Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 12-01-2025; 8-e - Property Tax Release-Refund Request – Laura Jost Malahias 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 1, 2025 Action Agenda Item No. 8-e SUBJECT: Property Tax Release/Refund Request — Laura Jost Malahias DEPARTMENT: Tax Administration ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Coates' Canons Blog — Appraisal vs Nancy Freeman, Tax Administrator, Clerical Error (919) 245-2735 Malahias Release/Refund Request North Carolina General Statute 105-381 North Carolina General Statute 105-380 Resolution Calculation of Valuation and Levy PURPOSE: To approve a resolution denying a request for release/refund of taxes submitted by Laura Jost Malahias. BACKGROUND: Each year, property owners can appeal their values prior to the adjournment of the Board of Equalization and Review (BOER). Once the BOER adjourns, the Assessor has no statutory authority to adjust the current assessments. For 2025 values, the BOER adjourned on July 31, 2025. On August 8, 2025, a data validation request was submitted through the Tax Office's Property Record Search website for Laura and Leon Malahias, PIN #9787353219, 103 Founders Ridge Drive in Chapel Hill. A County appraiser visited the property and made an adjustment to the square footage of the home based on the request, which would be effective for 2026 and years moving forward. During the visit, the property owner asked to know the difference in the square footage back to 2022, when the house was built. The property owner inquired about the process for a release/refund, and the appraiser explained that the situation would not qualify for a release/refund since it was an appraisal error, not a clerical error. The appraiser provided a copy of the Coates Canons blog post (attached) written by Chris McLaughlin from the UNC School of Government, as well as a copy of North Carolina General Statute 105-381, Taxpayer's Remedies. On September 30, 2025, the property owner submitted a request for release/refund to the Tax Office for review by the Board of County Commissioners. The property record indicates that the property was 25% complete for January 1, 2022, based on an appraiser visit that was prompted by a permit being issued in 2021 for the construction of the home. The property was marked 100% complete for January 1, 2023, after a site visit by a County appraiser who measured the new construction for tax property records. North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-381(a) allows the refund and release of taxes only under very limited circumstances, including clerical error. In the 1997 case, Ammons vs. Wake 2 County, the North Carolina Court of Appeals concluded that to qualify as a clerical error, a mistake must be one that produces an unintended result and is apparent from the face of the documents, such as a transcription mistake (for example, recording 5,200 square feet instead of 2,500 square feet.). The term "clerical error" does not include errors in judgment such as an appraisal error. In this instance the correction of the improvement's square footage by the Orange County Tax Office represents a correction to an appraisal error. The appropriate procedure is to correct the error and valuation for the current tax year and subsequent years, which has been done for 2026 and forward according to NCGS 105-287. A consideration in the decision to deny this request comes from North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-380(c) which states: Any tax that has been released, refunded, or compromised in violation of this section may be recovered from any member of members of the governing body who voted for the release, refund, or compromise by civil action instituted by any resident of the taxing unit, and when collected, the recovered tax shall be paid to the treasurer of the taxing unit. The costs of bringing action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be allowed the plaintiff in the event the tax is recovered. The taxpayer's request also included reference to an incorrect mailing that the Tax Office has used for correspondence concerning the property. When a property is transferred to a new owner, mailing addresses are specifically provided on deeds for the grantees/new owners. Unless or until the owner notifies the Tax Office differently, that address is assumed correct and used for all correspondence and bills. In the event that a bill remains unpaid after the delinquent date, or when the mailed item is returned to the Tax Office, Collections staff researches the mailing address to ensure that the Tax Office has made its best effort to send the bill or correspondence to the best address. The Mahailas' tax bills have been paid promptly each year since the purchase in 2021, which would lead to the assumption that the mailing address provided at the time of the property transfer was correct. However, the 2025 tax bill was returned to the Tax Office due to an incorrect address, which led staff to research for a better mailing address, and the bill was remailed with a request to contact the Tax Office with the correct mailing address. Subsequently, Ms. Mahalias completed and submitted an address change form in September 2025 to correct the mailing address for the property. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Approval of the refund request would result in a loss of $4,428.63 as calculated by the Tax Office for years 2023 through 2025. ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN: This item supports: • MISSION STATEMENT — Orange County is a visionary leader in providing governmental services valued by our community, beyond those required by law, in an equitable, sustainable, innovative and efficient way. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve the attached resolution which would deny the refund request based on consultation with the County Attorney. 3 https://canons.sog.unc.edu/zot3/oz/when-does-an-appraisal-error-justify-a-refund/ SCHOOL of UUNC GOVERNMENT Coates' Canons NC Local Government Law When Does An Appraisal Error justify a Refund? Published: 02/14/13 Author Name: Chris Mclaughlin Which of these appraisal errors justifies a property tax refund? 1. Taxpayer is taxed for property that did not have a taxable situs in the jurisdiction. 2. Taxpayer is taxed for a house that burned the prior December. 3. Taxpayer has vacant land but is taxed for the land plus a house. 4. Taxpayer has an unfinished attic but was taxed for a finished attic. Finish was never verified by appraiser. 5. Taxpayer has a 1,500 square-foot house but the assessor appraised it at 1,750 square feet based on the size of similar houses in the same neighborhood. Most property tax professionals would agree that a refund is justified in situations 1, 2 and 3. So do I. But situations 4 and 5 are tougher nuts to crack. Property tax refunds and releases are governed by G.S. 105-381,which limits them to circumstances in which the tax either was levied due to clerical error or was illegal. While those terms are not defined by the statute, they've been analyzed several times our state courts. The most detailed of these opinions came from the N.C. Court of Appeals when it analyzed the meaning of the term"clerical error" in the 1997 case Ammons v. Wake County.. As I discussed in this 2010 post, the court concluded that to qualify as a clerical error the mistake must be that one produces an unintended result and is apparent from the face of the documents, such as a transcription mistake (for example, recording 5,200 square feet instead of 2,500 square feet.) The term"clerical error" does Copyright©2009 to Present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. 4 https://canons.s .unc.edu/2013/oz/when-does-an-appraisal-error-justify-a-refund/ not include errors in judgment or law on such issues as market value, quality of construction, or eligibility for a property tax exclusion. These types of non-clerical errors must be resolved through the annual appeal process and may not be corrected retroactively under G.S. 105-381. Applying the Ammons analysis to the five situations above, I don't think any qualifies for a refund due to clerical error. In each situation, the appraisal was that intended by the assessor. None of the situations involved an unintended appraisal—in each instance the assessor produced an appraisal that he/she thought was appropriate at the time. But clerical error is only one of two justifications for a property tax refund. Might any of the five situations above qualify as "illegal taxes"? Here's our court defines that term: "[G.S. 105-381] and our case law recognize a distinction between an erroneous tax and an illegal tax or invalid tax.An illegal or invalid tax results when the taxing body seeks to impose a tax without authority, as in cases where it is asserted that the rate is unconstitutional or that the subject is exempt from taxation." Redevelopment Comm. V. Guilford County, 274 N.C. 585 (1968). 1 think it's clear that situations 1 and 2 would constitute illegal taxes because the taxing unit had no authority to tax property not in its jurisdiction(situation 1) or that did not exist as of January 1 (situation 2). Similarly, situation 3 seems to be an illegal tax because a taxing unit has no authority to tax property that never existed. In contrast, situations 4 and 5 involve property that did exist in the taxing unit's jurisdiction as of the listing date but that received inflated appraisals. Is a tax on non-existent market value illegal and subject to a refund under G.S. 105-381? Not normally. In Kinro, Inc. a Randolph County, 108 N.C.App. 334 (1992),the court of appeals concluded without analysis that"over assessed values of personal property" do not constitute an illegal tax. If the taxpayers in situations 4 and 5 were complaining only of market value errors—let's say they Copyright©2009 to Present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. 