WTC Records Folder 0139 label, 2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document NOU 30 2001 5:57 PM FR EDC/ECO&ENGY ANALYS 618 8888 TO 7593251516877037 P.13

With respect to the individual program elements:

(I) Belccatign Assistance Grant Program — We suggest that. (a) the minimum time for which a company must be displaced in order to be eligible be one month rather than three months; (b) the word "City" be inserted after New York to make it clear that purpose of the program is to strengthen the City's economy; (c) the grant amount be capped at the increased occupancy cost to link the benefit more clearly to the harm inflicted by the attack; (d) reference be made to a minimum commitment (say 7 to 10 years) that a company must remain in New York City, (e) a minimum percentage of post-attack Now York employment (say 50%) for pre-attack business functions be established; and, (f) grants be awarded on a per-employee basis. We assume that a two- tiered grant system will be devised, i.e., more for companies that relocate to lower Manhattan and less to companies that choose Midtown. For your information, we believe that the number of firma eligible for this assistance is closer to 2,750 than the 1,025 number cited in the draft, though most of these companies are quite small.

(2) Location Assistance Grant program — We assume that "lower Manhattan" is the area south of Canal Street. Is this correct? Also, are "new commitments" meant to include lease renewal! If so, we may again need a two- tiered grant system with less generous benefits to companies that renew.

(3) Physical Damage Compeitsation rant Program. Beyond Retail Recovery Grant Pro arn, and Extende&Bnomic Initzry Grant Pr — We assume that the flat program overlaps to a significant degree with the Relocation Assistance Grant program. Would these grants be employment based or awarded based on damages? Again, the number of eligible businesses is understated. Also, as we discussed, consideration should also be given to supplementing the grant programs by supporting new lending capacity for the CDFIs or similar organizations. This would be especially useful for companies that have been rejected by the banks and SBA.

(4) Tourism Promotion — We lave no comment but that tourism promotion should be coordinated with NYC & Company and other Now York City based organizations.

(5) Public infrasthjcturcscrvjces 5u000rtin2 busine; revftaji2ation -- We believe that the use of CDBG dollars for physical infrastructure work should be limited (6) Admimisaration — As noted above, we may have sigtificant issues with this section Again, this matter requires further discussion between senior City and State representatives.

NYC-WTC 000136558