City Council regular meeting — March 25, 2025

Background:

• The City of Asheville receives an annual opportunity to apply for a Department of Justice (DOJ), Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant.
• The DOJ has preliminarily determined that the Asheville Police Department (APD) is eligible to receive a 2024 award of $71,999 which is allocated to the APD and the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office in the amounts of $58,689 and $13,310 respectively.
• APD will use the funds to help outfit a Real Time Intelligence Center (RTIC).
• 00Items to be purchased include a video wall, workstations, chairs, elevated desktops, and mobile base stations.
• Buncombe County will use the funds to purchase AED equipment packages for sworn personnel.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• Not applicable; Federally funded grant opportunity Committee(s):
• Previously presented to and approved by the Environment & Safety Committee on 9/24/24 to apply for the grant. Pro(s):
• Ensures the ability to better protect the safety of the residents of Asheville and Buncombe County. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• Matching funds are not required for this grant.

Background:

• The City of Asheville receives an annual opportunity to apply for a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant.
• The DOJ has preliminarily determined that the Asheville Police Department (APD) is eligible to receive a 2024 award of $29,273.47 which requires a dollar-for-dollar match by the City.
• Bulletproof vests expire after 5 years, and during the life of this grant 43 current officer’s vests will expire and require replacement.
• The funding will allow the purchase of 73 bulletproof vests over the two-year life of the grant. This allows for APD to use the grant for 30 newly hired officer’s vests as well.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• Not applicable; Federally funded grant opportunity Committee(s):
• Previously presented to and approved by the Environment & Safety Committee on 3/26/24 to apply for the grant. Pro(s):
• Increases officer safety by providing crucial safety equipment.
• Reduction in cost to the City of Asheville for the purchase of bulletproof vests Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• Funding for the required $29,273.47 local match has been identified within the current fiscal year Asheville Police Department operating budget.
• This grant offsets the cost of equipment replacement that would otherwise be borne in full by the City. Councilwoman Roney said that regarding Consent Agenda Items “H -K”, bullet proof vests are necessary for our police department. Her vote on Items H-K reflect her continued commitment to prioritize funding to bring a HEART program to Asheville with a community safety department like Durham and now Fayetteville have but we don’t yet and need, as well as my concern about the lack of adequate funding for qualified specialists to be deployed to the real, serious public safety issues we have around behavioral health crises, substance use, homelessness, and the need to reduce intimate partner violence and gun violence among our youth. These crises are not yet a budget priority, but she hears the community expects they should be and that’s why she is fiscally and morally responsible to use the weight of her vote to put pressure on the rudder of the ship to move us in a direction for transparency and accountability in our budgets, plans, and policies, and to invest in a hopeful, healthy, and safe future for the people who live, work, and visit Asheville.

Background:

• The purpose of the HIDTA program is to reduce drug trafficking and especially production in the United States, specifically in areas where drug-related activities are having a significant harmful impact.
• This unit does not focus on, or adopt cases, that are for simple possession, but focuses only on cases that deal in trafficking, manufacturing, and distribution of illegal drugs.
• The Asheville Police Department acts only as the fiduciary for the grant.
• When expenses are incurred, the fiduciary settles the claims using appropriated City of Asheville funds and then requests a 100% reimbursement from the federal government.
• The Asheville HIDTA is the direct beneficiary of the grant funds and not the Asheville Police Department.
• The Asheville HIDTA is comprised of members of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, one officer from the Asheville Police Department, and various individuals from the Sheriff Offices of several Western North Carolina Counties.
• A United States Drug Enforcement Administration supervisor, who is the Asheville HIDTA manager, determines how grant funds will be expended.
• All members of the Asheville HIDTA receive reimbursement when they incur qualified expenses conducting Asheville HIDTA business.
• The Office of National Drug Control Policy has determined that the City of Asheville is eligible to manage this grant totaling $154,638.00.
• Grant funds are used for overtime, travel, services and supplies.
• All expenses are tracked and audited by local and federal authorities.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• None. Funding for this grant is provided by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Committee(s):
• N/A Pro(s):
• Fosters partnerships with federal and local law enforcement agencies. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• Matching funds are not required for this grant. One individual spoke about the 2026 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Grant.

