HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarcum Airport Forensic Audit Final Report - 06 11 2012_201401231020152786
Marcum LLP • 53 State Street • 38th Floor • Boston, Massachusetts 02109 • Phone 617.742.9666 • Fax 617.742.3178•
marcumllp.com
This report is confidential and intended for the sole use by the client for whom it was prepared and to whom it is addressed. It is limited to the specific scope and
activities that the client requested. This report may not be copied, reproduced, disseminated, distributed or otherwise made available to any third party, in whole
or in part, without the express prior written consent of Marcum LLP. Marcum LLP’s consent may be withheld for any reason. In preparing this report, Marcum
LLP has used its professional care and diligence and relied upon the information provided by the client and other sources for its analysis. No representation or
warranty, express or implied, is made by Marcum LLP as to the accuracy or completeness of the information included and relied upon in this assessment.
Independent Review of:
THE TOWN OF NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORT
Prepared for:
The Town of Nantucket
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Audit FY2010 12/30 Runway Paving Project .............................................................................................................. 7
Audit of the Restaurant Renovation Project and Subsequent Lease ................................................................ 12
Review of Various other Nantucket Airport Projects or Issues ......................................................................... 22
Review of Airport Administrative Processes and Practices, Both of the Administration and the
Commission ....................................................................................................................................................... 25
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................. 38
EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 40
3 | Page
INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK
A subcommittee of the Nantucket Finance Committee was appointed in August 2010, to look into
questions raised regarding certain town paving contracts involving the Nantucket Memorial Airport. In
June 2011, a report of the subcommittee was presented and raised additional questions. A unanimous vote
of the Finance Committee requested “The Board of Selectmen to engage an outside auditor to conduct an
independent departmental review of the Airport and its operations…..” Simultaneous to this, significant
media and Massachusetts Office of Attorney General inquiries culminated in the issuance of a Request for
Proposal (“RFP”), to which Marcum LLP submitted and was awarded a contract in November 2011.
Specifically, the contract required Marcum to conduct a forensic audit/operational management review of
the Nantucket Memorial Airport to include the following components:
• Audit FY2010 12/30 Runway Paving Project.
• Audit the Restaurant renovation project and subsequent lease.
• Audit 3-5 other specific Nantucket Airport projects from FY2010 and FY2011 to examine
compliance with procurement and other applicable Mass General Law(s).
• Review and evaluate Airport administrative processes and practices, both of the administration
and the commission, and recommend improvements in same.
• Review and evaluate departmental reporting, contract scope and negotiation as related to Airport
procurements.
4 | Page
METHODOLOGY
The process of this forensic audit comprised of interviewing individuals/employees, both internal and
external to the Town of Nantucket, and reviewing a multitude of records, documents and reports. During
the course of the audit, where possible, the investigators have attempted to obtain corroboration of certain
facts from multiple sources.
During the course of our review, over 45 individuals were interviewed, most of whom were interviewed
on multiple occasions. In an effort to maintain confidentiality, we have chosen not to identify specific
individuals or attribute information received to specific individuals. However, the individuals interviewed
were from the following groups:
• Past and Present members of the Airport Commission
• Past and Present Airport Managers
• Past and Present employees of the Airport
• Past and Present members of the various Town Departments
• Office of the Attorney General
• Department of Revenue
• MassDOT
• Past and Present Town Counsel
• Contractors and Subcontractors that performed work at the airport
• Town Manager
• Members of the Boards of Selectmen, Finance and Audit Committees
In an effort to ensure that all relevant information was received, we attempted to interview members of
the media that had previously reported on the issues. Our requests for interview were refused.
Additionally, we obtained and reviewed a substantial number of documents, emails, financial records and
reports. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a listing of files containing documents reviewed.
Lastly, a confidential email address was obtained and communicated to the General Public. This email,
NantucketAirportInquiry@gmail.com was monitored solely by Marcum and information received came
directly to the Marcum team.
5 | Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
As part of the catalyst for this review, the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General had previously
conducted a preliminary investigation into the Airport procurement practices. The general findings
included:
• Failure to require proper prevailing wage documentation on certain Airport construction projects;
• A closed system of bidding;
• Repeated instances of possible bid splitting;
• Lack of written contracts or specifications for work;
• The possibility of inappropriate bartering exchanges with vendors;
• Renovations to restaurant space in the Airport terminal without compliance with designer
selection law and public bidding construction laws; and
• Misapplication of the exemption from bidding for aviation uses.
The results of our review, which will be discussed in more detail through this report, confirm the Attorney
General’s findings. We did not however, find evidence of fraud nor intention to split certain bids. Instead
the violations appear to be a result of inappropriate and poor decisions by Airport Management and
ultimately, the Airport Commission.
The circumstances surrounding the Airport that gave rise to this review were aggravated by a combination
of several interrelated factors to wit:
• The Airport operated as an Enterprise Fund;
• Massachusetts General Laws require appointment of an Airport Commission to manage a
municipal airport;
• The Nantucket Home Rule Charter specifically excludes the Airport from Town Administration;
and
• There were no definitive rules, regulations or defined procedures promulgated by management
specific to the operations of the Airport
Standing alone, none of these factors should have contributed to the current circumstances. However, the
apparent result of the totality of these contributing factors is that the Airport has been viewed and allowed
to operate as a completely independent entity. Oversight of the Airport Commission was often times non-
existent on many projects. Whether appropriate or not, at least since 2004, complete deference was
apparently given to two individuals for interpretation of operating rules and implementation of processes.
Those individuals were the former Airport Manager Mr. Alfred Peterson, and the long serving Airport
Commission Chairman, Foley Vaughan.
To be perfectly clear, this deference had a number of positive results. The Airport Manager, as the
aviation professional, was oftentimes in the best position to make daily management decisions. In most
instances, having the experience of a Chairman with over 20 years experience on the Commission and
former Town Counsel for Nantucket was a desired attribute and benefit. In fact, from 2005-2011 over 53
capital projects were begun and/or completed.
These projects that were completed were professionally sound and have resulted in the apparent
betterment of the Nantucket Memorial Airport. During our interviews, we were told that Mr. Peterson was
a stickler for holding contractors accountable.
6 | Page
Over the past several years, there were many positive and also “‘not so positive” achievements
concerning the Airport. Throughout our review, we found that the results of the operations at the airport
were primarily the responsibility of the actions of the Airport Manager and ultimately, the Chair of the
Airport Commission for the oversight or in certain circumstances, lack thereof.
A review of projects and processes shows that there was a focus on getting jobs completed, often without
regard to procurement processes. A very liberal definition of aviation use and emergency purchase
provided the rationale for completing jobs without regard to procurement rules, particularly when
unplanned issues arose. We found that many items that were deemed to be time sensitive were the
apparent result of management inadequacies and/or poor planning. Beginning in 2010, when questions
were raised regarding spending on airport projects, incomplete and conflicting responses were often
provided by Mr. Peterson, creating more suspicion and further aggravating the situation.
However, at least in several circumstances other members of Town Departments cannot escape scrutiny
for their lack of involvement. While not directly responsible for oversight of these projects, members of
the Town Finance and the Boards of Selectmen had opportunities to raise questions regarding some
activities and failed to do so in a timely manner.
7 | Page
AUDIT FY2010 12/30 RUNWAY PAVING PROJECT
The first project we were asked to review was the repaving of Runway 12-30 in 2010. There has been
concern over this project due to the use of Victor Brandon Corporation to perform the work, because the
project was not included in the 2010 project plan and because the final fees grossly exceeded the initial
estimate. A review of this project reveals that the maximum dollar amount written into the Town’s
contract with Victor Brandon was exceeded without proper notice and approval. This project stands as an
example of the lack of coordination between airport management and town departments. All parties
involved, including the Airport, the contractor and the Town Departments should have known that any
additional work would have and/or did exceed the maximum annual amount of the annual contract.
Before discussing our findings, it will be helpful to provide a brief summary of events to help understand
the circumstances surrounding the paving project. To gain an understanding of the totality and timing of
circumstances, we have prepared a detailed timeline of events. This timeline is our compilation based
upon information gleaned from interviews, documents, emails and official meeting minutes.
Time Line
DATE DESCRIPTION
July 8, 2009
Annual Town Contract for Surfacing, Resurfacing, Patching and Furnishing of
Asphalt Roadway Paving Products Town Contract with Victor‐Brandon
Corporation; Maximum project amount was $488,732 (contract historically used
for DP roadwork)
Fall, 2009 MassDOT announces extra funds available to the Airport due to delayed Pittsfield
Airport project
December, 2009 Al contacts Victor Petkauskos for estimate to pave runway 12‐30
December 23, 2009 Memo from Mr. Peterson to Airport Commission proposing runway 12‐30
resurfacing, estimate is $400,000
January 6, 2010 Pre‐Application submitted to MassDOT for 12‐30 project, total cost estimate of
$400,000
January 12, 2010 Airport Commission Meeting: 12‐30 paving estimate discussed
February 12, 2010 Victor Brandon submits written estimate of $395,978 at Town contracted rate of
$179 per ton
March 12, 2010 MassDOT letter approving funding for 12‐30 project at $400,000, of which
$80,000 is Airport responsibility.
April 12, 2010 –
April 21, 2010
Jacobs daily inspection reports show dates work is performed; project total is
3,405.5 tons = $609,584.50.
April 14, 2010
Application to MassDOT for 12‐30 project; project estimate is $585,000, 80% state
share of which is $468,000 and local share is $117,000; Grant for $468,000
subsequently approved
April 22, 2010 Airport Commission votes to accept grant offer of $320,000, with Airport funding
8 | Page
DATE DESCRIPTION
responsibility of $80,000.
April 22, 2010 Invoice from Victor Brandon for $609,586.29 for 3,405.5 tons at $179 per ton
April 23, 2010 Invoice from Victor Brandon for $11,433.00 for installation of runway and taxiway
pavement markings.
April 29, 2010 Invoice from Victor Brandon for $15,000.00 for installation of loam and rake
shoulders on Runway 12‐30
May 6, 2010 Request for Payment submitted to MassDOT for $673,083.29; request to MassDOT
for additional funding is denied, overrun is to be covered by airport
May 11, 2010 Al Peterson tells Commission over budget
August 13, 2010 –
June 23, 2011 Town Finance Subcommittee review of 12‐30 paving project
November 21, 2011 Airport Capital improvement plan has 2013 scheduled for remainder of 12‐30
work, estimate still includes paving
Finding: It was allowable, and in fact preferable, to use Victor Brandon to perform paving
at the airport; however, exceeding the contract amount without an amendment was an
oversight by all involved.
Victor Brandon Corporation had a contract with the Town to do paving for the fiscal year 2009-2010; the
company had won the contract as the low cost bidder. The contract was based on the Town DPW’s
estimate of paving needs for the year and included a maximum project amount of $488,732. See Exhibit
2 (Victor Brandon Contract) Before moving forward with using this contract, Mr. Peterson contacted
the Town’s Chief Procurement Officer to ensure he was able to do so. He also discussed the use of the
Town’s contract with the Town’s attorney, the Attorney General’s office and MassDOT. It was confirmed
by all that using the Town contract was acceptable. He was provided with a copy of the contract.
We believe the use of town resources is usually a preferable way to conduct business at the airport. The
Town has already vetted the vendor, has established that this is a low cost provider, and has entered into a
contract with the vendor.
However, in this case the issue of the contract maximum was clearly ignored by all those involved in the
process. It was clear from the original estimate by Victor-Brandon that doing this project would result in
going over the maximum contract amount. The original portion of Victor Brandon’s estimate was
$350,000, while the contract was for a maximum of $488,732. That is 71% of the contract amount. In
setting the annual maximum amount, a list of scheduled Town projects for the year are budgeted and
compiled to set the contract price. For 2009-2010, the scheduled projects only included paving of the
following roads: Surfside Road; Orange Street from Plum Lane to Union Street; and Meader Street.
Unless the Town did not plan to do some of the projects, the maximum would easily be exceeded.
The primary responsibility to check that the maximum contract amount was not exceeded fell first on
Victor Petkauskos, President of Victor Brandon. The contract states:
9 | Page
4.4 This project may be subject to budgetary restrictions which may limit the total amount of
funds available for the work. Accordingly, unless otherwise stated in Exhibit B, the TOWN will
not be obligated to pay any amount in excess of the maximum project amount without the express
written approval of the TOWN.
By doing work in excess of the town contract, Victor Brandon ran the risk of not getting paid. Victor
Petkauskos certainly knew that this project would exceed what was already planned. The company should
have asked for an amendment to the contract immediately. However, Mr. Peterson also had a copy of the
contract and should have raised the issue as well. He had a responsibility to monitor the work he
requested. In concept, any additional paving that was not on the Master Contract would have exceeded the
maximum amount.
Other Town employees had opportunities to at least communicate a potential problem of the contract
being overrun. That multiple parties did not raise this potential problem points to a lack of coordination
between the town and airport. In his responses, Mr. Peterson claimed that the contract overrun is a Town,
not an Airport issue. This is one of the examples of the Airport attempting to have the best of both worlds,
where they can take advantage of Town resources yet deny responsibility for their decisions.
Finding: The decision to go forward with the project was reasonable given excess funding
at the state level, despite not being planned for in 2010.
One rumor we have heard repeatedly is that Mr. Peterson had an inside track to state funding and was able
to get projects done that others would not have. Mr. Peterson was able to take advantage of the airport’s
favorable financial situation compared to other airports in the State, its backlog of shovel ready projects
and his tendency of pushing projects along quickly.
The airport’s capital improvement plan in 2009 had work on runway 12-30 scheduled for 2015. The FAA
works with the airport to prioritize items on the capital improvement plan, lining up projects in order of
priority as funding from the FAA becomes available. The 12-30 project had been pushed back repeatedly
in prior years, as the FAA juggled the order of projects it would fund.
In the fall of 2009, MassDOT announced extra funding would be available for state airport projects due to
the delay of a large project in Pittsfield. The money was already available and needed to be used by June
of 2010 or it would be lost to Massachusetts. All Massachusetts airports were notified of these funds at a
meeting. Few airports in Massachusetts have cash available to fund a large project, even with the state
funding 80%. Nantucket has historically been in the favorable position of being financially successful,
particularly in comparison to other small airports in Massachusetts.
The 12-30 project was particularly appealing to begin in 2010 due to upcoming renovations on runway
33, which would necessitate the use of 12-30 for overflow. As 12-30 had not been repaved in well over 32
years, the timing was right to move forward. MassDOT therefore considered this project worthy of
expediting and the airport was able to take advantage of money that had not previously been available to
them.
10 | Page
Finding: The project was pushed through quickly and as a result exceeded the initial
estimate.
An original estimate of $400,000 was provided to the Airport Commission in January of 2010 to complete
the project. The estimate was established by a quick calculation of runway length times width, at a
thickness of 2 inches. See Exhibit 3 – (Memo Regarding Runway 12-30 Resurfacing)
By the end of the project, the cost totaled $681,668, of which $468,000 was reimbursed by the state. The
difference of $213,668 was therefore the responsibility of the airport. The airport did attempt to get
additional reimbursement from the state but was denied.
The excess project cost was due to multiple factors. The estimated area to be paved was increased with
the addition of the taxiway areas, in addition, extra sealing and leveling was included. Jacobs
Engineering was consulted on the project to help ensure it was done correctly, and once started, Jacobs
provided daily monitoring of the project as it was performed. However, it appears likely that had Jacobs
been involved from the outset, as is typical in FAA projects, the original estimate would have been more
in line with the final cost.
Mr. Peterson was well known for pushing projects through quickly in an attempt to save money, and this
appears to be an example of good intentions without adequate planning. FAA reimbursed projects must
follow very strict guidelines and are done with the involvement of Jacobs Engineering to monitor that all
aspects of the project are performed correctly.
The 12-30 project, which included replacing the safety area alongside the runway as well as the repaving
work, has been on the airport’s capital improvement plan as far back as 2001. In 2009 the capital
improvement plan indicated the 12-30 project was planned for 2015, at a total cost of $1.5 million at 90%
FAA reimbursement. As of the 2011 plan, the 12-30 project was planned for 2013, at an estimated cost of
$1.54 million. The estimate of $1.54 million appears to still include the paving work that was done in
2010, with the remainder of the project estimated at $500,000 to $800,000. In a memo, he wrote in
defense of the 12-30 project, Mr. Peterson claimed he had saved the airport over $1 million by pushing
through the project in 2010. This claim appears to ring false, as there is still work to be done and it
appears the total cost will still be in the $1.5 million range. However, the estimated FAA reimbursement
for the project is 90%, the state reimbursement estimate is 50% of the remainder, making the airport’s
estimated cost 5% of the total project. The implication is that had the airport waited to do this project with
FAA funding, the amount paid by the airport could have been much less than it was in 2010.
Finding: Even though information was well known by Airport officials, it was not publicly
disclosed that the project would be over budget until well after completion.
In August of 2010, the Town’s Finance Committee performed a review of the 12-30 project because the
total cost grossly exceeded the initial estimate. This appears to be one of the first attempts by the Town to
investigate airport proceedings.
The ensuing interaction between the Town and Airport during the investigation reveals many of the
behaviors that resulted in the present state of the Airport situation. The Subcommittee tasked to
investigate the 12-30 project invited Mr. Peterson to a meeting in September of 2010 to review the project
requesting that he bring relevant files to the meeting. It has been reported that Mr. Peterson arrived at the
meeting with no paperwork and acted in a defiant manner to questioning. While it is understandable that
he may have been uncomfortable at the questioning, Mr. Peterson was already known for believing the
airport was under no authority from the Town. Cooperation between the Town and the Airport is vital to
11 | Page
the success of both, and as mentioned previously, the acrimonious relationship between the Town and the
Airport is at the root of many of the problems, coming to a head today.
The Airport Commission met on April 22, 2010, and again on May 11, 2010. At the April 22 meeting, the
initial grant approval for 80% of $400,000 was accepted. However, as of April 22, work had already been
completed on the project, meaning the additional aspects of the project such as length and grading would
have been known. See Exhibits 4 and 5 (Daily inspections from Jacobs Exhibit 4 and invoices from
Victor – Exhibit 5). In addition, an application for $585,000, signed by Al Peterson and Foley Vaughan,
had been submitted to MassDOT as of April 14. See Exhibit 6 (Application to MassDOT) Why a vote
was taken to accept the initial grant amount without discussion of the additional monies is suspicious.
According to meeting minutes, it was not until the May 11 meeting that the full Commission, and
therefore the public, was informed the project was above the initial $400,000 estimate. See Exhibit 7
(Airport Commission Minutes)
The omission of an overrun of nearly $300,000, the result of which $213,668 was the responsibility of the
Airport, is an example of keeping outsiders, including Town officials and taxpayers, uninformed.
Finding: The Airport had a barter deal with Victor Brandon
One item that came to light during the proposal and investigation of the 12-30 runway paving project was
a barter deal that the airport had with Victor Brandon Corporation. The airport had worked out a deal to
allow Victor Brandon to store materials for road paving on some Bunker property in return for them
giving material ground off the road to the Airport. The material was later used for the airport’s perimeter
road, reportedly saving a very large amount of money. This barter arrangement, however, had nothing to
do with the 12-30 Runway project. (See Exhibit 3 – (Memo Regarding Runway 12-30 Resurfacing))
Barter deals are expressly prohibited by Massachusetts Procurement rules as they are unfair to other
potential bidders. That the Airport would highlight this deal is another example of either lack of
understanding or a blatant disregard for rules.
12 | Page
AUDIT OF THE RESTAURANT RENOVATION PROJECT AND
SUBSEQUENT LEASE
The second project that we were asked to look into was the complete renovation of the airport restaurant
which took place in the first half of 2007. Total fees paid to renovate the facility were approximately
$1.29 million, of which the airport paid nearly $1.05 million. We have found no evidence of fraud despite
the high cost of the project, but the project does highlight multiple problems that should never have
occurred.
Procurement laws were clearly violated during this project as the renovations were never put out to bid,
nor were they properly budgeted. However, the Airport Commission allowed the situation to proceed. The
restaurant renovation and later adjustment to rental rates for the space provide examples of the
independent attitude by airport management, a general disregard at the airport for rules and regulations,
and a lack of oversight by officials. This was a large, highly visible project that was never budgeted, not
planned for, but openly discussed at various times.
It is noted that during the six months of construction, no Town or Airport official questioned the work or,
more importantly, how it was being paid for during the six months of construction.
Time Line
Before discussing our findings, it will be helpful to provide a brief summary of events to help understand
the circumstances surrounding the restaurant. To gain an understanding of the totality and timing of
circumstances, we have prepared a detailed timeline of events. This timeline is our compilation based
upon information gleaned from interviews, documents, emails and official meeting minutes. In some
instances, findings were determined by the most probable, as determined by the information.
DATE DESCRIPTION
April 11, 2006 Hutchinson announces he will leave at end of year, rent at the time was $7,589 per
month, $91,073 per year
August 17, 2006 Request for Proposal for restaurant lease posted in newspaper
September 15, 2006 Proposal submitted by NRG, $114,382.50 per year rent offered
October 17, 2006 Airport Commission meeting: discussion of restaurant RFP and awards to
Nantucket Restaurant Group
October 18, 2006 Nantucket Restaurant Group, LLC informed they are awarded lease, letter sent by
Mr. Peterson
December 18, 2006 Walk through by Health Inspector with Mr. Peterson
December 18, 2006
Airport Commission meeting: discussion of restaurant and visit by health
inspector; Mr. Peterson states it is the airport’s responsibility to deliver a
restaurant that is up to code and there may be downtime to bring the restaurant to
code for which rent may be reduced
January 1, 2007 Lease executed with NRG for $114,382.50 per year, for ten year term
13 | Page
DATE DESCRIPTION
January 2, 2007
Letter from (Nantucket Architecture Group – Castle Group) to Mr. Peterson stating
agreement to do the renovation and addition to the restaurant wing of the airport;
work charged to airport will be that needed to bring restaurant to code according
to the general building code as well as provision of construction labor and
materials for the addition
January 7, 2007
Letter and contract from Nantucket Architecture Group to Mr. Peterson for
architectural services for the renovations and additions to the Restaurant, contract
signed by Mr. Peterson
January 17, 2007
Airport Commission meeting: discussion that Nantucket Restaurant Group has
hired Castle Group as their contractor and Nantucket Architecture Group as their
architect; changes have been approved by HDC, airport should be responsible for
framing and code work
February 6, 2007 Food Establishment Permit Application by Nantucket Restaurant Group to
Nantucket Health Department
February 13, 2007 Airport Commission meeting: Mr. Peterson reports adding a basement will cost
$4,000 and would be beneficial; renovations should be completed in March
June 6, 2007 MAC Reimbursement Request Form including $127,548 invoice from The Castle
Group for renovations to the restaurant, subsequently approved
July 11, 2007 Restaurant opens
September 14, 2007 Email from Nantucket Health Department stating renovations to restaurant were
NOT due to changes required by health department
January 18, 2008 Receipt of estimate from Skanska of $1.9 million cost to do renovations to
restaurant
November 20, 2008 Airport Commission meeting: Restaurant requests rent abatement, nothing voted
on
January 1, 2009 Effective date of transfer of lease to Nantucket Regal Group, LLC
February 3, 2009 Airport Commission meeting: restaurant legal issues mentioned
February 21, 2009
Agreement between Nantucket Restaurant Group (Seller) and Nantucket Regal
Group, LLC (Purchaser, owned by Chris Skehel) to sell business of Alice’s
Restaurant including all furniture fixtures and equipment for release of debt by
NRG of $160,000 to Nantucket Restaurant Group to Nantucket Regal Group
March 10, 2009
Airport Commission Executive Session – Chris Skehel will take over restaurant,
rent is $120,000 per year. Mr. Skehel would like to pay $6,000 a month for 12
months ($72,000) which would be retroactive from the first of the year. The
Commission agreed and will revisit again in December of 2009.
May 12, 2009 Airport Commission is said to have voted on assignment of lease to Nantucket
Regal Group, however the topic of the restaurant and the vote is not mentioned in
14 | Page
DATE DESCRIPTION
the meeting minutes
July 14, 2009
Assignment and Assumption of Lease and Notice of Assignment of Lease to
Nantucket Regal Group: Gary Simanson signed and notarized; lease is stated to be
assumed as of January 1, 2009; a vote on May 12, 2009 by the Airport Commission
is referenced
January 12, 2010
Airport Executive Session: Commission agrees to Chris Skehel’s request with a
decrease in rent to $7,000 from the lease rate of $12,000, no end date is
determined but Chairman Vaughan requests accountant to look at Crosswinds
books after March 31.
February 2, 2010
Memo to Tina Smith from Janine Torres to adjust Nantucket Regal Group monthly
lease to $7,000 per month until further notice and Commission has requested
audit to be performed by the airport’s accountant after March 31, 2010
March 23, 2010
Assignment and Assumption of Lease and Notice of Assignment of Lease
Agreement to Nantucket Regal Group signed by Foley Vaughan and signature
notarized, referencing a May 12th vote.
Finding: The restaurant construction project violated Massachusetts Procurement laws,
was not authorized through the proper Town channels, was not budgeted and was not
appropriately monitored.
The catalyst for the restaurant project was longtime Hutch’s restaurant lessee William Hutchinson’s
announcement in 2006 that he would be leaving at the end of the year, before construction on the terminal
renovation started. In July, based upon existing Procurement regulations, it was properly determined an
RFP would be needed to find a new tenant, and after receiving four of proposals, the RFP was awarded to
Nantucket Restaurant Group, LLC (“NRG”) in October of 2006.
The RFP specifications offered a ten year lease for the restaurant space, which at the time was 2,109
square feet on the first floor and 156 square feet of basement storage space. The lessee would be required
to pay as additional rent 3% of gross in excess of annual rent and rent would be adjusted annually based
on the CPI-W. Improvements proposed to the lease space were listed as 20% of the evaluation criteria;
however, nowhere in the RFP did it describe whose responsibility it was to pay for renovations. The RFP
did state that terminal renovation would take place during the time of the lease and disruption of service
as well as relocation may occur. See Exhibit 8 (RFP)
The airport received four proposals and these proposals were reviewed and rated by the Airport
Commission. Nantucket Restaurant Group was given the highest scores in the evaluation process,
particularly in the categories of improvements proposed for lease space and price per square foot. In his
application, Gary Simanson of NRG proposed a rental rate of $50.50 per square foot, which at the time
would have been $114,383 per year. The proposed executive chef, Simanson’s brother in law, had
extensive experience as executive chef at a number of high end establishments and was the driving factor
seeking to make the airport restaurant a quality destination restaurant with local produce and seafood. See
Exhibit 9 (Simanson proposal)
15 | Page
We have been told that the renovations to the restaurant have been attributed to requirements by the
Nantucket Health Department. We have not been presented with any information that corroborates this
account. In fact, officials at the Health Department claim that upon its original inspection, performed
upon change of ownership, it found only three minimal violations:
“The restaurant was code compliant with exception of a 20x10 back store room. The
floor had chipped paint and worn areas and needed to be repainted. The walls and
ceilings were CDX plywood with holes, knots and gaps that needed to be made smooth
and easily cleanable. There were 5-6 pieces of residential refrigeration in this back store
room that needed to be removed, and if replaced, replaced with NSF approved
equipment. This is all that needed to be done for the 2007 license to be issued.” See
Exhibit 10 (Ray Email)
Had these problems been addressed, at an estimated time to fix of three days, the restaurant could have
opened immediately. Nantucket building inspectors performed annual reviews of the restaurant, reviews
which included inspections of the ceilings, and would have noticed large problems such as structural
deficiencies.
This is supported by an email exchange between Mr. Peterson and Gary Simanson on December 18,
2006, in which Al states the restaurant can open in about a week due to minimal changes required by the
Health Department.
Gary,
We met with Art Crowley from the Health Dept. and addressed the back room. He
indicated that the reason for the floor drain was Richard’s thought of moving the dish
washing into that room. If it is used for storage and non water related activities there is no
drain required. We can redo the walls and floor.
Would you please send us a sketch of what you have planned so that we can show them
and pin down the moving targets? They seem to be understanding but he was concerned
about what actually will take place vs. what is there now. If it stays pretty much as is-we
can fix the back room and get you going in about a week.
Thanks.
Al
In their earlier proposal, NRG proposed a two part plan for renovations to the restaurant in conjunction
with terminal renovations as follows:
Pre-Airport Renovation Period:
Initially, NRG will seek to operate the Restaurant with few, but significant, changes.
The initial and immediate changes would be with respect to the Restaurant's general
appearance (provide new paint, ceiling tiles, art work, window treatments, carpeting and
either a deep clean of the existing FF&E or replacement thereof. Plus, the addition of a
full-bar area.
The goal would be to utilize the existing operation as much as possible in order to limit
the disruption to the customer and the Airport and concentrate on designing, in close
16 | Page
consultation with the Airport Commission, the new Restaurant facility, theme and menu
as part of the overall Airport Renovations.
Despite the limited changes initially proposed by NRG, there are multiple indications as early as
December of 2006 and January of 2007 that this project would be a large scale renovation. In fact, the
email exchanges between Mr. Peterson and Gary Simanson are evidence that the Restaurant was intended
to be renovated, not just a new operating lease arrangement. See Exhibit 11 (Peterson Emails)
The email exchange between Mr. Peterson and Mr. Simanson lists changes desired by Nantucket
Restaurant Group, including moving a dishwasher to a back room, putting a bar in the area of the Hutch’s
office and extending the lunch counter. The dishwasher being moved would require an additional drain by
the Health Inspector. The replacement of refrigerators was a problem for Nantucket Restaurant Group’s
immediate opening because they would have to wait for a walk in to be installed. However, the lease
clearly states that all equipment is the responsibility of the tenant. A delay caused by refrigeration units or
by the tenant’s desire to reorganize the space, should not have required a lease abatement or the extensive
work that later occurred.
It is clear that the Airport Commission knew that the work would be a major construction project. Airport
Commission minutes in December of 2006 mention that the restaurant may be closed during renovations
and rent reduction may be needed during this time. See Exhibit 12 (Meeting Minutes). Given the Health
Inspector estimate of 3 days of work to complete the required changes, it is surprising that this was
considered necessary. In January, due to the proposed renovations, letters from Castle Group and
Nantucket Architecture Group to Mr. Peterson also mention work to include an addition. See Exhibit 13
(Castle Group Agreement). These letters also make it clear that the Airport is the contracting authority,
not Gary Simanson as had been reported. However, minutes from the Airport Commission meetings do
not indicate the scope of the renovations, nor any votes on whether to proceed with such work. In
January, it is stated in a Commission meeting that the airport should be responsible for framing and code
work; in February it is mentioned that adding a basement would be beneficial. Despite plans drawn up by
Nantucket Architecture Group, no budget was created for this project and no evidence of votes or
discussions as to whether to proceed with such major renovations has been provided.
The renovation to the entire restaurant that subsequently took place required many additional
remediations to comply with health, building and plumbing code specifications due to the additional
scope of work. The renovations included the addition of 443 square feet of space in the back of the
restaurant, movement of office space, as well as the addition of the bar. The total cost came to
$1,292,820, of which $1,048,464 was paid by airport. The difference of $244,355 was the responsibility
of Nantucket Restaurant Group and was for cosmetic improvements. Al Peterson was responsible for
performing a review of all invoices to ensure the airport did not pay for cosmetic improvements. See
Exhibit 14 (Restaurant Expenses Spreadsheet).
The first invoice from Castle Group to the airport, dated February 23, 2007, was for $188,192. At this
point, early in the project, the scope of the project was clearly large; however, the project is not discussed
again in the Commission minutes until an update in April, with no mention as to cost, and finally an
update as to near completion in June, again with no mention of cost.
An email from Mr. Peterson after the project was completed regarding the reasons behind the escalation
of the project contradicts reports from the health inspector regarding the severity of the initial problems
and attempts to justify the escalation in costs.
17 | Page
“Due to the change of ownership it was discovered that the restaurant was woefully
lacking in code issues based on inspections by the health department, who closed it down.
Simonson (sic) hired Castle Group who was also working on his house. He also got
involved with NAG. As the project evolved it was discovered that there were no drains
in the slab behind the counter and in the kitchen. There is also a NTM article prohibiting
the expansion of the restaurant. To accommodate a better layout required moving what
Hutch had for an office and storage area. The uncovering of the walls revealed rot, a
tangle of electrical wires from the days when it was a CAB weather station and engineers
found the roof structure to not meet code. The architects NAG recommended reinforcing
the roof and in order to meet structural code and to install drains we excavated to be able
to achieve needed slope, this evolved into a full basement. Our agreement with Simonson
(sic) was to handle the structural components but no interior aesthetics, to provide him
with the necessary code compliant structure.”
Despite this explanation, it appears that lack of planning and lack of oversight were the primary causes of
a project spun out of control.
Finding: Procurement procedures were violated during the restaurant project.
Gary Simanson had recently used the Castle Group to perform renovations on his personal residence and
wanted Castle Group to handle the minimal renovations described in the RFP proposal. However, a letter
dated January 2, 2007, from Castle Group to Mr. Peterson clearly states that work would be charged to
the airport, to include work to bring the restaurant to code as well as construction labor and materials for
the addition. See Exhibit 13 (Castle Group Agreement)
Massachusetts procurement procedures require that for building construction work over $100,000, sealed
bids be received, advertising must be posted in a newspaper, a bid deposit of 5% of the value of the total
bid must be issued, a payment bond and a performance bond of 100% of the project must be issued, a
contractor evaluation must occur and prevailing wages must be paid. None of these requirements were
adhered to.
We have requested, on numerous occasions, information about the invoices submitted from Chris Skehel,
President of the Castle Group and current operator of the Restaurant regarding subcontractors in an
attempt to verify prevailing wage rates and names. While these files should be readily available, they have
not been provided, raising questions that indicate potential issues. No time sheets or prevailing wage
documentation were submitted to the airport by Castle Group.
Nantucket Architecture Group was brought into the project as of January 7, 2007. According to their letter
to Mr. Peterson, they would act as part of an on-going sub-consultant of Earth Tech working on the
renovation and addition to the airport. Their scope would be to design the new kitchen addition and
renovation to the interior space to meet current building codes. The contract also states Nantucket
Architecture Group will assist the airport in determining a contractor-bidding list. We note that this
project is falsely considered here to be part of the airport renovations, and Nantucket Architecture Group,
by stating it was acting as a consultant to Earth Tech, appears to be positioning its involvement to not
require a separate RFP for this project. See Exhibit 15 (Proposal from Nantucket Architecture
Group)
18 | Page
Finding: The restaurant construction project was not budgeted and was paid for out of
apparent unrelated funds.
As we reviewed circumstances surrounding the restaurant renovations, it became apparent that the project
was not budgeted or planned for. A review of airport Commission minutes does not show any votes or
approvals on the restaurant.
A review of the payment vouchers show that the restaurant project was charged to the Airport’s Capital
account 55482 96075 A14/2006 Airport Terminal. See Exhibit 16 (Stamped Invoices for Castle
Group)
A review of the aforementioned warrant article does not identify any discussion of business or restaurant
improvements. In fact, the warrant specifically mandates that “no further expansions of business
concessions or any other non security related areas are included.” See Exhibit 17 (Warrant A14) In
June of 2007, a reimbursement request form for the terminal project was submitted to MassDOT. This
form included $127,548 for an invoice paid to Castle Group for the restaurant renovations. This
reimbursement was at 100% and was subsequently approved for structural/code compliance reasons. This
was the sole reimbursement for the restaurant renovations sought by the airport. The restaurant work was
not reimbursable under FAA guidelines as it is not part of aviation use. That no subsequent invoices were
submitted to MassDOT is telling.
In late 2007, questions were raised regarding the scope of the project. Mr. Peterson attempted to justify
the work as necessary due to the Health Department; however, the Health Department strongly disagreed
with this in an email to the Town Manager. Al Peterson then requested that Skanska, the general
contractor performing the terminal renovations, perform an analysis on what it would have cost had
Skanska done the renovation work performed by Castle Group.
Skanska provided a 25 page detailed proposal in which they estimated the fee would have been
approximately $1.9 million combined for both tenant and landlord costs, based upon drawings, photos
and discussions. It appears that Skanska’s estimate included many items that were not included in the fees
paid to Castle Group, including landscaping and fence costs of $19,539 (island factor of 30% markup
included), none of which were included in the work Castle Group performed. Skanska’s estimate also
included $236,126 (30% markup included) of food service equipment, none of which was supplied by
Castle Group or paid for by the airport. Construction management fees for Skanska totaled $232,159.
Castle Group billed $175,396 for general contractor’s fees.
While this estimate appears high, it further proves that this was a large scale renovation project that
should have been budgeted, with an RFP process and submitted for public vote as a capital project.
Skanska provided an estimate based upon drawings by Nantucket Architecture Group. These drawings
were completed in January 2007, before renovations were started.
Finding: The assignment of the restaurant lease in 2009 was valid; however, subsequent
rent reductions may have violated Procurement laws.
In late 2008, Gary Simanson and Nantucket Restaurant Group were looking to exit the restaurant lease
due to poor financial performance and due to internal personnel issues. According to our interviews,
former Town Counsel was consulted on the situation and provided the airport with multiple options on
how to handle the lease termination. One alternative was to assign the lease to Chris Skehel’s company,
19 | Page
the newly formed Nantucket Regal Group1. No subleases were allowed in the original lease. The original
lease had gone out to bid with the RFP and was a ten year term, making an assignment without an
additional RFP a viable option, as long as the assignment held to the terms of the original lease
agreement. See Exhibit 18 (Notice of Lease Assignment)
Nantucket Restaurant Group owed Castle Group $160,000 for work reportedly done to the restaurant
and/or other sites. Gary Simanson of Nantucket Restaurant Group came to an agreement with Chris
Skehel of Nantucket Regal Group to sell the restaurant’s operations and the restaurant’s equipment to
Nantucket Regal Group in return for a release of the $160,000 debt outstanding. See Exhibit 19
(Purchase and Sale of Restaurant Equipment).
