Asheville public hearing exposes split over plan to redirect $19.2M to single‑family disaster repairs

Asheville City Council heard a public hearing on a staff proposal to reallocate $19.2 million in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG‑DR) funds to expand single‑family home repair and reconstruction programs.

The proposal, presented by James Shelton, the city’s community development division manager, would move $9.2 million from multifamily housing construction and $10 million from the infrastructure program to raise the city’s single‑family allocation to $22.2 million. Shelton said the change is intended to prioritize very low‑income households—those at or below 60 percent of area median income—with elderly, disabled or children in the home.

Shelton outlined the program mechanics and constraints he said drive the decision: under the state’s RenewNC administration and HUD rules, the city’s home‑repair program uses a $100,000 rehabilitation threshold. Properties with estimated repair costs above that threshold are recategorized for full reconstruction; Shelton said the maximum reconstruction award is $450,000 and the current average rebuild cost is about $360,000. He added that about 285 households applied to the state program and roughly 110 have so far been found eligible; state review of the larger pipeline may not finish until the end of September.

Why it matters: Councilors and public commenters framed the vote as a choice between directly repairing and replacing homeowners’ houses or using scarce federal funds to build multifamily apartments that serve renters. Proponents argued repairs are an anti‑displacement tool that preserves generational wealth for low‑income homeowners; opponents warned the per‑unit cost for RenewNC reconstructions can be high and said multifamily investments deliver more long‑term, deed‑restricted units per public dollar.

Public comment was sharply split. Susan Bean of MountainTrue, speaking with members of the Bunkham Affordable Housing Network, urged council to reject the reallocation, saying the estimated average reconstruction cost of about $360,000 would commit “almost $400,000 of public taxpayer funds” per household for a three‑year occupancy restriction, while the same funds directed to multifamily construction would create hundreds of long‑term affordable units. David Greenson (GAP) urged council to "press pause" and demand more transparent data from RenewNC about how much funding reaches homeowners versus administration and contractor costs.

Supporters of the reallocation—among them several longtime disaster‑recovery advocates who testified—said homeowners remain in urgent need and that locally administered alternatives can be slow or unavailable; a retired HUD disaster‑recovery official told council he favored prioritizing direct homeowner recovery.

What’s next: Council did not vote on the amendment at this meeting; Shelton said staff will accept public comment through June 14 and return to council for final consideration at a future session (staff said June 23 is a target). Shelton and councilors asked state and program questions about timelines, eligibility and whether the city could set different thresholds; Shelton noted some program rules are set at the state or federal level but said the city will continue to press for clarity.

Context and caveats: Shelton stressed that RenewNC is a state‑administered program and that the city will continue oversight as a subrecipient. Shelton also noted that HUD programmatic requirements—lead abatement, mitigation work and other federal compliance—can increase per‑unit costs. Several commenters proposed locally administered repair programs as alternatives that could potentially serve more households per dollar.

The city manager and staff emphasized the proposal responds to a changing pipeline of needs and funding opportunities and is not the last time the action plan will be revised. The public comment period for the draft amendment remains open through June 14; council is expected to revisit the amendment at a future meeting.