Message-ID: <14657343.1075845879791.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: ben.jacoby@enron.com
To: kay.mann@enron.com, steven.krimsky@enron.com
Subject: RE: Deerfield development agreement
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Ben Jacoby
X-To: Kay Mann, Steven Krimsky
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Florida
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

Kay / Steve:

Attached are my comments. I've tried to address Kay's concerns below, and 
agree with them wholeheartedly. From a commercial perspective, paragraph 6 is 
a non-starter.

Let's discuss. Thanks.

Ben



 -----Original Message-----
From:  Mann, Kay  
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 6:36 PM
To: Krimsky, Steven; Jacoby, Ben
Subject: Deerfield development agreement

Here are my initial comments:

There's no clear triggering event which would expedite the internal approval 
process.  For instance, paragraph 3 is a current obligation (re 
landscaping).  It would be easier to process this agreement if the 
effectiveness of this agreement commences when we  file for a building 
permit.  I understand that we would have to pay some of this prior to the 
time the permit is issued, but again, magic words help.

Paragraph 6 on right of first refusal for power.  Looks like a free call for 
the next 30 years.  Just want to make sure you've bought in on this.  Other 
than the obvious valuation impact, it could impact a purchaser's ability to 
obtain project financing.

Kay