Application Process Guide
-
1
Access the Renew NC Grant Portal
Sign in to your Renew NC Grant Portal account.
New users must register for an account.
-
2
Start an Application
Upon logging in, the participant dashboard will become visible, including a list of the program(s) available for new applications.
- Select “Start Application” next to the program that you would like to complete a prescreen for.
- In the pop-up window that appears, enter in the case name using the format suggested ‘Organization Name – Project Name’.
- Select “Start Application” to begin the prescreening process.
- Select “Click here to continue” to move on to complete the prescreen for your potential project.
Please note:
- This guide does not replace the application, NOFO, or P&P.
- Applicants are responsible for meeting all program requirements.
- Only include attachments where explicitly requested in the application.
-
3
Section A: Applicant Information
Applicants must be an eligible legal entity:
- Units of local government, or
- Nonprofit organizations partnering with a unit of local government (attach executed partnership agreement or MOU).
Provide accurate, complete details for each field. Incomplete applications will not advance past threshold review.
Legal Entity
A.1. Legal Name of Applicant Entity
What this is asking:
- The exact legal name of the entity
How to answer strongly:
- Use the full legal name exactly as registered (Secretary of State / IRS)
- Ensure consistency across all documents and registrations
Common mistakes:
- Using abbreviations or informal names
- Mismatch across attachments and registrations
A.2. Type of Entity
What this is asking:
- Your organization’s legal classification for eligibility purposes.
How to answer strongly:
- Select the correct entity type
- Ensure it aligns with eligibility requirements above
Common mistakes:
- Selecting an ineligible entity type
- Misalignment with partnership structure (if nonprofit)
A.3. Mailing Address
What this is asking:
- Official mailing address for the applicant entity.
How to answer strongly:
- Use a stable, official mailing address
- Ensure consistency with other records
A.4. Does your legal entity have an active SAM.gov registration?
What this is asking:
- Whether the entity is registered to receive federal funds.
How to answer strongly:
- Ensure SAM registration is active and current
- Confirm entity name matches exactly
- Organizations that are not currently registered in SAM.gov are strongly encouraged to begin the registration process immediately, as activation and validation can take several weeks. Technical assistance resources and registration guidance are available through the SAM.gov help center
Common mistakes:
- Expired registration
- Name mismatch between SAM and application
A.5. Please enter your Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Number:
What this is asking:
- Your federal identifier for grant eligibility.
How to answer strongly:
- Provide accurate UEI
- Ensure it matches SAM registration
A.6. Who is the organization's authorized signatory (name/title)?
What this is asking:
- Who has legal authority to bind the organization.
How to answer strongly:
- List the correct official (e.g., City Manager, Executive Director)
- Ensure documentation reflects this authority
Common mistakes:
- Listing someone without legal authority
- Missing or inconsistent documentation
Primary Contact
A.7. Primary Contact Name
A.8. Primary Contact Title
A.9. Primary Contact Phone Number
A.10. Primary Contact Email
What this is asking:
- Who will manage communication about the application.
How to answer strongly:
- Provide a responsive, informed contact
- Ensure contact can coordinate across partners
Common mistakes:
- Listing a generic inbox
- Outdated or incorrect contact info
A.11. FEIN
What this is asking:
- Federal Employer Identification Number for the entity.
How to answer strongly:
- Ensure accuracy and consistency with federal records
Is there a third-party designee (TPD) who is responsible for working on this application on your behalf?
What this is asking:
- Whether another party (consultant, partner) is preparing or managing the application.
How to answer strongly:
- Indicate clearly if a third party is involved
- Ensure consistency with Section C (capacity and partners)
Save and Continue
- Select "Save" to store your entries and return later, or
- Select "Complete and Continue" to proceed to the next section of the application.
Once all required fields in this section are completed, a check mark will appear next to Section A: Applicant Information in the left-hand navigation menu.
Note: Applicants may use the left-hand menu to navigate back and forth between sections at any time. Completed sections remain editable unless the application has been submitted.
-
4
Section B: Project Eligibility
Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project:
- Meets an eligible activity listed in Section 105(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA), see our Policy & Procedures manual for additional guidance;
- Satisfies a CDBG-DR National Objective (LMI Area Benefit, LMI Jobs, Slum/Blight, or Urgent Need);
- Directly ties back to unmet needs caused by Hurricane Helene; and
- Is located within HUD-identified or State-identified MID county.
This section establishes:
- Eligibility under federal statute
- Connection to the disaster (tie-back and unmet need)
- Internal consistency across project description, location, and funding
Applications that are clear, specific, and internally consistent are easier to evaluate and more competitive.
Application Questions
B.1. Project Title
What this is asking:
- A clear and descriptive name for the project.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether the project can be quickly understood and distinguished from others
- Whether the title reflects the project’s location and primary activity
How to answer strongly:
- Include location and type of activity (e.g. “Village of Cool Springs Streetscaping”)
- Avoid overly general titles (e.g. “Helene Revitalization Project”)
B.2. Please select the Most Impacted and Distressed (MID) Area in which the project will be located:
What this is asking:
- Identification of the project’s location within HUD-designated or State-designated MID areas.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether the project is correctly categorized within MID geography
- Consistency with mapping, site description, and later narrative
How to answer strongly:
- Confirm the correct MID designation
- Ensure alignment with all location-based responses
Common pitfalls:
- Misclassification of MID area
- Inconsistency with map or project description
B.3. Project Description: The project description should sufficiently describe in detail the need, objectives, scope of work, and benefits expected as a result of the project. Please describe fully the construction or site improvements that will be accomplished.