The original lease signed by Nantucket Restaurant Group in 2007 contained the following provisions:
7. Rent. Lessee shall pay to the Lessor, during the term hereof, the sum of fifty (50) dollars and
fifty (50) cents per square foot or $114,382.50 as base rent, in addition to the annual business fee.
The Lessor and Lessee do hereby mutually agree that the rent shall be subject to annual review
and adjusted by the CPI-W rate on the anniversary date. The base rent will be paid in twelve (12)
equal installments, due on the first day of the month, commencing on January 1, 2007. Any
monthly installment of rent which is not paid within ten (10) days after receipt of notice, shall be
subject to interest charges at twelve percent (12%) per annum or part thereof.
In 2009 base rent had increased to $122,050.69.
However, at an executive session in March 2009, the Airport Commission agreed to reduce the rent for
2009, retroactive from the first of the year, to $6,000 per month, per a request from Chris Skehel. The
effect was a reduction in rent to $72,000 annually. The Commission decided to revisit this again in
December of 2009. See Exhibit 20 (Meeting Minutes – March 10, 2009)
The topic arises again at an executive session in January of 2010. The Commission then agreed to Chris
Skehel’s request to raise the rent to $7,000 monthly rather than $12,000 per month, though Foley
Vaughan stated he would like the airport’s accountant to review the restaurant’s financial statements after
March 31 and to revisit the situation. See Exhibit 21 (Meeting Minutes – January 12, 2010) The
accountant review did not occur. There are no discussions of amending the terms on the written lease
contract.
It should be noted that no votes were taken on these items during open meetings and that there is no
mention of as to the legality of lowering the rent without issuing another RFP. By cutting a deal in
private, the airport denied other businesses the ability to propose on the restaurant at the newly reduced
rental rates and stopped potentially higher bids. At the time of the lease reassignment, we were informed
that at least four other parties had expressed interest in the restaurant.
Finding: Rental income from the restaurant has been significantly lower than what is
required in the signed lease.
We have performed an analysis of rental payments received by the airport from the three tenants in
occupancy from 2005 through 2011. Nantucket Restaurant Group ceased paying regular rent in August
1 We note the name similarity of Nantucket Restaurant Group and Nantucket Regal Group. NRG is referenced in
various documents as the operator of the Restaurant.
20 | Page
2008 but made up for the remaining 2008 payments in June of 2009. Both Nantucket Restaurant Group
and Bill Hutchinson paid their required payments of rent.
Monthly rental payments by Chris Skehel and Nantucket Regal Group began in June of 2009. Rent
payments have been inconsistent, with months missed and paid late. Despite the late payments, no interest
charges have been requested or paid. As of yearend 2011, Nantucket Regal Group was still paying $7,000
per month. It should be noted that at the time of his leaving in 2006, William Hutchinson was paying
monthly rent of $7,589.46 – a significantly higher rate for a smaller and lower quality space than is
presently available. The total difference between what Nantucket Regal Group had paid in rent at the end
of 2011 and what should have been paid per the original rental agreement is over $140,000. See below
table for actual rent due at the actual rates versus paid through December 2011.
Payment Due Dates
Payments Due At
CPI‐W Adjusted
Rate Pay Dates
Amount Paid by
Nantucket Regal
Group Difference
Security deposit $12,000.00 4/30/2009 $12,000.00 $0.00
Apr‐09 10,170.89 10,170.89
May‐09 10,170.89 10,170.89
Jun‐09 10,170.89 6/18/2009 6,000.00 4,170.89
6/18/2009 1,525.00 (1,525.00)
Jul‐09 10,170.89 7/9/2009 6,000.00 4,170.89
Annual Fee 1,500.00 1,500.00
7/30/2009 6,000.00 (6,000.00)
Aug‐09 10,170.89 8/13/2009 6,000.00 4,170.89
Sep‐09 10,170.89 9/4/2009 5,550.00 4,620.89
9/30/2009 1,395.00 (1,395.00)
Oct‐09 10,170.89 10/8/2009 6,000.00 4,170.89
Nov‐09 10,170.89 11/12/2009 6,000.00 4,170.89
Dec‐09 10,170.89 12/10/2009 6,000.00 4,170.89
Jan‐10 10,364.14 10,364.14
Feb‐10 10,364.14 2/25/2010 6,000.00 4,364.14
Mar‐10 10,364.14 3/31/2010 7,000.00 3,364.14
Apr‐10 10,364.14 10,364.14
May‐10 10,364.14 10,364.14
Jun‐10 10,364.14 6/10/2010 10,000.00 364.14
Jul‐10 10,364.14 7/22/2010 10,098.85 265.29
Annual Fee 1,500.00 1,500.00
8/2/2010 7,000.00 (7,000.00)
Aug‐10 10,364.14 8/13/2010 14,000.00 (3,635.86)
Sep‐10 10,364.14 9/23/2010 4,000.00 6,364.14
Oct‐10 10,364.14 10/28/2010 8,500.00 1,864.14
Nov‐10 10,364.14 10,364.14
Dec‐10 10,364.14 10,364.14
Jan‐11 10,695.79 1/20/2011 7,000.00 3,695.79
Feb‐11 10,695.79 10,695.79
Mar‐11 10,695.79 3/3/2011 6,415.00 4,280.79
21 | Page
Apr‐11 10,695.79 4/7/2011 4,675.13 6,020.66
4/7/2011 7,000.00 (7,000.00)
4/28/2011 7,000.00 (7,000.00)
May‐11 10,695.79 10,695.79
Jun‐11 10,695.79 6/9/2011 6,673.65 4,022.14
6/23/2011 6,354.00 (6,354.00)
6/30/2011 7,000.00 (7,000.00)
Jul‐11 10,695.79 7/21/2011 8,500.00 2,195.79
Annual Fee 1,500.00 1,500.00
Aug‐11 10,695.79 8/4/2011 7,000.00 3,695.79
8/25/2011 7,000.00 (7,000.00)
Sep‐11 10,695.79 10,695.79
Oct‐11 10,695.79 10/6/2011 7,000.00 3,695.79
10/20/2011 7,000.00 (7,000.00)
Nov‐11 10,695.79 10,695.79
Dec‐11 10,695.79 10,695.79
Total $360,757.15 $217,686.63 $143,070.52
As part of our inquiry, we reviewed submitted financial statements for the restaurant. Based upon the
information submitted, the restaurant’s net profits have been increasing each year since 2009. See Exhibit
22 (Financial Statements of Crosswinds)
22 | Page
REVIEW OF VARIOUS OTHER NANTUCKET AIRPORT PROJECTS OR
ISSUES
As noted earlier, we have reviewed numerous projects and issues at the Airport. Several are discussed
below:
Tenant Rates
The Airport leases space inside the terminal to airlines and vendors, including the restaurant, gift shop,
auto rental agencies and for ATMs. Hangars are rented for private airplane storage as well as for a
number of businesses; tenants include a flight school, lumber company, UPS, and others. In addition,
outlying space on airport property is leased to various companies for storage of materials such as asphalt,
equipment and propane.
All airlines pay the same rate per square foot of space inside the terminal. However, many specialized
deals with tenants, including abatement of the annual fee or CPI-W increase, are still in evidence in the
leases for outlying space, the gift shop and the restaurant. Both the restaurant and the gift shop were
leased though an RFP process. Therefore, rent abatements which have occurred for both tenants, appear to
be a violation of procurement rules. An abatement given to a current tenant that won the lease through a
process designed to award to the highest bidder clearly places applicants that bid lower and did not have
a chance to ask for an abatement at a disadvantage. Differing deals for outlying tenants also place tenants
that don’t ask for special treatment at a disadvantage.
Mr. Peterson has made an attempt in recent years to standardize leases and rental rates. As leases for
outlying space expire they are replaced with a standard lease that includes extra fees based on
profitability. Unfortunately, many of the leases are long term, for 20 to 30 years, and they will continue to
expire into years 2020-2030. The interim current Airport Manager was made aware of some of these
problems, including rumors that some tenants were subleasing when the leases prevented this, and has
been attempting to remedy the situation. See Exhibit 23 (Tenant Rate Schedule)
Purchase of Televisions by Employees
During the terminal renovation work and as part of their contract, Skanska purchased two 32 inch
televisions for $1,000 each which were reimbursed by the Airport. These were used by Skanska
employees while on the Island; once the work was completed Skanska turned the televisions over to the
Airport after nearly two years of use. These were sold to two employees, Tina Smith and Janine Torres, at
a price of $200 each. We have been provided with copies of the cancelled checks as proof of
reimbursement. The cash went to the Airport’s miscellaneous fund. See Exhibit 24 (Invoices for
Purchase of Television and Check Reimbursements).
The purchase of the televisions by two employees in the inner circle at the airport is another lapse
regarding fair treatment of employees, a theme we heard consistently in our interviews. According to
Massachusetts Procurement Act, Chapter 30B, Section 15 Tangible Supply disposition ”For a supply with
an estimated net value of less than $5,000, the procurement officer shall dispose of such supply using
written procedures approved by the governmental body.”
According to the Code of the Town of Nantucket, under Part I, Administrative Legislation, the proper
procedure is to put surplus equipment out to bid. Chapter 38, Article II states that
23 | Page
The Selectmen are authorized to dispose of obsolete or surplus Town equipment worth
more than $500 by putting it up for bid without the necessity of a Town Meeting vote.
Obsolete or surplus equipment with a value of less than $500 shall be disposed of by
advertisement and sale on a "first come" basis, yard sale or delivery to the Town sanitary
solid waste facility, as the Town Administrator deems appropriate. Surplus equipment
worth more than $25,000 shall require a Town Meeting vote for disposal.
Clearly Town rules were violated selling the televisions to employees in-the-know rather than offering
others the ability to purchase them.
Mr. Peterson Housing Stipend and Benefits
While serving as Airport Manager, Mr. Peterson received a number of perks by the Airport Commission.
This was clearly within their purview. The Commission has statutory authority to compensate the
Manager through Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90, Section 51E, which reads, in pertinent part:
Subject to appropriation, said commission shall appoint such other officers and
employees as its work may require and shall fix the salaries of all officers and employees
appointed or employed by it.
However, records of the votes are sparse and many of his perks appear to have been approved outside of
public session.
In February of 2005, Mr. Peterson was awarded a bonus of $15,000, referenced in a letter from Foley
Vaughan. The letter states that the bonus was decided on at the Airport Commission meeting on February
8. However, neither the Commission minutes nor the Executive Session minutes mention a vote on this
item. See Exhibit 25 (Meeting Minutes – February 2005)
In February of 2006, Mr. Peterson was awarded a bonus of $20,000 and it was also decided that the
Airport would also pay for his aircraft insurance, a cost of $4,500 per year. This was apparently decided
at an Executive Session of the Airport Commission on February 21, 2006, however, these minutes have
not been found. The insurance payment was not included in Mr. Peterson’s 2010 employment contract.
See Exhibit 26 (Letter from Foley Dated February 22, 2006)
Mr. Peterson began receiving a housing allowance of $3,000 per month in 2006, voted on and approved
by the Commission, with one vote of Nay, on November 28, 2006, in Executive Session. See Exhibit 27
(Meeting Minutes – November 28, 2006 and Letter from Foley Vaughan).
That the approval came during executive session meant that it was not publicly reported. The first two
payments of this allowance were included in Mr. Peterson’s paycheck and reported on his W-2. However,
subsequent payments were paid monthly and reported for tax purposes via a 1099, the form for reporting
income to independent contractors. The format for reporting taxes does not affect his responsibility to
pay taxes and it has been reported that the reason for the change in reporting of income may have been
due to ease of administering a monthly payment.
However, we note that by not including the stipend in his base earnings, the stipend was not included in
the Town’s report of salaries for Town officials. The result is that Mr. Peterson’s actual pay and his status
as highest paid Town employee was not publicly reported. The housing stipend was included in Mr.
Peterson’s 2010 employment contract.
24 | Page
Mr. Peterson also received free hangar space to store his plane while he was the Airport Manager. Other
lease agreements show that this may be a benefit of up to $600 per month; however, we can find no
evidence that this income was reported as compensation. We also have not seen this topic raised or
approved in any Commission minutes.
Jeff Marks, another Airport employee also received the benefit of hangar space at no charge. We note that
prior to Mr. Peterson’s tenure, Jeff Marks was paying for his hangar space. It was reported to us that Mr.
Peterson told him to stop making payments.
It was also discovered that all hangar tenants at the Airport received a discount on the purchase of fuel.
This discount was equally applied to all tenants of hangars. However, the practice did not distinguish
between paying and non paying tenants. As a result, both Mr. Peterson and Mr. Marks received fuel
purchase discounts for their aircraft.
25 | Page
REVIEW OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES AND
PRACTICES, BOTH OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE
COMMISSION
Finding: The procedures surrounding the hiring of the Airport Manager in 2003-2004
appeared to favor Mr. Peterson.
The Airport Commission had an opening for the position of Airport Manager in December 2003, as the
current manager had accepted early retirement. The Airport began soliciting applications for the position.
During this time period, Jeff Marks was appointed acting manager. Applications were submitted during
November and December 2003. The initial review of the applications was performed by the retiring
Airport Manager Fred Jaeger, who ranked each of the applicants based on the qualifications noted on the
resume. The results were reported to the Commission with each applicant graded A-F.
Mr. Peterson was a member of the Airport Commission at this time and initially did not submit an
application. However, after he reviewed the analysis by former manager Jaeger, Mr. Peterson submitted
his interest for the position. See Exhibit 28 (Peterson Letter)
We could not find an official deadline for submittal of application but note that Peterson’s application was
the last in, after review of applications began.
In January 2004, Mr. Peterson resigned from the Airport Commission and shortly thereafter was named
Acting Airport Manager, replacing Jeff Marks, who had also applied for the permanent position. We were
not presented with the job responsibilities for Airport Manager from the 2003 posting; however, the most
recent search qualifications included, but were not limited to, the following:
‐ Managing all aspects of staffing, facilities, budgets, security, safety and tenant, user and
community relations;
‐ Overseeing and implementing programs to ensure effective operation and safety of the airfield;
‐ Directing all maintenance and construction;
‐ Responsibility for preparation of operating and capital budgets and for performance against
budget;
‐ Managing the collection and audit of all revenues;
‐ Assisting the Commission in planning and formulating overall airfield policy;
‐ Overseeing compliance with applicable rules and regulations, Commission policies and priorities,
and airport procedures;
‐ Responsibility for day-to-day working relationships with the FAA, MassDOT Aeronautical
Division, airline and general aviation customers, tenants, users, service contractors, etc.;
Minimum qualifications included, but were not limited to, the following:
‐ Degree in aviation management or a related field.
‐ 5-7 years airport management-related experience.
‐ Extensive knowledge of aircraft and airport operations, airport certification requirements,
as well as procurement law and grant assurance procedures.
26 | Page
We note as significant the deviation in the search process, at least in allowing a Commission member to
apply, after all other applications were in and after a preliminary review had occurred. During the search
process, Al Peterson was named Acting Manager, replacing Jeff Marks.
It was reported that the work group consisting of Chairman Foley Vaughan and Commissioner Finn
Murphy, recommended the Acting Airport Manager Peterson for the position, stating that having
someone local would be “the way to go”. The applications were narrowed down to three finalists. In May
2004, Mr. Peterson was named permanent Airport Manager. See Exhibit 29 (Meeting Minutes – May
21, 2004)
Finding: The Nantucket Airport Commission has been allowed to operate independently
with little to no oversight throughout the years. There has been an apparent reluctance to
intrude or question the airport’s operations.
Throughout the years, the Airport has operated almost entirely independent from the Town of Nantucket.
One of the main catalysts for this is the Nantucket Home Rule Charter which reads, in part:
Section 4.4 – Town Administration Departments [Amended 4-10-2002 ATM by Art. 46,
Approved 4-1-2003 ATE]
(a) The Town Administration shall include the Building, Finance, Fire, Health, Island
Home, Marine and Coastal Resources, Police, Public Works, and Visitors Services
departments; provided, however, that nothing in this Charter mandates the continued
existence of any such Town Administration department or continuance of a department
name or function.
(b) The Town Administration shall not include the Airport, the Park and Recreation, the
School and the Water departments.
Coupled with several other contributing factors, there was an opinion, mainly put forward from the
Airport Manager and Commission Members, that complete autonomy was required and/or existed. Other
factors that contributed were the Enterprise Fund and Massachusetts General Laws Chapters 90 and 30.
Enterprise Funds
The Airport has been an enterprise fund for many years. An enterprise fund is defined
under Massachusetts Law Chapter 44 and is used to establish a separate accounting and
financial reporting mechanism for municipal services for which a fee is charged in
exchange for goods or services. Under enterprise accounting, the revenues and
expenditures of the service are segregated into a separate fund with its own financial
statements, rather than commingled with the revenues and expenses of other
governmental activities. Once certified, retained earnings may be appropriated only for
expenditures relating to the enterprise fund. Conversely, if during the year, the enterprise
fund incurs an operating loss, the loss must be raised in the subsequent year’s budget.
The benefits of an enterprise fund include the segregation of total cost for providing a service separate
from other services, in this case allowing the public the ability to see the total cost of operating the
Airport. In addition, an enterprise fund makes sense for an Airport due to the reliance on revenues from
the FAA which has strict rules regarding usage of funds for aviation purposes only. Many airports in
Massachusetts are accounted for as enterprise funds.
27 | Page
However, it is important to note that an enterprise fund is not a separate or autonomous entity from the
municipal government operation. Like every other department, a budget is prepared that is reviewed and
analyzed by the Finance Committee. The budget, as well as any transfers among the enterprise fund’s line
item appropriations, requires action by the council or town meeting. The municipal department operating
the enterprise service continues to fulfill financial and managerial reporting requirements.
Airport Commission
Massachusetts Law Chapter 90 Motor Vehicles and Aircraft provides the regulations that establish the
Airport Commission and its appointment by the Board of Selectmen.
Chapter 90 Section 51E. In any city or town in which an airport is established under
section fifty-one D, or under any other provision of law, there shall be established a board
consisting of an odd number of members not less than three nor more than eleven in
number, to be called the airport commission, which shall have the custody, care and
management of the municipal airport of said city or town. Of the members appointed at
least one shall be a person having experience in aeronautics. An airport commission may
be established as herein provided in any city or town for the purpose of establishing an
airport therein. Except as provided otherwise in any special law, enacted prior to January
first, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, relating to an airport commission in any city or
town, the members of the airport commission shall be appointed, in cities, by the mayor
with the approval of the city council, and in towns by the selectmen. In the initial
appointment of the members of such an airport commission, their terms shall be so
arranged that one third of the members, as nearly as possible, will expire each year; and
thereafter when the term of any member expires his successor shall be appointed to serve
for the term of three years and, in each instance, until the qualification of his successor.
Vacancies in the commission shall be filled for the unexpired term by the appointing
authority. The members of said airport commission shall annually choose one of their
members as chairman. The airport commission may appoint an airport manager who shall
be qualified by general management experience and aeronautical knowledge and shall be
the executive officer of said commission, and may also appoint an assistant airport
manager who shall be qualified as aforesaid. Neither the airport manager nor the assistant
airport manager shall be subject to chapter thirty-one. The assistant airport manager shall
act in place of the airport manager at such times and under such conditions as the airport
commission may direct. The airport manager, and the assistant airport manager when
acting in place of the airport manager under the direction of the airport commission, shall
be responsible to said commission for the proper maintenance and operation of such
airport and of all facilities under his supervision. Subject to appropriation, said
commission shall appoint such other officers and employees as its work may require and
shall fix the salaries of all officers and employees appointed or employed by it.
Further confusing the independence issue are requirements of Grant Assurances by the Massachusetts
Aeronautics Commission, which reads, in pertinent part:
Certification of the Selectmen of the Town of Nantucket.
Notwithstanding any powers that may be granted to the Selectmen of Nantucket, the Town agrees not
to attempt to reorganize the Airport Commission, or in any way to interfere with the autonomy and
authority of the Airport Commission as created un Chapter 90, Section 51E of the General Laws,
without the express approval of the Aeronautics Commission. See Exhibit 30 (Grant Assurances)
28 | Page
These factors all had a role in the perception that the Airport is required to have complete autonomy. Our
review found a number of instances where Town finance personnel either questioned a process or
requested additional information. However, it was often responded to with aggressive pushback by Mr.
Peterson, further discussed later in this report.
In the current structure, the Board of Selectmen is the controlling authority over the Airport Commission.
During our interviews, we were told of reluctance on the part of the Selectmen to question the Airport’s
operations. Due to the long serving Chairman Foley Vaughan’s stature and experience, we were informed
that deference was often given to his decisions.
An email exchange from July 2010 is particularly revealing about the Airport and identifies, at least the
perception that the Airport is independent of the Town and should be left alone: Former Finance Director
Connie Voges, discussion in an email on recommendations from Financial Consultant Mark Abrahams:
“The BOS level issue is: whether the Airport is part of the TON, and whether the policies
and procedures that apply to the TON also apply to the Airport. There are other
operations which are reviewed by other agencies: e.g., the schools, Our Island Home, etc.
The underlying procedure question is whether Mark’s report is going to be followed, as
written, or whether allowances can /should/will be made for different controls that are in
place at other town locations. As written, there was no room in the Abrahams’ report for
‘other controls in place’ – at the airport or elsewhere. Rick Atherton weighed in on this at
Audit Committee meeting, with respect to the Airport receivables: his sentiment was
basically, IF the Airport has controls in place that work, why do we need to repeat what
they do – if we’ve reviewed the controls and found them to be sufficient.”
But – that’s a different approach from the Abrahams’ report. It’s not an entirely
unreasonable approach, but it’s not the one that has been on the front burner for the last 2
years.” See Exhibit 31 (Email Exchange)
No changes were made at the time.
Finding: Often times, the business of the airport was conducted, discussed and apparent
decisions made in violation of open meeting requirements.
A review of email communications, before and after July 2010 reveals information that indicates potential
violations of open meeting law requirements. We were told that members often stopped by Mr.
Peterson’s office, both unannounced and by request to discuss issues and/or get updates. We suspect
that in those instances where no formal vote is found in minutes of official Commission meetings,
decisions were made to proceed via alternate communications. Some areas where violations appear to
have occurred:
• Emails are expressly included in definition of “deliberation,” which is prohibited outside of open
session; but distribution of agendas, scheduling information or reports to be discussed at next
meeting is permitted.
• Minutes must contain more detailed information; in addition to “date, place, time and matters
discussed,” shall include summaries of matters discussed, list of documents used, all decisions
made/votes taken.
29 | Page
• Documents and other exhibits, such as photographs, recordings or maps, used by the body at an
open or executive session shall, along with the minutes, be part of the official record of the
session.
• Chairs required periodically reviewing executive session minutes and determining if they should
be released, or if purpose for executive session is still ongoing to keep minutes confidential.
Our review of Airport Commission minutes revealed a number of missing dates, incomplete information,
and more importantly, no discussion of public votes taken on expenditures that were eventually approved.
The awarding of Al Peterson’s final contract in June 2011is a recent example. On June 21, 2011, on the
eve of appointment of new commission members, the existing Airport Commission voted unanimously in
Executive Session to award a contract to Al Peterson. Surprisingly, the existence of a written contract was
denied two days after the vote. No public acknowledgement or vote was conducted. See Exhibit 32 (June
21, 2011 – Executive Session Minutes and Emails)
The circumstances surrounding the restaurant renovations and subsequent lease are another example of
potential open meeting law violations. We have discussed many of the issues in the previous sections. A
further review shows that the signed documents assigning the lease from Gary Simanson to Chris Skehel
in 2009. The effective date of the assignment is January 1, 2009. However, Gary Simanson does not sign
the document until July 2009. Chris Skehel’s signature is undated. Then surprisingly, Foley Vaughan
does not sign the document until March 2010. His signature references a May 12, 2009, vote at the
Airport Commission meetings. There is no record of this vote. See Exhibit 18 (Notice of Lease
Assignment)
Finding: When not mandated by FAA requirements, Massachusetts’ Procurement Laws
were avoided. There was an apparent liberal definition of aviation use and/or emergency
process by the Airport Manager that was not questioned. Many items that were deemed to
be time sensitive were the apparent cause of management inadequacies.
The Uniform Procurement Act, which is based on Chapter 30B of the Massachusetts General Laws,
illustrates bidding requirements and other regulations that are intended to promote transparency, open
competition, gain public confidence and avoid favoritism in awarding public money. This applies to every
contract for the procurement of supplies, services or real property and for disposing of supplies or real
property by a governmental body.
Procurement of a supply or service in the amount of $5,000 or greater, but less than
$25,000, is to require written or oral quotations from no fewer than three suppliers or
vendors. The responsible official that is requesting quotations (the Procurement Officer)
shall record the names and addresses of all persons from whom quotations were sought,
the names of the persons submitting quotations and the date and amount of each
quotation. The contract is awarded to the vendor offering the supply or service at the
lowest quote. There is no such requirement for procurements less than $5,000 (See
Section 4 of Chapter 30B).
Procurements in excess of $25,000 require sealed bidding procedures, which the
Procurement Officer shall issue an invitation to bid. The invitation will be of public
notice, with a reasonable time prior to the date for opening of bids, and include all items
discussed in Exhibit 25 under Section 5(c). The Procurement Officer shall evaluate a bid
based solely on the requirements and criteria set forth in the invitation for bids. Such
standards include the quality, workmanship, results of inspections and tests, and
suitability for a particular purpose. The Procurement Officer shall unconditionally accept
30 | Page
a bid without alteration or correction, and shall award the contract to the lowest
responsible and responsive bidder (See Section 5 of Chapter 30B).
Our review found that all projects that were reimbursed by the FAA were managed and overseen through
Jacobs Engineering. As such, the process and record keeping appear to be pristine. Attached as an exhibit
is one such project. (See Exhibit 33 Sample Project From Jacobs)
However, there were other non FAA projects where corners appear to have been cut. Several of those
projects have been discussed in this report. We were told that Mr. Peterson was known for wanting
projects to be started and completed as quickly as possible. This is evident from the projects we have
reviewed. We were told that he often considered a delay to be an emergency project. Unfortunately, in the
public sector, very few projects are considered to be a true emergency. A true emergency in terms of
procurement law is defined in Chapter 30B, Section 8 as:
Whenever the time required complying with a requirement of this chapter would endanger the
health or safety of the people or their property a procurement officer may make an emergency
procurement without following that requirement. An emergency procurement shall be limited to
only supplies or services necessary to meet the emergency and shall conform to the requirements
of this chapter to the extent practicable under the circumstances.
A delay in opening a restaurant cannot be considered an emergency, nor can a delay in construction due
to electrical problems. However, Mr. Peterson believed these situations allowed him the discretion to
hire contractors outside of procurement regulations.
Mr. Peterson has responded publicly to many of these issues and has provided his justifications for some
issues.
Mr. Peterson’s Responses
1. Champoux Landscape – no contract for work in excess of $370,000. This was put out as a
Request for Proposals. It consisted of a design concept and a separate sealed price
component. We awarded it to Champoux conceptually but also as the low bidder. We did
not have an actual contract with him. At the time, 2008-09 we did not believe OSAH
applied since it was landscaping and not vertical construction and since it was a separate
contract from the terminal I do not believe that Jacobs’s who was our Project manger
confirmed prevailing wage. Under our current system we would have a contract
following the award.
2. Bernard Walsh – no contract for work on phone system “and other work” at airport since
August 2008 for over $250,000. 25 separate payments to Walsh with “no competitive
bidding or written contract. 15 invoices exceeded $5,000. Bernie Walsh was the phone
support guy here when I took over and had always done the day to day maintenance. The
system had been a conglomeration of changes that were a complete mystery due to years
of patches. He became involved with the terminal project without bidding when we found
that the architects assumed that this was covered by the security contract. It was not and
the electrical contractor brought it to our attention and we asked Walsh to install the
wiring and the electrical contractor to do all the conduit work. This occurred as the wall
boarding was getting ready to go up. We had the option of including it in Skanska’s or
the electrical contractor paying him directly. We opted to do the latter to avoid additional
overhead and profit. This was not covered by a contract and under normal circumstances
31 | Page
would have been either added to the contracts of Annese or Skansk as an add or put out to
bid if time allowed.
3. Robert W. King – no bidding and no contract for electrical contracting work on two
projects for over $47,000 past three years. Once contract was signed more than a month
after the work was completed. This was for work that was performed for several
unrelated projects. The first was the wiring for the trailers that made up the temporary
terminal for the terminal project. He also worked on disconnecting at the annex building
and last assisted with the moving of the fuel farm controls from the old
ARFF/Administration building to the temporary shed that is next to the fuel farm. The
2011 projects were at the rate of the Town’s electrical contract of $75.00/hour. I do not
believe the Town had an electric contract under which we qualified in 2008. In any event
I believe that this falls under the aviation exclusion of chapter 30B.
4. Per Diane O’Neil – regarding the Champoux work, “…no prevailing wages were paid, no
proof of a bond, no proof of insurance and no OSHA cards were available upon request:”
I cannot say if this is true or not and I am not sure whether she can make that statement.
This was landscaping not construction; for sure OSHA does not apply.
5. Bid splitting – no detail. This was never conceived nor intended. We started these
projects with goals of completing the work as soon as possible. They were task specific
i.e. disconnect the electrical components from the annex and ARFF building or wire this
trailer for use once it was in place. When we started the projects most were considered to
be less than $5000.00. The relocation of the controls for the fuel farm turned into a much
bigger project due to not having any as built drawings and problems with the conduits
through which the wires were run. The relocation was challenging since much of the
wiring was very unorganized. Again, this preceded the town having an electrical contract,
but all work following the establishment of the contract was required to be done at the
same rate $75.00/hour.
6. March 2009 – RFP – no mention of a gazebo in the RFP. Five responses and Champoux
chosen for $256,070. Story asserts that an invitation to bid rather than an RFP was the
correct way to go. Also asserts that a public works construction project involving any
horizontal building requires an IFB. We thought we had done this properly. The original
landscaping package was in the AECOM presentation. They had a Boston Landscape
firm on their team. After one meeting with them it was decided to remove the
landscaping from the overall contract and to keep it as a separate local project. The
bidding was advertised and we requested conceptual presentations from all submissions
with prices being submitted separately. Champoux was chosen for this concept but was
also the low bidder. The Commission subcommittee and airport management reviewed
these presentations.
7. No formal vote by the commissions to add a gazebo to the March 2009 RFP. The plans
were reviewed at a commission meeting and I believed we had a consensus of the
commission before we proceeded with it. It further went through about six HDC meetings
for revisions and compliance issues about handicap accessibility that required us to lower
the building and modify the landscaping to conform to the lower height.
8. $2,000 rental of Walsh house for one week. Las year we were expecting to get housing
for the ACE Camp from either the High School or the Hospital. Jack Wheeler found the
neither place had availability at the last minute for all personnel. We had one dwelling
but needed additional bedrooms. In his discussions with Bernie Walsh on phone issues he
found that Bernie had a rental house available. He quoted $2,000 and I ok’d it since it
was relatively cheap and we were without time to shop.
32 | Page
9. Three “phone bids” for electrical work with the work going to Robert King, 19 invoices
for over $22,000.00. The contract signed with King a month after the fact showed that he
did not have a required errors and omissions policy. This was a discussion between
Janine and Diane O’Neil that went on for a couple of weeks deciding whether or not
one was needed. By the time it was decided to write one work was well underway.
We noted that fact on the contract and had King sign it. This was not major contract
work nor did it exceed the $25,000.00 level.
10. Paul Torres paid $16,692 since October 2008. Paul is one of two electricians who are
badged for access to the secure ramp. He wired the three double wide trailers during the
terminal project. This saved us from having to tie up one of our people to escort him on
the secure ramp. He further assisted in the breaking down of the trailers during the
decommissioning phase. We also used him to wire the new pilot flight planning trailer
and he assisted King on the fuel farm, providing escort and electrical help. All work in
2011 was at the Town contract rate of $75.00/hr.
11. $20,000 bonuses over the last 3 years to non-union employees as well as contractor who
worked on recent projects. We have had plenty of discussions for these. Two went to
Paul Letendre as part of his contract. The others were administrative personnel who
carried the bulk of the added work on the terminal and ADFF building projects, as well as
Leisa who handled the art program for the terminal.
As Airport Manager, Mr. Peterson had discretion to reasonably apply the “airport use” exemption based
upon his airport expertise. Generally, no building construction services or land disturbance activities will
qualify as an “aviation use.” Based upon a review of certain projects and Mr. Peterson’s explanations,
there appears to be violations of procurement laws.
We found that the explanations are further proof of Mr. Peterson’s liberal use of the exceptions to
Procurement regulations and/or deviations to open meeting law requirements. A review of these projects
suggest inadequate planning was responsible as opposed to viable exceptions. We were informed by
various commission members that decisions of this type were left solely to Mr. Peterson. At a minimum,
some oversight or discussion by the Airport Commission regarding these issues would have provided a
better analysis or the required checks and balances for decisions of this type. We did not find any
relevant meeting minutes on many of these topics.
Finding: Significant reconciliation differences between the Nantucket Airport and the
Town of Nantucket resulted in long-running accounting problems and a recent deficit in
retained earnings of approximately $3.3 million
Accounting problems between the Town and the Airport have been ongoing for years. This stems from
differences in accounting systems, the Town operating on the Municipal Uniform Information System
(MUNIS) and the Airport operating on Microsoft Dynamics (formerly Great Plains). Airport capital
projects were being completed without the proper borrowing, or use of authorized but unused borrowing
from previous capital projects to complete other projects that were not approved by the capital committee.
The Town’s annual financial audit by Powers & Sullivan, LLC during the years of 2008 through 2012
indicated multiple management letter comments and material weaknesses, including failure to comply
with procurement laws and regulations as summarized above. See Exhibits 34 (Management letters).
The Town operates the Airport as an enterprise fund, meaning its revenue and expenses are separated
from the general fund and other municipal departments. The Airport, unlike many other enterprise funds,
has historically been able to operate without subsidy from the General Fund. Enterprise funds that do not
33 | Page
generate enough revenue to cover expenses, such as the Solid Waste and Sewer Enterprise funds, by law
require annual cash infusions from the Town’s general fund to fund operations.
In the early 2000’s, the Airport hired former acting Town Finance Director and former member of a prior
Town independent auditor Peter Lamb to aid in the monthly close process. Peter was not involved in
monitoring or reviewing budgets, rather he was more of a reviewer to make sure that accounts within the
Airport are reconciled. Cash accounts carried on the Airport and Town financial systems were reconciled
with the “Due to/From” accounts, which were used to monitor inter-fund receivables and payables. The
balances of these accounts are intended to represent cash that has not been transferred between funds.
Prior to 2011, the Town’s record-keeping over the Airport was not strong. Much reliance was placed on
the records prepared and provided by Airport Finance Director Tina Smith, with the review of Peter
Lamb. Tina Smith prepared schedules summarizing what expenses were paid, reimbursements that were
made from the Town from grant receipts and other borrowing funds that were received from the Town
and used to pay Airport expenses. At the end of each year, the Town would make an adjusting journal
entry forcing an adjustment to tie to the Airport’s schedules.
During 2011, the issuance of a report prepared by the Abrahams Group, and the continued management
letter comments and qualified audit opinion on the 2007 year-end audit issued by Town auditors Powers
& Sullivan, LLC, forced Town officials to begin to address these reconciliation differences. The
Abrahams Report, first issued in September 2008, provided an organizational review of the Town Finance
Department. The review was in response to management letter comments for the years 2005 through 2007
by Powers & Sullivan, LLC, which included, among other things:
‐ warrants were issued but not transferred into enterprise cash accounts upon time of issuance;
‐ the Town’s inability to reconcile cash and due to/from accounts;
‐ the Town’s inability to provide support for general ledger balances;
‐ the Town does not have internal procedure manuals clearly defining the responsibilities of each
position with the finance department; and
‐ segregation of duties issues throughout multiple areas.
2009 management letter comments from Powers & Sullivan, LLC also revealed that there were payments
made at the request of Mr. Peterson, without supporting documentation, but just a signed remittance form,
with which the Town payables clerk processed the payment. The 2009 audit revealed that there was no
supporting documentation for several Airport transactions, which is a direct breakdown of the Town’s
system of internal controls. At that time, the policies and procedures for payment at the Town level did
not provide for much discretion for review, after the Department Head approved:
1. The department head signed the invoice stamp and indicates the account number to charge the
expense.
2. The department head or the designated staff in the department enters the invoice into the town
accounting system for payment.
3. The Airport Commissioners then sign to approve the accounts payable warrant and forward to the
town finance department for payment.
4. After all the accounts payable requests are turned in by all town, school, and enterprise
departments, the final accounts payable warrant is signed by the town accountant or assistant
town account and a majority of the board of selectmen.
5. Once all the approvals have been obtained, the checks are released by the town finance
department.
34 | Page
The Town began performing detail reconciliations of all fund balances, including the enterprise funds. At
the end of fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, reconciliation was performed between Town and Airport
schedules, and concluded that the Airport schedules contained inaccuracies. This posed the question of
how far back were the Airport reconciliations inaccurate.
Miscellaneous income accounts were used to track reimbursements and other deposits that were outside
of the normal course of business. The Airport has a general ledger account setup for miscellaneous
receipts, account number 65482-48405, “MISC INC.”, which is utilized to record deposits received
outside of the normal course of business or one-time events. The following is a summary of
miscellaneous income activity during the years ended June 30, 2005 through 2011:
YEAR ACTIVITY
2005 $7,295
2006 $15,305
2007 $4,091
2008 $123,683
2009 $27,410
2010 $28,217
2011 $32,116
The nature of the miscellaneous deposits include, but are not limited to the following:
- Rental income received by the Town of Nantucket related to the cottage, and reimbursed to
the Airport.
