City Council regular meeting — January 28, 2025

Background:

• The Development Services Department (DSD) utilizes the Selectron Atlas Insight software as a web-based field workforce management tool that brings all inspection requests into a single, map-based view to allow for tracking results and assigning inspections.
• DSD entered into a contract with Selectron Technologies in 2021, with an initial five-year term. The contract also includes an automatic renewal clause that renews the contract for one-year terms following the initial term, unless one of the parties notifies the other in advance of their intent not to renew.
• The initial term of the contract obligated the City to pay $90,000+.
• DSD is therefore requesting that Council ratify this contract and all previous spending under the contract, which has been $69,000, plus authorizing an additional $46,000 to cover the end of the initial five-year term, for a total of up to $115,000 to be spent on this contract.
• The past spending under this contract has been as follows: $23,000 Annually for the past 3 years per the terms of the contract and services provided. The future spending would be for $46,000, which will be dispersed in two $23,000 annual payments one for this year 2025, and the second $23,000 for next year 2026, per the terms of the contract..
• If approved, the amount of future spending authorized would continue to be paid from the Development Services Department Technology Fund administered by ITS.
• DSD intends to alert Selectron of its intent not to renew the contract after the initial term expires and not use any of the potential renewal periods. DSD then intends to engage in competitive procurement to select a vendor for the period after the initial contract term expires.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• At the time of original contracting Selectron was the only software vendor that provided this necessary addition to the Accela Permitting platform. While investigating this type of solution Selectron, a known vendor, and Accela partner identified that they recently developed such a product. Additional vendor outreach and a letter provided from Accela confirmed this was the only product of its kind at the time, and the only partner Accela permitting software was using. Committee(s): N/A Pro(s):
• Allows uninterrupted services for permitting, maintains inspection planning efficiency. Con(s):
• None.

Fiscal Impact:

• The remaining contract term will be funded from the Development Services Development Technology Fund, which utilizes revenues from the 4% technology fee applied to most development fees. The previous 3 years of spending was funded through the DSD Technology Fund.

Technologies in 2021, with an initial five-year term. The contract also includes an automatic renewal clause that renews the contract for one-year terms following the initial term, unless one of the parties notifies the other in advance of their intent not to renew.

• The initial term of the contract obligated the City to pay $90,000+.
• DSD is therefore requesting that Council ratify this contract and all previous spending under the contract, which has been $69,000, plus authorizing an additional $46,000 to cover the end of the initial five-year term, for a total of up to $115,000 to be spent on this contract.
• The past spending under this contract has been as follows: $23,000 Annually for the past 3 years per the terms of the contract and services provided. The future spending would be for $46,000, which will be dispersed in two $23,000 annual payments one for this year 2025, and the second $23,000 for next year 2026, per the terms of the contract..
• If approved, the amount of future spending authorized would continue to be paid from the Development Services Department Technology Fund administered by ITS.
• DSD intends to alert Selectron of its intent not to renew the contract after the initial term expires and not use any of the potential renewal periods. DSD then intends to engage in competitive procurement to select a vendor for the period after the initial contract term expires.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• At the time of original contracting Selectron was the only software vendor that provided this necessary addition to the Accela Permitting platform. While investigating this type of solution Selectron, a known vendor, and Accela partner identified that they recently developed such a product. Additional vendor outreach and a letter provided from Accela confirmed this was the only product of its kind at the time, and the only partner Accela permitting software was using. Committee(s): N/A Pro(s):
• Allows uninterrupted services for permitting, maintains inspection planning efficiency. Con(s):
• None.

Fiscal Impact:

• The remaining contract term will be funded from the Development Services Development Technology Fund, which utilizes revenues from the 4% technology fee applied to most development fees. The previous 3 years of spending was funded through the DSD Technology Fund.