What this is asking:
- A detailed description of the project’s purpose, scope, and expected outcomes.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Clarity and completeness of the project concept
- Alignment between need, scope, and anticipated benefits
- Specificity of construction or site improvements
How to answer strongly:
- Organize clearly:
- Need
- Scope of work
- Objectives
- Expected benefits
- Describe physical improvements in concrete terms
Common pitfalls:
- Vague or high-level descriptions
- Lack of detail on construction activities
- Misalignment with later sections (timeline, budget, outcomes)
B.4. Is any part of the project in a 100-year floodplain or floodway?
What this is asking:
- Whether the project is located in a floodplain or floodway.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Accuracy of environmental risk identification
- Whether subsequent sections appropriately address risk and mitigation
How to answer strongly:
- Answer accurately
- Ensure consistency with resilience and environmental review responses
B.5. Will a residential or commercial tenant be required to move out of the building for the planned project activity?
What this is asking:
- Whether project activities will result in displacement.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Potential relocation implications
- Consistency with project scope and compliance requirements
How to answer strongly:
- Answer clearly and accurately
- Ensure alignment with compliance and relocation requirements if applicable
B.6. Will there be acquisition as part of the project?
What this is asking:
- Whether real property acquisition (or lease) is part of the project.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether acquisition-related requirements will apply
- Consistency with site control and project design
How to answer strongly:
- Provide an accurate response
- Ensure alignment with site control and environmental review sections
B.7. Is this project eligible for or have you applied for FEMA-PA or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funds for this project?
What this is asking:
- Whether other federal funding sources may apply to the same activities.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Potential duplication of benefits
- Coordination with other federal funding sources
How to answer strongly:
- Disclose all applicable funding sources
- Ensure consistency with unmet need narrative and financial sections
B.8. Total Project Cost
B.9. Total CDBG-DR Project Funds Requested
What this is asking:
- Overall project cost and requested funding amount.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Reasonableness of requested funding relative to project scope
- Consistency with detailed budget information
How to answer strongly:
- Ensure figures match Section F
- Use realistic, supportable estimates
B.10. Target Area / Site Description: Identify the geographic boundaries of the project and surrounding community (include map or parcel list). If there is an address associated with the project location, please include.
What this is asking:
- The geographic scope and boundaries of the project service area.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Clarity and precision of the project location
- Logically defined service area
- Alignment with MID designation and community need
- Completeness of required mapping documentation
How to answer strongly:
- Clearly define boundaries
- Provide required map or parcel list
- Ensure consistency across all sections
B.11. Nature of Impact: Describe the physical and/or economic damage caused by Hurricane Helene.
What this is asking:
- Description of disaster-related impacts in the project area.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Specificity and credibility of damage description
- Whether direct physical and/or indirect economic damage occurred in the project area
- Relevance to the proposed project
How to answer strongly:
- Describe both physical and economic impacts where applicable
- Focus on the commercial district & commercial impacts
B.12. Link to Unmet Need: Explain how proposed CDBG-DR funds will address needs not met by insurance, FEMA, or other assistance.
What this is asking:
- Justification for why CDBG-DR funding is the necessary and appropriate funding source for this project.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Identification of funding gaps after other sources
- Clarity of unmet need
How to answer strongly:
- Identify total need
- Describe other funding denied, received, or available
- Clearly explain remaining unmet need
B.13. Beneficiary Impact: Identify the estimated number of households, residents, or businesses benefiting from recovery investment, including jobs created or retained.
What this is asking:
- The scale and type of beneficiaries.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Reasonableness of beneficiary estimates; there are not specific limits (e.g., jobs per dollar) in Disaster Recovery funding, but projects are reviewed in part based on their benefits
- Alignment with project scope and outcomes
How to answer strongly:
- Provide clear, supportable estimates
- Ensure alignment with outcomes in later sections
B.14. Demonstrate Tie-Back
What this is asking:
- Verification that the project is directly related to Hurricane Helene impacts.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether both required elements are addressed:
- Causation (damage resulted from the disaster)
- Necessity (project is needed to address that damage)
- Use of verifiable supporting information
How to answer strongly:
- Explicitly address both causation and necessity
- Provide clear, direct connection between impact and activity, with a focus on restoration and/or revitalization of commercial activity
Common pitfalls:
- Describing damage without linking to project activities
- Describing a project without demonstrating disaster connection
B.15. National Objective(s)
What this is asking:
- Selection of the applicable CDBG-DR National Objective. Further elaboration on the program’s National Objectives and the documentation needed to establish the applicant’s selection can be seen in the Commercial District Revitalization (CDR) Policy & Procedures Manual.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Appropriateness of selected objective
- Alignment with beneficiaries, geography, and project design
How to answer strongly:
- Select the most appropriate objective
- Ensure full consistency across the application
Strategic consideration:
- Projects that clearly support Low- and Moderate-Income (LMI) Area Benefit or LMI Job Creation/Retention are generally more competitive.
Save and Continue
- Select "Save" to store your entries and return later, or
- Select "Complete and Continue" to proceed to the next section of the application.
Once all required fields in this section are completed, a check mark will appear next to Section B: Project Eligibility in the left-hand navigation menu.
-
5
Section C: Capacity of Applicant
Applicants must demonstrate the skill and experience necessary for implementing the proposed services and performing all grant functions, including financial management and compliance. Where needed, applicants are encouraged to leverage the grant management support of partners such as Councils of Government (COG), NC League of Municipalities, NC Association of County Commissioners (NCACC), UNC School of Government (SOG), and others.
This section evaluates whether the applicant—and project partners—have the capacity to deliver the project in compliance with federal requirements. Applicants may describe the combined experience and capacity of the full project team, including partners providing grant management, financial, or technical support.
