AUDIT REPORT
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
Community Development Block Grant
Disaster Assistance Fund
New York, New York
2005-NY-1008
September 27, 2005
OFFICE OF AUDIT
New York/New Jersey Region
Issue Date
September 27, 2005
Audit Report Number
2005-NY-1008
TO: Nelson R. Bregon, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning
and Development, D
FROM: Edgar Moore, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 2AGA
SUBJECT: Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, New York, New York,
Community Development Block Grant Disaster Assistance Funds
HIGHLIGHTS
What We Audited and Why
Pursuant to a congressional mandate, we performed the fifth of our ongoing audits
of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation’s (the auditee) administration
of the Community Development Block Grant (Block Grant) Disaster Assistance
funds provided to the State of New York following the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has allocated $2.783
billion in Disaster Assistance funds to the auditee, and during our audit period of
October 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005, the auditee disbursed $47 million of
these funds for activities related to the rebuilding of lower Manhattan.
Our audit objectives were to determine whether the auditee (1) disbursed Disaster
Assistance funds in accordance with HUD-approved action plans, (2) expended
Disaster Assistance funds for eligible planning and administrative expenses in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations, (3) maintained a financial
management system that adequately safeguarded Disaster Assistance funds, and
(4) developed and implemented procedures to recover funds owed to the
Residential Grant Program.
What We Found
We found that the auditee generally disbursed Disaster Assistance funds in
accordance with the HUD-approved action plans. The auditee also expended
Disaster Assistance funds for eligible planning and administrative expenses in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and maintained a financial
management system that adequately safeguarded the funds. However, the auditee
disbursed $2,028,282 in Disaster Assistance funds for items either not included in
the budget of the subrecipient agreement for the Hudson River Park
Improvements Program, or for costs incurred before the time of performance
specified in the agreement. Additionally, the auditee developed and implemented
collection procedures to recover funds owed to the Residential Grant Program.
However, its collection efforts were not always fully documented, and there is a
need to consider additional actions to recover amounts owed.
What We Recommend
We recommend that HUD’s general deputy assistant secretary for community
planning and development require the auditee to reimburse the $2,028,282
disbursed for expenses either not included in the budget of the subrecipeint
agreement for the Hudson River Park Improvements Program, or for costs
incurred before the time of performance specified in the agreement. This
reimbursement should be from nonfederal funds so that the funds can be put to
better use. We also recommend that the auditee maintain complete
documentation of its efforts to collect amounts owed to the Residential Grant
Program and consider additional actions to address the collection of the $6.4
million owed to the Residential Grant Program as of March 31, 2005.
For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and
provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3.
Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the
audit.
Auditee’s Response
Auditee officials generally agreed with our findings, and noted that action has
been taken to address the issues raised. Specifically, the auditee advised that it
obtained additional invoices for costs that conform to the subrecipient agreement
under the Hudson River Park Improvement Program to substitute for the costs
found not to conform to the agreement. The auditee is also considering additional
procedures to collect funds owed to the Residential Grant Program. We discussed
the contents of the report with the auditee during the audit and at an exit
conference on September 14, 2005, and they provided written comments on
September 21, 2005.
