My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Res 2003-025
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
03 Resolutions
>
2000 s
>
2003
>
Res 2003-025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2004 10:21:32 AM
Creation date
3/9/2004 4:47:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Resolutions
City Clerk - Type
Approving
Number
2003-25
Date
1/31/2003
Volume Book
150
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />PAUL HORNSBY & CaMP ANY <br /> <br />REAL. PROPERTY APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS <br /> <br />November 6, 2002 <br /> <br />Mr. Dan O'Leary <br />Interim City Manager <br />City of San Marcos <br />630 East Hopkins <br />San Marcos, TX 78666 <br /> <br />Re: <br /> <br />Complete appraisal, summary report of an ::1:81.2 acre tract ofland, also known as Lots <br />5,6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Blanco Shoals Planned Development District, out of a ::1:174 <br />acre tract located between the Blanco River and IH-35, north of Hackberry Street, <br />located within the City of San Marcos, Hays County, Texas. <br /> <br />Dear Mr. O'Leary: <br /> <br />Pursuant to your request, we have inspected and appraised the above referenced property. <br />The purpose of our assignment was to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest in <br />the ::1:81.2 acre tract in its as-is condition, but with the hypothetical condition that the Blanco <br />Shoals Planned Development District was approved as of the effective date. The effective <br />date of our analyses and value opinion is October 5, 2002, the date of inspection. <br /> <br />The subject property is identified in the Blanco Shoals Planned Development District <br />(BSPDD) document as Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Though this identification terminology is <br />sometimes used in this appraisal for consistency with the development district identification, <br />the sites were not appraised as if subdivided. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.