|(a) Eligibility. In addition to meeting the application
threshold requirements in §30.25 of this subchapter (relating
to Application Threshold Requirements), in order to be eligible to
apply for community development funds, a community must document that
at least 51.00% of the persons who would directly benefit from the
implementation of each activity and target area proposed in the application
are of low to moderate income.
(b) Application cycle. Applications are accepted on
a biennial basis and selected for award pursuant to regional competitions
held during the first year of the biennial cycle. An eligible community
may submit one application per cycle as prescribed in the most recent
application guide for this fund.
(c) Regional allocations. Each state planning region
is provided with a regional CD Fund allocation for each program year
of the biennial cycle once HUD releases the state's annual CDBG allocation.
(d) Selection procedures.
(1) Initial review. Upon receipt of an application,
the department performs an initial review for application completeness
and eligibility in accordance with §30.29 of this subchapter
(relating to Application Review). Only the department may disqualify
an application from consideration.
(2) Scoring process. During the first program year
of the application cycle, eligible applications are scored and ranked
by the department using criteria determined by the state planning
region, the Unified Scoring Committee, and the department as described
in subsection (e) of this section.
(3) Awards. After the department determines the final
rankings of applications, awards are made based on each region's allocation
and awarded until funds allocated to the region are depleted. If the
program year allocation is insufficient to completely fund the next
highest ranked application in the region, projects may be funded using
TxCDBG deobligated funds or other funds, to the extent available.
The department may also pool the remaining funds from each region
to maximize the total number of applications to be fully funded.
(e) Scoring criteria.
(1) Regional project priority category. Each state
planning region, as defined by Chapter 391 of the Local Government
Code, is responsible for establishing the project types that will
be considered first, second, or third priority projects.
(A) The governing body of the state planning region
shall establish the priorities and communicate the decision to the
department or may appoint a committee to carry out these tasks.
(B) Public meeting. The public must be given an opportunity
to comment on the project priorities to be considered. The designated
committee must convene in an open meeting for discussion and action
to adopt project priorities.
(i) Notice of the public meeting must be advertised
to the general public through a regional newspaper or other similar
media. Each community eligible to participate in the application cycle
must also be contacted directly with written notice of the public
(ii) The public meeting is subject to the Texas Open
(C) The department will provide a format for establishing
the criteria and a deadline for submitting the regional decision to
the department to be incorporated into the application guide.
(D) State planning regions that use internal staff
to prepare applications and administer CDBG grants must address the
potential conflicts of interest of regional participation in selecting
project priorities. For these regions, staff responsible for any part
of the grant application process:
(i) may not participate in the planning or administration
of the public meeting or committee duties, including distributing
public meeting notices, explaining public meeting requirements to
committee members, conducting the committee meeting, or submitting
the results of the committee to the department; and
(ii) may attend the public meeting but may not present
recommendations to the committee except during the public comment
portion of the meeting, subject to the same time limits applied to
(E) Twenty-five percent of the total available points
will be determined by regional project priority categories.
(2) Department scoring criteria. The following factors
are considered by the department when scoring CD Fund applications
(detailed application and scoring information are available in the
(A) Past performance--the department will consider
a community's performance on all previously awarded TxCDBG contracts
within the past 4 years preceding the application deadline. Evaluation
of a community's past performance will include the following:
(i) completion of contract activities within the original
(ii) submission of environmental review requirements
within prescribed deadlines;
(iii) submission of the required close-out documents
within the period prescribed for such submission; and
(iv) maximum utilization of grant funds awarded.
(B) Other programmatic priorities--the department may
establish other scoring criteria to meet programmatic goals, so long
as the application cycle allows sufficient time after the publication
of such scoring criteria for communities to take action to maximize
(C) Ten percent of the total available points will
be determined by department scoring criteria.
(3) Unified Scoring Committee (USC) criteria. The USC
is responsible for determining objective scoring factors for all regions
in accordance with the requirements of this section and the current
TxCDBG Action Plan. The USC must establish the numerical value of
the points assigned to each scoring factor as described in the Committee
Guidelines provided by the department.
(A) USC composition. The Agriculture Commissioner will
appoint each member of the USC, to serve at the discretion of the
(i) Twenty-four (24) members shall be appointed to
the USC. The Commissioner shall ensure geographic representation for
each state planning region when appointing members.
(ii) Each member must be either an elected or appointed
official of a non-entitlement community at the time of appointment.
(iii) The governing body of each state planning region
may nominate one individual to be considered for appointment. The
department will establish a timeline for such nominations.
(B) Public hearing. The public must be given an opportunity
to comment on the scoring criteria considered. The department will
convene a public hearing for the USC to discuss and select the objective
scoring criteria that will be used to score and rank applications
within each region.
(i) Notice of public hearing. USC proceedings are subject
to the Texas Open Meetings Act. The department will publish notice
of the hearing in the Texas Register, post
the notice on its website, and announce the hearing details through
the CDBG email listserv that is available for all stakeholders.
(ii) Attendance at meetings. A quorum is required for
the USC public meeting. A USC member may designate a proxy to attend
the meeting. Proxies are counted for purposes of determining the presence
of a quorum and may participate in the discussion regarding potential
scoring criteria but may not vote on matters before the USC.
(C) Requirements for scoring criteria.
(i) All scoring criteria selected by the USC must be
in compliance with 24 CFR §91.320(k)(1)(i), which states in relevant
part, "The statement of method of distribution must provide sufficient
information so that units of general local government will be able
to understand and comment on it, understand what criteria and information
their application will be judged, and be able to prepare responsive
(ii) Prior to the scheduled USC public hearing, the
department will publish a list of previously approved scoring criteria
that comply with objective scoring requirements. The department will
also provide an opportunity for USC members, communities, and other
stakeholders to submit additional scoring criteria to the department
to be reviewed for compliance prior to the public hearing.
(iii) The USC may not adopt scoring factors that directly
negate or offset the department's scoring factors.
(D) Final selection of scoring criteria.
(i) The final selection of the scoring criteria is
the responsibility of the USC and must be consistent with the requirements
of the current TxCDBG Action Plan.
(ii) The department will review the scoring factors
selected to ensure that all scoring factors are objective and publish
the approved scoring methodology in the application guide. The department
may provide further details or elaboration on the objective scoring
methodology, data sources, and other clarifying details without the
necessity of a subsequent USC meeting.
(E) Sixty-five percent of the total available points
will be determined by USC scoring criteria.
(f) Other department responsibilities. The department
(1) establish the maximum number of USC scoring factors
that may be used in order to improve review and verification efficiency,
or exclude certain scoring factors if the data is not readily available
or verifiable in a timely manner. To ensure consistency, the department
may determine the acceptable data source for a particular scoring
(2) establish a deadline for each state planning region
to select and submit to the department its project type priorities
and nomination for the USC;
(3) publish Committee Guidelines to assist the USC
in selecting scoring criteria that meet federal, state and program
(A) For any region for which no project priorities
are submitted, applications will be scored according to the priorities
published in the Committee Guidelines.
(B) In the event the USC fails to approve an objective
scoring methodology to the satisfaction of the department consistent
with the requirements in the current TxCDBG Action Plan, the department
will establish scoring factors using the scoring factors identified
in the Committee Guidelines; and
(4) make a site visit to recommended application localities.