CLG Grant Application Changes
Planning Services Department
City Hall
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
(563) 589-4210 office
(563) 589-4221 fax
(563) 690-6678 TDD
P lanning@cityofdubuque.org
D~~~E
~<14-~
June 21, 2004
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
City Hall - 50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
RE: Proposed Change to Scoring of CLG Grant Applications
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
The City of Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has reviewed the
enclosed letter from the State Historical Society of Iowa, requesting comments on the
proposed change to scoring of Certified Local Government (CLG) grant applications,
and the recommendation of the Planning Services Department.
The State has requested that the HPC and HPC staff review the proposed changes,
and then provide a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is asked to
submit the local government's scoring preference to the State by July 21, 2004.
The City of Dubuque has received numerous CLG grants, including funding for the
phased Architectural/Historic Survey/Evaluation of our oldest residential and
commercial areas, and development of the Architectural and Streetscape/Landscape
Design Guidelines for the Historic Districts.
Planning Services staff supports the proposed process for scoring CLG grant
applications, which would be simpler for the grant reviewers.
The Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council support the proposed
scoring process for CLG grants.
~~
Christopher Wand, Chairperson
Historic Preservation Commission
~
,"
.""..
-.C::'
Attachments
,.
-" ,
5eTvke
P~ple
lnteg"ty
R~po=ibility
Innovation
Teamwo,k
D~
~<14-~
MEMORANDUM
June 4, 2004
TO:
Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager~
RE:
Proposed Change to Scoring of CLG Grant Applications
Introduction
Enclosed is a letter from Kerry McGrath, CLG Program Coordinator for the State
Historical Society of Iowa, requesting comments on the proposed change to scoring of
Certified Local Government (CLG) grant applications.
Ms. McGrath has requested that the Historic Preservation Commission and HPC staff
review the proposed changes, and then provide a recommendation to the City Council.
The City Council is then asked to submit the local government's scoring preference to
her by July 21, 2004.
CLG Program
The City of Dubuque is a Certified Local Government (CLG) with the State Historical
Society of Iowa. As a CLG, the City of Dubuque has an agreement with the State of
Iowa, agreeing to develop and administer our local historic preservation program so that
it complies with national and state preservation goals and standards. In turn, the State
Historical Society of Iowa provides technical assistance and funding to underwrite
various historic preservation activities in our community.
The City of Dubuque has received numerous CLG grants, including funding for the
phased ArchitecturaUHistoric SurveyÆvaluation of our oldest residential and
commercial areas, and development of the Architectural and Streetscape/Landscape
Design Guidelines for the Historic Districts.
Scoring of CLG Grants
Page 2
Current Process
The current process for scoring CLG grant applications uses four standards to evaluate
and score each application:
1. Clearly stated or specific goals that can be realistically attained within the funding
period and proposed budget.
2. Measurable results or products (number, quality).
3. Linkage with goals and objectives embodied in state or local preservation plans.
4. Ability to complete the project.
Each part of the CLG grant applications are scored separately on each of these four
standards by the individual grant reviewers for a total project score. The reviewers
meet as a group to compare their individual project scores and rankings, and then make
funding recommendations to the State Historical Society Board of Trustees.
Proposed Process
The proposed process for scoring CLG grant applications would continue to use the four
evaluation standards; however, the four standards would be applied to the entire
application during the individual and group reviews.
The proposed scoring changes only the individual review process. During the individual
review, each reviewer would rank all the applications from highest to lowest.
During the group review, the reviewers would discuss their individual project scores and
rankings, and then make funding recommendations to the State Historical Society
Board of Trustees.
Recommendationc :
Planning Services staff supports the proposed process for scoring CLG grant
applications, which would be simpler for the grant reviewers.
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission review the proposed
changes for scoring CLG grant applications, and then provide a recommendation to the
City Council.
Enclosure
STATE
HISTORICAL
ISO, CIETI of
OW A
A Division Of The Department of Cnltural Affairs
TO: Mayors, Board of Supervisors Chairmen, Historic Preservation Commission
Chairmen and Contacts, and Staff to Historic Preservation Commissions
FROM: Kerry C. McGrath, CLG Program Coordinator
RE: Proposed Change to Scoring of Certified Local Government Grant
Applications
May 21, 2004
Enclosed please find information about a proposed, new way of scoring CLG grant applications.
The Historic Preservation Office would like to use the system in the 2005 CLG Grant Round.
However, before it can be adopted, the Office needs to secure the comment and approval of the
cities, counties and land use district in the Iowa CLG program.
We ask that the Commission consider the two scoring options and decide which they prefer.
Then please send your preference to your chief elected official and ask that each send a letter
to the CLG Coordinator indicating the local govemment's preference. The letters should be
submitted by July 21, 2004 to:
Kerry C. McGrath, CLG Program Coordinator
State Historical Society of Iowa
Historical Building
600 East Locust St
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0290
The CLG Coordinator will notify all CLG cities, counties and land use districts of the results of
the vote by August 6, 2004.
