Message-ID: <20025313.1075845898477.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 05:07:00 -0700 (PDT) From: greg.krause@enron.com To: <""boehler@enron.com>, chrisboehler@akllp.com, kay.mann@enron.com, ann.elizabeth.white@enron.com, laymand@gtlaw.com, darreninoff@akllp.com Subject: RE: Midway Groves POA Docs with ADDITIONAL comments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Greg Krause X-To: ""Boehler, Chris" @ENRON" @SMTP@enronXgate X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_3\Notes Folders\Notes inbox X-Origin: MANN-K X-FileName: kmann.nsf Please see additional comments in Section 2.4 of the Declaration of Covenants. I missed this until this morning but the number of votes per parcel does not account for the propety to be conveyed by deed to the POA. This includes the road, the drainage ditches and the pond. Parcel 1,should lose between 2 and 3 acres, Parcel 2 would lose about 1 acre and Parcel 3 would lose about 10 acres. The decision not give Parcel 3 voting rights or cause Parcel 3 to be assessed was negotiated and agreed to by Enron and Cooney Midway Groves. However, since having this property dedicated as the open lands in perputity to meet the requirements of the entire 117 acre PNRD, perhaps the POA should be oblicated to pay any costs associated with this land: property taxes, insurance, maintenance etc. The only thing we could do with this land is lease it out for grazing, which may allow us to keep an ag exemption.