The complete text of the auditee’s comments can be found in Appendix B.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background and Objectives 4
Results of Audit
Finding 1 Disaster Assistance Funds Were Disbursed Contrary to the Terms of
the Subrecipient Agreement for the Hudson River Park Improvements
Program
6
Finding 2 Residential Grant Program Collection Efforts Need to be Fully
Documented and Additional Actions Should Be Considered 8
Scope and Methodology 11
Internal Controls 12
Followup on Prior Audits 14
Appendixes
A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds to Be Put to Better Use 15
B. Auditee Comments and OIG’s Evaluation 16
C. Schedule of Program Funding and Disbursements as of March 31, 2005 20
3
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan took a
devastating toll on New York City. Negative impacts were immediately felt in both the housing
market and the quality-of-life in lower Manhattan. The development of programs with significant
incentives, encouraging individuals to remain in or move to housing in lower Manhattan, as well
as improving the living conditions in lower Manhattan, was greatly needed. In the aftermath of
the terrorist attacks, Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to provide the State of New York with $3.483 billion in Community
Development Block Grant (Block Grant) Disaster Assistance. On November 5, 2001, the Office
of Management and Budget designated $700 million in Block Grant funding for New York City
out of the Emergency Response Fund that Congress had appropriated. 1 On January 10, 2002,
Congress appropriated an additional $2 billion for Block Grant funding, earmarking at least $500
million to compensate small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and individuals for their
economic losses. 2 On August 2, 2002, Congress appropriated an additional $783 million in
Block Grant funding. 3
The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (auditee) was created in December 2001 as a
subsidiary of the Empire State Development Corporation to function as a joint city-state
development corporation. The auditee was designated by the State of New York to develop
programs and distribute $2.783 billion of the $3.483 billion appropriated by Congress in the
January and August 2002 Emergency Supplemental Acts. The Empire State Development
Corporation, the parent company of the auditee, administers the remaining $700 million.
A 16-member board of directors, appointed equally by the governor of New York and the mayor
of New York City, manages the affairs of the auditee. The Auditee’s chairman of the board is
Mr. John C. Whitehead, and its president is Mr. Stefan Pryor. The Empire State Development
Corporation performs all accounting functions for the auditee, including payroll, payments to the
auditee’s vendors, and drawing down funds from HUD.
As of March 31, 2005, HUD had approved 10 partial action plans for the auditee, which
allocated approximately $1.9 billion, or 68.7 percent, of the $2.783 billion appropriated (See
appendix C for programs and amounts). As of March 31, 2005, the auditee had disbursed $877
million, or 46 percent, of the $1.9 billion allocated.
1
2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the
United States, Pub. L. 107-38, 115 Stat. 220 (2001).
2
The Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act 2002 (Emergency Supplemental Act 2002), Pub. L. 107-117, 115 Stat.
2336 (2002).
3
The 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United
States, Pub. L. 107-206.
4
For the audit period of October 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005, we reviewed disbursements
related to the following: (1) the World Trade Center Memorial and Cultural Program; (2) the
Hudson River Park Improvements Program; (3) the Lower Manhattan Tourism Program, and
(4) the auditee’s planning and administrative expenses. In addition, we reviewed the auditee’s
efforts to collect amounts owed to the Residential Grant Program, as well as funds disbursed for
planning and administrative expenses related to the Utility Restoration and Infrastructure
Rebuilding Program.
For the items tested, our review disclosed expenditure exceptions under the Hudson River Park
Improvements Program and in the auditee’s documentation of collection efforts taken to recover
funds owed to the Residential Grant Program.
Hudson River Park Improvements Program
Under Partial Action Plan No. 4, approved by HUD on August 6, 2003, the auditee proposed to
provide up to $2.6 million for improvements to Hudson River Park. The improvements include
creating a set of new tennis courts and converting the courtyard of the Pier 40 complex at
Houston Street into recreational field space for use as baseball and soccer fields. The auditee
believes that the creation of these public recreational facilities will improve the quality of life in
lower Manhattan, making it a more desirable place to live, which will not only help retain
existing residents, but also attract more residents and visitors to the area. The auditee executed a
subrecipient agreement appointing the Hudson River Park Trust as the administrator of the
program. Funds for this program come from the initial $2 billion appropriation Congress
authorized on January 10, 2002, under the Defense Appropriations Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
117.
Residential Grant Program
On June 7, 2002, HUD approved Partial Action Plan No. 1, which allocated $280,500,000 to the
Residential Grant Program. This program seeks to compensate individuals for the extraordinary
expenses they may have incurred as a result of the disaster, as well as create incentives for
individuals and families to rent, purchase, or remain in housing in lower Manhattan. We audited
the Residential Grant Program in two of our prior audits. The auditee established a master
repayment list to monitor funds owed the Residential Grant Program due to processing errors
and/or recipients that broke the grant commitment to reside at an eligible address for two years.
