The North Dakota Urban Renewal Law (Act), allowing in part for the use of North Dakota property taxes for blighted areas, was found constitutional because, among other reasons, the property tax assessed was uniform on the same class of property, and the Act only authorized the diversion of tax increment funds to a municipality to pay for renewal projects. In addition, the Act did not impose a tax and did not create a perpetual diversion of tax increment funds. Rather, the diversion of funds was only until the cost of development or renewal of the area had been reimbursed. The urban renewal provisions of the Act also satisfied the public purpose of a municipality engaging in an enterprise. However, whether any remaining authorized renewal projects were in the renewal area could not be determined and the case was remanded to resolve that factual issue and, if appropriate, for allocation of diverted tax increment funds to the proper recipients.
Haugland v. City of Bismarck, Supreme Court of North Dakota, No. 20110077, July 6, 2012, ¶200-792
