OIG No. 25-08 City of Miami Beach Marina Lease Agreement Audit'I0R8
Joseph M.Centorino,Inspector General
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PERIOD:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
Joseph M.Centorino,Inspector General
April 17,2025
City of Miami Beach Marina Lease Agreement Audit
OIG No.25-08
January 1,2022,through December 31,2022
Background
The Miami Beach Marina on Alton Road is located on City-owned property in the southwest part
of the city,adjacent to Government Cut,and offers 400 boat slips for vessels up to 250 feet.On-
site services include dining options,marine hardware retailers,dive charters,and boat sales.
On June 15,1983,the Miami Beach Mayor and Commission approved a lease agreement with
Carner-Mason Associates,Ltd.to construct and develop the Miami Beach Marina to maximize its
use as a boat port,marina,and recreational facility,offering dockage and other marina-related
services for the use and benefit of the general public.The agreement was formalized on June 24,
1983,and has since undergone four amendments.
1.First Amendment (October 23,1991 ):This amendment was created to address and resolve
potential conflicts between the documents of South Shore Developers,Inc.(SSDI)and the
Marina Lease.This was influenced by a legal case involving SSDI and the City of Miami
Beach,which was settled in a stipulation and order dated July 1,1985.The documents
resulting from this settlement are collectively known as the "SSDI Documents."Additionally,
following a foreclosure agreement,Tallahassee Building Corporation,a Florida Corporation,
acquired Carner-Mason's interest in the Lease around October 17,1989.
2.Second Amendment (August 11,1994):The Second Amendment to the Marina Lease
Agreement was made between the City of Miami Beach and Tallahassee Building Corporation
(Lessee).As part of its obligations under the First Amendment,the Lessee developed plans
for the design,permitting,and construction of a dry stack facility for the storage of boats lifted
Page 1 of 33
out of the water and stacked on racks.However,the Miami Beach Housing Authority raised
objections to the construction of the dry stack facility and formally protested the issuance of
the necessary permits.
In response,the City and Lessee mutually agreed to remove the dry stack facility requirement
from the Marina Lease,as amended,and that the City would provide the required on-site
marina parking and pedestrian overpass without the need to acquire additional land.
3.Third Amendment (May 27,1997):The Tallahassee Building Corporation assigned its
interests as Lessee in the Miami Beach Marina to Miami Beach Marina Associates,Ltd.
(MBMA).
4.Fourth Amendment (April 15,1998):Following a settlement of litigation between the City and
West Side Partners,Ltd.,which affected the parking arrangements at the Marina,the City and
MBMA entered into a Fourth Amendment to the Marina Lease Agreement,the provisions of
which included changes to the parking arrangements.Authorization by the Mayor and City
Commission to execute this Fourth Amendment was documented in Resolution No.98-22719
On October 18,2017,the City adopted Resolution 2017-30050,under which MBMA ("Lessee")
agreed with the City to a change of operators to manage the Marina.The prior operators,RCI
Marine,Inc.and Robert Christoph,were replaced by two other named operators:MBM Marina
Manager LLC,created by MBMA as a wholly owned subsidiary of RCI Marine;and SMI Concierge
Services,Ltd (SMI),a wholly owned subsidiary of Suntex Marina Investors LLC (Suntex).Suntex
also acquired a partnership interest in MBMA,while MBMA continued as the Lessee of the marina.
On December 23,2022,MBM Marina Manager LLC was dissolved,leaving SMI as the sole
operator of the Marina.
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Marina Lease,the Lessee has the option of exercising
up to three (3)consecutive renewal terms.The Lessee's First Extended Term,covering the period
from January 2,2022,through January 1,2032,was executed on December 30,2021.
Despite the complex arrangement of the various entities involved with the Marina,they have been
referred to by Attorney Ronald Hink,representing their combined interests during this audit,as
not independent but as one and the same in connection with their reporting of receipts to the City.
For simplicity,the main entity,MBMA,will be referred to as Lessee of the Miami Beach Marina
and the Marina operator as SMI,wherever appropriate.
The City of Miami Beach Asset Management Division,which oversees the Marina agreement as
well as many other City-owned facilities,is staffed by just three positions,not all of which were
filled during the audit period.Additionally,the Division has experienced significant staff turnover.
Management is actively working to improve the Division's operations,including its oversight
functions.However,limited staffing,high turnover,and the lack of experience among new
employees have created oversight challenges.
General Opinions
1)The City should consider taking action to recoup funds that were not paid to the City by the
Lessee based on the underreporting of gross receipts for the audit year and other years during
which similar underreporting occurred.
Page 2 of 33
2)The findings identified a total underpayment of $661,806,to which penalties and interest could
be added as determined by the City Administration pursuant to Article XXXVIII,Section 9,of
the Lease Agreement.
3)The contract should not be renewed by the parties until the agreement is thoroughly reviewed
and modifications are made to protect the City's best interests.
Payment of Annual Percentage Rent to the City of Miami Beach
Pursuant to Section 28.3 of the First Amendment to the Lease,dated October 23,1991,and
Section 3.12 of the Second Amendment to the Lease,dated August 11,1994,the City is entitled
to receive consideration amounting to the greater of (i)$320,000 per year in minimum annual
guaranteed rent or (ii)annual percentage rent defined as follows:
a.Ten percent (10%)of gross receipts generated from Area 2 (The Submerged Lands).
b.Ten percent (10%)of gross receipts generated from Areas 1 and 4 (the Uplands).
c.Two cents ($0.02)per gallon from the sale of gasoline.
d.Two cents ($0.02)per gallon from the sale of diesel fuel.
e.Thirty-five percent (35%)of gross parking fees generated by Marina parking facilities as per
the Fourth Amendment.
Per the Schedules of Annual Percentage Rent and Gross Receipts for the Year ended December
31,2022,performed by Kaufman,Rossin &Co.,P.A.,below are the total rents received by the
City from the Miami Beach Marina Lessee during the calendar year 2022:
Percentage
2022 Gross Revenue received
Receipts by the City
Slip Rentals
Annual $14,926,989 10%$1,492,699
Monthly $351,609 10%$35,161
Transient $1,416,664 10%$141,666
Other Receipts
Dock Services $1,017,527 10%$101,753
Landing Fees $385,795 10%$38,580
Live-aboard fees $63,655 10%$6,366
Concessions rentals
Retail Sales $169,219 10%$16,922
Upland Rent $2,126,121 10%$212,612
Other Receipts
Vending Commissions $187 10%$19
Other Income $158,076 10%$15,808
Gross Parking $S 1,301,656 35%$455,580
Total Gross Sales
Reported to the City $21,917,498.00 $2,517,163.80
Fuel
1,405,763 Gallons $7,076,675 0.40%$28,115
(2 cents p/gallon)
Total Gross Sales $28,994,173.00 $2,545,279.06
The above rental schedule includes the annual percentage rent and Gross Receipts reported by
the Lessee during the 2022 audit period.
Page 3 of 33
Scope
This audit covered the period from January 1,2022,to December 31,2022.It involved assessing
controls and conducting interviews with the Asset Management Division and the Marina Lessee
to understand the Marina's current processes and evaluate compliance with the Lease
Agreement.
During the audit process,OIG auditors communicated with MBMA staff through the organization's
legal counsel,which limited direct access between the OIG auditors and staff members.This
scope limitation often restricted the auditors'ability to obtain necessary explanations and sufficient
evidence related to identified discrepancies.Consequently,the audit conclusions are based
solely on the evidence that OIG auditors could access.The OIG recommends that MBMA staff
be made more available for future communication and oversight.
Objectives
The objectives of this audit were to determine the following:
•The standards of governance surrounding and supporting the administration of the Miami
Beach Marina.
•Whether proper controls have been in place to ensure the integrity,reliability,and accuracy
of rental fee calculations,records,and data.
•Whether rental revenues and other receipts have been properly and timely collected and paid
to the City.
•Whether there has been sufficient accountability and documentation to support lease rental
revenue calculations.
Methodology
•Reviewed applicable sections of the Lease Agreement between the City and Miami Beach
Marina's Lessee;
•Interviewed and made inquiries of staff to gain an understanding of internal controls;
•Performed substantive testing consistent with the audit objectives,including,but not limited
to,examination of applicable transactions and records;
•Drew conclusions based on the results of testing,made corresponding recommendations,and
obtained auditee responses and corrective action plans;and
•Performed other audit procedures as deemed necessary.
Findings and Recommendations
1)MIAMI BEACH MARINA'S GROSS RECEIPTS REPORTED TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA
WERE $6,504,098 HIGHER THAN THE GROSS RECEIPTS REPORTED TO THE CITY,
OF WHICH $4,883,098 WERE IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED IN VIOLATION OF LEASE
TERMS,$2,488,098 OF WHICH RESULTED IN AN UNDERPAYMENT TO THE CITY OF
$248,810.
Criteria
Article Ill (3)of the Lease Agreement-Tax Returns states that if the Lessee's Gross Receipts (as
defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article)are required to be reported on any governmental tax
or other returns,and the Gross Receipts as so reported on any return or as determined by Audit
thereof shall exceed the Gross Receipts as reported to the City hereunder,then the Gross
Page 4 of 33
Receipts shall,for the purpose of this Lease,be deemed to be the highest amount so reported or
so determined by Audit.
Article IV (3)of the Lease Agreement -Audit (excerpt)stipulates-If such audit shall disclose that
Lessee has understated Gross Receipts by 3%or more for such Lease Year,Lessee shall,upon
demand,pay to CITY the reasonable cost of such audit in addition to any deficiency in Annual
Percentage Rent,which deficiency shall be payable in any event.
