Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Red Lobster Lease topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ad hoc committee moves to recommend five-year renewal of Red Lobster lease at Danbury City airport
Summary
An ad hoc committee reviewing airport leases voted to forward a recommendation to city council to adopt a five-year, triple-net renewal of Red Lobster LLC's lease on airport property; members discussed rent, tenant responsibilities, city ownership at lease end and rights over trade fixtures. Vote result was not recorded in the transcript.
An ad hoc committee of Danbury City officials on Tuesday moved to recommend that the city council adopt a five-year renewal of a lease with Red Lobster LLC for a restaurant on Danbury City airport property.
The committee’s airport administrator, Michael Siskranick, told members the Red Lobster parcel is airport property even though it sits outside the airport fence and that the lease generates $165,000 a year in rent that flows to the city’s general fund along with property taxes. "This lease is $165,000 a year," Siskranick said.
Kim Nolan, Danbury City corporation counsel, described the proposed agreement as a five-year extension structured as a typical triple-net lease: "It's a standard triple net," Nolan said, adding that the tenant would be responsible for maintenance, taxes and capital improvements and that the lease includes language placing the property in the tenant's "as‑is" condition for the term.
Committee members spent much of the discussion on two practical points: what the city will own when the lease ends and what rights the city has if the tenant leaves or defaults. Nolan confirmed that under the lease language the city would own the building at the end of the renewed term. She also said that fixtures permanently affixed to the building generally remain with the property, while trade fixtures and movable equipment (ovens, walk‑in freezers, tables and chairs) are removable by the tenant unless the tenant is in default and the city pursues remedies.
A committee member who identified himself as having business experience said the city should have protections so "nothing will come out of the door" if a tenant departs; Nolan warned such a provision would be an unusual commercial term and could be difficult to secure from a prospective tenant.
The committee recorded that it had received a positive referral from the Planning Commission (09/03/2025) and a positive vote from the Aviation Commission (08/27/2025), both conditioned on review by corporation counsel and on there being no substantial changes. The airport administrator said the Federal Aviation Administration had reviewed the earlier lease and requires that non‑aviation uses on airport property be at fair market value; he said the FAA is supportive and the city will file the lease with the FAA.
The chair read a proposed motion to forward the lease to the city council for adoption — describing the term as beginning 08/01/2025 and running to 09/01/2030 with the renewal features included — and a member seconded the motion. The transcript ends as the chair called for a voice vote; the record in the provided transcript does not include the committee’s final tally or the council’s subsequent action.
Next steps: the committee forwarded the motion to the city council; the council’s meeting agenda and vote results were not included in the transcript provided.
