The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutDraft CPC Evaluation Matrix_6-16-21Application Evaluation Matrix The CPC will prioritize projects that are collectively consistent with the community's needs and values. The matrix below will serve as a guide for project evaluation. Narrative Criterion Excellent Good Fair Inadequate Primary Criteria Completeness All answers and required documentation are provided. 1 question is unanswered or 1 document missing. 2 questions are unanswered, 2 documents are missing, or further information is required. Multiple documents are missing, questions are unanswered, or significant further information is required. Supports goals in the Community Preservation (CP) Plan Strong alignment with specific CP Plan goals and priorities General alignment with CPA Plan goals and priorities Alignment with specific CP Plan goals and priorities is weak Does not align with any CP Plan goals and priorities. Supports identified needs, goals, and priorities in town planning documents References and strongly aligns with needs, goals, or priorities in town planning documents. References and generally aligns with needs, goals, or priorities in town planning documents. Minimal references to and weak alignment with needs, goals, or priorities in town planning documents. Neither references nor aligns with the needs, goals, or priorities in town planning documents. Addresses long-standing, urgent needs or exceptional time -sensitive opportunities Clearly addresses long- standing or urgent needs or if appropriate an exceptional time -sensitive opportunity. Addresses urgent needs and/or opportunities. Somewhat addresses an urgent need or opportunity; time sensitivity may not be exceptional. Does not address urgent needs or a time sensitive opportunity. Quality of Application Demonstrates high visibility, and generation of broad community benefits High visibility, strong community benefit, and public access Has visibility, public benefit, and public access Visibility, public benefit, and or public access are low. The argument for public benefit or access is not convincing. Demonstrates broad support from municipal, community groups and/or range of public voices Multiple letters of support and positive public comments from broad outreach and consultation efforts More than one letter of support. Positive public comments from limited outreach and consultation efforts. 1 letter of support. Public comments are mixed, but the majority are favorable. No letters of support. Most public comments demonstrate opposition to the project. Incorporates sustainable environmental design and practices for long-term maintenance Strongly incorporates sustainable environmental design and practices for long- term maintenance. Some effort to incorporate sustainable environmental design and practices for long- term maintenance. Limited effort to incorporate sustainable environmental design and practices for long- term maintenance. Does not incorporate sustainable environmental design and practices for long - term maintenance. Incorporates universal design principles and complies with ADA and MAAB accessibility regulations Strongly incorporates universal design practices and complies with ADA/MAAB regulations. Some effort to incorporate universal design practices and complies with ADA/MAAB regulations. Limited effort to incorporate universal design practices and comply with ADA/MAAB regulations. Does not incorporate universal design practices and comply and/or comply with ADA/MAAB regulations. Quality of Application Addresses two or more CPA categories Fulfills this principle. Fulfills this principle. Fulfills this principle. Does not fulfill this principle. 1 Draft Evaluation Matrix for Discussion 6-14-21 Application Evaluation Matrix The CPC will prioritize projects that are collectively consistent with the community's needs and values. The matrix below will serve as a guide for project evaluation. Serves as a catalyst for transformative change Demonstrates, with compelling evidence, the project will lead to significant change to the community beyond the project itself. Demonstrates, with some evidence, the project will lead to significant change to the community beyond the project itself. Does not demonstrate the project will lead to significant change to the community beyond the project or makes the case without evidence. Does not claim the project will lead to significant change to the community beyond the project. Capacity, Experience, and Project Feasibility Demonstrates feasibility regarding project management and project team expertise Clearly documents project manager capacity (time dedicated to project, qualifications, and experience evidenced by track record. Application includes a thorough and detailed project schedule. Some documentation of project manager capacity (time dedicated to project, qualifications, experience, and some track record.) Application includes a thorough project schedule. Project manager has minimal qualifications or experience or there are concerns about time dedicated to project or track record. Application includes an undetailed or questionable project schedule. Project manager has neither the required qualifications nor experience -OR- the CPC has previously determined the project manager did not adequately perform on a different CPA -funded project. No project schedule Demonstrates feasibility regarding realistic timeline and milestones Timeline is logical and detailed with clear and specific milestones. The timeline and project schedule are clearly realistic for the project proposed. Timeline has relatively clear milestones. The timeline and project schedule are likely realistic for the project proposed. Timeline is generic, possibly unrealistic, lacks detail and/or requires further clarification. Timeline does not demonstrate an understanding of project requirements, organization, or timing or organization. Demonstrates feasibility regarding long-term maintenance plan and budget for resource Maintenance plan is detailed and realistic, displaying sufficient and reliable resources to fund future maintenance. Maintenance plan is feasible and identifies some resources to fund future maintenance. Maintenance plan lacks thoroughness, supporting information, or reliable funding for future maintenance. Maintenance plan is insufficient, and/or has no reliable funding for future maintenance — OR- no maintenance plan. Financial Feasibility and Leverage Demonstrates feasibility regarding a reasonable and informed budget Budget is logical, realistic, and well -detailed, including professional cost estimates or quotes. Budget is logical and includes professional cost estimates or quotes. Budget lacks clarity and documentation such as cost assumptions, estimates or quotes. Budget is illogical, incomplete, and/or lacks clarity and cost estimates or quotes. Leverages additional funding sources including in -kind contributions Evidence of significant additional sources of funding available/committed or evidence of in -kind resources and/or cost savings Evidence of some additional sources of funding available/committed or evidence of in -kind resources and/or cost savings Minimal additional sources of funding or in -kind resources available, or no evidence of commitments No additional sources of funding, in -kind resources, or cost savings for the project. 2 Draft Evaluation Matrix for Discussion 6-14-21