Condition
The OIG Auditor identified a discrepancy in the total gross receipts reported for sales and services
performed at 300 Alton Road,Miami Beach (excluding exempt fuel sales)during the 2022
calendar year.MBMA and SMI reported a combined total of $28,421,596 in gross receipts to the
Florida Department of Revenue through their Sales Tax Returns.However,for the same period,
MBMA reported $21,917,498 in gross receipts to the City,which is $6,504,098 less than what
was reported to the State.
The amount reported to the City excluded related party rental income of $1,621,000,which
represents rental income received by MBMA from SMI,which the Lessee claims to be excludable
from gross receipts as internal payments designed to maintain compliance with tax laws.If that
exclusion is accepted,it results in gross receipts of $23,538,498,an understatement of
$4,883,098 -a 22%difference.
That $4,883,098 includes an unreconciled amount of $2,488,098,for which no adequate
explanation was provided,resulting in an underpayment of $248,810 (10%)to the City (Finding
#1 ).
The difference of $4,883,098 also includes $2,395,000 related to assorted sublessee expense
reimbursements claimed by MBMA to also be excludable from gross receipts with which the OIG
disagrees,addressed in Finding #2.
Cause
MBMA and SMI did not fully report all Gross Receipts to the City.
Effect
These discrepancies highlight potential areas of concern in fulfilling contractual obligations and
suggest a need for improved accuracy and transparency in financial reporting related to the Lease
Agreement.
Recommendations
•The City Manager should consider billing the Miami Beach Marina for the audit cost,as the
gross receipts were understated by 30%during the 2022 tax year,in accordance with Article
IV (3)of the Lease Agreement.
•Enhanced oversight and more comprehensive annual review processes by the City's Asset
Management Division.
•The Asset Management Division should calculate 10%of the gross receipts that were reported
to the State of Florida for Sales Tax purposes but not reported to the City.Subsequently,a
bill for the outstanding amount should be issued to the MBMA.
SMI Management Response:See Appendix I
OIG Reply to SMI:See Appendix II
City Asset Management Response and OIG Reply to City:See Appendix Ill
Page 5 of 33
2)LESSEE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT TOTALING $2,395,000 WAS IMPROPERLY
EXCLUDED FROM GROSS RECEIPTS DURING 2022,RESULTING IN UNDERPAYMENT
TO THE CITY OF $239,500
Criteria
Miami Beach Marina Lease Agreement-Gross Receipts
Article Ill (1)from the First Amendment states that Gross Receipts means (vi)all Gross Receipts,
including rents,received by any independent,third-party sublessee or concessionaire operating
dry stack or wet slip facilities on the Marina Site.
Article III Gross Receipts (2)Items excluded;(vi)income from Lessee's provision,without profit,
of telephone and cable television services to persons utilizing the Marina Site,so long as this
exclusion is susceptible to audit according to generally accepted accounting principles.
Condition
The OIG auditor noted that some revenues collected by the Lessee were excluded from the Gross
Receipts in the Schedule of Annual Percentage Rent and Gross Receipts for the year ending
December 31,2022.These excluded revenues,totaling approximately $2,395,000,were derived
from sublessee expense reimbursement receipts from Areas 1,2,and 4 and related party rental
income,which totaled approximately $1,621,000 for the year ended December 31,2022.
On January 19,2024,the OIG Auditor requested that the Lessee provide an explanation for their
exclusion.A representative from MBMA responded by e-mail on March 28,2024,"...AII other
categories consist of either deposits which are reimbursable to the tenant or reimbursements from
subtenants for maintenance of common areas,utilities,and other pass-through charges,none of
which are revenue sources for the marina."
The table below shows the exclusions made by tenants from 2019 to 2023,totaling $14,665,000.
The same exclusions were applied to other years.Although the audit is limited to one-year,
additional amounts may be owed to the City.
Gross sales excluded as per Schedule of Annual Percentage rent
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Subtenant expense $1,483,00 $1,806,00 $2,060,00 $2,395,00 $2,058,00
reimbursements 0 0 0 0 0
Related party rental $1,621,00 $1,621,00 $1,621,00
income $0 $0 0 0 0
$1,483,00 $1,806,00 $3,681,00 $4,016,00 $3,679,00
0 0 0 0 0
Cause
The Lessee's misinterpretation or misapplication of Lease Agreement terms,including
unauthorized exclusions of gross receipts.
Effect
The City is not receiving the full amount owed under the Lease Agreement,which erodes trust
between the City and its Lessee,and may result in potential delays in decision-making,
breakdowns in communication,and escalating costs.
Page 6 of 33
Recommendations
The Asset Management Division should calculate the 10%of gross receipts from the sublessee's
expense reimbursements that were excluded from the Lessee's reports for the previous five years
and issue a bill to the MBMA for the outstanding amount.
SMI Management Response:See Appendix I
OIG Reply to SMI:See Appendix 11
City Asset Management Response and OIG Reply to City:See Appendix Ill
3)PARKING GROSS RECEIPTS WERE UNDERREPORTED TO THE CITY,RESULTING IN
A $173,496.10 UNDERPAYMENT,THE CITY DID NOT APPROVE THE PARKING
SUBLEASE,AND THE ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPT STATEMENT WAS NOT SUBMITTED
TO THE CITY
Criteria
Marina Lease Agreement:Article IX-Encumbrance or assignment of Leasehold
2.Assignment-Sublease (excerpt)-LESSEE agrees not to assign or transfer the whole or part of
this lease or any interest therein,nor to sublease the whole or any part of the Marina Site,nor to
permit the occupancy of any part thereof by any other person or entity,nor to permit transfer of
the lease or possession of the Marina Site by merger,consolidation,or dissolution,without the
consent of the City Manager,first had and obtained in each instance.
Parking Facility Management and Operation Agreement:Section 6.1 Parking Charges:In the
event that the Marina Lessee decides,in its sole discretion,to charge for Parking in the Parking
Facilities or any of them,the Marina Lessee shall have sole discretion to establish the amount of
such charges.In such event,the City or the Agency,as they may direct,shall receive 35%of the
Gross Receipts generated by the Parking Facilities,which amount shall be payable to the City or
the Agency,as the case may be,in the same manner,and at the same time as specified for
Annual Percentage Rent (as such term is defined in the Marina Lease).
Section 9.2 Annual Report;Audit.In the event that Marina Lessee determines that there shall be
a charge for Parking in the Parking Facilities,Marina Lessee,on or before the fifteenth (15")day
of April following the closing of each Lease Year,shall deliver an annual statement of the Gross
Receipts derived from the Parking Facilities,prepared in accordance with Article IV,Section 2 of
the Marina Lease,the City and the Agency shall have the same audit rights with respect to the
Gross Receipts of the Parking Facilities that are provided in Article IV Section 3 of the Marina
Lease.
Section 17.1.-No Assignment ofAgreement;No Subcontracts.All of the terms of this Agreement
shall be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall inure
to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors and
assigns,provided,however,that Marina Lessee shall not assign this Agreement or any of its
rights or obligations hereunder unless in each case it obtains the prior written consent of the City.
Sublease Parking Revenue Management Agreement between Professional Parking
Management "PPM"and MBMA
Section 2 Fee (excerpt):In consideration for the Services,PPM shall be entitled to Five Percent
(5%)of the parking fees collected through the Payment Apps from customers that pay to park at
the Locations after first deducting merchant services fees,credit card processing fees,and sales
Page 7 of 33
tax ("Parking Fees").Client shall be entitled to retain ninety-five percent (95%)of the Parking fees,
which shall be directly deposited into Client's operating bank account by PPM.
...PPM shall use its best efforts to collect all parking fees,and in the event that customers fail to
pay the parking fees through the Payment Apps,then PPM shall send parking charge notices to
customers,as needed,and pay to the Client twenty-five percent (25%)of all fees collected as a
result of the delivery of a parking charge notice.
Condition
The OIG Auditor noted that the Lessee engaged in a sublease Parking Revenue Management
Agreement with PPM without obtaining the City's prior written consent,contrary to Section 17.1
of the Lease Agreement.
Additionally,discrepancies were identified in the reported gross receipts when the OIG Auditor
compared the monthly parking income submitted to the City with the Parking charge notices.The
sublease agreement between PPM and MBMA stipulates that PPM shall pay to the Client twenty-
five percent (25%)of all fees collected as a result of the delivery of parking charge notices.The
Miami Beach Marina Parking Agreement Section 6.1 states that the City shall receive 35%of the
Gross Receipts generated by the Parking Facilities.This led to an underreporting of $660,937.52
and an underpayment to the City of $173,496.10,respectively,during the 2022 audit year,due to
the exclusion of funds retained by PPM per its agreement with MBMA.Those funds were
reportable to the City pursuant to Section 6.1 inasmuch as they were a portion of Gross Receipts
"generated by the Parking Facilities."
Cause
The Lessee did not fully adhere to the terms of the Lease Agreement.This is evidenced in
instances of unauthorized subleasing,underreported receipts,and underpayments to the City,
suggesting deficiencies in compliance and reporting processes.Additionally,the City's oversight
and enforcement of the Lease Agreement terms needs to be enhanced to better address these
issues.