Background:

• The City of Asheville had a need to reserve lodging for employees and out-of-area resources who were essential to TS Helene emergency response efforts.
• The City outreached and engaged with multiple vendors throughout the area to provide these services.
• These included law enforcement officers from Raleigh PD, Cary PD, Greensboro PD, Winston-Salem PD, Renfrow Security Group, out-of-area Search and Rescue Units, Drone Pilots and K-9 Units.
• The number of rooms the City reserved at each location was dependent upon power, water, and internet capabilities; available staffing; and the number of available rooms at each property.
• Biltmore Farms Hotel Group (Hampton Inn & Suites) was made available to Asheville City Police and out-of-area law enforcement personnel critical to search, rescue and recovery efforts.
• Once lodging was secured, some out-of-area resources maintained lodging longer than initially anticipated.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• Staff performed outreach to a variety of businesses through phone and email solicitation the weekend of 9/27/24 to 9/29/24.
• The City was able to connect with and ultimately reserve lodging–to varying degrees–at all of the properties that answered the calls and emails. Committee(s):
• N/A Pro(s):
• Fulfilled required needs and provided lodging to essential first responders. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• This contract amendment adds $72,009.70 to the existing contract, for a total of $372,009.70. It is expected to be fully eligible for FEMA reimbursement and is budgeted in the Special Revenue Fund.

Background:

• The City of Asheville is part of the French Broad River Metropolitan Planning Organization (FBRMPO), which includes nineteen other jurisdictions within the five-county Metropolitan Planning Area (as defined by federal law) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
• The FBRMPO oversees a cooperative, comprehensive, and continuing transportation planning process within the Metropolitan Planning Area. This includes developing the area’s Unified Planning Work Program, which describes regional transportation planning activities undertaken by the MPO, and the Long Range Transportation Plan, which reflects and responds to the comprehensive growth and development plans and transportation plans of member jurisdictions and the NCDOT.
• The MPO is also responsible for determining the formula to allocate/distribute annual federal transit funds to the transit systems in the region.
• The City of Asheville Transit Division, as the “Designated Recipient,” administers those funds on behalf of the region’s transit systems.”
• While there is no specific requirement regarding how often an MPO’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be updated, it is generally good practice to update it when the Metropolitan Planning Area boundary changes or when jurisdictional changes occur. Following the 2020 Census, minor changes to the MPO’s boundaries occurred; therefore, the MPO determined that an MOU review and update would be appropriate.
• The MOU clarifies the roles, responsibilities, and working arrangements necessary for continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning processes. The document also describes the organizational framework, decision-making processes, voting structure, funding and resources, MPO planning duties, compliance requirements, and termination conditions.
• Two members of the City of Asheville's Council are voting members of the MPO's governing board, and two members of the Transportation Department serve on the MPO's Transportation Technical Committee.
• The MOU does not include specific amounts for dues that each jurisdiction is responsible for, as this changes periodically. The City’s current FY25 MPO dues are $30,620 and are budgeted annually in the Transportation Department’s Operating Budget. The MPO has indicated that the FY26 dues will remain unchanged.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• NA Committee(s):
• NA Pro(s):
• The City of Asheville will remain part of the regional transportation planning efforts to provide transportation projects efficiently and effectively. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• The City of Asheville pays annual dues to remain a Metropolitan Planning Organization FBRMPO member. The dues for Fiscal Year 2025 will be $30,620.

- With Via Transportation Inc. for Transit Scheduling and Planning Software by $26,000 for a total contract amount of $115,500 for the final option year; and

• With Urban Transportation Associates, Inc. for Automatic Passenger Counter Software by $37,128 for a total contract amount of $94,979 for the final two option years.