- Miscellaneous utility and vender credits, including “Going Green” refunds in 2010.
- Employee reimbursements, including the receipt for the sale of televisions (See Exhibit 25)
in the amount of $766.12 during 2010.
- Registration fees paid for the ACE Camp.
- Miscellaneous parking and shuttle income.
- Terminal plan fees made by contractors purchasing plan and specification documents related
to the Terminal Project.
- Fixed Base Operation revenues (2011).
Finding: American express cards were given out to four Airport employees, and were used
primarily for business purposes. Expenses were not signed off, indicating that a review was
not performed.
Four American Express corporate credit card numbers were assigned to the Airport Manager,
Administrative Assistant, and Finance Director (who had two of the account numbers). The Finance
Director had an administrator account number, which is the administrative account number used to
manage the account. The remaining account numbers represent cards issued for the aforementioned three
employees. The use of the cards was for business travel for conferences, paying for airline tickets, meals
35 | Page
and travel. Any purchases made that related to personal expense were either paid directly to American
Express or reimbursed directly to the Airport. There were a few instances that Mr. Peterson traveled with
his wife and purchased airline tickets for both of them using the American Express card2. Subsequently,
Mr. Peterson cut a check to American Express for the portion of the expense related to his wife. Other
employees that utilized the American Express cards and had personal expenses reimbursed the Airport
directly, which was recorded as miscellaneous income on the Airport’s general ledger system. Based on
our review of the American Express statements, it appears that the cards were used primarily for business
use, and any personal expenses were reimbursed.
Finding: Bonuses, evaluations, and salary increases do not appear to be uniformly
measured for every Airport employee.
Massachusetts Law Chapter 90 Section 51E provides that “Subject to appropriation, said (“Airport”)
commission shall appoint such other officers and employees as its work may require and shall fix the
salaries of all officers and employees appointed or employed by it.”
The Airport paid a total of $20,500 in bonus payments since November 2009 to five non-union
employees. It was discussed in an interview with Mr. Peterson that these bonuses were for “exceptional
performance” as a result of the “extra workload” from capital expenditures related to the Terminal
Renovation Project. The bonuses were paid out of the fund’s personnel operating budget, which was
derived by airport revenues. This created a future problem as at the time these bonuses were given, the
Airport was running on an apparently unknown deficit, which resulted from paying for capital
expenditures with operating or unborrowed money.
No other town departments received cash bonuses. However, we were told that the Finance Department
reviewed the payment of the bonuses and determined that, due to the existing organizational structure, the
Town could not prevent the Airport from giving the bonuses. See Exhibit 35 (Personnel Spreadsheets)
Evaluations were provided to Airport employees by Mr. Peterson. When an evaluation was performed
with a minimum grade of “Satisfactory”, a minimum raise of 5 percent was given to the employee.
However, an evaluation had to be completed for a raise to be given. Certain employees have complained
that the evaluation process was not consistent, as Mr. Peterson avoided giving evaluations to certain
employees to avoid giving raises to them. Additionally, during this time period, the Mr. Peterson had
given substantial raises to certain employees, including the Airport Finance Director and Administrative
Assistant that some considered excessive.
POTENTIAL ETHICS ISSUES
Use of Red Sox Tickets
It was reported that in 2009, Mr. Peterson received the use of a Boston Red Sox luxury suite. This suite
was given to him by an Airport contractor. We were informed that Peterson used this for employees as a
team building activity. After the use was made public and questioned, Mr. Peterson was requested to
reimburse the contractor.
2 We were told that Mr. Peterson did not have to get pre-approval for any business travel. He was given discretion to
travel to business conferences and meetings as he deemed appropriate.
36 | Page
We spoke with the president of the contracting firm who provided the suite. We were told that he
provided the suite as a courtesy, as his firm was not able to use it on that date and the suite would have
gone unattended. He further stated that his work was completed at the airport and he was not bidding on
any new work. He stated that the gesture was not intended as anything other than a courtesy.
The contractor stated that he did not ask for reimbursement but received two personal checks from Mr.
Peterson for the full value of the suite. See Exhibit 36 (Peterson Reimbursement Letters for Tickets).
Travel
We were informed of business being conducted by the Airport with an Airport Commission member,
Sheila Eagan O’Brien. Ms. O’Brien’s company, Swain’s Travel reportedly acted as the travel agent for
airport employees and received commission fees. It was also reported that airplane ticket commuter books
were sold by Swain’s Travel to the Airport.
We have confirmed that Swain’s Travel did receive commission fees per booked travel. It was reported to
be a thirty dollar fee per transaction. We were informed that this process has been discontinued.
Use of Relatives as Subcontractors
There were at least two instances of the husbands of airport employees, Janine Torres and Tina Smith that
were hired to do work at the airport.
As previously reported, procurement violations may have occurred. In both instances, an existing Town
contract was in place regarding the applicable services. As with the paving contract, the Airport could
have engaged the services under the existing Town contract. The relatives of the employees would not
have been hired.
Finding: Mr. Peterson’s managerial style contributed to a breakdown in communications
and review between the Town and the airport.
One theme consistently heard throughout our interviews, reports and the documents we reviewed was that
Mr. Peterson’s management style and personality played a large role in the stressed relationship between
the Town and the Airport as well as the Airport’s lack of abidance of rules. Some of the conflict appears
to be a natural occurrence arising from cultural conflicts between a person from the private sector
interacting with public sector politics and rules. Mr. Peterson’s experience in private industry did not
necessarily prepare him for the rules and regulations rampant in public service. While these rules and
regulations are there to serve a purpose, they can often seem unnecessarily binding to a person with the
best of intentions desirous to get projects completed quickly.
As we have noted, we have not found evidence of fraud or personal gain by Mr. Peterson or others at the
Airport. Rather, we believe, as do many others we have spoken with, that Mr. Peterson desired to act in
the best intentions of the Airport by pushing for and completing numerous projects. In fact, Airport
Commission members that we spoke to held Mr. Peterson in very high regard. Officials at MassDOT also
had great praise for Mr. Peterson and thought of him as an effective Airport Manager. We were told in
several interviews that Mr. Peterson stated that he wanted the improvements he was able to complete
during his time in service, such as completion of a beautiful new terminal, to be his legacy. Unfortunately,
the public sector does not look kindly on deviations from rules, even if for the good of the public. Rules
and regulations such as procurement laws are in place to prevent mismanagement of funds and to ensure
that projects are properly monitored. That these rules were so easily circumvented points to a greater
problem of lack of oversight.
37 | Page
On the one hand, Mr. Peterson did get many new projects done at the Airport and some claim that he
pushed more through than prior Managers. He was also very involved in local and national airport
organizations and used these resources to educate himself on how to effectively work with the FAA and
act as an active Manager. Involvement and the related expense of membership and travel to conferences
with these organizations is on the whole beneficial to the Airport and point to Mr. Peterson’s proactive
approach.
However, there are a number of examples of behavior throughout his tenure that are not consistent with
cooperation. An excerpt from an email that Mr. Peterson sent in response to a member of the Town’s
finance department attempt to question an expense is as follows:
“I hope you review this objectively and observe the ridiculousness on your comments. If
you do not recognize them I would be surprised. These are paid from the Airport
enterprise account and have been reviewed and authorized. I do not expect you are an
expert on flag pole height so why waste everyone’s time. Are clothes pins and pepper
shakers an area of your expertise?” See Exhibit 37 (Email to Finance)
In addition, after being instructed on various procurement issues by the newly appointed Town’s
Attorney, Mr. Peterson responded to an email with:
“Thank you for the dissertation on Purchasing. I hope this is on the Town’s nickel.” See
Exhibit 38 (Email)
As we noted previously, Mr. Peterson’s attitude toward the Finance Subcommittee during questions about
the 12-30 paving project was also inappropriate and a catalyst for this review.
These examples of not only uncooperative but arrogant behavior show how little Mr. Peterson did to help
the crumbling situation. We were told on numerous occasions that had the Airport Commission imposed
restrictions on his behavior, or had Mr. Peterson been more inclined to cooperate, the relationships
between the Town and the Airport may have been better and a forensic audit may not have been deemed
necessary.
38 | Page
CONCLUSION
During the course of our review, we were provided access to a multitude of records concerning the
Airport. As noted, we have not found any indication of fraudulent activity or malicious intent, other than a
desire, both by Mr. Peterson and the Airport Commission, to get things done quickly and remain
independent from the Town. The aforementioned procurement and open meeting law deviations are
serious offenses. Poor planning, lack of coordination and significant reconciliation differences between
the Nantucket Airport and the Town of Nantucket resulted in long-running accounting problems and a
recent deficit in retained earnings of approximately $3.3 million. Mr. Peterson, as Airport Manager, was
primarily responsible for the how the Airport was managed and was the face of the Airport to the Town.
The Airport Commission, either by vote or by acquiescence, placed him in this position, approved his
actions and made decisions as to what should be publicly recognized. While the majority of blame for the
Airport’s actions should be placed on the shoulders of the Airport Commission and Mr. Peterson, we also
acknowledge the Town’s responsibility for managing the overall finances of Nantucket and for
implementing proper checks and balances. All parties, including the Board of Selectmen, Board of
Finance, and Town Administration could have done more to avoid the present situation.
We have referenced the Town Charter, Enterprise Funds and statutory requirements of the Airport
Commission as contributing factors in the circumstances under review. The result of the totality of these
contributing factors is that the Airport has been viewed and allowed to operate as a completely
independent entity, thus creating the proverbial “Silo Effect”. By design, particularly from Airport
Management, the core of the Airport’s business was understood by too few people and there was a
disconnect, at least in non FAA reimbursed projects, between the project management and the finance and
administration groups of the Town. At times, the Airport had the benefit of utilizing Town resources
without having to take responsibility for monitoring compliance. Town Administration felt powerless to
oversee the financial condition of the Airport or, in certain circumstances, relied on the Charter to “look
the other way.”
However, we also note that these factors have been in place under previous administrations and for
numerous years. The current financial and procedural issues were not at issue during that time.
The current Nantucket Charter specifically excludes the Airport from the Town Administration. This
provision has been in place for many years. However, solutions to the aforementioned issues do not
necessarily mandate a change in the Charter. The problems at the Airport were not caused by not knowing
what to do or with organizational structure but in enforcement of the proper actions on how to conduct
business. As evidenced by FAA funded projects and prior Airport administration, the current operating
environment in place works, if processes are adhered to.
Removing political infighting, enforcing financial controls from the Town to the Airport, and improving
interdepartmental communication will correct previous deficiencies and have no impact on any regulatory
autonomy that the Airport is required to have. The recently signed Memorandum of Understanding on
Procurement is an example of a workable and viable initiative.
During the past few years, there have been several financial consultant reports and Audit management
letters identifying issues and suggesting recommendations for correction, albeit focused primarily at the
Town level and not the Airport. We have reviewed those recommendations and believe many of them to
be sound. In addition, a detailed set of operational policies, procedures and rules must be developed and
implemented for the Airport. These should be consistent with and not in conflict with existing Town
policies and procedures.
39 | Page
Progress has been made in the implementation of recommendations. Some of the corrective initiatives
that have been already put in place will go a long way towards preventing future problems and forging
coordination. Centralized procurement and transition to the MUNIS financial system will help Airport
management ensure reconciliation of accounts and compliance with regulations.
We recommend an audit of the new processes in a few months to gauge their effectiveness and the Town
and Airport’s compliance with the new procedures.
40 | Page
EXHIBITS
1. Exhibit 1 – Document Inventory List
2. Exhibit 2 – Victor Brandon Contract
3. Exhibit 3 – Memo Regarding Runway 12-30 Resurfacing
4. Exhibit 4 – Daily Inspections form Jacobs Engineering
5. Exhibit 5 – Invoices From Victor Brandon
6. Exhibit 6 – Application to MassDOT
7. Exhibit 7 – Airport Commission Minutes
8. Exhibit 8 – RFP
9. Exhibit 9 – Simanson Proposal
10. Exhibit 10 – Ray Email
11. Exhibit 11 – Peterson Emails
12. Exhibit 12 – Meeting Minutes – December 2006
13. Exhibit 13 – Castle Group Agreement
14. Exhibit 14 – Restaurant Expenses Spreadsheet
15. Exhibit 15 – Proposal from Nantucket Architecture Group
16. Exhibit 16 – Stamped Invoices for Castle Group
17. Exhibit 17 – Warrant A14
18. Exhibit 18 – Notice of Lease Assignment
19. Exhibit 19 – Purchase and Sale of Restaurant Equipment
20. Exhibit 20 – Meeting Minutes – March 2009
21. Exhibit 21 – Meeting Minutes – January 2010
22. Exhibit 22 – Financial Statements of Crosswinds
23. Exhibit 23 – Tenant Rate Schedule
24. Exhibit 24 – Invoices for Purchase of TV and Check Reimbursements
25. Exhibit 25 – Meeting Minutes – February 2005
26. Exhibit 26 – Letter from Foley dated February 22, 2006
27. Exhibit 27 – Meeting Minutes – November 28, 2006 and Letter from Foley Vaughan
28. Exhibit 28 – Peterson Letter
29. Exhibit 29 – Meeting Minutes – May 2004
30. Exhibit 30 – Grant Assurances
31. Exhibit 31 – Email Exchange
32. Exhibit 32 – Executive Session Minutes and Emails
33. Exhibit 33 – Sample Project from Jacobs
34. Exhibit 34 – Management Letters
35. Exhibit 35 – Personnel Spreadsheets
36. Exhibit 36 – Peterson Reimbursement Letters for Tickets
37. Exhibit 37 – Email to Finance
38. Exhibit 38 – Email Exchange
Town of Nantucket
NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORT
14 Airport Road
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 02554
Alfred G. Peterson, Airport Manager Commissioners
Phone: (508) 325-5300 E. Foley Vaughan, Chairman
Fax: (508) 325-5306 Sheila O’Brien Egan, Vice Chair
Robert Atlee
David C. Gray, Sr.
Dual A. Macintyre, Jr.
NANTUCKET AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING
April 22, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Chairman E. Foley Vaughan with the following Commissioners present:
Vice Chair Sheila O’Brien Egan, Dual A. Macintyre, Jr., David C. Gray, Sr., and Robert Atlee.
Also present were Airport Manager Al Peterson, Airfield Supervisor Jeff Marks, Administrative Assistant to the Airport
Manager Janine Torres, Finance Director Tina Smith, Environmental Coordinator Jack Wheeler, and Administrative
Coordinator Yolanda Taylor.
The Commission Unanimously M/S/P approval of the March 23, 2010 minutes.
The Commission Unanimously M/S/P approval of the March 23, 2010 Executive minutes.
The Commission Unanimously M/S/P approval of the May 5, 2010 Warrant.
Noise Abatement
The Early Morning Noise Compliance award for March was awarded to Nantucket Shuttle.
Theresa Molinski accepted the award on behalf of Nantucket Shuttle.
Mr. Wheeler stated Nantucket Shuttle had 100% compliance and has won the Early Morning Compliance award 7
months in a row. All the other Airlines also achieved higher than the 85% and will receive a 15% reduction in their
landing fees.
VOTE to accept three Mass-Dot Grant Offers
The Commission Unanimously M/S/P to accept the Grant Offer for $320,000 for RW 12/30 Mill and Inlay.
The Commission Unanimously M/S/P to accept the Grant Offer for $280,000 for Fuel Farm Fire Suppression Rehab.
The Commission Unanimously M/S/P to accept the Grant Offer for $200,000 for a Motor Grader.
Administration Offices/FBO Project Update
Mr. Peterson reported when the new ARFF building is complete the current ARFF building will be turned into a new
FBO and Administration Offices and the flat roof double wide trailer will be removed.
Bill Mcguire and Steve Theroux of Nantucket Architecture Group showed the Commission sketches of the new
Administration Offices and FBO. The drawings that were shown were HDC drawings and will be brought to the HDC
tomorrow to be filed with the approval of the Commission. The drawings have elements of the main terminal building
incorporated in them to give the to buildings continuity.
Chairman Vaughan asked what the HDC’s main reaction might be. Mr. Mcguire responded he doesn’t think there will
be an issue.
Commissioner Atlee stated he has seen a lot of problems with the folding doors especially with the wind and suggested
looking into alternative doors. Mr. Peterson responded the alternative is a sliding door and the Airport will look into it.
The Commission M/S/P approval for Nantucket Architecture Group to submit the drawings to the HDC tomorrow.
Terminal Update
Mr. Peterson reported:
• All the leaks have been fixed hopefully for the final time
• The rubber sensors for the garage doors are here and ready to be installed
• Skanska has received an award for the terminal from the Construction Managers Association
ARFF Update
Mr. Peterson reported:
• The panel system is going well, the roof is going on, the walls are almost done, the frame for the overhead
doors have been welded in
• The masons have finished the block walls
• The conduit is finished
• The paving is being replaced
• Al is going to the HDC tomorrow about the additional window
Automated Parking Update
Mr. Peterson reported the automated parking system site work was awarded to Kobo as the low bidder. They will start
the construction work for the parking system on April 20, 2010. The Automated Parking system will be operational in
June. Mr. Peterson stated everything will remain the same, the overnight parking fee will still be $20 per night, the
seasonal, annuals, and monthly’s will also remain the same. The system can also be programmed for any specials
such as 3 day parking passes. There will be two indoor pay stations. One in the air taxi’s arrivals vestibule and one in
the summer arrivals vending area.
Tina Smith stated the new automated parking is a great system, the only problem she can see is public awareness and
education. Mr. Peterson responded there will be an educational video shown on Plum TV and there will also be a
pamphlet.
Advertising Proposal
Mr. Peterson reported he spoke to Luxury Media Partners who have an account with Ferrari/Maserati. The proposal is
to put up 4 posters in the areas the Commission had designated acceptable. They would like to put a banner;
however, Mr. Peterson has not agreed to a banner. Mr. Peterson stated there are 2 spots in the summer arrivals and 2
spots in the GA area.
Commissioner Macintyre stated he thought the Commission agreed the fence banner would go outside the FBO.
Commissioner Macintyre would like to see what the Commission had agreed upon last year.
Vice Chair Egan would like to see the exact location and size in the terminal before a final decision is made. The
Commission all agreed. Mr. Peterson will get back in touch with Luxury Media Partners.
Environmental
Mr. Wheeler reported operations through March were down 7.33%. There were 20,757 total operations through the
month of March. Enplanements for the month are down 13.51% with 26,423 total enplanements through the end of
March. GA Enplanements were 230 for the month of March. Freight through the end of March was 333,376 which is
down 2.20% from last year. Noise complaints are down 42.11% from the prior year. There has only been 1 complaint
for the month of March.
Operations
Mr. Peterson reported:
• Runway 12/30 has been repaved, the primary painting is done and the Airport is going to do the hold short
lines and runway indicators
• The first 2 fuel tanks have been completed. The epoxy on the inside and first coat on the outside. They take
9 days to cure then they will switch tanks and do the remaining 2. The steel order has been placed to
replace the steel framework above the tanks with galvanized steel. The fire suppression inspection which
was done in 1999 specified black iron pipe and now it is rusting on the inside. There is a proposal with
Carlysle Industries to replace the steel.
• Jeff’s crew has begun the summer mowing and getting ready for Daffodil weekend
Commissioner Atlee stated the TV in the hold room has not worked for about a month and wanted to know if it could be
fixed. Mr. Wheeler responded a Comcast box had to be installed with a remote and he believes someone is trying to
change the channel at the TV itself which will then cause it to turn off. Mr. Wheeler will look into the situation.
Public Comment
Fred Holdgate from the FAA Control Tower asked the Commission to reconsider Site 8 as the new location for the
Tower. The controllers feel Site 2 will increase their work load. Mr. Holdgate stated when he went to AFTILL the first
time, the first outcome was Site 8 as the chosen site and then the Commission had removed Site 8 from the equation.
Mr. Holdgate stated he would rather remain in the Tower they are in now rather than build a new tower on Site 2.
Chairman Vaughan stated the Commission will reconsider Site 8 and he believes the Commission is waiting for
something in writing from FAA headquarters and would like to invite the Tower personnel to attend the next
Commission meeting.
Commissioner Macintyre will send the memo that he received from Clifford Williams from the FAA Tower to all the
Commissioners.
Vice Chair Egan stated she encourages the FAA personnel to attend the Commission Meetings and give their input.
It was M/S/P by the following vote to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss Lease issues, not to reconvene into
Regular Session.
Chairman E. Foley Vaughan – Aye
Vice Chair Sheila O’Brien Egan – Aye
Commissioner Dual A. Macintyre, Jr. – Aye
Commissioner David C. Gray, Sr. – Aye
Commissioner Robert Atlee – Aye
Meeting Adjourned at 5:50 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________
Yolanda J. Taylor, Recorder
Town of Nantucket
NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORT
14 Airport Road
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 02554
Alfred G. Peterson, Airport Manager Commissioners
Phone: (508) 325-5300 E. Foley Vaughan, Chairman
Fax: (508) 325-5306 Sheila O’Brien Egan, Vice Chair
Robert Atlee
David C. Gray, Sr.
Dual A. Macintyre, Jr.
NANTUCKET AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING
May 11, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Chairman E. Foley Vaughan with the following Commissioners present:
Robert J. Atlee, Dual A. Macintyre, Jr., and David C. Gray, Sr. Vice Chair Sheila O’Brien Egan was present via
teleconference.
Also present were Airport Manager Al Peterson, Airfield Supervisor Jeff Marks, Finance Director Tina Smith and
Administrative Assistant to the Airport Manager Janine Torres.
The Commission Unanimously M/S/P approval of the April 22, 2010 open session minutes.
The Commission Unanimously M/S/P approval of the May 19, 2010 Warrant.
Noise Abatement
Nantucket Shuttle was announced as the Noise Incentive Award winner for April.
Mr. Peterson reported it was the 7th consecutive win for the Shuttle. Mr. Peterson added all the airlines met the 85%
compliance mark and will receive a 15% rebate of their April landing fees. As the winner, Nantucket Shuttle will also
receive $500 in coupons to be used at either Crosswinds Restaurant or Nantucket Airport Gifts.
Revised Mass DOT – Aeronautics Grant
Mr. Peterson explained the cost of resurfacing Runway 12/30 was more than expected therefore we had successfully
applied for additional State funding of $148,000. The Commission M/S/P to accept the revised State Grant in the
amount of $468,000 for the Mill and Inlay of Runway 12/30.
ATCT Update
Mr. Peterson reported the Sub-Committee met with the some of the Tower personnel to discuss their opposition to Site
2 in the Bunker area. Mr. Peterson reminded the Commission they voted at their January meeting to withdraw Site 8
(South of the restaurant), from consideration as well as approve Site 2 as the preferred site.
Chairman Vaughan began canvassing the Commissioners. Commissioner Atlee announced he favors Site 2 noting the
FAA has provided substantial analysis and building on Site 8 reduces the area to grow into if needed in the future, as
well as contain a high hazard during construction.
Commission Macintyre explained he also favors Site 2 agreeing on the potential for expansion. He added the tower
personnel’s concerns over Site 2 are valid but not insurmountable.
Airport Commission Meeting 5/11/10 Page 2 of 4
Mr. Peterson reported $3 million in funding has been lost due to a passed deadline; however, $5.8 million of
Congressional money has no deadline, but will not be enough for the project.
Chairman Vaughan said he was disturbed by concerns by the tower personnel and would like to revisit the subject
once he has time to review all the data received to date.
Mr. Peterson interjected the FAA has done a very thorough three-year study and they do not share the concerns of the
tower personnel.
Vice Chair Egan requests Mr. Peterson find out if the $5.8 million can be used to renovate the existing tower. Mr.
Peterson reported he has begun checking into this and although the wording of the late Senator Kennedy’s legislation
quotes “new” tower, the legislators are willing to work with us.
The Commission tabled the subject until their next meeting.
Administrative Offices/FBO Project Update
Mr. Peterson reported the preliminary design Nantucket Architecture Group presented at the last meeting has been
altered somewhat after the estimated cost of construction figures came in. The revised plans were being presented to
the HDC tonight.
Mr. Peterson explained he is exploring managing the construction portion of the project ourselves and trying to procure
local participation. This might be difficult because the cost of the project will require sub-bidders to be DCAM qualified
and not many local contractors are. One option being looked into is using current ARFF Clerk of the Works Paul
Letendre as the general contractor (GC). He holds a GC license. Hiring Paul could eliminate the 15% markup
normally imposed by a GC on the trade contracts.
Commissioner Gray asked whether the GC would also have to be DCAM certified. Mr. Peterson didn’t think so
because he was not a trade, but would find out. He has checked with legal who confirmed we could work the project
this way. Commissioner Gray pointed out several island contractors have a GC license. Chairman Vaughan agreed
the more work we can keep on the island, the better.
Commissioner Macintyre asked what the target price is. Mr. Peterson reported $2 Million and further explained the
original Capital item listing was $1.5 million so this would have to be adjusted.
ARFF Update
Mr. Peterson gave a brief report on the progress on construction which is on schedule. Commissioner Gray asked if
the same fire proofing material used in the terminal project was being used in this project. Mr. Peterson responded
very little, if any, because this building is mostly concrete bock and metal panels.
Automated Parking Update
Mr. Peterson reported the site work is completed and the equipment is being delivered this Thursday. Tina Smith has
been installing data onto the server. June 21st has been chosen as a start date. An educational flyer has been
produced and will appear as an insert in this week’s Inquirer & Mirror. Once the gates and the pay stations are
installed, Plum TV will produce a video demonstrating the system. The video will run three times a day on Plum.
Chairman Vaughan suggests also adding the video to the media screen in the air taxi arrivals area.
Advertising Proposal Update
Luxury Media Partners confirmed Maserati agreed to the sub committee’s recommendations of a shorter banner and
no higher than the split rail fence. A contract is being forwarded.
Airport Commission Meeting 5/11/10 Page 3 of 4
Save our Sound Discussion
Mr. Peterson explained the Commission had agreed some years back to oppose the location of the Cape Wind
proposal for a wind farm in Nantucket Sound; and, recent correspondence had raised some concern with
Commissioner Gray who wasn’t on the Commission when the subject first appeared.
Chairman Vaughan asked if we had the minutes from original vote available tonight, but they were not brought to the
meeting. Mr. Peterson recollected the airport opposed the location due to safety, aviation obstruction, search and
rescue efforts and possible radar interference. Mr. Peterson added the FAA has yet to make a final determination on
the radar issue.
Commissioner Gray explained his concern was correspondence from Save our Sound asking us to be listed
threatening litigation. Although the correspondence noted there would be no cost to the airport, he was concerned
there may be some financial responsibility down the road.
Chairman Vaughan reassured Commissioner Gray the airport would not willingly participate in any litigation as a
plaintiff or a defendant without a vote of the Commission.
Commissioner Gray wanted to go on record that he does not oppose the project but understands the concern over the
location.
Chairman Vaughan would like to discuss this at the next meeting with the text of the last vote in front of them to re-vote
if necessary.
Sun Island Road Maintenance
Sun Island Delivery has sent a letter to the residents/users of Sun Island Road to participate in the cost of repaving the
private road.
Vice Chair Egan excused herself from the discussion.
After brief discussion the Commission agreed to Mr. Peterson’s recommendation of a $5,000 contribution to the cost
incurred by Sun Island Delivery.
Environmental Report
Mr. Peterson reported operations for the year are down 7.39%; but reports our fuel gallons sold are up 7.5% over last
year.
Discussion moved to indications that general aviation activity seems to be increasing nationwide but more so in
aviation tax free states like Massachusetts.
Commissioner Macintyre asked if there was information regarding the implementation of Passenger Facility Charges
(Passenger Facility Charge). Mr. Peterson responded he believed the PFC were not being implemented until July 1st
and surprisingly hasn’t caused much upset amongst the airlines.
Commissioner Macintyre asked if the enplanement numbers were in for Daffodil Weekend. Mr. Peterson responded
he believed they were better than last year but did not have them with him.
Mr. Peterson reported noise complaints were down 57% versus the base year and down 36% versus last year.
Operations
Mr. Peterson reported:
• RW 12/30 paving project came out very well. Commissioner Gray pointed out the painting is nice and bright
• Landscaping plan for the Annex site was brought to HDC. They are opposing any build-up of the lot, the
Gazebo was too big and too close to the fence. A revised plan was being presented to the HDC tonight.
Airport Commission Meeting 5/11/10 Page 4 of 4
• The FAA Runway Safety team will be coming to the island June 8th and 9th. A pilots meeting will be held the
night of June 8th in the SRE.
• A tentative design proposal has been received for RW 15/33 project and is being compared to the
Independent Cost Analysis. Also received a draft of the Memorandum of Understanding from the FAA for
moving some of the runway lights for the project.
• Fuel tanks 2 and 3 are now being sandblasted and painted. Tanks 1 and 4 are already completed. The
galvanized steel for the fuel farm structure and fire suppression system has been ordered and the work will
be done by the end of June.
• Summer staff is arriving and work is nearing completion on the Thompson House.
Public Comment
Fred Holdgate from the control tower expressed his desire for the Commission to reconsider Site 8. Mr. Holdgate said
having the tower on Site 2 would increase their workload on an already stress filled job. When asked by
Commissioner Gray, Mr. Holdgate explained it would increase their work load by having to turn more than 100 degrees
to see traffic approaching RW 30 while still observing traffic from RW 24 direction.
Having no other public comments Chairman Vaughan announced the Commission would go into executive session to
discuss Real Estate, not to come back into regular session. Chairman Vaughan asked for a written exposition going
forward for all executive sessions to comply with the revised Open Meeting Law going into effect July 1st.
At 5:40 PM, the following roll call vote was made to adjourn into executive session:
Chairman E. Foley Vaughan – Aye
Vice Chair Sheila O’Brien Egan – Aye
Commissioner Robert J. Atlee – Aye
Commissioner David C. Gray, Sr – Aye
Commissioner Dual A. Macintyre, Jr – Aye
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________
Janine M. Torres, Recorder
From: Gary A. Simanson [mailto:gsimanson@1stcapitalgroup.com]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 11:28 AM
To: 'Al Peterson'
Subject: Lease Addendum
Importance: High
Addendum to Lease Agreement Dated January 1, 2007
Lessee: Nantucket Restaurant Group, L.L.C.
Lessor: Nantucket Memorial Airport Commission
In consideration of the Mutual covenants and agreements as set forth in the Lease Agreement,
Lessor and Lessee further agree as follows:
Lessor agrees to provide Lessee with restaurant ready (excepting all restaurant equipment,
furniture and fixtures to be supplied by Lessee) space which meets all health, fire and public
safety codes necessary to operate such space under its intended use as a restaurant and any
expenditures or improvements made by Lessee, with the prior approval or consent of Lessor, to
satisfy such codes, shall be credited against all rents due under the lease. Such improvements
may include, plumbing, ventilation, electrical, floor drains, and such other items as directed by the
Lessor or any governmental authority having jurisdiction over such items.
No rent shall be due by Lessee under the terms of the lease until such time as the space has
been certified by the proper government authorities to meet all code requirements as set forth
above, excepting the final installation of all equipment, furniture and fixtures to be supplied by
Lessee.
Lessee and Lessor shall each use their respective best efforts to seek the completion of all items
set forth above in a timely manner.
Dated as of January 1, 2007
By: ______________________________________ By:
________________________________________
Gary A. Simanson, Managing Director E. Foley Vaughn,
Chairman
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Peterson [mailto:apeterson@nantucketairport.com]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:57 PM
To: 'Gary A. Simanson'
Cc: jtorres@nantucketairport.com; acklaw.foley@verizon.net
Subject: RE: Lease Addendum
Gary,
We met with Art Crowley from the Health Dept. and addressed the back room. He indicated that
the reason for the floor drain was Richard’s thought of moving the dish washing into that room. If
it is used for storage and non water related activities there is no drain required. We can redo the
walls and floor.
Would you please send us a sketch of what you have planned so that we can show them and pin
down the moving targets. They seem to be understanding but he was concerned about what
actually will take place vs. what is there now. If it stays pretty much as is-we can fix the back
room and get you going in about a week.
Thanks.
Al
From: Gary A. Simanson [mailto:gsimanson@1stcapitalgroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:02 PM
To: 'Al Peterson'
Subject: RE: Lease Addendum
Al, please call me to discuss. It is my understanding that floor drains need to be put in both the kitchen
area and the back room by code. We have to move the dishwasher to the back in order to have a proper
sanitary prep area in the front where the dishwasher is currently located and also so the customers don’t
sit and watch the dishes being washed when we extend the counter across. I believe by code Art also
said that a drain has to be put in the immediate cooking area so that there is proper drainage for spills
and washing the floors. If he is willing to waive this and also the use of Hutch’s refrigerators for three
months then it sounds like we could open within a week or so. If we can not use Hutch’s refrigerators
because they violate code then we could not open because we have to wait until the walk-in is installed.
The walk in was required because currently there are not proper refrigeration units or really the room for
proper refrigeration in the current configuration. I will try and fax you a rough diagram of how we intend
use the space. It is basically keeping the kitchen arrangement the same except for moving the
dishwasher, putting a bar in the area currently occupied by Hutch’s office and extending the lunch counter
all the way across the kitchen area and installing the walk in where I showed you. You can reach me the
next two weeks at 202.431.0507. Thanks, Gary
From: Al Peterson [mailto:apeterson@nantucketairport.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:46 PM
To: 'Gary A. Simanson'
Cc: jtorres@nantucketairport.com; acklaw.foley@verizon.net
Subject: RE: Lease Addendum
Gary,
As I understand it. The only issue is if you want to move the dish washing into the back room. That will
require a drain that we can address. Art indicated he would not require a drain in the cooking area. We
recognize the need to handle the back room once the residential refrigeration is out.
Therefore, we would assume the close to be minimal and you should be operational fairly quickly.
However, our frustration is who is making the calls and who is the contact person. A drawing is essential,
word of mouth on concepts is not a satisfactory way to interpret what is going on.
I need a firm commitment on your part of what is transpiring or else I think it best if we begin the process
anew. Would you give me a point of contact and someone who we can coordinate on the project and an
anticipated start date assuming we can handle the back room finish and drain.
Thanks.
Al Peterson
Town of Nantucket
NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORT
14 Airport Road
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 02554
Alfred G. Peterson, Airport Manager Commissioners
Phone: (508) 325-5300 E. Foley Vaughan, Chairman
Fax: (508) 325-5306 Sheila O’Brien Egan, Vice Chair
Carl D. England, Jr.
Peter Hull
Dual A. Macintyre, Jr.
AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, December 18, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Chairman E. Foley Vaughan with the following commissioners
present: Vice Chair Sheila O’Brien Egan, Dual A. Macintyre Jr., Carl D. England, and Peter Hull.
Also present were Airport Manager Al Peterson, Airfield Supervisor Jeff Marks, Administrative Assistant to the
Airport Manager Janine Torres, Finance Director Tina Smith, Environmental Coordinator Jack Wheeler, and
Administrative Coordinator Yolanda Maxwell.
The Commission unanimously M/S/P approval of the minutes from November 14, 2006 Commission Meeting with
a few typographical errors to be fixed as stated by Commissioner Macintyre.
Terminal
Mr. Peterson gave a brief recap of the special Commission meeting held on December 15 in which it was
announced the $12 million in State funding was in jeopardy. Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC)
recommended pursuing the funding again with the new administration beginning in January. Mr. Peterson
continued by saying that Governor Elect Patrick has not yet appointed a Transportation Secretary but has
appointed the new Secretary of Administration and Finance, Leslie Kirwan, the ex-CFO for Massport, who is
reputed to be a very effective administrator. Jane Garvey served on the governor’s transition team as the head of
the Transportation Department. Dan Wolf also served on the transition team and from that experience, does not
think the funding is dead.
Vice Chair Egan suggested the press release associated with December 15th meeting be sent to the Cape Cod
Times, Boston Globe and Boston Herald.
Chairman Vaughan explained the Commission’s commitment over the next three months to work with the new
administration including the possibility of hiring a lobbyist, possibly Jane Garvey, to assist.
Mr. Peterson stressed how not spending our FAA capital funds can hurt receiving any future discretionary funds.
Chairman Vaughan, along with Mr. Peterson, hopes to be able to explain the three month situation to the FAA so
that funding will not be in jeopardy. A meeting will hopefully take place in January.
Vice Chair Egan asked if Commissioner Macintyre was moving forward with the priority list discussed in the
previous meeting. Commissioner Macintyre will be working with Commissioner Hull to hopefully have a rough draft
for the January meeting.
Finance
Capitol items:
$4 million spending authority for engineering and permitting for the fuel pipeline. We have already gone to the
Capitol Committee with this and they have no problem but it still has to go before the Fin-Com. Capitol Committee
works with Fin-Com and they might have some more questions. We have met with VHB and the Selectmen and
discussed meeting with Irving Oil in Nova Scotia to see how the facility works and to also meet with their financial
people to see if what VHB is telling us is accurate and feasible for us and to see if they want to be one of our
suppliers.
Parking lot: we put in $500,000 to redo the parking lot to an automatic system. It would be a gate operation with a
two hour limit for people going to the restaurant. There would be pay stations one inside and one outside you
would get a token and when you put it in the machine it would tell you how much money you owe. You would have
fifteen to twenty minutes to pay for your parking. Mr. Peterson will look into how well the system works with
companies that have them in place.
Airfreight building rehab: we are waiting for Frank Balaster to get back to us with a price. We can buy a steel
building to replace the one that is there and that will cost about $18.00 a foot.
