The risks to the city's apparent plan to shed its most notorious moribund facility

By Scott Zoback

Read the tea leaves. It's pretty clear that Worcester officials are in continuing negotiations with Massport about the future of the city's airport. They mask the reality with talk of the "best course of action."

On Tuesday night, for example, City Manager Michael O'Brien cited ongoing negotiations with Massport about control of the airport.

The city — as some folks say — should not "be in the airport business" anymore.

The airport has obviously not worked for years, and starting this July, the city takes on an additional $1 million in added debt that is currently covered by Massport under the existing, expiring operating agreement. A sale or transfer to Massport could potentially take that debt off the books during a critical budget cycle, as well as (optimists say) lead to more development and operational growth at the airport.

But here's the thing: While many in the city (including former Airport Commission Chairman Robert Nemeth, who recently used his Sunday Telegram column to make his argument), are publicly advocating for a quick sale of the airport in order to reduce the city's deficit and "get out of the airport business," there are potential issues. While city officials won't comment directly, the sense around town is that the city manager is, in his negotiations with Massport, trying to ensure that Worcester doesn't just give away the farm.

It's a legitimate concern.

City Councilor Rick Rushton, whose district includes portions of Airport Hill, says his primary worry with any sale or transfer to Massport or another partner is a loss of control. "We take the destiny out of our hands," he says. "We give up control ... and decision making for revenue and quality of life purposes."

In other words, the last thing Rushton wants to see is a unilateral sale or operating transfer, solely for the sake of lowering costs, that would leave Worcester with no input about the type or frequency of service. Imagine what would happen noise and traffic-wise, some say, if Massport simply decided to use ORH as a freight hub to lighten the load on Logan. "We lose development rights ... type of service rights, [restrictions on] volume of service," says Rushton.

On the other side are the fears that Massport would just sit on the airport and let it deteriorate, especially with the lack of a good access road. "We lose any and all control of that," says Rushton.

Longtime airport advocate/gadfly Bill Randell, an advocate of selling the airport, says he shares many of the concerns, but also fears that the city's back is against the wall in negotiations. "Worcester has proven they can't run it," he says. "That doesn't mean we should give it away for a dollar. We need to place checks and balances."

Randell adds that we could be in danger of selling short: "We're not coming in from a strong negotiation standpoint. We're 80 days from deadline, no other potential buyers."

Randell says he fears we've entered a situation in which Massport can wait until June, right before the expiration of the current agreement, and force us to accept something not to the city's benefit. "That's one of my fears," he says, "that we're going to get this agreement at the 11th hour [right before the current agreement expires] and we're not going to get to hammer out these details. It's sure going to be tough if we get this in the middle of June and in July we're solo."

Still, Rushton says that he has been assured by city officials that any potential deal for the airport will, much like the CitySquare deal with Berkeley Investments, "include those hooks," to make sure control and ownership is tied to certain standards.

The hope is that the city can get Massport to agree to take over the airport, but do so with assurances that certain performance goals are met down the road.