Lease Audit - Solutions - Case Study
Improper Assessment of Asset Management
Fee and Salaries
At the request of National Corporation
(the "Tenant"), CRS conducted a review of the
operating expense invoices and associated supporting material related
to the lease ("Lease") for property located at 525 Corporate
Road between National Corporation and AMD Properties
(the "Landlord"). We specifically examined the records for
the years 1997 through 2001. Based on our review we noted the
following discrepancies in the Landlord's application of operating and
other expenses allocated to National Corporation under the
Lease:
Costs of asset management are typically an
ownership expense and not an operating expense. The Lease
specifically states the types of Landlord employee expenses that are
allowable as operating expenses, and states in Section 1.1.d:
"Compensation provided in the form of
wages, salaries and other compensation and benefits (including
insurance, welfare, retirement, vacation, holiday, sick pay and other
fringe benefits) as well as any adjustments thereto for the following
classes of employees, employee of agents, or agents of Landlord
performing services rendered in connection with the management,
operation and maintenance of the Land and the Building in proportion
to the actual amount of time spent performing such services.
i. superintendent of the Building;
ii. Building department heads and assistants;
iii. Clerical and accounting staff…"
Thus, Building superintendent is the highest
level of employee that the Landlord is entitled to pass through as an
operating expense. Stated another way, there is no provision in the
Lease by which the Landlord can legitimately assess as an operating
expense the asset management fees, inflated asset manager salary, and
other salaries that the Landlord improperly included as part of National
Corporation's operating expenses.
The salary expenses actually included in the
operating expenses are, among other things, at various times, the
salary of Mr. John Green, who pursuant to his affidavit is the
"Asset Manager," and Mr. William Black and Richard Harrison,
both of whom are described as Building Superintendent.
Mr. Green functionally acts as the Building
superintendent not only for 525 Corporate Road, but also for another
significant multi-tenanted office Building adjacent to the subject
building. Thus, although a portion of Mr. Green's salary may be
allowed as an operating expense, charging his entire salary to the
Building is a gross overcharge. Additionally Mr. Black and Mr.
Harrison are principals of the ownership group and were not and are
not active in the daily management, operation and maintenance of the
Building.
The inclusion of these items (Asset
Management Fee and the salaries for Mr. Green [not allocated] and
Mssrs. Black and Harrison) resulted in significant increases in
Building Management salaries since the Base Year. Details of these
overcharges are listed on the attached Schedule 2, Salary Comparison.
What is most interesting about this discrepancy is that in 1996 the
salary expense for Building Property Manager was $38,303.49; this
amount should be starkly contrasted with the sums that the Landlord
later assessed as operating expenses under the Lease:
1997
1998
1999
2000 2001
$42,916.95 $118,715.63 $89,851.85 $154,900.33 $151,831.67
The Lease exclusions contained in Section
3.4.c expressly state that the Landlord can not charge for
"Landlord's general corporate overhead and administrative
expenses, including wages and benefits of Landlord's staff employees
(except as described in section 1.1.d:)."
Based on the above, the Asset Management Fee
of $45,000 in 1998 and Mssrs. Black's and Harrison's salaries in 2000
and 2001 are not allowable operating expenses. Additionally, as Mr.
Green allocates part of his time to managing another similar property,
no more than one half (and possibly less?) of his salary may be
chargeable as an operating expense under the Lease. In fact, during
our initial audit we were informed that the base year salary was so
low due to the fact that the Building's Manager's time and expenses
were allocated to other properties.
The effect of these adjustments is
detailed on Schedule 2, Salary Compensation - Proposed Adjustments,
and results in a reduction of operating expenses (management salaries)
in the amount of $366,594.28 from 1998 through 2001.
| Schedule 2 - Salary Comparison |
|
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
|
Building Manager Salary (A) |
42,916.95 |
73,715.63 |
89,851.85 |
|
|
|
Asset Management Fee (B) |
|
45,000.00 |
|
|
|
|
General Bldg. Maint. (Building Manager) (C) |
|
|
|
62,009.74 |
71,831.63 |
|
Building Superintendent (D) |
|
|
|
92,890.59 |
80,000.04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
42,916.95 |
118,715.63 |
89,851.85 |
154,900.33 |
151,831.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent Increase over Base |
|
177% |
109% |
261% |
254% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed Adjustments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(A) |
|
(36,857.82) |
(44,925.93) |
|
|
|
(B) |
|
(45,000.00) |
|
|
|
|
(C) |
|
|
|
(31,004.87) |
(35,915.82) |
|
(D) |
|
|
|
(92,890.59) |
(80,000.04) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Exclusions |
|
(81,857.82) |
(44,925.93) |
(123,895.46) |
(115,915.86) |
Conclusion:
National Corporation is owed a credit in
the amount of $366,594.28
|