Rating and Selection: How the panels score Feasibility, Strategy, Impact, and Bonus Points

1. Rating and Selection: How the panels score Feasibility, Strategy, Impact, and Bonus Points

2. Overview • Each category has up to 110 points available scored in five levels by the review panels • Level One (Not Feasible/No Strategy/No Impact) 0.0 • Level Two (Poor) 27.5 • Level Three (Average) 55.0 • Level Four (Good) 82.5 • Level Five (Excellent) 110.0 December 6-8, 2010

3. Basic Rating and Selection Approaches • Panels score Feasibility, Strategy, and Impact, • Like applications are compared against like applications • Four review panels – Water & Sewer, Buildings/Street and Drainage, Housing, ED • Within groups of like applications, comparisons are made December 6-8, 2010

4. Feasibility – See Applicants’ Manual • Cost -- verified and reasonable? • Project financing sources – documented? • PER/PAR included with the application and supports the proposed project? • Required property available – verified and reasonable? • Administrative capacity to undertake the proposed activities? • Compliance with applicable state and federal laws demonstrated? • Are project timetables reasonable? December 6-8, 2010

5. Feasibility – Level 5 • All or almost all criteria are thoroughly addressed and documented • If Special Conditions are required, they are minor and easily cleared • The project will be able to proceed with little if any impediment • Discrepancies in budgets or beneficiary counts are minor, if any December 6-8, 2010

6. Feasibility – Level 4 • Most criteria are thoroughly addressed and documented • Some impediments to implementation appear • PER/PAR incomplete/confusing • All applicable laws not addressed, e.g., URA, Section 3 • Commitments are “conditional” • Maps are difficult to read • Survey method somewhat unclear • A number of minor discrepancies may exist and are beginning to “add up” December 6-8, 2010

7. Feasibility – Level 3 • Some criteria are thoroughly addressed and documented • Major impediments to implementation appear • Significant elements missing from PER/PAR • Important laws not addressed, e.g., URA, COI, Lead-based paint • Leverage/other commitments are not documented • Major survey method issues appear, e.g., adequacy of # surveyed, discrepancies between households on maps and # of households surveyed, etc. • Needed items not budgeted December 6-8, 2010

8. Feasibility – Level 2 • Few if any criteria are thoroughly addressed and documented • Major and minor impediments to implementation appear • Significant elements missing from PER/PAR • Important laws not addressed, e.g., URA, Section 3 • Leverage/other commitments are not documented • Major survey method issues appear, e.g., adequacy of # surveyed, discrepancies between households on maps and # of households surveyed, etc. • Needed items not budgeted December 6-8, 2010

9. Feasibility – Level 1 • Few if any criteria are thoroughly addressed and documented • Major and minor impediments to implementation appear • Other issues • Project may be ineligible for funding, e.g., ineligible activities proposed, no National Objective met • PER/PAR Missing • No clear financing plan for housing included December 6-8, 2010

10. Strategy – See Applicants’ Manual • An analysis of alternative solutions and the costs of those solutions compared to the alternative chosen • An analysis of the steps taken to prevent the reoccurrence of the identified problem within their jurisdiction (document with copies of these local policies or ordinances) • An analysis of the ongoing financial effort that the applicant has made or will make to address the identified problem and to maintain and operate the proposed project, facility or system • The extent of benefit to persons of low- and moderate-income (Is LMI benefit primary purpose?) • Multi-activity applications will also be compared in terms of comprehensive community or neighborhood conservation, stabilization, revitalization and the degree of resident’s support and involvement. December 6-8, 2010

11. Strategy – See Applicants’ Manual • Conformance with Georgia Planning Act • Conformance with Service Delivery Strategy (O.C.G.A. §36-70-20) December 6-8, 2010

12. Strategy – Level 5 • All or almost all criteria are thoroughly addressed and documented. • Alternative solutions have been addressed and costed out • For water and sewer applications, financial alternatives are thoroughly discussed. December 6-8, 2010

13. Strategy – Level 4 • Most criteria are thoroughly addressed and documented • Some of strategy issues below appear • Alternatives inadequately addressed • Prevention is inadequately addressed • Commitments for maintenance and operation unclear or are missing • Area of benefit not drawn correctly December 6-8, 2010

14. Strategy – Level 4 (cont.) • Some of strategy issues below appear (cont.) • Compliance with Planning Act and SDS not fully addressed • Not all concentration maps have been submitted • Specific issues related to application “type” not fully addressed • Approach to solving the problem not fully justified December 6-8, 2010

15. Strategy – Level 3 • Some criteria are thoroughly addressed and documented • Major/multiple strategy concerns appear • Alternatives, including financial, not addressed • Area benefit not drawn correctly • Panel unable to assess strategy due to lack of information/maps • Activities don’t hang together/aren’t comprehensive December 6-8, 2010

