AUDIT REPORT
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
Community Development Block Grant
Disaster Recovery Assistance Fund
New York, New York
2006-NY-1006
March 31, 2006
OFFICE OF AUDIT
New York/New Jersey Region
Issue Date
March 31, 2006
Audit Report Number
2006-NY-1006
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 Recovery Assistance Funds
HIGHLIGHTS
What We Audited and Why
Pursuant to congressional mandate, we performed the sixth of our ongoing audits
of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation’s (the auditee) administration
of the Community Development Block Grant (Block Grant) Disaster Recovery
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 Recovery Assistance funds to the auditee, and during our audit
period of April 1 through September 30, 2005, the auditee disbursed $64 million
of these funds.
Our audit objectives were to determine whether the auditee (1) disbursed Disaster
Recovery Assistance funds in accordance with HUD-approved action plans, (2)
expended Disaster Recovery Assistance funds for eligible planning and
administrative expenses in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and
(3) maintained a financial management system that adequately safeguarded
Disaster Recovery Assistance funds.
What We Found
The auditee generally disbursed the $64 million in Disaster Recovery Assistance
funds in accordance with HUD-approved action plans. It also expended Disaster
Recovery 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. Our review disclosed
weaknesses in the auditee’s control procedures that permitted funds to be
disbursed contrary to the terms of its subrecipient agreements and charged to the
wrong program. Specifically, $259,712 was disbursed contrary to a subrecipient
agreement, $7.5 million was disbursed for eligible costs, but without auditee
approval as required by a subrecipient agreement, and $7,090 was charged to the
wrong program.
What We Recommend
We recommend that HUD’s general deputy assistant secretary for community
planning and development require the auditee to (1) obtain reimbursement for the
$259,712 disbursed contrary to the subreciepient agreement; (2) strengthen its
controls over the Disaster Revovery Assistance funds to ensure that funds are not
disbursed without proper approval and/or authorization; and (3) obtain
reimbursement for $7,090 incorrectly charged to the wrong program.
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
We discussed the contents of the report with the auditee during the audit and at an
exit conference held on March 21, 2006, and they provided written comments on
March 24, 2006. The auditee has taken corrective action in response to each
recommendation cited in the report. The complete text of the auditee’s response,
along with our evaluation of that response, can be found in appendix B of this
report.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background and Objectives 4
Results of Audit
Finding 1: Weaknesses in Control Procedures Permitted Funds to Be Disbursed 6
Contrary to Subrecipient Agreements and Charged to the Wrong Program
Scope and Methodology 9
Internal Controls 10
Follow-up on Prior Audits 12
Appendixes
A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds to Be Put to Better Use 13
B. Auditee Comments and OIG’s Evaluation 14
C. Schedule of Program Funding and Disbursements as of September 30, 2005 18
3
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in lower
Manhattan, 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 Recovery Assistance to assist with recovery and revitalization. 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 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.
Planned expenditures of Disaster Recovery Assistance funds are documented in action plans that
receive public comment and must be approved by HUD. As of September 30, 2005, HUD had
approved 10 partial action plans submitted by the auditee that provide for the allocation of
approximately $1.96 billion, or 70 percent, of the $2.783 billion appropriated (see appendix C for
amounts by program). As of September 30, 2005, the auditee had disbursed $942 million, or 48
percent, of the $1.96 billion allocated.
For the audit period of April 1 through September 30, 2005, we reviewed disbursements related
to the following: (1) the World Trade Center Memorial and Cultural Program, (2) the
Neighborhood Parks and Open Spaces Program, (3) the Public Service Activities Program, (4)
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
the Utility Restoration and Infrastructure Rebuilding Program – Category 2, (5) the Job Creation
and Retention Program, (6) the Lower Manhattan Communications Outreach Program, (7) the
Chinatown Tourism and Marketing Program, and (8) the History and Heritage Downtown
Marketing Initiative. In addition, we examined the auditee’s planning and administrative
expenses related to the Utility Restoration and Infrastructure Rebuilding Program and the Lower
Manhattan Construction Command Center and determined whether the auditee had expeditiously
reallocated unobligated funds remaining for programs that have been completed.