If the Historic Preservation Commission has any questions or needs more information, please
do not hesitate to contact me at 515/281-6826 or kerry.mcgrath@iowa. gov
Why Change?
The State Nominations Review Committee (SNRC), who does the scoring and ranking, asked
the Historic Preservation Bureau staff to develop a new system after they finished reviewing the
2004 CLG grant applications. Their request was based on the fact that the quality of CLG grant
applications has increased substantially. Typically, all are well written and for excellent projects.
The old scoring system required that reviewers use five standards to score applications. Each
application was given a separate score for each standard, and then these scores were added
together, providing the reviewer's overall score for the application.
60. EAsT LocuST STREEJ" DES MOINES, lA 5O319-1WO p, (515) 281-4826, EMAfu kcny.mograth@iowa.gov
2
Because of the excellence of the applications, the scoring process had become time consuming
as reviewers looked for tiny nuances that enhanced or detracted from each application.
Frequently, scores were based not on the quality or importance of the project, but on
typographical errors, misspellings, mathematical errors, and incorrect terminology. The
reviewers felt this type of scoring was unfair to the applicants. This winter a new scoring system
was developed. SNRC members had an opportunity to review it and provide comment. To be
formally adopted, all of Iowa's CLG's need to vote on the proposal.
Here is the current SNRC review procedure. The SNR Committee conducts individual and
group reviews. The individual review occurs at home and involves only one reviewer. Each
SNRC member completes an individual score sheet for each application and submits the set of
completed sheets to the CLG Coordinator.
Prior to the group review, the Coordinator tallies all the score sheets for each application,
divides the score by the number of reviewers and gives each application a mean score. The
Coordinator prepares a table that shows the individual reviewers' scores for each application,
the mean score, the rank of each application, and a running balance of available grant money
that would be available if the grants were funded according to the rank shown.
The group review involves discussion of the results shown in the table. During the meeting,
SNRC members discuss the mean scores and ranking of the applications. The group review is
conducted with funding recommendations. For each application, they can recommend one of
the following:
a. That a proposed project be funded in full
b. That a proposed project be partially funded
c. That a proposed project not be funded
Current Scorina System and Standards:
SNRC uses the following four standards to evaluate and score the CLG grant applications. On
the application score sheet, the application receives a score of from 5 (best) to 1 (worst) for each
standard. Then these scores are added together to get the reviewer's total score for the
application. The Standards correspond to the four questions which the applicant answers when
completing the application.
EVALUATION STANDARDS
Standard 1
CLEARLY STATED OR SPECIFIC GOALS THAT CAN BE REALISTICALLY ATTAINED
WITHIN THE FUNDING PERIOD AND PROPOSED BUDGET.
Maximum Score: 5 points There is a clearly stated goal for the project. The scope of work
contains the requisite activities and products for achieving the goal and completing the type of
project The commission will use a qualified consultant and has sufficient in-house personnel
(commission volunteers, city/county staff, community volunteers) to do the job. The budget is
realistic in terms of time and cash allotments for completion of the various project activities.
There is sufficient time to do the work.
Minimum Score: 1 point It is unclear what the project goal is, several conflicting goals have
been identified. The project includes activities and products cannot be completed within the
3
proposed time frame. The local match for the project seems weak:. e.g., not enough
volunteers, too few hours, or too ambitious, expect too much from local volunteers. There is a
lack of understanding of what such a project entails as reflected in the activities and schedule in
the scope of work. Project personnel will not have the expertise needed to complete the work or
there is not a clear demonstration of in-house paid or volunteer help to complete the project.
The project cannot be completed within the stated time frame and/or for the proposed cost The
reviewer will identify the problems with the application and scores the propOsal with a score of 4
to 1. continaent on the adeQuacy of aoals. missina information. realistic costs and time frame.
Standard 2
MEASURABLE RESULTS OR PRODUCTS (NUMBER, QUALITY)
Maximum Score: 5 points. The applicant clearly describes the project impact and generated
products and explains how this will further the local or state historic preservation effort ribe the
results or products how will these help to grow the hp program. The project will result in the
required products and there will be additional benefits. For example, public meetings in which
the consultant will work with the commission and other volunteers from the community. An
effort to publicize the project. The project may provide a model in terms of the way it is
organized or the products generated for other CLG's,
Minimum Score: 1 point The project will not result in the required products and/or schedule and
budget suggest insufficient funds and time have been allotted to project so that the products will
not be good ones.
Standard 3
LINKAGE WITH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES EMBODIED IN STATE OR LOCAL
PRESERVATION PLANS.
Maximum Score: 5 points. The applicant demonstrates how this completion of this project fits
into local and/or State goals. For example, the applicant discusses how a planning for
preservation project will assist a newly certified City or County in understanding how they can
use their historic preservation program to the benefit of the community and identify some future
projects. Another example, the applicant discusses how the proposed survey and evaluation
project will contribute to the local and state property inventory, position the area for future
registration projects and better comprehensive land use planning in that area.