16. Strategy – Level 2 • Few if any criteria are thoroughly addressed and documented • Major and minor strategy issues appear • Approach to solving the problem is not coherent December 6-8, 2010

17. Strategy – Level 1 • Few if any criteria are thoroughly addressed and documented • Major and minor strategy issues appear • Approach to solving the problem is not coherent • Other issues • Project may be ineligible for funding, e.g., ineligible activities proposed, no National Objective met December 6-8, 2010

18. Impact – See Applicants’ Manual • The number of persons benefiting • The cost per person benefiting (the cost per person is calculated by dividing the total CDBG grant by the total number of people benefiting, i.e., the total population of the target area or the total number of projected clientele to be served) • The project’s impact on the benefiting population’s quality of life, living environment or opportunities for economic advancement • An analysis of the documented severity of need • The impact of the project on the identified need or problem December 6-8, 2010

19. Impact – Level 5 • Severity of need is extremely high • Health and safety issues are paramount and the severity of need has been documented by third parties and/or clear photos • People are significantly affected in their homes • The application has documented both the prevalence and the frequency of the problem and prevalence or frequency are significant issues • The cost per person is average or below average or the severity of need offsets a high cost per person • The proposed project will meet 100% of the need described December 6-8, 2010

20. Impact – Level 4 • Severity of need is high compared to others • Health and safety issues are significant and the severity of need has been documented by third parties and/or clear photos • People are significantly affected in their homes • The application has documented both the prevalence and the frequency of the problem and prevalence or frequency are important issues • The cost per person is average or below average or the severity of need offsets a high cost per person • The proposed project will ameliorate 100% of the need described December 6-8, 2010

21. Impact – Level 3 • Severity of need is average compared to others • Health and safety issues are less significant than in other applications • Adequate documentation may be an issue • People are not significantly affected in their homes • Or problems described not as severe as other applicants • Prevalence and the frequency are not documented • The cost per person is above average and is not off-set by a high need • The proposed project may not ameliorate 100% of the need described December 6-8, 2010

22. Impact – Level 2 • Need is not adequately described • Severity of need is not documented • The cost per person is above average and is not off-set by a high need • The proposed project may not ameliorate 100% of the need described December 6-8, 2010

23. Impact – Level 1 • Need is not adequately described • Severity of need is not documented • The cost per person is above average and is not off-set by a high need • The proposed project may not ameliorate 100% of the need described • Other issues • Project may be ineligible for funding, e.g., ineligible activities proposed, no National Objective met December 6-8, 2010

24. Impact - Most severe health and safety issues • For water and sewer • Contaminated water; sewage backing up into homes • For street and drainage • Impassable streets, damage to homes • For buildings • No facility, unsafe facility, severely overcrowded facility • For housing • Documented substandard and/or dilapidated conditions of occupied units December 6-8, 2010

25. Readiness Bonus Points • Procurement • ½ point for administrative services • ½ point for engineering services • Document your procurement process and include in the application • Document that your choice was hired • Letter/resolution December 6-8, 2010

26. Readiness Bonus Points • Environmental Review • ½ point for HPD letter (adverse affect N/A) • No adverse affect • No adverse affect with conditions OR • ½ point for FONSI/NOIRROF and RROF submitted to DCA • Assumes HPD comments received or not applicable • 1 point for a letter from DCA releasing funds December 6-8, 2010

27. Readiness Bonus Points • Acquisition Activities • A full bonus point will be given if all needed acquisition activities are complete or if the project does not require acquisition • Demonstrating that all acquisition activities are complete requires submission of deeds or other evidence of property ownership December 6-8, 2010

28. Readiness Bonus Points • Architectural and Engineering Plans • Applicants must have completed the design phase of the project and must have submitted the finished plans to the appropriate local, state or federal authorities. • Applicants must submit a letter from the architect or engineer stating that the design of the project is complete and listing the agencies to which the plans have been submitted along with agency contact information. • Plans should not be submitted to DCA. December 6-8, 2010

29. Readiness Bonus Points • Contract Documents • Applicants must have completed the design and the bid and construction document phase of the project and the project must be ready for bid with the exception of final approval by the appropriate local, state or federal authorities. • Applicants must submit a letter from its chief elected official stating that the project is ready for bid and listing the agencies to which the contract documents have been submitted along with agency contact information. • Contract documents should not be submitted to DCA. December 6-8, 2010

30. Readiness Bonus Points • Bonus points should be claimed on DCA-5 and include a brief narrative. • DCA-5 should clearly reference all documentation attached to the application that demonstrates accomplishment of the bonus point thresholds outlined above. December 6-8, 2010

31. Readiness Bonus Points • 159 Applications Submitted • 148 received at least ½ point • 39 received 1 point • 28 received 1 ½ points • 23 received 2 points • 16 received 2 ½ points • 27 received 3 points • 2 received 3 ½ points • 2 received 4 points • Cutoff Score – 370.789 December 6-8, 2010

32. Questions? December 6-8, 2010