The rest of the budget is for airfield equipment. The big item there is 900 megahertz radios. We need around 30.
The Town is going to 900 megahertz radios so therefore we need to update our radios. It is up for discussion
whether the Sheriff will help us with any of the money. The ops truck is just a replacement of an aged truck we
also have a gas tug that needs to be replaced.
Total budget is going to be a little more than it was last year. It was around 13 million last year. We are also
dropping our estimated fuel from last year. Last year it was estimated at 1 million 8 gallons this year we are
dropping it down to 1million 5 gallons.
We have projected our rental on land to include 8 additional acres 4 of which are the old asphalt plant lot and 4 in
the Delta property.
Union negotiations are coming up in January. The contract they have know runs out in June of 2007.
Our Law Enforcement Officer costs us over $300,000.00 to keep the police at the airport. We get back about
$79,000.00. This agreement goes back post 911 with TSA. Since we are know at a level orange TSA requires an
armed officer at any secured flight departure. Mr. Peterson is writing George Nacarra to request a bigger
reimbursement.
The Commission unanimously M/S/P approval of the 2007 budget pending any suggestions or changes Peter Hull
might have.
The Commission unanimously M/S/P approval of the 2007 Rates and Fees with the addition of “minimum $500”
added to Social Functions.
Bunker RFP
Due to an error in the RFP advertisement, the deadline for proposals is being extended to January 19th.
Bulk Fuel Project
We put in our capitol budget $4 million for this project and we will see how the visit goes to Irving with the sub-
committee in January.
Environmental Report
Operations through November are up 9.4% above last year. Enplanements through November are up 8%. Noise
complaints are up 3 % above last year. We have had 10 noise complaints in November.
Commission Macintyre asked about early morning compliance expressing concerns over the airlines that are not
complying and perhaps offer financial incentives to those that do. Commissioner Macintyre will present some
ideas at the next meeting. Mr. Wheeler to have report up to date for next meeting.
Operations
Mr. Peterson reported as he understands it there will be no 2007 federal budget. He was told they will probably
work on a continuing resolution which basically means appropriations from month to month. Unfortunately, our
tower was to be included in the 07 budget. The good news is the 2008 budget will be a democratic budget which
means Senator Kennedy can assist with tower funding.
Jeff’s guys are getting ready for winter. They are also working on installing a drain on Bunker Rd across from
Electric Company. The ARFF building is going to be worked on. It needs a standby generator in case of an
emergency.
Mr. Peterson and Jeff Marks met with the health inspector Art Crowley to address issues with the current
restaurant space. They also met with Gary Simanson the new restaurant tenant to discuss the new codes and talk
about whose responsibility it is to bring the restaurant up to code. Mr. Peterson feels it is our responsibility to give
them a space that is ready to go. Hutch will close on December 24, 2006 and Mr. Simanson will take over the 1st
of the year. There may be some time in which Mr. Simanson will want some rent reduced due to the fact that the
restaurant will be none operational due to the work that needs to be done. Mr. Peterson said we will work on that
with him.
It was M/S/P to adjourn to executive session and not to reconvene in regular session by the following vote.
Chairman, E. Foley Vaughan – Aye
Vice Chairman, Sheila O’Brien Egan – Aye
Commissioner, Dual A. Macintyre Jr. – Aye
Commissioner, Carl D. England, Jr. – Aye
Commissioner, Peter Hull – Aye
Meeting Adjourned at 5:45 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
Yolanda J. Maxwell, Recorder
FEES Demo Framing Finish Plaster / Blue Board Flooring Tiling Insulation DPW FeesdepositFalmouth Sheet Metal 8,748.00 01.11.07Falmouth Sheet Metal 5,604.00 02.12.07Town of Nantucket 250.00 02.21.07 250.00 Nantucket Architecture Group 7,775.00 03.07.07 7,775.00 The Castle Group 188,191.68 02.23.07 13,675.00 39,498.50 356.40 The Castle Group 67,002.11 03.23.07 5,080.15 9,720.00 630.24 The Castle Group ( to G. Simanson ) 28,164.65 03.23.07 13,940.00 10,551.00 The Castle Group 127,548.34 04.13.073,104.32 The Castle Group 162,584.40 05.04.076,500.00 The Castle Group ( to G. Simanson ) 2,277.00 05.04.07 1,980.00 The Castle Group 156,371.79 05.18.07The Castle Group ( to G. Simanson ) 63,598.46 05.18.07 6,195.00 The Castle Group 277,840.44 06.29.07 47,870.00 19,500.00 4,685.84 4,975.00 498.87 The Castle Group ( to G. Simanson ) 165,909.05 06.29.07 67,643.79 6,205.00 The Castle Group 46,549.03 08.31.07 480.00 4,250.00 500.00 1,500.00 The Castle Group ( to G. Simanson ) 3,287.41 08.31.07 3,287.41 The Castle Group ( to G. Simanson ) (18,881.15) Do not have copies of bills1,270,443.21 13,105.15 13,675.00 49,218.50 141,396.20 19,500.00 16,756.00 5,185.84 12,975.00 4,589.83 Castle GroupI N T E R I O R
depositFalmouth Sheet MetalFalmouth Sheet MetalTown of NantucketNantucket Architecture GroupThe Castle GroupThe Castle GroupThe Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )The Castle GroupThe Castle GroupThe Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )The Castle GroupThe Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )The Castle GroupThe Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )The Castle GroupThe Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )The Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )Do not have copies of billsExcavationReis Tkg Fire Alarm Fire Suppression Sprinkler Sys Ground work Masonry Exterior Framing Roofing & sidewalls Falmouth SheetMetal Materials Plumbing/gas8,748.00 5,604.00 3,446.68 12,466.59 3,547.46 11,110.00 5,000.00 4,500.00 9,362.31 13,432.00 4,810.54 4,000.00 5,840.00 32,490.00 4,431.18 5,750.00 2,405.00 54,985.00 19,262.50 23,064.78 2,537.68 13,199.49 45,555.26 20,600.00 13,050.00 15,816.79 5,139.92 2,322.50 50,863.05 6,000.00 3,060.00 36,500.00 11,835.00 773.01 4,352.25 5,073.00 1,139.84 10,986.07 21,494.60 2,000.00 5,781.00 37,902.65 37,091.46 17,618.50 5,936.00 12,899.32 16,740.00 3,248.34 858.22 208.00 6,271.77 4,788.15 (18,881.15) 23,535.41 31,597.30 4,687.30 27,846.07 13,727.50 163,490.26 108,075.00 40,312.50 41,172.00 110,521.81 72,051.61
depositFalmouth Sheet MetalFalmouth Sheet MetalTown of NantucketNantucket Architecture GroupThe Castle GroupThe Castle GroupThe Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )The Castle GroupThe Castle GroupThe Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )The Castle GroupThe Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )The Castle GroupThe Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )The Castle GroupThe Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )The Castle Group ( to G. Simanson )Do not have copies of billsHVAC Electrical Floors - Line X Overhead Doors Painting exterior patio/deck Lndspg General ContractorTotal8,748.00 5,604.00 250.00 7,775.00 17,500.00 29,750.00 24,546.74 188,191.68 67,002.11 3,673.65 28,164.65 2,340.00 16,636.74 127,548.34 15,379.11 29,946.07 162,584.40 297.00 2,277.00 16,000.00 30,000.00 22,590.00 20,396.32 156,371.79 8,295.45 63,598.46 6,500.00 13,981.80 338.00 17,430.00 36,240.06 277,840.44 17,226.13 21,640.31 165,909.05 5,970.00 12,402.94 6,071.61 46,549.03 3,287.41 (18,881.15) 40,000.00 90,957.93 15,379.11 2,678.00 40,020.00 5,970.00 12,402.94 167,743.95 1,292,820.21 244,355.42 G. Simonson1,048,464.79 NMA
Town of Nantucket
NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORT
14 Airport Road
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 02554
Alfred G. Peterson, Airport Manager Commissioners
Phone: (508) 325-5300 E. Foley Vaughan, Chairman
Fax: (508) 325-5306 Sheila O’Brien Egan, Vice Chair
Robert Atlee
David C. Gray, Sr.
Dual A. Macintyre, Jr.
NANTUCKET AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING
Executive Session
Tuesday March 10, 2009
Lease – Alice’s Restaurant
Mr. Peterson reported he and Chairman Vaughan met with Chris Skehel who will be taking over the restaurant if the
Commission agrees. The restaurant made $1.2 million dollars last year; rent was $120,000 of which $50,000 is still
owed from Gary Simonson. Mr. Skehel needs some help to go forward and has asked for a break for the first 12
months to establish the restaurant. The restaurant will know be called The Nantucket Restaurant Group (NRG) with
the Ack bar and grill. Mr. Skehel would like to pay $6,000 a month for 12 months which would be retroactive from the
first of the year. The participation fee is 3% which gross exceeds the rent. The Commission agreed to go ahead with
this agreement this year and to revisit again in December of 2009.
Airport Gift Shop – Marsha Kotalac
The sub-committee proposed $30,000.00 for rent and 5% for gross sales over $250,000.00 participation and 10% for
gross sales over $300,000.00.
Ms. Kotalac would like a 3 year lease in order to make some of the money she has put into the shop.
The gift shop does not currently have a lease.
The Commission agreed to a 3 year lease beginning June 1, 2009.
It was M/S/P to adjourn at 5:45 Pm
Respectfully Submitted,
________________________
Yolanda J. Maxwell, Recorder
Town of Nantucket
NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORT
14 Airport Road
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 02554
Alfred G. Peterson, Airport Manager Commissioners
Phone: (508) 325-5300 E. Foley Vaughan, Chairman
Fax: (508) 325-5306 Sheila O’Brien Egan, Vice Chair
Robert Atlee
David C. Gray, Sr.
Dual A. Macintyre, Jr.
NANTUCKET AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING
Executive Session
Tuesday January 12, 2010
Lease
Crosswinds
Mr. Peterson reported he met with Chris Skehel of Crosswinds and reminded him he had an abatement on
the rent until the end of December 2009. Mr. Peterson stated the Airport would like to go back to the lease
and receive $12,000 a month. Mr. Skehel stated he is barely making it and could he pay $7,000 during the
winter and re-evaluate during the summer.
Chairman Vaughan would like to have the Airport’s accountant look at Crosswinds books after March 31,
2010 and then re-evaluate the situation.
The Commission agreed to $7,000 per month for now.
Myles Reis
Mr. Peterson reported he talked with Mr. Reis and reminded him he had an abatement on the rent until the
end of December 2009. Mr. Reis stated if the Commission wants 50 cents on the dollar he will remain on
the lot. If the Commission wants more he will vacate.
Mr. Peterson reported Roger Stolte of Glyn’s Marine is interested in the lot currently occupied by Mr. Reis.
Mr. Stolte would like to take over the lot in March of 2010 which is when Mr. Reis should have his issue
with the Town regarding the property swap resolved.
Commissioner Macintyre asked if Mr. Stolte wanted to put up boat racks, Mr. Peterson responded no they
want to have a drive through for the boats.
Vice Chair Egan asked if Mr. Peterson talk to Mr. Stolte about the price, Mr. Peterson responded yes Mr.
Stolte was told it is 88 cents. Mrs. Torres stated the lot would have to go out to bid.
Chairman Vaughan recommends going ahead with the RFP and have a draft contract ready.
Harbor Fuel/Yates Gas
Mr. Peterson reported both Harbor Fuel and Yates Gas would like to expand their space further back. Mr.
Peterson will meet with Harbor Fuel and Yates Gas to discuss this matter.
LaFluer
Mr. Peterson reported a letter has been sent to Mr. Lafluer stating intent to evict and has not heard from
him. Mr. Peterson will have the Airport’s lawyer send another letter to file suit to evict.
Personnel
Commissioner Gray felt he didn’t need to excuse himself because the subject matter was Administrative,
not union business.
Mr. Peterson reported the Airport was providing the Administrative personnel with Disability, Life, and
Dental plans. The Town’s attorney stated according to Mass Law 32B, employees may not discriminate
against groups of people and therefore, those policies were cancelled. However, the teachers union has a
clause called “wellness” in their contract which gives them $1,000 a year in the form of a voucher which
will cover the health club, weight management, fitness classes, childcare, personal coaching, dental costs,
eyeglasses, $250,000 toward education, $85.00 for NHA membership, $85.00 for Maria Mitchell
membership. They can use the $1,000 voucher towards any one of these items. Mr. Peterson brought this
to Peter Barry and he stated he has an issue with the dental and eyeglasses. Mr. Peterson stated as long as
these things don’t have to do with healthcare it is legal. Mr. Peterson stated the insurances was something
taken from the Administrative personnel and would like the Commission to consider a variation of this
program.
Chairman Vaughan would like a recommendation from Mr. Peterson at a future date of what can be done
and the proper way to go about it.
Vice Chair Egan asked for clarification on the executive sessions. All executive sessions are confidential
until the minutes are approved and posted. Chairman Vaughan responded yes all executive sessions are
confidential until they are posted.
It was M/S/P to adjourn at 5:53 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
________________________
Yolanda J. Taylor, Recorder
Town of Nantucket
NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORT
30 Macy Lane
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 02554
Alfred G. Peterson, Airport Manager Commissioners
Phone: (508) 325-5300 E. Foley Vaughan, Chairman
Fax: (508) 325-5306 Charles B. Gibson, Vice Chairman
Sheila O’Brien Egan
Peter Hull
Dual A. Macintyre, Jr.
NANTUCKET AIRPORT COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SESSION
February 8, 2005
The Mayhews met with Chairman Vaughan, Commissioner Gibson and Manager Peterson regarding the
purchase of their property which abuts Airport property. The Mayhews want to sell the property as one lot
and are asking approximately $900,000 for lot. This price depends on the FAA appraisal. The Mayhews
are also willing to give the Commission the right of first refusal on the smaller lot. Chairman Vaughan
stated the Mayhews’ attorney will draft an agreement for the Commission to review. There will be no
dollar amount in this agreement. Manager Peterson stated the FAA has indicated it will commit to 97
percent funding for this property.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Ellen J. Wadlington, Recorder
Town of Nantucket
NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORT
30 Macy Lane
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 02554
Alfred G. Peterson, Airport Manager Commissioners
Phone: (508) 325-5300 E. Foley Vaughan, Chairman
Fax: (508) 325-5306 Charles B. Gibson, Vice Chairman
Sheila O’Brien Egan
Peter Hull
Dual A. Macintyre, Jr.
NANTUCKET AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING
February 8, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Chairman E. Foley Vaughan with the following Commissioners
present: Charles B. Gibson, Peter Hull, Sheila O’Brien Egan and Dual A. Macintyre, Jr.
Also present were Airport Manager Al Peterson, Jeff Marks, Airfield Supervisor, Jack Wheeler, Environmental
Coordinator and Tina Smith, Accountant.
The Commission M/S/P approval of the January 10, 2005, Commission Minutes with the following change:
Paragraph five, line seven change “Chairman Vaughan” to “Commissioner Gibson”.
Lease issues - Victor Petkauskos - Island Barge convert month to month lease to 20-year lease: After discussion,
the Commission agreed to combine both leases, with ending date for both in 2019 with clause to move to another
area with six-month notice, both should be at the current fair market value, no deposit on the second lease, Island
Barge will work off in-kind services. Manager Peterson is to send draft lease to Commissioner Gibson for review.
Toscana - 3rd five-year renewal option. Consensus of Commission to pursue renewal with current market rate.
Santos/Gitlow - 10 year hangar renewal rate - They exercised right and the rate goes back to 37-1/2 cents for
aeronautical market. Commissioner Gibson asked what was the FAA’s position on the safety zone? Jeff Marks
reminded the Commission that it is the McGrath hangar in the safety area and the gas station. Commissioner Hull
asked if the Commission could not keep the aeronautical rate the same? After discussion, the Commission asked
Manager Peterson to draft language replacing the current rate language and to give a report on the last ten years
on this lease. Also ask that proper and more aesthetic repairs be made to this hangar.
Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Study - Chairman Vaughan reported Phase II is complete. Consultants have
determined that off loading of fuel can be done off south shore and have identified two points one mile and three
and one-half miles off coast. Consultants now moving into Phase III, deals with whether there are oil companies
that would be willing to send freighters to Island for off loading. Phase IV will determine if it is economically
feasible for this project.
Terminal Design - Chairman Vaughan reported the Commission received architect’s cost concept for the terminal
which was $31 million. The Commission has decided not to build at this cost. The Commission asked the
architects to come back with three proposals: one for $20 million, $25 million and a free standing terminal at $15
million. The Commission has a grant from MAC for $12 million for this project. Commissioner Gibson reminded the
Commission that the terminal will be smaller than first proposed. Manager Peterson stated he had a conference
call with MAC, E&K and EarthTech. Department of Finance is reviewing all grant projects. Commissioner
Macintyre asked the Commission to summarize the funding for this project with MAC grant and other funding. After
discussion, the Architects will present the revised proposals within the next week for review. The Commissioners
will make a decision and prepare an ATM warrant for this project.
Customer Facility Charge - Manager Peterson reported on a new charge for rental car agencies which was
presented at the AAAE Airport Finance conference. This is a new charge that can be placed on each rental car
and can range from $1 to $10 per day. It is designated as a customer facility charge or C.F.C. After discussion
the Commission asked Manager Peterson to check with other airports to see what they charge and the send a
letter to all car rental agencies on the Island and ask them to attend a meeting for a discussion on this topic.
Nantucket Airport Commission Meeting – February 8, 2005
2
Environmental Report - Jack Wheeler reported the Noise Advisory Committee presented the Commission with
group of recommendations and suggested goals, the Commission approved these goals and is to report on an
annual basis on meeting goals. The 2004 annual noise report is there was a year of continued progress, there was
significant changes (see Airport’s web site).
Jack Wheeler reported total operations for January were down 25 percent; total enplanements for 2004 were
242,975; the rolling 12 month count is on an up swing. Awaiting figures from some of the airlines for January
enplanements. Manager Peterson reported there were about 30,000 GA enplanements.
Jack Wheeler stated the airport crew deserves credit for the tremendous job they performed in snow removal from
the blizzard. The Commission and management concurred with the exceptional effort made by the Airport
personnel under severe conditions.
Reminder on February 9, 2005, come meet Aviation Pioneer and Adventurer Gustavus McLeod at the JC House
from 5-7 PM and also at the Airport Terminal on February 10, 2005 in honor of Black History Month.
Operations
¾ Thanks again to the Airport crew for plowing around the clock and having the Airport opened in a very timely
manner.
¾ Architects will have a concept model of proposed terminal for display at Winterfest February 15, 2005.
¾ Airport Town Meeting Articles (a) warrant article for purchase of Mayhew property that is within the RPZ, Airport
is eligible for FAA funding, the Airport would have to provide two and one-half percent of purchase price; (b)
warrant article on terminal construction for $25,000,000; (c) warrant to clear out old articles which will cancel
and eliminate debt; and (d) warrant article to acquire small strip of land along Monohansett Road which would
allow easier access to the south ramp.
¾ Commission is sponsoring the TV coverage for Commission meetings. The meetings will be shown on Channel
18. Channel 22 will air an edited version.
¾ Fee of $10 for single engine aircraft has been temporarily suspended pending further study of this issue.
Christine Silverstein complimented the Commission on the annual report and asked if the Commission would follow
up with FAA in the areas presented to the Commission.
It was M/S/P to adjourn at 6:05 PM and to enter into executive session to discuss property acquisition and contract
negotiations, not to return to regular session, by the following VOTE:
Chairman E. Foley Vaughan - Aye
Commissioner Charles Gibson - Aye
Commissioner Sheila O’Brien Egan - Aye
Commissioner Dual A. Macintyre, Jr. - Aye
Commissioner Peter Hull - Aye.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Ellen J. Wadlington, Recorder
Town of Nantucket
NANTUCKET MEMORIAL AIRPORT
30 Macy Lane
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts 02554
Alfred G. Peterson, Airport Manager Commissioners
Phone: (508) 325-5300 E. Foley Vaughan, Chairman
Fax: (508) 325-5306 Charles B. Gibson, Vice Chairman
Sheila O’Brien Egan
Dual A. Macintyre, Jr.
R. Finn Murphy
NANTUCKET AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING
May 21, 2004
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Chairman E. Foley Vaughan with the following
Commissioners present: Charles H. Gibson, Sheila O’Brien Egan, R. Finn Murphy, and Dual A.
Macintyre, Jr.
Chairman Vaughan opened the meeting. The reason for the meeting is to present to the Commissioners
the search results of the working group, Commissioner Murphy and myself, made regarding a new Airport
Manager. The job was advertised in December, there were 35 applications, and today the search
committee will present to the entire Commission the person the committee would like to see get the job.
The person selected is Al Peterson. The Commission has to vote to hire Mr. Peterson. The meeting is
now open for questioning of Mr. Peterson by the Board and the general public.
Commissioner Murphy stated one personal observation is that Mr. Peterson has the home town
advantage. He is here, he knows the people and has great managerial capabilities, and if we can get the
job done with someone locally, we need to do it.
Commissioner Gibson asked Mr. Peterson to give his vision for the Airport for the next coming years.
Mr. Peterson stated the Airport is in good shape. As you know, I took over the position with well
established good, dedicated people. The challenges are to go forward with the projects in capital
program. The Airport is thought of as being stand offish. One of my goals will be to get the community
and Airport to come closer together. The big thing is the terminal project which is going to be very
demanding over the next few years.
Commissioner Macintyre asked what are the major problems facing the Airport at this point. Mr. Peterson
stated the problems would be (1) financing of the airport projects and keeping the Airport on sound fiscal
basis and (2) keeping employee programs and relationships on a healthy basis and still maintain a cost
structure and not bankrupt the Airport; (3) challenges between needs of air transportation, cost and
finding a more economical way of getting residents and visitors off and on the Island. The airport has an
obligation to do what it can to keep and help make airlines servicing Nantucket lives easier, I think we
should be involved in that.
Chairman Vaughan asked Mr. Peterson to sketch his background in a broad way. We know you do not
have intense airport background as our previous manager. What was attractive to us and we hope to the
Commissioners is that you have broad managerial experience and you have significant degrees. Mr.
Peterson stated he graduated from the University of Vermont and has a MBA from Pepperdine. He has
worked in textile industry and DuPont with two years on Wall Street and has 30 years in the textile
industry in marketing. I was vice president of a company in New York and president of a company in
carpet yarns in California. I owned my own manufacturing company in Vermont that had union jobs with
similar issues to the ones here.
Chairman Vaughan asked what would be Mr. Peterson’s managerial style? Mr. Peterson stated he liked
the consensus approach, obtain as many ideas as you can, check on them get opinions from people
Nantucket Airport Commission Meeting – May 21, 2004
2
involved and try to get participation in the process. I believe in going around observing and seeing what
is going on and why. This can’t be done behind a desk.
Christine Silverstein asked what is your aviation experience? Mr. Peterson stated he is a pilot and started
flying in college. I have a Bonanza single engine rating with 3,500 hours. I have been involved with
different organizations and flown with California aviation groups of pilot, hangar associations, and been
involved in couple of other aviation programs privately owned. I am a member of AOPA; advisory group
of small airports in Vermont and Commissioner here for two years. Chairman Vaughan stated Mr.
Peterson also flies with the Coast Guard Auxiliary as a volunteer pilot.
Christine Silverstein wanted to know what has been your relationship with FAA, if any. Mr. Peterson
stated his relationship since he has been on the Commission and as acting manager is to participate with
ex-Airport Manager Jaeger in various meetings with FAA and MAC. I have attended meetings during
environmental impact report and just recently attended a two-day seminar conducted by the FAA Airports
Division. One of my goals is I would like to develop a relationship where Commissioners get to know
TRACON.
Christine Silverstein asked what has been your experience in community relations since graduating from
college? Mr. Peterson stated he has been on the board of directors of community associations having to
deal with various zoning issues, in one instance a law suit was filed when another developer wanted
access to pave, this had to be resolved with state, county and local officials. I have never had a state or
local job.
Christine Silverstein stated she has been working with the Airport since 1993 and is aware of community
relationships, wanting to strike a balance and have a broad prospective on the airport. I think the airport
needs someone with more experience with airports, etc. and tremendous amount of background to work
with community. Is this going to be to your advantage or disadvantage? Mr. Peterson stated because I
am committed to the people of Nantucket, the Airport is owned by Nantucket, and controlled by citizens of
Nantucket, I know and appreciate that. I think I can do a good job with community relations and with FAA
and MAC. Half of the battle is communicating, I think I can be a good representative for the Airport and
Nantucket.
Chairman Vaughan stated we are head and shoulders above the usual situation where we bring an
outsider in by having someone here that knows and loves the community. This became clear to him in a
lot of the interviews.
Gary Glowacki stated GA really sees problems all over the country, there are no FBO;s, no hangars, what
might you be able to do to give that a shot in the arm and get enthusiasm there? Mr. Peterson stated he
is a GA’er, there is a broad step from a G5 to a Piper Cub. I think the airport has an obligation to GA
residents that do have airplanes to be able to provide facilities for them. I think these community
members should be provided more than a tie down. Also, keep in prospective, the manager is going to
do what the Commission wants him to do.
Commissioner Murphy stated on Christine’s question, one of the things through the search process that
Commissioner Vaughan and I had up most in our minds was community relations. He was surprised there
was a weakness on the part of the other candidates regarding this issue. With respect to that aspect, Mr.
Peterson came out far above the other applicants.
Commissioner Gibson made a motion for the Commission to appoint Mr. Peterson as Manager. It was
unanimously M/S/P to appoint Alfred G. Peterson as the Airport Manager.
Chairman Vaughan stated he thought the Nantucket community will be very well pleased.
Chairman Vaughan stated the Commission and Board of Selectmen have been asked by Nantucket Bank
to execute a resolution for line of credit for Airport short-term borrowing. Commissioner Gibson stated
this is on the recommendation of the Airport’s auditors, Burke and Lamb. Commissioner Macintyre asked
if there is a limit on the line of credit. Chairman Vaughan stated it for up to $2,000,000. Commissioner
Gibson stated this is more for accounting purposes. It was unanimously M/S/P to execute the
subordination agreement.
Nantucket Airport Commission Meeting – May 21, 2004
3
Manager Peterson reported RW 6/24 would be open this weekend and closed on Monday and Tuesday
of next week. Airfield Supervisor Jeff Marks reported this was one of the best projects ever done at the
Airport.
Manager Peterson announced Airport Day is June 12, 2004, from 10 AM to 2 PM.. The Airport would like
to encourage people, especially families to come out to see display of equipment and meet and talk with
people that work hard here. There will also be a couple of aircraft on display.
Chairman Vaughan gave a report on the Blue Angels event the weekend of September 18-19, 2004.
Plans are moving along, the Committee is doing a great job on the event. Manager Peterson reported
Robert Winn has volunteered to be in charge of coordinating the volunteers. Commissioner Murphy
wanted to know if this would be suitable to view from the south shore in a boat. Manager Peterson stated
there has to be a sterile area and the Coast Guard will be patrolling this area to keep the aerobatic box
clear. The event is free, there will be a $5.00 charge to park.
Manager Peterson stated the FEIR has been received, hearing on June 3, 2004 at the High School in the
LGI at 3:00 P.M.
It was M/S/P to adjourn at 5:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Ellen J. Wadlington, Recorder
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 1
Exhibit A – Scope of Work (5/24/10)
Nantucket Memorial Airport
Nantucket, Massachusetts
Construct Runway 33 Extension (Approx. 500’ x 100’);
Construct Parallel Taxiway to Runway 33 (Approx. 5,600’ x 50’);
Overlay a Portion of Runway 24 (Approx. 1,500’ x 150’)
History
This project is made up of (3) three elements. The first element is to construct a 500 foot
extension to Runway 33. The second element is to construct a full parallel taxiway to Runway
15-33 all the way out to the proposed 500 foot extension. The third element is to overlay a
portion of Runway 6-24 from the approach end of 24 to approximately Taxiway Alpha. (Please
see the attached sketch that identifies the areas of work.)
1) Construct Runway 33 Extension (Approx. 500’ x 100’): Runway 15-33 is currently
4,000 feet in length. The last time an improvement was completed on Runway 33 was
in 1995 when roughly 3,200 feet of runway was rehabilitated and narrowed from 150
feet to 100 feet in width. The proposed 500 foot runway extension for Runway 33 has
been identified on the airport layout plan since 2001. The proposed 500 foot extension
will increase the existing runway length from approximately 4,000 feet to 4,500 feet
allowing “land and hold short” operations for air taxi service type aircraft.
2)Construct Parallel Taxiway to Runway 33 (Approx. 5,600’ x 50’): Currently there is no
existing full parallel taxiway to Runway 15-33. Aircraft that need to taxi to and from
Runway 33 utilize Taxiway Charlie (a.k.a. Runway 12-30) that results in a “mid-field”
crossing of Runway 6-24. This proposed full parallel taxiway will eliminate the “mid-
field” crossing condition as well as allow for an LPV approach. Also listed on the airport
layout plan for many years is this proposed full parallel taxiway from the end of the
proposed 500 foot Runway 33 extension to Taxiway Echo. The new LPV approach to
Runway 33 will be completed under a separate project. The proposed parallel taxiway
will require the installation of a blast wall type structure where it runs closest to the
existing SRE Garage.
3)Overlay a Portion of Runway 24 (Approx. 1,500’ x 150’): The last time this section of
Runway 24 was improved was 1991 under AIP-11. Since then the pavement has held
up well but has shown sign of deterioration as its been 19 years since the last overlay.
It was agreed by all parties at the scoping meeting that it would be best to include this
overlay as part of this project to correct the deficiencies and to take advantage of costs
while a contractor is on-site to build the 500 foot runway extension to 33. This same
area of runway will require light adjustments for existing centerline and touchdown zone
in-pavement fixtures.
Please note that due to funding constraints the second element of this project
“Construct Parallel Taxiway to Runway 33 (Approx. 5,600’ x 50’)” will be designed
under these services but constructed under a separate year. There will be two
separate sets of plans, specifications, and estimates prepared under this contract.
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 2
The first set will prepare “bid documents” to construct the first and third elements
while a second set will be prepared for the second element (plans, specifications,
and estimate) as a design-only effort to wait for available funds to allow construction
to occur.
This contract will cover data collection, design, advertisement, general administration, and
construction phase services, such as construction administration and resident engineering for
Construct Runway 33 Extension (Approx. 500’ x 100’) and Overlay a Portion of Runway 24
(Approx. 1,500’ x 150’).
This contract will also cover data collection and design for Construct Parallel Taxiway to
Runway 33 (Approx. 5,600’ x 50’). Advertisement, general administration, and construction
phase services, such as construction administration and resident engineering for Construct
Parallel Taxiway to Runway 33 (Approx. 5,600’ x 50’) will not be included in this contract but
will be included under a separate agreement at the appropriate time.
Assumptions/Design Parameters
1.This project is eligible for AIP funding
2.Jacobs Engineering will develop full set of plans, specifications, and construction cost
estimates at 90% and 100% design levels
3.No environmental permitting is required; the project has been previously permitted for
the Runway 33 and parallel taxiway portion whereas the overlay of Runway 24 will
require a “categorically excluded” check-list process
4.FAA Form 7460 forms will be filed
5.MASS DOT Aeronautics airspace forms will be filed
6.A pavement design report is required
7.The Exhibit “A” will not be updated under this project
8.The design aircraft for this project will be as listed on the ALP: C-III
9.The ALP will be updated under this project
10. The design will be in accordance with the most current FAA-AIP Advisory Circular listing
dated March 21, 2007.
11. The Master Sign Plan will be updated under this project.
ARTICLE A – DATA COLLECTION
1. Perform a detailed topographic survey of the runways and taxiways (approximately 94
acres of survey). The survey will consist of the following:
a) A 25-foot grid for the taxiways and aprons. The attached drawing shows the
approximate limits of survey.
b) Survey shots taken on pavement will have an accuracy of 0.01’ and those on turf shall
be 0.1’.
c) Grade breaks within the grid will be surveyed.
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 3
d) All major site features (i.e. structures, manholes, drainage structures, swales/ditches,
concrete duct markers, lights, foundations, etc.) will be located. Ground elevation and
top of feature elevation will be shot.
e) The size, location, slope and invert elevation of drop inlets and manholes will be
determined.
f) One baseline will be established for use during construction.
g) Survey information will be provided in Autodesk Land Desktop 2004 format. Survey
information will be separated onto multiple layers (i.e. drainage, marking, building,
major site features, contour, elevation, point, description, etc.). Benchmarks will be
located within the survey grid. All pertinent surface files and a drawing file (fully
contoured) containing all of the survey data, including the point files shall be provided.
An ASCII Comma Delineated Point File will be provided (number, northing, easting,
elevation, and description).
2. Research record drawings for underground utilities. (i.e. sewer, water, electric). It is
assumed record drawing information will be collected from a combination of airports files as
well as electronic and/or hard copies located in Jacobs’ office.
3. Perform two (2) site walk through surveys to locate and note any special site conditions
that would affect construction techniques or materials. Also, to field verify that all existing
features in the field were picked up during the actual survey.
4. Cut fifteen (15) pavement cores and thirty (30) test holes (pits) (from existing grade to 48”
below grade) for the runways and taxiways and obtain samples of the underlying soil. The
purpose of the pavement cores is to determine the depth of proposed overlay required for
Runway 24. In addition, CBR values will be obtained for the underlying soils.
5. In order to make sure that existing NHESP Conservation and Management Permit
conditions are maintained Baystate Environmental Consultants will perform services for
four tasks that include grassland bird construction measures, rare plant transplant and
construction requirements, review of rare plant species tasks in the bid documents, and
attending pre-bid meeting.
6. Provide full time inspection during subsurface investigations. (Assume five (5) days).
7. Provide full time inspection during survey. (Assume ten (10) days).
8. Two (2) site visits for the electrical engineer to collect data and field information for the
electrical source that would supply power to runway and taxiway edge lights.
9. Coordinate with FAA offices on the development of FAA re-imbursement agreements.
10. Complete efforts required for the FAA approach analysis including aerial and ground
survey. Advisory Circular 150/5300-16A “General Guidance and Specifications for
Aeronautical Surveys: Establishment of Geodetic Control and Submission to the National
Geodetic Survey; 150/5300-17B “General Guidance and Specifications for Aeronautical
Survey Airport Imaginary Acquisition and Submission to the National Geodetic Survey; and
150/5300-18B “General Guidance and Specifications for Submission of Aeronautical
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 4
Surveys to NGS: Field Data Collection and Geographic Information System (GIS)
Standards will be followed.
Services for Article A will be provided under a lump sum basis.
ARTICLE B1 – DESIGN (DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS)
for Construct Runway 33 Extension (Approx. 500’ x 100’) and Overlay a Portion of
Runway 24 (Approx. 1,500’ x 150’)
Based on the information collected under Article A, the 90% and 100% design documents will
be developed for all elements identified in this scope of work.
1. Develop technical specifications. (i.e.FAA specifications: P-152, P-154, P-209, P-401, P-
602, P-603, P-610, P-620, P-626, D-751, D-701, L-108, L-110, L-125, T-901)
2. Develop contract document/front-end specifications. (i.e. Notice to Bidders, Invitation to
Bidders, Instruction to Bidders, Bid Proposal, Contract, Contract Articles, General
Specifications)
3. Develop a detailed construction schedule for use in determining construction phasing and
duration.
4. Prepare for and attend two (2) meetings at the Airport to discuss proposed closures of
Runways 24 and 33.
5. Prepare for and attend four (4) meetings at the Airport to discuss construction phasing with
Airport Staff, Airlines, Tower Staff, and Tenants.
6. Facilitate and attend two (2) user’s coordination meetings.
7. Prepare and submit the pavement design in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular AC
150/5320-6E. The pavement design will include the completed FAA Form 5100-1. A full
report will be completed and submitted to FAA, the State, and ACK.
8. Develop detailed construction quantities and cost estimate at the 90%, 100%, and As-
Advertised design levels.
9. Attend two (2) design review meetings with Airport Staff (Commissioner’s; Airport
Manager). The first meeting to review conceptual design efforts and the second meeting to
review final design elements.
10. Review, and ultimately “stamp” (Registered Engineer’s stamp), the FAA design drawings
and specifications on the Runway 33 PAPI’s and REIL’s and incorporate into overall
preliminary and final submissions (infra-structure only).
11. Complete drainage design per Advisory Circular standards including hydrology analysis
and modeling. Prepare drainage report which includes all drainage calculations, drainage
structure sizing, and drain pipe sizing. The most stringent (FAA, State, or Local) drainage
standards will be followed.
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 5
12. Complete electrical design and analysis. Includes runway edge light layout, circuit layout
and cable sizing, regulator design and sizing, lighting vault work.
