Return-Path: Received: from [65.87.16.98] (account gdale@neopolitan.com HELO [10.0.0.149]) by mx1.neopolitan.us (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 37188530; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:15:41 -0700 Message-ID: <49D52AFF.2070109@neopolitan.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:15:43 -0700 From: Geoff Dale User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Betty Perlin CC: "Boreta, Chris @ Palo Alto" Subject: Re: Rooftop Building Access Agreement References: <49D2A8E0.5060100@neopolitan.com> In-Reply-To: <49D2A8E0.5060100@neopolitan.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr. Boreta, I am sorry to hear that there has become of an issue with the contract and tenancy of 525 University, roof. As Betty says, I do not believe there was any intent to defraud. My memory and understanding of this agreement was that these prices where based on the number of antenna MOUNTs used. From my recollection that number four was picked due to the availability of additional mounts at the time. I remember touring the roof and discussing the other mounts available and discussing the cost. I believe that the number of antennas up there where placed with the full knowledge and permission of those involved at the time. I seem to recall some discussion regarding the language of the contract and we where told not to worry about it. I was engineering management at the time and did not have purvue to force things on the legal side even when I was asked to review, as I think I was here. I am not sure how much of this would be represented in our archives but with some effort could possibly dig something out. Hopefully that won't be necessary. The antenna system we used could have been done as single radio if we went for a different manufacturer and radio type, but instead this one does the job using a cluster of smaller radios working together. On top of the above, the economics do not support paying the additional costs and so I am afraid that this reinterpretation of the contract is not going to be feasible. We are barely paying the overhead there as it is. If we need to revise the agreement so be it, lets get something out there that's unambiguous and we agree on the meaning, but I am afraid the terms as set out here are not feasible economically. Hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement that allows for us to continue operations and continue to pay you rents at rate that is mutually beneficial. - G -- Geoff Dale VP Operations Neopolitan Networks, Inc. 260 Sheridan Avenue, Suite B20 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2011 Betty Perlin wrote: > I'm sorry Chris, > > I had forwarded this to Geoff Dale. This agreement was made prior to my > employment at Neopolitan. > I'm hoping that they can explain this further for all of us. We have all > been extremely busy in that last few weeks. > I don't believe that there was ever a misrepresentation on Neopolitan > behalf. > > Thank you for your patience, > > Betty > > Boreta, Chris @ Palo Alto wrote: >> Betty, >> >> As of this afternoon I have not heard back from you regarding this >> very important matter. The ownership is quite concerned and we would >> appreciate a response back as soon as possible. >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> Chris Boreta | Real Estate Manager CB Richard Ellis | Asset Services >> 525 University Avenue, Suite 102 | Palo Alto, CA 94301 >> T (650) 322-2592 | F (650) 322-2591 >> chris.boreta@cbre.com | www.cbre.com >> >> Please consider the environment before printing this email. >> >> This email may contain information that is confidential or >> attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The >> contents of this email are intended only for the recipient(s) listed >> above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to >> read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you >> have received this email in error, please notify the sender >> immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is >> not intended to waive any applicable privileges. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Boreta, Chris @ Palo Alto >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:32 PM >> *To:* bperlin@neopolitan.com >> *Subject:* Rooftop Building Access Agreement >> >> Good afternoon Betty, >> It has come to my attention that the Building Access Agreement >> between PAOC, LLC and Neopolitan Networks, Inc. expired July 31, >> 2008. In order to make any changes to your existing equipment >> (adding equipment etc.) Neopolitan Networks will be required to >> enter into a new Building Access Agreement with the ownership >> prior to any changes being made to your existing equipment. >> Furthermore, it appears that you have a cluster of six antenna >> currently installed on the rooftop. Per Neopolitan Networks' >> Building Access Agreement, they were allowed one antenna at a >> starting rent of $750.00 per month and an additional rent of >> $450.00 per antenna up to a total of four antenna (all with yearly >> 4% increases). Since we were told by your firm originally that >> there was only one antenna installed on the rooftop, Neopolitan >> Networks was charged $750.00 per month as per the Building Access >> Agreement. However, since there appear to be six antenna >> installed on the rooftop, the ownership is due back rent for the >> other antenna. In addition, your agreement allows for up to four >> antenna to be installed and since there are currently six antenna >> installed, Neopolitan Networks is violation of their Building >> Access Agreement. >> If you can provide certified documentation stating that the >> antenna currently installed are less than we believe it to be, >> please forward that information to me as soon as possible for review. >> Thank you, >> >> Chris Boreta | Real Estate Manager CB Richard Ellis | Asset >> Services >> 525 University Avenue, Suite 102 | Palo Alto, CA 94301 >> T (650) 322-2592 | F (650) 322-2591 >> chris.boreta@cbre.com | www.cbre.com >> >> Please consider the environment before printing this email. >> >> This email may contain information that is confidential or >> attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. >> The contents of this email are intended only for the recipient(s) >> listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are >> directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this >> transmission. If you have received this email in error, please >> notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. >> Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable >> privileges. >> >> >