Strong responses:
- Provide specific, verifiable examples
- Reflect the full project team’s capacity
- Align staff roles and experience with project demands
Weak responses:
- Are vague or incomplete
- Leave gaps in responsibility
- Or fail to demonstrate relevant experience
Application Questions
C.1. Describe your organization’s experience managing federal or state grants (CDBG, CDBG-DR, ARC, ARPA, HOME, HTF, LIHTC, etc.). List any open findings related to past federal/state grants managed by lead applicant.
What this is asking:
- Experience managing compliance-intensive public funding, including any past performance issues.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Depth and relevance of grant management experience
- Evidence of successful administration (timeliness, compliance)
- Transparency regarding audit or monitoring findings
How to answer strongly:
- Identify specific programs managed
- Include:
- Funding amounts
- Timeframes
- Scope of work delivered
- Describe performance (e.g., on time, on budget, compliant)
- Clearly disclose any findings and describe corrective actions
- Incorporate relevant experience from partners where applicable
Common pitfalls:
- Listing grants without describing outcomes
- Omitting known findings
- Not clarifying whether experience is from applicant or partner
C.2. Provide examples of completed commercial district improvement/revitalization or similarly scoped projects completed on time and within budget.
What this is asking:
- Demonstrated ability to deliver projects similar in type and complexity.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Relevance of prior project experience
- Evidence of successful execution (schedule and budget adherence)
- Applicability to proposed project
How to answer strongly:
- Provide 2–3 relevant examples:
- Project name and location
- Scope and total cost
- Timeline (planned vs. actual)
- Outcomes achieved
- Include partner-led projects if they are part of the delivery team
Common pitfalls:
- Providing unrelated project examples
- Omitting timeline or budget performance
- General descriptions without specifics
- Not clarifying whether experience is from applicant or partner
C.3. List key project management staff and their qualifications
What this is asking:
- Who will implement the project and whether they are appropriately qualified.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Clarity of roles and responsibilities
- Relevance of staff qualifications
- Adequacy of staffing relative to project scope
How to answer strongly:
- Identify key staff and clearly define roles
- Summarize relevant qualifications and experience
- Include staff from both the applicant and partner organizations
- Provide realistic time commitments aligned with responsibilities
Common pitfalls:
- Listing staff without defined roles
- Including individuals without relevant experience
- Underestimating staffing needs
C.4. Please attach most recent audit and/or other documentation demonstrating internal financial controls (e.g., written financial policies and procedures, organizational chart detailing roles and responsibilities relative to financial controls, procurement policies, narrative of internal control structure, etc):
What this is asking:
- Evidence that the applicant has financial systems and controls sufficient to manage federal funds.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Strength of internal financial controls
- Compliance with federal standards (e.g., 2 CFR 200)
- Ability to manage funds responsibly
How to answer strongly:
- Provide the most recent audit, if available
- Additional acceptable documentation may include:
- Financial policies and procedures
- Procurement policies
- Organizational charts showing financial roles
- Narrative descriptions of internal control systems
- If audit findings exist:
- Briefly describe corrective actions taken
Common pitfalls:
- Failing to provide documentation
- Submitting materials that do not demonstrate actual controls
- Ignoring or failing to address audit findings
C.5. If lead applicant will receive significant grant management support from a partner (e.g., COG, League of Municipalities, NCACC, SOG, third-party contractor) please reference partnership and partner’s role in providing specific needed capacity(ies) for project. If the partner has previous CDBG-DR experience, please share years of experience.
What this is asking:
- How partners contribute to overall project capacity.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether capacity gaps are addressed through partnerships
- Clarity of roles and responsibilities
- Relevance of partner experience
How to answer strongly:
- Clearly describe:
- Each partner’s role (e.g., grant administration, financial management, construction oversight)
- Why the partner is needed
- Highlight partner experience, especially with CDBG-DR or similar programs
- Demonstrate how the combined team meets all capacity requirements
Common pitfalls:
- Naming partners without defining their role
- Failing to explain how partners strengthen capacity
- Inconsistent descriptions across sections
For Nonprofit Organization applicants only:
C.6. Has your nonprofit organization gone through a formal procurement process?
What this is asking:
- Whether the organization has experience following federal procurement procedures.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Familiarity with federal procurement processes
- Readiness to comply with federal procurement requirements
How to answer strongly:
- Answer clearly and accurately
- If yes, ensure consistency with procurement approach described later
C.7. What is the largest budget your organization has managed?
What this is asking:
- Scale of financial management experience.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether the organization has managed funds at a scale comparable to the proposed project
How to answer strongly:
- Provide the largest budget managed
- Contextualize if needed (e.g., multi-year, multi-project)
Save and Continue
- Select "Save" to store your entries and return later, or
- Select "Complete and Continue" to proceed to the next section of the application.
Once all required fields in this section are completed, a check mark will appear next to Section C: Capacity of Applicant in the left-hand navigation menu.
-
6
Section D: Community Need
Applicant must demonstrate the degree to which the proposed project responds to a critical unmet need in the area affected by Hurricane Helene. This includes but is not limited to the extent to which the commercial area sustained damage, the degree to which the area was economically distressed pre-disaster, the project’s alignment with recovery priorities outlined in North Carolina's Action Plan, and feedback from community engagement.
This section establishes:
- The eligibility and strength of the commercial district
- The evidence of need for investment
- The project’s alignment with state recovery priorities
Strong applications:
- Use specific, evidence-based descriptions
- Clearly connect damage → need → project response
- Align directly with Action Plan priorities and program criteria
Weak applications:
- Rely on general statements
- Lack supporting evidence
- Or fail to connect the project to the defined commercial district
Commercial District Criteria
Sites must be suitable for commercial development and meet environmental, legal, and zoning requirements prior to funding award or project initiation.
Zoning and Land Use
Zoning is not required. However, if an area is zoned, it must be zoned for commercial use or demonstrate a clear path to rezoning approval within 90 days of award; a clear path can be demonstrated through formal documentation of intent, process, and feasibility.