13. Develop the following anticipated plans:
Cover/Index (1)
Location and Vicinity Plan (1)
General Plan (1)
General Phasing and Safety/Operations Plan (1)
Detailed Phasing and Safety/Operations Plan (4)
Test Core and Pit Plans (2)
Geometry/Alignment Plans (2)
Erosion Control Plan and Details (2)
Survey Record Plan and Existing Utilities (1)
Rare Species Site Plan (1)
Rare Species Mitigation Site Plan (1)
Rare Species Mitigation Details and Notes (1)
Typical Sections (1)
Profiles (4)
Runway 33 Grading Plans (1)
Runway 24 Grading Plans (3)
Runway Drainage Plans (4)
Runway Cross Sections (8)
Pavement Details (1)
Pavement Marking Plan (2)
Drainage Details (2)
Runway Lighting Plans (4)
Runway Centerline and Touchdown Zone Light Adjustment Plan (1)
Electrical Details (4)
FAA PAPI and REIL Drawings for Runway 33 (Assume 14 for infrastructure
only)
Misc. Details (4)
Total: 71 Sheets
14. Coordinate, distribute and print the following copies of the preliminary construction
documents (plans, specifications, and construction cost estimate) for review by the FAA,
State DOT, and the Owner:
Preliminary Submission (90%)
FAA-Burlington: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications;
1 copy of estimate
FAA-Georgia: Electronic Submission (Phasing/Safety Operations Plans)
State DOT: 1 copy of plans (1 half size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate; 1
CD of AutoCAD files
Owner: 4 copies of plans (1 full size; 3 half size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy
of estimate
Final Submission (100%)
FAA-Burlington: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
FAA-Georgia: 1 copy of the plans (1 half size)
State DOT: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
Owner: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 6
As-Advertised Submission
FAA-Burlington: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
FAA-Georgia: 1 copy of the plans (1 half size)
State DOT: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
Owner: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
15. Conduct an in-house QA/QC prior to each submission. The in-house QA/QC check will
involve an experienced independent individual, depending on each discipline, to conduct a
comprehensive check on all documents to be submitted (e.g. plans, specifications,
estimates, reports). Time will be required for engineers and Cadd technicians/designers to
correct items listed under the in-house QA/QC checks.
16. Address final comments from 100% design for as-advertised design plans.
17. Complete a comprehensive design report (Engineer’s Report) that will include a Project
Summary, Project Schedule, Description of Improvements, Alternative Design
Considerations, Pavement Design, Drainage Design, and Electrical Design, and Summary
of Estimated Project Costs and Engineer’s Cost Estimate.
Services for Article B1 will be provided under a lump sum basis.
ARTICLE B2 – DESIGN (DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS)
for Construct Parallel Taxiway to Runway 33 (Approx. 5,600’ x 50’)
Based on the information collected under Article A, the 90% and 100% design documents will
be developed for all elements identified in this scope of work.
1. Develop technical specifications. (i.e.FAA specifications: P-152, P-154, P-209, P-401, P-
602, P-603, P-610, P-620, P-626, D-751, D-701, L-108, L-110, L-125, T-901)
2. Develop contract document/front-end specifications. (i.e. Notice to Bidders, Invitation to
Bidders, Instruction to Bidders, Bid Proposal, Contract, Contract Articles, General
Specifications)
3. Develop a detailed construction schedule for use in determining construction phasing and
duration.
4. Prepare for and attend two (2) meetings at the Airport to discuss proposed aircraft taxiway
stub layouts and locations of run-up pads.
5. Prepare for and attend four (4) meetings at the Airport to discuss construction phasing with
Airport Staff, Airlines, Tower Staff, and Tenants.
6. Facilitate and attend two (2) user’s coordination meetings.
7. Prepare and submit the pavement design in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular AC
150/5320-6E. The pavement design will include the completed FAA Form 5100-1. A full
report will be completed and submitted to FAA, the State, and ACK.
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 7
8. Develop detailed construction quantities and cost estimate at the 90%, 100%, and As-
Advertised design levels.
9. Attend two (2) design review meetings with Airport Staff (Commissioner’s; Airport
Manager). The first meeting to review conceptual design efforts and the second meeting to
review final design elements.
10. Review, and ultimately “stamp” (Registered Engineer’s stamp), FAA design drawings and
specifications on the Runway 33 PAPI’s and REIL’s and incorporate into overall preliminary
and final submissions.
11. Structural Engineer to design proposed blast wall required at run-up pad adjacent to SRE
garage.
12. Complete drainage design per Advisory Circular standards including hydrology analysis
and modeling. Prepare drainage report which includes all drainage calculations, drainage
structure sizing, and drain pipe sizing. The most stringent (FAA, State, or Local) drainage
standards will be followed.
13. Complete electrical design and analysis. Includes taxiway edge light layout, circuit layout
and cable sizing, regulator design and sizing, lighting vault work.
14. Develop the following anticipated plans:
Cover/Index (1)
Location and Vicinity Plan (1)
General Plan (1)
General Phasing and Safety/Operations Plan (1)
Detailed Phasing and Safety/Operations Plan (4)
Test Core and Pit Plans (2)
Geometry/Alignment Plans (2)
Erosion Control Plan and Details (2)
Survey Record Plan and Existing Utilities (1)
Rare Species Site Plan (1)
Rare Species Mitigation Site Plan (1)
Rare Species Mitigation Details and Notes (1)
Typical Sections (1)
Profiles (6)
Taxiway Grading Plans (8)
Taxiway Drainage Plans (8)
Taxiway Cross Sections (8)
Pavement Details (1)
Pavement Marking Plan (2)
Drainage Details (2)
Taxiway Lighting Plans (6)
Electrical Details (4)
FAA PAPI and REIL Drawings for Runway 33 (Assume 14 for full build)
Misc. Details (4)
Total: 82 Sheets
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 8
15. Coordinate, distribute and print the following copies of the preliminary construction
documents (plans, specifications, and construction cost estimate) for review by the FAA,
State DOT, and the Owner:
Preliminary Submission (90%)
FAA-Burlington: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications;
1 copy of estimate
FAA-Georgia: Electronic Submission (Phasing/Safety Operations Plans)
State DOT: 1 copy of plans (1 half size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate; 1
CD of AutoCAD files
Owner: 4 copies of plans (1 full size; 3 half size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy
of estimate
Final Submission (100%)
FAA-Burlington: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
FAA-Georgia: 1 copy of the plans (1 half size)
State DOT: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
Owner: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
As-Advertised Submission
FAA-Burlington: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
FAA-Georgia: 1 copy of the plans (1 half size)
State DOT: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
Owner: 1 copy of plans (1 full size); 1 copy of specifications; 1 copy of estimate
16. Conduct an in-house QA/QC prior to each submission. The in-house QA/QC check will
involve an experienced independent individual, depending on each discipline, to conduct a
comprehensive check on all documents to be submitted (e.g. plans, specifications,
estimates, reports). Time will be required for engineers and Cadd technicians/designers to
correct items listed under the in-house QA/QC checks.
17. Address final comments from 100% design for as-advertised design plans.
18. Complete a comprehensive design report (Engineer’s Report) that will include a Project
Summary, Project Schedule, Description of Improvements, Alternative Design
Considerations, Pavement Design, Drainage Design, and Electrical Design, and Summary
of Estimated Project Costs and Engineer’s Cost Estimate.
Services for Article B2 will be provided under a lump sum basis.
ARTICLE B3 – FAA SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SMS)
1. Attend meeting with FAA and ACK at FAA in Burlington to discuss SMS process and
requirements for project. (Assume one (1) meeting with 2 attendees)
Services for Article B3 will be provided under a cost plus basis.
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 9
ARTICLE C – ADVERTISING AND BIDDING
for Construct Runway 33 Extension (Approx. 500’ x 100’) and Overlay a Portion of
Runway 24 (Approx. 1,500’ x 150’)
1. Prepare twenty-five (25) sets of plans and specifications for bidding. Extra sets shall be
produced at additional costs.
2. Prepare an “Invitation to Bid”, all forms for advertisement, bid proposals, contract bonds,
labor and DBE requirements and other contract documents needed to solicit public bids for
the construction of the project. The Owner shall be responsible for the cost of all public
advertisements required including all newspapers in which the advertisement is placed.
The Invitation to Bidders will be advertised in the Central Register, and the local newspaper
of record. Advertising will be coordinated with the Airport Administration, as applicable.
3. Prepare for and attend the Pre-Bid Conference (one (1) day) and Bid Opening (one (1)
day).
4. Issue necessary Addenda and Directives to Bidders. One (1) addendum is assumed.
5. Review the bids received, prepare the final bid tabulation, and make
recommendations/rejections of award of the Contract to the Owner.
6. Issue “Notice to Award” on behalf of the Airport to the appropriate contractor.
7. Maintain a plan holder’s list during the bidding phase which will be updated accordingly.
8. Coordinate and administer bid deposits and return of deposits.
Services for Article C will be provided under a lump sum basis.
ARTICLE D - GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
1. Attend one (1) Pre-Design meeting to discuss the scope of the project. Prepare minutes of
this meeting and distribute them to all parties.
2. Develop Engineering Scope of Work and Contract
3. Attend one (1) meeting to negotiate fee (assume meeting is at ACK)
4. Prepare and submit State Clearinghouse Letters. (includes addressing any and all required
requested documentation to Coastal Zone Management; Massachusetts Historic
Commission; U. S. Fish & Wildlife; and Native American Tribes (via FAA)
5. Prepare and distribute engineering contracts
6. Prepare and coordinate subconsultant contracts and pay invoices.
7. Prepare and submit FAA 7460 form for proposed blast pad. Assume six (6) 7460 Forms
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 10
8. Prepare and submit MASS DOT Aeronautics air space form for proposed blast. Assume six
(6) forms
9. Prepare and submit one (1) State Grant Application. Prepare and submit one (1) FAA
Grant Application.
10. Prepare FAA and State Payment Requests. Twelve (12) are assumed for this project.
11. Prepare and submit two (2) copies of the FAA Safety Plan checklist.
12. Retain project-related records
13. Attend two (2) Airport Commission meetings to update the progress of work and answer
any questions associated with the project.
14. Prepare record drawings (assume for 71 sheet drawing set) and FAA close out report and
submit to all parties.
Services for Article D will be provided under a lump sum basis.
ARTICLE E – CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
for Construct Runway 33 Extension (Approx. 500’ x 100’) and Overlay a Portion of
Runway 24 (Approx. 1,500’ x 150’)
1. Issue a “Notice to Proceed,” on behalf of the Airport, to the Contractor. Review the
Contractor’s construction schedule.
2. Prepare for and attend Pre-Construction conference.
3. Review all shop drawings submitted by the contractors and all materials used in the
construction of the project.
4. Attend site visits and project related meetings at the Mass State DOT, FAA, or ACK as
necessary. Assume (50) site visits out of a 365-calendar day construction project.
5. Prepare written or verbal directives to the Contractor.
6. Prepare Field Sketches, as necessary.
7. Provide general supervision and administrative support for resident engineer.
8. Review and approve estimates submitted by the Contractor for progress/final payments.
9. Prepare and negotiate change orders, as necessary.
10. Observe work in progress and provide reports to Owner.
11. Attend final inspection meeting.
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 11
Services for Article E will be provided under a cost plus basis.
ARTICLE F - RESIDENT ENGINEERING
for Construct Runway 33 Extension (Approx. 500’ x 100’) and Overlay a Portion of
Runway 24 (Approx. 1,500’ x 150’)
1. Coordinate and attend progress meetings with the contractor, Airport, and any other
interested parties, as required prior to construction (e.g. Staging area coordination, setting
up Contractor’s trailer.).
2. Attend pre-construction conference.
3. Provide full-time resident engineering services for the work associated with the project.
The resident engineer for the project shall have field experience in the type of work to be
performed, be fully qualified to make interpretations, decisions, field computations, and
have knowledge of testing requirements and procedures. The resident engineer shall be
approved by the Owner, FAA and the State.
4. Checking of construction activities to ensure compliance with the plans and specifications.
Inform the contractor of any work, which is in non-compliance.
5. Ensure that tests are performed at the frequency stated in the specifications.
6.Review certifications for conformance with the specifications.
7. Document quantities of materials used on the project by actual measurements and
computations in a field notebook or computer printout retained in a folder.
8. Maintain a set of working drawings on the job site, which can be used to prepare “As-Built”
drawings.
9. Review payment requests and certified payrolls from the contractor.
10. Maintain a diary, which will contain entries made and signed by the resident engineer.
Each entry should include the following, plus any additional pertinent data:
a. Date and weather conditions.
b. Names of important visitors.
c. Construction work in progress and location.
d. Size of contractor’s work force and equipment in use.
e. Number of hours worked per day for contractor and subcontractors.
11. Attend final inspection and create punch list.
12. Attend follow up site visit to confirm completion of punch list items.
Services for Article F will be provided under a cost plus basis.
P:\NANTUCKET AIRPORT\2009\E2X41201\100 Pre-Contract Phase\120 Cost Estimates\Runway 33\ACK_Runway 33_Scope of work - 052410.docPage - 12
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The tentative complete project schedule (design and construction) is as follows:
Item Date
Engineering Contract 6/30/10
Topographic Survey and Soils 7/30/10
Preliminary Design (90%) 10/1/10
Final Design (100%) 11/1/10
Advertisement 12/1/10
Bid Opening 1/10/11
State Grant Application 2/10/11
Start Construction 4/1/11
Finish Construction 12/11/11
TOWN OF NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
MANAGEMENT LETTER
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2008
The Honorable Board of Selectmen
Town of Nantucket, Massachusetts:
In planning and performing our audit of the basic financial statements of the Town of Nantucket, Massachusetts
(Town), as of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, we considered the Town’s internal control over financial reporting as a
basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the Town’s basic
financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal
control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal control.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and would
not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material
weaknesses. However, as described below, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider
to be material weaknesses.
A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in
the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the
entity’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity’s
financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity’s internal
control.
A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more
than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected
by the entity’s internal control. We consider the following deficiencies to constitute material weaknesses.
• Failure to act on previously communicated weaknesses.
• Inadequate design of internal control over significant accounts.
• A failure to perform reconciliations of significant accounts.
• Inadequate documentation of the components of internal control.
During our audit we became aware of several additional matters that are opportunities for strengthening internal
controls and operating efficiency. The memorandum that accompanies this letter summarizes our comments and
suggestions concerning those matters.
The Town of Nantucket’s written responses to the comments identified in our audit have not been subjected to the
audit procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them.
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of management of Town of Nantucket,
Massachusetts, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
We have already discussed these comments and suggestions with various Town personnel, and we will be
pleased to discuss them in further detail at your convenience.
March 20, 2009
TOWN OF NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
MANAGEMENT LETTER
JUNE 30, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Material Weaknesses 1
Other Comments and Recommendations 5
Material Weaknesses
2
MATERIAL WEAKNESSES
Failure to Act on Previously Communicated Weaknesses
The material weaknesses communicated herein represent control deficiencies that have been identified and
reported to management for several years and have not been adequately resolved. The existence of significant
deficiencies may be known and may represent a conscious decision to accept that degree of risk because of cost
or other considerations. Management or those charged with governance are responsible for making decisions
concerning costs to be incurred and related benefits. Failure by management to assess the effect of significant
deficiencies previously communicated and to either correct them or conclude that they will not be corrected
represent a material weakness in the Town’s system of internal controls.
Inadequate Design of Internal Control Over Significant Accounts.
Management must rely on the financial information generated by the Treasurer’s Office, the Collector’s Office and
the Accounting Office to make decisions that affect Town strategy in developing and meeting short-term and long-
term financial goals. Consequently, management must be confident that the information they base their decisions
on is complete and accurate. This confidence is gained when there is reasonable assurance that the internal
control structure over cash, receivables, revenues and expenditures is of sound design and is functioning as
intended.
Each of the Offices noted above play a key role in developing and monitoring of a sound internal control structure.
These roles are summarized as follows:
• The Accountant is responsible for establishing and maintaining procedures to assure that 1) all Town
receipts and disbursements are properly authorized and recorded in the general ledger accurately and
timely and 2) all journal entries are properly recorded and documented.
• The Treasurer’s Office is responsible for establishing and maintaining procedures to 1) properly
safeguard the Town’s cash and investments and 2) assure that all receipts and disbursements are
reported accurately and timely.
• The Collector’s Office is responsible for establishing and maintaining procedures to 1) assure all bills
submitted to the Office are collected as quickly as possible 2) secure the Town’s interest in property for
delinquent taxes and 3) process receipts promptly in order to maximize cashflow.
Considering these general roles, our review of the internal control structure of these Offices revealed the following
deficiencies:
• The Treasurer’s cash book was not accurately reconciled to the bank balances or to the general ledger
throughout the year.
o More than eight months after fiscal year end, the Town reconciled the general ledger to the
Treasurer’s cashbook, and recorded over $700,000 in adjustments as part of this process. After
this original reconciliation process, an addition $660,000 in corrections were recorded, which left
approximately $60,000 in unidentified variances. Additionally, the Treasurer’s cashbook has
unidentified variances to the bank balances of cash which exceed $300,000. Cumulatively, this
leaves approximately $360,000 in cash on the Town’s books that is not supported by cash in the
bank.
3
o The reconciliations from the cashbook to the bank balance were not adequately supported. The
Town Treasurer does not maintain an outstanding check listing to support the bank
reconciliations to the cashbook. Outstanding check lists are prepared once a year, several
months after year end, and were found to be inaccurate. The payroll account outstanding list
contained several duplicate amounts, contained several checks dating back as far as 1996, and
contained several checks made out to the Town of Nantucket. Additionally, the outstanding list
did not tie to the Treasurer’s reconciliation by over $300,000. The outstanding check amount on
the Treasurer’s cash reconciliation was a negative amount. The vendor account outstanding list
also contained items that were several years old, and did not agree with the Treasurer’s
reconciliation by approximately $33,000.
o The Treasurer’s cashbook contained unidentified variances that have been carried forward for
several years.
o The process for reconciling the Treasurer’s cashbook to the bank and to the general ledger is not
adequately documented.
o The Town has not performed reconciliations between the balances of individual trust fund
accounts on the general ledger and the supporting bank balances.
• The Town utilizes due to/due from accounts to monitor inter-fund receivables and payables. The
balances of these accounts are intended to represent cash that has not been transferred between funds.
The Town does not have a system to reconcile the balances in these accounts with the balances
maintained by the individual departments that they impact. The variances between the cash and due
to/due from accounts reported on the Town’s general ledger and the balances maintained by the Water
Department and the Airport were out of balance by approximately $400,000 in fiscal year 2006, by
approximately $157,000 in fiscal year 2007, and by a net variance of approximately $372,000 in fiscal
year 2008. Significant unidentified balances in the due to/due from accounts, even if they are reconciled,
indicate that cash transfers are not being made timely. In several instances, untimely transfers and
inaccurate transfers of cash between accounts have complicated the ability to reconcile and have
decreased the likelihood that errors or inconsistencies would be detected.
• The Town was unable to provide support for several balances maintained on the general ledger. Some
balances were caused by errors that have been carried for several years, and some unsupported
balances are in a deficit position. Erroneous account balances impact the usefulness and reliability of
data obtained from the Town’s accounting system, which is the basis for Management’s decision making
process.
• The Town does not have internal procedure manuals clearly defining the responsibilities of each position
within the financial departments. As a result, procedures, such as reconciliations, may not be completed,
even though everyone feels that they have completed their individual tasks, therefore, the activities are
not accomplishing the desired end result of identifying and correcting errors in a timely manner. Formally
documented procedures and responsibilities of each position would clarify the process and ensure that
the intended controls over the Town’s assets are being achieved.
Summary
In summary, the objectives of an internal control structure are to safeguard the assets of the Town and provide
reasonable assurance that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and
recorded properly in the Town’s ledgers. The omission of one or more elements of internal control can
compromise the Town’s ability to obtain these objectives. We have concluded that the deficiencies noted above,
individually and collectively, represent material weaknesses in the Town’s system of internal control under
standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
4
These deficiencies constitute being classified as material weaknesses because they represent significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect
the Town’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of
management in the financial statements. Furthermore, we believe that the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities
in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be
detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
For several years, we have recommended that the Town implement procedures to monitor all general ledger
balances throughout the year and to reconcile those balances with the supporting Treasurer’s cash book and
other supporting documentation on a regular basis to identify and correct errors during the normal course of
operations.
The procedures should include a process for insuring that all transactions are processed timely and correctly. We
have also recommended that the Treasurer post all cash activity in a timely manner to the Treasurer’s cash book
and that the Treasurer’s balances be reconciled to both the bank balances and the general ledger monthly and
that record of the reconciliation process be maintained by both the Treasurer and the Town Accountant.
As indicated by Statement on Auditing Standards #112, Communicating Internal Control Related Matters
Identified in an Audit, employees or management who lack the qualifications and training to fulfill their assigned
functions represent a strong indication of a material weakness in internal controls. The lack of ability to properly
reconcile the Treasurer’s cashbook to the bank balances and to the general ledger is an indication that staff does
not possess the necessary competency to implement internal controls that would reduce to a relatively low level
the chance that errors or irregularities could occur in the normal course of business and not be prevented or
detected by the Town’s internal control structure.
Subsequent to fiscal year end, the Town has implemented new cash reconciliation policies and procedures,
which, if performed properly, should increase internal controls, and improve financial reporting on a prospective
basis. We recommend that as the new policies and procedures are implemented, management evaluate the
competency of the staff as part of the Town’s overall internal control structure.
Town of Nantucket Response
We concur with the auditor’s recommendation and activities are in place to address the issues in the management
letter.
Town Administration contracted with a third party consultant to provide assistance to the Finance Department in
development and implementation of internal controls. The implementation of the consultant’s recommendations is
partially complete, with additional procedures to be implemented in the remainder of fiscal 2009 and in fiscal
2010. As part of the scope of work with the consultant, all workflows and controls will be documented in a
comprehensive finance department manual.
Since July 2009, cash accounts have been reconciled on a monthly basis. The cash reconciliation includes a tri-
reconciliation of the Treasurer’s Cashbook to the Bank and General Ledger.
5
Other Matters
6
PRIOR YEAR COMMENTS
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY GRANTS
Comment
Each year, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts allocates Chapter 90 highway project funds to the Town. These
projects require the Town to incur the expenditure first and then submit a request for reimbursement to the
Commonwealth. The Chapter 90 revenues and expenditures are accounted for in the Special Revenue fund to
enable the financial position of the projects to be monitored and to provide a check and balance over the records
of the Public Works Department.
Because it is a reimbursement program, the cash deficit in the Chapter 90 fund, at any given time, should equal
the invoices that have not yet been submitted for reimbursement, or that have been submitted and are awaiting
reimbursement from the Commonwealth. For several years, the Town’s cash deficit has exceeded the known
invoices that are awaiting reimbursement. This was most likely caused by a lack of procedures to reconcile
invoices to reimbursements and to verify that all reimbursement requests are submitted timely.
To strengthen controls over this program going forward, and to minimize unnecessary deficits, we have
recommended the Town reconcile the receivable balance due from the Commonwealth to the cash deficit in the
fund and identify any permanent deficit that has been caused by a lack of reconciliation procedures in the past.
Once the permanent deficit has been identified, we have recommended that the Town decide how the permanent
deficit will be funded and implement reconciliation procedures going forward to ensure that similar permanent
deficits do not occur in the future.
Status – Unresolved
As of June 30, 2008, the receivable balance has not been reconciled to the cash deficit.
Town of Nantucket Response
We concur with the auditor’s recommendation. As part of the Fiscal Year 2007 pre-audit procedure, the
Finance Director worked diligently with the Department of Public Works management team to ensure the
accuracy of the balance reflected in the Fiscal 2007 Financial Statements that were finalized on August 14,
2008.
In June 2007, the Finance Department implemented an Accounts Receivable Reconciliation procedure with
all Town departments including the Department of Public Works and Enterprise Funds. The accounts
receivable that are showing balances in the general ledger are reconciled to departmental records on a
monthly basis.
We recognize the Chapter 90 account is also a receivable due to the Town of Nantucket. In August 2008, we
began the practice of including this account as part of the monthly accounts receivable reconciliation. The
monthly reporting requirement has been communicated to both the Department of Public Works Manager and
Assistant Manager. The Assistant Finance Director and Controller will follow up on a monthly basis to ensure
Department of Public Works compliance.
7
ACCOUNTING FOR TRUST FUND BALANCES
Comment
Several of the Town’s trust fund balances recorded on the general ledger do not agree with the balance of the
funds on deposit in the bank. Such variances can be misleading and leave the Town at risk of overspending
available balances and of inaccurate financial reporting.
For several years, we have recommended that the Town implement procedures to reconcile the Trust fund
balances reported on the general ledger to the bank balances on a monthly basis. Lack of such a reconciliation
puts the Town at risk of inaccurately reporting trust fund balances, overspending trust fund balances, and
improperly allocating interest income to the individual trust fund accounts.
Status - Unresolved
There has been no significant change in this area.
Town of Nantucket Response
We concur with the auditor’s recommendation. The Treasurer and Controller are performing monthly cash
reconciliations on all Town accounts. Trust Funds are in the custody of a major bank’s Trust Department and the
Town is now receiving monthly (instead of quarterly) Trust Fund statements. Procedures are being developed
with the bank’s Trust Department to facilitate the timely transfer of trust funds to the Town for the reimbursement
of expenses paid on behalf of the trust fund accounts through the Town of Nantucket’s accounts payable process.
COMMINGLING CASH ACCOUNTS OF ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Comment
The Town maintains separate bank accounts to account for the cash balances and investment earnings of the
Enterprise Funds. All Town bills, including those of the Enterprise Funds, are initially paid from the Town’s vendor
checking account. The Town does not have a process for transferring the cash from the Enterprise Fund
Accounts to reimburse the vendor account timely or accurately. When the transfers are made, they often do not
agree to the amounts on the warrants. As a result, the interest accruing in the Enterprise Fund accounts is
overstated, the interest accruing to the General Fund is understated, and the recordkeeping required to monitor
the variance between the actual transfers made and the bills paid contributes to the Town’s inability to reconcile
cash and due to/due from accounts between the Town’s general ledger and the internal records of the Enterprise
Funds.
Additionally, interest earned on the accounts is not recorded timely in the Town’s general ledger. However it is
often recorded more timely in the internal records of the Enterprise Funds. This creates further reconciling
variances to be carried throughout the year.
For several years, we have recommended that the exact warrant amounts be transferred from the enterprise
funds at the time the warrants are issued. This should result in a bank balance equal to the ledger balance for the
enterprise fund cash and would reduce the balance in the due to/from accounts.
We have also recommended that interest be recorded more timely in the Town’s general ledger and that
procedures be implemented to reconcile the cash and due to/due from balances between the general ledger and
8
the internal records of the Enterprise Funds and that variances be and corrected in a timely manner.
Status – Partially resolved
During fiscal year 2008, the Town made a cash transfer to reconcile the due to/from accounts with one of the
enterprise funds, and has improved the process for transferring the total warrant amounts from the enterprise fund
bank accounts as the warrant is processed.
Nevertheless, significant un-reconciled variances remained between the cash and due to/from accounts reported
by the Town and the supporting bank balances.
Town of Nantucket Response
We concur with the auditor’s findings and recommendation. The Treasurer transfers exact amounts from the
Enterprise Fund accounts to support payroll and accounts payable warrants to the General Fund on a timely
basis. This activity reduces the need for the use of the “due to / due from” accounts except on a year end basis
when timing differences typically exist. We expect to resolve any remaining differences between the internal
records of the enterprise funds and the Town’s general ledger before closing the 2009 fiscal year’s accounts.
FRAUD RISK ASSESSMENT
Comment
The opportunity to commit and conceal fraud exists where there are assets susceptible to misappropriation and
inadequate controls to prevent or detect the fraud. To address this risk, we recommend that the Town perform a
risk assessment to identify, analyze, and manage the risk of asset misappropriation. Risk assessment, including
fraud risk assessment, is one element of internal control. Thus, ideally, the Town’s internal control should include
performance of this assessment, even though our annual financial statement audits include consideration of
fraud.
The fraud risk assessment can be informal and performed by a management-level individual who has extensive
knowledge of the Town that might be used in the assessment. Ordinarily, the management-level individual would
conduct interviews or lead group discussions with personnel who have extensive knowledge of the Town, its
environment, and its processes. The fraud risk assessment process should consider the Town’s vulnerability to
misappropriation of assets. When conducting the self-assessment, questions such as the following can be
considered:
What individuals have the opportunity to misappropriate assets? These are individuals who have access to
assets susceptible to theft and to records that can be falsified or manipulated to conceal the theft.
Are there any known pressures that would motivate employees with the opportunity to misappropriate assets?
Pressures may relate to financial stress or dissatisfaction. In assessing whether these pressures may exist, the
assessor should consider whether there is any information that indicates potential financial stress or
dissatisfaction of employees with access to assets susceptible to misappropriation.
What assets of the Town are susceptible to misappropriation?
Are there any known internal control weaknesses that would allow misappropriation of assets to occur and remain
undetected?
9
How could assets be stolen? Assets can be stolen in many ways besides merely removing them from the
premises. For example, cash can be stolen by writing checks to fictitious employees or vendors and cashing
them for personal use.
How could potential misappropriation of assets be concealed? Because many frauds create accounting
anomalies, the perpetrator must hide the fraud by running through an adjustment to another account. Generally,
fraud perpetrators may use accounts that are not closely monitored.
We have recommended that management develop and implement a fraud risk assessment program to identify,
analyze, and manage the risk of asset misappropriation.
Status - Unresolved
The Town has not developed or implemented a fraud risk assessment program.
Town of Nantucket Response
During 2009, Town Administration has contracted with a third party consultant to assist the Finance Department in
the development and implementation of internal controls. During fiscal 2010, the Town will conduct a fraud risk
assessment.
ACCOUNTING FOR OFF-DUTY POLICE AND FIRE DETAILS
Comment
The Town records payments to police and fire personnel for details in an agency account on the General Ledger.
Since it is the Town’s practice to pay for details prior to receiving payments from the vendors, the agency fund
typically has a negative cash and negative liability balance.
The Town also records a receivable and deferred revenue when the police detail bills are sent out to vendors.
The Town does not have procedures to reconcile the negative cash and the receivable balances. Although the
variances could represent details paid to officers and not yet billed, this has not been determined due to a lack of
procedures to reconcile the variances.
We have recommended that the Town implement procedures to reconcile the deficit cash balances to the
receivable balances to identify and address any permanent deficit and to ensure that all police details paid to
officers are ultimately billed to vendors and collected.
Additionally, if it is the Town’s policy to pay officers in advance, we recommend that the own follow the guidance
from MGL to provide “seed” money to fund the advance payment and the activity should be recorded in a special
revenue fund, as it not agency activity if the officers are paid in advance of the reimbursement from the vendors.
Status – Unresolved
The Town has not implemented procedures to reconcile off-duty police and fire detail accounts.
10
Town of Nantucket Response
We concur with the auditor’s recommendation. Officers are paid by the Town of Nantucket in advance of any
reimbursement from those individuals or companies who hire the officers. The Town of Nantucket is at risk for
non-payment of accounts. As the pay rates and number of off duty detail assignments have increased, the
amount of initial funding that needs to be provided has increased. Efforts will be made to provide such seed
funding during 2010.
DENTAL INSURANCE WITHHOLDING DEFICIT
Comment
The Town had a deficit balance of approximately $125,000 in the dental insurance withholding account at year-
end. The deficit is partially the result of employee withholdings not being matched to premiums paid, and to the
Town not adequately increasing employee withholdings when insurance rates were increased.
The balance in this account should represent amounts withheld from employees that have not yet been paid to
fund the employee’s share of dental insurance as of the end of the fiscal year. The amounts should be paid out,
for their original purpose, shortly after the end of the fiscal year.
We have recommended that the Town implement procedures to verify that employee withholdings are
commensurate with premiums paid, and that the balance in the withholding accounts reflect only amounts
withheld from employees that have not yet been paid.
Status – Unresolved
The Town has not yet reconciled the full reason for the deficit balance in this account, or determined what the
correct balance should be.
Town of Nantucket Response
We concur with the auditor’s recommendation. In Fiscal Year 2009, the process has been partially implemented,
with full implementation and reconciliation expected by the close of the Fiscal 2009 general ledger.
MONITORING GRANT PROCEEDS AND RECEIVABLE BALANCES
Comment
The Town has financed several capital projects through the loan program offered through the Massachusetts
Water Abatement Trust (MWPAT). This program allows communities to borrow funds at reasonable interest rates
to finance qualifying water and wastewater projects. Funds borrowed are reported as a liability once the loan has
been approved. However, funds are not received until the qualifying expenditures have been made and the
invoices have been submitted by the Town and approved by MWPAT.
The Town does not currently have a system of internal controls in place to properly monitor this process. This
has resulted in a negative impact on the Town’s cash flow, since capital expenditures were not submitted for
reimbursement timely. Additionally, the Town has been unable to reconcile the amount of funds not yet drawn
down through the MWPAT, putting the Town at risk of not drawing down all funds owed.
11
Until the funds are drawn down, the Town should record a receivable on the general ledger to monitor the amount
of money that has been borrowed and recorded as a liability, but has not yet been received. Additionally, the
Town should have a system in place to submit the necessary paperwork to draw down funds from MWPAT as
quickly as possible once the expenditure has been made. This would provide a positive impact on the Town’s
cash position and a more accurate picture of the amount that can still be spent on the project that will be eligible
for reimbursement.
We have recommended that the Town implement a system to monitor the receivable from MWPAT as well as to
request reimbursements from MWPAT as timely as possible once the expenditures have been made.
Status – Unresolved
There has been no significant change in the Town’s process for monitoring or drawing down funds from MWPAT
loans during fiscal year 2008.
Town of Nantucket response
We concur with the auditor’s recommendation. The Controller has implemented procedures to coordinate
activities and signatures of the outside vendor, the Department of Public Works and the Board of Selectmen chair
to obtain timely reimbursements for expenditures on major contracts for which borrowing is in place from MWPAT
in Boston, but are received by the Town of Nantucket on an expenditure reimbursement basis. The Controller is
also reconciling prior MWPAT reimbursements which were performed without finance department involvement, to
determine that all eligible expenditures were reimbursed.
CURRENT YEAR COMMENTS
JOURNAL ENTRY CONTROL
Comment
Our review of the Town’s journal entries revealed entries that lacked adequate support to document the reason
for the adjustments to the Town’s general ledger, or for which the support and approval could not be provided.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Town take steps to insure that all journal entry adjustments made to the general ledger
be properly authorized, and supported with full explanations and reference to adequate supporting data.
Town of Nantucket response
We concur with the recommendation. Procedures put in place in 2009 include initials and dates indicating journal
entry initiation, review, and approval steps. Further procedures will be implemented to ensure that full supporting
data is included in the journal entry package for every entry.
12
WARRANTS PAYABLE BALANCES
Comment
The balance recorded on the general ledger for warrants payable at year end did not match the support provided
by the Town by approximately $31,000. We were advised that ledger balance was incorrect, and that the
corrections would likely be identified through the cash reconciliation process. Since the Town’s cash
reconciliation process has not occurred on a timely basis throughout the year, relying on this process to identify
and correct other ledger balances is not a dependable system and represents a weakness in the Town’s system
of internal controls over financial reporting.
Recommendation
We recommend the Town implement procedures to identify and correct inaccurate account balances on the
general ledger.
Town of Nantucket response
We concur with the recommendation. Data entry errors at the departmental level result in incorrect year entries,
especially in the early months of the new fiscal year.
USE OF FISCAL YEAR 2009 APPROPRIATIONS TO PAY FISCAL YEAR 2008 EXPENSES
Comment
Our review of payments made subsequent to year end identified approximately $11,000 in payments for goods
received and/or services provided during fiscal year 2008, which were paid for with fiscal year 2009 funds.
The Town’s finance department is responsible for establishing a system of controls to review expenditures to
ensure they are reported in the proper budgetary period. Lack of such controls puts the Town at greater risk of
noncompliance with budgetary laws and regulations, misstatements in financial reporting, or the inability to
prevent and detect fraud in the Town’s financial statements.
Recommendation
We recommend the Town review and strengthen its procedures for reviewing and approving expenditures.
Town of Nantucket response
We concur with the recommendation. The occurrence noted by the auditors is for a beach cleaning contract. The
contracted services overlapped fiscal years, with 90% of the services delivered in the 2009 fiscal year, and 100%
of the contractual payments paid in the 2009 fiscal year.
The department will be required to pay for 10% of the summer 2009 contract from 2009 fiscal year funds to match
services delivered with payments made.
13
FIXED ASSET DELETIONS, DISPOSALS AND TRANSFERS
Comment
Since the implementation of GASB Statement #34, the Town has compiled a detailed listing of all assets owned
by the various departments of the Town. Maintaining this list requires the Town to account for additions,
deletions, disposals, and transfers of fixed assets. At this time, the Town is maintaining the fixed assets listing,
which is updated annually for financial reporting purposes, by recording depreciation and by adding fixed assets
purchased during the year. The Town has not implemented procedures to account for fixed asset deletions,
disposals or transfers. In order to maintain a complete and accurate fixed asset listing, and to facilitate accurate
financial reporting, the Town should work to develop procedures to identify and record fixed asset deletions,
disposals and transfers.
Recommendation
We recommend that management develop and implement procedures to identify and record fixed asset deletions,
disposals and transfers.
Town of Nantucket response
We concur with the recommendation. Procedures which are in place include annual insurance renewal
inventories, and review of construction in progress to determine when CIP assets are moved into permanent
categories. Procedures will be expanded and documented.
BORROWING FOR DEFICITS AT YEAR END
Comment
The Town had several capital projects which have deficit cash and fund balances at year end. Several of these
projects are still in progress and have not been completely financed. Under-financed projects drain on the Town’s
cash flows and can have a negative impact on the amount of funds certified by the Department of Revenue as
available for appropriation in the subsequent year.
Recommendation
We recommend that management investigate all capital projects that have deficit cash balances and determine if
funding is necessary to better manage cash flows and available funds.
Town of Nantucket response
We concur with the recommendation, and will formalize and document procedures regarding capital project cash
flow planning, spending, and borrowing.
TOWN OF NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
MANAGEMENT LETTER
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009
The Honorable Board of Selectmen
Town of Nantucket, Massachusetts:
In planning and performing our audit of the basic financial statements of the Town of Nantucket, Massachusetts
(Town), as of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, we considered the Town’s internal control over financial reporting as a
basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the Town’s basic
financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal
control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal control.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and would
not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material
weaknesses. However, as described below, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider
to be material weaknesses.