Effect
Unauthorized subleasing,underreported receipts,and underpayments to the City,coupled with
the City's insufficient monitoring of compliance with lease terms,has led to revenue loss for the
City and has compromised the integrity of the contractual agreement.Furthermore,it erodes trust
between the City and its Lessee,resulting in possible delays in decision-making,breakdowns in
communication,and escalating costs.
Recommendations
a.The Asset Management Division should recalculate the parking gross receipts amounts and
issue a bill to the Lessee for any discrepancies found.
b.Additionally,it is recommended that the Asset Management Division obtain any missing
Parking Revenue reports from previous years and verify that 35%of the gross revenue
generated from parking has been accurately reported.If any differences are identified,the
Lessee should be billed accordingly.
c.Furthermore,the Lessee should implement the necessary changes to ensure accurate
reporting of all gross receipts.
SMI Management Response:See Appendix I
OIG Reply to SMI:See Appendix II
City Asset Management Response and OIG Reply to City:See Appendix Ill
Page 8 of 33
4)THE ANNUAL REPORTS PROVIDED BY THE LESSEE DO NOT FULLY COMPLY WITH
LEASE REQUIREMENTS
Criteria
Article_[/-Annual Report (excerpt):On or before the fifteenth (15)day ofApril following the close
of each Lease Year and following the expiration of the Initial Term or any extension thereof (also
on or before that same date),LESSEE shall deliver or shall cause to be delivered to City at the
place then fixed for the payment of rent a statement prepared and certified by an independent
certified public accountant employed at LESSEE's cost showing Gross Receipts during the
preceding Lease Year.Said accountant shall certify that he made a complete examination
of the books,state sales tax returns,and federal income tax returns of LESSEE and that
the statement is prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
and fairlypresents the Gross Receipts of Lessee for the period indicated therein.[Emphasis
added.]
Condition
The OIG Auditor reviewed the Schedules of Annual Percentage Rent and Gross Receipts for the
year ending December 31,2022,included in the annual financial report performed by the
accounting firm of Kaufman,Rossin &Co.,P.A.on behalf of MBMA.The financial report was not
fully compliant with Article IV of the Lease Agreement as it did not include a certification stating
that the accountant "made a complete examination of the books,state sales tax returns,and
federal income tax returns of LESSEE..."
Additionally,the financial statements did not provide sufficient detail for the total amounts
reported.For example,the upland sublessees'individual payments were not identified,nor did it
indicate what was included in the "other income"section.
Cause
The following primary causes contributed to this issue:
•An oversight or misunderstanding by the Lessee and its contracted CPA firm on the specific
certification and reporting obligations stipulated in the agreement.
•Insufficient oversight by the Asset Management Division to ensure compliance with reporting
requirements outlined in the Lease Agreement.
Effect
Noncompliance with the Lease Agreement's reporting requirements undermines the City's ability
to verify the accuracy and completeness of reported Gross Receipts.This has led to unreported
or underreported revenue,resulting in financial loss to the City and reduced transparency in
revenue-sharing arrangements.
Recommendations
The Asset Management Division should ensure that the Lessee complies with the annual audit
reporting requirements of Article IV of the Lease Agreement.The accountant performing the audit
should certify that all financial information,including the State sales tax return,has been
thoroughly examined.
SMI Management Response:See Appendix I
OIG Reply to SMI:See Appendix 11
City Asset Management Response and OIG Reply to City:See Appendix Ill
Page 9 of 33
5)BUSINESSES OPERATING WITHOUT ACTIVE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS (BTRs)
Criteria
City Code Section 102-357 (excerpt)provides as follows:The City Commission hereby levies a
business tax for the privilege of engaging in or managing any business,profession,or occupation
within the City to any person who maintains a permanent business location or branch office within
the City.The City's Finance Department typically mails its annual business tax receipts in
July/August,requesting payment for the upcoming fiscal year by October 1.
Miami Beach City Code Section 82-1 (b)provides,in part,as follows:It shall be unlawful for any
commercial business operator,establishment,entity,organization,or company that sells or rents
merchandise,products,goods or services or engages in any service that sells or rents
merchandise,products,goods or services,(including,without limitation those commercial
operators that transport passengers),from conducting any portion of the commercial transaction,
activity or operation at any park,boat ramp,beach,structure,building or other property or place
owned,maintained or operated by the city.
Article XV (excerpt)of the Lease Agreement further provides:The Lessee shall,at the lessee's
sole expense,promptly comply with and cause its contractors to promptly comply with the
requirements of every applicable statute,law,ordinance regulation,or order,now or hereafter
made by any federal,state,municipal or other public body,department,bureau,or authority.
Article XX Lessee Responsible for Sub Lessees (excerpt)provides:Any violation of any covenant
or provision of this lease,whether by act or omission,by any sublessee or under-tenant,or their
representatives,successors or assigns,or any other persons occupying space in the Marina Site,
shall be deemed a violation of such provision by the LESSEE and a default under this lease.Any
such violation shall not be deemed to be a default if LESSEE cures in accordance with the
provision of Article XX hereof.
Failure to obtain a Business Tax Receipt (BTR)could result in a violation and a fine.Violation of
City Code Section 102-377(a)provides that a person who conducts a business for which this
article requires a tax receipt without first obtaining a tax receipt shall be issued a violation
punishable by a civil fine of $1,000.00.Section 102-377(d)provides that,in addition to the above,
a continued violation of subsection 102-377(a)for a period of 30 days or more without first
obtaining a tax receipt is punishable by imprisonment not to exceed 60 days or by the imposition
of a fine not to exceed $500.00 or both.
Condition
The OIG Auditor reviewed and evaluated compliance with Article V,Section 102-357 of the City
of Miami Beach Code of Ordinances in reference to businesses located at the Miami Beach
Marina.These businesses are required to obtain a BTR to operate a business in the City of Miami
Beach.During the audit,lease agreements were compared to active BTRs in the City's licensing
system,and confirmation was requested and obtained from the Finance Customer Service
Division.Per management's response dated February 20,2024,the Lessee and 14 sublessees
lacked an active BTR during the 2021/22 fiscal year.
On February 21,2024,the OIG Auditor emailed the Code Compliance Department Director to
investigate further and to inform the OIG as to whether violations had been issued to the Lessee
and its 14 sublessees.As a result of the OIG inquiry,Code Compliance Department staff issued
six violations,each with a $1,000 fine;for a total of $97,146.37 ($80,759.12 was attributable to
Page 10 of 33
one business).Four of the businesses in violation were shut down and required to apply and
obtain the BTRs to re-open their businesses.Additionally,Code Compliance staff issued a
violation with a $250 fine to one of the businesses related to Section 82-1 (b)of the City Code for
unlawfully conducting business on City property.
Subsequent to OIG audit testing,the following was determined:
•Miami Beach Marina Associates and SMI Concierge Services were identified as providing
services without an active BTR.As of December 2,2024,neither company had a BTR.
•One of the sublessees applied for a BTR,but as of November 27,2024,still did not have a
BTR;there is a note in the system stating the Certificate of Use (CU)failed;
•Another sublessee applied for a BTR on 6/09/2023.The OIG auditor noted that they had been
operating their business without a BTR since June 1,2021.As of November 27,2024,that
business still did not have an active BTR.
Cause
MBMA and SMI may improve compliance by adopting and implementing an adequate process to
ensure that both their organizations and their sublessees obtain and properly maintain annual
BTRs.Additionally,the City's Asset Management Division could enhance oversight to ensure
compliance with City Code Section 102-377,while the Code Compliance Department,due to staff
limitations,is primarily complaint-driven rather than proactive.
Effect
The City is not receiving required BTR payments due to lapses by the Lessee and sublessees.
Before a BTR is issued,staff must ensure compliance with all relevant regulations.Lessee,
sublessees,or other operators may also not be complying with the necessary requirements for
obtaining a BTR.These requirements include acquiring a valid Certificate of Use (CU),meeting
Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM)standards,executing a lease or
recorded warranty deed,adopting Articles of Incorporation,and obtaining a Federal Identification
Number.
Recommendations
a.MBMA,SMI,and their sublessees at the Miami Beach Marina must obtain the required annual
Business Tax Receipts (BTRs)per City Code Section 102-377.
b.MBMA should implement procedures to ensure that it and its subtenants maintain an active
BTR while operating within the marina.
c.As recommended in OIG Report No.24-15,coordination between the Finance Department and
Code Compliance Department needs to be enhanced to ensure timely issuance and enforcement
of BTRs.
SMI Management Response:See Appendix I
OIG Response to SMI:See Appendix II
City Asset Management Response and OIG Reply to City:See Appendix Ill
6)BOAT CLUBS WITH MORE THAN FIVE WET SLIPS ARE OPERATING AT THE MARINA
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CITY MANAGER
Criteria
Article IX Encumbrance or Assignment of Leasehold 2-Assignment Sublease_of the Miami Beach
Lease Agreement provides,in part,as follows:...LESSEE further agrees that no assignment,
Page 11 of 33
voluntary or involuntary,in whole or in part of this lease,or any interest therein,and no sublease
of the whole or any part of the Marina Site and no permission to any person to occupy the whole
or any part of the Marina Site shall be valid or effective without the consent of the City Manager,
first had and obtained in each instance;provided,further,that not more than five (5)wet slips and
storage areas for individual boats in the dry storage facility may be rented to individual members
of the boating public (excluding charter boats)for a period not to exceed three (3)years without
first having had and obtained in each instance the consent of the City Manager.
Condition
According to records obtained from the Lessee,the OIG Auditor observed that at least two
membership boat clubs were operating at the Marina in 2022 without the City Manager's consent.