Background:

• The Asheville Police Department (APD) entered into a contractual agreement with Safeguard Recruiting LLC on 05/01/2024 for police recruiting services.
• The initial contract year ends on 04/30/2025.
• The APD has two one-year renewals available on the contract and would like approval to renew each year at our discretion.
• APD already includes this expense in the annual budget process, and additional funding is not required.
• Since the start of the Safeguard contract in May 2024, Safeguard received 1,394 interest form submissions from candidates seeking employment. Of those, 100 formally applied through the City of Asheville and participated in applicant testing.
• During this period, APD has hired 19 applicants.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• A Request For Proposal (RFP) was posted by the City of Asheville’s Purchasing Department in January 2024 to solicit proposals for the recruiting service. The winning bidder was not an MWBE. Committee(s):
• N/A Pro(s):
• A proven strategy and marketing plan was developed to attract diverse applicants from a large audience
• Collaborating with an experienced police recruiting consultant assists the APD in reaching exceptional applicants through a nationwide online recruiting campaign Con(s):
• Continued annual cost of contracting

Fiscal Impact:

• Funding for the current year of this contract ($67,200) is available in the Asheville Police Department operating budget.
• The total contract amount over a 3-year period will be approximately $215,100.

Background:

• Safariland brand items are approved by the Asheville Police Department as required uniform items per APD policy.
• The items are low cost per unit, but APD occasionally must buy bulk quantities of items for sworn officers.
• Competitive procurement of Safariland brand items is not possible as Lawmen’s Distribution LLC has been deemed the only distributor authorized to sell them in North Carolina by the Safariland manufacturer.
• Expected purchases for FY26 include:
• ERT Communications sets for up to 4 new members ($8,000)
• Suppressors for up to 4 new ERT members ($3,000) Vendor Outreach Efforts: None
• Sole Source Committee(s): N/A Pro(s): Allows for standardization of officer uniform equipment Con(s): Non-competitive procurement of items.

Fiscal Impact:

• The fiscal impact is dependent on the equipment needs of the department which may change throughout the year. The department will utilize existing funds for all purchases.
• Examples of past purchases include:
• Communication headsets for specialty units (i.e. Emergency Response Team (ERT), Bomb Squad)
• $200 each
• Suppressors for ERT
• $750 each
• Misc standard issue uniform accessories (badges, holsters, wallet clips, etc)

Background:

• Over the course of September 26-29, the City of Asheville experienced unprecedented rainfall both from Tropical Storm Helene, and a predecessor heavy rain event. A state of emergency has been in place in Asheville since September 25th in relation to these damaging storms.
• The damage caused by Helene required an immediate response by the City to secure public safety, provide aid to the community, and secure public infrastructure.
• In responding to this crisis, the City of Asheville entered into emergency contracts to address the needs of the community when those needs exceeded the capacity of City staff.
• Under one such contract, the City engaged Environmental Testing Solutions (ETS), to perform lead and copper analysis on the drinking water due to North Fork Water Treatment Facility not being able to provide corrosion control for an average of 19 days. .
• This contract was determined to be necessary in order to address a special emergency involving the health and safety of the people or their property, and therefore exempt under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143‑129(e)(2) from the standard contracting processes in state law.
• This contract was further needed to address an emergency or exigency within the meaning of 2 CFR § 200.320(c)(3).
• The City has processed more than 3,300 lead and copper test kits since November 2024. The City is exceeding the federal and state regulation that ninety percent of samples are below the action level for lead and copper which indicates corrosion control remains effective. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Allowed the City to immediately act to address an emergency without delay. Con(s):
• None, aside from the expenses incurred.

Fiscal Impact:

• The total cost of this contract is $350,000, and it is expected that 100% of this expense will be reimbursed by FEMA.