A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in
the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the
entity’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity’s
financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity’s internal
control.
A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more
than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected
by the entity’s internal control. We consider the following deficiencies to constitute material weaknesses.
• Failure to act on previously communicated weaknesses.
• Inadequate design of internal control over significant accounts.
• A failure to perform reconciliations of significant accounts.
• Inadequate documentation of the components of internal control.
During our audit we became aware of several additional matters that are opportunities for strengthening internal
controls and operating efficiency. The memorandum that accompanies this letter summarizes our comments and
suggestions concerning those matters.
The Town of Nantucket’s written responses to the comments identified in our audit have not been subjected to the
audit procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them.
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of management of Town of Nantucket,
Massachusetts, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
We have already discussed these comments and suggestions with various Town personnel, and we will be
pleased to discuss them in further detail at your convenience.
December 29, 2009
TOWN OF NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
MANAGEMENT LETTER
JUNE 30, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Material Weaknesses ....................................................................................................................................1
Failure to Act on Previously Communicated Weaknesses....................................................................2
Inadequate Design of Internal Control Over Significant Accounts ........................................................2
Other Matters.................................................................................................................................................6
Prior Year Comments............................................................................................................................7
Massachusetts Highway Grants ....................................................................................................7
Accounting For Trust Fund Balances ............................................................................................8
Commingling Cash Accounts of Enterprise Funds........................................................................8
Fraud Risk Assessment.................................................................................................................9
Accounting for Off-Duty Police and Fire Details ..........................................................................11
Dental Insurance Withholding Deficit...........................................................................................12
Monitoring Grant Proceeds and Receivable Balances................................................................12
Journal Entry Control...................................................................................................................13
Warrants Payable Balances.........................................................................................................13
Use of Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations to Pay Fiscal Year 2008 Expenses..............................14
Fixed Asset Deletions, Disposals and Transfers.........................................................................14
Borrowing for Deficits at Year End...............................................................................................15
Current Year Comments......................................................................................................................16
Payroll Timesheets ......................................................................................................................16
Other Post-Employment Benefits Actuarial Valuation .................................................................16
Invoice Approval ..........................................................................................................................17
Accounting Separately for Bond Proceeds..................................................................................17
General Ledger Maintenance and Reconciliations for Nantucket County...................................18
Informational Comment ...............................................................................................................................20
Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement #54....................................................21
1
Material Weaknesses
2
MATERIAL WEAKNESSES
Failure to Act on Previously Communicated Weaknesses
The material weaknesses communicated herein represent control deficiencies that have been identified and
reported to management for several years and have not been adequately resolved. The existence of significant
deficiencies may be known and may represent a conscious decision to accept that degree of risk because of cost
or other considerations. Management or those charged with governance are responsible for making decisions
concerning costs to be incurred and related benefits. Failure by management to assess the effect of significant
deficiencies previously communicated and to either correct them or conclude that they will not be corrected
represent a material weakness in the Town’s system of internal controls.
Inadequate Design of Internal Control Over Significant Accounts
Management must rely on the financial information generated by the Treasurer’s Office, the Collector’s Office and
the Accounting Office to make decisions that affect Town strategy in developing and meeting short-term and long-
term financial goals. Consequently, management must be confident that the information they base their decisions
on is complete and accurate. This confidence is gained when there is reasonable assurance that the internal
control structure over cash, receivables, revenues and expenditures is of sound design and is functioning as
intended.
Each of the Offices noted above play a key role in developing and monitoring of a sound internal control structure.
These roles are summarized as follows:
• The Accountant is responsible for establishing and maintaining procedures to assure that 1) all Town
receipts and disbursements are properly authorized and recorded in the general ledger accurately and
timely and 2) all journal entries are properly recorded and documented.
• The Treasurer’s Office is responsible for establishing and maintaining procedures to 1) properly
safeguard the Town’s cash and investments and 2) assure that all receipts and disbursements are
reported accurately and timely.
• The Collector’s Office is responsible for establishing and maintaining procedures to 1) assure all bills
submitted to the Office are collected as quickly as possible 2) secure the Town’s interest in property for
delinquent taxes and 3) process receipts promptly in order to maximize cashflow.
Considering these general roles, our review of the internal control structure of these Offices revealed the following
deficiencies:
• The Treasurer’s cash book was not accurately reconciled to the bank balances throughout the year.
o The Treasurer’s cashbook reconciliations to the bank statements continue to contain variances
that have been carried for several years.
o The Town discontinued use of the old vendor and payroll accounts and opened new accounts as
of July 1, 2008 for the new fiscal year to begin a new reconciliation process. The old accounts
were not reconciled throughout the fiscal year and continue to remain open with both bank and
book carrying balances. The remaining bank balances in the accounts are not supported by
outstanding checks that have not cleared.
o The Treasurer was unable to reconcile the new payroll bank account, and turned the
reconciliation process over to the Finance Director, who also has access to the Town’s general
ledger.
3
o The intent of opening new vendor and payroll bank accounts was to maintain what is referred to
as zero balance accounts. This system requires the value of each warrant to be transferred into
the vendor or payroll account exactly to cover the checks issued, and the book balance remains
at zero. The intent is to simplify the reconciliation process since the outstanding checklist would
equal the bank balance, and would be the only reconciling item. The new payroll and vendor
accounts have not been maintained at a zero balance since July of 2008.
o Although the activity in the general ledger was reconciled to the Treasurer’s cashbook throughout
the fiscal year, a consistent variance of approximately $36,000 was not identified until several
months after year end.
o The Town has not performed reconciliations between the balances of individual enterprise funds
accounts on the general ledger and the supporting bank balances. Variances identified six
months after the end of the fiscal year required material adjustments.
o The County’s cash balances were not reconciled from the ledger to the Treasurer’s cashbook and
to the banks throughout the fiscal year. Reconciliations were performed subsequent to year end.
o The Treasurer found a County bank account, several months after year end, totaling $42,300 that
has not been recorded on the Treasurer’s cashbook.
• Activity for Nantucket County was not properly recorded on the general ledger throughout the year, which
resulted in several adjustments to the ledger balances six months after the end of the fiscal year.
Additionally, adjustments identified by the Town during the fiscal year 2008 audit process were not
recorded in the County’s ledger during fiscal year 2008 or 2009.
• The Town does not have internal procedure manuals clearly defining the responsibilities of each position
within the financial departments. Formally documented procedures and responsibilities of each position
would clarify the process and ensure that the intended controls over the Town’s assets are being
achieved.
Summary
In summary, the objectives of an internal control structure are to safeguard the assets of the Town and provide
reasonable assurance that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and
recorded properly in the Town’s ledgers. The omission of one or more elements of internal control can
compromise the Town’s ability to obtain these objectives. We have concluded that the deficiencies noted above,
individually and collectively, represent material weaknesses in the Town’s system of internal control under
standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
These deficiencies constitute being classified as material weaknesses because they represent significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect
the Town’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of
management in the financial statements. Furthermore, we believe that the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities
in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be
detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
For several years, we have recommended that the Town implement procedures to monitor all general ledger
balances throughout the year and to reconcile those balances with the supporting Treasurer’s cash book and
other supporting documentation on a regular basis to identify and correct errors during the normal course of
operations.
4
The procedures should include a process for insuring that all transactions are processed timely and correctly. We
have also recommended that the Treasurer’s balances be reconciled to both the bank balances and the general
ledger monthly and that record of the reconciliation process be maintained by both the Treasurer and the Town
Accountant.
As indicated by Statement on Auditing Standards #112, Communicating Internal Control Related Matters
Identified in an Audit, employees or management who lack the qualifications and training to fulfill their assigned
functions represent a strong indication of a material weakness in internal controls. The lack of ability to properly
reconcile the Treasurer’s cashbook to the bank balances is an indication that staff does not possess the
necessary competency to implement internal controls that would reduce to a relatively low level the chance that
errors or irregularities could occur in the normal course of business and not be prevented or detected by the
Town’s internal control structure.
Town of Nantucket Response
Management has assessed the effect of previously communicated weaknesses, and a program of correction and
improvement was initiated in 2008 and continues. Much progress has been made on previously communicated
weaknesses. The Town of Nantucket contracted with a third party consultant in 2008 to provide assistance to the
Finance Department in development and implementation of internal controls. The implementation of the
consultant’s recommendations is partially complete, with additional procedures to be implemented in the
remainder of fiscal 2010 and in fiscal 2011. Management has identified this program of improvement as a high
priority. Individual recommendations in this letter will be assigned a priority level, along with those recommended
by the third party consultant, for an implementation plan.
Over the past decade, the Town of Nantucket has moved from a small town operation towards more professional
financial operations. The Town has overcome significant challenges during that time, and still has challenges to
meet. Nevertheless, in terms of financial operations, the Town is in a better position now than it has been in at
least fifteen years.
The operating challenges of 2009 included, but were not limited to: budgetary pressures, prior years’ work to be
completed, staff absences, an independent review of procedures and processes, and implementation of
recommended changes. Despite the challenges, the Finance Department provides accurate information for
multiple purposes, reports and constituencies. Like most municipalities, strict control over line item budgets
provides a level of control over expenditures.
Staff members are competent and have the skill, knowledge and ability to perform their duties. The Treasurer has
completed the education, experience and examination requirements to become a Certified Massachusetts
Municipal Treasurer, and has maintained certification by completing continuing education requirements. The
Treasurer safeguards the cash and investments through constant monitoring of the bank accounts on line and in
the cash book. During fiscal 2009, the Treasurer and other staff were working not just on 2009 accounts but on
2008 and 2007 as well. All of the staff have performed at a high level in 2009; the volume of work exceeded the
time available in which to do it.
The Town, like most municipalities, does not issue interim financial statements, and does not have a “financial
reporting” department. Thus, the annual audit is the one complete review of all accounts, and a significant
stopping point in the year for review and adjustment of the financial records. During Fiscal 2009, audits were
completed for Fiscal 2007 and 2008.
5
Management’s response with respect to the specific deficiencies listed above follows.
Cash reconciliations:
The cash reconciliation process improved during Fiscal 2009 and further improvements will be evident in Fiscal
2010. The old vendor and payroll accounts have been closed, and old variances will be reviewed, investigated
and / or cleared. The Town concurs that the reconciliation process is simplified with zero balance accounts.
Accurate and timely transfers, inlcuding transfers to or from the accounts at month end for interest earned, checks
voided, or checks voided and re-issued for corrections facilitate the reconciliation process, and such transfers are
occurring on a timely basis. The Treasurer asked for assistance in resolving difficult issues with the new payroll
account. Likewise,resolving old reconciling items, variances, and balances will require assistance.
As part of the plan of improvement during Fiscal 2009, reconciliations of activity were completed each month, and
the year end variance at June 30, 2008 did not change. Further work was subsequently performed on the 2008
variance, and the amount was reduced to the $36,000 referred to in the comment. The procedure followed was
identified at the beginning of the fiscal year, and was recommended in prior years by the audit firm.
Interfund reconciliations, Enterprise funds:
Adjustments, particularly between two enterprise funds, were made several months after year end.
Reconciliations of interfund balances will be simplified with timely and accurate transfers, which are currently
being made. Improved reporting of cash receipts by one enterprise fund, in accordance with town procedures,
will simplify the cash and interfund reconciliation processes. Cash management and reconciliations will be
simplified by eliminating some separate bank accounts for some Enterprise funds, under the authority granted to
the Treasurer by MGL.
Nantucket County:
The Town concurs that County accounts received little formal attention during Fiscal 2009. Account information is
reviewed on line, statements are reviewed regularly, and the activity in the accounts is consistent, predictable,
and in accordance with the revenue and expenditures recorded in the General Ledger. The Town concurs that
County accounts should be reconciled on a timely basis.
The Treasurer brought forward a County bank account which has apparently not been recorded in year end
reconciliations or included in audit documentation since prior to 2000. The last activity in the related general
ledger account and in the bank account was in 1999 (prior to the employment of current officials). More history
will be reviewed to determine whether the account should have been closed in 1999.
Nantucket County revenue, expenses, and transfers to and from the Town were recorded on the general ledger
throughout the fiscal year. Year end entries were made to adjust individual funds for their portion of the activity, to
record interest on accounts, and to move entries related to the Land Bank from an interfund account to an
intergovernmental account. The Town concurs that audit entries for Fiscal 2008 were not entered into the ledger.
Procedures manual:
The Town is in the process of documenting internal procedures; that task must be prioritized along with other
recommendations in this letter and in an independent report. Employees know their responsibility and the tasks
are being performed in a timely manner. Reconciliation procedures were provided to two independent outside
parties for review.
6
Other Matters
7
Prior Year Comments
Massachusetts Highway Grants
Comment
Each year, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts allocates Chapter 90 highway project funds to the Town. These
projects require the Town to incur the expenditure first and then submit a request for reimbursement to the
Commonwealth. The Chapter 90 revenues and expenditures are accounted for in the Special Revenue fund to
enable the financial position of the projects to be monitored and to provide a check and balance over the records
of the Public Works Department.
Because it is a reimbursement program, the cash deficit in the Chapter 90 fund, at any given time, should equal
the invoices that have not yet been submitted for reimbursement, or that have been submitted and are awaiting
reimbursement from the Commonwealth. For several years, the Town’s cash deficit has exceeded the known
invoices that are awaiting reimbursement. This was most likely caused by a lack of procedures to reconcile
invoices to reimbursements and to verify that all reimbursement requests are submitted timely.
To strengthen controls over this program going forward, and to minimize unnecessary deficits, we have
recommended the Town reconcile the receivable balance due from the Commonwealth to the cash deficit in the
fund and identify any permanent deficit that has been caused by a lack of reconciliation procedures in the past.
Once the permanent deficit has been identified, we have recommended that the Town decide how the permanent
deficit will be funded and implement reconciliation procedures going forward to ensure that similar permanent
deficits do not occur in the future.
Status – Unresolved
As of June 30, 2009, the Town’s cash deficit continues to exceed the receivable balance.
Town of Nantucket Response
Management agrees that there are differences that need to be resolved by corrective action.
For the periods prior to July 1, 2001, there is approximately $166,445 to be resolved.
For the period 2002 – 2006, there is approximately $32,236 to be resolved.
For the period 2007 – 2009, no resolution is necessary. All expenditures for these periods have been
submitted for payment, and payment has been received.
Depending on the cause for the differences, corrective actions would consist of either submission of invoices
for payments, funding for amounts that were incorrectly charged to the Chapter 90 grant, or correction of
accounting errors.
This recommendation will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation
plan.
8
Accounting For Trust Fund Balances
Comment
Several of the Town’s trust fund balances recorded on the general ledger do not agree with the balance of the
funds on deposit in the bank. Such variances can be misleading and leave the Town at risk of overspending
available balances and of inaccurate financial reporting.
For several years, we have recommended that the Town implement procedures to reconcile the Trust fund
balances reported on the general ledger to the bank balances on a monthly basis. As of June 30, 2009, the bank
and ledger balances for trust funds tie in total, however, several variances exist between individual funds. Lack of
such a reconciliation puts the Town at risk of inaccurately reporting trust fund balances, overspending trust fund
balances, and improperly allocating interest income to the individual trust fund accounts.
Status - Unresolved
There has been no significant change in this area.
Town of Nantucket Response
We concur with the recommendation. Trust Funds are in the custody of a major bank’s Trust Department, and
the Town now receives monthly statements. Procedures for the timely transfer of funds for the reimbursement to
the Town for payments made through the Town’s vendor payment process will be implemented. This
recommendation will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation plan.
Commingling Cash Accounts of Enterprise Funds
Comment
The Town maintains separate bank accounts to account for the cash balances and investment earnings of the
Enterprise Funds. All Town bills, including those of the Enterprise Funds, are initially paid from the Town’s vendor
checking account. The Town does not have a process for transferring the cash from the Enterprise Fund
Accounts to reimburse the vendor account timely or accurately. When the transfers are made, they often do not
agree to the amounts on the warrants. As a result, the interest accruing in the Enterprise Fund accounts is
overstated, the interest accruing to the General Fund is understated, and the recordkeeping required to monitor
the variance between the actual transfers made and the bills paid contributes to the Town’s inability to reconcile
cash and due to/due from accounts between the Town’s general ledger and the internal records of the Enterprise
Funds on a regular basis.
For several years, we have recommended that the exact warrant amounts be transferred from the enterprise
funds at the time the warrants are issued. This should result in a bank balance equal to the ledger balance for the
enterprise fund cash and would reduce the balance in the due to/from accounts.
We have also recommended that procedures be implemented to reconcile the cash and due to/due from balances
between the general ledger and the internal records of the Enterprise Funds and that variances be and corrected
in a timely manner.
9
Status – Partially resolved
During fiscal year 2009, the Town made a cash transfers to reconcile the due to/from accounts with some of the
enterprise funds, and has improved the process for transferring the total warrant amounts from the enterprise
funds bank accounts as the warrant is processed.
Nevertheless, significant un-reconciled variances remained between the cash and due to/from accounts reported
by the Town and the supporting bank balances, and there were a significant number of variances between the
warrant totals and the amounts transferred from the bank accounts. The majority of the differences that continue
to exist are in the Airport Enterprise Fund accounts.
Town of Nantucket Response
The cash transfer process improved during Fiscal 2009 and further improvements will be evident in Fiscal 2010,
including accurate and timely transfers. Payroll and vendor payments are paid from one disbursement account
each, for the entire town, followed by transfers into those accounts from several other Town (including Enterprise
fund) bank accounts. Some commingling of cash accounts occurs in the normal course of events. State and
many federal payments are made directly to a pooled account. One Enterprise fund bills and collects payments
for two other enterprise funds. Receipts at one Enterprise fund are not reported on a timely basis for timely entry
into the General Ledger.
Cash management and reconciliations will be simplified by eliminating some separate bank accounts for some
Enterprise funds, under the authority granted to the Treasurer by MGL. A review of accounts will be undertaken
to determine which accounts may reasonably be closed.
This recommendation will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation
plan.
Fraud Risk Assessment
Comment
The opportunity to commit and conceal fraud exists where there are assets susceptible to misappropriation and
inadequate controls to prevent or detect the fraud. To address this risk, we recommend that the Town perform a
risk assessment to identify, analyze, and manage the risk of asset misappropriation. Risk assessment, including
fraud risk assessment, is one element of internal control. Thus, ideally, the Town’s internal control should include
performance of this assessment, even though our annual financial statement audits include consideration of
fraud.
The fraud risk assessment can be informal and performed by a management-level individual who has extensive
knowledge of the Town that might be used in the assessment. Ordinarily, the management-level individual would
conduct interviews or lead group discussions with personnel who have extensive knowledge of the Town, its
environment, and its processes. The fraud risk assessment process should consider the Town’s vulnerability to
misappropriation of assets. When conducting the self-assessment, questions such as the following can be
considered:
What individuals have the opportunity to misappropriate assets? These are individuals who have access to
assets susceptible to theft and to records that can be falsified or manipulated to conceal the theft.
10
Are there any known pressures that would motivate employees with the opportunity to misappropriate assets?
Pressures may relate to financial stress or dissatisfaction. In assessing whether these pressures may exist, the
assessor should consider whether there is any information that indicates potential financial stress or
dissatisfaction of employees with access to assets susceptible to misappropriation.
What assets of the Town are susceptible to misappropriation?
Are there any known internal control weaknesses that would allow misappropriation of assets to occur and remain
undetected?
How could assets be stolen? Assets can be stolen in many ways besides merely removing them from the
premises. For example, cash can be stolen by writing checks to fictitious employees or vendors and cashing
them for personal use.
How could potential misappropriation of assets be concealed? Because many frauds create accounting
anomalies, the perpetrator must hide the fraud by running through an adjustment to another account. Generally,
fraud perpetrators may use accounts that are not closely monitored.
We have recommended that management develop and implement a fraud risk assessment program to identify,
analyze, and manage the risk of asset misappropriation.
Status - Unresolved
The Town has not developed or implemented a fraud risk assessment program.
Town of Nantucket Response
The AICPA Auditing Standards Board issued eight Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS Nos. 104-111),
collectively referred to as the Risk Assessment Standards. These Standards became effective for audits of
financial statements for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2006. The Town agrees that an internal
assessment of fraud risk is an important part of internal controls. Part of the ongoing plan for improvement
includes the development of a fraud risk assessment program. This recommendation will be assigned a priority
level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation plan.
11
Accounting for Off-Duty Police and Fire Details
Comment
The Town records payments to police and fire personnel for details in an agency account on the General Ledger.
Since it is the Town’s practice to pay for details prior to receiving payments from the vendors, the agency fund
typically has a negative cash and negative liability balance.
The Town also records a receivable and deferred revenue when the police detail bills are sent out to vendors.
The Town does not have procedures to reconcile the negative cash and the receivable balances. Although the
variances could represent details paid to officers and not yet billed, this has not been determined due to a lack of
procedures to reconcile the variances.
We have recommended that the Town implement procedures to reconcile the deficit cash balances to the
receivable balances to identify and address any permanent deficit and to ensure that all police details paid to
officers are ultimately billed to vendors and collected.
We also recommend that the Town document and implement procedures to address uncollectible detail
receivables. The documentation should address procedures for collection and for abatement and funding for
receivables that have been determined to be uncollectible.
Additionally, if it is the Town’s policy to pay officers in advance, we recommend that the Town follow the guidance
from MGL to provide “seed” money to fund the advance payment and the activity should be recorded in a special
revenue fund, as it not agency activity if the officers are paid in advance of the reimbursement from the vendors.
Status – Unresolved
The Town has not implemented procedures to reconcile off-duty police and fire detail accounts.
Town of Nantucket Response
The recommendation has three parts:
a) reconcile the deficit balance to the receivable balance
b) establish procedures for the write-off (and consequent internal funding to the off-duty account) for
uncollectible accounts
c) provide seed money to eliminate the deficit which results from payment to officers in advance of receiving
payments from the private party contractors.
In Fiscal 2009, total paid out to officers for off duty detail pay was $489,848. Total billed to 3rd parties was
$559,028 (additional charges are for administrative costs and for the employer’s share of Medicare payroll tax).
Total collections were $557,329, and total adjustments to accounts receivable were $15,331.
Systems are in place to ensure that all police details that are paid out in payroll are billed to the third parties who
hire the off duty officers – the payroll entries and billing to 3rd parties are almost simultaneous, and work from the
same system. Thus, all the entries take place in one fund, and that fund is limited to entries related to off-duty
detail, and the fund is self-reconciling.
The cash deficit in excess of the receivable at year end was $67,207. This amount represents adjustments made
to billings, over a period of several years, which have not been funded. The receivable at year end was $65,261.
This amount represents billings outstanding: for payments to officers and Medicare tax already paid out by TON,
12
plus a small administrative fee. The total cash deficit at year end was $132,468. This amount approximates what
would be required in seed money and funding for non collectible amounts.
Warrant articles have been proposed for two fiscal 2010 Town Meetings to provide funding for the deficit: for
seed money and for past write-offs.
This recommendation to establish procedures for write-offs and for funding future write-offs will be assigned a
priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation plan.
Dental Insurance Withholding Deficit
Comment
The Town had a deficit balance of approximately $278,000 in the dental insurance withholding account at year-
end. The deficit is partially the result of employee withholdings not being matched to premiums paid, and to the
Town not adequately increasing employee withholdings when insurance rates were increased.
The balance in this account should represent amounts withheld from employees that have not yet been paid to
fund the employee’s share of dental insurance as of the end of the fiscal year. The amounts should be paid out,
for their original purpose, shortly after the end of the fiscal year.
We have recommended that the Town implement procedures to verify that employee withholdings are
commensurate with premiums paid, and that the balance in the withholding accounts reflect only amounts
withheld from employees that have not yet been paid.
Status – Unresolved
The Town has not yet reconciled the full reason for the deficit balance in this account, or determined what the
correct balance should be. The deficit balance has increased during fiscal year 2009 by over $23,000.
Town of Nantucket Response
The Town concurs. This recommendation will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for
an implementation plan.
Monitoring Grant Proceeds and Receivable Balances
Comment
The Town has financed several capital projects through the loan program offered through the Massachusetts
Water Abatement Trust (MWPAT). This program allows communities to borrow funds at reasonable interest rates
to finance qualifying water and wastewater projects. Funds borrowed are reported as a liability once the loan has
been approved. However, funds are not received until the qualifying expenditures have been made and the
invoices have been submitted by the Town and approved by MWPAT.
In prior years, the Town did not have a system of internal controls in place to properly monitor this process. This
resulted in a negative impact on the Town’s cash flow, since capital expenditures were not submitted for
reimbursement timely. Additionally, the Town was unable to reconcile the amount of funds not drawn down
13
through the MWPAT, putting the Town at risk of not drawing down all funds owed.
Until the funds are drawn down, the Town should record a receivable on the general ledger to monitor the amount
of money that has been borrowed and recorded as a liability, but has not yet been received. Additionally, the
Town should have a system to submit the necessary paperwork to draw down funds from MWPAT as quickly as
possible once the expenditure has been made. This would provide a positive impact on the Town’s cash position
and a more accurate picture of the amount that can still be spent on the project that will be eligible for
reimbursement.
We have recommended that the Town implement a system to monitor the receivable from MWPAT as well as to
request reimbursements from MWPAT as timely as possible once the expenditures have been made.
Status –Resolved
The Town has improved systems for monitoring the MWPAT receivable balances and for requesting
reimbursements on a timely basis.
Journal Entry Control
Comment
During prior years, our review of the Town’s journal entries revealed entries that lacked adequate support to
document the reason for the adjustments to the Town’s general ledger, or for which the support and approval
could not be provided.
We have recommended that the Town take steps to insure that all journal entry adjustments made to the general
ledger be properly authorized, and supported with full explanations and reference to adequate supporting data.
Status –Resolved
The Town was able to provide supporting documentation for all journal entries selected for testing during the fiscal
2009 audit.
Warrants Payable Balances
Comment
The Town’s general ledger contained unsupported balances for warrants payable at year end. The unsupported
balances in the general fund totaled approximately $32,000, and there were also small unsupported balances in
several other funds. We were advised by the Town that ledger balance was incorrect, and that they were caused
from computer glitches that occurred during the year.
We continue to recommend the Town implement procedures to identify and correct inaccurate account balances
on the general ledger.
14
Status –Unresolved
There has been no significant change in the Town’s process for monitoring and properly recording warrants
payable amounts on the general ledger.
Town of Nantucket response
Unusual balances in A/P (those which do not clear in the normal course of events) arise from voided checks,
voided payments, or actual payment amounts which differ from the anticipated payment amounts. Periodic
review of the A/P balances is performed, and large amounts are further investigated immediately. The entire
balance across all funds as of June 30, addressed by this comment is $36,903. The majority of the June 30
balance cleared in July 2009. The current balance across all funds as of December 31, addressed by this
comment is $8,960.
This recommendation will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation
plan.
Use of Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations to Pay Fiscal Year 2008 Expenses
Comment
During the fiscal year 2008 audit, our review of payments made subsequent to year end identified approximately
$11,000 in payments for goods received and/or services provided during fiscal year 2008, which were paid for
with fiscal year 2009 funds.
The Town’s finance department is responsible for establishing a system of controls to review expenditures to
ensure they are reported in the proper budgetary period. Lack of such controls puts the Town at greater risk of
noncompliance with budgetary laws and regulations, misstatements in financial reporting, or the inability to
prevent and detect fraud in the Town’s financial statements.
We recommended the Town review and strengthen its procedures for reviewing and approving expenditures.
Status –Resolved
Our fiscal year 2009 testing did not identify similar expenditures.
Fixed Asset Deletions, Disposals and Transfers
Comment
Since the implementation of GASB Statement #34, the Town has compiled a detailed listing of all assets owned
by the various departments of the Town. Maintaining this list requires the Town to account for additions,
deletions, disposals, and transfers of fixed assets. At this time, the Town is maintaining the fixed assets listing,
which is updated annually for financial reporting purposes, by recording depreciation and by adding fixed assets
purchased during the year. In prior years, the Town had not implemented procedures to account for fixed asset
deletions, disposals or transfers. In order to maintain a complete and accurate fixed asset listing, and to facilitate
accurate financial reporting, the Town needed to work to develop procedures to identify and record fixed asset
deletions, disposals and transfers.
15
We recommended that management develop and implement procedures to identify and record fixed asset
deletions, disposals and transfers.
Status – Resolved
The Town has implemented a process of verifying, through insurance records, major capital asset deletions and
disposals during the year. Although there is not a procedure in place to identify deletions of smaller assets not
appearing on the insurance records, the majority of these assets are fully depreciated, and residual values are not
material to the Town’s financial statements. The Town has indicated that they plan to verify the disposals and
deletions of smaller capital assets through a verification process directly with the departments.
Borrowing for Deficits at Year End
Comment
At the end of fiscal year 2008, the Town had several capital projects which had deficit cash and fund balances at
year end. Several of these projects are still in progress and have not been completely financed. Under-financed
projects drain on the Town’s cash flows and can have a negative impact on the amount of funds certified by the
Department of Revenue as available for appropriation in the subsequent year.
Recommendation
We recommended that management investigate all capital projects that have deficit cash balances and determine
if funding is necessary to better manage cash flows and available funds.
Status – Resolved
The Town has implemented procedures regarding cash flow planning, spending, and borrowing.
16
Current Year Comments
Payroll Timesheets
Comment
During our review of the Town’s payroll process, we noted instances where departmental transmittals did not
contain the approving signature of the department head. The transmittals are compilations of employee
timesheets for each department. The lack of an approving signature on some transmittals is an indication that the
employees’ time was not reviewed or approved, which increases the risk that employees could be overpaid or
underpaid.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Town require the proper department head approvals on all payroll transmittals.
Town of Nantucket response
A standardized process was implemented for payroll reporting at the beginning of Fiscal 2010 (the payroll period
beginning July 6, 2009).
Other Post-Employment Benefits Actuarial Valuation
Comment
Now that the Town has met the requirements for implementation of GASB Statement No. 45, Accounting and
Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pensions, it is time to acknowledge the requirements
necessary to stay in compliance with the GASB and obtain the information necessary to complete the Town’s
annual audit.
For financial reporting purposes, and actuarial valuation is required at least biennially for OPEB plans with a total
membership (including employees in active service, terminated employees who have accumulated benefits but
are not yet receiving them, and retired employees and beneficiaries currently receiving benefits) if 200 or more, or
at least triennially for plans with total membership of fewer than 200.
This means that an updated actuarial valuation dated July 1, 2009 will have to be obtained in order for the Town
to remain compliant with GASB Statement #45, for fiscal years of 2010 and 2011. This is two years after the
original July 1, 2007 valuation which was used for the fiscal year 2009 audit.
On a go forward basis, the actuarial valuation should be calculated based upon the 4% discount rate, this
percentages falls in-line with the Town’s current funding policy. For financial reporting purposes, it is also
necessary for the actuarial valuation to segregate Nantucket County, Nantucket Regional Transit Authority
(NTRA), Nantucket Islands Land Bank, and the various Enterprise funds separately from the Town of Nantucket’s
liability.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Town work with their actuarial firm to assure that information needed for the next
valuation report is provided in ample time for the fiscal year 2010 audit.
17
Town of Nantucket response
Town Management is aware of and has communicated to elected and appointed officials the requirements of
GASB Statement No. 45. In July, 2009, a contract was signed for the revaluation of the OPEB liability, in
accordance with those requirements. The valuation will exclude the NRTA and Land Bank portion, as they are
contracting for a separate report and will make independent funding decisions regarding their OPEB liability. The
contract does not specify that the County or Enterprise funds should be split out. Until the TON decides to
actually fund the liability, or until the next contract, for fiscal 2012, management believes that a reasonable
allocation at year end is sufficient for splitting out the liability for the County and for each Enterprise fund for audit
reporting purposes.
The previous valuation included two estimates, based on two assumptions: 1) funding the ARC, or 2) not funding
the ARC. Budgetary constraints have resulted in the decision to not fund the ARC, and consequently, future
valuations will be based on that decision, and the liability will be larger as a result.
Invoice Approval
Comment
During our review of the Town’s support for expenditures, it came to our attention that the Town processed a
payment totaling over $14,000 at the request of the Airport without a supporting invoice. The only supporting
documentation provided was a remittance form which did not include adequate documentation of the vendor, date
of purchase, and what the expenses pertained to. The accounts payable clerk processed the payment solely
because the remittance form was signed by the Airport Manager. Processing any payments without proper
supporting documentation is a breakdown in the Town’s system of internal controls.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Town enforce its policy for not processing payments without proper supporting
documentation.
Town of Nantucket response
The Town concurs with the recommendation, recognizes the responsibility for controls over disbursements, and
will reinforce its policy and procedures throughout the Town.
Accounting Separately for Bond Proceeds
Comment
The Town accounts for bond proceeds received for major capital projects in separate funds on the general ledger.
This is the recommended practice, as it allows for a clear record of what bond proceeds have been spent, and
what they have been spent on. However, when the Town receives bond proceeds relating to small enterprise
fund related projects, they are often accounted for within the enterprise operating funds. This requires the bonded
balances to be accounted for outside of the accounting system on spreadsheets, and increases the risk that bond
proceeds could be spent for ineligible purposes.
18
Recommendation
We recommend that the Town account for all bond proceeds in capital project funds on the general ledger, and
that the Town continue to account for bond proceeds related to enterprise funds separate from those that will be
repaid by the general government.
Town of Nantucket response
The Town’s accounting for small enterprise fund related projects funded from bond proceeds provides a clear
record of the amount of proceeds remaining unspent. Each project has its own budget; as the bond proceeds are
spent, the budget is automatically reduced. Small projects typically are spent within a relatively short time, and
the projects are closed out.
Large enterprise fund projects, such as the airport terminal and the Surfside Wastewater Treatment Facility, are
accounted for in capital project funds. Projects which have complex funding sources (paid by two funds, or paid
by two different bonding sources, MWPAT and general obligation) are accounted for in capital project funds.
Management believes that small capital projects of limited duration are adequately accounted for in the Enterprise
funds, that the remaining proceeds of borrowed funds for these projects is easily determined, and that the benefits
of having the information in one fund outweigh the drawbacks of adding complexity to the process of transferring
enterprise fund dollars from one bank to another to settle vendor payments.
General Ledger Maintenance and Reconciliations for Nantucket County
Comment
The Town did not reconcile the due to/due from balances of the County since prior to fiscal year 2003, and the
variance has changed each year. Additionally, many of the other County accounts, including cash, were not
monitored on a regular basis throughout the year, and fourteen late Town adjustments were required in an
attempt to correct the balances several months after year end.
The lack of timely account reconciliations and a system to monitor the balances throughout the year increases the
risk that errors will occur and not be detected and corrected on a timely basis and increases the risk of inaccurate
financial reporting.
Recommendation
We recommend the Town improve the reconciliation and general ledger account monitoring process related to the
County’s general ledger.
Town of Nantucket response
The Town completed a historical review of the County General Fund and the Deeds Excise Fund where the
majority of the financial activity for the County is recorded. That review included the periods from 1998 through
2006. Balances between those two funds (including three distinct departments) were reconciled as a result of the
review, and have been reconciled annually since that date.
The Town provides payroll services for Nantucket Land Bank, through the County general ledger. Those payroll
transactions are recorded as a “due from” for accounting purposes only. The Land Bank settles its payroll
transactions promptly, and the related "due from" accounts should zero out regularly. Computer coding for payroll
19
and for the subsequent payment by the Land Bank will be changed and tested, to separate this "due from"
account from true County interfund accounts, which will facilitate the reconciliation process.
This recommendation will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation
plan.
20
Informational Comment
21
Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement #54
Comment
In February 2009, the GASB issued Statement #54, Fund Balance Reporting and Government Fund Type
Definitions, which is required to be implemented in fiscal year 2011. The objective of this Statement is to enhance
the usefulness of fund balance information by providing clearer fund balance classifications that can be more
consistently applied and by clarifying the existing governmental fund type definitions. This Statement establishes
fund balance classifications that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which a government is
bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the resources reported in governmental funds.
The initial distinction that is made in reporting fund balance information is identifying amounts that are considered
nonspendable, such as fund balance associated with inventories. This Statement also provides for additional
classification as restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned based on the relative strength of the constraints
that control how specific amounts can be spent.
The restricted fund balance category includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes stipulated
by constitution, external resource providers, or through enabling legislation. The committed fund balance
classification includes amounts that can be used only for the specific purposes determined by a formal action of
the government's highest level of decision-making authority. Amounts in the assigned fund balance classification
are intended to be used by the government for specific purposes but do not meet the criteria to be classified as
restricted or committed. In governmental funds other than the general fund, assigned fund balance represents
the remaining amount that is not restricted or committed. Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification
for the government's general fund and includes all spendable amounts not contained in the other classifications.
In other funds, the unassigned classification should be used only to report a deficit balance resulting from
overspending for specific purposes for which amounts had been restricted, committed, or assigned.
Governments are required to disclose information about the processes through which constraints are imposed on
amounts in the committed and assigned classifications.
Governments also are required to classify and report amounts in the appropriate fund balance classifications by
applying their accounting policies that determine whether restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned
amounts are considered to have been spent. Disclosure of the policies in the notes to the financial statements is
required.
This Statement also provides guidance for classifying stabilization amounts on the face of the balance sheet and
requires disclosure of certain information about stabilization arrangements in the notes to the financial statements.
The definitions of the general fund, special revenue fund types, capital projects fund types, and permanent fund
types are clarified by the provisions in this Statement. Interpretations of certain terms within the definition of the
special revenue fund type have been provided and, for some governments, those interpretations may affect the
activities they choose to report in those funds. The capital projects fund type definition also was clarified for better
alignment with the needs of preparers and users. Definitions of other governmental fund types also have been
modified for clarity and consistency.
