constitute neither a gift of public money nor property nor a loan of state credit. In reaching these conclusions, the court noted that, "[t]he State parts with nothing in allowing its tax exempt status to be used ..." and that, "[n]o money comes from the public treasury." Higher Educ. Facilities Auth., 103 Wn.2d at 844, 848. Although the court also mentioned other factors, the absence of any actual public expenditure was clearly an important consideration. Therefore, unless the State must actually return money to the affected Taxpayers, this reasoning implies that a retroactive tax repeal will not contravene Const, art. 8, §§ 5 or 7; see also Marysville v. State, 101 Wn.2d 50, 52-53, 676 P.2d 989 (1984); State Housing Fin. Comm'n v. O'Brien, 100 Wn.2d 491, 494-95, 671 P.2d 247 (1983) (<HOLDING>); In re Marriage of Johnson, 96 Wn.2d 255, 267,
holding that judgments for prospective relief that have an ancillary effect on the state treasury do not offend the eleventh amendment holding that the proper inquiry for the categorical approach is whether the conduct covered by the crime presents the requisite risk of injury in the ordinary case holding that the inquiry under these sections focusefs primarily on the risk that the state program poses to the public treasury    holding that doc is entitled to sovereign immunity under  14 because a judgment against it would be paid from the treasury of the state holding that an alien must be released unless the government demonstrates at a bond hearing that the alien poses a risk of flight or a risk of danger to the community