Our audit objectives were to determine whether the auditee (1) disbursed Disaster Assistance
funds in accordance with HUD-approved action plans, (2) expended Disaster Assistance funds
for eligible planning and administrative expenses in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations, (3) maintained a financial management system that adequately safeguarded Disaster
Assistance funds, and (4) developed and implemented procedures to recover funds owed to the
Residential Grant Program.
5
RESULTS OF AUDIT
Finding 1: Disaster Assistance Funds Were Disbursed Contrary to the Terms of
the Subrecipient Agreement for the Hudson River Park Improvements
Program
Our review disclosed that the auditee disbursed Disaster Assistance funds for costs that did not
conform to the subrecipient agreement for the Hudson River Park Improvements Program. It
allowed Disaster Assistance funds to be disbursed for (a) items not included in the budget of the
subrecipient agreement and (b) costs incurred before the time of performance date specified in
the subrecipient agreement. These deficiencies occurred because the auditee did not ensure that
the invoices submitted for payment complied with the subrecipient agreement. As a result,
$2,028,282 was disbursed for items either not included in the budget of the subrecipeint
agreement for the Hudson River Park Improvements Program, or for costs incurred before the
time of performance specified in the subrecipient agreement. Consequently, the auditee should
be required to reimburse the $2,028,282 disbursed so that these funds can be put to better use.
Funds Disbursed for Costs Not
Approved in the Subrecipient
Agreement
The auditee disbursed $734,651 for costs that were not initially approved as budgeted
items under the subrecipient agreement related to the Hudson River Park Improvements
Program. Section III of the subrecipient agreement, entitled “Budget,” provides that the
auditee is to fund $2.6 million of the $6,652,506 overall program budget. The agreement
allocated the $2.6 million between two activities: tennis courts (budget line item C
4082), funded at $1,002,229 and Pier 40 general construction (budget line item C 4108),
funded at $1,597,771. Section X, item D.2, of the subrecipient agreement, entitled
“Subcontracts,” provides that the “Subrecipient shall not enter into any subcontracts with
any agency or individual in the performance of this agreement without the written
consent of Grantee [the auditee] prior to the execution of such subcontract agreement.”
The subrecipient submitted and the auditee reimbursed four invoices totaling $670,078
for work done by an electrical subcontractor under budget line item C 4110, which was
not approved to be funded by the auditee under the subrecipient agreement. These
invoices were dated between July and November 2004 and were paid in January 2005.
We found no evidence that the auditee gave written consent to the subrecipient for the
services of the electrical subcontractor. We also found that the auditee reimbursed the
subrecipient $64,573 for granite materials purchased directly by the subrecipient from a
supplier and invoiced to the auditee as a reimbursement to the general contractor.
However, granite materials were not identified in the subrecipient agreement as being
funded by the auditee.
6
Funds Disbursed for Services
Performed Before the Time of
Performance Specified in the
Subrecipient Agreement
Section II of the subrecipient agreement, entitled “Time of Performance,” provides that
services of the subrecipient are to start on August 1, 2004. Section IV, entitled
“Payment,” provides that payment of eligible expenses shall be made against the line
item budgets specified in section III (“Budget”) and in accordance with performance as
specified in sections I and II (“Scope of Service” and “Time of Performance”). However,
during our review of the supporting documentation for the invoices submitted by the
subrecipient, we found four invoices totaling $1,293,631 for services performed before
August 1, 2004, which were reimbursed by the auditee. Although these services were for
tennis courts ($440,721) and Pier 40 general construction ($852,910), the costs were
incurred before the time of performance specified in the subrecipient agreement;
therefore, they should not be allowed.
Recommendations
We recommend that HUD’s general deputy assistant secretary for community planning
and development require the auditee to
1A. Reimburse from nonfederal sources the $2,028,282 disbursed under the Hudson
River Park Improvements Program so that these funds can be put to better use.
1B. Review and enhance its control procedures to ensure that Disaster Assistance funds
are disbursed for only contracted items and costs incurred during the time of
performance specified in the subrecipient agreement.
