CDBG Administration
Content current as of September 22, 2026, per the 2026 TxCDBG Project Implementation Manual (effective September 1, 2026) and the current eCFR.
CDBG money does not get spent in private. A jurisdiction that receives it has to plan its use in public, take comment on the plan in public, and report back on what it actually did, also in public. 24 CFR 91.105 is the rule that makes that happen for local governments. It sets the minimum number of hearings, the minimum notice before them, the minimum comment periods on each document, and what a jurisdiction owes a resident who complains. (91.105 is the local government rule. A State follows 91.115, and a local government receiving TxCDBG funds follows 570.486, both noted below.) None of this is optional paperwork. It is the mechanism by which the people CDBG is supposed to benefit get a say in how it is spent before the money moves, not just a report afterward.
A jurisdiction plans its use of CDBG funds in a multi-year Consolidated Plan. Each program year it submits an Action Plan that lays out how that year's CDBG funds will be spent. After the year closes, it reports on what actually happened in the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, the CAPER, the performance report referred to throughout 91.105. All three go through the citizen participation process set out in that section, and a jurisdiction must have its own written citizen participation plan describing how it will meet these requirements.
Timing matters too (24 CFR 91.15). The strategic part of the Consolidated Plan must be submitted at least once every five years, while the Action Plan, the citizen participation summary and the certifications are submitted every year. A jurisdiction should submit at least 45 days before its program year starts. HUD will not accept a submission earlier than November 15 or later than August 16 of the federal fiscal year, and missing August 16 automatically loses the CDBG funds. The CAPER is due within 90 days after the close of the program year (91.520).
91.105 requires at least two public hearings per year, held at a minimum of two different stages of the program year. At least one of those two hearings has to happen before the proposed Consolidated Plan is published for comment. Together the hearings must cover housing and community development needs, proposed activities, strategies for affirmatively furthering fair housing, and a review of program performance. Two hearings held back to back in the same week, both before the plan is drafted, do not satisfy this, because they are not at two different stages of the program year and cannot cover the proposed activities or a review of performance. The point of the early hearing is to let residents help shape the plan while it can still change, not just react to a document that is already finished.
For advance notice of a hearing, HUD does not set a required length, but it considers two weeks adequate. Small print notices a few days before a hearing do not count as adequate. Two weeks is the benchmark to plan against when scheduling a hearing and publishing notice of it.
The State rule is lighter on hearings. Under 91.115 the State's plan must provide for at least one public hearing on housing and community development needs before the proposed Consolidated Plan is published, with the same 30-day comment period. A local government receiving TxCDBG funds must meet 570.486(a)(5): a minimum of two public hearings, each at a different stage of the program, with the needs hearing held before it submits its application to the State.
The minimum comment period is different for each document, and mixing them up is an easy mistake.
| Document | Minimum comment period |
|---|---|
| Consolidated Plan | Not less than 30 calendar days |
| Substantial amendment | Not less than 30 calendar days before submission to HUD |
| Performance report (CAPER) | Not less than 15 days |
The CAPER gets the shorter period, which fits a report on a year that has already happened. The Consolidated Plan and any substantial amendment to it both get the longer 30-day period, because both are decisions about money that has not been spent yet.
A substantial amendment is not defined only by dollar amount. Under 91.105 (local governments), the citizen participation plan must include, among its criteria, changing the use of CDBG funds from one eligible activity to another, and the plan must also set the other criteria, so a substantial amendment also includes whatever else the jurisdiction has defined as substantial in its own citizen participation plan. That second part matters: the federal floor sets one trigger, but a jurisdiction can, and often does, write its own citizen participation plan to catch more situations than the regulation requires on its own. (For a State the required criterion is instead a change in the method of distribution of funds, 91.115(c). A TxCDBG local government must give notice and a chance to comment on activities added, deleted or substantially changed in purpose, scope, location or beneficiaries, as the State defines it, 570.486(a)(6).) A grantee cannot assume that moving money between two activities that are both individually eligible is a free, no-process change. Swapping the use of funds is exactly the kind of change 91.105 was written to catch, and it triggers the same 30-day comment period as the original plan.
