On Tuesday the Rhode Island Airport Corporation called off a meeting with the city administration and state leaders scheduled for Wednesday so that lawyers could work out a memorandum of understanding (MOU)  regarding the air cargo facility with the prospect of the two sides signing it by as soon as this week.

Mayor Frank Picozzi went ahead, meeting with the governor anyway. He reported McKee plans to visit the site of the air cargo facility.

As for the MOU, Picozzi said that has been completed and all that’s needed is for it to be signed.

“I’m confused…we keep going back and forth,”Picozzi said. “In my opinion they’re playing games.”

What Picozzi wants in writing is for vehicles servicing the South Air Cargo facility which is under construction to be restricted to access and egress from the Airport Connector in addition to building a berm on Strawberry Field Road West that will serve as a noise and visual barrier to abutting residences.  In exchange, RIAC wants the city to drop its lawsuit and grant rights of way or abandonment of portions of three city streets to erect the berm.

While the city and RIAC appear to be moving toward an agreement concerning the air cargo facility, RIAC is not bending on its surprise announcement last week that it is ending $500,000 in payments to the city annually per a directive contained in an FAA audit.

“The FAA audit is clear,” Brittany Morgan, RIAC Chief Legal Counsel & Chief of Staff, said in a telephone call, “PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes) are not allowed.” She did not elaborate or care to talk about permissible payments to municipalities under FAA regulations.

The abrupt cession of quarterly payments has been the source of speculation that the measure is in retaliation for the city’s law suit over the air cargo facility. Furthermore, concerns have been voiced that if the city argues for restoration of the payments that were legislatively enacted, the city and the state could be retroactively responsible for refunding payments if the FAA denied an appeal.

The latest developments follow a week where unresolved issues over the Air Cargo facility reached a boiling point, with Picozzi requesting the intervention of the governor and legislative leaders. A meeting was planned for last week that was rescheduled for this week because of the sudden closure of the westbound lane of the Washington Bridge. When it was rescheduled for this week, Picozzi was hopeful of a signed MOU by Wednesday.

House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi  wouldn’t have been able to attend a meeting Wednesday, said Tuesday the issue over the air cargo facility “appears to be heading toward a resolution and I applaud that rather than litigation.” Nonetheless, he feels the parties should meet face-to-face.

RIAC president and CEO Iftikhar Ahmad’s absence from hearings relative to the air cargo facility and other airport issues is characteristic of his administration. He does not attend monthly meetings, which he instituted, between the city and RIAC.

Definition of the air cargo facility has also been elusive.

When the airport master plan was adopted less than two years ago, drawings showed an air cargo facility of 50,000 to 55,000 square feet south of the terminal. Then a short time later RIAC had plans for a 140,000 square foot facility, a substantial deviation from what was originally presented to the Technical Advisory Committee, City Planner Thomas Kravitz pointed out in testimony during the Environmental Assessment prepared by RIAC. Last June the FAA gave the plan a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI), in other words the green light to build. Then plans submitted with the Environmental Assessment showed 300,000 square feet of cargo facility. Yet the master plan hasn’t been amended.

Enlargement of the air cargo facility doesn’t trouble Mayor Picozzi. He sees it as response to a shift in shopping trends from big box stores to online and if the airport doesn’t accommodate air cargo the state and city would lose out. But he says it’s his job to also protect the residents. Two issues, the impact of ground cargo traffic and noise and sight pollution of the facility on local residents, prompted him to file for a review of the FAA’s finding that ended up in court. While RIAC verbally agreed to not use either Main Avenue or Post Road for access and restrict ground traffic to the Airport Connector and build a berm topped by a wall to shield residents along Strawberry Field Road West, those conditions were not guaranteed in writing.

Last Thursday Ahmad sent a letter to Picozzi, members of the city council, the governor, the state’s Congressional delegation, Speaker of the House and Senate President saying RIAC would build the sound barrier and reroute traffic to the Airport Connector.

“You now have our commitment to these projects in writing,” reads the letter, “and this correspondence has been shared with the federal delegation, the Governor and state leaders.”

Furthermore, as has been reported by the Beacon, he said construction has started and traffic designs are being worked on. Ahmad points out, however, that city abandonment or rights of way to portions of three roads in the area – actions that would require council approval – must happen in order to build the wall.

“We believe there is no reason to pursue the legal path you are on related to an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) when the outcome you are seeking has already been pledged in writing,” reads the letter.

That isn’t good enough for Picozzi.

He wants an agreement signed by both parties, as was done when RIAC lengthened the main runway and relocated Winslow Park playing fields to the east of the airport on land cleared of homes. Picozzi asks what happens in five or ten years, if not longer, when the airport opens Main Avenue or Post Road to cargo ground traffic. His concern is that the traffic would hinder a long envisioned pedestrian-friendly City Centre where several developments promise more than 800 housing units.