The rating factors and corresponding points used to rate applications follow:

• Benefit to Low and Moderate Income Persons (maximum - 1 point)
  One point if the percentage of low to moderate income persons benefitting is 60 percent or higher. No point for a proposed benefit of less than 60 percent.
• Cost Effectiveness (maximum points - 10)
• Project Severity (maximum points - 50) --
  
  sewer - 50 points
  potable water - 50 points
  fire protection - 30 points
  streets - 10 points
• Engineering Costs (maximum - 1 point)
• Pre-agreement and Administrative Costs (maximum - 1 point)
• Target Area(s) in a Renewal Community (maximum - 1 point)

Total Maximum Points: 64

Applications were ranked within the following sub-categories: sewer systems primarily involving collection lines; sewer systems primarily involving treatment; water systems addressing potable water; water systems primarily for fire protection; and, streets. Water and sewer applications were required to include a signed statement by an engineer certifying that existing conditions violating a state or federal standard would be completely remedied if the project were implemented. No more than 2 target areas for street projects and all streets that qualified within the target area(s) must be improved.

Evaluation Criteria:

Benefit to Low/Moderate Income Persons

Determined by dividing the number of low/moderate income persons benefiting by the total persons benefiting. (Income limits are provided by the State in the 2008 Annual Action Plan.) One point assigned if the percentage of low to moderate income persons benefitting is 60 percent or higher. No point for a proposed benefit of less than 60 percent.

Cost Effectiveness

Determined first by separating all sewer, water, streets and fire protection applications into two population groups. The grouping of applications was based on the average number of total persons benefiting which was computed by dividing the sum of the total persons benefiting by the number of applications received. One group was based on the larger than average number of beneficiaries and the other group was based on the average number and smaller than average number of beneficiaries. The application in each group having the best cost effectiveness (cost per person) received 10 points and the remaining applications were prorated.

Determined by the following formula:
Cost Effectiveness Pts. =
Lowest cost per person benefiting /
Applicant cost per person benefiting x 10

Project Severity

The following criteria were reviewed by CDBG staff or the cognizant review agency (if applicable):

• water systems primarily for fire protection purposes: source capacity, reliability of supply, amount of storage, extent of hydrant coverage or spacing, and water pressure and volume for fire fighting
• wastewater systems and water systems addressing potable water: conditions in violation of the State Sanitary Code and the adequacy of the improvements. Compliance with federal and state laws and regulations were taken into consideration. Verification of existing conditions were provided by DHH and/or DEQ. Problems that are generally attributable to a lack of routine maintenance resulted in a less favorable evaluation.
• street applications: existing surface conditions and deficiencies and surface area measurements were scored following a site visit.

Engineering Costs

Applicants committing local (or other) funds for all engineering services were given 1 point.

Pre-Agreement and Administrative Costs

Applicants certifying that local (or other) funds would pay the pre-agreement and administrative costs were given 1 point.

Target Area within a Designated Renewal Community

Applicants whose entire target area(s) were within a renewal community were given 1 point.