One boat club had 10 slips on dock E,while the other had at least 6 slips on dock H.Additionally,
it was noted that,during 2022,both clubs were operating without a valid BTR.(See Finding #1)
Cause
Insufficient superevision and review processes by the Asset Management Division and a
misunderstanding or oversight by the Lessee regarding the sublease requirements for wet slips
may have resulted in the Lessee's overlooking essential approval requirements.
Effect
Operating membership boat clubs at the Miami Beach Marina with more than five wet slips,
without obtaining the necessary consent from the City Manager,is a violation of the Lease
Agreement.This non-compliance could result in legal and financial consequences for the Lessee,
as the City Manager's approval is required for such assignments or subleases.
Recommendations
•The Lessee should obtain the necessary consent from the City Manager for any boat clubs
operating with more than five slips at the marina.
•The Asset Management Division should establish stronger oversight and review processes to
ensure that all lease terms,including sublease and assignment requirements,are followed.
To implement these changes effectively,the OIG recommends providing additional human
resources and training for the Division.
SMI Management Response:See Appendix I
OIG Reply to SMI:See Appendix II
City Asset Management Response and OIG Reply to City:See Appendix Ill
7)INCORRECT SALES TAX RATE COLLECTED ON COMMERCIAL RENT
Criteria
According to the Florida Department of Revenue,the Sales and Use Tax on the Rental,Lease,
or License to Use Commercial Real Property during 2022 was 5.5%,plus any applicable
discretionary sales surtax.This tax is due on the total rent charged for renting,leasing,or granting
a license to use commercial real property in Florida,unless the rent is specifically exempt.
The discretionary sales surtax rate for Miami-Dade County is 1%,imposed by the County where
the real property is located.
Condition
The OIG Auditor reviewed all 13 payments recorded in the Munis system for commercial rent that
was billed in 2022,totaling $2,724,920.45 (including sales tax),and found that the City's Asset
Page 12 of 33
Management Division used a 7%sales tax rate,while the correct rate was 6.5%.This resulted in
an overcharge of $12,733.27 in sales tax remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue.
Cause
The Asset Management Division used an incorrect sales tax percentage.
Effect
Failure to rectify the deficiency may erode trust in the City's compliance with tax regulations,
resulting in legal claims against the City.
Recommendations
The Asset Management Division needs to recalculate the sales tax due and collected during 2022.
Sublessees should be credited by the City for any overbilled amounts;the City should seek credits
from the State;and future payments to the State should be adjusted accordingly.Additionally,the
Asset Management Division should regularly check the Florida Department of Revenue website
for updates on any changes to the sales tax rate.This will help ensure that the correct amounts
are remitted to the State in the future.
SMI Management Response:See Appendix I
OIG Reply to SMI:See Appendix 11
City Asset Management Response:See Appendix Ill
8)DOCKAGE RATE INCREASES NOT PROPERLY APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER
AND DISCREPANCIES IN BILLING RESULT IN OVERBILLING OF $8,135.86
Criteria
Lease Agreement
Article XXXIV Additional Responsibilities 2.Dockage Rates -The LESSEE shall recommend
dockage rates and rates for the use of other facilities and services for approval by the City
Manager.Dockage rates shall be generally consistent with those charged at other privately
financed marinas of comparable quality situated on public lands in the State of Florida.
Condition
The OIG Auditor reviewed the letter dated August 31,2021,submitted by MBMA,requesting
approval to increase the dockage rates at the Miami Beach Marina and the Approval of Dockage
Rates letter dated October 1,2021,signed by the City Manager.
It was noted that the dockage rates request letter did not include the rates for the 24,000 LB-
28,000 LB and the 40,000 LB lifts located on Dock A,Dock L,and Dock M.Also,it did not include
Transient Rates.The City Administration approved the billing rates as requested by the Lessee
on October 1,2021,apparently without noticing that some rates were excluded.SMI is advertising
the Boat Lifts available on their webpage:https://miamibeachmarina.com,starting at 24K for
$2,178 annually.Rates vary by weight.
Page 13 of 33
MM EACHMARRAtaitotat.hototi#.hoeparatta'ire..-totototesetta
A.lsuwttwa@was
c
ithi tati
§)
8E»aw
0o
MURANOGRANDEAIPORTO#NO
When the OIG Auditor inquired about the rate for the dry stack (lifts)prices for docks A,L,and M
and the reasons why they were not included on the billing rates approval request,SMI responded,
'They were erroneously not included,"and provided the following rates:For 24,000lb Lift (Flat
Rate):$2,178.00.For 28,000lb Lift (Flat Rate):$2,310.00.For 40,000lb Lift (Flat Rate):$3,080.00.
The OIG Auditor requested a sample of 59 slip dockage agreements from SMI.Testing was
performed to determine whether the dockage agreements were accurately billed in accordance
with the City-approved rates.It was noted that 22 slip dockage agreements were correctly billed.
However,we also noted the following:
a.Of the 59 dockage agreements received for review,12 were e-mail renewals rather than the
actual dockage agreements.
b.In ten instances at docks A,L,and M,the OIG Auditor could not verify whether the customers
were correctly billed because the dockage agreements did not specify the size of the lift billed
or the corresponding weight.
c.In three instances at dock E,the OIG Auditor was unable to verify correct billing because there
was no established billing rate for the E-float area.
d.SMI did not provide three dockage agreements located at docks F and K.
e.A total of 21 dockage agreements were incorrectly billed,with 10 cases of underbilling totaling
$3,836.31 and 11 cases of overbilling totaling $11,972.17.This resulted in a net overbilling of
$8,135.86.
Cause
Factors that contributed to this issue include the following:
•The Asset Management Division is not paying adequate attention to the approved rates list
provided by the Lessee at the time of approval.
•Misunderstanding or incorrect application of Lease Agreement terms,including billing rates,
by the Lessee
•A limited understanding of the Lease's compliance requirements by the Lessee.
Page 14 of 33
Effect
This deficiency could result in lost revenue,unfair pricing,and inconsistencies in dockage fee
administration,raising concerns about the transparency and completeness of the rate approval
process.
Recommendations
The Asset Management Division should request that the Lessee,Miami Beach Marina
Associates,update its request for dockage rate approval to include all applicable billing rates,
ensuring compliance with Article IV of the Lease Agreement.The Division should consistently
verify the completeness of information provided by the Lessee.On November 28,2023,the OIG
Auditor promptly informed the Asset Management Division management of this issue.
SMI Management Response:See Appendix I
OIG Reply to SMI:See Appendix 11
City Asset Management Response and OIG Reply to City:See Appendix Ill
AREA FOR IMPROVEMENT:FAIR COMPENSATION TO CITY FOR FUEL SALES
The Miami Beach Marina Lease Agreement,originally executed in 1983 and amended thereafter,
includes a provision in Article II (Rental)under which the City receives two cents per gallon for
the sale of fuel and diesel.However,this clause has not been updated for over three decades
despite the 2021 renewal extending the lease for an additional 10 years.In 2022,the Lessee's
total fuel and diesel sales amounted to $7,076,675,yet the City received only $28,115 (0.4%),a
disproportionate return considering the total volume of 1,405,763 gallons sold.This provision has
not been adjusted to account for inflation,rising fuel prices,or market changes,resulting in a lost
opportunity for the City to be fairly compensated for these sales.Given the substantial gap
between the amount generated by fuel sales and the City's share,a comprehensive review and
adjustment of this agreement is necessary to ensure the City receives fair and equitable
compensation in Marina operations.
THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS ARE APPLICABLE DURING THE
RENEGOTIATION OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT:
1.Revised Payment Structure:Update the per-gallon rate to better align with current market
values.Consider negotiating a percentage-based fee rather than a fixed rate per gallon,
ensuring that compensation adjusts proportionally with sales and market conditions.
2.Indexing for Inflation:Introduce a clause that adjusts the per-gallon rate,or overall
compensation,based on an inflation index,ensuring that the City's share remains competitive
and relevant in the future.
3.Periodic Reviews:Implement a process for periodic reviews of the lease agreement (e.g.,
every five years)to ensure that terms reflect current market conditions and fair compensation
practices.
4.Capitalize on Current Trends:With the rise in environmental awareness and potential shifts
in fuel consumption (such as alternative energy options for vessels),consider diversifying the
agreement to include other revenue streams or environmentally sustainable practices that
benefit both parties.
5.Reiteration:As highlighted in the "General Opinions,"section,the contract should not be
renewed until it has been thoroughly reviewed and revised to include modifications that
safeguard the City's interests.