Background:

• The North Carolina General Assembly created a $100 million cashflow loan program under the Disaster Recovery Act of 2024, which was passed on December 11, 2024.
• The goal of the program is to help local governments whose communities were devastated by Hurricane Helene while they wait for federal money to arrive.
• In late February, the City received notice that it was awarded a $2,791,793.35 loan as part of this program.
• The loan, which is not structured as a forgivable loan due to duplication of benefit concerns with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding, comes with a 0% interest rate and a five-year payback schedule.
• To participate in the cashflow loan program, local governments must execute a loan agreement, promissory note, and other associated agreements with the State.
• Staff is recommending approval of a resolution accepting the first round of loan funding from the State and authorizing the City Manager to execute necessary documents to participate in the loan program.
• The loan agreement requires the City to create a separate fund for the loan proceeds, which therefore requires a budget amendment to also be adopted in order to transfer the loan proceeds to the FEMA project within the City’s Special Revenue Fund. Pro(s):
• While the loan can’t be utilized to replace revenue that the City lost due to Helene, it will help with overall cash flow and strengthen the City’s year-end balance sheet.
• The State has indicated the possibility of multiple rounds of cashflow loan support so acceptance of this first loan will help demonstrate to the State and other potential funders that there is a need for additional Helene-related assistance. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• As noted above, the City will receive approximately $2.8 million in cash from the loan to support Helene-related expenses incurred in the current fiscal year.
• The loan is designed to be a cash flow bridge until FEMA reimbursements are received, which will then be used to pay back the loan.

Background:

• The City and the County have an existing agreement in place for the County to bill and collect property taxes for the City.
• The County is requesting City approval of an addendum to that agreement to reflect the addition of property tax billing and collection for the City of Asheville Downtown Business Improvement District (BID).
• The County is requesting that the City pay a first year set up and implementation fee for the BID tax district of $28,592.48 in the current fiscal year.
• In addition, the County is requesting the City pay an annual billing and collection fee of $26,432.11 beginning in the current fiscal year with an automatic escalation rate of 2.5% for each successive year.
• The cost of these fees will be paid from the taxes collected from the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID). Pro(s):
• Amends the Tax Collections Agreement as requested by Buncombe County. Con(s):
• The tax collection fee reduces the overall amount of funding available to provide services in the BID.

Fiscal Impact:

• The cost of these fees will be paid from taxes collected from the BID; there will be no General Fund financial impact.

Background:

• Over the course of September 26-29, the City of Asheville experienced unprecedented rainfall both from Tropical Storm Helene, and a predecessor heavy rain event. A state of emergency was declared in Asheville on September 25th in relation to the damaging storms.
• The damage caused by Helene required an immediate response by the City and for employees to provide around the clock response to the storm.
• In order to keep essential work moving meals were secured and provided by Compass Group (Chartwells Higher Ed Division)
• From 9/30/24
• 10/11/24 Chartwells at UNCA prepared breakfast, lunch and dinner for City Employees.
• Meal Preparation: three nutritious meals were provided each day.
• Packaging: All meals were packaged in appropriate to-go containers that maintained food safety and quality
• Delivery Coordination: All Meals were prepared for daily pick up by designated City staff
• A daily review of the menu was completed and deliveries were scheduled on a weekly basis. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Allowed City employees essential to the event to perform needed work to respond to TS Helene. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• The contract was in place from September 30, 2024 to October 11, 2024 for a cost of $112,654.47. It is expected that 100% of this expense will be reimbursed by FEMA..

Background:

• The Biltmore Estate has been served by the City of Asheville Fire Department since 1995 and Haw Creek has been served by the City of Asheville Fire Department since 2009 through contracts with Buncombe County.
• The Asheville Special Fire Protection and Rescue Service District of Buncombe County was established and created effective July 1, 2016. It comprises the Biltmore Estate property, and portions of the Haw Creek District. It is served by the Asheville Fire Department for fire protection, medical response, and rescue services.
• The County levies a special tax in the District and appropriates those funds to the City of Asheville.
• The taxes collected by the County from the District are paid to the City by the last day of each month in twelve equal monthly installments.
• At the end of the fiscal year, the County reconciles the monthly payments made to the City and the actual amounts collected to make a final adjusted payment in July of the following fiscal year.
• The current agreement with the County expired at the end of June 2024, and staff seeks approval of a new agreement with the County, retroactive to July 1, 2024, that will run through the end of the current fiscal year. Committee(s):
• Pro(s):
• This contract provides revenue for the City of Asheville that is greater than the cost of services. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• The agreement will provide reimbursement for services provided to the County, which is already budgeted in the FY2025 Special Revenue Fund.