Minimum Score: 1 point. The applicant makes no reference to long term local or state
preservation goals and objectives. The applicant has not demonstrated an understanding of
how this project will further historic preservation objectives in the community (city or county) and
or the State.
Standard 4.
ABILITY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT
MAXIMUM SCORE: 5 POINTS THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THROUGH PREVIOUS
CLG GRANT PERFORMANCE OR WORK ON OTHER HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PROJECTS AN ABILITY TO COMPLETE THE TASK. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT
SHOWS COMMISSION COMMITMENT TO THE PROJECT THROUGH THE INVOLVEMENT
OF COMMISSIONERS; PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT THROUGH THE
INVOLVEMENT OF STAFF, COMMUNITY GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS. LOCAL OFFICIALS
4
DEMONSTRATE PROJECT SUPPORT THROUGH IN-KIND AND CASH MATCH
CONTRIBUTIONS.
MINIMUM SCORE: 1 POINT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT ADDRESS PROBLEMS THAT
OCCURRED IN PREVIOUS CLG GRANT OR OTHER PROJECTS. THERE APPEARS TO
BE INSUFFICIENT SUPPORT BY THE COMMISSION, STAFF, GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS.
THERE IS NO LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT OR INVOLVEMENT.
Proposed New Way of Scorina:
Under the proposed scoring system, SNRC will continue to use the four standards to evaluate,
rank, and score the applications during the individual and group review. However, the
Standards would be applied to the whole application rather than to each part of the application.
Rather than attach a score to the Standards, each is described in terms of "desirable" and "not
desirable".
For example,
Standard 1.
CLEARLY STATED OR SPECIFIC GOALS THAT CAN BE REALISTICALLY
ATTAINED WITHIN THE FUNDING PERIOD AND PROPOSED BUDGET.
Desired: There is a clearly stated goal for the project. The scope of work contains the
requisite activities and products for achieving the goal and completing the type of
project. The commission will use a qualified consultant and has sufficient in-house
personnel (commission volunteers, city/county staff, community volunteers) to do the
job. The budget is realistic in terms of time and cash allotments for completion of the
various project activities. There is sufficient time to do the work.
Not desirable: It is unclear what the project goal is, several conflicting goals have been
identified. The project includes activities and products that cannot be completed within
the proposed time frame. The local match for the project seems weak: e.g., not enough
volunteers, too few hours, or too ambitious, expect too much from local volunteers.
There is a lack of understanding of what such a project entails as reflected in the
activities and schedule in the scope of work. Project personnel will not have the
expertise needed to complete the work or there is not a clear demonstration of in-house
paid or volunteer help to complete the project. The project cannot be completed within
the stated time frame and/or for the proposed cost.
During the individual review, the SNRC reviewer would read all the applications and then rank
them from bestlhighest to lowest The highest ranking application would receive a score of 1,
the next ranking application would receive a score of 2, and so on. In effect, each application
would receive one score and that score would be the numeric value of its rank among all of the
applications submitted in the grant round. Each reviewer would submit one "score and ranking
sheet" for the entire set of applications, rather than a score sheet for each application.
The reviewers will submit their completed score and ranking sheets to the CLG Coordinator who
will create the overall score and ranking table for the group review session.
During the group review, SNRC members as a group would have an opportunity to discuss and
potentially change the score and ranking of applications. They would then send their ranking,
5
funding recommendations, and comments to the State Historical Society Board of Trustees for
consideration.
Summary
The proposal will only change the way applications are scored during the SNRC individual
review. The review and evaluation process will not change. Historic Preservation Staff will
provide comment on whether the application complies with the federal and state program
requirements. SNRC will evaluate and rank the applications and make funding
recommendations to the State Historical Society Board of Trustees. The Trustees will make
recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer who makes the final decision as to
which applications are funded.
Office of the Mayor
and City Council
City Hall
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
D~
~<k~
July 19, 2004
Kerry C. McGrath, CLG Program Coordinator
State Historical Society of Iowa
600 East Locust Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0290
RE: Proposed Change to Scoring of CLG Grant Applications
Dear Ms. McGrath:
The City of Dubuque has reviewed the State Historical Society of Iowa's request for
comments on the proposed change to scoring of Certified Local Government (CLG)
grant applications.
The City of Dubuque has been the beneficiary of many CLG grants for historic
preservation projects in our community, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment
on revisions to the scoring process.
As you requested, the City's Historic Preservation Commission and Commission staff
reviewed the proposed changes. Both the Commission and staff recommended the new
process.
The Dubuque City Council concurs with this recommendation, and supports the
proposed scoring process for CLG grants.
Respectfully submitted,
Terrance M. Duggan
Mayor
cc
Historic Preservation Commission
5ervice
People
Integrity
Responsibility
Innovation
Teamwork