House Bill 336 removes seven specifically identified parcels, by Haywood County tax parcel number, from the corporate limits of the Town of Maggie Valley. In practical terms, the bill deannexes those properties from the municipality rather than changing broader annexation policy or municipal boundary procedures statewide.
The bill also preserves the Town’s ability to collect or foreclose on any preexisting ad valorem tax liens or special assessment liens that were outstanding before the act takes effect. It sets an effective date of June 30, 2025, and provides that property in the affected territory as of January 1, 2025, will no longer be subject to municipal taxes for tax years beginning on or after July 1, 2025.
Impact
H336 amends the municipal boundaries of the Town of Maggie Valley by removing the listed parcels from the town’s corporate limits. The main legal effect is to end municipal taxation and other municipal jurisdiction over those properties going forward, while leaving intact the town’s authority to enforce any existing tax or assessment liens that accrued before the effective date. The bill affects the property owners in the deannexed area, the Town of Maggie Valley, and Haywood County tax administration, but does not appear to alter general state annexation law beyond this local boundary change.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had mixed but ultimately favorable support. It passed second reading by a narrow margin and third reading by a somewhat wider margin, indicating that while there was meaningful opposition, a majority of members supported the local deannexation. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to show detailed arguments, but the roll-call results suggest the measure was not broadly controversial enough to stop passage.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the deannexation itself: whether the identified properties should remain inside Maggie Valley’s municipal limits and continue to receive municipal services and bear municipal tax obligations, or be removed from the town. Opposition likely centered on the loss of municipal tax base, possible service impacts, and the precedent of parcel-specific boundary changes, while supporters likely viewed the bill as a targeted local adjustment. The bill’s preservation of existing liens also indicates an effort to balance the town’s fiscal interests against the boundary change.