Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Lease Waiver topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears airport lease termination and $67,937 waiver request for Lot 304; no council vote recorded
Summary
City staff reported that PGF LLC requested termination of the Lot 304 lease on Arlington Airport property and asked the city to waive the 2025 payment of $67,937 and related costs; council discussed precedent and market prospects but did not record a formal decision.
City staff presented a request from PGF LLC to terminate its lease of Lot 304 at Arlington Airport and to waive the 2025 lease payment of $67,937 and associated costs.
Paul Monroe, airport staff member, explained Lot 304 is on airport land northwest of Weston High School near the 170 Second and 40 Third intersection. He said PGF LLC served as project manager for a planned Department of Social and Health Services building; the firm has stayed current on lease payments until the termination request but cited “significant setbacks” and asked the city to waive the upcoming 2025 payment. Monroe said the project had nearly $200,000 in invested costs, including prior lease payments.
Councilmembers asked whether waiving the payment would set a precedent, whether the city attorney was present to advise, and whether an accounting or budget amendment would be required. Monroe said staff has limited authority to waive minor fees but that a waiver of this amount is a council-level decision; he said the revenue was anticipated but would simply not be received if the city agreed to waive it and that this would likely be handled as part of the normal year-end amendment process rather than a midyear budget amendment.
Councilmembers also asked whether PGF LLC would relocate; Monroe said he did not know. He reported the market interest for the parcel has improved since initial talks with PGF and that staff had “several” other prospects for the site, suggesting the property could draw new proposals now that PGF has requested to terminate.
No motion to waive the payment or to terminate the lease was recorded in the transcript, and no vote by council on PGF’s request appears. The discussion closed with council agreeing to leave the item on the consent agenda for further action and with staff noting next steps for marketing the parcel if the lease is terminated.
Ending: Council did not take immediate formal action on PGF LLC’s request during the meeting; staff will proceed with follow-up steps, and the parcel remains available for other prospects.
