Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Resilience Hubs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Asheville committee presses staff for resilience-hub infrastructure funding, asks for measurable timeline
Summary
Committee members urged staff to prioritize infrastructure (microgrids, solar backup, wells, emergency communications) for resilience hubs and discussed carving out $10 million from recovery/infrastructure funds, but staff said no dedicated funding is currently identified outside HMGP and committed to follow-up.
The PEDE committee spent substantial time on Jan. 20 discussing an organizational work plan (OWP) for a connected network of resilience hubs and what the city’s role should be in supporting community-led resilience.
Staff overview: Interim sustainability staff described the resilience-hub OWP as an effort to coordinate cross-departmental projects and community-led initiatives, build shared definitions, and align funding and policy. Staff highlighted nested projects including an ARPA-funded community-space project, a community engagement academy, resilient power systems tied to Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) applications, and a resilience-hub mapping project with Thrive Asheville.
Council priorities and funding questions: Several council members pressed for more concrete funding and quicker timelines rather than exploratory planning. Chair Ullman proposed a $10,000,000 carve-out from infrastructure CDBG-DR funds for resilience-hub infrastructure (microgrids/solar backup, well-water systems, emergency communications), arguing the city should prioritize improvements at city-owned facilities in high-vulnerability neighborhoods.
Staff response and next steps: Staff said there was no dedicated city funding identified currently outside of HMGP and that infrastructure Doctor funds and PFI conversations would be a follow-up topic at the February PFI meeting; staff committed to reporting back on potential intersections with infrastructure Doctor funds and to provide options tied to measurable targets such as the neighborhood vulnerability index.
Context and concerns: Committee members repeatedly asked for measurable outcomes (how much funding gets what infrastructure and how that maps to the vulnerability index) and suggested layering funding streams (HMGP, CDBG-DR, bonds). The committee agreed staff should return with clearer recommendations on funding sources, measurable outcomes, and a proposed timeline for moving from planning to implementation.
