Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cdbg Public Input topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davenport CAC previews CDBG year‑52 public‑input plan, applies small cut to allocations and cancels summer meetings
Summary
At its July 7 meeting, the Davenport City Citizens Advisory Committee reviewed the public‑input schedule for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program year beginning July 1, 2026 (year 52), discussed a roughly 4% reduction in confirmed grant funding and staff adjustments, and approved canceling its August and September meetings.
On July 7, 2025, the Davenport City Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) reviewed the public‑input plan for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program year that begins July 1, 2026 (year 52), and discussed funding and scheduling implications for subrecipients and the annual action plan.
Heather, a staff member, told the committee that the city has completed its five‑year consolidated plan — a requirement tied to CDBG and HOME funding — and described the annual action plan process that must be repeated each program year. “We are required to have a 5 year consolidated plan, which we do once every 5 years,” Heather said, noting the current program year (CDBG year 51) began July 1 and that the city must now plan for the next program year.
The CAC heard that staff plans to conduct public outreach in August and September using online and in‑person methods such as an online survey, farmers markets, libraries and Party in the Park events, plus a virtual public meeting option used in recent years. Heather said the outreach usually includes a combination of survey responses and demographic and housing data (census, impediments to fair housing, housing needs assessment) that staff combine to propose local objectives for the annual action plan. Those proposed objectives will be presented to the CAC in October; the committee’s recommendations go to City Council for approval and then into the application process, which staff expects to begin in November.
Heather told the committee the city’s confirmed HUD grant award was slightly below the estimate used for allocations. “It was about 4% lower than what our estimate was,” she said, and staff applied the CAC’s prior instruction to make across‑the‑board adjustments when the final award varies. The CAC had previously recommended that staff make proportional adjustments if the final grant amount varied by plus or minus 20%; Heather said staff followed that direction and that the council review occurred in committee of the whole and was placed on the council consent agenda for the coming Wednesday. Heather added that the city performs HUD environmental reviews and publishes notices to enable pre‑award costs, allowing subrecipients to incur costs as of July 1 and request reimbursement once HUD releases funds, which staff currently expects in late fall.
The committee discussed survey format and ranking. Reagan, a CAC member, asked whether allowing respondents to “pick 3 or pick 5” affects how priorities are counted. Heather explained the online survey allows ranking and typically treats the outcome as the items that receive the most selections; she said the software “will say you can pick up to 5, but it … will stop you at 5.” Gilmore, a CAC member, asked whether the survey should say “pick 5” or “pick up to 5,” and Heather confirmed the online version permits up to five selections without forcing respondents to fill all slots.
The CAC also approved two formal, non‑substantive motions by voice vote: acceptance of the April 7, 2025 meeting minutes (moved by Hodges; second by Reagan) and a motion to cancel the August 4 and September 8 CAC meetings if no business arises (moved by Joseph; second by Reagan). Committee members were asked to provide any suggested additions to the survey within one week; Heather said staff would send a follow‑up email and that comments would be collected through the following Monday. Outcomes of the outreach will return to the CAC in October, at which point members will help set local objectives that go to City Council.
Meeting participants who spoke about the CDBG planning and outreach included Heather (staff member), Reagan (CAC member), Gilmore (CAC member), Hodges (CAC member), Joseph (CAC member) and other CAC members present for roll call planning and votes. The discussion was procedural and planning‑focused; no new regulations or program changes were adopted at the meeting, and the CAC’s role for year‑52 remains advisory pending City Council action and HUD approval.