For the items tested, our review disclosed exceptions under the History and Heritage Downtown
Marketing Initiative, the Neighborhood Parks and Open Space Program, and the Job Creation
and Retention Program.
History and Heritage Downtown Marketing Initiative
The History and Heritage Downtown Marketing Initiative is intended to enrich the cultural
resources of lower Manhattan through a marketing initiative to promote downtown as a cultural
destination. The auditee executed three contracts with three different vendors for marketing
services associated with this program. Partial Action Plan No. 3 allocated more than $4.6
million to this program from the initial $2 billion appropriation.
Neighborhood Parks and Open Space Program
The Neighborhood Parks and Open Space Program is intended to enhance existing parks and
create new green spaces across residential communities in lower Manhattan for local workers, be
a draw for businesses, and improve the quality of life of downtown’s growing residential
population. Funding of nearly $26.1 million from the initial $2 billion appropriation was
approved by HUD through Partial Action Plan No. 4, which was later amended to increase
funding by more than $1.3 million, bringing the total allocation to almost $27.5 million. The
auditee executed a subrecipient agreement with the New York City Department of Parks and
Recreation on August 2, 2004, to administer this program.
Job Creation and Retention Program
The purpose of the Job Creation and Retention Program was to retain and create jobs in lower
Manhattan through grants, loan guarantees, and low-cost loans. HUD approved $150 million for
this program from the initial $2 billion appropriation in Partial Action Plan No. 2.
Our audit objectives were to determine whether the auditee (1) disbursed Disaster Recovery
Assistance funds in accordance with HUD-approved action plans, (2) expended Disaster
Recovery Assistance funds for eligible planning and administrative expenses in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations, and (3) maintained a financial management system that
adequately safeguarded Disaster Recovery Assistance funds.
5
RESULTS OF AUDIT
Finding 1: Weaknesses in Control Procedures Permitted Funds to Be
Disbursed Contrary to Subrecipient Agreements and Charged
to the Wrong Program
Weaknesses in the auditee’s internal controls caused Block Grant Disaster Recovery Assistance
funds to be disbursed contrary to the terms of the subrecipient agreements and charged to the
wrong program. Specifically, $259,712 was disbursed contrary to the subrecipient agreement for
the Neighborhood Parks and Open Space Program, nearly $7.5 million under the Job Creation
and Retention Program was disbursed without the approval of the auditee as required by the
subrecipient agreement, and $7,090 was incorrectly charged to the History and Heritage
Downtown Marketing Initiative. These weaknesses could result in the disbursement of funds for
other than intended purposes.
Parks and Open Space
Subrecipient Agreement
Requirements Were Not
Followed
The auditee executed a subrecipient agreement with the New York City Department
of Parks and Recreation on August 2, 2004, to administer the Neighborhood Parks
and Open Space Program. The program was created to enhance existing parks and
create new green spaces across the residential communities in lower Manhattan.
Section X, item D 2, of the subrecipient agreement required the subrecipient to obtain
the auditee’s written consent before entering into any subcontracts.
On May 4, 2005, contrary to the subrecipient agreement, the auditee disbursed nearly
$5.2 million to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation for services
performed on a subcontract that was not approved in writing by the auditee.
Consequently, there is a weakness in the controls over monitoring and approving
subcontracts for this program. However, since we determined that the disbursement
was for eligible program costs, we are not taking a monetary exception.
Of the nearly $5.2 million in disbursements reviewed, $259,712 represented funds
that should not have been disbursed to the subrecipient because all work was not
complete at the time of disbursement. Section IV of the subrecipient agreement
provided that payments would be made on a reimbursement basis to the subrecipient
for actual eligible costs incurred. According to the terms of the agreement, the
$259,712 was a retainer that should not have been paid until all work was complete.
