Airport legal bills soar again this year.
Timothy Johnson

Legal Spending at Airport Sees Steep Climb

<p>For the second year in a row, legal spending is sharply up at the Martha&rsquo;s Vineyard Airport, due largely to the recently-concluded lawsuit with the county over control and authority at the airport.

For the second year in a row, legal spending is sharply up at the Martha’s Vineyard Airport, due largely to the recently-concluded lawsuit with the county over control and authority at the Island’s only airport.

Meeting Thursday morning, the airport commission approved a $4.4 million supplemental budget for the current fiscal year, as well as a $4.6 million budget for the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1.

The supplemental budget represents an increase of $529,559 over the original 2015 budget. Much of the increase — $175,000 — can be tracked to legal costs incurred in the court case with the Dukes County Commission. The case ended this week with a decision by a superior court judge strongly favoring the airport.

Unbudgeted increases also included repairs to the airport terminal and maintenance at the air field.

A majority of commissioners attending the meeting did not vote on the budget. Commissioners Christine Todd and Norm Perry voted to approve it. Commissioners Clarence (Trip) Barnes 3rd, Rich Michelson, vice-chairman Robert Rosenbaum and Beth Toomey abstained. The chairman, Myron Garfinkle, did not vote.

Last year the airport spent nearly 11 times the amount budgeted for legal fees, also due to court disputes with the county and a workplace dispute that remains unresolved. In 2014 the airport incurred approximately $271,191 in legal expenses; $25,000 was budgeted. A supplemental budget was also needed.

Also on Thursday, commissioners approved the budget for the coming fiscal year, though several members said they were uncomfortable with the short amount of time they have had to review it.

The 2016 budget will require a transfer of $717,168 from airport reserve funds.

“The transfers are almost three quarters of a million dollars,” said Mr. Rosenbaum. “That’s a lot of money. That basically means we are running at a three quarter million dollar deficit. The good news is the cash balance is slightly over $3 million, but that’s not the way to run a viable organization. That’s not sustainable,” he said.

Mr. Garfinkle urged commissioners to approve the budget with a caveat.

“We do have a responsibility to keep the airport running,” Mr. Garfinkle said. “I ask the commission to approve with the proviso that within 90 days, we come up with a supplemental budget which would reflect that we’ve had the opportunity to scrutinize the budget.”

Mr. Rosenbaum, Ms. Todd, Mr. Perry, Mr. Michelson, and Mr. Barnes voted to approve the budget. Ms. Toomey voted to abstain. Mr. Garfinkle did not vote.

Also at Thursday’s meeting, Mr. Garfinkle said he would like to schedule a meeting as soon as possible with county commission chairman Leon Brathwaite to discuss the recent court ruling involving the two commissions.

The ruling found that the state law that governs the airport trumps the law that created the county, especially in light of grant assurances signed by the county that allow state and federal funds to flow to the airport. The county appoints the airport commission. Much of the dispute in the past year has been over the appointments process and also questions raised by the county treasurer about legal spending at the airport.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 06/13/2015 - 09:13

Permalink

William Edg.

A county caused COLOSSAL WASTE of money all the way around. And, as this article states, it is not over yet. In the years to come, this issue will pop up yet again.

The only way to really resolve this issue is to dissolve the county and have the state take over the airport.

One suggestion to the Airport Commissioners, if you are paying the County $100,000 to do your books unsatisfactorily (who is she to refuse to pay bills authorized by the AC?), why not hire a qualified individual that works directly for the airport?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 06/14/2015 - 01:07

Permalink

Wow!!! Tisbury

he AIRPORT should be getting all the legal expenses back from the COUNTY, they won. It was because of the COUNTY COMMISSION, COUNTY TREASURER and COUNTY MANAGER that forced them into this if I read the previous article correctly. I watch the most recent COUNTY COMMISSION meeting and they did not even discuss the loss of the case. They should have voted to set aside the airport legal expenses so that they can reimburse them for that. - See more at: http://vineyardgazette.com/news/2015/06/10/airport-prevails-long-runnin…

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 06/14/2015 - 12:50

Permalink

Really!!! Martha's Vineyard

So what do you want to bet that the COUNTY does not let it end there. They will now come up with some other reason to stay involved in the AIRPORTS business. The AIRPORT and the COUNTY will have to spend more on legal going forward. How can we do a recall election on the COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and the COUNTY TREASURER. They have totally caused this entire mess and now they have appointed AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS that are by far the worst ever and that are clearly not interested in cutting ties with the COUNTY and have no intention on doing the right thing.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 06/15/2015 - 07:26

Permalink

sue tisbury

Seriously do you really believe all those legal expenses were because of the County, the County did not file any suits it was all the airport all items that could've been resolved through mediation which is what the County asked for. Secondly a lot of those fees per Deb Potter in the July 3rd meeting said it was because the airport hired some high dollar law firm to review the business park leases not because of the County. In addition the airport ran up legal bills from other people suing them. Like Tessmer for sexual harassment and the other guy that sued the airport over a hangar. Why does the airport need $200,000 for FY16 if the case with the County is done? Stop running your mouth if you don't know the full story. Watch the tapes!

Really!!! Martha's Vineyard

I have watch every one of both the COUNTY and the AIRPORT meetings and it was clearly stated that the AIRPORT had a duty to protect itself from the anyone including the COUNTY if they wanted to still receive money from the state and federal government. Is the COUNTY really going to come up with tax money to replace the federal and state contributions if the are to stop. If i remember correctly the AIRPORT had insurance for the Tessmer case just like all the towns have had when they have had the same thing happen from time to time. Ms. Potter did say that they had spent a large amount on new leases and why would that be a problem. Oh and by the way, if you watch the videos all the way back to when they started videoing the meetings the AIRPORT tried time and time again to have the COUNTY stay out of their business, bu they wouldn't. You don't for one minute think the COUNTY is going to lay down and die on this issue do you. This is just the end of one of the man rounds, I think we all wish it would end but most know it won't.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 06/15/2015 - 07:29

Permalink

concerned tisbury

I don't believe two votes were enough to pass the budget. 2-7 does not pass!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 06/15/2015 - 07:32

Permalink

concerned tisbury

Sorry I see the others were forced to vote yes. But if the County cost them an extra 100k why did the need over $700k to balance? Bad management!

Really!!! Martha's Vineyard

I think they said they had $3,500,000.00 in reserves so I don't know how it works but last year the COUNTY said the AIRPORT exceeded expenses by revenue by $600,000 and that budget looked the same way, so who knows.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 08/14/2015 - 21:41

Permalink

Marty G. Nantucket

Just change the names and dates and you have exactly what happened on Nantucket with their Airport. Amateurs getting involved with the airport, the firing of a very competent manager, the Town dong the airport's books and paying expenses, whispers about the airport manager stealing money (not true) and mismanaging the facility. Finally, after building a new airport terminal and ARFF building, on the very day the ribbon was cut - the manager was fired. Greenbrier Valley Airport, same song. Fired manager and commissioners take no blame for lack of oversight. Small airports, small minds.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.