Background:

• The City of Asheville has owned the property located at 226 Fairway Dr, known as Asheville Municipal Golf Course, since the course opened in 1927, with a brief exception ending in the early 2000’s when course ownership was transferred to Buncombe County.
• The City has owned the property consistently since 2006.
• In 2012 the City leased the property to Pope Golf LLC for a total term of 10 years.
• In the fall of 2022, the City filed a lawsuit against Pope Golf LLC for failure to pay rent payments as required within the lease agreement.
• The City elected not to renew an agreement with Pope Golf LLC and conducted an RFQ for a new management company.
• In total twelve companies submitted responses for varying types of operations agreements.
• Commonwealth Golf Partners II
• Asheville (CGPA) was selected as the most qualified company for the City’s needs in operation of the course.
• The City entered into a Management & Operations Services License Agreement with CGPA for a term of up to 10 years, beginning October 1, 2022.
• The agreement with CGPA provides the City with the ability to dictate maintenance levels for the course and retain control of maximum allowable green fee and passholder rates.
• Prior to the storm the agreement required a financial risk within the operation of the course, both for the City and CGPA.
• In the case of a quarterly loss, the City was responsible for 65% of losses, CGP responsible for 35%.
• In the case of a quarterly profit CGP earned 100% of the first $5,000 and then 55% of remaining net revenue, City earned 45% of all net revenues after the first $5,000.
• The course recently completed a $2.8 million restoration in August 2024.
• Throughout construction CGPA accepted and covered operations losses per contract.
• The last two financial quarters prior to tropical storm Helene were profitable, showing the revenue share model created for the agreement worked.
• The course incurred significant damage to holes one through nine as a result of flooding caused by tropical storm Helene.
• CGPA acted quickly clearing numerous downed trees and other hazards throughout holes ten through eighteen to reopen the course as a nine-hole golf course beginning October 28, 2024.
• CGPA has made clear their desire to continue operating the course for the City and to return to a revenue share model when the course is able to reopen as an 18 hole course, however they cannot continue the revenue share model with a 9 hole course.
• In December 2024 City Council approved a temporary amendment to the existing agreement effective through March 31, 2025 to allow time for staff to bring to Council suggested long term plans for the course and the license agreement.
• Pro forma projections forecast the course operating at a loss of approximately $420,000 per fiscal year until the course reopens as an 18 hole course.
• Best case, realistic timeline for the restoration project shows the course reopening in the summer of 2027.
• This current proposed amendment will adjust the following items within the agreement through the length of the term.

Term:

• 7 years, beginning April 1, 2025 with 3 year mutually agreeable extension and applicable opt out clauses throughout.
• Revenue share while a 9 hole operation:
• COA to cover 100% of net losses up to $350,000
• CGP to cover 100% of net losses beginning at $350,001
• Revenue share after reopening as an 18 hole course:
• After the first $5,000 quarterly a 65(CGP)/35(COA) revenue share of profits; a 35(CGP)/65(COA) split if losses.

Facility Maintenance Fee:

• Charged at up to $2 per round, all collected fees reinvested in the course via the capital maintenance program.

Protected Events:

• All pre-existing protected tournaments and Buncombe County schools events remain protected.

Youth Programming:

• Requirement to maintain and grow Youth on Course and PGA juniors programs. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Allows the City to dictate expense controls, rates and revenue management
• Allows the course to remain open to the public
• Caps the City’s financial exposure to the operation of the facility. Con(s):
• Funding for the course is not currently identified in the annual operating budget.

Fiscal Impact:

• Funding of $34,000 is available in the FY2025 General Fund operating budget.
• FY2026 and potentially future years will have a maximum cost of $350,000 until the course reopens as an 18 hole course. Funding will be budgeted in future years.

Background:

• The Public Works Streets Division has a pavement condition survey performed every five years.
• The survey will evaluate the presence and severity of cracking, potholes, defective patches, surface defects and roughness.
• This information will be used to produce a numerical score that reflects the condition of the road.
• This process will be used on all roads to ensure uniform evaluation of the entire road system.
• The data collected is entered into the Division’s pavement management software.
• This software is used to help select the roads that are included in the Streets Division’s annual resurfacing contract. The software selection algorithm uses the scoring information to select roads based upon the most economical path to increasing the overall system pavement condition score.
• Staff also takes factors such as complaints, traffic volume and the amount of private/utility construction to make the final road selections.
• A request for qualifications was issued on February 13, 2024, and responses were due by March 5, 2024.
• 8 responses were received:
• Applied Pavement Technology, Inc. from Urbana, Illinois
• AtkinsRealis from Orlando, Florida
• ESP Associates, Inc. from Fort Mill, South Carolina
• IMS Infrastructure Management Services from Largo, Florida
• Mott McDonald I&E, LLC from Raleigh, NC
• S & ME, Inc. from Raleigh, NC
• Transmap Engineering, PLLC from Columbus, Ohio
• Transystems from Raleigh, NC
• A committee consisting of Public Works staff from the Streets Division and Asset Management Division deemed Mott McDonald I&E, LLC to be the best qualified firm based upon their submission.
• Public Works staff negotiated tasks to be performed by the consultant to reach a not-to-exceed price of $243,063.00.
• Negotiations of the contract were delayed through spring and summer due to scheduling conflicts with Mott McDonald staff and COA staff availability.
• These conflicts caused the negotiation process to take longer than anticipated.
• This contract was slated for approval in October but was again delayed due to Tropical Storm Helene and the onset of fall and winter making performing the survey impractical.
• Mott McDonald has honored their pricing after the storm delays.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• Staff performed outreach to minority and women owned businesses through solicitation processes which include posting on the State’s Interactive Purchasing System and requiring prime contractors to reach out to Minority & Women-Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE) service providers for subcontracted services.
• Staff also used the City of Asheville ABI Vendor spreadsheet and the NCDOT Vendor Database. One MWBE firm was located and directly contacted. This firm did not submit their qualifications.
• The selected firm of Mott McDonald I&E, LLC will use one subcontractor
• ARRB Systems. This firm is not an MWBE. Committee(s):
• N/A Pro(s):
• The data will provide updated information and aid City staff with road resurfacing decisions to optimize City funds. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• Funding for this contract was budgeted in the FY25 budget and is available within the Street Maintenance Project in the General Capital Projects Fund.

Background:

• The City entered into the following contract on July 22, 2024: Contract No. 92500001, the Master Contract for On-Call Rental Equipment Services with Carolina 1926 LLC DBA Carolina Cat.
• Over the course of September 26-29, the City of Asheville experienced unprecedented rainfall both from Tropical Storm Helene and a predecessor heavy rain event, resulting in catastrophic damage, primarily from the ensuing flooding and landslides.
• A state of emergency went into effect in Asheville on September 25th in relation to these damaging storms.
• The equipment needed for recovery efforts exceeded that which was available of the City’s internal capacity, rendering it necessary to rent certain equipment.
• The $85,000 not-to-exceed limit was projected to be reached sooner than anticipated due to Tropical Storm (TS) Helene recovery efforts, and thus an amendment to increase the limit to $170,000 was fully executed on December 31, 2024.
• It was then determined that in order to maximize potential eligibility for FEMA reimbursement, a supplemental contract with TS Helene-specific federal terms and conditions and any applicable certifications should be executed.
• Public Works determined that the supplemental contract should have a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 in order to be sufficient for the department’s TS Helene-related equipment rental needs.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• This is a supplemental contract to Contract No. 92500001, the Master Contract for On-Call Rental Equipment Services with Carolina Cat.
• At the time the master contract was initially advertised, staff performed outreach to minority and women-owned businesses through solicitation processes, which included posting on the State’s Electronic Vendor Portal (eVP) and requiring prime contractors to reach out to Minority & Women-Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE) service providers for any subcontracted services.
• No MWBE firms submitted bids with the prime contractor and all work will be self-performed by the prime contractor. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Public Works will continue to be able to access equipment needed to complete TS Helene-related recovery efforts via rental on an as-needed basis.
• The City will not need to purchase various equipment that may only be needed for short or intermittent periods. Con(s):
• None.

Fiscal Impact:

• The fiscal impact will vary depending upon utilization, but will not exceed the contract limit of $300,000.
• Each rental will be paid from the funds allocated to Public Works for the purposes of TS Helene-related expenses.
• Rentals used for recovery related to TS Helene are expected to be eligible for FEMA reimbursement.

