Airport commission approves 2016 budget, mum on court decision

Despite uncertainties, the airport commission approved a $4.6 million budget, but plans to revisit the spending plan within 90 days.

0
Martha's Vineyard Airport management is experiencing turbulence on the ground between the airport and county commissions. — Photo by Steve Myrick

In their first meeting since a Superior Court judge ruled in their favor on all counts and against Dukes County, the Martha’s Vineyard Airport Commission (MVAC) met Thursday and approved a $4,590,510 million spending plan for FY 2016, which begins July 1. They agreed to revisit it within 90 days because they said they had little time to review it.

The airport commission also approved a FY 2015 supplemental budget that included an additional $309,784 in legal expenses.

The commissioners said nothing about the culmination of a lawsuit in favor of the airport commission in which Superior Court Justice Cornelius J. Moriarty II said that the Airport Act, which established that the airport commission supersedes the County Charter, and that the grant assurances which the county commissioners signed — and which prohibited their involvement in airport affairs — mean something.

The only discussion came prior to adjournment. Airport commission chairman Myron Garfinkle asked the commissioners if they wanted to go into executive session to discuss the issues involved and potential impacts of the recent court ruling. The commission agreed not to go into executive session, and chose not to discuss the ruling.

In his ruling, Judge Moriarty said the county could not appoint the county manager to the airport commission as an ex-officio, nonvoting member; and the county manager is not allowed to serve in such a capacity.

County manager Martina Thornton, who attended the MVAC meeting, said, “I just want to point out — I don’t know when you’re going to have your next meeting, and if it’s not going to be until next month, the court ruling actually has some significant changes to our longstanding past practice of how we conduct business between the airport and the county, and we have some serious concerns of how the airport commission sees that we conduct business going further.”

She said she thought discussions were necessary sooner than a month to “go over all the issues that we see the decision created for us.”

“I would like to schedule a meeting with your chairperson as soon as possible,” Mr. Garfinkle said in response. “I am available immediately, and I think we could start this communication any day.”

‘Top of the pyramid’

In a phone conversation with The Times on Monday, Mr. Garfinkle said he had left a message with county chairman Leon Brathwaite that morning with hopes of starting an open communication. Mr. Garfinkle said he had no specific agenda, and did not know in what manner the meeting would occur.

“I don’t expect that there’s going to be anything groundshaking going on here,” he said. “Really what we’re going to try to do is meet as two chairpeople and get communication going so that if issues come up, we can talk about them — that’s what I’m anticipating.”

He said he thought it was important for them to meet because as chairmen of their commissions, their perspective “at the top of the pyramid should be clearer than anybody else’s.”

Mr. Garfinkle said he hoped that a meeting was “days away,” but he was unsure what the reception to his request for a meeting would be.

Budget deadline

Last week’s budget conversation was the first opportunity for the newly reconstituted airport commission to meet in months.

Following a series of county reappointments that saw former airport commissioners replaced with new airport commissioners, the airport commission did not meet while state aviation and county officials wrangled over the county’s use of its appointing authority to alter the makeup of the airport commission. The upshot was a delay in the budget process.

On Thursday, the airport commission approved a FY 2015 supplemental budget of $4.4 million that took into account increases in legal spending and airport and runway repairs. The supplement was a $489,500 increase from the original budget.

Battling the county in court has proved expensive. Airport Manager Sean Flynn said that a $309,784 increase in services from the original FY 2015 budget was mainly due to an increase in legal services, and he acknowledged that that line of the budget “took a hit” this year. He noted that there has been some legal insurance reimbursement, but that there was still a “substantial increase.”

Commissioners also discussed a $212,712 increase in repair costs in FY 2015. Mr. Flynn said that was due to roadway and runway infrastructure and runway painting costs. Runway painting costs also figure in the FY 2016 budget, because the statewide-mandated line striping on the runway was not accomplished in FY 2015, so that cost will carry over, he said. Other infrastructure projects include an asphalt project, pothole and trench repairs, running a waterline from the terminal to the parking lot, and landscaping around the building.