How to approach this requirement:
- If already zoned commercial: state clearly
- If rezoning is needed:
- Describe the process
- Provide evidence of feasibility (communications, local support, timeline)
- A “clear path” should be documented and credible, not assumed
Environmental Review
All sites are subject to environmental review under 24 CFR Part 58.
How to approach this requirement:
- No action required in this section beyond awareness
- Ensure later responses (Section E) reflect understanding that:
- Environmental review is required
- No choice-limiting actions may occur prior to completion
Commercial District Definition
A commercial district is a geographically identifiable area within a community that contains a concentration of commercial activity and functions as an economic driver for a community. This may include retail stores, service providers, restaurants, offices, markets, or other businesses that primarily serve the public or facilitate local economic activity.
How to approach this requirement:
- Your project must clearly fit this definition
- The district should be:
- Geographically defined
- Functionally commercial
- Economically relevant
Small and Local Business Requirement
Eligible commercial districts must demonstrate that the majority of existing or planned businesses are small or locally owned. Projects that primarily benefit large national or regional chains, or franchise operations, are not eligible for funding.
How to approach this requirement:
- Clearly describe business mix
- Emphasize:
- Locally owned businesses
- Small businesses or microenterprises
- Avoid framing that suggests primary benefit to national chains
Priority Characteristics
Priority will be given to districts that:
- Support locally owned, independent, or family-run enterprises
- Encourage development or retention of microenterprises or small businesses
- Contribute to vitality of downtowns, main streets, or community-serving corridors
- Demonstrate community-driven planning or investment
How to approach this requirement:
- Explicitly align your project to one or more of these priorities
- Use clear, direct language—do not assume alignment is obvious
Application Questions
D.1. Define and describe the impacted commercial district, including its geographic boundaries, commercial function, predominance of small or locally owned businesses, and (if applicable) zoning or rezoning readiness.
What this is asking:
- A complete definition of the commercial district – geographically (where), compositionally (who), operationally (how), and economic impact-wise (why.)
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether the district meets program eligibility criteria
- Clarity of geographic boundaries
- Strength of local/small business presence
- Credibility of zoning or rezoning status
How to answer strongly:
- Clearly define:
- Geographic boundaries (consistent with map in Section B)
- Commercial function (what activity occurs here)
- Business composition (local vs. chain)
- If rezoning is needed:
- Describe process and timeline
- Reference supporting documentation where appropriate
Common pitfalls:
- Vague or loosely defined district boundaries
- No clear description of business composition
- Assuming rezoning feasibility without support
D.2. How does the proposed work address direct physical or functional damage to the commercial area due to Hurricane Helene?
What this is asking:
- How the project directly responds to disaster-related damage. CDR funds do not need to be used exclusively to repair storm damaged property; instead, the priority is for projects that constitute a meaningful response to the long-term impacts of storm damage. Successful projects may repair damage structures, but also address economic damage through revitalization, and protect the commercial area from future weather events.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Connection between damage and proposed activities
- Specificity of damage description
- Relevance to the defined commercial district
How to answer strongly:
- Describe:
- Physical damage (flooding, structural damage, infrastructure impacts)
- Functional impacts (closures, access issues, reduced activity)
- Connect damages to benefits of project activities, both as a remedy (economic development impact) and as protection from future weather events (mitigation/resilience components)
- Align and/or reference application sections on outcomes and mitigation/resilience
Common pitfalls:
- Describing general storm impacts without tying impacts to project
- Weak or indirect connection between damage and scope
D.3. What evidence (pre- and/or post-disaster) demonstrates a need for investment in the commercial district (damage, vacancy, decline, market data)?
What this is asking:
- Evidence-based justification for investment.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Strength and credibility of supporting evidence
- Conditions before and after the disaster
- Alignment between identified need and project scope
How to answer strongly:
- Use multiple forms of evidence where possible:
- Vacancy rates
- Business closures
- Economic or market data
- Local plans or studies
- Include both pre- and post-disaster context where available
Common pitfalls:
- Vague statements without data
- Evidence that does not clearly relate to the project
D.4. How does the project align with the North Carolina CDBG-DR Action Plan’s priorities for economic revitalization.
- Facilitate the return of commercial districts and their businesses to profitability
- Restore and create jobs within impacted communities
- Ensure residents continue to have access to needed products and services in their local community
What this is asking:
- Alignment with state recovery priorities.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Explicit alignment with listed priorities
- Strength of connection between project activities and those priorities
How to answer strongly:
- Reference specific priorities listed above
- Clearly connect:
- Project activities to priority outcomes
- Use direct language (e.g., “This project supports…”)
Common pitfalls:
- General statements of alignment
- Failing to establish alignment as the primary driver of the project (e.g. framing a streetscaping project’s primary goal as pedestrian safety or traffic reduction instead of commercial revitalization)
D.5. Describe community partnerships and stakeholder feedback used to shape the project (please describe and attach documentation of publicly noticed meetings and, where applicable, resolutions).
What this is asking:
- Evidence that the project is informed by community input.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Breadth and relevance of stakeholder engagement
- Whether input influenced project design
- Presence of required documentation (publicly noticed meetings, resolutions where applicable)
How to answer strongly:
- Describe:
- Who was engaged
- How engagement occurred (meetings, surveys, planning processes)
- What feedback was received
- Explain how feedback shaped the project
- Attach required documentation as specified
Common pitfalls:
- Listing partners without describing engagement
- No evidence of publicly noticed meetings where required
- No connection between feedback and project design
D.6. How does the district serve as an economic driver (Main Street, town center, etc.)?
