Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cdbg Policy Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff propose letting departments compete for CDBG public-facility funds and set award minimums
Summary
City staff proposed opening a portion of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application to internal city departments and establishing award minimums—$100,000 for non-public-service awards and $40,000 for public-service awards—to increase impact and reduce administrative burden. Council members raised concerns about excluding small nonprofits and outreach during recovery.
James Shelton, the City of Asheville’s community development division manager, told the Housing and Community Development Committee on Nov. 18 that staff are considering two changes to the annual CDBG funding process: solicit project proposals from internal city departments for non-public-service activities (public facilities and improvements) and set award minimums to concentrate impact and ease administration.
"We are seeking this Committee's feedback today on this proposed change," Shelton said, noting the city receives roughly $1,000,000 in CDBG entitlement each year (six-year average $1,023,185) and that federal rules require 70% of awards to benefit low- and moderate-income residents. He explained that the program allows up to 15% of funds for public services and that after administration the remaining funds available for projects typically total a little over $800,000.
Shelton proposed a non-public-service award minimum of $100,000 and a public-service award minimum of $40,000. "It would reduce the number of awards we make to increase impact," he said, and added that administering many small awards consumes comparable staff time to larger awards.
Several committee members expressed reservations. Councilwoman Shanika Smith and Councilwoman Sage Turner cautioned that minimums could exclude small or emerging nonprofits that benefit from smaller seed grants and that capacity-building options should be considered. Members also urged enhanced outreach because participation may be depressed during the recovery period. Staff noted that any internal department proposals would be solicited concurrently with external applications in January and evaluated for eligibility, risk and capacity, with final action following the normal public-comment and HUD timeline (public hearing in June; Action Plan submitted to HUD in July).
No formal policy change was adopted at the Nov. 18 meeting; staff left the proposal open for committee feedback before finalizing application materials for the January cycle.