Background:

• The Parks & Recreation Department maintains over 11 Irrigation systems throughout the parks during the months of March through October.
• A Request for Proposals was advertised in 2022 for interested companies to provide irrigation maintenance services for (1) year with an option to renew for an additional (2) years.
• K2 Irrigation Services, INC., was selected based on the lowest bid costs, qualifications, understanding of the scope of services and availability.
• The contractor will provide all labor, materials, and supplies for the operations and management for irrigation maintenance services, ensuring the priority parks will be operated in a well kept, safe, efficient manner.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• Staff performed outreach to minority- and women-owned businesses through solicitation processes which included direct vendor outreach, and posting on the State’s Interactive Purchasing System to reach out to Minority & Women-Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE) service providers.
• There was one proposal submitted including zero minority and zero woman owned business.
• The selected company is not a Minority or Women-Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE).
• The contractor was selected based on the lowest most responsive and responsible bid. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Contracting with a professional landscape irrigation company will allow for consistent, efficient maintenance
• Reduces the seasonal hiring impacts on the Human Resources/Parks & Recreation Departments to recruit, hire and on-board temporary/seasonal employees. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• Funding for this contract exists within the currently approved Parks & Recreation Department operating budget.

Background:

• In 2020 the charging station equipment began to malfunction. The vendor was unable to repair, remove, or replace the non-operational EV equipment and offered to donate the equipment to the City.
• On May 31, 2022 City Council passed Resolution 21-230 agreeing to receive the donation.
• The non-functional donated charging equipment was removed and has been in storage.
• The chargers would be donated to Appalachian State University which would distribute them to to-be-determined community colleges for a new workforce development training/curriculum around EV charging installation and maintenance as part of the STEPs4GROWTH and EVeryone Charging Forward programs, which are run by the NC Business Committee on Education.
• The donation would include the following equipment:
• One (1) Signet DCFC Charger
• Two (2) ChargePoint Level 2 Chargers
• If the equipment is not donated, staff would need to start the dispossession process which includes transporting chargers to a salvage yard or to the landfill. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Avoid sending chargers to a salvage yard or the landfill and instead allow them to be used for training NC Community College students to repair chargers. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• No anticipated fiscal impact

Background:

• Mountain Projects is Haywood County’s contracted transit operator that provides transit services throughout Haywood County.
• The City of Asheville’s Transit Division is the Designated Recipient for Federal Transit Administration grants, meaning that the City administers all federal transit grants on behalf of the region’s transit systems, including Haywood County, Henderson County, Buncombe County, and others.
• Funds intended for other agencies are budgeted in the City’s budget and then disbursed to the grant subrecipient under a subrecipient agreement.
• This action authorizes the disbursement of FY 2019 Job Access Reverse Commute funds and execution of all necessary amendments to the existing agreement between the City of Asheville and Mountain Projects to allow for such disbursement.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• This is an existing agreement between the City and Mountain Projects. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• The authorization will allow the City to process reimbursement requests for the City’s Transit Subrecipient. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• No Fiscal Impact.
• The $206,091 amount the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) allocated to Mountain Projects remains unchanged and are pass-through funds.

Background:

• The Helene Hazard Mitigation Program (HMGP) is funded by FEMA and is currently administered utilizing the state-centric model.
• Buncombe County receives applications from the State that have been approved by FEMA for properties located within the county and municipalities.
• Buncombe County provides each municipality with a list of applications for review, information for each individual property and retains the second right of refusal should the municipality decline to accept an application.
• Mitigation priorities focus on risk reduction, resilient infrastructure, floodplain conservation, and future mitigation planning.
• The program supports private property owners in property acquisition, elevation, reconstruction, and landslide mitigation.
• Local governments decide on property acquisitions, with the city retaining the right to approve or refuse decisions.
• Property transferred to the City through this program must remain a property of the city in perpetuity and will be deed restricted for passive open space use per the program requirements.
• An interlocal agreement with Buncombe County is required to facilitate the transfer of buyout properties within the City of Asheville. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Allows the City to participate in the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and execute documents relevant to participation in the program.
• State centric model removes costs to the city to acquire and conduct demolition on acquisition parcels. Con(s):
• Property acquired through this program will remove housing and commercial building stock, reduce tax revenue potential from these parcels and require ongoing maintenance.

Fiscal Impact:

• This action requires no City resources and has no fiscal impact.
• Parcels transferred to the City will require costs for any further investment and maintenance.