What this is asking:
- The economic role and importance of the district.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether the district functions as a commercial hub
- Contribution to local economy (jobs, services, activity)
- Importance of the district to broader community
How to answer strongly:
- Describe:
- Role as a Main Street, downtown, or corridor
- Types and number of businesses
- Economic activity (employment, services, visitation)
- Explain why investment here produces broader impact
Common pitfalls:
- Describing the area without economic context
- Not demonstrating broader community importance
Save and Continue
- Select "Save" to store your entries and return later, or
- Select "Complete and Continue" to proceed to the next section of the application.
Once all required fields in this section are completed, a check mark will appear next to Section D. Community Need in the left-hand navigation menu.
-
7
Section E: Project Information
Applicants must show that the project is feasible, resilient, and ready for timely implementation. “Soundness of Approach” is the highest-weighted scoring factor and reflects readiness, design quality, mitigation, and management capacity.
This is the primary scoring section and evaluates whether the project is:
- Feasible
- Ready
- Well-designed
- Capable of being implemented within program requirements
Strong applications:
- Align scope, timeline, budget, and staffing
- Demonstrate readiness with credible detail
- Incorporate resilience and compliance from the outset
Weak applications:
- Are vague or inconsistent
- Underestimate complexity
- Or fail to demonstrate readiness and control
Application Questions
E.1 Project Narrative
Provide a clear description of scope, activities, and target outcomes (such as jobs created/retained, businesses assisted, etc.). Include a brief description of alignment with Commercial District Revitalization program goals.
What this is asking:
- A clear and comprehensive description of the project, including what will be done and what it will achieve.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Clarity and completeness of scope and activities
- Specificity of expected outcomes
- Alignment with Commercial District Revitalization (CDR) program goals
How to answer strongly:
- Clearly describe:
- Scope (what is included)
- Activities (what will be constructed or improved)
- Outcomes (jobs, businesses assisted, occupancy, etc.)
- Include a concise statement of alignment with CDR program goals
- Ensure consistency with Sections B, D, and F
Common pitfalls:
- Vague or conceptual descriptions
- Outcomes not tied to activities
- Misalignment with later sections
E.2. Timeline: Identify key project milestones.
Provide a detailed construction timeline with proposed project dates (with months, years, or quarters) and key milestones (financing closing, permitting, construction phases).
What this is asking:
- A detailed and realistic project timeline.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Completeness of project sequencing
- Realism of proposed schedule
- Inclusion of key milestones
How to answer strongly:
- Include major phases:
- Financing
- Design/permitting
- Procurement
- Construction
- Completion
- Use specific timeframes (months/quarters/years)
- Ensure consistency with site readiness and environmental review
Common pitfalls:
- Missing key steps (e.g., procurement or permitting)
- Timelines that are overly compressed or vague
E.3. Explain how the project timeline aligns with CDBG-DR expenditure deadlines and readiness to proceed.
Expenditure deadlines will be project dependent, but most will target three years. All funds from the Hurricane Helene CDBG-DR allocation must be spent in advance of DCR’s grant deadline of July 29, 2031.
What this is asking:
- Whether the project can be completed within program timelines.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Feasibility of completing the project within required expenditure timelines
- Alignment between readiness and schedule
How to answer strongly:
- Demonstrate that the project can reasonably be completed within ~3 years
- Identify any factors that support readiness (design progress, site control, partner readiness)
- Ensure timeline reflects realistic sequencing
Common pitfalls:
- Ignoring program deadlines
- Providing a timeline that does not reflect actual readiness
E.4. Site Control
Please describe the control the applicant has over the project site.
(Site Control Documentation required: deed, purchase option, long-term lease, communication, etc.)
What this is asking:
- The applicant’s legal ability to access and use the project site.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether the applicant has sufficient control to proceed
- Credibility of the path to full site control (if not yet secured)
How to answer strongly:
- Clearly state current status:
- Owned
- Under contract
- Lease or option agreement
- In negotiation
- If not finalized:
- Describe the plan and timeline to secure control
- Reference supporting documentation as required (emails, memos, etc)
Important consideration:
- Projects may be at different stages; however, applicants should demonstrate a credible and documented path to site control
Common pitfalls:
- Unclear or unsupported claims of site control
- No explanation of how site control will be achieved
E.5. Site Readiness
Describe the project’s site readiness, where applicable, for each of the following:
- Zoning Approvals
- Infrastructure access
- Permits needed/secured
What this is asking:
- The degree to which the project is ready to proceed.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether major barriers to implementation have been addressed
- Realism of readiness relative to timeline
How to answer strongly:
- Address each category clearly:
- Zoning (compliant or path to approval)
- Infrastructure (utilities, access)
- Permits (secured, in process, or planned)
- If items are not yet complete:
- Provide a clear path and timeline
- Reference supporting documentation where appropriate
Federal requirement to be aware of:
- Projects must avoid choice-limiting actions prior to completion of environmental review and issuance of Authority to Use Grant Funds (AUGF)
- Applicants should demonstrate awareness that actions such as acquisition, demolition, or construction commitments may not occur prior to clearance
What reviewers expect for early-stage projects:
- Evidence of active progress (e.g., communications, coordination, planning)
- A credible path to readiness, even if not fully complete
Common pitfalls:
- Assuming readiness without support
- Ignoring zoning or permitting constraints
- Indicating actions that could be interpreted as choice-limiting
E.6. Partners and Commitments
List public, private (business), and nonprofit partners; attach MOUs or letters of commitment. For nonprofit organization applicants, upload a partnership agreement between the nonprofit organization and local government.