Therefore, the subrecipient should not have been reimbursed this amount.
6
Funds Were Disbursed
Contrary to the Job Creation
and Retention Program
Subrecipient Agreement
The Empire State Development Corporation, the auditee’s parent company, created
the Job Creation and Retention Program to assist certain businesses in retaining and
creating jobs. In August 2003, the auditee entered into a subrecipient agreement with
its parent company under which the auditee agreed to provide its parent company
with $150 million in supplemental funding to continue the program. Section D of the
subrecipient agreement provided that the subrecipient would submit an invoice to the
auditee for the required funds for approval and the auditee would provide written
approval or disapproval of the invoice within five business days of receipt. When the
invoice was approved, the auditee would provide a HUD drawdown and transfer
request form authorizing the subrecipient (its parent company) to draw down the
funds from the U.S. Treasury. The subrecipient was also required to provide written
confirmation to the auditee when funds were withdrawn and transferred through the
bank accounts of both the auditee and the subrecipient.
The subrecipient made 10 withdrawals amounting to $7.5 million from the auditee’s
Disaster Recovery Assistance grant account for Job Creation and Retention Program
grant disbursements during the period April 1, 2005 through September 8, 2005.
Contrary to section D of the subrecipient agreement, the subrecipient did not obtain
the auditee’s written approval for any of these withdrawals. Further, our review
disclosed that an additional 22 withdrawals, totaling $51.1 million, were also made
without obtaining the auditee’s written approval during the period August 2003
through March 31, 2005. An official of the subrecipient told us that since the Job
Creation and Retention Program was originally one of its programs, it withdrew and
disbursed Disaster Recovery Assistance funds for the program as it had when it was
using its own funds. The official also stated that he was not aware that the
subrecipient agreement required the subrecipient to obtain the auditee’s written
approval before drawing down funds from the U.S. Treasury for Job Creation and
Retention Program grant disbursements.
We are not taking a monetary exception to the amount drawn down and disbursed
because our prior audit work did not disclose expenditures that were inconsistent with
program regulations. However, these drawdowns and disbursements represent
weaknesses in the auditee’s controls. Although operational challenges may exist
because the subrecipient, who is also the auditee’s parent company, performs all
accounting functions for the auditee, including drawing down HUD funds from the U.
S. Treasury, there should be compliance with the terms of the subrecipient agreement.
In a prior audit, 4 we reported that a subrecipient (the auditee’s parent company) drew
down funds under the Utility Restoration and Infrastructure Rebuilding Program
4
2005-NY-1003 dated March 23, 2005.
7
without submitting invoices to the auditee for review and approval as required by the
subrecipient agreement. The auditee stated that the procedures were discussed with
the subrecipient and that, since October 2004, all drawdowns from the Utility
Restoration and Infrastructure Rebuilding Program have complied with the
subrecipient agreement. Similar action is required for drawdown procedures in the
Job Creation and Retention Program to ensure that drawdowns comply with the
provisions of the subrecipient agreement.
Funds Disbursed for Costs Not
Related to the History and
Heritage Downtown Marketing
Initiative
On June 14, 2003, HUD approved Partial Action Plan No. 3, which allocated nearly
$4.7 million for the History and Heritage Downtown Marketing Initiative, a joint
initiative of museums in lower Manhattan. In accordance with the plan, the auditee
executed three contracts to promote lower Manhattan as a cultural destination and
increase visitors to these museums. During our audit period, the auditee made four
disbursements, totaling $403,414, from the funds allocated to this initiative.
However, documentation supporting the disbursements disclosed that five invoices,
totaling $7,090, were approved for costs related to other auditee-funded programs
and/or to administrative expenses. The disbursements were erroneously charged to
the History and Heritage Downtown Marketing Initiative because auditee officials
charged the wrong program code when approving the disbursement.
