|
PROGRAM EVALUATION CRITERIA
General
The main purpose of the Fund Grants-in-Aid Program is to obligate 100% of the funds to high-quality land and water areas and facilities for public outdoor recreation use. Since it is recognized that needs for outdoor areas and facilities far exceed available funds, criteria have been established as a guide for selecting projects that best satisfy the purpose of the program. The determination of which projects submitted are to receive approval must be a judgment rendered on as fair and equitable basis as possible.
A review and evaluation method has been developed to assure objectivity and uniformity in preparing, grading and ranking of each application processed. This method provides for careful screening on the basis of several different sets of criteria. The first is a set of basic criteria that applies to all applications submitted. The basic screening process will serve to determine if the basic purpose of the program will be met by the project under consideration. Applications that pass the basic screening are regarded as “Suitable” for the program. They will then be evaluated on the basis of existing outdoor recreation needs to determine whether they should receive priority consideration and be ranked by the Priority Ranking System, or should be deferred for a time to make way for more urgent projects that might be in the offing. All applications assigned to the “priority” category are then ranked periodically on the basis of competitive ranking criteria to establish the relative order in which they will be processed further.
The principal screen and ranking criteria follows.
Basic Screening Criteria
As noted above, a proposed project must meet certain basic screening criteria to be found suitable for the LWCF program. The following five factors are deemed essential for this purpose:
1. Ability to assist in accomplishing the overall purpose of the Fund Act. The Act’s purpose is to provide a means of meeting the most urgent public outdoor recreation needs, principally by assisting the State to acquire and develop lands with high recreation potential before these lands are put to other uses or become prohibitively costly to acquire. The proposed project must be found to be fully in keeping with the provisions of the Fund Act. Since this is the most basic of all criteria, a negative judgment in this section is grounds for immediate rejection of an application.
2. Ability to relate properly to the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and local recreation master plans. Consideration of needs and types of facilities at the local level should incorporate public participation with minority and special population representation.
3. Ability to provide recreational uses traditionally or more appropriately developed and administered by a public agency rather than by private enterprise, based on an assessment of the local situation. Facilities should be designed to serve the maximum number of people and a broad spectrum of age groups as well as minority and special population at a relatively small expenditure per person in order to ensure the greatest benefit for the general public.
4. Scope of the project in relation to the normal financial ability of the sponsoring local government. There must be no question as to the financial capability of the applicant for meeting its 50 percent matching obligation. A project of such scope or magnitude as to be conspicuously beyond the apparent capability of the applicant will be ruled out as unsuitable, unless acceptable proof of capability can be adduced.
5. Ability to provide for adequate operation and management of the proposed project area. The applicant must be in a fiscally and legally responsible position in order to guarantee the area will be satisfactorily and perpetually operated and maintained. Its continued upkeep and availability to the public for the life of the project must be ensured.
Evaluation of Priority
If an application is found suitable according to the basic screening criteria above, it will then be evaluated to establish its relative priority in terms of existing outdoor recreation need (see next section on Priority Rating System). This evaluation will result in the assignment of each application to either the “priority” or the “deferred” category. In general, the “priority” classification will be determined by the extent to which a proposed project meets a recognized urgent need. The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and local recreation master plans may identify such particular needs.
Those projects placed in the “deferred” category are ones which do not rate a high enough cumulative total in the priority ratings to qualify as an outstanding/quality project. Such projects will be returned to the project sponsor and the Grants and Technical Assistance staff will work with the sponsor to provide whatever technical assistance is necessary to bring the project up to the “priority” level needed to qualify for funding. Such assistance can range from project scope changes to improving planning efforts at the local level.
Competitive Ranking Criteria
All projects that are assigned to the “priority” category are considered eligible for immediate funding under the LWCF program. As it is probable that the combined cost of projects in this category will exceed the amount of matching funds available at any one time, it is usually necessary to rank all priority projects on a competitive basis. Projects are then recommended for funding in the order of their assigned ranking, as far down the list as there may be funds available to cover. Remaining projects retain their priority status but are periodically re-ranked with all new projects to determine the order of recommendation as additional funds become available.
Listed below are several criteria considered most important for competitive ranking purposes:
1. Relative need in project area – Recreation needs vary markedly in degree from one part of the state to another. An attempt is made to measure degree of need through a local outdoor recreation plan, including a capital outlay schedule for implementing these needs and through priority needs identified in the SCORP.
2. Urgency of project – Projects of a demonstrably urgent nature, offering an outdoor recreational opportunity that may well be lost to the public by undue delay, will normally be ranked above comparable projects for which the timing does not appear as critical.
3. Type of project – Project is classified within two basic types: “acquisition” and “development.” Under present policy, acquisition projects will normally be ranked above development projects in similar circumstances.