Background:

• This action ratifies the contract renewals for remaining option years and authorizes the City Manager to increase the existing contract amounts as follows:
• With Via Transportation Inc. for Transit Scheduling and Planning Software by $26,000 for a total of contract amount of $115,500 for the final option year; and
• With Urban Transportation Associates, Inc. for Automatic Passenger Counter Software by $37,128 for a total contract amount of $94,979 for the final two option years.
• Contract with Via Transportation Inc.:
• Provides planning software to assist transit division staff in designing ART bus routes, develop driver schedules, and use data to make Asheville Rides Transit (ART) services more reliable.
• Contract with Urban Transportation Associates, Inc.:
• Delivers cloud-based Automated Passenger Counter (APC) system that automatically counts passengers boarding and leaving each bus.
• Provides real-time data that helps transit division staff improve bus schedules, service and meet federal reporting requirements.
• Both original contracts expired on December 31, 2024 prior to staff being able to renew both contracts and execute the allowable option years included in each contract.
• For the Via contract, renewal would consist of the fifth and final year of the contract.
• For the Urban Transportation Associates contract, renewal would consist of the sixth and seventh years of the contract.
• City Council action is required due to the contracts exceeding the $90,000 threshold with the option years executed.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• N/A. These are current contracts. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Supports the continuation of current/existing public transit services.
• Ensures sufficient funding to continue utilizing both critical transit operations software platforms. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• This resolution ratifies the renewal of the contract for the fifth and final year of the existing contract with Via Transportation Inc. for transit related software. (Ratification needed because the original contract has expired).
• The action adds $26,000 to the existing contract for a total contract amount of $115,500.
• City Council action is required due to the contract exceeding the $90,000 threshold in its fifth and final year.
• This resolution ratifies the renewal of the contract for the fifth and final year of the existing contract with Urban Transportation Associates, Inc. for transit related software. (Ratification needed because the original contract has expired).
• The action adds $37,128 to the existing contract for a total contract amount of $94,979.
• City Council action is required due to the contract exceeding the $90,000 threshold with the option years executed.

Background:

• Over the course of September 26-29, 2024, 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 Hagerty Consulting, Inc., for recovery management services.
• That contract was ratified by the City Council on November 12, 2024.
• The scope of work is intended to be flexible and scalable, allowing the City of Asheville to activate services as needed based on the specific requirements of disaster response and recovery related strategies.
• The scope of work includes capacity and support to the City in working with specific federal agencies to maximize access to direct financial reimbursement, grant support, and technical assistance.
• The federal agencies referenced in the scope of work are: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, Hazard Mitigation), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) disaster recovery programs.
• To-date Hagerty Consulting’s support resulted in the obligation of $6.4 million to the City for Expedited Category A (Debris) expenses and $3.5 million for Expedited Category B (Emergency Protective Measures) expenses.
• Ongoing work will focus on maximizing cost recoverable opportunities and funding resources to support the City’s infrastructure, housing, and economic recovery efforts.
• Some of the planned activities for the next six months includes:
• Assisting staff in formulating and submitting FEMA Public Assistance Projects for reimbursement.
• Developing a process for managing recovery capital projects from intake to compliance to support maximum cost recovery, transparency and minimize demands on staff time required to manage federal funding compliance.
• Supporting the implementation of a comprehensive Debris Management Work Plan including private and commercial property debris removal, completion of right-of-way debris removal, and debris cleanup in waterways.
• Assisting staff through training, technical assistance and grant writing for Hazard Mitigation Assistance funding opportunities, including Building Resilience Infrastructure Communities (BRIC) grants.
• Additionally, given the expertise of the Hagerty team including former U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials, Hagerty will provide assistance to the City in developing our HUD-required action plan for the $225 million Community Development Block Grant
• Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) direct allocation that was announced on January 8. The City has 90 total days, including a required 30-day public comment period, to submit the CDBG-DR action plan to HUD. Committee(s): None Pro(s):
• Allows the City to continue to act to address an emergency without delay. Con(s):
• None, aside from the expenses incurred.

Fiscal Impact:

• This amendment adds $4,994,885 to the contract, bringing the total amount not to exceed $5,994,885. It is expected that the majority of these funds (approximately $4.0 million) will be reimbursable through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance Program. The remainder will be budgeted as a General Fund fund balance appropriation, however the City expects that additional revenue sources will be identified to help offset the remaining expenses.