Page 15 of 33
By implementing these changes,the City can secure fair compensation for its land and
infrastructure while ensuring that the Lease Agreement is equitable and aligned with current
economic conditions.
cc:Eric Carpenter,City Manager
Ricardo Dopico,City Attorney
Mark Taxis,Assistant City Manager
Ron Mumaw,Director,Facilities,and Fleet Management
Ozzie Dominguez,Director,Asset Management Division
Hernan Cardeno,Director,Code Compliance
Jason Sternberg,Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &Sullivan LLP,Attorneys for Miami
Beach Marina Associates and SMI Concierge Services Ltd.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,City of Miami Beach
1130 Washington Avenue,6"Floor,Miami Beach,FL 33139
Tel:305.673.7020 •Hotline:786.897.1111
Email:CityofMiamiBeachOIG@miamibeachfl.gov
Website:www.mbinspectorgeneral.com
Page 16 of 33
APPENDIX I
SMIMANAGEMENTRESPONSE
quinn emanuel riallawyers \miami
WRITERS DIRECT DIALNO.(786)850-3607
WRIIETSEAIADEE5jasonsterbeng@quinnemanelcom
March 7,2025
Mr Joseph M.Centorino
Inspector General
City of Miami Beach
1130 Washington Avenue,6th Floor
Miami Beach FL 33139josephcentorino@miamibeachfgoy
Re:Response to Draft Audit Report -Miami Beach Marina Lease Agreement
Dear Mr.Centorino:
Our fim represents Suntex Marna Investors LLC,SMI Concierge Services.Ltd,and Miami
BeachMarina Associates.Ltd.(collectively "MT)in connection with the Office ofthe Inspector
General's (the "OIG")audit ofthe Miami Beach Marina Lease Agreement.We are in receipt of
your draft audit report dated January 31.2025,and submit this response on behalf of our client
We respectfully request that our responses to each finding be included in their entirety in the
management response portion of the final OIG report
Before addressing the specific findings in the report,we believe it is important to provide relevant
context regarding SMIs relationship with the City of Miami Beach (the Cit)and the Marina
operations.
The Miami Beach Marina has enjoyed a longstanding and productive partnership with the City of
Miami Beach since 193.We value this relationship greatly and remain committed to being a
trusted steward of this important public asset Throughout the audit process,which spanned
approximately 1 months,our team approached the OIG review with transparency and a spirit of
cooperation.During this extensive process,we provided hundreds of pages of documents,participated in multiple extended meetings (including sessions on January 11.2024,August 26,
2024,and September 17,2024),and responded promptly to numerous requests for information
Our senior leadership.including our SVP ofOperations and ChiefAccounting Officer,dedicated
significant time and resources to ensure the OIG had access to all necessary information
While we respect the nature ofthe OIGs review,we note that several findings in the draft report
reflect misunderstandings of our lease terms and misinterpretations ofstandard industry practices,
or draw conclusions that are inconsistent with our longtime course of dealing with the City.This
quinnenanuei urquarts sullivan,l
ATLANTA AUTIH CA MEL5ML CHICAGO L3HA /HAMMURG HONG ACMG MOU;TC LDON LOA«Gt.r MA!Mr
MIAMI MLUMICH}EUILLY-LA DEHEHE MEW YORN PAI PITH IYADM ALT LAMIE IT?Y 5AHA'I.O TTL![5ANG+AI
SIL.ICC VALLY STUTTGART S?DNIY TO4YC WASHINGTC,D.}ZURICH
Page 17 of 33
response addresses these specific issues while reaffirming our commitment to operating the Miami
Beach Marna with the highest standards ofprofessionalism and compliance.
We look forward to continuing our dialogue with the City of Miami Beach and working together
to address the concems raised in the audit process.Our goal remains to provide an exceptional
marina experience that serves both residents and visitors while delivering appropriate financial
retums to the City under our lease agreement
Findings &Response
I)MIAMI BEACH MARINA'S GROSS RECEIPTS REPORTED TO THE STATE OF
FLORIDA WERE $6,504,098 HIGHER THAN THE GROSS RECEIPTS
REPORTED TO THE CITY,OF WHICH $4,883O98 WERE IMPROPERLY
EXCLUDED IN VIOLATION OF LEASE TERMS.$2,488,098 OF THAT
EXCLUSION RESULTED I AN UNDERPAYMENT TO THE CIII OF S248,810.
Management Response:
SMI agrees with the OIG that a total of $28.421.596 was reported to the Flonda Department of
Revenue through sales tax retums in calendar year 2022 (the "Audit Penod)and also that SMI
reported $21.917498 in gross receipts to the City in the same calendar year.Accordingly,SMI
also agrees that the delta between these amounts is $6.504,098 (the "Tota]Deltg).t."««
However.as explained through numerous responses during the audit process,both in writing and
verbally during meetings,this Total Delta is reconcilable,supported,and in line with the Lease
Accordingly,SMI disagrees with the OIG that there was an underpayment to the City stemming
from the Total Delta
As to Finding +l specifically:
-Of the Total Delta,OIG notes $2.488,098 in "unreconciled amounts"(Alleged
Unreconciled Amour).However.SMI provided a reconciliation of this Alleged
Unreconciled Amount in a meeting held with OIG staff on or around September 17,2024,
and in subsequent documents delivered to the OIG following such meeting
-As described to the OIG in those meetings and documents,the Alleged Unreconciled
Amount includes fuel sale dollars reported to the Florida Department of Revenue for the
Audit Period of$2385.704.The Gross Receipts reported to the City do not include these
fuel sale amounts,because,per the Marina Lease Agreement and subsequent amendments
made thereto (Section 28.3 ofthe First Amendment}and as recognized by the OIG herein.
the City is paid Annual Percentage Rent for fuel sales on a "per gallon"basis.The
applicable language of the Lease is set forth below.
Page 18 of 33
3."Annual Percentage Rent",which shallean,izh respect to each Lease Year,anamountequaltothefollowing1
a.to cents ($0.02)per gallon from thosaleofgasolineinsuchLeasefear,plus
b.To cents ($0.02)per gallon from thesaleofdieselfuelinsuchLeaseYear,plus
c.tight percent (8t)of all other GrosReceiptsfrothedateofexecutionoftheAmendmenttotheMarinaLeasethroughDecember31,1992 and duringeachLeaseYearfro1993through1999,
and ten percent (10i)of all other GrossReceiptsduringeachLeaseYearfrom2000throughtheremainderoftheInitialfercrExtendedTerms,if any.
As evidenced above,the Lease defines "Annual Percentage Rent to expressly )include
a percentage rent related to fuel (ie,gasoline and diesel fuel)sales,as stated in
subparagraphs (a)and (b),and ai)states in subparagraph (c)that it is only "ten percent
(10%)of all other Gross Receipts (emphasis added)that are included in the remainder of
Anmual Percentage Rent.Although the Lease defines "Gross Receipts"to include "all fuel
...sold.in,at,upon,or from.the Marina,"the Lease expressly requires that Annual
Percentage Rent paid to the City for such fuel shall be paid on aper gallon basis and not
as part of"all other Gross Receipts."
Therefore,SMI remitted fullpayment to the City in accordance with the Lease for its share
for the Gross Receipts of fuel sales through the "per gallon calculaton.It would be both
contrary to the express terms of the Lease and the intent of the Lease,as well as patently
unfair.for the City to "double-dip to obtain payment on fuel sales on a "per gallon"basis
and as part of"10%of all other Gross Receipts."
The remaining portion of the Alleged Unreconciled Amount,totaling $102.394,is
attributed to timing differences in the recognition of customer deposits during the Audit
Period.This variance results from a fundamental accounting distinction:sales tax reports
to the Florida Department of Revenue are completed on a cash basis (recording revenue
when cashis received),while the City Gross Receipts report is prepared on an accrual basis
(recording revenue when it is eamed,regardless ofwhen cashis received).This accounting
difference naturally creates temporary variances within any single reporting period
However,these timing differences self-correct over multiple reporting periods,as deposits
eventually convert to recognized revenue.When examined across consecutive years,these
differences effectively balance to zero,with no permanent discrepancy between sales tax
reports and gross receipts for deposits.This is standard accounting practice and fully
compliant with the Lease tems.
Of note,$102.394 was less than 0.5%of total revenue for the Miami Beach Marna (the
Marina)during the Audit Period.
Page 19 of 33
-WVe must also note a matter of significant contractual importance:Article IV.Section 3 of
the Lease Agreement explicitly states that the City's night to audit SMI s books and records
related to Gross Receipts must be exercised "within eighteen (18)months after the end of
any Lease Year"This provision creates a clear contractual limitation period that has
expired for calendar years 2019,2020,and 2021.While we have cooperatively provided
infomaton from 2022,we maintain that the City has no contractual night to expand this
audit beyond the timeframe established in our binding agreement.
2)LESSEE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT TOTALIG $2395.000 WAS
IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS RECEIPTS DURING 2022
RESULTING IN UNDERPAYMENT TO THE CITY OF S239,500
Management Response:
-Of the Total Delta.OIG notes that $2.395,000 was excluded related to expense
reimbursement pass throughs to subtenants at the Marina.SMI does not dispute that these
amounts were excluded from its Gross Receipts reported to the City.However,these
reimbursements were properly excluded from SMIs Gross Receipts during the Audit
Period because the exclusions matches the spirit ofthe Lease,the course of dealing between
SMI and the City,and common commercial real estate standards.
-The S2,395,000 noted by the OIG represents SMIs pass through and reimbursement of
expenses from subtenants of the Marina withoutprofit generation (Non-Profit Producing
Pagg_Throughs).These Non-Profit Producing Pass Throughs include reimbursements
made by subtenants for common area maintenance charges,utilities,and electricity paid
for by SMI.As is customary with commercial leases,landlords often pass through certain
expenses incurred by the landlord to tenants for reimbursement,without profit generation,
as part ofcommon area maintenance,electrical,or utility pass through provisions in leases.
