Funding Criteria: Public Infrastructure

The rating factors and corresponding points used to rate applications are discussed in the current Consolidated Annual Action Plan.

  • Benefit to Low and Moderate Income Persons (maximum - 1 pt)
    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 pts - 10)
  • Project Severity (maximum pts - 50):
  • Engineering Costs (maximum - 1 pt)
  • Pre-agreement and Administrative Costs (maximum - 1 pt)
  • Requested Needs Index (maximum pts - 4)

Total Maximum Points: 67

Applications are rated for cost effectiveness and severity  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 are required to include a signed statement by an engineer certifying that existing conditions violating a state or federal standard will be completely remedied if the project is 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 current Consolidated 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 each. The grouping of applications is based on the average number of total persons benefiting which is computed by dividing the sum of the total persons benefiting by the number of applications received in each category. One group is based on the larger than average number of beneficiaries and the other group is 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) receives 10 points and the remaining applications are 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 are 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 are taken into consideration. Verification of existing conditions is provided by DHH and/or DEQ. Problems that are generally attributable to a lack of routine maintenance results in a less favorable evaluation.
  • street applications: existing surface conditions and deficiencies and surface area measurements are scored following a site visit.

Engineering Costs

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

Pre-Agreement and Administrative Costs

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

Requested Needs index

Up to 4 points are awarded to applicants based on the number of applications and amount requested in the sewer, water (includes fire protection), and streets categories.