Recommendations
We recommend that HUD’s general deputy assistant secretary for community
planning and development require the auditee to
1A. Recover $259,712 from the Department of Parks and Recreation for the
Neighborhood Parks and Open Spaces Program.
1B. Strengthen its control procedures over the drawdown of funds from HUD to
ensure that its subrecipients are in compliance with the provisions of
subrecipient agreements.
1C. Reimburse $7,090 that was erroneously charged to the History and Heritage
Downtown Marketing Initiative.
1D. Review and enhance its program management and accounting controls to ensure
that costs are charged to the proper programs.
8
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
During the audit period, April 1 through September 30, 2005, the auditee disbursed $64 million
of the $2.783 billion in Disaster Recovery Assistance funds for activities related to the rebuilding
and revitalization of lower Manhattan. We tested $60 million, representing approximately 94
percent of the amount disbursed for the period. In addition, we expanded our review of the Job
Creation and Retention Program to include controls over expenditures during the period August
2003 through September 30, 2005.
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:
- World Trade Center Memorial and Cultural Program
- Neighborhood Parks and Open Spaces Program
- Public Service Activities Program
- Utility Restoration and Infrastructure Rebuilding Program – Category 2
- Job Creation and Retention Program
- Chinatown Tourism and Marketing Program
- Lower Manhattan Communications Outreach Program
- History and Heritage Downtown Marketing Initiative
We reviewed the auditee’s procedures for closing programs and redistributing over $41 million
in unobligated funds related to the Residential Grant, Business Recovery Grant, Interim
Memorial, and Employee Training and Assistance Programs. We also reviewed payroll records
and timesheets of the auditee’s subrecipient related to the Utility Restoration and Infrastructure
Rebuilding Program; and the payroll records related to the establishment of the Lower
Manhattan Construction Command Center, a subsidiary of the auditee that was created to
oversee construction activity in lower Manhattan.
In reviewing these programs, we tested a representative nonstatistical sample of disbursements.
However, for the Neighborhood Parks and Open Spaces Program and History and Heritage
Marketing Initiative, we tested 100 percent of the disbursements made for the period because the
population was relatively small and feasible to review. For the Job Creation and Retention
Program, we did not test the basis for awarding grants since this was reviewed in prior audits.
The audit covered the period from April 1 through September 30, 2005, and was expanded when
necessary. We performed our on-site work at the auditee’s office and the office of the auditee’s
parent company, the Empire State Development Corporation, from September 2005 through
February 2006.
We performed our review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
9
INTERNAL CONTROLS
Internal control is an integral component of an organization’s management that provides
reasonable assurance that the following objectives are being 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 reportable 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.
10
Weaknesses
Based on our review, the following items are reportable weaknesses:
• Compliance with laws and regulations - The auditee did not ensure
compliance with its subrecipient agreements when it allowed funds to be
disbursed contrary to the terms of the subrecipient agreements and for
costs charged to the wrong program (see finding).
• Safeguarding resources - The auditee did not safeguard resources when it
allowed Block Grant Disaster Recovery Assistance funds to be
withdrawn by its parent company without the auditee’s written approval
(see finding).
11
FOLLOW-UP ON PRIOR AUDITS
Prior Report Number and Date
We issued Audit Report 2005-NY-1008 on September 27, 2005. The report
contained two audit findings with recommendations for corrective action.
The findings involved funds that were disbursed contrary to the subrecipient
agreement for the Hudson River Park Improvements Program and the need
for additional documentation and collection actions for funds owed to the
Residential Grant Program. The auditee has implemented corrective action
for the Hudson River Park Improvements Program. However, although the
auditee has taken additional action to recover amounts owed the Residential
Grant Program a management decision has not been reached.
We issued Audit Report 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 the lack of
written documentation to ensure monitoring was performed. The auditee has
implemented corrective actions to address these deficiencies.