These reimbursements merely restore SMI to a neutral position by recovering direct costs
paid onbehalf ofsubtenants,without generating any additional revenue or profit that would
properly be subject to percentage rent calculations
The exclusion of Non-Profit Producing Pass Throughs from SMIs Gross Receipts is
explicitly supported by both the letter and spirit of the Lease Agreement.Article III ofthe
Lease specifically enumerates Items Excluded from Gross Receipts,including:"(vi)
income from LESSEEs provision,without profit,of telephone and cable television
services to persons utilizing the Marina Site,solong as this exclusion is susceptible to audit
according to generally accepted accounting principles."While this provision specifically
mentions telephone and cable television services,the underlying principle is clear.The
Lease intentionally excludes pass-through expenses provided without profit.This
provision establishes a fundamental principle that mere cost recovery does not constitute
"Gross Receipts"subject to percentage rent.The Non-Profit Producing Pass Throughs at
issue follow precisely the same economic structure as the explicitly excluded services-
they are expenditures incurred by SMI and reimbursed at cost,with no profit component
Page 20 of 33
Applying this principle consistently across similar transaction types represents sound
accounting practice and a faithful interpretation of the Lease's intent '
-Moreover,SMI's independent third-party audit fim,Kaufman Rosin ("Kaufman),notes
the exclusion of these Non-Profit Producing Pass Throughs in its completed report dated
Apnl 13,2023 for year-end 2022.In fact,Kaufman,a nationally-recognized accounting
firm,has expressly noted and explained the exclusion of Non-Profit Producing Pass
Throughs in every audit report it has prepared for the City since 2019.The City has
therefore been aware of and has expressed no objection to,this exclusion for several years
and for the entire period constituting SMI s operation ofthe Marina.Inaddition,it is SMI s
understanding that the exclusion of subtenant pass-through expense reimbursement from
its Gross Receipts was the historical practice with SMT s predecessorat the Marina and has
been thepractice for the duration ofthe Lease'shistory.SMI was forthright and transparent
with the City in noting the logical and historical exclusion of the Non-Profit Producing
Pass Throughs.in part due to our commitment to being good parters with the City and in
part because the exclusion of these amounts should be non-controversial
-The OIG specifically identified in its report that SMI excluded certainrelated party rental
income"from Gross Receipts,but notably declined to take a definitive position on whether
this exclusion was proper.These intercompany lease arrangements involve payments
between related SMI entities-SMI Concierge Senvices Limited and Miami Beach Marina
Associates-which are structured to ensure SMTs compliance with Real Estate Investment
Trust ("REIT)tax requirements (the "Intercompany Payments").Such structural
arrangements between affiliated entities are commonly utilized by REITs;and represent
intemal accounting transactions rather than extemal revenue generation-
In 220,the City's Mayor and Commission approved,via City Commission
Resolution 2020-31345,a revised lease between the City and SMI for the Marna (the 2
Retied[ease).Section 41b)of the 2020 Revised Lease provided in pertinent part that "with
respect to (@)those portions of the Leased Property that are subject to Space Leases,the base rent
ii.e.,excluding amounts paid as reimbursement of common area charges,taxes,insurance and
other reimbursement;)paid by Space Tenants to Lessee (and not gross revenues of the Space
Lessees)shall be the "Gross Receipts."(emphasis added).While the 2020 Revised Lease was not
effectuated following public referendum,the above makes clear that the very items SMI has
excluded as Non-Profit Producing Pass Throughs were intended to be excluded from a revised,
fully negotiated and agreed upon lease with the City.
2 SMI rejects any implication that such Intercompany Payments should ever be
considered as part of Gross Receipts.To date,the City has not expressed concems regarding
SMIs structure as a REIT.Moreover.SMIs independent third-party audit firm,Kaufman Rosin.
notes the exclusion ofthese Intercompany Payments in its completed audit reports for year-ends
2021 and 2022.
Page 21 of 33
-Moreover,all revenues attributed to SMI Concierge Services are already properly included
in SMIs Gross Receipts reported to the City.Including both these revenues and the
Intercompany Payments would result in impermissible double-counting of the same
economic activity.This position is supported by the Lease definition of Gross Receipts,
which includes "rents received by Lessee resulting from the occupancy or use of the Marina
site..by any independent,third-party sublesee..."(emphasis added)The Lease's
deliberate qualification that only rents from "independent,third-party"sublessees are
included in Gross Receipts clearly indicates that intemal transfers between related entities
were never intended to be captured in this definition This interpretation is consistent with
both standard accounting principles and the plain language ofthe Lease.
-Based upon the proper exclusion of the Alleged Unreconciled Amount,Non-Profit
Producing Pass Throughs and Intercompany Lease Payments,Gross Receipts were not
understated by 30%during the Audit Period and therefore the City is not entitled to any
payment of audit costs associated with this finding.
-Finally,as noted in our response to Finding l above,the Lease's 18-month audit limitation
period applies equally to this finding.The City has no contractual night to audit or seek
recovery for any perods por to 2022
3)PARKING GROSS RECEIPTS WERE UNDERREPORTED TO THE CITY,
RESULTING I A $173,496.10 UNDERPAYMENT,THE CIII DID NOT APPROVE
THE PARKING SUBLEASE,AND THE ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPT STATEMENTAS
NOT SUBMITTED TO IHE CITY
Management Response:
-Throughout the OIG audit,the OIG made a number of inquiries seeking confirmation that
the City was paid its 35%share of Gross Receipts related to parking receipts In SMIs
September 17,2024 meeting with the OIG,OIG requested a walk-through of the process
complete with bank statements.,third-party reports and questioning of SMI personnel to
ensure all Gross Receipts were captured.SMI complied with the OIG s numerous requests,
which required significant allocation oftime and resources from SMI This was completed
and detailed supporting documentation provided which verified that,in fact,the City had
received 35%of the Gross Receipts for parking.
-As to the OIG's statement that the Parking Revenue Management Agreement was not
approved by the City,SMI acknowledges that formal written consent may not have been
obtained.SMI will ensure that City consent.to the extent required under the Lease,is
obtained in the future.However,SMI also notes that the City was well aware of SMIs
intent to enter into this parking arrangement,and in fact SMI s decision to do so was at the
urging ofthe City to increase revenues generated from parking.Under the Parking Facility
Management and Operation Agreement between SMI and the City,there is no requirement
that SMI charge for parking in the parking facilities Ina show of good faith to the City.
Page 22 of 33
SMI began charging parking fees in 2021,and thus needed to elicit the assistance of a third-
party parking manager.Professional Parking Management Corp ("PPM).This
arrangement led to SMI remitting shared parking revenue to the City.
SMI is unclear as to the exact argument that the OIG is purporting to make with respect to
the alleged "underreporting of gross receipts pursuant to the Parking Facility Management
and Operation Agreement and the Parking Revenue Management Agreement As the City
is aware and as is noted above,SMI entered into this arrangement in a show of good faith
at the urging of the City in order to increase parking revenues for the City.While a portion
of the fines collected as a result of past-due parking charge notices are in fact retained by
the third-party manager (PPM),this is both ordinary course and patently reasonable for a
third-party manager to collect compensation for service.The OIG seems to imply that
PPM should not be compensated for their service and that all amounts should be collected
by SMI which is commercially unreasonable.Ofthe $177,281 collected by SMI for fines
from past-due parking charge notices,35%of that amount was in fact paid to the City as
required and demonstrated to the OIG.SMI disagrees with any implied conclusion ofthe
OIG that SMI should have paid its 35%based on amounts that were not in fact received at
all by SMI-in other words,the 75%of past-due parking charge fees not collected by SMI
should not be part of Gross Receipts as they were not received by SMI.To charge SMI for
these amounts would be unreasonable and unfairly punish SMI for agreeing to charge for
parking.at the Citys request,in the first place
-Finally,the OIG's interpretation creates a commercially unreasonable outcome that could
not have been intended by either party.For past-due parking charges,SMI receives only
25%of fees collected by PPM,yet the OIG suggests SMI should pay the City 35%based
on the total amount collected-not just the portion SMI actually receives.This would
require SMI to pay 140%ofits receipts to the City,creating a situation where SMI loses
money on every past-due fee collected.
4)THE ANNUAL REPORTS PROVIDED BY IHE LESSEE DO NOT FULLY COMPLY
WIIH LEASE REQUIREMENTS
[nagerent Response;
-The OIG notes that Kaufman does not fully comply with the requested opinion language
detailed in the Lease.The OIG states specifically that the report misses required
certification language,in particular that it does not include a certification that the
accountant "made a complete examination of the books,state sales tax retums and federal
income tax retums"of SMI
Page 23 of 33
-In the course of the OIG's audit,SMI confimed in meetings as well as in provided
documentation that as part of its review,Kaufman did in fact review the sales tax reports
and all appropriate books and records
-However.SMI acknowledges that the statement covering such review was not included in
the final report SMI has been in contact with Kaufman and will ensure certification
language required by the Lease is included going forward.
5.)BUSINESSES OPERATING WITHOUT ACTIVE BUSINESS TAI RECEIPTS
BIR")
Management Response:
SMI agrees with the OIG that businesses operating in the City are required by Code to
obtain BTRs.and acknowledges that there have been some historical instances of certain
sublessees or slip tenants operating at the Marina without a current BTR on fle
SMI has resolved these issues ,and SMI routinely takes prompt action to notify subtenants
or correct any related issues noted by the City.
-SMIis also aligned with the City in ensuring that all sublessees and commercial slip tenants
operating at the Marina have active BTRs.To ensure that this occurs,Marna staffare now
required by intemal process to obtain evidence of a BTR at lease or commercial slip
execution In addition,Marna staff will institute a process to ensure that lease or
commercial slip customers renew and provide evidence of active BTRs on or before
October 1 of each year.
