Opinion ID: 1844610
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: use of sales tax

Text: Taxpayers contended that the contemplated payments do not comply with the city sales tax ordinance dedicating sales tax revenue to capital improvements, debt retirement and property tax reduction. Taxpayers also contended that the contemplated payments violate NDCC 40-40-05, which requires that proposed expenditures be segregated into current expenditures, capital expenditures, and debt service expenditures. We agree with the trial court's determination that [t]he lease purchase is in conformity with use for capital improvements in that the city is acquiring a capital improvement. And, we are not persuaded that the contemplated use of city sales tax revenue violates NDCC 40-40-05, which deals with the preparation of preliminary municipal budget statements. The judgment is affirmed. VANDE WALLE, Acting C.J., LEVINE, GIERKE, JJ., and VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, concur. VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, sitting in place of ERICKSTAD, C.J., disqualified.