7
Finding 2: Residential Grant Program Collection Efforts Need to be
Fully Documented and Additional Actions Should Be
Considered
The auditee developed and implemented procedures to recover funds owed to the Residential
Grant Program; however, its collection efforts were not always fully documented, and there is a
need to consider additional actions to recover amounts owed. To date, the auditee concentrated
on disbursing program funds to encourage individuals to maintain housing in lower Manhattan
rather than on collection activities. Consequently, the auditee needs to fully document its
collections efforts and consider additional actions to address recovery of the $6,441,103 owed by
Residential Grant Program recipients as of March 31, 2005, so that these funds can be put to
better use.
Auditee Collection Procedures
As of March 31, 2005, Residential Grant Program recipients owed $6,441,103 to
the program. While some of the $6.4 million was due to erroneous payments,
$6.1 million, or 95 percent, was the result of program recipients who broke the
commitment made under the program regulations to reside in lower Manhattan for
at least two years.
The auditee tracks amounts owed to the Residential Grant Program through its
master repayment list and has established procedures to recover funds owed. The
program administrator for the Residential Grant Program sends a letter to
recipients who have broken their commitment to reside at an eligible address for
two years in accordance with the guidelines. The auditee sends an initial letter to
recipients requesting repayment of funds owed 30 days after the program
administrator’s letter. If no response is received, the auditee sends another letter
60 days after the initial request for repayment. For those Residential Grant
Program recipients who have been identified as owing funds due to errors, the
auditee sends a letter requesting repayment, and if no response is received, the
auditee sends another letter 60 days after the initial request for repayment. To
date, additional collection procedures have not been established.
Documentation of Collection
Efforts Was Incomplete
Our review and testing of grant recipients listed on the master repayment list as of
March 31, 2005, found that the auditee properly accounted for funds repaid to the
Residential Grant Program. We also found that the auditee maintained several
files that track the date and type of letter sent, as well as the postal service
certified letter number, if applicable. However, the auditee did not have
complete documentation of the actions taken to collect all amounts owed to the
8
Residential Grant Program. Our review of 110 Residential Grant Program
recipients to whom the auditee sent 30 or 60 day letters disclosed that the auditee
did not document that letters were sent to 25 recipients. Auditee officials advised
that letters were sent to the 25 recipients by its consultant that maintained the
master repayment list. Nevertheless, to document a complete audit trail, all
correspondence related to the auditee’s collection actions, should be maintained to
facilitate review and audit by HUD as required by the alternative procedures
published in the Federal Register.
Additional Collection Action
Needs to Be Considered
The auditee’s collection procedures consist of sending 30 and 60 day letters,
permitting an appeal process, and allowing amounts owed to be written off if
certain conditions have been met. Through March 31, 2005, the auditee had
granted appeals, reversed denials, collected, and/or written off $3,093,947 of
amounts originally owed to the Residential Grant Program. Auditee records
report that $6.4 million is currently owed the Residential Grant Program.
However, to ensure collection of these funds, additional analysis of the balance
should be initiated to determine the collection potential of the accounts and what
if any alternative collection activity is needed.
Our analysis of these accounts is presented in the chart below. Of the total 1,225
accounts, 72 accounts owing $1,000 or less comprised less than half a percent of
all amounts owed. In addition, 606 recipients, owing more than $5,000 but less
than $12,000, accounted for 73 percent of all funds owed. Therefore, the auditee
should analyze these accounts for collectibility and consider additional action to
address the recovery of the $6,441,103 owed, so that any recovered funds can be
put to better use.
9
Residential Grant Program recipients with balances owed
100%
$7,000,000
$6,441,103
$6,000,000
73.35%
$5,000,000 $4,724,795
Amount of funds owed
$4,000,000 Count
1,225
$3,000,000
26.21%
$2,000,000 $1,688,250 606
$1,000,000
.44% 547
72 $28,058
$0
< 1,000.00 1,000.00 -> 4,999.99 5,000.00 -> 12,000.00
Range of balances
Auditee officials stated that their efforts were concentrated on disbursing
Residential Grant Program funds to individuals to encourage them to maintain
housing in lower Manhattan. Further, the auditee stated that it is exploring the
possibility of contracting with a collection agency or having in-house legal
personnel pursue outstanding Residential Grant Program amounts owed. The
auditee should consider these viable options.