5 https://canons.sog.unc.edu/zot3/oz/when-does-an-appraisal-error-justify-a-refund/ thought that the assessor ignored relevant sales of comparable properties—clearly they would not be entitled to refunds. Market value judgments may be challenged only during the appeal process for the current tax year. But that's not really the case in situations 4 and 5. The taxpayers don't claim that the assessor simply made a poor estimate of what the properties would have sold for on January 1. Instead, the taxpayers claim that the assessor appraised and taxed physical property features (a finished attic, additional square feet) that did not exist in the taxing unit's jurisdiction as of the listing date (and in fact never existed at all). That sounds pretty darn similar to situations 1,2, and 3, doesn't it? If refunds are justified in the first three situations of non-existent property, aren't they also justified in the last two? I think the best answer is no. A valuation error cannot justify a refund as an illegal tax even if that error was caused by the valuation of property features that never existed. Very few appraisals are based on actual physical inspections of the property at issue. Instead, assessors rely on the mass appraisal process which requires countless judgment calls about specific physical features and their market value. If we open up every one of those judgment calls to retroactive review for five years under G.S. 105- 381, we would do serious harm to finality of our local government tax bases.And without that finality, budgeting for local governments would become far more difficult than it already is. No doubt, some valuation errors make compelling arguments for refunds. Consider an example similar to situation 5 above, but assume that instead of mistakenly appraising a 1,500 square-foot house as 1,700 square feet the assessor appraises it at 5,000 square feet. Is a refund justified when the judgment error is so egregious? Despite the size of the error, I still don't think it qualifies as an illegal tax because at the end of the day it was a judgment error. And once you start refunding any judgment error, you open the door for countless retroactive appraisal reviews. But my veteran assessor SOG colleague Ken Joyner thinks when an appraisal error is so large— appraising a house at more than 3 times its actual square footage, for example—the result must have been unintended. If so, then a refund would be justified under the clerical error criterion even if we conclude that it was not an illegal tax. In other words, any truly egregious appraisal error must have been unintended and therefore should be eligible for a refund. Similarly, a county could adopt a rule of reason: if an appraisal error is large enough, then a refund is justified. For example, a county might adopt a policy under which appraisal errors of greater than 10% Copyright©2009 to Present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. 6 https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2013/02/when-does-an-appraisal-error-justify-a-refund/ justify a refund,but errors smaller than that do not. Both suggestions sound reasonable. But neither the Machinery Act nor property tax case law from state courts make any distinction for refunds based on the size of the error involved. If an error truly was clerical, as Ken suggests a huge error likely would be, then clearly a refund is justified. But if the error was truly one of judgment, then I don't think a refund is justified regardless of how big the error was. Remember that the General Assembly sets policy, not mere mortals such as you and me. I can't in good faith recommend a policy, no matter how reasonable, if it contradicts the black-letter statutory law. Unless and until the law is changed or we get more guidance from the courts, my advice remains the same: local governments should construe the refund provisions in G.S. 105-381 very narrowly. Taxpayers can use the appeal process to correct erroneous value judgments for the current tax year going forward, but they cannot attack those judgments retroactively. (Hat tip to my friend Lee Harris of Orange County for raising this interesting issue. Lee's wise counsel has been invaluable during my time at the SOG) All rights reserved.This blog post is published and posted online by the School of Government to address issues of interest to government officials.This blog post is for educational and informational use and may be used for those purposes without permission by providing acknowledgment of its source.Use of this blog post for commercial purposes is prohibited.To browse a complete catalog of School of Government publications,please visit the School's website at www.sog.unc.edu or contact the Bookstore,School of Government,CB#3330 Knapp-Sanders Building,UNC Chapel Hill,Chapel Hill,NC 27599-3330;e-mail sales@a sog.unc.edu;telephone 919.966.4119;or fax 919.962.2707. Copyright©2009 to Present School of Government at the University of North Carolina. 