NC County Property Tax Tracker

Signed into law by Governor Stein on June 19, then narrowed on July 1 when the legislature passed the follow-up bill, SB 474. The moratorium makes counties that reappraised in 2026 tax on their prior values for FY2026-27, then switch to the new values in 2027-28. It does not cap rates. After SB 474, the moratorium covers eight counties: Anson, Bladen, Chowan, Davidson, Guilford, Onslow, Pamlico, and Pender (eight of the twelve ★). Buncombe, Harnett, and Scotland were carved out, Buncombe only if it adopts a revenue-neutral rate. Chowan and Pamlico were pulled in when the population cutoff dropped from 15,000 to 12,000. Why it matters: owners in the eight covered counties are taxed on old values this year, with the reappraisal landing in 2027-28. Guilford raised its rate 5.9 cents to fund its budget on the old values, Pender and Davidson reverted to their old rates, and Buncombe faces a choice: cut to a revenue-neutral rate to take the exemption and keep its new values, or stay under the moratorium on old values and raise its rate. Either path moves its adopted .4320.

Signed into law June 22 as Session Law 2026-12, effective for taxes beginning July 1, 2027. It lets a local government designate "incentive districts," areas eligible for project development (TIF-style) financing, where new construction a builder is holding for sale gets 90% of its assessed value excluded from property tax, for up to ten years or until the property sells. The districts can't cover more than 5% of a local government's land area. Why it matters: it is aimed at for-sale builder inventory, not income-producing rental, so the direct read for multifamily is limited. It matters most for ground-up for-sale development and as a tax-base incentive that counties and cities can offer developers in designated districts.

Enacted as Session Law 2026-5 and headed to voters this November. It would require the legislature to cap how fast local property tax levies (total revenue, not the rate) can grow. If voters approve, lawmakers still have to write the actual limit into law, so nothing changes right away. Why it matters: over time a levy limit constrains how much a county can collect even as values rise. No effect on FY27 budgets.

Passed the Senate 38-4 on June 24 and crossed to the House, where it was referred to the Rules committee on June 25. In any reappraisal year, a county could not set a rate above the revenue-neutral rate without first running a "truth in taxation" process: mailing every owner a notice showing their tax under both the revenue-neutral and the proposed rates, holding a dedicated public hearing, and taking a separate vote to exceed revenue-neutral before adopting the budget. Non-compliance forces a refund of the excess collected. It would apply to FY2027-28 budgets and later, not the current cycle. Why it matters: it makes a reval-year increase explicit and visible to owners, and with the moratorium and the levy limit it's the third prong of the legislature's property tax push.

Passed the House unanimously (119-0) on May 20 and crossed to the Senate, where it was referred to the Committee on Rules and Operations on May 22 and has not advanced since. It narrows the "Blue Ridge" exemption, the 2013 ruling that lets an affordable complex claim a full property tax exemption when a nonprofit owns as little as 0.1%, by requiring far higher nonprofit ownership and scaling the exemption to the share of affordable units. Properties exempt today would have to reapply under the new standard by the end of 2026. Why it matters: this one is multifamily-specific. Affordable and LIHTC assets that sit exempt today could pick up real tax liability, which changes underwriting and can pressure rents on existing deals.