In response to Mayor Manheimer, Finance Director Tony McDowell explained that this letter is required because we budgeted fund balance in our General Fund and our total fund balance went down and that was a performance indicator which triggered a follow-up letter to the state. He noted that based on the wording of the performance indicator, a fund balance decrease of any amount could require a letter to be submitted. Mayor Manheimer said that members of Council have been previously furnished with a copy of the resolutions and ordinances on the Consent Agenda and they would not be read.

Mayor Manheimer said that this item was discussed and the public hearing was open and closed on December 10, 2024. This item was then continued to this date. On December 10, it was the consensus of Council to (1) review the technical amendments that are non-controversial and will bring our Code into compliance with state or federal law at the January 9 agenda briefing, before the January 14 Council meeting for these to be considered, with a subject matter expert to be available for questions; (2) bring back to City Council non-substantial amendments to our Code that conflict with other sections of our Code; and (3) after public comment, bring back to Council substantial changes that are out of compliance with the State Building Code or national flood insurance program requirements, i.e., durational, look back period for calculating substantial improvement and substantial damage, and requirements to elevate structures following substantial damage. On January 14, 2025, this public hearing was held. Interim Public Works Director Amy Deaton said that this is the consideration of an ordinance to update the UDO sections (Sec. 7-2-4) Conflict or inconsistency with other laws, covenants, or deed restrictions, (Sec. 7-2-5) Definitions, and (Sec. 7-12-1) Flood protection to better align existing City regulations with the North Carolina State Building Code and State Model Flood Ordinance for Special Flood Hazard Areas within the City. This public hearing was advertised on November 29 and December 6, 2024. Background:

