04-11-2022 BOA CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes April 11, 2022 Page 3 Mr. Stritesley stated he received a 56% increase and noted he has lake access but is not on the lake. He also poured a driveway. He stated his home is about 900 sf and there was an area sale for $243,000, which is much larger home. Mt. Selbitschka stated it's because the property is considered lakeshore. He discussed market extraction. He discussed the term lakeshore and what it means to metro area people and that we are valuing our lakes like they are Mille Lacs when we know they are not. He stated lakeshore home sales in Baldwin Township for older, small looking homes on Lake Cantlin are selling for $6- 800,000. He stated they don't necessarily agree with what is happening, but they must follow the data provided. They talked to the Department of Revenue regarding lakeshore because they are on life-support with the required ratios. Mr. Stritesley further stated he has two parcel identification numbers but has one legal description, which occurred due to a road constructed through his land. Ms. Moen stated Elk River is at 88% and won't meet the 90-105% ratio. She stated other townships are having the same issue. She is hoping sales will level off. She stated the Department of Revenue will put the county on a watch for a year and if they see sales on water of six or more in jurisdictions and the 90% requirement is not met, the state will implement an increase. Mr. Stritesley stated he purchased a sliver parcel and it's being charged as a residential homestead but was told he can't build on it. Mr. Selbitschka stated they have an issue with how to determine value of these small sliver parcels. He stated if the adjoining property were to be sold, the owner would most likely sell both pieces or sell the slice parcel to the neighbor. He questioned why anyone would hold onto the parcel. Mr. Stritesley stated the parcel was classified as residential unimproved and is now residential homestead. Ms. Moen stated this has changed because it's extended to the primary parcel. Mr. Stritesley stated it's not attached to his other parcel, has its own tax statement and legal description, and didn't feel the $24,000 could be justified. He stated it's currently being used as a garden. Mr. Stritesley noted he did purchase the parcel for $36,000 originally. Mr. Selbitschka stated they do what they call a common owner group and treat these as all one parcel so the combined value of the two parcels and the home is the total market value. He stated the sliver alone is not worth $24,000 but to the owner when combined with the parcels there is a total market value when sold. He stated Mr. Stritesley could work with the city and county to combine the properties. P O 1 E R E U 8 1 NAwRtl