Loading...
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