
MINUTES OF AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING 
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2009    P. 2  
 
Apr 14 SCM Audit Min 
Internal Audit Report of Bell Harbor International Conference Center 
 
Presentation documents:  Computer slide presentation from Joyce Kirangi and report titled, 
“Internal Audit Report – Bell Harbor International Conference Center (BHICC) Management 
Services Agreement No.488” 
 
Presenters:  Ms. Kirangi and Margaret Songtantaruk, Internal Auditor 
 
Staff provided background on the audit, which was conducted for the period of January 1, 
2005 through December 31, 2007. 
 
Ms. Kirangi spoke to the objectives of the audit, which included determining: 
 
1.  Whether Columbia Hospitality, Inc. (CHI) complied with the provisions of the 
management services agreement, as well as other applicable laws and regulations, and 
2.  Whether Port management effectively monitored the agreement with Columbia 
Hospitality, Inc. 
 
Ms. Kirangi noted that there was only one area of concern within this particular audit, which 
was from a management point of view, and the need to be more connected to the 
management of the agreement, as well as the need to further monitor the day-to-day 
operations of the contractor who monitors activities at Bell Harbor. 
 
Regarding the inadequate monitoring system of BHICC, staff addressed the following, more 
specific issues: 
 
  Lack of an established level of monitoring related to the third-party employee 
compensation costs paid by the Port 
  Unsubstantiated methodology or support for cost allocation 
  Improper advance of public funds for private activities 
  Improper classification of expenses 
  Ineffective monitoring of sales activity to CHI and its affiliates 
 
Staff clarified to the Committee that other similar contracts to the one being discussed are 
with the World Trade Center Seattle, which CHI also manages, and also a contract with 
Wright-Runstad. 
 
It was noted that although there are areas of concern with CHI, CHI is doing what they are 
allowed to under the current contract.  It was suggested that the contract be looked at 
regarding possible double incentives being provided, when perhaps there should be one 
incentive. 
 
It was suggested that staff return in 90 days to follow-up on the implementation of changes 
recommended as a result of the audit.