06-02-81 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF LAKE ELMO BOARD OF REVIEW, DUNE 3, 1981 -5- Ralph. Pierre Questioned the increase in valuation. ' $ o£ SW4, Sec. 28 '028-2655 The property was revalued this ,year and the largest increase was on the value of the structure. ASSESSOR? ACTION: None COUNCIL ACTION : None Dave Braun The Assessor lie -bed the improvements from last ,year. The parcel Eden Park received a blanket increase this ,year. Valuation: $81189675 ASSESSOR ACTION: None COUNCIL ACTION % None Elmo View questioned the status of this parcel. The valuation stayed the 37209-2000 same as last ,year. No split has been recorded between the 3A owned by the Corporation and the common parcel. This split was discussed last year at the Board of Review. ASSESSOR ACTION% Advised Mr. Braun to bring in the deed indicating the split and the County would value the parcel at the 1981 valuation. The would not affect the 1981 taxes. COUNCIL ACTION : None Dick Miiatay questioned the valuation. This is an access lot, owned by a non- 4465 Jackpine profit organization and cannot be sold. He feels the value and 3442-2100 tax are excessive. Iie also questioned the States ability to faluation: $E20,000 impose a• blanket increase without notifying the property owner. The valuation is based on market value of similar lots on Lake Jane Trail, The Assessor advised Mr. Murrary to contact Bob Burns the County Assessor about his questions on blan.Viet increases. ASSESSOR ACTION: None COUNCIL ACTION : None Mrs, F, J. Crombie questioned the valuation. The property was reassessed in 1980. 8014 DeMontreville Tr. The buildings constituted the largest increase in valuation. 37683-2350 There are four houses and 2L4.9 acres. Mrs, Crombie questioned Valuation: $2109540 the $686,103 value on a 125 yr old home. The assessor did not got into the house but felt the valuation was in line based on the size and condition of the structure. Theeincrease was due to the revaluation last ,year. ASSESSOR ACTION: None COUNCIL ACTION : None Harvey Allen Questioned the valuation. The Assessor gave a breakdown of the 2491 Ike Elmo .Ave, property and home. Mr. Allen also questioned the valuation of 37024-0450 the lakeshore property and the fact the main parcel and the Valuation: $876,320 lakeshore are separated by Lake Iilmo Avenue. The Assessor said this fact is taken into account when valuing the property. Lakeshore is valued less than when the parcels axe goritinuous. Mr. Allen also questioned the percent of market value on a home he sold. `.Phe Assessor stated that a home is not automatically increased to 90% of market value just because it is sold. There sometimes is a catching up period. Mr, Allens complaint is the discrepancy in catching up. ASSESSOR ACTION: None .0 OUWIL ACTION., None