Laserfiche WebLink
Ms.Judy Karon 2 February 27, 1995 <br /> than achieved by conducting formal public hearings that, if attended by anyone, is <br /> likely to hear only the comments of grant applicants. <br /> I ask and sincerely hope that the County will continue the advisory committee and <br /> assign to it the role of ranking applications according to the agreed upon priorities. <br /> Secondly, with regard to the rating system, I wish to make several comments. As <br /> mentioned above,I wholeheartedly support th notion of establishing priorities and <br /> having a point rating system. I do disagree, however, with the weight assigned to <br /> various priorities. For example, rating item No. 3 allows up to 20 points if the <br /> application meets one or more of the funding priorities. I suspect on a 100 point <br /> scale this is a reasonable weight. However, I question why the rating system <br /> within that category assigns 15 points for rental property rehab and only 5 points <br /> for neighborhood revitalization. I also question the recommended assignment of <br /> 15 points for removal of dilapidated structures and only 5 points for social services <br /> without any implied ability to weigh the relative value of applications that would <br /> be assigned these points. <br /> Rating item No. 4 allows from 0 - 10 points if"major funding" for the project is in <br /> place. I suspect that in reviewing an application the funding is either in place or it <br /> is not. How will this range of points be assigned? <br /> Rating item No. 5 allows up to 20 points depending upon the perceived capacity of <br /> the project to proceed. While this is an important item to be considered, it is also <br /> extremely subjective and I believe municipal participation in assigning these points <br /> would be essential. I make the same comment with regard to rating item No. 8, <br /> which is also a highly subjective item. I believe the assignment of points for this <br /> item could best be made by representatives of communities for which the block <br /> grant funds are intended. <br /> With regard to rating item No. 9, I do not remember the issue of tax base being <br /> such a high priority during discussion by municipalities to justify assigning up to <br /> 15 points. Moreover, this item suggests an assignment of 5 points for the <br /> enhancement of the County's income/sales tax base. I do not believe this has any <br /> significance inasmuch as the County does not collect sales nor income tax, and I <br /> don't believe a project should receive any financial aid on the basis of how much <br /> sales or income tax is collected within the county. Also, could you explain the <br />