House Bill 728, the “Shared Investment in Our Heroes Act,” expands North Carolina property tax relief for disabled veterans and adds a new state grant program for veteran-related economic development. The bill would gradually increase the disabled veteran property tax homestead exclusion over three tax years: from the first $45,000 of appraised value to $75,000 beginning July 1, 2025; to $125,000 beginning July 1, 2026; and then to an exclusion equal to the lesser of $500,000 or 100% of the home’s appraised value beginning July 1, 2027. It also allows disabled veterans and qualifying surviving spouses to prequalify for the benefit before buying a home, so they can know in advance whether the tax relief will apply.
The bill further creates a new property tax exclusion for one primary motor vehicle owned by a veteran with a 100% disability rating, provided the vehicle is used as the veteran’s primary personal vehicle and not primarily for business or commercial use. To offset local revenue losses from both the home and vehicle exemptions, the bill establishes a “hold harmless” reimbursement system under which the state would reimburse counties and cities for 50% of the resulting revenue loss, with additional reimbursement if the loss exceeds 1% of a local government’s general fund revenue. The Department of Revenue would administer these reimbursements and collect annual reporting from counties.
In addition to tax relief, HB728 appropriates $10 million in nonrecurring General Fund money to the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs for a Veterans’ Economic Development Incentive Grant Program. That program would provide grants of up to $100,000 per qualifying project to eligible nonprofits and local governments for veteran-focused affordable housing, accessibility and infrastructure improvements, and veteran employment or workforce initiatives. The department could use up to 5% of the appropriation for administration, and grants would be awarded on a first-come, first-served basis.
The bill would amend North Carolina’s property tax statutes, including G.S. 105-277.1C and G.S. 105-275, and add reimbursement provisions to G.S. 105-330.4. It would also create a new state grant program within the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and require annual reporting on local fiscal impacts, the number of veterans benefiting from the tax exemptions, and the effectiveness of the grant program. Overall, the bill shifts more property tax burden away from qualifying disabled veterans while using state funds to partially reimburse local governments and support veteran services.
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context shows no documented debate or opposition in the materials supplied. The bill’s framing and structure suggest strong support for veterans and local fiscal protection, but the main policy tension is the cost to the state and the extent of reimbursement to local governments, especially as the homestead exclusion grows substantially over time.
HB728 would substantially expand North Carolina’s disabled veteran property tax homestead exclusion, add a new motor vehicle property tax exclusion for a veteran’s primary vehicle, and create a state reimbursement mechanism to offset local government revenue losses. It would also establish a new grant program for veteran housing, infrastructure, and employment initiatives, funded by a $10 million General Fund appropriation. The bill would amend multiple provisions in Chapter 105 of the General Statutes and require annual fiscal and programmatic reporting by state agencies.
The bill appears broadly favorable toward disabled veterans and surviving spouses, with a clear policy goal of providing financial relief and support services. The bill’s findings and structure emphasize honoring veterans and protecting local governments from revenue losses, suggesting a positive and bipartisan-appealing framing. No vote history or committee testimony was provided, so there is no recorded opposition or amendment debate in the supplied materials.
The main potential points of contention are fiscal rather than ideological: the size and pace of the expanding property tax exclusion, the cost of reimbursing local governments, and the use of state General Fund dollars for both reimbursements and the new grant program. Local governments may be concerned about administrative requirements, reimbursement timing, and whether the state will fully cover losses beyond the 50% hold-harmless formula. Tax policy observers could also question the interaction with other property tax relief programs and the long-term budget impact as the exclusion increases to a very large amount.