7 30 September 2025 Board of County Commissioners Orange County 300 West Tryon Street P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Requestfor Refund of Tax Overpayment Due to Incorrect Property Records Dear Commissioners, I am writing to formally request a refund of property taxes that were overpaid as a result of an error in the County's property records concerning my home located at 103 Founders Ridge Drive. It has recently come to my attention that the County Assessor's records misstated the square footage of my residence.The home was listed as 4,581 sq.ft. rather than the accurate 3,739 sq.ft. (18%overestimation),which led to an inflated assessed value and,consequently,an overpayment of property taxes(see table below). What is especially concerning is that this misstatement appears to have resulted from reliance on an appraisal, despite the fact that actual building permit documents--on file with the County-provided the correct square footage. Had the permit records been referenced,this error and the resulting financial burden could have been avoided. In addition, I have learned that tax notices have been sent to our prior address rather than our current residence (see attached). As a result, it is possible that we have not received important correspondence related to this matter,further compounding the impact of these errors. I respectfully request that the County review the assessment history for this property, correct the records to reflect the accurate square footage,and issue a refund for the overpaid taxes attributable to this error($5,162.01). This mistake has placed an undue and unnecessary financial burden on my family. I trust that the Board will ensure a fair resolution by promptly addressing the error and refunding the overpaid amount. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and resolution. Please let me know if any additional information or documentation is needed. Sincerely, ,L_a� �llCc Q. Laura Malahias 103 Founders Ridge Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27517 laurajost gmail.com 939-889-8389 Cc: Orange County Tax Office 8 Year Actual Paid Tax Bill Based on Overpayment Correct Square Footage 2023 13,783.80 12,343.78 1,440.62 2024 14,397.66 12,843.77 1,553.89 2425 16,_828.17 14,660.67 2,168.10 Tota[ $5,162.01 Cc: Orange County Tax Office 9 CONTACTFEE ! - • ORANGE COUNTY TAX OFFICE Nancy Freeman,Tax Admin or Orange County Sniid Waste Programs Fee Gateway Center,228 S.Churton St.,2nd Floor email:tax@orangecountync.gov E P.O.Box 8181 . HtlsWro.agh,NC 27278 website: hlt :/twww.orangecoun4mc4mv/moYcOng - '13 Phone:919-245-2100 • Fax:(919)644-3332 T? TELEPHONE:919-245-2100 a rrb c�tip¢' I3 E-mail:tax@orangecountync.gov Hours:M-F 8;00 am-5:00 prn Chapel Hill Stormwater Management Fee Chapel Hill location into on back under Payment infomlation email:storrnwater®townofchapeihill.org www.orangecountyne.gov/tax website http://www.townotchapelhill.oWstmnwabr ^'..... .•19-869-RAIN(7246) ter Management Fee 17960739-23212-2 1 2 -'AUTO"ALL FOR AADC 275 mmghne.gorlstonnwat� �I1�'illl!'1'!1'11111'll"'lllllllNlll'lllllllll'll'IIIII1Nl'"l Your bill has been returned to us by the :919-296-9621 USPS. Please submit an address change to rx+ Y MALAHIAS, LAURA JOST PO BOX 8181 HILLSBOROUGH NC Fee MALAHIAS,LI=ON _ e ^5 602E LANE ST 27278 OR_taxranecountync._ ov a- - mwaler trr- ii�rlu ais RALEIGH NC 27601-1146 N Is i_: -cc72:7tjFsi3.5181468t{0#-03q7a6-GS-25 ilt�)111111111)ttI}{ttli�I,Ittlt�ljll'i #141lEIij41'ttsljls}lt1a� . DATE OF NOTICE:August 1,2025 BILL NUMBER PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SIZE (ACRESILOT) t� t„ 6000306754-2025-2025-0000 ---- 4- 23 CHANCELLORS VIEW P100/106 0.52 Lo PIN(PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER) PRIMARY PHYSICAL ADDRESS - -- � ---- _ __ Z -__ 9787353219 T 1 103 FOUNDERS RIDGE DR CHAPEL HILL NG 27517 �m m REAL PROPERTY REAL PROPERTY REAL PROPERTY PERSONAL PROPERTY EXElYIPTIONS& TOTAL ASSESSED t; VALUE DEFERRED VALUE ASSESSED VALUE` ASSESSED VALUE EXCLUSIONS VALUE VALUE-- 1,879,100 0 1,879,100 0 0 1,879,100 REAL PROPERLY ASSESSED VALUE=REAL PROPERTY VALUE