State official: The money slated for Helene recovery isn’t nearly ‘enough’
by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press February 5, 2025
As North Carolina begins its long-term Helene recovery, the state faces a sobering math problem.
Full recovery will cost nearly $60 billion, according to a state budget office estimation. The federal government may chip in $15 billion — far less than requested. So far, the legislature has passed three relief packages, which collectively dedicate $1.1 billion to recovery. The state’s rainy day fund hovers around $3.7 billion, and it’s highly unlikely to be emptied to handle Helene efforts.
That calculus leaves a gaping hole for the legislature, as well as local communities and private donors, to fill as Western North Carolinians look to put their lives and livelihoods back together.
Jonathan Krebs, an advisor for the newly-created Governor’s Recovery Office for Western North Carolina, sees it as an impossible equation.
“We didn’t get enough money, and it’s very likely that there will be a middle income group of people that are not going to be served because we run out of funds,” Krebs told the House Select Committee on Helene Recovery.
‘Broken promises’
Lawmakers were visibly frustrated as they recently questioned Pryor Gibson, director of the North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency.
The office helps North Carolinians impacted by Hurricanes Florence and Matthew get back into permanent housing. At least that was the plan.
Eight years removed from Hurricane Matthew and six years from Hurricane Florence, there are still 1,179 homes under construction or awaiting to be built. Progress has nearly halted because more money is needed.
Republican State Rep. Brenden Jones, co-chair of a joint legislative subcommittee on hurricane response and recovery, said at NCORR’s last legislative hearing that lawmakers were promised the final stages of housing recovery could be completed for less than $265 million.
But last week, Gibson requested about $35 million more.
That’s been a pattern for the agency, Jones said.
“The people of North Carolina have had enough of NCORR’s broken promises and mismanagement,” he said. “Let’s be clear: This is not our first committee meeting on your failures.”
Ghosts of recovery efforts past
As Western North Carolina embarks on a multi-year housing recovery of its own, lawmakers don’t want to be “haunted” by the ghosts of former Gov. Roy Cooper’s “failed” recovery agency. That’s the feeling of Republican state Sen. Warren Daniel, who represents Buncombe, Burke and McDowell counties.
Krebs and Matt Calabria, the director of the Governor’s Recovery Office for Western North Carolina, plan to learn from NCORR’s mistakes with a new housing recovery agency: the Division of Community Revitalization.
After Hurricane Florence struck North Carolina in 2018, NCORR was charged with housing recovery. In 2019, the agency requested $1.3 billion; the state offered $664 million initially in addition to $216 million in federal funding.
The agency’s first three years were “terrible,” Gibson said.
The office built fewer homes than expected, offered too many housing options and got caught in a bureaucratic web of unclear communication and expectations.
Things eventually improved.
But now, there isn’t enough funding left to complete the 639 homes under construction and 540 homes not yet started.
Krebs said that Helene recovery will be different. The Division of Community Revitalization will be an efficient group building homes quickly, “not a custom home factory.”
Also, NCORR seemingly suffered from its large size, which led to unnecessary bureaucratic delays. In contrast, the Division of Community Revitalization will be a smaller, more nimble office.
Finally, and maybe most important, communication and expectations were unclear for the North Carolina Office of Recovery. Calabria said that the Division of Community Revitalization will report directly to the governor with real time information on a weekly, if not daily, basis to “improve transparency.”
“We’ve learned plenty of lessons from past recoveries,” Krebs said.
The state of Helene recovery
Much of the financial picture remains hazy as North Carolina waits for federal funds to be approved and then deposited into the state’s bank account.
Right now, the Division of Community Revitalization is working on its Housing and Urban Development Action Plan, which outlines how federal housing dollars will be spent. Officials are also watching as disaster recovery funds come from various other sources.
A state report estimates that Helene recovery will total around $60 billion. Colby Rabon / Carolina Public Press
The governor’s office requested $26 billion from the federal government for Helene recovery. Krebs estimated that the state will receive $15.7 billion. It’s a “moving target” depending on eligibility demands and executive action, he cautioned.
In the long term, GROW NC plans to appeal for more funds, Krebs said.
But at the moment, the organization is working with what it has.
“Right now, we have a clear focus of having to manage scarce resources,” Krebs said. “We did not receive near enough money to support Western North Carolina.”
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
