Summary (Updated 6/29/26): City Council approved the amended CDBG-DR funding plan (with the transfer of $19.2 million from building new affordable housing and infrastructure to rehabilitation/reconstruction of existing housing) with a 6-1 vote, with Council Member Hess casting the lone dissenting vote. Read more in the Report Back below.

Summary (Original 6/8/26): Asheville should help storm-impacted homeowners remain housed, but City Council should delay or reject the proposed $19.2 million transfer to Renew NC unless it can demonstrate that the program is transparent, effective, and the best available strategy for helping the greatest number of families remain housed.

(See our earlier reports on this issue here.)

The Facts (updated 6/15/26): Last week City Council held the required public hearing on the proposed amendment but did not vote. A final vote is currently scheduled for June 23.

During the hearing, City staff provided several new details about the Renew NC program. Staff explained that homes with estimated repair costs above $100,000 are automatically moved from rehabilitation into full reconstruction. Staff also explained that project costs frequently include disaster repairs, code compliance upgrades, health and safety corrections, lead paint remediation, and mitigation measures intended to reduce future disaster risk. The proposed shift of $19.2 million would serve an estimated 53 households, for a total of 60 overall.

The Facts (original): On Tuesday, June 9th, City Council will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Asheville’s CDBG-DR Action Plan that would transfer $19.2 million into the State-administered Renew NC single-family rehabilitation and reconstruction program. In addition to hearing from residents at the meeting, the official federally-mandated public comment period concludes on June 14th.

The proposal would:

• Transfer $9.2 million from the Affordable Multifamily Housing Construction Program.
• Transfer $10 million from Infrastructure funding.
• Increase the Renew NC allocation from $3 million to $22.2 million.

Staff estimate that the current $3 million allocation will serve approximately eight households and that the expanded program would serve roughly 53 additional households, for a total of approximately 60 households served. (Careful readers will note that 8+53 should equal 61, but we presume there are fractions involved and that’s why the total is 60.)

At the Housing Recovery Board meeting last week, Board members raised concerns about the cost of the Renew NC program, the lack of transparency and local oversight, the $100,000 repair threshold that triggers full reconstruction, and the ongoing shortage of affordable rental housing following Helene. After discussion, the board voted 6-4 to recommend against reallocating funds from multifamily housing to Renew NC.

You can see the presentation slides that will be shared at the meeting here and the staff report here.

Our Assessment (updated 6/15/26): The central question is not whether the homeowners served by Renew NC deserve assistance. They do. The central question is whether this is the most effective way to provide that assistance.

The proposed amendment would move $19.2 million into a program expected to serve approximately 53 additional households. That is a significant investment of limited recovery dollars. Before making that investment, City Council should be able to answer a simple question: Is this the best available way to help these families?

The City has identified approximately 108 low-income households as priority candidates for assistance through Renew NC. Yet even if this amendment is approved, staff estimate that only about 60 households will ultimately be served. In other words, nearly half of the currently identified low-income priority households would still remain without assistance. Before spending an additional $19.2 million, Council should have enough information to determine whether this is the most effective way to help these families and whether alternative approaches could stretch limited recovery dollars further.

At present, neither Council nor the public has enough information to know.

We do not know how repair costs compare to pre-disaster home values. We do not know how many homes could potentially be repaired through less expensive approaches. We do not know whether alternative locally administered programs could help some households at lower cost. We do not know whether the projected cost of serving these households is inherent to the level of damage involved or a consequence of the particular structure of the Renew NC program.

Asheville faces multiple housing challenges simultaneously. Homeowners need assistance repairing damaged homes. Renters need affordable places to live. Families continue to face displacement pressures. Recovery dollars should be used in ways that maximize housing stability across the community.

That does not mean every dollar should go to affordable housing. It does mean that when the City proposes shifting $19.2 million away from other recovery priorities, the burden of proof should be high.

We are not asking City Council to reject homeowner assistance. We are asking Council to insist on enough information to determine whether this investment is the most effective way to help these homeowners and whether other approaches could allow Asheville to help more families with the same limited resources.

That is why we continue to call for the release by Renew NC of anonymized property-level data showing estimated repair costs and pre-disaster home values. Without that information, neither elected officials nor the public can meaningfully evaluate whether this proposal represents the best path forward.