REAL PROPERTY DEFERRED VALUE Ci _. "TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE=REAL PROP90_W AASESSEMD VALUE +PERSONAL PROPERTY ASSESSED VALUE=EXEMPTIONS&Exr.LUSi0N5 VALUE JURISDICTION&TAX/FCE TYPE ;TAX RATE PER TAXIFEE AMOUNT DUE/ HOW YOUR COUNTY 90/FEE RATE MESSAGES REVENUE IS SPENT CD ORANGE TAX 0.6383 11,994.30 i = ORANGE SW PROGRAMS FEE $138.00 138.00 Education................................38.08%( Un CH-CARR SCHOOL TAX 4.1479 2,779.19 Human Services.....................18.16%8 SOUTH TRIANGLE FIRE TAX j 0.1020 1,916.68 Public Safety-........................14.24%; Support Services......................5.88% Community Services.................5.53% County Debt&Transfers.........13.28% General Government.................4.43% TOTAL BEFORE PAYMENTS/CREDITS 16,828.17 Total......................................100.0% PAYMENTS/CREDITS 0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 16,828.17 DUE DATE SEPTEMBER T 2825 �- PAST DUE AFTER JANUARY 5,2026 PLEASE READ IMPORTANT PAYMENT AND ESCROW INFORMATION ON BACK. RETAIN THIS TOP PORTION FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES ♦ RETURN BOTTOM STUB WITH YOUR PAYMENT All partial payments or Correspondence should be sent to:ORANGE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR PO BOX 8181 • HILLSBOROUGH,NC 27278 YEARBILL NUMBER TOT 2025 I 0000308754-2025-2025-0000 t $16,828.17 DUE 16 828 17 0000308754-2025.20255-GOOD i PIN(PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER) CURRENT BILL DUE DATE:SEPTEMBER 1,2025 1 AMOUNT ENCLOSED 9787353219 PAST DUE AFTER:JANUARY 5,2026 $ To CHANGE YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, PLEASE FILL IN YOUR NEW ADDRESS BELOWhJ4 BICE CHECK PAYABLE R AEtuIIF TOS ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: MALAHIAS,LAURA JOST Illllllll111"1"Ill'111111'l'11"II111111111"!'llllllll'lllll'I MALAH[AS,LEON ORANGE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 602 E LANE ST PO BOX 580235 ders Rj��l RALEIGH .NC 275 vo ATR 10 /'J rG `y � CD MALAHIAS C n u � - ?;It?y1 �1 r. . -- i Fi s- w a is i�la�faa a r� a�iaj11 1a'�ii�lla)IflaJafPi�f� aaafa l 'j��i 11 § 105-381. Taxpayer's remedies. (a) Statement of Defense. — Any taxpayer asserting a valid defense to the enforcement of the collection of a tax assessed upon his property shall proceed as hereinafter provided. (1) For the purpose of this subsection, a valid defense shall include the following: a. A tax imposed through clerical error; b. An illegal tax; C. A tax levied for an illegal purpose. (2) If a tax has not been paid, the taxpayer may make a demand for the release of the tax claim by submitting to the governing body of the taxing unit a written statement of his defense to payment or enforcement of the tax and a request for release of the tax at any time prior to payment of the tax. (3) If a tax has been paid, the taxpayer, at any time within five years after said tax first became due or within six months from the date of payment of such tax, whichever is the later date, may make a demand for a refund of the tax paid by submitting to the governing body of the taxing unit a written statement of his defense and a request for refund thereof. (b) Action of Governing Body. — Upon receiving a taxpayer's written statement of defense and request for release or refund, the governing body of the taxing unit shall within 90 days after receipt of such request determine whether the taxpayer has a valid defense to the tax imposed or any part thereof and shall either release or refund that portion of the amount that is determined to be in excess of the correct tax liability or notify the taxpayer in writing that no release or refund will be made. The governing body may, by resolution, delegate its authority to determine requests for a release or refund of tax of less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) to the finance officer, manager, or attorney of the taxing unit. A finance officer, manager, or attorney to whom this authority is delegated shall monthly report to the governing body the actions taken by him on requests for release or refund. All actions taken by the governing body or finance officer, manager, or attorney on requests for release or refund shall be recorded in the minutes of the governing body. If a release is granted or refund made, the tax collector shall be credited with the amount released or refunded in his annual settlement. (c) Suit for Recovery of Property Taxes. — (1) Request for Release before Payment. — If within 90 days after receiving a taxpayer's request for release of an unpaid tax claim under (a) above, the governing body of the taxing unit has failed to grant the release, has notified the taxpayer that no release will be granted, or has taken no action on the