A written complaint related to the Consolidated Plan, its amendments or the performance report is entitled to a timely, substantive, written response. For CDBG recipients, that response should come within 15 working days where practicable. It does not have to resolve the complaint in the recipient's favor, but it has to actually address what was raised, in writing, and promptly.
Language assistance is built into the plan. It must describe how the jurisdiction assesses language needs and take reasonable steps to give non-English-speaking residents meaningful access, and hearings must address the needs of non-English speakers where a significant number can reasonably be expected to attend. A hearing notice or a comment period that is only ever published in English does not meet 91.105 in a community where a significant share of residents cannot read it.
The annual performance report, the CAPER, is submitted to HUD under 24 CFR 91.520, within 90 days after the close of the program year. It is a separate citation from 91.105, which governs only the citizen participation and comment process around it. The report describes the resources made available, the investment of those resources, the geographic distribution of investments, the families and persons assisted, and actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing. For CDBG it also assesses how the use of funds relates to the priorities in the plan.
GCHS is almost never the jurisdiction running the Consolidated Plan process itself. For an Entitlement city or county that is the local government under 91.105. For TxCDBG the State runs the plan under 91.115, and the local unit of government administering the grant follows 570.486. The rules still shape GCHS's work directly. If an Entitlement program shifts CDBG money from one activity to another, for example moving funds earmarked for a different eligible activity into single family rehabilitation, that is a substantial amendment requiring public notice and a 30-day comment period before it goes to HUD, not an internal budget adjustment. Under TxCDBG, the local government must give citizens notice and a chance to comment on activities added, deleted or substantially changed, and follow the State's amendment process. If a homeowner or a neighbor files a written complaint about the rehab program, the 15 working day response clock (where practicable) matters and should be tracked the same way a deadline in a construction contract is tracked. And because GCHS serves counties along the Gulf Coast with meaningful Spanish-speaking populations, the language assistance requirement is not a theoretical rule. Outreach material, hearing notices, and complaint procedures connected to a CDBG-funded rehab program need to actually reach the residents the program is supposed to serve, in a language they can use, or the citizen participation process behind the program has a real gap in it.
1. A jurisdiction holds exactly one public hearing on its proposed Consolidated Plan, and that hearing takes place after the draft plan has already been published for comment. Does this satisfy 24 CFR 91.105?
2. How many days of advance notice does HUD consider adequate before a public hearing required under 24 CFR 91.105?
3. A jurisdiction is about to publish its draft Consolidated Plan and wants to know the shortest comment period it can legally offer before submitting the plan to HUD. What is the minimum under 24 CFR 91.105?
4. Midway through the program year, an Entitlement grantee decides to redirect CDBG funds that had been designated for one eligible activity to a different eligible activity instead. Both activities are individually eligible under the program's rules. What does 24 CFR 91.105 require before this change is submitted to HUD?
5. What is the minimum comment period required for the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, the CAPER, under 24 CFR 91.105?
6. Besides changing the use of CDBG funds from one eligible activity to another, what else can make a change to the plan a substantial amendment under 24 CFR 91.105?
7. A resident submits a written complaint about how a CDBG-funded program is being run. Under 24 CFR 91.105, what does the recipient owe that resident, and on what general timeframe?
8. A jurisdiction's community includes a significant number of residents who do not speak English. What does 24 CFR 91.105 require regarding its citizen participation materials?
9. Under which CFR section, and by when, must a jurisdiction submit its annual performance report, the CAPER, to HUD?
10. Which document is the annual document that sets out how a jurisdiction will spend a specific program year's CDBG funds, updating the multi-year Consolidated Plan?
11. A jurisdiction holds two public hearings on its Consolidated Plan, both scheduled within the same week and both before the draft plan is published. Does this satisfy the two-hearing requirement in 24 CFR 91.105?
12. Why does 24 CFR 91.105 require that at least one public hearing occur before the proposed Consolidated Plan is published, rather than allowing both hearings to happen only after the plan is finished?
13. What must every jurisdiction have in place, describing how it will meet the citizen participation requirements of 24 CFR 91.105?
14. What is the Consolidated Plan, in relation to the annual Action Plan?