Asheville HCD hears plan to shift CDBG‑DR funds to single‑family repairs amid a projected $12M gap

Asheville City’s Housing and Community Development Committee discussed a staff proposal on Dec. 16 to reallocate part of the city’s CDBG‑DR housing funds toward single‑family home repairs after staff reported unexpectedly high demand and costs in the state‑administered Renew NC program.

Elma King, CDBG‑DR program manager, told the committee that the City’s CDBG‑DR action plan currently allocates $31,000,000 to housing: $3,000,000 for single‑family home repair reimbursement to the state and $28,000,000 for affordable multifamily construction. "The current gap is at least $12,000,000," King said, citing application data and state guidance on reconstruction averages.

Why it matters: Renew NC treats repairs up to $50,000 as rehabilitation but classifies damage above $50,000 as reconstruction, which carries coverage up to $450,000 per unit. Because many applications are exceeding initial estimates and some reconstructions are costly, the City is weighing how to direct finite resources across single‑family and multifamily needs.

King and Community Economic Development Director Nikki Reed said Renew NC is administering the single‑family program on the City’s behalf at no administrative cost; the City’s role is to reimburse eligible construction costs, review reimbursement requests and monitor program compliance. King said that, based on application snapshots, the City had received roughly 245 applications, 83 of which were deemed eligible; 57 were in phase‑1 priority (60% AMI or less) and 38 met a further priority category (households with a senior, child or disabled member).

Staff proposal and rationale: Staff discussed a concept to shift $17,000,000 from the multifamily allocation into the single‑family program while keeping the $31,000,000 housing total intact. King said that using roughly $20,000,000 for urgent single‑family needs could address the most exigent cases and would allow staff to estimate that about 80 homes could be repaired or reconstructed under that scenario while leaving about $11,000,000 for multifamily development.

Council reaction and data requests: Members raised questions about the underlying data and potential trade‑offs. Councilwoman Sage Turner and Interim City Manager Ben Woody urged staff to gather more property‑level damage assessments and clearer breakdowns of unmet need by single‑family versus multifamily before moving funds. "We need to have a little more data, a little time," Woody said, recommending staff return with more analysis.

Equity and logistics concerns: Committee members asked how the program prioritizes households with disabled members and whether reconstruction applicants can obtain temporary relocation assistance. King described acceptable disability verification methods (medical certification, federal disability benefits documentation, government placard, or North Carolina homestead exemption) and said Renew NC does not provide relocation assistance; staff have been referring some applicants to the long‑term recovery group for rental aid but said the success of those referrals is unclear and requires follow‑up.

Public comment and peer checks: David Greenson of People’s Plates urged the City to collect more detailed multifamily demand data — FEMA records, insurance claims, building inspections and displacement indicators — and to consult peer municipalities about their experiences administering Renew NC before committing significant funds.

Next steps: Staff told the committee they will collect additional property‑level damage assessment data, follow up on inactive applications (to determine whether lack of relocation options is driving withdrawals), survey other jurisdictions’ Renew NC experiences, and clarify what happens when project costs exceed $450,000. Staff said they expect fuller data in March after the Renew NC application window closed Dec. 31 and processing is complete, and that the timeline includes a public comment period in January and a potential HCD vote in March if a substantial amendment is pursued.

Procedural note: The committee approved the Nov. 18, 2025 minutes by roll call vote at the start of the meeting.

What remains unresolved: No formal reallocation vote was taken on Dec. 16. Staff framed the $17,000,000 shift as a proposal for further study; the committee requested more detailed evidence about unmet needs and options for mitigating relocation burdens before any formal decision.

The Housing and Community Development Committee is expected to revisit the CDBG‑DR housing allocations in January and again in March when staff present property‑level assessments and a recommended course of action.