• Redevelopment of properties in the flood hazard area is regulated by a variety of rules and ordinances at the federal, state and local level.
• As a result of Tropical Storm Helene there is significant focus on recovery and redevelopment efforts, especially for flood-damaged properties.
• Current language in the UDO about repair and replacement of buildings in the floodplain is unclear, leaving the potential for confusion about the requirements for properties identified as having been substantially damaged.
• In reviewing the 2021 NC Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance drafted by the NC Floodplain Mapping Program and as a result of the Community Assistance Visit (performed as part of our participation in the National Flood Insurance Program), other items were identified that need to be included for additional clarification and/or updates to our floodplain ordinance to aid staff administering the ordinance.
• The recommended modifications to our ordinance will ensure the City remains in good standing with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Community Rating System (CRS).
• The NFIP provides federally backed flood insurance protection for property owners that live in a participating NFIP community. Compliance with this program is required for city residents to be eligible for federally backed flood insurance.
• A community that does not join the NFIP after being identified for one year as flood-prone, has withdrawn from the program, or is suspended from it, faces the following sanctions:
• No resident will be able to purchase federally backed flood insurance.
• Existing flood insurance policies will not be renewed.
• No Federal grants or loans for development may be made in identified flood hazard areas under programs administered by Federal agencies such as Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Small Business Administration (SBA);
• No Federal disaster assistance may be provided to repair insurable buildings located in identified flood hazard areas for damage caused by a flood.
• No Federal mortgage insurance or loan guarantees may be provided in identified flood hazard areas. This includes policies written by Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans Affairs (VA), and others.
• Federally insured or regulated lending institutions, such as banks and credit unions, must notify applicants seeking loans for insurable buildings in flood hazard areas that there is a flood hazard and that the property is not eligible for Federal disaster relief.
• The longer the city’s ordinances are not clearly aligned with NFIP requirements, the more risk we place on flood insurance policyholders and their eligibility for flood assistance and flood insurance as well as our eligibility for public assistance.
• The CRS is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management practices that exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP and provides discounted flood insurance premium rates for all city residents requiring this insurance.
• Requiring less than 2’ of freeboard will impact our classification in the CRS program which could lower our class, meaning instead of a 10% reduction on flood insurance premiums, policyholders would only receive a 5% reduction.
• To clarify the code, staff recommends:
• simplifying conflicting provisions (Sec. 7-2-4) so they are easier to understand,
• aligning definitions “Substantial damage” and “Substantial improvement” (Sec. 7-2-5) with those that mirror FEMA and the NC State Building Code,
• removing extraneous code that may be confusing (Sec 7-12-1(e)(1)(i)), and
• clarifying that significantly damaged nonconforming properties must meet flood protection regulations (Sec 7-12-1)(e)(7)(c)), which is a requirement of state regulations.
• The city’s comprehensive planning, Living Asheville, supports these types of updates that seek to improve communication: “Promote clear and effective communication between city residents at all stages of development to ensure development responds to the needs and goals of affected residents."
• Following the January 14th City Council meeting, staff either participated in or arranged several community or business related meetings to discuss ordinance changes and address questions. Below are the events attended:
• CIBO on January 17th
• RAD Roundtable on January 17th
• Biltmore Village on January 22nd
• Public Works Building on January 23rd Vendor Outreach Efforts: NA Committee(s):
• Planning & Zoning Commission, December 4, 2024
• Approved 6 to 1 Pro(s):
• Supports the goals of the comprehensive plan and priorities of the City Council
• Improved understanding for staff, especially those processing permit applications
• Simplification and clarification of the zoning code for all Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• None Ms. Deyton said that after discussion by Council, staff was asked for the recent flood amendments to be placed into 3 categories and brought back before Council. (1) Technical amendments (a) Nonsubstantive updates; and (b) Does not change permitting process or conditions; (2) Conflicts (a) Updates and additions to align with State Model Flood Ordinance; and (b) Revisions to clarify lookback period and historic structures exemption; and (3) Substantive amendments (a) Maintains the 2’ freeboard requirement; and (b) Non-conforming uses [Sec 7-12-1(e)(7)] is a null clause. Regarding the floodplain ordinance, (1) Lookback period for calculating substantial damage