Recommendation
As it appears that this GASB Statement will significantly impact the fund balance classifications presently
reported, we recommend that management begin to study and evaluate these changes for financial statement
reporting and disclosure purposes, and to formulate plans to be used in explaining these changes to interested
parties within the Town and to the external users of the Town’s financial statements.
TOWN OF NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
MANAGEMENT LETTER
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010
The Honorable Board of Selectmen
Town of Nantucket, Massachusetts:
In planning and performing our audit of the basic financial statements of the Town of Nantucket, Massachusetts
(Town), as of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, we considered the Town’s internal control over financial reporting as a
basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the Town’s basic
financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal
control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal control.
A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in
the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the
entity’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity’s
financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity’s internal
control.
A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more
than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected
by the entity’s internal control. We consider the following deficiencies to constitute material weaknesses:
• Failure to act on previously communicated weaknesses.
• Inadequate design and operation of internal control over significant accounts.
During our audit we became aware of several additional matters that are opportunities for strengthening internal
controls and operating efficiency. The memorandum that accompanies this letter summarized our comments and
suggestions concerning those matters.
The Town of Nantucket’s written responses to the comments identified in our audit have not been subjected to the
audit procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them.
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of management of the Town of Nantucket,
Massachusetts, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
We have already discussed these comments and suggestions with various Town personnel, and we will be
pleased to discuss them in further detail at your convenience.
February 28, 2011
TOWN OF NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
MANAGEMENT LETTER
JUNE 30, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Material Weaknesses ..................................................................................................................................1
Failure to Act on Previously Communicated Weaknesses .............................................................2
Inadequate Design and Operation of Internal Control Over Significant Accounts.......................2
Other Matters ...............................................................................................................................................7
Prior Year Comments ..........................................................................................................................8
Massachusetts Highway Grants.................................................................................................8
Accounting For Trust Fund Balances........................................................................................8
Commingling Cash Accounts of Enterprise Funds..................................................................9
Fraud Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................10
Accounting for Off-Duty Police and Fire Details ....................................................................11
Dental Insurance Withholding Deficit ......................................................................................12
Warrants Payable Balances......................................................................................................12
Payroll Timesheets ....................................................................................................................13
Other Postemployment Benefits Actuarial Valuation ............................................................13
Invoice Approval ........................................................................................................................14
Accounting Separately for Bond Proceeds.............................................................................14
General Ledger Maintenance and Reconciliations for Nantucket County...........................15
Current Year Comments ...................................................................................................................16
Receivable Reconciliations.......................................................................................................16
Prepaid Expense Balance .........................................................................................................16
Journal Entry Control................................................................................................................17
Commingling of Federal and State Grants..............................................................................17
Current Year County Comments......................................................................................................18
Escrow Accounts.......................................................................................................................18
Informational Comment ....................................................................................................................19
Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement #54 .....................................20
1
Material Weaknesses
2
MATERIAL WEAKNESSES
Failure to Act on Previously Communicated Weaknesses
The material weaknesses communicated herein represent control deficiencies that have been identified and
reported to management for several years and have not been adequately resolved. The existence of significant
deficiencies may be known and may represent a conscious decision to accept that degree of risk because of cost
or other considerations. Management or those charged with governance are responsible for making decisions
concerning costs to be incurred and related benefits. In 2008 the Town contracted with a third party consultant to
provide assistance to the Finance Department in the development and implementation of internal controls.
We have been advised that management has assessed the effect of previously communicated weaknesses and
the results of the report of the third party consultant and has identified a program of improvement as a high
priority. The Town initially took several steps toward the implementation of the recommendations made by the
third party consultant. However the recommendations have not been fully implemented and we have not noted
significant improvement in fiscal year 2010. We consider the amount of time that has passed and management’s
failure to adequately act on these weaknesses to represent a material weakness in the Town’s system of internal
controls.
Inadequate Design and Operation of Internal Control Over Significant Accounts
Management must rely on the financial information generated by the Treasurer’s Office, the Collector’s Office and
the Accounting Office to make decisions that affect Town strategy in developing and meeting short-term and long-
term financial goals. Consequently, management must be confident that the information they base their decisions
on is complete and accurate. This confidence is gained when there is reasonable assurance that the internal
control structure over cash, receivables, revenues and expenditures is of sound design and is functioning as
intended.
Each of the Offices noted above play a key role in developing and monitoring of a sound internal control structure.
These roles are summarized as follows:
• The Accountant is responsible for establishing and maintaining procedures to assure that 1) all Town
receipts and disbursements are properly authorized and recorded in the general ledger accurately and
timely and 2) all journal entries are properly recorded and documented.
• The Treasurer’s Office is responsible for establishing and maintaining procedures to 1) properly
safeguard the Town’s cash and investments and 2) assure that all receipts and disbursements are
reported accurately and timely.
• The Collector’s Office is responsible for establishing and maintaining procedures to 1) assure all bills
submitted to the Office are collected as quickly as possible 2) secure the Town’s interest in property for
delinquent taxes and 3) process receipts promptly in order to maximize cashflow.
Considering these general roles, our review of the internal control structure of these Offices revealed the following
deficiencies:
• The Treasurer’s cash book was not accurately reconciled to the bank balances throughout the year.
o The Treasurer’s cashbook reconciliations to the bank statements continue to contain variances
that have been carried for several years.
o The Town discontinued use of the old vendor and payroll accounts and opened new accounts as
of July 1, 2008 for the new fiscal year to begin a new reconciliation process. The old accounts
3
have not been reconciled since that time. The bank accounts have subsequently been closed,
however the Treasurer continues to carry a net balance of over $219,000 which is not supported
by a listing of outstanding checks that have not cleared.
o The Treasurer was unable to reconcile the new payroll bank account. The unreconciled variance
at the beginning of audit fieldwork in October was approximately $64,000. By the end of fieldwork
the variance was reduced to approximately $16,000 which has remained unreconciled.
o The intent of opening new vendor and payroll bank accounts was to maintain what is referred to
as zero balance accounts. This system requires the value of each warrant to be transferred into
the vendor or payroll account exactly to cover the checks issued, and the book balance remains
at zero. The intent is to simplify the reconciliation process since the outstanding checklist would
equal the bank balance, and would be the only reconciling item. The new payroll and vendor
accounts have not been maintained at a zero balance.
o The Town receives outstanding check lists from the bank for the new vendor and payroll bank
accounts. The lists include all checks issued as they have been transmitted from the Town to the
bank, all checks cleared at the bank, and a summary of which checks remain outstanding. The
outstanding lists from the bank are not accurate because voided checks and issued checks have
not been accurately transmitted to the bank. As a result, the Town continues to rely on the
outstanding check lists from the MUNIS system, and additional time is spent reconciling the
MUNIS outstanding check list to the bank list. This procedure is inefficient and may have
contributed to the problems with reconciling the payroll account.
o The Town issued approximately $70,500 in checks from the payroll account made payable to the
Town of Nantucket which were not deposited into another Town bank account until subsequent to
year end. As a result, only half of the transaction (the disbursement) was recorded on the Town’s
records in fiscal year 2010 and the cash was not recorded in the Town’s books as of June 30.
This practice caused inaccurate financial reporting and increased the Town’s risk of errors or
abuse.
o The Town has not performed reconciliations between the balances of individual enterprise fund’s
accounts on the general ledger and the supporting bank balances. Variances identified after the
end of the fiscal year required material adjustments.
o Although the County bank account reconciliations were completed during the fiscal year, several
journal entries after year-end continued to change the ledger balance and as a result the
County’s final cash reconciliations were provided to us to audit on the last day of audit fieldwork
and contained approximately $175,000 in unsupported reconciling items.
• Activity for the Town of Nantucket was not properly recorded on the general ledger throughout the year
resulting in 37 late Town adjusting journal entries recorded between October 5, 2010 and February 7,
2011. The entries included over $638,000 in transfers that should have been recorded in prior fiscal
years which were previously unidentified due to a lack of adequate reconciliation between the information
recorded in the Town’s general ledger and departmental records. The number of late adjustments is a
strong indication that the Town is not performing routine account reconciliations and making corrections
to accounts during the fiscal year and puts the Town at risk of inaccurate financial reporting and of
inaccurate reporting and testing of federal expenditures.
4
• The Treasurer has not transferred the exact amount of the warrants from the airport bank accounts to
reimburse the Town accounts on a timely basis throughout the year. This resulted in several adjustments
at year end, and required an analysis by both the Town and Airport Finance Directors to reconcile the
transfers made. The net result was that funds were over-transferred from the airport accounts by
approximately $830,000 at year end. This system is inefficient as it required unnecessary time to identify
the variances between the transfers and the warrants and to correct the transfers after year end. This
also caused cash to be misstated between the Town and Airport bank statements throughout the year
which impacts investment earnings.
• Several of the supporting schedules provided to us during audit fieldwork in October were inaccurate and
changed during the audit. For example, the list of unspent appropriations that were to be carried forward
to fiscal year 2011 changed several times. The initial listing would have resulted in a small deficit in the
Town’s education line. Once this was identified, the amounts were adjusted, and the education line was
no longer overspent. Also, the schedule of authorized and unissued debt and the schedule of unspent
bond proceeds both changed by several million dollars during this time.
• The Town does not have a reliable system for monitoring capital borrowing and the associated capital
expenditures. The Town’s schedule of unspent bond proceeds indicates that bond proceeds dating back
to fiscal year 2003 have not all been expended. We were advised that expenditures may not have all
been properly charged against the bond proceeds in prior years. In one case a project was completed
and funds were expended that were not funded with borrowed funds as authorized. Several adjustments
were made to the schedule of unspent bond proceeds subsequent to year end when the unspent
balances were reconciled to the related cash.
Summary
In summary, the objectives of an internal control structure are to safeguard the assets of the Town and provide
reasonable assurance that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and
recorded properly in the Town’s ledgers. The omission of one or more elements of internal control can
compromise the Town’s ability to obtain these objectives. We have concluded that the deficiencies noted above,
individually and collectively, represent material weaknesses in the Town’s system of internal control under
standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
These deficiencies constitute being classified as material weaknesses because they represent significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect
the Town’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of
management in the financial statements. Furthermore, we believe that the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities
in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be
detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
For several years, we have recommended that the Town implement procedures to monitor all general ledger
balances throughout the year and to reconcile those balances with the supporting Treasurer’s cash book and
other supporting documentation on a regular basis to identify and correct errors during the normal course of
operations.
5
The procedures should include a process for insuring that all transactions are processed timely and correctly. We
have also recommended that the Treasurer’s balances be reconciled to both the bank balances and the general
ledger monthly and that record of the reconciliation process be maintained by both the Treasurer and the Town
Accountant.
As indicated by Statement on Auditing Standards #112, Communicating Internal Control Related Matters
Identified in an Audit, employees or management who lack the qualifications and training to fulfill their assigned
functions represent a strong indication of a material weakness in internal controls. The lack of ability to properly
reconcile the Treasurer’s cashbook to the bank balances is an indication that staff does not possess the
necessary competency to implement internal controls that would reduce to a relatively low level the chance that
errors or irregularities could occur in the normal course of business and not be prevented or detected by the
Town’s internal control structure.
Town of Nantucket Response
We concur with the auditor’s recommendation and actions are in place to address the issues in the management
letter.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, Town Administration contracted with a third party consultant to provide assistance to the
Finance Department in development and implementation of internal controls. The implementation of the
consultant’s recommendations is partially complete, with the additional procedures to be implemented in the
remainder of FY2011 through FY2012. Processes and procedures that are currently implemented include
Accounts Receivable Reconciliations, Cash Reconciliation Process for Controller and Treasurer, Centralized
Procurement, Receipt of Reports, Vendor Maintenance, and Year End Invoice Processing.
Cash Reconciliations: Since July 2009, cash activity has been reconciled on a monthly basis with the exception
of four key accounts: County Bank of America Accounts Payable Outstanding Checks; Town Citizens Bank
Payroll Outstanding Checks; Town Bank of America Accounts Payable Outstanding Checks; and Town Bank of
America Payroll Outstanding Checks. The cash activity reconciliation includes a tri-reconciliation of the
Treasurer’s Cashbook to the Bank and General Ledger. Beginning in March of 2011, the Acting Finance
Director(s) will be conducting monthly reviews with the Town Accountant and Treasurer to ensure cash
reconciliations are being completed in a timely manner and to assist in resolving open reconciliation items.
Legacy issues pertaining to the old vendor and payroll accounts will be investigated and resolved by the Town
Accountant and Treasurer; however this task will take additional time.
Payroll Account: In April of 2010, the Town upgraded its accounting software system, Munis. During this time,
the retirement checks that are typically issued in the April time period were not posted. The Treasurer discovered
the error in June and worked with Munis support to correct the issue. The outstanding checks crossed fiscal
years; therefore the $70,500 variance was due to a timing difference.
Enterprise Funds: The Town accountant will develop and implement processes to ensure the inter-fund transfer
accounts are reconciled on a monthly basis.
County Reconciliations: The County Cash activity was reconciled between the general ledger and the cashbook
and provided to the audit firm in a timely manner. The former Finance Director made adjustments during audit
work that resulted in a variance. The Assistant Finance Director will work with the audit team to determine the
best course of action to resolve the remaining issues.
Late Journal Entries: The Town recognizes the inherent risk associated with late journal entries and plans to
develop and implement a process to reduce journal entries made after the fiscal year end.
Enterprise Fund Inter-fund Transfers: Specific to the Airport Enterprise Fund transfer, in this particular instance it
was human error. The transfer to cover the warrants was performed twice and discovered by the Treasurer and
6
Airport staff at a later date during the reconciliation process. In the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2011, the
Enterprise Fund balances will be reconciled to the departmental records pertaining to actual transfers made. This
process will in turn identify any year end timing issues which will be recorded as a receivable in the format of a
due to / due from.
Capital Borrowing and Associated Expenditures: In FY2010, the Town instituted a process where the capital
appropriations accounts that were subject to borrowing were inactivating until such time borrowing occurred. In
conjunction with the Centralized Procurement process, departments are unable to charge accounts for capital
expenditures until borrowing has been approved. The next step of the process will be to review legacy accounts
and perform the same action by the end of FY 2012.
Supporting Schedules: A preliminary Statement of Indebtedness was provided to the auditing team during
August fieldwork for testing purposes. The final version was provided to the Department of Revenue in November
of 2010. Beginning FY2011 and going forward, once the final version is submitted to the Department of Revenue;
the audit firm will receive a copy in 48 business hours.
The Town recognizes the importance of resolving the aforementioned issues in a timely basis. As per prior year
recommendation, the Town has been focused on ensuring current activities are properly reconciled. The process
of addressing legacy issues will require additional time and will be properly investigated as time allows.
The recommendations will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation
plan by the third quarter of FY2011.
7
Other Matters
8
Prior Year Comments
Massachusetts Highway Grants
Comment
Each year, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts allocates Chapter 90 highway project funds to the Town. These
projects require the Town to incur the expenditure first and then submit a request for reimbursement to the
Commonwealth. The Chapter 90 revenues and expenditures are accounted for in the Special Revenue fund to
enable the financial position of the projects to be monitored and to provide a check and balance over the records
of the Public Works Department.
Because it is a reimbursement program, the cash deficit in the Chapter 90 fund, at any given time, should equal
the invoices that have not yet been submitted for reimbursement, or that have been submitted and are awaiting
reimbursement from the Commonwealth. For several years, the Town’s cash deficit has exceeded the known
invoices that are awaiting reimbursement. This was most likely caused by a lack of procedures to reconcile
invoices to reimbursements and to verify that all reimbursement requests are submitted timely.
To strengthen controls over this program going forward, and to minimize unnecessary deficits, we have
recommended the Town reconcile the receivable balance due from the Commonwealth to the cash deficit in the
fund and identify any permanent deficit that has been caused by a lack of reconciliation procedures in the past.
Once the permanent deficit has been identified, we have recommended that the Town decide how the permanent
deficit will be funded and implement reconciliation procedures going forward to ensure that similar permanent
deficits do not occur in the future.
Status – Unresolved
As of June 30, 2010, the Town’s cash deficit continues to exceed the receivable balance.
Town of Nantucket Response
Management agrees that there are differences that need to be resolved by corrective action and process
improvement measures. Depending on the cause for differences, corrective actions would consist of either
submission of invoices for payments, funding for amounts that were incorrectly charged to the Chapter 90 grant,
or correction of accounting errors.
This recommendation will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation
plan by the fourth quarter of FY2011.
Accounting For Trust Fund Balances
Comment
Several of the Town’s trust fund balances recorded on the general ledger do not agree with the balance of the
funds on deposit in the bank. Such variances can be misleading and leave the Town at risk of overspending
available balances and of inaccurate financial reporting.
For several years, we have recommended that the Town implement procedures to reconcile the Trust fund
balances reported on the general ledger to the bank balances on a monthly basis. As of June 30, 2010, several
variances exist between individual fund balances carried on the ledger and the corresponding bank balances.
9
Lack of such a reconciliation puts the Town at risk of inaccurately reporting trust fund balances, overspending
trust fund balances, and improperly allocating interest income to the individual trust fund accounts.
Status - Unresolved
There has been no significant change in this area.
Town of Nantucket Response
We concur with the recommendation. Trust funds are in the custody of a major bank’s Trust Department, and the
Town now receives monthly statements. Procedures for the timely transfer of funds for reimbursement to the
Town for payments made through the Town’s vendor payment process were implemented in Fiscal Year 2011.
The Town Accountant and Treasurer will work collaboratively to address the legacy issues within the trust fund
balances that date back to the late 1990’s.
This recommendation will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation
plan during FY2012.
Commingling Cash Accounts of Enterprise Funds
Comment
The Town maintains separate bank accounts to account for the cash balances and investment earnings of the
Enterprise Funds. All Town bills, including those of the Enterprise Funds, are initially paid from the Town’s vendor
checking account. The Town does not have a process for transferring the cash from the Enterprise Fund
Accounts to reimburse the vendor account timely or accurately. When the transfers are made, they often do not
agree to the amounts on the warrants. As a result, the interest accruing in the Enterprise Fund accounts is
overstated, the interest accruing to the General Fund is understated, and the recordkeeping required to monitor
the variance between the actual transfers made and the bills paid contributes to the Town’s inability to reconcile
cash and due to/due from accounts between the Town’s general ledger and the internal records of the Enterprise
Funds on a regular basis.
For several years, we have recommended that the exact warrant amounts be transferred from the enterprise
funds at the time the warrants are issued. This should result in a bank balance equal to the ledger balance for the
enterprise fund cash and would reduce the balance in the due to/from accounts.
We have also recommended that procedures be implemented to reconcile the cash and due to/due from balances
between the general ledger and the internal records of the Enterprise Funds and that variances be and corrected
in a timely manner.
Status - Unresolved
During fiscal year 2009, the Town made a cash transfers to reconcile the due to/from accounts with some of the
enterprise funds, and had improved the process for transferring the total warrant amounts from the enterprise
funds bank accounts as the warrant is processed.
During fiscal year 2010, the Treasurer has not transferred the exact amount of the warrants from the airport bank
accounts to reimburse the Town accounts on a timely basis throughout the year. This resulted in several
adjustments at year end, and required an analysis by both the Town and Airport Finance Directors to reconcile
10
the transfers made. The net result was that funds were over transferred from the airport accounts by
approximately $830,000 as of June 30, 2010.
Town of Nantucket Response
The cash transfer process has improved in Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010; however transfers need to be conducted
in a timelier manner. Cash management and reconciliations will be simplified by eliminating some separate bank
accounts for some Enterprise funds, under the authority granted to the Treasurer by MGL. A review of accounts
will be undertaken to determine which accounts may reasonably be closed.
The Town Accountant will ensure a process of monthly reconciliation of inter-fund transfers is developed and
implemented in the 4th quarter of FY2011. In addition, the Town Accountant in coordination with the Treasurer will
review and address “legacy” issues that pertain to the “due to” and “due from” accounts over the course of
FY2011 and FY2012.
Fraud Risk Assessment
Comment
The opportunity to commit and conceal fraud exists where there are assets susceptible to misappropriation and
inadequate controls to prevent or detect the fraud. To address this risk, we recommend that the Town perform a
risk assessment to identify, analyze, and manage the risk of asset misappropriation. Risk assessment, including
fraud risk assessment, is one element of internal control. Thus, ideally, the Town’s internal control should include
performance of this assessment, even though our annual financial statement audits include consideration of
fraud.
The fraud risk assessment can be informal and performed by a management-level individual who has extensive
knowledge of the Town that might be used in the assessment. Ordinarily, the management-level individual would
conduct interviews or lead group discussions with personnel who have extensive knowledge of the Town, its
environment, and its processes. The fraud risk assessment process should consider the Town’s vulnerability to
misappropriation of assets. When conducting the self-assessment, questions such as the following can be
considered:
What individuals have the opportunity to misappropriate assets? These are individuals who have access to
assets susceptible to theft and to records that can be falsified or manipulated to conceal the theft.
Are there any known pressures that would motivate employees with the opportunity to misappropriate assets?
Pressures may relate to financial stress or dissatisfaction. In assessing whether these pressures may exist, the
assessor should consider whether there is any information that indicates potential financial stress or
dissatisfaction of employees with access to assets susceptible to misappropriation.
What assets of the Town are susceptible to misappropriation?
Are there any known internal control weaknesses that would allow misappropriation of assets to occur and remain
undetected?
How could assets be stolen? Assets can be stolen in many ways besides merely removing them from the
premises. For example, cash can be stolen by writing checks to fictitious employees or vendors and cashing
them for personal use.
11
How could potential misappropriation of assets be concealed? Because many frauds create accounting
anomalies, the perpetrator must hide the fraud by running through an adjustment to another account. Generally,
fraud perpetrators may use accounts that are not closely monitored.
We have recommended that management develop and implement a fraud risk assessment program to identify,
analyze, and manage the risk of asset misappropriation.
Status - Unresolved
The Town has not developed or implemented a fraud risk assessment program.
Town of Nantucket Response
The AICPA Auditing Standards Board has eight Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS Nos. 104-111),
collectively referred to as the Risk Assessment Standards. These Standards became effective for audits of
financial statements for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2006. The Town agrees that an internal
assessment of fraud risk is an important part of internal controls. Part of the ongoing plan for improvement
includes the development of a fraud risk assessment plan. The Town will review the opportunity to have a third
party develop a plan in Fiscal Year 2011 and 2012.
Accounting for Off-Duty Police and Fire Details
Comment
The Town records payments to police and fire personnel for details in an agency account on the General Ledger.
Since it is the Town’s practice to pay for details prior to receiving payments from the vendors, the agency fund
typically has a negative cash and negative liability balance.
The Town also records a receivable and deferred revenue when the police detail bills are sent out to vendors.
The Town does not have procedures to reconcile the negative cash and the receivable balances. Although the
variances could represent details paid to officers and not yet billed, this has not been determined due to a lack of
procedures to reconcile the variances.
We have recommended that the Town implement procedures to reconcile the deficit cash balances to the
receivable balances to identify and address any permanent deficit and to ensure that all police details paid to
officers are ultimately billed to vendors and collected.
We also recommend that the Town document and implement procedures to address uncollectible detail
receivables. The documentation should address procedures for collection and for abatement and funding for
receivables that have been determined to be uncollectible.
Additionally, if it is the Town’s policy to pay officers in advance, we recommend that the Town follow the guidance
from MGL to provide “seed” money to fund the advance payment and the activity should be recorded in a special
revenue fund, as it is not agency activity if the officers are paid in advance of the reimbursement from the
vendors.
Status – Partially Resolved
During fiscal year 2010, the Town appropriated funds to fund the permanent deficit in the detail accounts.
However the Town has not yet implemented procedures to reconcile off-duty police and fire detail account
12
receivable accounts receivable to the cash balance in the account on a regular basis and to implement formal
procedures for writing-off uncollectible receivables and funding them on a timely basis.
Town of Nantucket Response
The Town concurs with the recommendation.
On a monthly basis, the Staff Accountant reconciles the off duty police and fire details; however needs to take the
process one step further with the reconciliation of cash. Beginning in March of FY2011, the Staff Accountant will
meet regularly with the Police Support Staff to ensure the entire process is reviewed on a monthly basis.
This recommendation will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation
plan by the fourth quarter of FY2011.
Dental Insurance Withholding Deficit
Comment
The Town had a deficit balance of approximately $283,000 in the dental insurance withholding account at year-
end. The deficit is partially the result of employee withholdings not being matched to premiums paid, and to the
Town not adequately increasing employee withholdings when insurance rates were increased.
The balance in this account should represent amounts withheld from employees that have not yet been paid to
fund the employee’s share of dental insurance as of the end of the fiscal year. The amounts should be paid out,
for their original purpose, shortly after the end of the fiscal year.
We have recommended that the Town implement procedures to verify that employee withholdings are
commensurate with premiums paid, and that the balance in the withholding accounts reflect only amounts
withheld from employees that have not yet been paid.
Status – Unresolved
The Town has not yet reconciled the full reason for the deficit balance in this account, or determined what the
correct balance should be. The deficit balance has increased during fiscal year 2010 by approximately $5,000.
Town of Nantucket Response
The Town concurs with the recommendation and is actively reconciling the Dental Withholding accounts on a
monthly basis. At the present time, the Town receives rate increases in the month of June. The School
Department prepays its dental insurance expenses from June to August of each year. Therefore, the Town has a
practice of increasing the premiums in September when the School employees return.
The Town Accountant and Treasurer will determine the need to adjust employee withholdings to ensure increases
in the insurance rates properly match the premiums paid by the fourth quarter of FY2011.
Warrants Payable Balances
Comment
The Town’s general ledger contained unsupported balances for warrants payable at year end. The unsupported
13
balances in the general fund totaled approximately $32,000, and there were also small unsupported balances in
several other funds. We were advised by the Town that ledger balance was incorrect, and that they were caused
from computer glitches that occurred during the year.
We continue to recommend the Town implement procedures to identify and correct inaccurate account balances
on the general ledger.
Status – Resolved
The Town provided support for the balances recorded as warrants payable as of June 30, 2010.
Payroll Timesheets
Comment
During our review of the Town’s payroll process in prior years, we noted instances where departmental
transmittals did not contain the approving signature of the department head. The transmittals are compilations of
employee timesheets for each department. The lack of an approving signature on some transmittals is an
indication that the employees’ time was not reviewed or approved, which increases the risk that employees could
be overpaid or underpaid.
We recommend that the Town require the proper department head approvals on all payroll transmittals.
Status – Resolved
Payroll timesheets selected for testing during the fiscal year 2010 audit all contained the appropriate
authorizations.
Other Postemployment Benefits Actuarial Valuation
Comment
Now that the Town has met the requirements for implementation of GASB Statement No. 45, Accounting and
Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pensions, it is time to acknowledge the requirements
necessary to stay in compliance with the GASB and obtain the information necessary to complete the Town’s
annual audit.
For financial reporting purposes, and actuarial valuation is required at least biennially for OPEB plans with a total
membership (including employees in active service, terminated employees who have accumulated benefits but
are not yet receiving them, and retired employees and beneficiaries currently receiving benefits) if 200 or more, or
at least triennially for plans with total membership of fewer than 200.
This means that an updated actuarial valuation dated July 1, 2009 will have to be obtained in order for the Town
to remain compliant with GASB Statement #45, for fiscal years of 2010 and 2011. This is two years after the
original July 1, 2007 valuation which was used for the fiscal year 2009 audit.
On a go forward basis, the actuarial valuation should be calculated based upon the 4% discount rate, this
percentages falls in-line with the Town’s current funding policy. For financial reporting purposes, it is also
14
necessary for the actuarial valuation to segregate Nantucket County, Nantucket Regional Transit Authority
(NTRA), Nantucket Islands Land Bank, and the various Enterprise funds separately from the Town of Nantucket’s
liability.
We recommend that the Town work with their actuarial firm to assure that information needed for the next
valuation report is provided in ample time for the fiscal year 2010 audit.
Status - Resolved
The Town obtained an updated OPEB actuarial valuation report for the fiscal year 2010 audit.
Invoice Approval
Comment
During our review of the Town’s support for expenditures during fiscal year 2009, it came to our attention that the
Town processed a payment totaling over $14,000 at the request of the Airport without a supporting invoice. The
only supporting documentation provided was a remittance form which did not include adequate documentation of
the vendor, date of purchase, and what the expenses pertained to. The accounts payable clerk processed the
payment solely because the remittance form was signed by the Airport Manager. Processing any payments
without proper supporting documentation is a breakdown in the Town’s system of internal controls.
We recommended that the Town enforce its policy for not processing payments without proper supporting
documentation.
Status - Resolved
The fiscal year 2010 audit testing did not identify any invoices processed without proper supporting
documentation.
Accounting Separately for Bond Proceeds
Comment
The Town accounts for bond proceeds received for major capital projects in separate funds on the general ledger.
This is the recommended practice, as it allows for a clear record of what bond proceeds have been spent, and
what they have been spent on. However, when the Town receives bond proceeds relating to small enterprise
fund related projects, they are often accounted for within the enterprise operating funds. This requires the bonded
balances to be accounted for outside of the accounting system on spreadsheets, and increases the risk that bond
proceeds could be spent for ineligible purposes.
We recommend that the Town account for all bond proceeds in capital project funds on the general ledger, and
that the Town continue to account for bond proceeds related to enterprise funds separate from those that will be
repaid by the general government.
Status – Unresolved
There has been no significant change in this comment during fiscal year 2010.
15
Town of Nantucket Response
The Town’s accounting for small enterprise fund related projects funded from bond proceeds provides a clear
record of the amount of proceeds remaining unspent. Each project has its own budget; as the bond proceeds are
spent, the budget is automatically reduced. Small projects typically are spent within a relatively short time, and
the projects are closed out.
Large enterprise fund projects, such as the airport terminal and the Surfside Wastewater Treatment Facility, are
accounted for in capital project funds. Projects which have complex funding sources (paid by two funds, or paid
by two different bonding sources, MWPAT and general obligation) are accounted for in capital project funds.
Management will take the necessary course of action to ensure bond proceeds are accounted for in the capital
projects funds by the fourth quarter of FY2011.
General Ledger Maintenance and Reconciliations for Nantucket County
Comment
The Town did not reconcile the due to/due from balances of the County since prior to fiscal year 2003, and the
variance has changed each year. Additionally, many of the other County accounts, including cash, were not
monitored on a regular basis throughout the year, and fourteen late Town adjustments were required in an
attempt to correct the balances several months after year end.
The lack of timely account reconciliations and a system to monitor the balances throughout the year increases the
risk that errors will occur and not be detected and corrected on a timely basis and increases the risk of inaccurate
financial reporting.
We recommend the Town improve the reconciliation and general ledger account monitoring process related to the
County’s general ledger.
Status - Unresolved
There has been no significant change in this comment during fiscal year 2010.
Town of Nantucket Response
The Town provides payroll services for Nantucket Land Bank, through the County General ledger. Those payroll
transactions are recorded as a “due from” for accounting purposes only. The Land Bank settles its payroll
transactions promptly, and the related “due from” accounts should zero out regularly. Computer coding for
payment and for payroll and for the subsequent payment by the Land Bank will be updated and tested to separate
this “due from” account from true County inter-fund accounts, which will facilitate the reconciliation process.
The Assistant Finance Director and Town Accountant will reconcile the County and Town “due to” and “due from”
accounts on a quarterly basis beginning the third quarter of FY2011.
16
Current Year Comments
Receivable Reconciliations
Comment
During our review of the Town’s receivables it was noted that the general ledger balances of a number of items
related to Our Island Home and the Landfill did not tie to collectors support. The variances related to Our Island
Home occurred when the department converted software from QuickBooks to American Health Net in May of
2010. The American Health Net software does provide a detailed accounts receivable aging report; however the
total balance of the detail was $28,000 greater than the balance on the Town’s general ledger.
In relation to the Landfill, the tipping fee receivable general ledger balance was over $200,000 greater than the
support maintained by the Town Collector for the Landfill.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Town implement procedures to reconcile the accounts noted above as the general ledger
should mirror supporting documentation.
Town of Nantucket Response
The Town currently has Accounts Receivable Reconciliation procedures in place. The Town Accountant is in the
process of obtaining access to the two billing systems (Wasteworks and American Health Net) which will allow the
ability to track changes and limit the ability for changes to previously reconciled balances.
The Landfill Tipping Fees are collected by Public Works not the Tax Collector. The Town Accountant and Staff
Accountant are working directly with the public works support staff and software support to address outstanding
issues.
This recommendation will be assigned a priority level in relation to all recommendations for an implementation
plan by the fourth quarter of FY2011.
Prepaid Expense Balance
Comment
Per review of the general ledger there is an account for prepaid expenses that has a balance of $10,900 that has
not had activity in several years. We were advised that the balance relates to prepaid tuition for an education
program which occurred in July, 2007 (fiscal 2008). During fiscal 2008, the prepaid expense should have been
charged to a current year expense by journal entry.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Town correct this error in order to accurately report prepaid expenses and implement
procedures to correct errors more timely in the future to produce more accurate financial information.
Town of Nantucket Response
The prepaid expense will be charged to a current year expense by journal entry in Fiscal 2011.
17
Journal Entry Control
Comment
Our review of the Town’s journal entries revealed entries that lacked adequate authorizations. Journal entry
authorizations provide a record that the support for the entry has been reviewed and approved.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Town take steps to insure that all journal entry adjustments made to the general ledger
be properly authorized.
Town of Nantucket Response
The Town concurs with the recommendation. Beginning in April of 2011, the Operations Coordinator will ensure
all necessary authorization is provided to perform journal entries. If an authorization is lacking, the Operations
Coordinator will return the journal entry request to the requisitioner.
Commingling of Federal and State Grants
Comment
The Town accounts for federal grants and state grants within the same funds in the general ledger without
designation as to which grants are federal and which are state. Since the Town is required to report federal
expenditures separately, combining federal and state grants on the general ledger increases the risk that federal
expenditures will not be identified. Additionally, the amount of audit testing done on federal expenditures is
determined based on federal expenditures. The commingling of these funds makes the process of identifying and
reporting federal grants cumbersome, makes the planning process for identifying major federal programs
cumbersome, and puts the Town at risk of inaccurate financial reporting.
Recommendation
We have recommended that the Town implement a system to segregate federal and state grants in the general
ledger.
Town of Nantucket Response
The Town concurs with the recommendation. In FY2011, the Town Accountant with the assistance of the
Operations Coordinator will establish and test new funds for Federal-Education Grants and Federal - Non-
educational grants with the intent the new funds would be operational no later than the 1st quarter of FY2012.
18
Current Year County Comments
Escrow Accounts
Comment
During the audit of the County’s cash balances it was noted that the County’s general ledger included three
escrow accounts that are not supported in the cash book or in bank accounts. We were advised by management
that there is no known support for the creation of these escrow accounts and their purpose is unknown.
Recommendation
We recommend the County research the source for the creation of the escrow accounts and take action to
remove them from the general ledger if their existence cannot be adequately supported.
Town of Nantucket Response
Management concurs with the recommendation and has performed due diligence to resolve the legacy escrow
account issues. The Treasurer and Assistant Finance Director have researched archived information from the
late 1990’s to determine the establishment of the escrow accounts. At this time, supporting source documents
are not available to support the recorded balances.
The Assistant Finance Director will follow up with the auditing team to determine the best course of action by
fourth quarter of FY2011.
19
Informational Comment
20
Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement #54
Comment
In February 2009, the GASB issued Statement #54, Fund Balance Reporting and Government Fund Type
Definitions, which is required to be implemented in fiscal year 2011. The objective of this Statement is to enhance
the usefulness of fund balance information by providing clearer fund balance classifications that can be more
consistently applied and by clarifying the existing governmental fund type definitions. This Statement establishes
fund balance classifications that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which a government is
bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the resources reported in governmental funds.
The initial distinction that is made in reporting fund balance information is identifying amounts that are considered
nonspendable, such as fund balance associated with inventories. This Statement also provides for additional
classification as restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned based on the relative strength of the constraints
that control how specific amounts can be spent.
The restricted fund balance category includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes stipulated
by constitution, external resource providers, or through enabling legislation. The committed fund balance
classification includes amounts that can be used only for the specific purposes determined by a formal action of
the government's highest level of decision-making authority. Amounts in the assigned fund balance classification
are intended to be used by the government for specific purposes but do not meet the criteria to be classified as
restricted or committed. In governmental funds other than the general fund, assigned fund balance represents
the remaining amount that is not restricted or committed. Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification
for the government's general fund and includes all spendable amounts not contained in the other classifications.
In other funds, the unassigned classification should be used only to report a deficit balance resulting from
overspending for specific purposes for which amounts had been restricted, committed, or assigned.
Governments are required to disclose information about the processes through which constraints are imposed on
amounts in the committed and assigned classifications.
Governments also are required to classify and report amounts in the appropriate fund balance classifications by
applying their accounting policies that determine whether restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned
amounts are considered to have been spent. Disclosure of the policies in the notes to the financial statements is
required.
This Statement also provides guidance for classifying stabilization amounts on the face of the balance sheet and
requires disclosure of certain information about stabilization arrangements in the notes to the financial statements.
The definitions of the general fund, special revenue fund types, capital projects fund types, and permanent fund
types are clarified by the provisions in this Statement. Interpretations of certain terms within the definition of the
special revenue fund type have been provided and, for some governments, those interpretations may affect the
activities they choose to report in those funds. The capital projects fund type definition also was clarified for better
alignment with the needs of preparers and users. Definitions of other governmental fund types also have been
modified for clarity and consistency.
Recommendation
As it appears that this GASB Statement will significantly impact the fund balance classifications presently
reported, we recommend that management begin to study and evaluate these changes for financial statement
reporting and disclosure purposes, and to formulate plans to be used in explaining these changes to interested
parties within the Town and to the external users of the Town’s financial statements.
