs.
Ask for the executed application
At the July 17 meeting, the Township's special counsel said “Related Digital submitted an executed application on May 18, 2026” — but the application the public has seen names Oracle America Cloud Services, LLC, received May 19, and the form requires the applicant to be the facility's occupant and operator. Residents should ask the Board to release the complete executed application package — signature pages, the itemized equipment list with installation dates, and the lease provisions proving the applicant's direct tax liability — before transmission to the STC.
The approval is not the last word
Construction never depended on this vote — the campus has been under construction since fall 2025 — so the vote decided only who pays. The consent judgment's own remedies are specific enforcement and prevailing-party fees, not the “consequential damages” the Board was warned of; revocation under MCL 207.565(2) remains available; and the Board itself attached a clawback provision at its first vote that counsel called permissible.
The County holds its own lever
Under Michigan's enterprise data center exemption, the facility can keep its 6% sales-and-use tax exemption while taking a property-tax abatement only if the governing body of each affected local unit — the Township and Washtenaw County — approves the property tax benefit by resolution. A County Commissioner objected “officially” on the record at the July 17 meeting; county residents should ask their Commissioners whether that resolution has ever been requested.
A note on accuracy
Credibility is the community's main asset. The report deliberately retires several circulating claims that the evidence does not support — the $33 billion equipment figure is not inflated (it matches industry benchmarks), Nvidia did not supply Oracle's chips in kind, and a denial would not be the end of the process. It also states plainly that denial suspends the $14 million in community payments the settlement conditioned on the abatement. The strongest case is the documented one.
Members of the press: the full report, with its evidence inventory and source-by-source citations, is available above; underlying public records (the county permit captures, the FOIA production, the Moody's publications) are described in Section 5 of the report. Media inquiries are welcome via the contact below.
Reliance and disclaimer
This report is a desk study based on public records, records produced under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, court filings, rating-agency publications, and documents furnished by Saline Township residents. It is a preliminary draft offered for discussion and public comment, subject to revision. Nothing here constitutes legal advice; the open legal questions it identifies — above all, the meaning of “commencement of construction” under MCL 207.559(2)(c) — must be evaluated by qualified Michigan counsel. Bommarito Consulting LLC prepared this report at its own expense, without commission, contract, or grant from Oracle, Related Digital, Blackstone, Saline Township, or any party supporting or opposing the project or the abatement.
Let's Work Together
We'd welcome the opportunity to discuss how we can help your organization navigate the intersection of technology, governance, and strategy.