• Clarify that the lookback period for calculating substantial damage will remain as currently administered: 1 year; and (2) Process for historic structures exemption (a) Clarify that properties with qualifying historic designations may request a variance for exemption from the elevation requirements through a quasi-judicial review process; and (b) Keeps with the variance process as currently administered. Ms Deyton said that following the January 14th City Council meeting, staff either participated in or arranged several community or business related meetings to discuss ordinance changes and address questions. Below are the events attended: CIBO on January 17th; RAD Roundtable on January 17th; Biltmore Village on January 22nd; and Public Works Building on January 23rd. She said that (1) Changes to text amendments in Chapter 7 of the Asheville Code of Ordinances will clear up ambiguity in floodplain regulations within city limits and ensure compliance with State law and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations; and (2) Elevation requirements for rebuilding (a) Clarify a requirement to elevate or flood-proof structures 2 feet above base flood elevation; (b) Non-conforming uses [Sec 7-12-1(e)(7)] is a null clause and does not supersede the NC Building Code requirements; and (c) Supports the public and private sector ability to receive federal grants and assistance via the NFIP. In response to Councilman Hess, Ms. Deyton tried to outline the general sentiment from the outreach meetings, noting that there was not a clear consensus. Councilwoman Ullman questioned what is the real driver of rebuilding and how is our ordinance leveraging that. Councilman Hess said that he would like to take a moment to explain my reasoning behind my vote on the proposed flood ordinance changes. “This decision has not been easy, and my concerns for our small businesses remain at the forefront of my mind. I firmly believe that our state and federal partners need to step up and provide meaningful relief for our business owners who have been hit hardest by Hurricane Helene. The burden these regulations place on our businesses is immense, and it’s deeply frustrating to see local business owners, artists, and entrepreneurs left with few options while corporate interests could stand to benefit. “While the North Carolina state building code supersedes city ordinances, meaning that even if the Council allowed rebuilding as is, the state mandates at least a 1-foot elevation above the base flood elevation (BFE), the reality of this requirement is far more challenging than it appears. For many of our businesses in flood-prone areas like the River Arts District, complying with this mandate could mean raising buildings by as much as 10 to 12 feet, given how far below the BFE they currently sit. Even the 1-foot or 2-foot minimum often cited feels negligible in the face of this substantial burden. “At the same time, failure to comply with FEMA guidelines and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements puts Asheville at risk of losing critical federal funding and disaster assistance—resources that our city desperately needs to rebuild. This places me
• and us as a Council in a position where our hands are tied. The relief our small business owners need must come from our state legislature and federal partners. “ That said, my vote tonight is a reluctant yes. Here’s why: (1) 1.Ensuring Long-Term Resilience: Even as we advocate for relief for existing businesses, we must also recognize that future development in Asheville must be resilient. These protections are essential to safeguard against future disaster s and to ensure that Asheville remains eligible for federal funding and insurance protections; (2) Collaborative Support for Small Businesses: I am committed to
• and I think we as a council
• our committed to working with small businesses in advocating for assistance through partnerships with the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the disaster hazard mitigation grant programs to make properties and businesses more resilient; (3) Acknowledging Limitations: While I think businesses that have been part of our community for decades should have the opportunity to rebuild under a grandfathering provision, this power lies beyond our city’s authority. We will continue to advocate for state-level variances that provide relief for existing businesses while holding new developments to updated standards; and (4) Recognizing the Limitations of Elevation Requirements: It’s important to note that even with these requirements, there is no guarantee they will protect against all flooding. Even businesses that complied with regulations in past floods still suffered substantial damage. This underscores the need for comprehensive solutions that go beyond elevation requirements. “Ultimately, my vote tonight is an acknowledgment of the legal constraints we face and the need to ensure our participation in the NFIP while protecting future development. However, I remain deeply committed to advocating for meaningful relief for our small businesses and ensuring that the character and vibrancy of Asheville are not eroded by these changes.” Councilwoman Roney shared Councilman Hess’ concerns and sentiment about putting the whole City’s insurance and relief funding at risk is a key factor in my decision. Councilwoman Ullman asked what risks we would be putting ourselves in if we adopted the ordinance today, but delayed the effective date, perhaps by one year. City Attorney Branham said the primary risk is likely that it would be viewed by the National Flood Insurance Program as the City of Asheville still being out of compliance until the implementation date. He can’t be sure how much the City would be docked, but possibly a reduction in our current discount rates. In addition, during that period of time, the State Building Code would still continue to be in effect, which would apply regardless of our Code. Someone relying on our Code may not know. In response to Councilwoman Roney regarding the variance for historic structures, Ms. Deyton said that for buildings designated with a historic designation could obtain an exemption by going through the variance process. It’s likely that if they meet all the requirements, they would be granted a variance. City Attorney Branham also noted that the variance process is conducted through the Board of Adjustment. They would review the variance request and make a determination. Even though we can’t promise a variance would be granted, the City would likely not be objecting to the requests, and generally the Board concurs with City staff recommendations when variances are considered. Mayor Manheimer said that members of Council have previously received a copy of the ordinance and it would not be read.

