City staff recommended changes to the Davenport Dream exterior-rehabilitation program at the June 4 Committee of the Whole meeting, proposing two smaller target areas and a reallocation of federal CDBG funds so the city can test concentrated impact and reduce CDBG-related administrative delays. Councilors voted to keep the proposal on the discussion calendar for additional public input and clarification.

Bruce Berger, Director of Community and Economic Development, presented the staff analysis. The current Dream eligible area contains roughly 4,700–4,800 single-family homes; staff reported the program has served “roughly 200 and some” projects over the last five to six years. Because impacts are highly localized around completed projects, staff recommended shrinking the target to two smaller areas with a combined total of about 600–700 single-family houses so the program could achieve more visible neighborhood change, then rotate to other areas after a period (staff suggested two to three years might be reasonable to gauge impact).

The two candidate areas Berger named are an area east of the current Dream boundaries (roughly bounded by Brady/Bridal, Locust, and the Southeast Village commercial area) and the eastern portion of the Riverview/Ridgeview area east of Northwest Boulevard. Berger also proposed removing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding from the Dream program and focusing CIP (capital improvement program) funding in the two new areas; CDBG funds would remain available for housing rehab in the legacy Dream area. Staff said CDBG’s federal rules and application processes have slowed projects and that pulling CDBG out of the new target areas could speed delivery.

Residents and council members asked several questions about eligibility, income limits and how projects are selected. Berger said the program pairs two funding sources: CDBG (income-based) and CIP (not income-based). Under the existing approach, eligible applicants who meet CDBG income thresholds (at or below 80% of area median income) receive CDBG funds first; others may be served using CIP funds. Berger said applicants are evaluated on need and impact; a house that needs more work can score higher for program funding, but if repairs exceed available grant dollars the homeowner must cover the gap or the project cannot proceed.

Public commenters and several council members asked for clearer, simpler guidance on eligibility and scoring. Alderman Kelly repeatedly requested a plain-language “cliff notes” summary she can use when speaking with constituents; residents said they have applied multiple times without success and want transparent criteria. Alderwoman McGinnis and others asked how many applications the city receives and how many projects the program can fund; Berger said annual applications have varied (roughly 160–220) and the city typically completes about 25–40 projects per year depending on available funds. Berger estimated the program’s available funding in a recent year at roughly $900,000.

Councilors requested more detail and asked that the item remain on the discussion agenda so the public and ward aldermen can weigh in. Alderman Reinartz moved to keep items 1 and 2 on discussion; the motion passed. Staff said changes could be implemented in the next application round if the council so directs, and that a two- to three-year evaluation period would be reasonable to measure neighborhood impact.