4. Type of resource – For acquisition projects, certain types of resources (land) will normally be ranked above others based on priorities set forth in the SCORP and local recreation needs assessments.
5. Type of use – Projects that will provide for multiple recreational uses, serving a broad segment of the public with consideration for minority and special populations, will normally be ranked above specialized projects that serve only a limited segment of the public.
6. User area – Projects that appeal to low income, recreation deficient areas will normally be ranked above those that fail to identify recreation deficiencies in low-income areas.
7. Use-potential-cost relationship – Projects that provide greater use-potential for the cost invested will normally be ranked above relatively costly projects. Elaborate designs and unnecessary elements are discouraged, unless the use-potential is to be enhanced proportionately.
8. Implementation time – Because it is the intent of the program to encourage development of new public recreational opportunities on an accelerated basis, time required for complete implementation of projects becomes a factor in ranking projects. While it is not feasible or desirable to prescribe rigid time limits for competitive purposes, normally a project that can be completed in less time will be ranked above a comparable project that requires more time.
9. Size of grant requested – As it is desirable to spread available funds over as many priority projects as possible, the size of the requested grant is necessarily a factor to be considered in ranking projects. An attempt is made to maintain a reasonable ratio of project costs to total funds available. In this regard, a project involving what is considered to be a proportionate cost share will normally be ranked above one with a disproportionate cost share, and the latter will be recommended for phasing.
10. Family recreation opportunities – Projects that have special appeal for families will normally be ranked above projects lacking an appeal for families.
11. Reaching out to retirees – Projects with a significant appeal for retirees and the elderly will normally rank above those projects without an appeal for retirees and the elderly.
12. Environmental factors – Projects designed to enhance or protect the environment, particularly the wetlands, will normally be ranked higher than those projects without a beneficial environmental component.
Obviously, all of the above criteria are considered together in the ranking process. It is highly unlikely any individual project will prove either superior or inferior to its competitors in the case of all criteria applied. For this reason, the criteria must be weighted in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time and a final decision made on the basis of informed judgment. Still, judicious application of these criteria assists in maintaining a high degree of objectivity and consistency in ranking competing priority projects and assuring high-quality recreation projects.
Each proposed project is evaluated using the “Open Project Selection Process”. The process incorporates subjective grading. Results are evaluated in conjunction with the professional judgment of the Division of Outdoor Recreation staff to rank applicants for future available funding sources, primarily, the LWCF.
The process is designed to provide a rational framework and offer the flexibility to make professional decisions in the final evaluation of projects.
Louisiana LWCF Open Project Selection Process
Revised July 27, 2009
1) Application completeness (pass/fail)
· Application received is complete with all required material
· If yes, proceed to step #3
· If no, return to sponsor with letter of explanation
2) Secondary phase of existing project (score clearance)
· If project is continuation of an active project and next phase is contained in the master plan originally considered at the outset of the active project, no new score is required. Advance request to State Park and Recreation Commission for endorsement.
· If proposal is for components not included in original master plan as considered at the outset of the active project, a full application is required.
3) Scoring:
a. Public input and planning (25 points)
i. Applicant has provided information pertaining to research conducted to determine recreational needs for the community.
· 5 points if a survey of the local constituency was conducted
· 3 points if SCORP was consulted to determine recreational trends
· 1 point if some other resource was identified in determination of recreational trends
· 0 points if no effort was indicated in application to identify recreational needs of the community
ii. Application provides specifics pertaining to public input for development of project.
· 5 points if dates, times and names are provided from public hearing(s) conducted in regards to this specific project application
· 3 points if date of public hearing is included in application
· 1 point if some indication of public input for proposal is included in application
· 0 points if no indication of public input is included in application
iii. Application provides documentation to indicate proposed project is part of an overall regional master plan for recreation within the community served.
· 5 points if application includes an overall regional master plan for recreation for the area served by project sponsor is included in application
· 3 points if application identifies a regional master plan for recreation exists for the community
· 0 points if no regional master plan for recreation for the community is identified in the application
iv. Application offers a master plan for the specific area to be included within the boundaries of this particular project.
· 5 points if a master plan for the project area to be developed within the boundaries of the project in this application is included
· 3 points if application identifies a master plan for the project site has been developed
· 0 points if no master plan for the project area has been developed
v. Applicant is working in partnership with another L&WCF eligible agency or group in development of proposal.
