1. 2011 CDBG Applicants’ Workshop Rating and Selection: How the panels score Feasibility, Strategy, Impact, and Bonus Points

2. Page 2 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

3. Page 3 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

4. Page 4 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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?

5. Page 5 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

6. Page 6 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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”

7. Page 7 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

8. Page 8 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

9. Page 9 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

10. Page 10 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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.

11. Page 11 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 Strategy – See Applicants’ Manual Conformance with Georgia Planning Act Conformance with Service Delivery Strategy (O.C.G.A. §36-70-20)

12. Page 12 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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.

13. Page 13 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

14. Page 14 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

15. Page 15 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

16. Page 16 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

17. Page 17 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

18. Page 18 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

19. Page 19 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

20. Page 20 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

21. Page 21 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

22. Page 22 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

23. Page 23 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

24. Page 24 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

25. Page 25 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

26. Page 26 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

27. Page 27 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

28. Page 28 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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.

29. Page 29 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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.

30. Page 30 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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.

31. Page 31 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 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

32. Page 32 2011 CDBG Applicants’ WorkshopDecember 6-8, 2010 Questions?