Scoring Community Development
Block (CDBG)Grants
Water/Sewer Apps
SEIRPC CDBG Scoring Committee
April 8, 2013
0
Scoring CDBG
Water/Sewer Apps
 About the Process
 CDBG Apps
1
Scoring CDBG
Water/Sewer Apps
 About CDBG Funds
Federal funds
Come to Iowa from Housing and Urban
Development Administration (HUD)
Iowa plans how to use the funds
2
Scoring CDBG
Water/Sewer Apps
 About CDBG Funds
Iowa Priorities:
Owner-occupied housing for elderly and LMI
individuals
Infrastructure for LMI communities
Public services like day care centers and sheltered
workshops who serve LMI individuals
Economic development for jobs that will
employ LMI individuals
3
Scoring CDBG
Water/Sewer Apps
2012 CDBG Program Funds: $21 million
4
Scoring CDBG
Water/Sewer Apps
2012 CDBG Program Funds: $21 million
5
Scoring CDBG
Water/Sewer Apps
About the Process
 An effort to change how CDBG funds are allocated in
Iowa
 Want to change from centralized (Des Moines) to decentralized (regions) process
 Thank you for volunteering to be a part of this effort
6
Scoring CDBG
Water/Sewer Apps
About the Process
 This committee is presently considered ad hoc
 Results will go to evaluate and refine process at the
statewide level
 Committee results will be presented to and accepted
by SEIRPC Board of Directors
7
Scoring CDBG
Water/Sewer Apps
About the Process
 Results from committee have no bearing on funding
right now
 Results from committee in the fall will have a bearing on
funding results
 This is a fluid process – feel free to make
comments or recommendations
8
Scoring CDBG
Water/Sewer Apps
About the Process
 Four other regions in Iowa completing the same
process
 SEIRPC staff will compile objective scoring criteria
 Committee members will compile subjective scoring
criteria
9
Scoring CDBG
Water/Sewer Apps
Today
 Each application will be reviewed with the committee
 Scoring criteria will be reviewed with the committee
 Committee members will be asked to score the
applications, come back and discuss scores and process
at next meeting.
10
CDBG Application #1:
Conesville
 Applying for lift station improvements
 Total Cost:
$200,000
 CDBG Request
$120,000 (60%)
 Local Match
$80,000 (40%)
11
CDBG Application #1:
Conesville
 Applying for lift station improvements
 Specifically:
New pumps and controls
Emergency generator
Power Service
12
CDBG Application #1:
Conesville
13
CDBG Application #1:
Conesville
 Applying for lift station improvements
 Why:
Lift station original to 1971
No emergency generator
Bypass pump not connected
Maintenance nearly impossible
Bypass flows to ditch
14
CDBG Application #1:
Conesville
 Applying for lift station improvements
 Alternatives:
1. Do nothing (continue to operate in
violation of DNR NPDES permit limits
2. Implement project as described
15
CDBG Application #1:
Conesville
 Applying for lift station improvements
 What is the plan
Phase 1: Improve Treatment Lagoons currently
under construction
Phase 2: Lift Station Improvements (application)
Phase 3: Construct conventional gravity flow
sanitary sewer system for the unsewered homes
in the community.
16
CDBG Application #2:
Mount Pleasant
 Applying for interceptor sewer to replace
problem sewer causing multiple issues; (includes pavement
replacement after construction)
 Total Cost:
$2,100,000
 CDBG Request
$600,000
(29%)
 Local Match
$1,500,000 (71%)
17
CDBG Application #2:
Mount Pleasant
18
CDBG Application #2:
Mount Pleasant
19
CDBG Application #2:
Mount Pleasant
 Applying for sanitary sewer replacement;
(includes
pavement replacement after construction)
 Why:
Broken pipes
Misaligned joints
Improper service taps
Brick manholes
Sewers under residences
20
CDBG Application #2:
Mount Pleasant
 Applying for sanitary sewer replacement;
(includes
pavement replacement after construction)
 Why:
Issues identified cause infiltration into the
system, overloading it.