Recommendations
We recommend that HUD’s general deputy assistant secretary for community
planning and development require the auditee to
2A. Ensure that its efforts to collect amounts owed to the Residential Grant
Program are fully documented.
2B. Consider additional actions to address the collection of the $6,441,103
owed to the Residential Grant Program so that these funds can be put to
better use.
10
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The auditee received $2.783 billion in Disaster Assistance Funds from HUD.
During our audit period, October 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005, the auditee
disbursed $47 million of these funds for activities related to the rebuilding of
lower Manhattan. We tested $24 million, representing approximately 51 percent
of the amount disbursed for the period.
To achieve our audit objectives we reviewed
• Applicable laws, regulations, and program requirements;
• HUD-approved partial action plans; and
• The auditee’s accounting books and records.
We examined and tested the documentation supporting disbursements related to
the following programs:
- World Trade Center Memorial and Cultural
- Hudson River Park Improvements
- Lower Manhattan Tourism
In addition, we reviewed the payroll records and timesheets of the auditee’s
subrecipient for the Utility Restoration and Infrastructure Rebuilding Program.
We also reviewed the Auditee’s procedures for recovering funds owed to
Residential Grant Program.
In review of the Hudson River Park Improvements Program, we tested 100
percent of the disbursements made for the period because the population was
relatively small and it was feasible for us to review each item in the population.
We used representative (nonstatistical) sampling to assess the auditee’s
procedures for recovering funds owed to the Residential Grant Program.
The audit covered the period from October 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005, and
was expanded when necessary. We performed our on-site work at the auditee’s
office, the office of program administrator for the Residential Grant Program, and
the office of the auditee’s parent company, the Empire State Development
Corporation, from April through August 2005.
We performed our review in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
11
INTERNAL CONTROLS
Internal controls are an integral component of an organization’s management that provides
reasonable assurance that the following objectives are achieved:
• Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,
• Reliability of financial reporting, and
• Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Internal controls relate to management’s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet its
mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and procedures for
planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. They include the systems
for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.
Relevant Internal Controls
We determined the following internal controls were relevant to our audit objectives:
• Program operations - Policies and procedures that management has
implemented to reasonably ensure that a program meets its objectives.
• Compliance with laws and regulations - Policies and procedures that
management has implemented to reasonably ensure that resource use is
consistent with laws and regulations.
• Safeguarding resources - Policies and procedures that management has
implemented to reasonably ensure that resources are safeguarded against
waste, loss, and misuse.
• Validity and reliability of data - Policies and procedures that management
has implemented to reasonably ensure that valid and reliable data are
obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports.
We assessed the relevant controls identified above.
A weakness exists if management controls do not provide reasonable assurance that
the process for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations
will meet the organization’s objectives.
12
Weaknesses
Based on our review, we believe that the following controls contain reportable
weaknesses:
• Program operations –The Auditee’s collection efforts were not always fully
documented and additional actions to recover funds owed to the Residential
Grant Program need to be considered (see finding 2).
• Compliance with laws and regulations – Funds were disbursed for either items
not included in the budget of the subrecipient agreement for the Hudson River
Park Improvements Program, or for costs incurred before the time of
performance specified in the subrecipient agreement (see finding 1).
13
FOLLOWUP ON PRIOR AUDITS
Prior Report Number and Date
We issued Audit Report number 2005-NY-1003 on March 23, 2005. The report
contained two audit findings with recommendations for corrective action. The
findings involved deficiencies in the administrative costs related to the Utility
Restoration and Infrastructure Rebuilding Program and lack of written
documentation to ensure monitoring was performed. The auditee has implemented
corrective actions to address our cited deficiencies, and the HUD Office of
Community Planning and Development established September 30, 2005, as the
target date for the Auditee to complete its corrective actions and for HUD to verify
the corrective actions were taken.