-As it relates to SMIs BTR.and as noted by the City in communications with SMI there
has been a BIR in place for SMIs db'a,"Miami Beach Marina."Rather than it being the
case that SMI did not obtain a BTR,as implied by the OIG,this was a simple incidence of
a BTR being registered to a db'a as opposed to a technical legal entity.It was the
deteminaton of the City that a transfer of this BTR as not possible.and that SMI needed
to file for new BIRs for SMI Concierge Services and Miami Beach Marina Associates
SMI began the process of doing so the exact same day that SMI was infomed of the
discrepancy.Due to the timing required to arrange inspections and apply for a new
Certificate of Use (which is required to obtain a BTR)the process takes some time.SMI
has kept the City informed of its progress and is close to finalizing the updated BTR
Page 24 of 33
6)BOAT CLUBS WITH MORE THAN FIE WET SLIPS ARE OPERATING AT THE
MARINA WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CITY MANAGER
Management Response:
-SMI agrees that,during2022,there were two boat clubs operating at the Marna.However,
in early 2024,one boat club vacated the premises,and as of today,only one boat club
remains at the Marina as an annual tenant.
-SMI acknowledges that the City did not approve a slip lease for current slip lessee.Freedom
Boat Club.For context,SMTs slip lease with Freedom Boat Chub (@)was approvedby the
Asset Management Division of the City as a sublessee with respect to its upland office
space at the Marina,and (ii)has a one-year tem and Freedom is not "an individual member
of the boating public."The Lease expressly states:
provided,further,that not more than five (S)wet slips and storage areas for individual boats
in the dry storage facility may be rented to individual members o!the boating public
(excluding charter boats)for a period not to exceed three (3)years without first having had
and obtained ineach instance the consent of the City Manager.
-Based on the Leases express tems (Article I2),SMI disputes that it was required to
obtain the City's approval before entering into a Slip Lease with Freedom Boat Club
because (a)it is not an individual member of the boating public,and (ii)the tern ofthe slip
agreements does not exceed three years.
-In the future,however.SMI agrees to obtain the Citys approval for the slip usage ofboat
clubs operating more than five wet slips at the Marina for terms exceeding three years
7)ICORRECT SALES TAX RATE COLLECTED ON COMMERCIAL RENT
[nagerent Response:
-SMI acknowledges the OIGs position with respect to this item SMI has no action to take
with respect to these referenced issues,but SMI does note the alleged overcharge of
$12,733.27 by the City
S)DOCKAGE RATE INCREASES NOT PROPERLY APPROVED BY THE CITY
MANAGER AND DISCREPANCIES I BILLIG RESULT IN OVERBILLIG OF
$8,135.86
Page 25 of 33
Management Response:
-All rate increase requests have been provided to the Asset Management Division of the
City on an annual basis,approximately three months prior to the anticipated rate changes
The rate approval process inherited by SMI from RCI (as previous operator of the Marina)
included only annual wet slips,and heanng no previous concems with this approach,the
same process and methodology were camied forward once SMI began operating the
Marina.However,following request by the City in September 2024,SMI promptly
modified its rate approval request to include boat lifts.The modified request was submitted
to the City in October 2024 for rates to be charged in 2025,evidencing a prompt response
by SMI and serving as a clear indicator that SMI views its relationship with the City as a
mutual partnership.
-While the proposed and approved rate card identifies the rate for specific docks,there are
occasionally instances where this rate will be modified in accordance with a particular slip.
For example,some slips have no utilities,limited tuming radius,have smaller dimensions.
or have another similar issue that impacts desirability for some customers.On a case-by-
case basis,SMI evaluates and may modify slip rates.This could result in a billing variance
from the published rate card.The practice of seeking rate approval by dock,as opposed to
by individual slip,is also in accordance with past precedent,and only a small percentage
of total slips have these unique pncing parameters.
Very truly yours.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN.LLP
f<l
Jason D Stemberg
Page 26 of 33
APPENDIX 11
REPLY OF OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO SMI RESPONSE
Finding 1:Miami Beach Marina's gross receipts reported to the State of Florida were $6,504,098
higher than those reported to the City.
Although SM I management provided an Excel spreadsheet with monthly fuel sales and
explanations for the variance,supporting documentation to corroborate the data,as requested by
the OIG,was not provided.Accordingly,the OIG cannot validate the accuracy of the auditee's
assertion ..
Finding 2:Lessee expense reimbursement totaling $2,395,000 was excluded from gross
receipts.
SMI management explained that these were pass-through costs1 to subtenants and aligned with
common commercial real estate practices.However,the Lease Agreement is clear:only specific
items,such as non-profitable phone and cable services,are excluded from gross receipts.
In a meeting on September 17,2024,Suntex's Chief Accounting Officer confirmed that Suntex
earns a profit on these reimbursable costs and reports net,not gross,amounts to the City-
contrary to the Lease,which requires reporting based on gross receipts.
Further,the Lessee did not provide documentation to support its claim that the listed expenses
were reimbursable or pass-through.None of the listed items are excluded from gross receipts
under the Lease Agreement.
SMI management also claimed that including both revenues and intercompany payments related
to SMI Concierge Services would result in double counting.However,this does not apply here,
as the related third-party transactions are not recorded in the Point of Sale (POS)system2.
Miami Beach Marina
Reimbursable/Pass Through Costs by Category
CAM Charges (Excluded in Gross Receipts)
Taxes (Excluded in Gross Receipts)
Waste (Excluded in Gross Receipts)
Water (Excluded in Gross Receipts)
Insurance (Excluded in Gross Receipts)
Dock Services Costs (Netted in Gross Receipts)
Maintenance (Excluded in Gross Receipts)
Total
(651,479)
(344,829)
(186,586)
(176,839)
(140,672)
(843,575)
(51,145)
(2,395,125)
1 Pass-through costs are expenses that a lessee or service provider initially pays on behalf of another party-such
as a subtenant or customer-and then bills back without markup.These costs are "passed through"directly,
meaning the payer is simply reimbursed and does not earn a profit on the transaction.
2 A Point of Sale (POS)system is a digital platform used to process sales transactions.It records customer
purchases,accepts payments,and tracks sales in real-time.In a marina or leased commercial setting,the POS
system typically captures revenue from various services such as dockage fees,retail sales,food and beverage,
equipment rentals,and concierge services.
Page 27 of 33
Finding 3:The parking gross receipts were reported inaccurately to the City,which led to an
underpayment of $173,496.10.
Section 6.1 on parking charges stipulates the following (excerpt):
In the event that the Marina Lessee decides,in its sole discretion,to charge
for parking in the Parking Facilities or any of them,the Marina Lessee shall
have sole discretion to establish the amount of such charges.In such event,
the City or the Agency,as they may direct,shall receive 35%of the Gross
Receipts generated by the Parking Facilities,which amount shall be payable
to the City or the Agency...
Based on the language of the above provision,the City should receive 35%of the gross receipts
generated by the parking facilities,totaling $173,496.10,as calculated below.
Auditor's Calculations
Total Fees Total Unreported
Received by Collected by Revenues to the
Suntex PPM City
165,234.38 660,937.52 495,703.14
35%57,832.03 231,328.13 173,496.10
Finding 6:Boat clubs with more than five wet slips are operating at the Martina without the
consent of the City Manager.
The Lessee's response asserts that City Manager approval is required only for boat clubs
operating more than five slips at the Marina for terms exceeding three years.This is incorrect.
Article IX,Seciton 2 of the Agreement stipulates that the Lessee must obtain the City Manager's
consent for any assignment,sublease,or occupancy of the Marina Site.Specifically,the Lease
indicates that no assignment,sublease,or permission for occupancy can be valid without prior
approval by the City Manager.Additionally,the Agreement states that the Lessee may,without
the consent of the City Manager,rent to the public up to five wet slips and storage areas for
individual boats (excluding charter boats)but only for a period not exceeding three years.Every
other assignment,sublease,or permission for occupancy beyon the five (5)wet slips allowed
pursuant to this carve-out requires the consent of the City Manager
Page 28 of 33
APPENDIX Ill
RESPONSE FROM CITY ASSET MANAGEMENT DIVISION AND OIG REPLY
1)MIAMI BEACH MARINA'S GROSS RECEIPTS REPORTED TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA
WERE $6,504,098 HIGHER THAN THE GROSS RECEIPTS REPORTED TO THE CITY,OF
WHICH $4,883,098 WERE IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED IN VIOLATION OF LEASE TERMS.
$2,488,098 OF THAT EXCLUSION RESULTED IN AN UNDERPAYMENT TO THE CITY OF
$248,810.
Recommendations
•The City Manager should consider billing the Miami Beach Marina for the audit cost,as the
gross receipts were understated by 30%during the 2022 tax year,in accordance with Article
IV (3)of the Lease Agreement.
•Enhanced oversight and more comprehensive annual review processes by the City's Asset
Management Division.
•The Asset Management Division should calculate 10%of the gross receipts that were reported
to the State of Florida for Sales Tax purposes but not reported to the City.Subsequently,a
bill for the outstanding amount should be issued to the MBMA.
CITY ASSET MANAGEMENT RESPONSE:
The Asset Management Division will bill the Miami Beach Marina the cost of the audit if the
City Manager agrees with the findings.However,the Miami Beach Marina has disputed
the OIG's calculations and further clarification is needed in order to determine who is
correct.The Asset Management Division recommends more frequent audits of this Lease
to maintain greater accuracy.
OIG REPLY
MBMA did not provide adequate documentation to substantiate its claims,so the OIG stands by
its findings.Regarding more frequent audits,while the OIG appreciates management's
confidence in OIG's audit capacities,audits are not an adequate replacement for management
supervision of City contracts.For more details,refer to Finding 1 in Appendix II.
