(a) Each member of
the proposal review committee shall score a proposed project on a scale of 0 -
100 total points, and shall award
(1) no more
than 15 points for its rating of a proposed project's design, goals, and
results, as set out in the project description; the committee shall give a
higher score to a proposed project that meets at least one of the following
criteria:
(A) clearly explains the project
goals and identifies measurable outcomes;
(B) will have tangible and lasting results
and that addresses project goals within the time allowed for
completion;
(C) demonstrates an
ability to provide for continuing financial and administrative support, if the
proposed project is ongoing;
(2) no more than 20 points for its rating of
a proposed project's demonstrated need and potential benefit; the committee
shall give a higher score to a proposed project that
(A) addresses a demonstrated need for
addressing air pollution;
(B) will
likely result in a lasting benefit for a community, region, or the state, or
that will result in a product that can be used by an agency in the state or by
a similarly situated community in the state; or
(C) effectively shares the results of the
project with appropriate entities to maximize the project's benefits;
(3) no more than five points for
its rating of a proposed project's ability to achieve the purposes of the grant
program;
(4) no more than 10 points
for its rating of a proposed project's collaboration with other agencies, the
community, and the public, and of the proposed project's level of support from
those entities; the committee shall give a higher score to a proposed project
that
(A) includes appropriate consultation or
collaboration with state agencies, communities, the public, or other
appropriate entities; or
(B)
includes a resolution or letter of support from the governing body of a
community, a commitment of in-kind resources or financing, or other evidence of
support from appropriate state agencies, communities, or the public;
(5) no more than 10 points for its
rating of a proposed project's readiness; the committee shall give a higher
score to a proposed project that
(A) is well
thought out and ready to be implemented;
(B) demonstrates a likelihood of receiving
required permits or required landowner support; or
(C) has secured additional sources of
financing, if those additional sources are necessary;
(6) no more than 20 points for its rating of
the applicant's capability to manage and implement the subgrant; the committee
shall give a higher score to a proposal that demonstrates that
(A) the applicant has the capability to
manage the administration of the subgrant, including the maintenance of an
accurate accounting and reporting system; or
(B) demonstrates that key individuals have
the experience, qualifications, and technical ability to successfully complete
the project to the department's satisfaction; and
(7) no more than 20 points for its rating of
a proposed project's expected benefits to human health or the environment; the
committee shall give a higher score to a proposed project that
(A) provides benefits to human health by
addressing an identified air pollution problem; or
(B) will likely result in a lasting human
health or environmental benefit for a community, a region, or the
state.
(b)
Once all its members have completed their individual scores for a proposed
project, the proposal review committee shall average the individual scores to
calculate a final score for that proposed project. After it completes scoring
each proposed project, the proposal review committee shall rank the proposed
projects by score.
(c) Based on the
final scoring calculations and project rankings, the department will make final
selections of proposed projects.
(d) The department will select two tiers of
projects. For Tier 1, the department will select the highest-ranked projects,
and will allocate available money to these projects. For Tier 2, the department
will rank and select projects for which subgrants will be awarded if additional
money or money previously allocated to a Tier 1 project becomes
available.
(e) The department will
recommend a subgrant amount smaller than the amount sought if the department
considers a reduced amount to be
(1) necessary
to increase the amount supplied to the proposed project by the recipient if the
department considers the recipient to have additional resources
available;
(2) necessary to
eliminate money for inefficient or excessive components of the proposed
project; or
(3) warranted by the
merits of the proposed project.
(f) The department will send an applicant
written notification
(1) whether the proposed
project has been selected as a Tier 1 project, and if so, the department's
recommended amount of any subgrant; or
(2) whether the proposed project is assigned
to Tier 2, and if so, the project's ranking within Tier 2 and the department's
recommended amount of any subgrant.