What this is asking:
- Identification of partners and confirmation of their commitment.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Strength and relevance of partnerships
- Degree of commitment
- Alignment between partners and project roles
How to answer strongly:
- List all relevant partners
- Clearly describe their role in the project
- Provide required documentation (MOUs, letters of commitment)
Common pitfalls:
- Listing partners without defined roles
- Missing required documentation
- Including partners that do not meaningfully contribute to project delivery
E.7. Describe the governance and project-management structure (roles, decision-making process, meeting frequency).
What this is asking:
- How the project will be managed and overseen.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Clarity of roles and responsibilities
- Decision-making structure
- Coordination and oversight approach
How to answer strongly:
- Describe:
- Organizational structure
- Roles of key entities and staff
- Decision-making process
- Frequency and structure of coordination (meetings, reporting)
- Align with staffing described in Section C
Common pitfalls:
- Vague or undefined roles
- No clear decision-making process
- Disconnect from Section C
E.8. Environmental Review Status
The State is the Responsible Entity (RE) for Environmental Review for CDR projects. Indicate whether an environmental review under 24 CFR Part 58 has begun or been completed.
What this is asking:
- Status of environmental review.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Awareness of environmental review requirements
- Current status and readiness
How to answer strongly:
- Clearly state whether review has:
- Not started
- Begun
- Been completed (if applicable)
E.8a. Applicants are reminded that CDBG-DR funds are subject to HUD’s environmental review requirements under 24 CFR Part 58. No choice-limiting actions (e.g., acquisition, demolition, construction, or rehabilitation) may occur until the environmental review is complete and HUD has issued the Authority to Use Grant Funds (AUGF). Applicants should provide documentation of any current environmental review status, including any consultations under related federal laws (e.g., Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and floodplain/wetland reviews).
What this is asking:
- Confirmation of compliance with environmental review requirements.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Understanding of federal environmental requirements
- Compliance with prohibition on choice-limiting actions
- Availability of supporting documentation
How to answer strongly:
- Acknowledge requirement clearly
- Confirm no prohibited actions have occurred
- Provide documentation if available (as requested)
E.9. Resilience & Mitigation Performance Measures
Projects must integrate risk-reduction and sustainability features (table provided in application).
What this is asking:
- Identification of resilience features and their impact.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Integration of risk reduction measures
- Alignment with hazard conditions
- Clarity of expected benefit and cost
How to answer strongly:
- Complete the table clearly:
- Feature
- Purpose/risk reduction
- Estimated cost
- Use specific, project-relevant measures
Common pitfalls:
- Generic or minimal entries
- No clear connection to project risks
E.10. How will the design meet resilience and sustainability standards (flood mitigation, hazard resilience)?
What this is asking:
- How resilience is incorporated into project design.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Depth of resilience strategy
- Alignment with known risks
How to answer strongly:
- Describe specific design features
- Tie directly to local hazard conditions
E.11. Preliminary Cost Estimates
Provide realistic cost estimates supported by industry tools. Include engineer or contractor estimates supporting cost reasonableness.
What this is asking:
- Credible, supportable cost estimates.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Reasonableness of costs
- Use of professional estimates
- Alignment with scope
How to answer strongly:
- Use engineer or contractor estimates
- Ensure alignment with project scope
- Provide required documentation
Common pitfalls:
- Unsupported estimates
- Misalignment with scope or budget
E.12. Provide a detailed financing plan that anticipates potential cost increases by identifying other funding sources and the incorporation of contingency funds into the project budget.
What this is asking:
- Financial planning and risk management. The program allows up to 10% of the requested funds to be budgeted as a contingency.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Completeness of financing plan
- Inclusion of contingency
- Identification of additional funding sources
How to answer strongly:
- Identify all funding sources
- Include contingency or reserve
- Ensure consistency with Section F
E.13. Describe your construction management and oversight plan, including responsible staff/contractors.
What this is asking:
- How construction will be managed.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Adequacy of oversight
- Clarity of roles
- Alignment with project complexity
How to answer strongly:
- Identify responsible staff or contractors
- Describe oversight structure
- Align with Section C
E.14. How will construction management ensure compliance with Davis-Bacon, Section 3, and other federal cross-cutting requirements? Please identify which team members will be responsible.
What this is asking:
- Plan for meeting federal compliance requirements.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Understanding of compliance requirements
- Assignment of responsibility
- Systems for monitoring compliance
How to answer strongly:
- Identify responsible staff or partners
- Describe compliance processes
- Reference prior experience where applicable
Save and Continue
- Select "Save" to store your entries and return later, or
- Select "Complete and Continue" to proceed to the next section of the application.
Once all required fields in this section are completed, a check mark will appear next to Section E: Project Information in the left-hand navigation menu.
Note: Applicants may use the left-hand menu to navigate back and forth between sections at any time. Completed sections remain editable unless the application has been submitted.
-
8
Section F: Budget and Leveraged Resources
Provide a detailed financial plan identifying total project costs, committed leverage, and the proportion of non-CDBG-DR funding.
This section is a compliance and financial integrity test.
Reviewers are evaluating whether:
- The full funding picture is disclosed
- Duplication of benefits is avoided
- Costs are reasonable and supportable
- The project is financially complete and executable
Strong applications:
- Are internally consistent across all financial fields
- Fully disclose all funding sources
- Clearly demonstrate unmet need
Weak applications:
- Contain inconsistencies
- Omit funding sources
- Or fail to demonstrate cost reasonableness
Application Questions
F.1. Total Project Cost
What this is asking:
- The full cost of the project from all sources.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Completeness of project cost
- Consistency with scope (Section E) and financing (later in this section)
How to answer strongly:
- Include all costs necessary to complete the project
- Ensure alignment with:
- Cost estimates (E.11)
- Financing plan (E.12)
- Budget worksheet
Common pitfalls:
- Omitting costs
- Mismatch with other sections
F.2. CDBG-DR Funds Requested
What this is asking:
- Amount requested from this program.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Reasonableness of request relative to total cost
- Proportion of public vs. leveraged funding
How to answer strongly:
- Ensure request aligns with unmet need
- Maintain consistency across all financial sections
F.3. Other Leverage Needed
What this is asking:
- Additional funding required beyond CDBG-DR.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether the full funding stack is identified
- Remaining gaps in financing
How to answer strongly:
- Clearly identify remaining funding needs
- Ensure totals reconcile with F.1 and F.2
F.4. Leverage Ratio (Non-CDBG-DR : CDBG-DR)
What this is asking:
- Ratio of non-CDBG-DR funding to requested CDBG-DR funds.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Level of leveraged investment
- Financial competitiveness of the project
How to answer strongly:
- Ensure ratio is calculated correctly
- Confirm consistency with all other figures
F.5. What percentage of total project costs will be covered by non-CDBG-DR funds?