2)LESSEE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT TOTALING $2,395,000 WAS IMPROPERLY
EXCLUDED FROM GROSS RECEIPTS DURING 2022,RESULTING IN UNDERPAYMENT TO
THE CITY OF $239,500
Recommendations
The Asset Management Division should calculate the 10%of gross receipts from the sublessee's
expense reimbursements that were excluded from the Lessee's reports for the previous five years
and issue a bill to the MBMA for the outstanding amount.
CITY ASSET MANAGEMENT RESPONSE:
The Asset Management Division recommends the OIG review the Marina's responses and
their position on this finding to determine if these discrepancies are confirmed accurate
and billings can take place.If there are no disputed discrepancies,the Asset Management
Division will bill the 10%of gross receipts from the sublessee's expense reimbursements
that were excluded from the Lessee's reports for the previous [allowed]years and issue a
bill to the MBMA for the outstanding amount.
Page 29 of 33
Page 30 of 33
OIG REPLY
The OIG has reviewed the Marina’s responses and responded to them in Appendix II of this report.
The OIG stands by its findings.
3) PARKING GROSS RECEIPTS WERE UNDERREPORTED TO THE CITY, RESULTING IN A
$173,496.10 UNDERPAYMENT, THE CITY DID NOT APPROVE THE PARKING SUBLEASE,
AND THE ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPT STATEMENT WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY
Recommendations
a. The Asset Management Division should recalculate the parking gross receipts amounts and
issue a bill to the Lessee for any discrepancies found.
b. Additionally, it is recommended that the Asset Management Division obtain any missing
Parking Revenue reports from previous years and verify that 35% of the gross revenue
generated from parking has been accurately reported. If any differences are identified, the
Lessee should be billed accordingly.
c. Furthermore, the Lessee should implement the necessary changes to ensure accurate
reporting of all gross receipts.
CITY ASSET MANAGEMENT RESPONSE:
The Asset Management Division recommends the OIG reviews the Marina’s responses and
their position on this to determine if these discrepancies are confirmed accurate and
billings can take place. It is the Asset Management’s understanding the Marina is paying
35% of gross receipts reported from their parking contractor. It is the OIG’s interpretation
that the Marina cannot deduct their parking contractor expenses to net the Gross Receipts.
While this is easy to follow in the Lease, it is customary that parking contractors are
retained to run a professional parking program. This item should be reviewed further by
the City as there does not appear to be malicious intent. If there are no disputed
discrepancies by the Marina, the Asset Division will correct the billings, but the Marina has
already disputed this interpretation and advised this billing model will put them in the red.
Further discussions are needed on this item.
OIG REPLY
The OIG does not interpret the Lease Agreement but consults with the City Attorney’s Office and
relies on its interpretation of lease terms. The Lease Agreement states “35% of gross receipts”
and not net of gross receipts. The City is not privy to MBMA’s contracts with third parties.
Therefore, the OIG stands by its findings. For additional information, refer to Finding 3 in Appendix
II.
4) THE ANNUAL REPORTS PROVIDED BY THE LESSEE DO NOT FULLY COMPLY WITH
LEASE REQUIREMENTS
Recommendations
The Asset Management Division should ensure that the Lessee complies with the annual audit
reporting requirements of Article IV of the Lease Agreement. The accountant performing the audit
should certify that all financial information, including the State sales tax return, has been
completely examined.
CITY ASSET MANAGEMENT RESPONSE:
The Asset Management Division has requested approval to add additional staffing or
retaining the services of a third-party auditor to conduct annual audits on behalf of the
Asset Management Division.
OIG REPLY
This Finding does not require that the Asset Management Division perform annual audits.Rather,
the Division's supervisory responsibilities should include ensuring that the Marina complies with
the annual reporting requirements outlined in the Lease Agreement.The OIG provides
independent,reliable audits of City contracts in accordance with its contract oversight function.
5)BUSINESSES OPERATING WITHOUT ACTIVE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS (BTRs)
Recommendations
a.MBMA,SMI,and their sublessees at the Miami Beach Marina must obtain the required annual
Business Tax Receipts (BTRs)per City Code Section 102-377.
b.MBMA should implement procedures to ensure that it and its subtenants maintain an active
BTR while operating within the marina.
c.The Asset Management Division should monitor compliance with the relevant rules and
regulations.
d.The Asset Management Division must notify the Code Compliance Department to investigate
and address violations concerning unlicensed Lessees,operators,and sublessees in
accordance with City Code Section 102-377.
CITY ASSET MANAGEMENT RESPONSE:
a.MBMA,SMI,and their sublessees at the Miami Beach Marina must obtain the required annual
Business Tax Receipts (BTRs)per City Code Section 102-377.Yes,they should.
b.MBMA should implement procedures to ensure that it and its subtenants maintain an active
BTR while operating within the marina.The Asset Management Division will remind MBMA to
communicate with their tenants on the importance of renewing and obtaining BTR's.The
Asset Management Division reviews BTRs for all agreements under its purview not for the
subtenants.The BTRs for boat slip operators are monitored by the Finance Department,
Marine &Waterfront Protection Authority and Code Enforcement.The Asset Division is
there to assist.
c.The Asset Management Division should monitor compliance with the relevant rules and
regulations.The Asset Management Division is responsible for monitoring and overseeing
certain City Agreements and ensure those Tenants/Operators are in compliance with the
Lease/Agreement requirements.The Asset Management Division will communicate all
infractions it is made aware of to Code Enforcement and/or other relevant City
departments.
d.The Asset Management Division must notify the Code Compliance Department to investigate
and address violations concerning unlicensed Lessee,operator,and sublessees,in accordance
with City Code Section 102-377.The Asset Management Division has been directly
reviewing compliance of BTR's for its Tenants since 2021.As the Code Compliance
Department is short-staffed,the Asset Management Division is also very short-staffed
(team of three).The BTRs for boat slip operators are monitored by the Finance Department,
Marine &Waterfront Protection Authority and Code Enforcement.However,the Asset
Page 31 of 33
Management Division will communicate all infarctions it is made aware of to Code
Enforcement and/or other relevant City departments.
OIG REPLY:
Prior to receiving the Asset Management Division's formal responses,discussions between the
OIG's Senior Auditor and the Division's Director led to changes in the draft report to incorporate
newly provided information.Accordingly,the Background section now acknowledges the
Division's limited staffing resources and includes recommendations for additional personnel.
Additionally,OIG revisions to Findings 5 (c)and (d)address the underlying concerns,rendering
management's formal responses no longer applicable.
6)BOAT CLUBS WITH MORE THAN FIVE WET SLIPS ARE OPERATING AT THE MARINA
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CITY MANAGER
Recommendations
•The Lessee should obtain the necessary consent from the City Manager for any boat clubs
operating with more than five slips at the marina.
•The Asset Management Division should implement stronger oversight and review processes
to ensure all lease terms,including sublease and assignment requirements,are followed.
CITY ASSET MANAGEMENT RESPONSE:
These Boat Clubs have been operating at the Marina since 2019 (Freedom Boat Club -
Dock E)and 2014 (Barton and Grey Boat Club-Dock H).The Asset Management Division
Director has reviewed this lease stipulation with the Marina Manager to ensure they are
aware of the requirements going forward.
OIG REPLY:
Currently,there is no formal agreement addressing payments to MBMA beyond the standard
dockage fee.The Asset Management Division should evaluate potential amendments to the
Lease Agreement to ensure that any additional revenues are clearly defined and included in the
gross receipts reported to the City.For additional information,refer to Finding 6 in Appendix II.
7)INCORRECT SALES TAX RATE COLLECTED ON COMMERCIAL RENT
Recommendations
The Asset Management Division needs to recalculate the sales tax due and collected during 2022.
Sublessees should be credited by the City for any overbilled amounts;the City should seek credits
from the State;and future payments to the State should be adjusted accordingly.Additionally,the
Asset Management Division should regularly check the Florida Department of Revenue website
for updates on any changes to the sales tax rate.This will help ensure that the correct amounts
are remitted to the State in the future.
CITY ASSET MANAGEMENT RESPONSE:
The Asset Management Division will recalculate the sales tax due and collected during
2022 to issue credits where due.The Asset Management Division does keep track of
changes in the state sales tax.However,oversights by human error are always possible.
Page 32 of 33
8)DOCKAGE RATE INCREASES NOT PROPERLY APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER
AND DISCREPANCIES IN BILLING RESULT IN OVERBILLING OF $8,135.86
Recommendations
The Asset Management Division should request that the Lessee,Miami Beach Marina Associates,
update its request for dockage rate approval to include all applicable billing rates,ensuring
compliance with Article IV of the Lease Agreement.The Division should consistently verify the
completeness of information provided by the Lessee.On November 28,2023,the OIG Auditor
promptly informed the Asset Management Division management of this issue.
CITY ASSET MANAGEMENT RESPONSE:
The Asset Management Division Notifies the City Manager each year of the request for the
dockage rate increase in writing.In November 2023,the Asset Management team notified
Sam Chavers at the MBMA of the missing rates for the boat lifts at Docks A &M and they
corrected and provided the information immediately.The OIG auditor was provided this
update on December 4,2023.
OIG REPLY
Best practices in management oversight and enforcement of City contracts dictate that dockage
rate increases should take effect only upon written approval received from the City Manager.
Page 33 of 33