Our Assessment (original): The debate is being framed as a choice between helping homeowners and building affordable housing. We believe that framing is too narrow. City staff are already preparing a separate home repair policy and bond-funded repair program for Council consideration this summer, demonstrating that Asheville has multiple tools available to support homeowners. The question is not whether homeowners deserve help; it is whether reducing affordable housing investments is the best way to provide that help.

Hurricane Helene harmed homeowners and renters alike. Homes were damaged and destroyed. Rental units were lost. Housing costs increased. Homelessness increased. Families across Asheville continue to face displacement pressures and some remain in transitional housing, some 20 months after the storm.

The City’s responsibility is not to decide whose housing needs matter more. It is to use limited recovery dollars in ways that prevent displacement and help as many affected households as possible remain housed.

The current proposal would move funding away from a housing strategy expected to serve hundreds of households and into a program expected to serve approximately 60 households. That does not mean the proposal is wrong. It does mean the burden of proof should be high.

At present, the public has not received sufficient information about Renew NC’s administrative costs, contractor costs, project timelines, repair-versus-reconstruction outcomes, or how many applicants will remain unserved even after the proposed funding increase. Council members and staff have also acknowledged that the City does not have full visibility into all of the data being collected by the State, limiting Asheville’s ability to independently evaluate outcomes and unmet needs. This was one of the key concerns raised by the Housing Recovery Board, which ultimately voted against this amendment.

Most importantly, the City has not demonstrated that Renew NC is the most effective available strategy for preserving storm-damaged homes. Before reducing affordable housing investments, Council should be confident that the alternative investment will produce the greatest possible public benefit. The proposed amendment should be delayed or rejected unless Renew NC and City staff can provide:

• Detailed reporting on administrative and contractor costs.
• Data on repair versus reconstruction projects.
• Average project costs and timelines.
• A breakdown of the factors driving program costs.
• Estimates of unmet homeowner need after the proposed investment.
• A clear explanation of how Renew NC fits alongside upcoming locally funded home repair and anti-displacement strategies.
  

If Renew NC can demonstrate that it is the most effective available strategy for preserving homeownership and preventing displacement, additional investment may be justified.

If it cannot, Asheville should explore partnerships with local contractors and locally administered repair programs that may preserve more homes, help more families, strengthen local economic recovery, and provide stronger public oversight.

Things to do (revised 6/16/26): Contact City Council using our new email template and urge members to delay approval of the amendment until the City obtains and publicly releases sufficient information to evaluate whether the proposed reallocation represents the most effective use of recovery funds.

Report Back

Report Back (6/29/26): Council approved the amended CDBG-DR Action Plan reallocating $19.2 million toward the single-family home repair program. Staff argued the change would allow an estimated 55–65 additional homeowners to receive assistance while preserving funding for three affordable housing developments already approved earlier this year.

The discussion acknowledged concerns raised during public comment and by the Housing Recovery Board regarding the reduction in affordable housing funding and continued questions about the State’s Renew NC program. Council Member Bo Hess voted against the amendment, while the remaining six members supported it.

Updated 6/15/26: See updates above under “The Facts” and “Our Assessment” for a rundown of what we learned at last week’s City Council meeting.

Updated 6/8/26: Last week, community members responded to our initial call to action around the proposed CDBG-DR amendment that would shift $9.2 million from affordable multifamily housing to the Renew NC homeowner recovery program. At its June 3 meeting, the Housing Recovery Board held an extensive discussion about the tradeoffs between preserving affordable rental housing and funding single-family home reconstruction. As we shared above: Board members raised concerns about the cost of the Renew NC program, the lack of transparency and local oversight, the $100,000 repair threshold that triggers full reconstruction, and the ongoing shortage of affordable rental housing following Helene. After discussion, the board voted 6-4 to recommend against reallocating funds from multifamily housing to Renew NC. The board also unanimously approved a separate motion urging the City to pursue all available avenues to secure access to state CDBG-DR housing funds for eligible Asheville households. Public comments echoed many of the same themes, emphasizing the need to support both homeowners and renters while preserving long-term affordable housing opportunities.

Total GAP Supporter Actions Taken: 34

Recipients and Responses:

Asheville City Council

• Mayor Esther Manheimer: No response
• Vice Mayor Antanette Mosley: No response
• City Council Member Bo Hess: No response
• City Council Member Kim Roney: No response
• City Council Member Maggie Ullman:  No response
• City Council Member Sage Turner: No response
• City Council Member Sheneika Smith: No response