City Attorney Branham said that this is the consideration of adoption of the Asheville City Council 2025 Legislative Agenda and direction to share with Asheville’s Local Delegation. Background:

• The 2025 legislative long session of the North Carolina General Assembly will commence on January 29th of this year.
• Historically, the City Council has adopted a legislative agenda to provide direction to our local delegation on those priorities for local or general legislation which the City wishes to pursue.
• This year’s agenda has been abbreviated in order to draw specific attention and focus to those items most pressing to the City and relevant to the ongoing recovery efforts, or to those items most likely to receive legislative attention.
• The remaining ongoing legislative priorities shall continue to be advanced through alternative channels, and may be included in future agendas. Pro(s):
• Provides direction to our local delegation on Council’s legislative priorities, and serves as a starting point for presentation of potential general and local acts which would benefit the City. Con(s):
• None

Fiscal Impact:

• This action requires no (additional) City resources and has no fiscal impact. City Attorney Branham said the following are the key takeaways from his presentation: (1) The N.C. General Assembly will convene its 2025 Long Session tomorrow; (2) The City Council Legislative Agenda provides a means of transmitting your shared legislative goals with our local delegation and the public; (3) This year’s agenda has been modified to add focus on items of high priority, or which have high likelihood of legislative action; (4) The proposed City of Asheville 2025 Legislative Agenda is, therefore, comprised only of requests associated with Helene recovery efforts, and one zoning authority item; and (5) Pre-Existing legislative priorities will continue to be advanced through alternate channels, and future legislative agendas. Regarding the NC General Assembly long session, (1) Long Sessions occur in ODD numbered years, and often encompass the majority of the bi-annual legislative action; (2) The 2025 Long Session will convene on January 29th; (3) Both “Local” and “General” laws can be considered in the Long Session; and (4) Local bills must be submitted by February 13th or 20th, and filed by Feb. 27th
• March 6th. He said regarding the City of Asheville Agenda Items, long session priorities, (1) Support Funding Needs Directly Related to Helene Recovery Efforts (a) 10% Local Match on FEMA Funded Public Assistance Projects; (b) Local Government Revenue Replacement Funding; (c) Ongoing Monetary and Related Legislative Support; and (2) Reconsideration of Recent changes to Local Zoning Authority (SB 382). Regarding the pre-existing legislative priorities, (1) Pre-Existing Legislative Agenda Items will remain priorities; (2) Advocacy on these items will continue through alternative channels including City’s lobbying teams; (3) By limiting this year’s agenda, the City will be able to focus legislative attention on the items which are most pressing at this time; (4) Previous agenda items can be included on future agendas; (5) Support Funding Opportunities for Investments in Critical Local Infrastructure and Services; (6) Support New State Funding to Assist Property Owners with Reducing Stormwater Pollution; (7) Reform the Local Occupancy Tax Utilization Rules; (8) Oppose Legislation that Would Limit Reasonable Regulation of Short Term Vacation Rentals; (9) Support New Legislation and State Funding to Encourage Development of Affordable Housing; (10) Oppose Legislation that Would Remove or Further Restrict Local Conditional Zoning Authority; (11) Support Legislation that Would Update Property Taxation to Provide Greater Protection and Equitable Treatment for Homeowners; (12) Amend the North Carolina Fair Housing Act to include “Source of Income/Funds” as a Protected Characteristic; (13) Support for State and Local Reparations Efforts; and (14) Support Legislation that Would Require Online Short Term Rental Platforms to include a Locally Issued Permit to Complete Rental Listings. He said the legislative agenda timeline is (1) January 28
• Review and Recommendation by City Council; (2) January 29
• City Attorney to submit Legislative Agenda to our local delegation; (3) February 13th
• 20th
• Deadline for filing of new local bills; and (4) End of Long Session. He then reviewed the following long session priorities: 1
• Provide State Funding to cover the 10% Local Share of FEMA funded Public Assistance Projects and Initiatives
• The Federal Government has agreed to provide 90% of the funding required to complete the eligible Public Assistance rebuilding projects within the City. These include critical infrastructure and public assets such as roads and bridges, water control facilities, public buildings and content replacement, public utilities, and parks and recreational facilities. It remains essential, however, that State funding be provided to cover the remaining 10% of repair and recovery costs associated with these items.
• Support funding for the full local share of rebuilding and replacing these critical public assets. 2
• Ensure State Helene Recovery Funding Can Be Used for Local Government Revenue Replacement Grants or Forgivable Loans