TOWN OF NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
MANAGEMENT LETTER
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011
The Honorable Board of Selectmen
Town of Nantucket, Massachusetts
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type
activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the Town of Nantucket,
Massachusetts (Town), as of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered the Town’s internal control over financial
reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the
Town’s basic financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the
Town’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town’s internal
control.
A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in
the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A
significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the
entity’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity’s
financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity’s internal
control.
A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more
than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected
by the entity’s internal control. We consider the following deficiencies to constitute material weaknesses:
• Inadequate design and operation of internal control over significant accounts.
• Failure to comply with procurement laws and regulations.
During our audit we became aware of several additional matters that are opportunities for strengthening internal
controls and operating efficiency. The memorandum that accompanies this letter summarized our comments and
suggestions concerning those matters.
The Town of Nantucket’s written responses to the comments identified in our audit have not been subjected to the
audit procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them.
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of management of the Town of Nantucket,
Massachusetts, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
We have already discussed these comments and suggestions with various Town personnel, and we will be
pleased to discuss them in further detail at your convenience.
February 21, 2012
TOWN OF NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS
MANAGEMENT LETTER
JUNE 30, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Material Weaknesses ..................................................................................................................................1
Inadequate Design and Operation of Internal Control Over Significant Accounts.......................2
Failure to Comply With Procurement Laws and Regulations.........................................................4
Other Matters ...............................................................................................................................................7
Prior Year Comments ..........................................................................................................................8
Account Activity Reconciliation.................................................................................................8
Massachusetts Highway Grants.................................................................................................8
Accounting For Trust Fund Balances........................................................................................9
Fraud Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................10
Accounting for Off-Duty Police and Fire Details ....................................................................11
Insurance Withholding Deficits................................................................................................12
Accounting Separately for Bond Proceeds.............................................................................13
General Ledger Maintenance and Reconciliations for Nantucket County...........................13
Receivable Reconciliations.......................................................................................................14
Prepaid Expense Balance .........................................................................................................14
Journal Entry Control................................................................................................................14
Commingling of Federal and State Grants..............................................................................15
Current Year Comments ...................................................................................................................15
Invoice Receipt Procedures......................................................................................................15
Purchase Order Dates ...............................................................................................................16
Capital Assets Land Monitoring...............................................................................................16
Prior Year County Comments...........................................................................................................17
Escrow Accounts.......................................................................................................................17
Current Year County Comments......................................................................................................17
Vendor and Payroll Accounts...................................................................................................17
Unnecessary Bank Fees............................................................................................................18
Prior Year Informational Comment ..................................................................................................18
Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement #54 .....................................18
1
Material Weaknesses
2
MATERIAL WEAKNESSES
Inadequate Design and Operation of Internal Control Over Significant Accounts
For several years control deficiencies have been identified and reported to management related to the timely
reconciliation of significant accounts such as cash, interfund receivables and payables and accounts receivable.
During the last few months of fiscal year 2011, the Town has taken a systematic approach to addressing each of
the previously identified weaknesses, and has made significant progress. The process of reconciling accounts
such as cash and interfund receivables and payable (due to/from accounts) and accounts receivable on a monthly
basis has provided the Town with greater assurance that all financial activity has been reported in the Town’s
general ledger. An additional and equally important step in the process of verifying that all activity is recorded
accurately is to reconcile the balances and activity in the general ledger to the supporting documentation. This
process would identify activity that may have been recorded in the wrong account or fund, which could have a
significant impact on management decisions and the Town’s financial position. This step is typically
accomplished through monthly reconciliations of account balances with the individual departments responsible for
the activity and through reconciling appropriation balances with departments. The Town has deferred the
implementation of this process to fiscal year 2012.
Management must rely on the financial information generated through the Town’s ledgers to make decisions that
affect Town strategy in developing and meeting short-term and long-term financial goals. Consequently,
management must be confident that the information they base their decisions on is complete and accurate. We
recognize that the Town has taken significant steps in improving controls by reconciling cash, interfund
receivables and payables and accounts receivable and through addressing many of the legacy account variances
that have been carried for several years. However, the Town’s internal control system must include a process for
verifying that activity has been accurately recorded within the Town’s records for the system to function as
intended.
The status of previously reported internal control deficiencies are as follows:
• Several years ago, the Town discontinued the use of the main vendor and payroll accounts and opened
new accounts with the intent that this would help the cash reconciliation process. The intent of opening
new vendor and payroll bank accounts was to maintain what is referred to as zero balance accounts.
This system requires the value of each warrant to be transferred into the vendor or payroll account
exactly to cover the checks issued, and the book balance remains at zero. The intent is to simplify the
reconciliation process since the outstanding checklist would equal the bank balance, and would be the
only reconciling item. With the assistance of outside consultants, the Town has reconciled the activity in
the new vendor and payroll accounts as of June 30, 2011. However, new payroll and vendor accounts
have not been consistently maintained at a zero balance. We continue to recommend maintaining both
the vendor and payroll accounts at a zero balance as this will simplify the reconciliation process on a go
forward basis.
• The Town maintains separate bank accounts to account for the cash balances and investment earnings
of the Enterprise Funds. All Town bills, including those of the Enterprise Funds, are initially paid from the
Town’s vendor checking account. In prior years, we noted that the Town did not have a process for
transferring the cash from the Enterprise Fund Accounts to reimburse the vendor account timely or
accurately. In fiscal year 2011, the Town has improved on performing reconciliations between the
balances of individual enterprise fund’s accounts on the general ledger and the supporting bank balances
by making more timely cash transfers and by requiring the Airport and the Wannacomet Water Company
to sign off on the activity, but not the balances of the bank accounts. Since this process did not take
place for the entire year, and the actual balances were never reconciled, variances were identified
3
subsequent to year end between the Treasurer’s cashbook and the General Ledger related to the cash
accounts held for the Nantucket Memorial Airport. The variance totaled approximately $500,000 and
required material adjustments that were not identified through the reconciliation process. Additionally, the
lack of a system to reconcile the balances throughout the year required an analysis by both the Town and
Airport Finance Directors to reconcile the actual transfers made. This system is inefficient as it required
unnecessary time to identify the variances between the transfers and the warrants and to correct the
transfers after year end. This also caused cash to be misstated between the Town and Airport bank
statements throughout the year which impacts investment earnings.
• Significant adjustments were made to the fiscal year 2010 general ledger subsequent to the prior audit.
Over $730,000 in expenditures were recorded in the general fund for fiscal year 2010 on March 31, 2011.
These expenditures, along with adjustments required to close out old unreconciled vendor and payroll
accounts resulted in a restatement of the Town’s general fund beginning balance totaling $993,000.
• The Town does not have a reliable system for monitoring capital borrowing and the associated capital
expenditures. The Town’s schedule of unspent bond proceeds indicates that bond proceeds dating back
to fiscal year 2003 have not all been expended. We were advised that expenditures may not have all
been properly charged against the bond proceeds in prior years. During fiscal year 2011, adjustments
have been made to the beginning balances of the schedule of unspent bond proceeds when the unspent
balances were reconciled to the related cash. We recommend that the Town implement a system to
monitor capital projects and the associated authorized funding mechanisms to both ensure the timely
borrowing for authorized projects and to allow for the reallocation of unspent bond proceeds once projects
have been completed.
Additional internal control deficiencies:
• The Town recorded payables from the Wannacomet Water Company to the Sewer and Siasconset Water
enterprise funds without recording a corresponding receivable. This has the effect of understating
revenue received during fiscal year 2011. As part of the monthly reconciliation of the “due to/due from”
accounts, we recommend that other interfund receivables and payables also be reconciled.
• As noted above, the Town does not have a reliable system both for reconciling individual fund balances
with departments and for monitoring the activity of capital projects and the associated borrowing or other
funding. Both of these weaknesses have contributed to variances between the Town’s operating and
capital accounts of the Nantucket Memorial Airport. The Town is currently in the process of identifying the
activity that should have been recorded between these two funds, recording correcting entries, and
determining the overall impact that it this will have on the Town’s finances.
• The Nantucket Memorial Airport has constructed a number of capital projects which were authorized to be
funded partially through state and federal grants and partially through long-term borrowing. Since grant
revenue was not monitored on a project by project basis, the final Airport portion of each project was not
calculated and was not borrowed. In these cases the Airport’s share of projects was paid with cash from
the operating fund as the project invoices were paid. The Town is in the process of reconciling the
activity of each of the Airport projects and determining the amount that should have been borrowed and
the options currently available. In some cases, the Town may have lost the ability to borrow the Airport’s
share of these projects.
4
Failure to Comply With Procurement Laws and Regulations
During the current fiscal year the Town discovered several Town departments, including the Nantucket Memorial
Airport, Wannacomet Water Department, and the School Department were not following procurement laws as
specified in Massachusetts General Law. Several departments lacked proper documentation of obtaining three
oral or written quotes as well as not entering into signed contracts for various capital improvement projects and
other services such as maintenance.
Chapter 30B of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Uniform Procurement Act, establishes uniform procedures
for local governments to use when contracting for supplies, services, and real property. All Chapter 30B contracts
in the amount of $5,000 or more must be in writing. There are also several other key sections of the law that
pertain to municipal procurement. The major laws addressing municipal procurement include:
M.G.L. c.7 § §38A-1/2 (Design services)
M.G.L. c. 149 (Building Construction)
M.G.L. c. 30, §39M (Mass Highway)
M.G.L. c. 90B, §34 (Mass Highway)
M.G.L. c. 30B, Non Building (Local Level)
M.G.L. c. 30B, Supplies and Services (Local Level)
We recommend that the Town strengthen controls over procurement to ensure compliance with the proper
procurement laws As part of this system, all purchases should be evaluated to determine whether, over the
course of the fiscal year, the Town will spend in excess of the competitive bidding thresholds for the same or
similar items or services and all departments should be required to maintain support to document procurement
decisions made. If a written contract is required, a copy of the executed contract should be provided to the
Town’s Finance Department.
To address this issue, subsequent to year end, the Town has implemented a system to require departments to
provide proof of contracts, as required by MGL, and has requested that all contracts be provided to the finance
department where they are scanned and filed. This process allows the Town to verify a contract’s existence when
purchase orders are submitted by Town departments.
Summary
In summary, the objectives of an internal control structure are to safeguard the assets of the Town and provide
reasonable assurance that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and
recorded properly in the Town’s ledgers. The omission of one or more elements of internal control can
compromise the Town’s ability to obtain these objectives. We have concluded that the deficiencies noted above,
individually and collectively, represent material weaknesses in the Town’s system of internal control under
standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
These deficiencies constitute being classified as material weaknesses because they represent significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect
the Town’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of
management in the financial statements. Furthermore, we believe that the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities
in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be
detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.
5
For several years, we have recommended that the Town implement procedures to monitor all general ledger
balances throughout the year and to reconcile those balances with the supporting Treasurer’s cash book and
other supporting documentation on a regular basis to identify and correct errors during the normal course of
operations. The procedures should include a process for insuring that all transactions are processed timely and
correctly.
Management’s Response
Previously reported comments:
Zero Balance Vendor and Payroll Accounts: The Treasurer has transferred exact amounts for payroll and
accounts payable/vendor accounts in Fiscal Year 2012 to maintain zero balance accounts; however the accounts
will continue to have minimal variances month to month due to interest being earned on the last day of each
month.
Enterprise Fund Cash Reconciliations: The Town believes that separate bank accounts are no longer necessary
and will work with the respective Enterprise Funds to close the applicable accounts by the end of Fiscal Year
2012. The Town implemented an internal process in May of 2011 that required both the Enterprise Fund
Business Office Managers to sign in agreement with the “Transaction Detail Report”, which includes the balances
of the bank accounts, within the Treasurer’s Cashbook at the end of each month. If there was a question or
concern, the Enterprise Fund Business Officer Managers had the opportunity to resolve the issue with the
Treasurer within 30 days. Although the signature process didn’t occur each month in Fiscal Year 2011, both the
Wannacomet Water and Airport Business Office Managers signed the designated form that they were in
agreement with the Treasurer’s Cashbook transaction history from July to June, 2011.
Significant Adjustments: This action was a result of addressing legacy cash issues for both the Town and County
that date back to the early 2000’s that were corrected in Fiscal Year 2011.
Monitoring of Capital Borrowing: In Fiscal Year 2011, the Town of Nantucket instituted internal controls for capital
projects. All general fund, sewer, and solid waste enterprise departments’ capital projects were reconciled.
Current year comments:
Wannacomet Water Company Payables: On a monthly basis, the Town of Nantucket is recording the receivables
in the respective Enterprise departments (Sewer, Siasconset Water, and Wannacomet Water). In Fiscal Year
2012, the Town plans to close the single bank account that necessitates the account payable entry. In addition,
the Town will reaffirm the importance of providing commitments for the respective Enterprise departments to the
Finance Department on a monthly basis.
Nantucket Memorial Airport Capital Borrowing: In Fiscal Year 2012, the Town’s Finance Department with
assistance from an independent financial consultant re-created all Nantucket Airport capital project activity dating
back to 2005. The task identified several Airport Capital projects that were subject to borrowing and/or grant
receipts where borrowing wasn’t in place, or grant reimbursements weren’t submitted in a timely manner to offset
expenditures. In order to address the issues of the past years, several steps will be taken at the 2012 Annual
Town Meeting including but not limited to transfers from Airport projects with excess bond proceeds; borrowing;
and a combination of general fund subsidies and chargebacks to the Airport Enterprise Fund operating budget to
address deficits in capital projects that are no longer eligible for long-term borrowing opportunities. Prior to
implementing adequate internal controls, there were gaps in accounting for Airport capital borrowing and grant
receipts. Controls are now in place to prevent this. Cooperation is required from departments not under the direct
jurisdiction of Town Administration.
6
In accordance with SEC regulations, the Town will adopt and distribute to all Town, School, and Enterprise
Departments a “Post Issuance Tax Compliance Procedure for Tax Exempt Obligations and Other Tax Benefited
Obligations” in the 3rd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2012.
Procurement Law and Regulations: The Town of Nantucket agrees with the auditor’s recommendation. The
Chief Procurement Officer and Finance Department are working collectively to mitigate, to the extent possible,
disbursements to vendors without the proper procurement process taking place. Additional controls have been
put into place. These controls include a centralized procurement process. Departments no longer have the ability
to enter invoices into the Town’s invoice processing system without a Town issued purchase order number. The
next step of internal controls is to ensure all Town, School, and Enterprise departments have a purchase order in
place prior to communicating orders to vendors for goods or services. In addition, in January of 2012, the Chief
Procurement Officer provided a mandatory training for all Town, School, and Enterprise Fund departmental staff
that was conducted by the Inspector General and Attorney General’s office of the State of Massachusetts.
7
Other Matters
8
Prior Year Comments
Account Activity Reconciliation
Prior Year Comment
Activity for the Town of Nantucket was not properly recorded on the general ledger throughout the year resulting
in 7 adjustments which were identified several months after year end during the audit process for fiscal year 2011.
In the prior year, 37 late Town adjusting journal entries were recorded. These late adjustments were mainly to
record transfers and to correct balances at year end. Some of the permanent entries should have been recorded
in prior fiscal years however they were not previously identified due to the lack of adequate account reconciliation
between the information recorded in the Town’s general ledger and departmental records. The need for these
adjustments is an indication that the Town is not performing routine account reconciliations and making
corrections to accounts during the fiscal year. This puts the Town at risk of inaccurate financial reporting. As
previously indicated, we recommend a system to verify that balances are accurate throughout the year. It should
be noted, that the number of late adjustments has been significantly reduced from prior years through the
reconciliation processes over cash, interfund balances, and accounts receivable that were implemented in the last
few months of the fiscal year.
Current Status – Unresolved
We continue to recommend that the Town implement procedures to reconcile account balances and activity
during the fiscal year to reduce the number of late adjustments recorded subsequent to year end.
Management’s Response
The Town prepared internal procedures in October of 2011 to have the Town, School, and Enterprise Fund
departments sign under penalty of perjury all account activity respective to their departments on a quarterly basis.
The intent is to start this process in the 4th quarter of Fiscal Year 2012. This is a significant change to current
town business practices and will take time for full implementation across all Town, School, and Enterprise Fund
departments.
Massachusetts Highway Grants
Prior Year Comment
Each year, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts allocates Chapter 90 highway project funds to the Town. These
projects require the Town to incur the expenditure first and then submit a request for reimbursement to the
Commonwealth. The Chapter 90 revenues and expenditures are accounted for in the Special Revenue fund to
enable the financial position of the projects to be monitored and to provide a check and balance over the records
of the Public Works Department.
Because it is a reimbursement program, the cash deficit in the Chapter 90 fund, at any given time, should equal
the invoices that have not yet been submitted for reimbursement, or that have been submitted and are awaiting
reimbursement from the Commonwealth. For several years, the Town’s cash deficit has exceeded the known
invoices that are awaiting reimbursement. This was most likely caused by a lack of procedures to reconcile
invoices to reimbursements and to verify that all reimbursement requests are submitted timely.
To strengthen controls over this program going forward, and to minimize unnecessary deficits, we have
recommended the Town reconcile the receivable balance due from the Commonwealth to the cash deficit in the
9
fund and identify any permanent deficit that has been caused by a lack of reconciliation procedures in the past.
Once the permanent deficit has been identified, we have recommended that the Town decide how the permanent
deficit will be funded and implement reconciliation procedures going forward to ensure that similar permanent
deficits do not occur in the future.
Current Status - Resolved
As of June 30, 2011, the Town has reconciled the Chapter 90 revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year
and has adjusted for any previously unidentified variances. In addition, the state reimbursement requests for
fiscal 2011 were submitted timely and the June 30, 2011 deficit now agrees to the receivable.
Accounting For Trust Fund Balances
Prior Year Comment
For several years, we have reported that several of the Town’s trust fund balances recorded on the general ledger
do not agree with the balance of the funds on deposit in the bank. Such variances can be misleading and leave
the Town at risk of overspending available balances and of inaccurate financial reporting.
We have recommended that the Town implement procedures to reconcile the Trust fund balances reported on the
general ledger to the bank balances on a monthly basis. As of June 30, 2011, several variances exist between
individual fund balances carried on the ledger and the corresponding bank balances. Lack of such a
reconciliation puts the Town at risk of inaccurately reporting trust fund balances, overspending trust fund
balances, and improperly allocating interest income to the individual trust fund accounts.
Current Status - Unresolved
There has been no significant change in this area during the current year; however the Town is planning on
implementing procedures to reconcile the Trust funds in fiscal 2012.
Continuing Recommendation
We continue to recommend that the Town implement procedures to reconcile the Trust fund balance reported on
the general ledger to the bank balances on a monthly basis.
Management’s Response
The Town of Nantucket agrees with the recommendation. On June 30, 2011 variances in the trust fund accounts
did exist; however all activity was reconciled for Fiscal Year 2011 and included in the final trial balances provided
to the auditors on September 30, 2011. The Town made great strides in this area at the close of Fiscal Year 2011
by reconciling trust fund balances and instituting the new Uniform Massachusetts Accounting Standards (UMAS)
accounting codes for all trust and agency funds. In Fiscal Year 2012, the Town reconciles the General Ledger
accounts with the Treasurers Cashbook and Bank Balance in Trust and Agency funds on a monthly basis.
10
Fraud Risk Assessment
Prior Year Comment
The opportunity to commit and conceal fraud exists where there are assets susceptible to misappropriation and
inadequate controls to prevent or detect the fraud. To address this risk, we recommend that the Town perform a
risk assessment to identify, analyze, and manage the risk of asset misappropriation. Risk assessment, including
fraud risk assessment, is one element of internal control. Thus, ideally, the Town’s internal control should include
performance of this assessment, even though our annual financial statement audits include consideration of
fraud.
The fraud risk assessment can be informal and performed by a management-level individual who has extensive
knowledge of the Town that might be used in the assessment. Ordinarily, the management-level individual would
conduct interviews or lead group discussions with personnel who have extensive knowledge of the Town, its
environment, and its processes. The fraud risk assessment process should consider the Town’s vulnerability to
misappropriation of assets. When conducting the self-assessment, questions such as the following can be
considered:
What individuals have the opportunity to misappropriate assets? These are individuals who have access to
assets susceptible to theft and to records that can be falsified or manipulated to conceal the theft.
Are there any known pressures that would motivate employees with the opportunity to misappropriate assets?
Pressures may relate to financial stress or dissatisfaction. In assessing whether these pressures may exist, the
assessor should consider whether there is any information that indicates potential financial stress or
dissatisfaction of employees with access to assets susceptible to misappropriation.
What assets of the Town are susceptible to misappropriation?
Are there any known internal control weaknesses that would allow misappropriation of assets to occur and remain
undetected?
How could assets be stolen? Assets can be stolen in many ways besides merely removing them from the
premises. For example, cash can be stolen by writing checks to fictitious employees or vendors and cashing
them for personal use.
How could potential misappropriation of assets be concealed? Because many frauds create accounting
anomalies, the perpetrator must hide the fraud by running through an adjustment to another account. Generally,
fraud perpetrators may use accounts that are not closely monitored.
We have recommended that management develop and implement a fraud risk assessment program to identify,
analyze, and manage the risk of asset misappropriation.
Current Status - Unresolved
The Town has not developed or implemented a fraud risk assessment program.
Continuing Recommendation
We continue to recommend that management develop and implement a fraud risk assessment program to
identify, analyze, and manage the risk of asset misappropriation.
11
Management’s Response
The Town of Nantucket concurs with the recommendation. In Fiscal Year 2012, the Town plans to issue a
request for proposal (RFP) for a third party to conduct such an assessment of at least 3 departments each year
for the next three years. Upon the completion of the proposed contract services, the Town will re-evaluate the
internal workload to determine if this process has the ability to be performed internally as opposed to outsourced.
Accounting for Off-Duty Police and Fire Details
Prior Year Comment
During the prior year we noted that the Town records payments to police and fire personnel for details in an
agency account on the General Ledger. Since it is the Town’s practice to pay for details prior to receiving
payments from the vendors, the agency fund typically has a negative cash and negative liability balance.
The Town also records a receivable and deferred revenue when the police detail bills are sent out to vendors.
The Town did not have procedures to reconcile the negative cash and the receivable balances. Although the
variances could represent details paid to officers and not yet billed, this had not been determined due to a lack of
procedures to reconcile the variances.
We have recommended that the Town document and implement procedures to address uncollectible detail
receivables. The documentation should address procedures for collection and for abatement and funding for
receivables that have been determined to be uncollectible.
Additionally, if it is the Town’s policy to pay officers in advance, we recommend that the Town follow the guidance
from MGL to provide “seed” money to fund the advance payment and the activity should be recorded in a special
revenue fund, as it is not agency activity if the officers are paid in advance of the reimbursement from the
vendors.
Current Status – Partially Resolved
As of June 30, 2011, the negative cash balance and the detailed receivable reports provided from the Town’s
system were unreconciled by less than $5,000. The Police Department did not generate and save the June
30th detailed aging reports from their system and were unable to regenerate the year end reports. Therefore,
the Town was able to substantiate the negative cash balance within $5,000, however, the balance was not
reconciled with the Police Department which is the department primarily responsible for collecting the funds.
Continuing Recommendation
We continue to recommend the Town implement procedures to reconcile cash to the accounts receivable
balances and to reconcile the ledger balances to the records maintained by the Police Department. Additionally,
once the balances have been successfully reconciled, the Town should determine the cash flow needs to
continue to pay officers in advance of collecting funds and consider appropriating funds for this purpose to
maintain a positive cash balance as allowed by M.G.L. Chapter 44, Section 53C.
12
Management’s Response
The Town concurs with the recommendation. In Fiscal Year 2012, a new Accounting Clerk was hired within the
Finance Department. This position’s primary focus is to ensure all accounts receivable for the Town and
Enterprise departments are reconciled on a monthly basis. The monthly reconciliation includes the Off Duty
Police and Fire Details. We intend to resolve this finding within Fiscal Year 2012 and future years by performing
budget transfers from the Town’s Police and Fire Department budgets to the Off-duty detail fund; or by including
an annual warrant article for seed-money for the off duty detail fund; or a combination thereof.
Insurance Withholding Deficits
Prior Year Comment
During the prior year we noted that the Town had a deficit balance of approximately $213,000 in the dental
insurance and life insurance withholding accounts. As of June 30, 2011 the deficit balance was reduced to
approximately $55,000. This deficits in this account have been partially the result of employee withholdings not
being matched to premiums paid, and the Town not adequately increasing employee withholdings when
insurance rates were increased.
The balance in this account should represent amounts withheld from employees that have not yet been paid to
fund the employee’s share of dental insurance as of the end of the fiscal year. The amounts should be paid out,
for their original purpose, shortly after the end of the fiscal year.
Current Status - Unresolved
The deficit balance in total has decreased during fiscal year 2011; however the Town has not yet reconciled the
full reason for the deficit balances in these accounts, or determined what the correct balances should be.
Continuing Recommendation
We continue to recommend that the Town implement procedures to verify that employee withholdings are
commensurate with premiums paid, and that the balance in the withholding accounts reflect only amounts
withheld from employees that have not yet been paid.
Management’s Response
Town of Nantucket Response: The Town of Nantucket concurs with the recommendation. The Treasury division
of the Finance Department continues to reconcile current insurance withholdings on a weekly basis. The
remaining variance of $55,000 in insurance withholdings is a legacy issue which dates back to Fiscal Year 2000.
The intent of the Town cover the remaining $55,000 variance at the 2012 Annual Town Meeting and to continue
to research payroll withholdings and payments back to 2000 to complete the reconciliation of the insurance
withholding accounts.
13
Accounting Separately for Bond Proceeds
Prior Year Comment
The Town accounts for bond proceeds received for major capital projects in separate funds on the general ledger.
This is the recommended practice, as it allows for a clear record of what bond proceeds have been spent, and
what they have been spent on. However, when the Town receives bond proceeds relating to small enterprise
fund related projects, they are often accounted for within the enterprise operating funds. This requires the bonded
balances to be accounted for outside of the accounting system on spreadsheets, and increases the risk that bond
proceeds could be spent for ineligible purposes.
We had recommended that the Town account for all bond proceeds in capital project funds on the general ledger,
and that the Town account for all bond proceeds related to enterprise funds separate from those that will be
repaid by the general government.
Current Status – Partially Resolved
During fiscal 2011, the Town accounted for all bond proceeds that are to be repaid by the general government in
the capital projects fund. The Town is in the process of reconciling the operating and capital balances of the
enterprise funds.
Management’s Response
The Town of Nantucket agrees with the recommendation. In Fiscal Year 2012, the Town of Nantucket Finance
Department in coordination with an independent financial consultant has reconciled the Airport Enterprise Fund
department unspent bond proceeds. The identified Airport Enterprise Fund unspent bond proceeds are
scheduled for transfers between Airport capital projects in the 2012 Annual Town Meeting Warrant Article 3.
In accordance with SEC regulations, the Town will adopt and distribute to all Town, School, and Enterprise
Departments a “Post Issuance Tax Compliance Procedure for Tax Exempt Obligations and Other Tax Benefited
Obligations” in the 3rd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2012.
General Ledger Maintenance and Reconciliations for Nantucket County
Prior Year Comment
In the past, we have noted that the Town did not reconcile the due to/due from balances of the County since prior
to fiscal year 2003, and the variance has changed each year. Additionally, many of the other County accounts,
including cash, were not monitored on a regular basis throughout the year.
The lack of timely account reconciliations and a system to monitor the balances throughout the year increases the
risk that errors will occur and not be detected and corrected on a timely basis and increases the risk of inaccurate
financial reporting.
We recommended the Town improve the reconciliation and general ledger account monitoring process related to
the County’s general ledger.
Current Status - Resolved
In fiscal year 2011 the Town reconciled the due to/due from balances of the county.
14
Receivable Reconciliations
Prior Year Comment
During our prior year review of the Town’s receivables it was noted that the general ledger balances of a number
of items related to Our Island Home and the Landfill did not tie to the supporting detail. The variances related to
Our Island Home occurred when the department converted software from QuickBooks to American Health Net in
May of 2010. The American Health Net software does provide a detailed accounts receivable aging report.
Also in the prior year, we noted that Landfill tipping fee receivable reported on the general ledger balance was
over $200,000 greater than the supporting detail for the Landfill.
We recommended that the Town implement procedures to reconcile the accounts noted above as the general
ledger should mirror supporting documentation.
Current Status – Resolved
The Town has accounts receivable reconciliations in place as of June 30, 2011.
Prepaid Expense Balance
Prior Year Comment
In the prior year, we noted there was an account for prepaid expenses that had a balance of $10,900 that has not
had activity in several years. We were advised that the balance relates to prepaid tuition for an education
program which occurred in July, 2007 (fiscal 2008). During fiscal 2008, the prepaid expense should have been
charged to a current year expense by journal entry.
We recommended that the Town correct this error in order to accurately report prepaid expenses and implement
procedures to correct errors more timely in the future to produce more accurate financial information.
Current Status - Resolved
The Town corrected this error in fiscal year 2011.
Journal Entry Control
Prior Year Comment
During our prior year review of the Town’s journal entries, we noted entries that lacked adequate authorizations.
Journal entry authorizations provide a record that the support for the entry has been reviewed and approved.
We recommended that the Town take steps to insure that all journal entry adjustments made to the general ledger
be properly authorized.
15
Current Status - Resolved
During journal entry transaction testing for fiscal year 2011 there were no journal entries observed that lacked
adequate authorizations.
Commingling of Federal and State Grants
Prior Year Comment
During the prior year, we noted the Town accounted for federal grants and state grants within the same funds in
the general ledger without designation as to which grants are federal and which are state. Since the Town is
required to report federal expenditures separately, combining federal and state grants on the general ledger
increases the risk that federal expenditures will not be identified. Additionally, the amount of audit testing done on
federal expenditures is determined based on federal expenditures. The commingling of these funds makes the
process of identifying and reporting federal grants cumbersome, makes the planning process for identifying major
federal programs cumbersome, and puts the Town at risk of inaccurate financial reporting.
We have recommended that the Town implement a system to segregate federal and state grants in the general
ledger.
Current Status - Resolved
The Town has implemented new funds that will allow for the separation of Federal and State funding for fiscal
year 2012.
Current Year Comments
Invoice Receipt Procedures
Comment
During expenditure testing we noted a number of invoices lacked the required date and time stamp documenting
the receipt of the invoice. The Town’s policy to date and time stamp each invoice as it is received increases
control over the processing of the invoices and the timely payment of bills.
Recommendation
We recommend the Town date and time stamp each invoice as it is received to record the receipt of the invoice
as it begins the accounts payable process.
Management’s Response
The Town of Nantucket agrees partially with the auditor’s recommendation. The Town will implement an internal
process to date stamp all invoices received at the department level; however, the Town doesn’t see the value of a
time stamp at this time.
16
Purchase Order Dates
Comment
During expenditure testing we noted that a number of purchase orders were dated past their corresponding
invoice dates. Creating purchase orders after the invoice is received bypasses the Town’s purchasing policies
and defeats the control that a purchase order system is intended to provide.. Purchase orders play a primary role
as they allow the Town to ensure that budgetary funds are available and that the purchase has been properly
approved before funds are expended.
Recommendation
We recommend the Town implement a process to ensure that purchase orders are initiated prior to the
procurement of goods and services.
Management’s Response
The Town of Nantucket concurs with the finding. During testing, a Public Works and a School invoice were
identified where the purchase order was created after the date of the invoice. Town, School, and Enterprise
departments have received training regarding purchase orders since 2009. In Fiscal Year 2012, we will re-
emphasize to all Town, School, and Enterprise Fund departments the importance of the compliance with the
requisition and purchase order process.
Capital Assets Land Monitoring
Comment
During the current year audit the Town identified approximately $1,200,000 of land that was sold in fiscal 2010
and never removed from the Town’s capital assets records. This caused the land capital asset balance to be
overstated in fiscal 2010, which required a restatement of the beginning land capital asset balance in fiscal 2011.
We also noted that land was again sold in fiscal 2011 and the parcels were never reported on the Town’s capital
asset schedule.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Town implement policies and procedures for to provide better assurance that the Town
owned land recorded in the Town’s capital asset records is accurate and that land additions and deletions are
properly recorded in the proper fiscal year.
Management’s Response
The Town of Nantucket concurs with the recommendation. The increase in the activity of the Town’s Yard Sale
Program has resulted in having to develop a process to ensure that the unusual parcels and various land
dispositions (such as “swaps”) are correctly and accurately recorded in the Town’s Fixed Asset Inventory in a
timely manner. In Fiscal Year 2012, the Assistant Town Accountant, Chief Procurement Officer, and Planning
Director have identified an internal process to mitigate, to the extent possible, the re-occurrence of this lapse in
communication. The next step in Fiscal Year 2012 is to include quarterly reconciliations with the Assessor’s
records of Town owned land and document the process of reporting changes in Town land sales and acquisitions.
17
Prior Year County Comments
Escrow Accounts
Prior Year Comment
During the prior year audit of the County’s cash balances it was noted that the County’s general ledger included
three escrow accounts that are not supported in the cash book or in bank accounts. We were advised by
management that there is no known support for the creation of these escrow accounts and their purpose is
unknown.
We recommended the County research the source for the creation of the escrow accounts and take action to
remove them from the general ledger if their existence cannot be adequately supported.
Current Status - Resolved
During the fiscal year the County researched archived information relating to the creation of the escrow accounts
and for those balances where existence could not be supported, the balances were removed from the general
ledger. However, the reconciliation process revealed that an adjustment of $171,000 was required to increase
County cash in the escrow gift account on the general ledger due to a 2008 reclassification that was never
recorded in the County’s ledgers.
Current Year County Comments
Vendor and Payroll Accounts
Comment
During the audit of the County’s cash it was noted that both payroll and vendor accounts were not maintained at a
zero balance. Both accounts were reconciled at year end, however lump sum transfers were made at year end,
rather than funding the exact amount of the warrants during the year. Maintaining zero balance accounts would
help identify errors in the cashbook and or bank statements more timely. It would also reduce the amount of
unnecessary transfers in and out of the accounts.
Recommendation
We recommend that the County maintain both payroll and vendor accounts at a zero balance and that the exact
amount of the warrant be transferred rather than year end lump sum transfers.
Management’s Response
The Town and County of Nantucket concur with the recommendation. The Treasurer of the Town and County of
Nantucket has transferred exact amounts for the payroll and vendor accounts within the 1st and 2nd quarter of
Fiscal Year 2012. The intent is to continue this practice going forward.
18
Unnecessary Bank Fees
Comment
The Town Treasurer maintains two County bank accounts that each receive bank charges of $20 per month
which has substantially reduced the balances in the accounts. During the fiscal year these accounts have been
reduced from $243 to $23 and $442 to $222 due to bank charges when the only activity in these accounts is bank
interest. Had the funds been transferred to a bank that does not charge fees for low balance accounts, the Town
would have saved $440 in bank fees over the current fiscal year.
Recommendation
We recommend the Town monitor the bank fees assessed and work to reduce the unnecessary fees paid on low
balance accounts.
Management’s Response
The Town and County of Nantucket concur with the recommendation. The Treasurer closed all of the accounts
that were previously assessed the bank fees in October of 2011.
Prior Year Informational Comment
Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement #54
In February 2008, the GASB issued Statement #54, Fund Balance Reporting and Government Fund Type
Definitions, which is required to be implemented in fiscal 2011. The objective of this Statement is to enhance the
usefulness of fund balance information by providing clearer fund balance classification that can be more
consistently applied and by clarifying the existing governmental fund type definitions. This Statement establishes
fund balance classification that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which a government is
bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the resources reported in the governmental funds.
The initial distinction that is made in reporting fun balance information is identifying amounts that are considered
nonspendable, such a fund balance associated with inventories. This Statement also provides for additional
classification as restricted, committed, and unassigned based on the relative strength of the constraints that
control how specific amounts can be spent.
The restricted fund balance category includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes stipulated
by constitution, external resource providers, or through enabling legislation. The committed fund balance
classification includes amounts that can be used only for the specific purposes determined by a formal action of
the government’s highest level of decision-making authority. Amounts in the assigned fund balance classification
are intended to be used by the government for specific purposes but do not meet the criteria to be classified as
restricted or committed. Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification for the government’s general fund
and includes all spendable amounts not contained in the other classification. In other fund, the unassigned
classification should be used only to report a deficit balance resulting from overspending for specific purposes for
which amounts had been restricted, committed, or assigned.
Governments are required to disclose information about the processes through which constraints are imposed on
amounts in the committed and assigned classifications.
19
Governments also are required to classify and report amounts in the appropriate fund balance classifications be
applying their accounting policies that determine whether restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned
amounts are considered to have been spent. Disclosure of the policies in the notes to the financial statements is
required.
This Statement also provides guidance for classifying stabilization amount on the face of the balance sheet and
requires disclosure of certain information about stabilization arrangements in the notes to the financial statements.
The definitions of the general fund, special revenue fund types, capital projects fund types, and permanent fund
types are clarified by the provision in this Statement. Interpretations of certain terms within the definition of the
special revenue fund type have been provided and, for some governments, those interpretations may affect the
activities they choose to report in those funds. The capital projects fund type definition also was clarified for better
alignment with the needs of preparers and users. Definitions of other governmental fund types also have been
modified for clarity and consistency.
We recommended that management begin to study and evaluate the impact of this GASB for financial statement
reporting and disclosure purposes, and to formulate plans to be used in explaining these changes to interested
parties within the Town and to the external users of the Town’s financial statements.
Current Status - Resolved
The Town successfully implemented GASB Statement #54 in fiscal year 2011.