request, the taxpayer shall pay the tax. He may then within three years from the date of payment bring a civil action against the taxing unit for the amount claimed. (2) Request for Refund. — If within 90 days after receiving a taxpayer's request for refund under (a) above, the governing body has failed to refund the full amount requested by the taxpayer, has notified the taxpayer that no refund will be made, or has taken no action on the request, the taxpayer may bring a civil action against the taxing unit for the amount claimed. Such action may be brought at any time within three years from the expiration of the period in which the governing body is required to act. (d) Civil Actions. — Civil actions brought pursuant to subsection (c) above shall be brought in the appropriate division of the general court of justice of the county in which the taxing unit is located. If, upon the trial, it is determined that the tax or any part of it was illegal or levied for an illegal purpose, or excessive as the result of a clerical error,judgment shall be G.S. 105-381 Page 1 12 rendered therefor with interest thereon at six percent (6%) per annum, plus costs, and the judgment shall be collected as in other civil actions. (1901, c. 558, s. 30; Rev., s. 2855; C. S., s. 7979; 1971, c. 806, s. 1; 1973, c. 564, s. 3; 1977, c. 946, s. 2; 1985, c. 150, s. 1; 1987, c. 127.) G.S. 105-381 Page 2 13 § 105-380. No taxes to be released, refunded, or compromised. (a) The governing body of a taxing unit is prohibited from releasing, refunding, or compromising all or any portion of the taxes levied against any property within its jurisdiction except as expressly provided in this Subchapter. (b) Taxes that have been released, refunded, or compromised in violation of this section shall be deemed to be unpaid and shall be collectible by any means provided by this Subchapter, and the existence and priority of any tax lien on property shall not be affected by the unauthorized release, refund, or compromise of the tax liability. (c) Any tax that has been released, refunded, or compromised in violation of this section may be recovered from any member or members of the governing body who voted for the release, refund, or compromise by civil action instituted by any resident of the taxing unit, and when collected, the recovered tax shall be paid to the treasurer of the taxing unit. The costs of bringing the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be allowed the plaintiff in the event the tax is recovered. (d) The provisions of this section are not intended to restrict or abrogate the powers of a board of equalization and review or any agency exercising the powers of such a board. (e) Expired. (1901, c. 558, s. 31; Rev., s. 2854; C.S., s. 7976; 1971, c. 806, s. 1; 1973, c. 564, s. 2; 2013-19, s. 1.) 14 NORTH CAROLINA RES-2025-063 ORANGE COUNTY RELEASE/REFUND RESOLUTION(Denial) Whereas,North Carolina General Statutes 105-381 allows for the release/refund of taxes when the Board of County Commissioners determines that a taxpayer requesting the release/refund has a valid defense to the tax imposed; and Whereas,the properties listed in the attached"Release/Refund Request"has been taxed and the tax has not been collected for 2025,and has been paid for both 2023 and 2024;and Whereas,as to the property listed in the Release/Refund Request,the taxpayer has timely applied in writing for a release/refund of the tax imposed but has not presented a valid defense to the tax imposed as indicated on the Request for Property Tax Release/Refund. NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY THAT the property tax release/refund recommended for denial is denied. Upon motion duly made and seconded,the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes: Ayes: Commissioners Nayes: I,Laura Jensen,Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange,North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been carefully copied from the recorded minutes of the Board of Commissioners for said County at a regular meeting of said Board held on ,said record having been made in the Minute Book of the minutes of said Board, and is a true copy of so much of said proceedings of said Board as relates in any way to the passage of the resolution described in said proceedings. WITNESS my hand and the corporate seal of said County,this day of Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 15 Laura Jost Malahias & Leon Malahias PIN 9787353219 103 Founders Ridge Drive Chapel Hill Tax Year Value Billed Value using lower SQFT Difference in Value Tax Rate (RC 17) Requested Release/Refund 2023 1,199,400 1,075,400 124,000 0.011613 $1,440.01 2024 1,199,400 1,075,400 124,000 0.011889 $1,474.24 2025 1,879,100 1,708,600 170,500 0.008882 $1,514.38 $4,428.63