It may also makes sense to keep the arrangements separate.  The City's claim pursuant to its power deal (presumably with ENA) is likely a general unsecured claim that gives them very little hope of actually collecting.  Sandhill is not a debtor (not yet anyway) and is an assets/commodity that can be freely assigned.  Just a thought.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Mann, Kay  
Sent:	Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:23 PM
To:	Zisman, Stuart
Subject:	FW: Austin Energy



 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Clark, Barton  
Sent:	Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:42 AM
To:	Keenan, Jeffrey
Cc:	Mann, Kay
Subject:	RE: Austin Energy

For now, Kay and I both will be working on this. I learned this am that the desk has a power deal with City of Austin that is in default ( not involving the LCRA hedge), so it may be beneficial to think about some kind of global workout with the City involving the $$ owed, the 8% interest held by Sandhill and the obligations under the power deal. When I have some time to read the project documents, and you get your info, all three of us should meet to formulate a response to the City's letter.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Keenan, Jeffrey  
Sent:	Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:13 AM
To:	Zisman, Stuart
Cc:	Clark, Barton
Subject:	Austin Energy

Stuart:

Here is my shot at your memo.

I will have the accounting spreadsheet from Theresa Vox today.

Jeffrey


 << File: Sandhill Memo Keenans makup to Zisman.doc >>