· 5 points if proposed project sponsor is working in conjunction with another agency that is eligible for L&WCF
· 3 points if proposed project sponsor is working with an agency, group or individual that is not eligible such as a non-profit
· 0 points if proposed project sponsor is working alone toward realization of project
b. Meeting and expanding existing recreational needs (25 points)
i. Project meets one of the top-10 recreational needs as identified in the most recent Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
· 5 points if proposal addresses states top recreational need
· 4 points if proposal addresses states 2nd - 4th recreational need
· 3 points if proposal addresses states 5th – 7th recreational need
· 2 points if proposal addresses states 8th – 10th recreational need
· 0 points if proposal does not address a top recreational need
ii. Project acquires land for recreational development
· 5 points if proposal is for acquisition of more than 100 acres or if project is for development of land acquired through donation
· 3 points if proposal is for acquisition of 50 – 99 acres
· 1 point if proposal is for acquisition of 1 – 49 acres
· 0 points if proposal does not include land acquisition
iii. Project merges with an existing recreational facility to enhance recreational opportunity for the region
· 5 points if proposal increases recreational usefulness of an existing L&WCF project site
· 3 points if proposal increases recreational usefulness of a recreation facility that is not an L&WCF site
· 0 points if proposal is for a stand-alone development
iv. Project improves recreational opportunities for the region beyond the specific political subdivision of the sponsor
· 5 points if proposal is designed to increase out-of-state tourism
· 3 points if proposal is designed to increase recreational appeal beyond the reach of the project sponsor
· 0 points if proposal is for local community only
v. Project provides recreational infrastructure which does not currently exist in region
· 5 points if project develops facilities not otherwise available within a 50-mile radius
· 3 points if project develops facilities not otherwise available within a 25 – 49-mile radius
· 0 points if project develops facilities that are available in an area less than 25 miles away
c. L&WCF project history (30 points)
i. Project sponsor has previously administered a L&WCF grant project without significant administrative issues
· 5 points if all existing L&WCF projects administered by sponsor are in good standing without any record of administrative concerns
· 3 points if all existing L&WCF projects administered by sponsor are currently in good standing and all previous administrative concerns have been addressed and resolved
· 0 points if administrative issues have been identified and are unresolved relating to previous projects
· No projects can be funded if project sponsor has existing L&WCF projects currently out of L&WCF compliance standards
ii. Project sponsor has received less than the state average per capita of L&WCF assistance
· 5 points if the parish of the proposed project sponsor has received less than the state per capita amount of L&WCF assistance
· 3 points if the parish of the proposed project sponsor has received one dollar, more or less, than the state average per capita amount of L&WCF assistance
· 0 points if the parish of the proposed project sponsor has received one dollar or more greater than the state average per capita amount of L&WCF assistance
iii. Project sponsor has maintained and operated previous L&WCF sites without compliance issues
· 5 points if there is no record of compliance issues for existing L&WCF projects within the proposed sponsor area
· 3 points if there have been compliance issues within the proposed project sponsors area, but those compliance issues have been resolved
· Sponsors with existing compliance issues are disqualified from consideration unless the application is specifically to address the compliance issue which has been created through no fault of the project sponsor, at which time they receive zero points in this category
iv. All existing L&WCF project sites with the project sponsors area are well maintained
· 5 points if all existing L&WCF sites within the project sponsor’s area are currently well maintained
· 0 points if maintenance issues of recreational facilities, whether sponsored by L&WCF or not, are identified in the sponsor’s area of responsibility
v. Project sponsor has submitted applications within the past three cycles without receiving funding
· 5 points if sponsor has provided applications for this project within the last three years that was not funded due solely to the lack of available funds
· 3 points if sponsor has provided applications for any project within the last three years that was not funded due in part to the lack of available funds
· 0 points if this is a new project having never been submitted for consideration in previous cycles
d. Financial resources (15 points)
i. Project sponsor has matching funds available for project
· 5 points if matching funds are readily available from general appropriation, taxes or other public monies
· 3 points if matching funds are available from a party other than the project sponsor, but not through a separate grant
· 0 points if no identification of matching funds is identified
ii. Project sponsor has additional funding available from another grant funding source
· 5 points if L&WCF monies through this project are being used to match with funds provided through a corporate, foundation or private grant source
· 3 points if L&WCF monies through this project are tied to Recreational Trail Program monies
· 0 points if no identification of matching funds is identified
iii. Project sponsor demonstrates the resources necessary to maintain and operate proposed project in full compliance with L&WCF standards
· 5 points if the project sponsor has identified the resources to maintain and operate the facility
· 3 points if the project sponsor has an existing recreation department that was not identified as specifically responsible for maintenance and operation of the facility, but likely will be able to uphold these responsibilities
· 0 points if identification of maintenance and operation of facility is not contained in application
e. Innovation (5 points)
i. Project proposal is innovative in design and development potential
· 5 points if the proposed project is new and unique for the state
· 3 points if the proposed project is new and unique for the region of the state
· 0 points if the proposed project is adding resources to an existing infrastructure of similar facilities
f. Bonus Points:
i. For projects in areas affected by a natural disaster within the last five years – 5 points.
ii. For projects that would not be realized if not funded within this application cycle – 5 points. |