What this is asking:
- Share of project supported by non-program funding.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Degree of financial leverage
- Balance of funding sources
How to answer strongly:
- Provide an accurate percentage
- Ensure consistency with F.1–F.4
F.6. Have you received any disaster related assistance from FEMA for Hurricane Helene?
(Includes: amount approved, amount received to date, FEMA registration number, required documentation)
What this is asking:
- Whether FEMA funding has been received or applied for.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Potential duplication of benefits
- Accuracy of reported assistance
How to answer strongly:
- Disclose all FEMA assistance
- Clearly distinguish:
- Pending FEMA claims
- Approved amounts
- Received amounts
- Provide required documentation as specified
Common pitfalls:
- Incomplete disclosure
- Confusion between approved and disbursed funds
F.7. Have you received any disaster assistance from the SBA for damage to your CDR project?
(Includes: approved amount, received amount, application/loan numbers, status, required documentation)
What this is asking:
- Whether SBA assistance has been received or applied for.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Coordination with SBA funding
- Duplication of benefits considerations
How to answer strongly:
- Provide complete and accurate information
- Clearly indicate loan status and usage
- Provide required documentation
F.8. Did you have National Flood Insurance at the time of the disaster event?
(Includes claim status and amount received; required documentation)
What this is asking:
- Whether flood insurance applies and what was paid.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Insurance coverage
- Amount of benefits already received
How to answer strongly:
- Report accurately:
- Coverage
- Claim status
- Amount received
- Provide required documentation
F.9. Did you have Property Insurance at the time of the disaster event?
(Includes claim status, amount received, appeals/litigation, required documentation)
What this is asking:
- Whether other insurance applies to the project.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Additional sources of recovery funding
- Completeness of benefit reporting
How to answer strongly:
- Disclose all claims and outcomes
- Include appeal or litigation status if applicable
F.10. Have you received any disaster assistance from the State of North Carolina?
(Includes source, amount approved, amount received, required documentation)
What this is asking:
- Whether state funding has been received.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Total public funding applied to the project
- Duplication of benefits risk
How to answer strongly:
- Clearly identify:
- Program source
- Approved vs. received amounts
- Provide required documentation
F.11–F.13. Have you received any other financial assistance for work performed on your proposed CDR project?
(Includes philanthropic and other sources; documentation required)
What this is asking:
- Any additional funding sources not previously captured.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Completeness of funding disclosure
- Total financial picture
How to answer strongly:
- Disclose all sources:
- Public
- Private
- Philanthropic
- Ensure consistency across all entries
Common pitfalls:
- Omitting smaller or informal funding sources
- Inconsistent reporting across questions
Cost-Reasonableness Standards
All costs must comply with 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E:
- Necessary
- Reasonable
- Allowable
- Allocable
How to approach this requirement:
- Ensure all costs meet these four standards
- Align cost estimates with:
- Industry benchmarks
- Professional estimates
F.14. Provide a short Cost Reasonableness Summary describing how unit pricing, estimates, or bids were determined.
What this is asking:
- Explanation of how costs were developed and validated.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Credibility of cost estimates
- Use of appropriate methods (engineer estimates, bids, comparables)
How to answer strongly:
- Describe:
- Source of estimates
- Method used (e.g., engineer, contractor, historical data)
- Tie to documentation provided in Section E
F.15. How will the project ensure compliance with cost-reasonableness and procurement requirements under 2 CFR 200?
What this is asking:
- Plan for complying with federal procurement and cost standards.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Understanding of procurement requirements
- Presence of internal controls
How to answer strongly:
- Describe procurement approach (competitive processes)
- Reference internal policies and procedures
- Align with capacity described in Section C
Attach a budget worksheet (sources and uses) consistent with your financial pro forma.
What this is asking:
- Detailed financial breakdown.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Internal consistency of all financial information
- Completeness of sources and uses
How to answer strongly:
- Ensure worksheet matches all figures in Section F
- Clearly identify all funding sources and uses
F.16. Disclose all sources of financial assistance received or anticipated for the same project or purpose…
What this is asking:
- Full disclosure of all funding sources to determine unmet need.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Duplication of benefits compliance
- Completeness and transparency
How to answer strongly:
- List all sources
- Include:
- Type
- Purpose
- Amount
- Status (pending/received)
F.17. CDBG-DR Requested Amount / Other Funding Source(s) / Total Cost
What this is asking:
- Final reconciliation of project financing.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Whether all financial information aligns
- Completeness of funding stack
How to answer strongly:
- Ensure totals match:
- F.1
- F.2
- F.16
- Double-check for consistency
Save and Continue
- Select "Save" to store your entries and return later, or
- Select "Complete and Continue" to proceed to the next section of the application.
Once all required fields in this section are completed, a check mark will appear next to Section F: Budget and Leveraged Resources in the left-hand navigation menu.