• The severe economic effects of Hurricane Helene have been felt by local governments throughout Western North Carolina. The loss of sales tax revenue and other fees and charges, as well as significant uncertainty regarding the collection of property taxes, has resulted in a monetary shortfall for the local government budgets in the affected region. Because of the statutory mandate to adopt a yearly balanced budget, this revenue shortfall will necessarily result in difficult budgetary actions which will, in turn, have a highly negative impact on local economies and recovery efforts. In order to balance budgets by the fiscal year deadline, local governments will likely be forced to cut services, reduce their workforce, or raise taxes on already struggling North Carolinians. The State Legislature has already allocated funding for local government cash flow needs. If this funding can be converted to allow for revenue replacement, then local services, employment rates, and tax rates could be maintained.
• Support amendments to the allowable uses of new funds, or funds already allocated to Hurricane Helene Relief efforts, which would permit grants or forgivable loans utilizable as revenue replacement for local governments. 3
• Provide Ongoing Funding and Support for the Recovery of Asheville and all of Western North Carolina
• In addition to the need for the State to continue its precedent of providing funding for local match requirements for federally funded disaster reconstruction efforts, it is essential that State funding and other legislative assistance continue to flow to the areas and people affected by Hurricane Helene. Local Governments, and the residents they serve, will depend upon this support for months and years to come, in the form of much needed grants, loans, local government revenue opportunities, and related legislative action. Continued State support will allow the City to address the desperate need for housing, improved resiliency of infrastructure, and personal and economic recovery of our residents and businesses. The City of Asheville is incredibly grateful for the efforts of the State thus far to support our recovery. However, a full recovery will take time, and can only be accomplished with the continuation of State support.
• Support long term additional funding and other legislative actions to advance the full recovery of Asheville and Western North Carolina. 4
• Support Legislative Amendment or Repeal of recent changes to N.C.G.S 160D-601(d) (Downzoning)
• Recently adopted Session Law 2024-57, in part, amended the existing statutory provisions governing “downzoning.” These changes greatly expanded the definition of “downzoning,” and for the first time in the State’s history, prohibited nearly all local government authority to take such action. These changes will significantly impact the ability of local governments to use the zoning power to adjust to new types of land uses, to amend outdated development standards, to adjust to changes in jurisdictions, and to comply with State and Federal requirements to adopt updated maps (such as those dealing with changing flood planes). Perhaps most pressing to Asheville, and all of Western North Carolina, is that these recent changes will drastically limit local government ability to adopt needed regulatory changes to increase the safety and resiliency of areas highly susceptible to damage from future storms and flooding. Without this ability, the likelihood of future catastrophic loss of lives and property will remain high.
• Support reconsideration of the recent changes to NCGS 160D-601(d) dealing with downzoning. Councilwoman Roney said that we do have other needs in our community at are not addressed in this legislative agenda. She spoke with educator organizations about funding for our public schools. There was an ask if we could add that to our legislative agenda. We’ve also had multiple asks to add very specific housing recovery items in our legislative agenda. Mr. Geoffrey Barton from Mountain Housing Opportunities outlined that the recovery focus agenda is about budgets and not people. His four requests were about rental assistance for low-income households; funding for temporary housing; tenant protections; and state housing tax credit. He asked that they be included under our priority “Provide Ongoing Funding and Support for the Recovery of Asheville and all of Western North Carolina” specifically. She would support those additions to our legislative agenda if Council agrees. Mayor Manheimer said that the City Attorney is trying to have us keep our legislative agenda realistic and very focused. The items that Mr. Barton suggested, other than the tax credits, are all things we can do with CDBG-DR funds, which we have been awarded $225 Million. Hopefully the “Temporary Pause of Agency Grant, Loan and Other Financial Assistance Programs” Memo does not disrupt that process. Also, it’s unlikely that we will get those kinds of funds from the state legislature, but rather more from the federal government, which we will be putting together another aid package in March. We have been having discussions with our legislators about having revenue loss funding and while she understands that there are so many worthy things we could include in our legislative agenda, the idea of this legislative agenda is to keep it very discrete and big picture. When Mayor Manheimer asked for public comments, none were received. Mayor Manheimer said that members of Council have been previously furnished with a copy of the resolution and it would not be read.