Overload causes backups and overflows.
Discharge not treated – water quality issues.
Maintenance with issues impossible.
21
CDBG Application #2:
Mount Pleasant
 Applying for sanitary sewer replacement;
(includes
pavement replacement after construction)
 Alternatives:
1. Expansion of the Lagoon
2. Pump all wastewater from the lagoon site
back to the new plant so the lagoon can
be abandoned.
3. Pump from the Hamlin Street lift
station to the new plant.
22
CDBG Application #2:
Mount Pleasant
 Alternatives:
4. Gravity Interceptor Sewer from Hamlin
Street Lift Station. (preferred alternative; most cost effective)
5. Gravity sewer from Hamlin Street Lift
Station, as proposed with Option #4,
plus build a new Northeast Lift Station.
23
CDBG Application #3:
Wapello
 Wastewater Treatment Plant Lagoon Upgrade
(From a two-cell continuous discharge waste stabilization lagoon system to aerated system.)
 Total Cost:
$1,750,300
CDBG Request: $500,000 (29%)
Local Match:
$1,250,300 (71%)
24
25
CDBG Application #3:
Wapello
 Applying for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Upgrade
 Why
Meet NPDES limits (Iowa DNR)
Provide capacity for the next 20 years
26
CDBG Application #3:
Wapello
 Applying for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Upgrade
 Alternatives
1. Extended Aeration-Activated Sludge
System
2. Aerated Lagoon System
27
CDBG Scoring Criteria
 Blend of Objective and Subjective
 Objective
Local Match
Planning evidence (Capital Improvement
Plan, budget, etc)
Low to Moderate Income Beneficiary
Percentage
Inclusion of innovative tech
28
CDBG Scoring Criteria
 Objective Criteria
200 PTS
100 OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE SCORING CRITERIA - MAXIMUM 100 PTS
25% Local match/effort
25% match = minimum (0 pts), 1 pt for each percentage up to 50%
Max = 25 pts
Min = 0
15% Inclusion in local planning document
Inclusion in budget = 5 pts, CIP or equivalent = 10 pts
Max = 15 pts
Min = 0
50% LMI beneficiary percentage
51% LMI = minimum (1 pt), 1 pt for each additional percentage up to 100%
Max = 50 pts
Min = 0
10% Inclusion of innovative technology
10% of project = minimum (1 pt), 1 pt for each
Max = 10 pts
Min = 0
29
CDBG Scoring Criteria
 Subjective
Project need
Community Impact
Economic Development Impact
Partnerships or advanced project planning
Availability of resources
30
CDBG Scoring Criteria
100 SUBJECTIVE
SUBJECTIVE SCORING CRITERIA
50% Demonstrated project need - evidence of facility deterioration, environmental non-compliance, other factors
Max = 50 pts
Min = 0
20% Community Impact - narrative based
Max = 20 pts
Min = 0
10% Economic Development Impact - narrative based
Max = 10 pts
Min = 0
10% Evidence of partnerships or project planning batching projects (e.g., street/sewer project, multiple jurisdictions, sanitary/storm project, etc)
10% Available resources - based on fund balance statements, available debt capacity, identified resources (ex: SRF, USDA)
(Fewer points for more resources available)
Max = 10 pts
Min = 0
Max = 10 pts
Min = 0
31
CDBG Scoring Criteria
 Process moving forward
1. SEIRPC scores objective portions
2. Scoring Committee scores subjective
Full applications and power point are
online
(instructions to be sent after meeting)
3. Reconvene in two weeks to go over
scores and process
32
CDBG Scoring Criteria
 Process moving forward
Any questions in between meetings please
contact Tracey Lamm
[email protected]; 319-753-4306
Next meeting date will be emailed
Proposed meeting schedule:
#1 April 8
#2 April 22
#3 January 2014
33
CDBG Scoring Criteria
 Process moving forward
Meet with IA Economic Development
Authority in Summer to review pilot results
Tweak process (using committee input as
well)
Score applications in early 2014
34
Thank You
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT
35
Download

CDBG Scoring Presentation