Note: Applicants may use the left-hand menu to navigate back and forth between sections at any time. Completed sections remain editable unless the application has been submitted.
-
9
Section G: Achieving Results
Applicants must clearly demonstrate how the proposed project will produce measurable and lasting recovery outcomes consistent with the goals of the Commercial District Revitalization (CDR) Program.
This section evaluates the extent to which the project contributes to long-term economic stabilization, supports low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities, and creates sustained commercial vitality in Hurricane Helene–impacted areas.
This section demonstrates the impact of the project.
Reviewers are evaluating whether the project will:
- Produce measurable outcomes
- Deliver meaningful economic recovery
- Support long-term stability and resilience
Strong applications:
- Provide clear, realistic, and measurable outcomes
- Align outcomes with project scope and need
- Demonstrate lasting benefit to the commercial district and community
Weak applications:
- Provide vague or unsupported outcomes
- Lack a clear measurement approach
- Do not connect results to long-term impact
Projected Outcomes
Identify the quantifiable results of the project, such as:
- Number of jobs created or retained
- Number of businesses assisted or stabilized
- Square footage of improved or rehabilitated commercial space
- Estimated increase in business occupancy rate or foot traffic
Economic and Community Impact
Describe how the project will:
- Strengthen the commercial district’s long-term stability
- Expand permanent employment opportunities for LMI residents
- Contribute to local tax base recovery or economic diversification
Application Questions
G.1. What measurable economic or community recovery outcomes will result directly from this project (e.g., jobs created, business re-openings, new tenants, property value stabilization)?
What this is asking:
- Specific, quantifiable outcomes that will result from the project.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Clarity and specificity of projected outcomes
- Alignment with project scope and activities
- Reasonableness of estimates
How to answer strongly:
- Provide clear, numeric estimates where possible:
- Jobs created or retained
- Businesses reopened or supported
- Square footage improved
- Ensure outcomes align with:
- Project narrative (Section E)
- Beneficiary impact (Section B)
Common pitfalls:
- Providing only general statements
- Listing outcomes that are not supported by the project scope
- Overstating impacts without a clear basis
G.2. How will the applicant measure outcomes listed in G.1.?
What this is asking:
- How outcomes will be tracked and verified.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Feasibility of measurement approach
- Reliability of data sources
- Alignment with reporting requirements
How to answer strongly:
- Identify:
- Data sources (e.g., business records, occupancy rates, surveys)
- Methods (tracking systems, reporting processes)
- Ensure measures are realistic and can be consistently applied
Common pitfalls:
- Vague or undefined measurement methods
- Outcomes that cannot be practically tracked
G.3. How will these results support long-term revitalization and resilience of the affected commercial area?
What this is asking:
- How short-term outcomes translate into long-term impact.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Connection between immediate results and sustained economic benefit
- Contribution to resilience and stability
How to answer strongly:
- Describe how outcomes lead to:
- Continued business activity
- Increased occupancy or investment
- Long-term economic stability
- Connect back to Action Plan priorities where applicable
Common pitfalls:
- Repeating outcomes without explaining long-term effects
- Weak or indirect connection to resilience
G.4. What critical goods and services will be retained and/or restored for local residents?
What this is asking:
- What essential community functions are supported by the project.
What reviewers are assessing:
- Relevance of goods and services to community needs
- Contribution to community stability and quality of life
- Potential fit to Urgent Need objective
How to answer strongly:
- Identify specific goods and services:
- Grocery, pharmacy, childcare, banking, etc.
- Explain their importance to local residents
- Tie to the role of the commercial district
Common pitfalls:
- General statements without specificity
- Not connecting services to community need
Save and Continue
- Select "Save" to store your entries and return later, or
- Select "Complete and Continue" to proceed to the next section of the application.
Once all required fields in this section are completed, a check mark will appear next to Section G: Achieving Results in the left-hand navigation menu.
Note: Applicants may use the left-hand menu to navigate back and forth between sections at any time. Completed sections remain editable unless the application has been submitted.
-
10
Prescreen Submit
The Application Submit section is the final step to review, certify, and submit the completed prescreen.
Review Completion Status
Before submitting, confirm that all prescreen sections display a green check mark in the left-hand navigation menu.
- A green check mark indicates the section is complete.
- A gray or missing check mark indicates required information or documents are still missing in that section.
If the Prescreen Submit button is inactive or unavailable, review each section to locate and complete any missing fields or uploads.
Participants may select any section in the left-hand menu to review or update information prior to submission.
Certification and Electronic Signature
To proceed with submission:
- Select the checkbox to certify that the information provided in the prescreen is true and complete to the best of the signer’s knowledge.
- Under Authorized Signature, select "Click here to electronically sign."
- Enter the signer's full name as prompted.
- Select "Sign" to apply the electronic signature.
Once the signature is successfully completed, the signer's name is displayed under Authorized Signature.
A confirmation message appears indicating the email address of the signer and the date and time the prescreen was electronically signed.
Submit the Application
- Select "Application Submit."
- A confirmation window will appear with a message explaining that once the prescreen is submitted, no additional edits can be made unless the application is re-opened by a Program Administrator.
- Participants must choose one of the following options:
- Cancel – Returns you to the Prescreen Submit page without submitting. The application remains editable.
- Proceed – Confirms submission and formally submits the completed prescreen.
After selecting "Proceed" on the submission confirmation window, the system displays the Application Submitted screen.
-
11
After Application Submission
After you submit your prescreen, you can:
- Review your submitted application by selecting any section in the left-hand navigation menu.
- Use Print Application to download or print a copy for your records.
- Select "Print Application" from the left-hand panel.
- This will generate a printable version of your submitted application, downloaded to your browser.
Please note:
- Submitted applications are read-only and cannot be edited.
- No additional action is required from the applicant unless contacted by the program.