The vote on the supplemental budget was mixed. Commissioners Norm Perry and Christine Todd, who is also a county commissioner, voted to approve it, while commissioners Rich Michelson, Clarence Barnes, Beth Toomey, and vice chairman Robert Rosenbaum abstained. Mr. Garfinkle, in his capacity as chairman, did not vote.

Preparing for president

Following the approval of the FY 2015 supplemental budget, the commission turned to the FY 2016 budget. Many of the commissioners expressed their discomfort over the shortage of time they had to review the budget.

“Given the fact that we’ve really only had two weeks as a full commission to look at this and to do this, due to delays we’ve had in actually being able to organize and have our first meeting, I feel there’s a significant disadvantage that we’re starting off here and finally going over a budget without really spending the appropriate time to do that,” Mr. Rosenbaum said. “Having said that, I think there is a time factor here that we should at least have something in place to go forward with.”

He proposed that the commission approve the budget with any necessary modifications with the stipulation that the finance subcommittee will conduct monthly examinations of the financial data as it comes out and monitor it carefully. He pointed out that the services line decreased $60,785, but expressed concern over the increases in employee wages and benefits and repair costs.

The wages line item for operations staff jumped from $821,284 to $921,511. Mr. Flynn said there was an addition of one more full-time operations specialist. The repairs budget jumped from $405,397 to $503,477, which Mr. Flynn said was largely due to necessary repair-work scheduled for the airport terminal.

Ms. Todd said she she felt a “very high level of uncertainty with a lot of the facts that are supporting the numbers by the finance committee,” and expressed discomfort voting on a budget that was not fully reviewed.

Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Michelson also questioned the numbers. Chairman Garfinkle reminded the committee that it was necessary to approve a budget in order for airport management to appropriately move forward with their expenses.

“It’s unfortunate that this commission was unable to meet in a timely manner, and this is one of the byproducts that happened,” Mr. Garfinkle said. “Nonetheless, I do feel that we have the responsibility to keep the airport running. It’s one of our primary functions to keep the airport running as safely and as financially responsible as possible.”

He asked the commission to consider the approval of the budget with the provision that the finance subcommittee and airport management come up with a supplemental budget that reflects more time spent scrutinizing the numbers within 90 days of the approval.

The commission approved the proposed budget with the 90-day supplement provision. Ms. Todd, Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Perry, Mr. Michelson, and Mr. Barnes voted to approve the budget, while Ms. Toomey abstained. Chairman Garfinkle did not vote.

In other business, Mr. Rosenbaum announced the airport audit went well and there were no outstanding issues. The commission approved a request by Ted Rosbeck to install solar panels on the roof of his building in the airport business park, Island Pools and Spas; approved a request by Tom Seeman for a new self-storage rental facility behind Island Source, his existing business; and approved the placement of a Martha’s Vineyard Savings Bank ATM in the airport terminal. Mr. Flynn said planning is underway for a presidential visit this summer, which will include dedicating staff time and hours in July and August to maintenance around the terminal.

No interference

In a decision handed down last Monday in Dukes County Superior Court, Justice Cornelius J. Moriarty II found for the Martha’s Vineyard Airport Commission on all points in the latest legal battle between the Dukes County Commission and its appointed airport commission.

The ruling was handed down as a summary judgement, meaning both sides agreed on the facts, and left it to the judge to decide based on the law, with no need to go to a jury trial.

The ruling was unequivocal. The county commissioners, County Manager Martina Thornton, and County Treasurer Noreen Mavro Flanders may not interfere in airport affairs.

In his ruling, Judge Moriarty said the county cannot appoint the county manager to the airport commission as an ex-officio, nonvoting member; the county treasurer cannot refuse to pay invoices approved for payment by the airport commission, and cannot obtain and pass on privileged or confidential communications between the airport commission and its attorneys without the consent of the airport commission.