12
APPENDIXES
Appendix A
SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS
AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE
Recommendation Ineligible 1/
number
1A $259,712
1C $ 7,090
Total $ 266,802
1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or
activity that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or federal,
state, or local polices or regulations.
13
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
14
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
15
Appendix B
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 5
Comment 6
16
OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments
Comment 1 Ineligible costs are costs that are charged to a HUD-financed program or
activity that are not allowable by law; contract; or federal, state, or local
polices or regulations. Accordingly, while the two disbursements noted in
this report may be eligible costs under the overall Disaster Recovery
Assistance Grant, they are considered ineligible costs under the specific
programs to which they were charged.
Comment 2 The auditee’s action to include specific documentation for approval of the
subcontract in the project files responds to our recommendation.
Comment 3 The auditee states that they have recovered the amount that should have
been retained by withholding that amount from a subsequent invoice
payment under the same program. We recommend that HUD verify that
such adjustment was made.
Comment 4 The auditee’s action to institute procedures to ensure that any drawdown
of funds under the Job Creation and Retention Program is approved in
advance each quarter is responsive to our recommendation. We
recommend that HUD verify that such procedures are functioning as
intended.
Comment 5 The auditee’s actions to correct the erroneous charges to the History and
Heritage Program is responsive to our recommendation.
Comment 6 While the auditee believes that its program management and accounting
controls were effective, it has taken action to emphasize to its staff the
importance of correct processing of disbursements. This action is
responsive to our recommendation.
17
Appendix C
SCHEDULE OF PROGRAM FUNDING AND
DISBURSEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2005
Audit period
disbursements Cumulative Balance
Budget as of April 1– disbursed as of remaining as of
Program September 30, September 30, September 30,
September 30,
2005 2005 2005 2005
Residential Grant $280,500,000 $3,803,874 $235,500,573 $44,999,427
Employment Training
500,000 80,457 345,909 154,091
Assistance
Memorial Design and
350,000 0 299,969 50,031
Installation
Columbus Park Renovation 428,571 0 0 428,571
History and Heritage
4,664,000 403,414 1,720,193 2,943,807
Downtown Marketing Initiative
Downtown Alliance Streetscape 4,000,000 0 4,000,000 0
New York Stock Exchange
10,160,000 0 0 10,160,000
Area Improvements
Parks and Open Space 27,481,689 5,317,328 5,317,328 22,164,361
Hudson River Park
2,600,000 0 2,466,968 133,032
Improvements
Millennium High School 3,007,500 0 0 3,007,500
West Street Pedestrian Crossing 21,155,811 0 12,840,920 8,314,891
Public Service Activities 7,296,900 1,591,351 3,362,395 3,934,505
Lower Manhattan Community
259,450 800,210 199,790
Outreach 1,000,000
Green Roof Project 100,000 0 0 100,000
Chinatown Tourism and
403,999 737,499 262,501
Marketing 1,000,000
Lower Manhattan Information 0 921,072 1,648,928
2,570,000
Business Recovery Grant 224,500,000 (15,009) 213,894,330 10,605,670
Job Creation and Retention 150,000,000 7,484,242 61,194,262 88,805,738
Small Firm Attraction Grant 50,000,000 0 0 50,000,000
World Trade Center Memorial
308,117,180 10,488,062 122,054,454 186,062,726
and Cultural
Lower Manhattan Tourism 3,450,000 232,625 2,113,072 1,336,928
Disproportionate Loss of
33,000,000 0 32,999,997 3
Workforce
Utility Restoration and
735,000,000 30,000,000 190,313,178 544,686,822
Infrastructure Rebuilding
Administration and Planning
87,725,190 4,197,140 50,966,527 36,758,663
Totals 1,958,606,841 $64,246,933 $941,848,856 $1,016,757,985
18
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Community Development Block Grant, Disaster Recovery Assistance Funds, New York, New York
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2006-03-31.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)