Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />with your company regarding the City's obligations upon the expiration of the lease <br />agreement. According to the lease agreement, the City is merely obligated to remove <br />personal property from the leased premises, minus any fixtures and leave the premises clean <br />and broom swept. As such, your request that the City pay $90,000 for the cost of removal <br />of that which under the lease we are required to leave anyway has no basis in fact or law. <br /> <br />3. Finally, your suggestion to the City Manager through the Zoning Director that the City <br />will be obligated to pay rent after the expiration of the lease agreement if the fixtures are <br />not demolished appears to be nothing more than an attempt to extort funds to which Lessor <br />has no entitlement under the lease. Clearly, unless Lessee remains on the leased premises, <br />Lessee is not obligated to pay nor is Lessor entitled to receive any additional rent after the <br />expiration of the lease agreement. <br /> <br />Having stated the legal obligations, nevertheless, the City remains optimistic that Lessor <br />and Lessee can workout a reasonable solution to a simple matter. In fact, the Manager is <br />willing to "write a check" in the amount of $64,000 which is the highest quote and will <br />more than adequately cover removal of that which the Lessee is not obligated to remove but <br />is willing to do in order that we may part on amicable terms. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />X ~a -Ic-~ <br /> <br />v a: M, Dannheisser <br /> <br />cc: The Honorable City Commission <br />J Christopher J. Russo, City Manager <br />Jorge Vera, Zoning Director <br /> <br />RK- Follow-up to City to Reimburse RK for Work Ltr. <br />Page 2 <br />