We issued Audit Report number 2004-NY-1004 on September 15, 2004. The report
contained one audit finding with recommendations for corrective action. The
finding involved deficiencies in the processing of businesses applications for grants
under the Employment Training Assistance Program. The auditee has implemented
corrective actions to address our cited deficiencies, and the HUD Office of
Community Planning and Development has extended the established target date to
September 30, 2005, to verify the corrective actions.
14
APPENDIXES
Appendix A
SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS
AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE
Recommendation Funds to be put
number to better use 1/
1A $ 2,028,282
2A $ 6,441,103
Total $ 8,469,385
1/ “Funds to be put to better use” are quantifiable savings that are anticipated to occur if an
Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommendation is implemented, resulting in reduced
expenditures at a later time for the activities in question. This includes costs not incurred,
deobligation of funds, withdrawal of interest, reductions in outlays, avoidance of
unnecessary expenditures, loans and guarantees not made, and other savings.
15
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
16
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 1
Comment 2
17
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 3
Comment 4
18
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Comment 1 The auditee concurs with the finding. It has obtained additional invoices from the
subrecipient for costs that conform to the subrecipient agreement under the
Hudson River Park Improvement Program to substitute for the $2,028,282 in
costs that did not conform. We recommend that HUD verify the eligibility of the
substituted costs and ensure that the implemented procedures are operating as
intended.
Comment 2 The auditee concurs with the recommendation and plans to conduct training that
will emphasize ensuring that Disaster Assistance funds are disbursed only for
eligible expenses within the scope of applicable agreements.
Comment 3 The auditee concurs with the finding.
Comment 4 The auditee has agreed to consider additional collection procedures, and will
continue to implement the current collection procedures.
19
Appendix C
SCHEDULE OF PROGRAM FUNDING AND
DISBURSEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 2005
Audit period
disbursements Cumulative Balance
Budget as of October 1, 2004 – disbursed as of remaining as of
PROGRAM March 31, 2005 March 31, 2005 March 31, 2005 March 31, 2005
Residential Grant $280,500,000 $11,828,197 $231,696,699 $48,803,301
Employment Training
500,000 38,643 265,452 234,548
Assistance
Memorial Design and
350,000 0 299,969 50,031
Installation
Columbus Park Renovation 428,571 0 0 428,571
Marketing History/
4,664,000 857,383 1,316,778 3,347,222
Heritage Museums
Downtown Alliance
4,000,000 1,364,129 4,000,000 0
Streetscape
New York Stock Exchange
10,160,000 0 0 10,160,000
Area Improvements
Parks and Open Space 27,481,689 0 0 27,481,689
Hudson River Park
2,600,000 2,466,968 2,466,968 133,032
Improvements
Millennium High School 3,007,500 0 0 3,007,500
West Street Pedestrian
21,155,811 1,591,172 12,840,920 8,314,891
Crossing
Public Service Activities 7,296,900 1,512,258 1,771,044 5,525,856
Lower Manhattan
Community Outreach 1,000,000 330,060 540,760 459,240
Green Roof Project 100,000 0 0 100,000
Chinatown Tourism and
Marketing 1,000,000 111,000 333,500 666,500
Lower Manhattan
Information 2,570,000 921,072 921,072 1,648,928
4
Business Recovery Grant 224,500,000 -100,112 13,909,338 10,590,662
Job Creation and Retention 150,000,000 3,133,000 53,710,020 96,289,980
Small Firm Attraction
50,000,000 0 0 50,000,000
Grant
World Trade Center
265,077,400 13,161,057 111,378,213 153,699,187
Memorial and Cultural
Lower Manhattan Tourism 3,450,000 1,642,835 1,880,447 1,569,553
Disproportionate Loss of
33,000,000 0 32,999,997 3
Workforce
Utility Restoration and
735,000,000 0 160,313,178 574,686,822
Infrastructure Rebuilding
Administration and
85,459,938 8,098,062 46,758,704 38,701,234
Planning
TOTALS 1,913,301,809 $46,955,725 $877,403,059 $1,035,898,750
4
Represents funds collected and returned to the program.
20
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation's Administration of Community Development Block Grant, Disaster Assistance Funds, New York, New York
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2005-09-27.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)