WeVote
Log In

Bill

WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1067

Summary of SB 1067 (Session 2025, North Carolina) – Hazard Mitigation Funds

Note: The following summary reflects the bill text and status as of the latest available action (Filed on 2026-04-30). If you need updates on amendments or committee referrals, please consult the latest legislative records.

1. Purpose and intent

  • SB 1067 establishes framework for the collection, allocation, and use of hazard mitigation funds to reduce risks from natural hazards (such as flooding, severe weather, and other disaster-related hazards) in North Carolina.
  • The bill aims to enhance local and state capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters by ensuring dedicated funding streams and clear oversight for hazard mitigation projects.

2. Key provisions and changes

Funding sources and administration

  • Creates or designates a Hazard Mitigation Fund (or expands authority for existing funds) to be used specifically for mitigation activities.
  • Outlines eligible funding sources (e.g., state appropriations, federal grants, and other designated revenue) and stipulates permissible uses consistent with hazard mitigation aims.
  • Specifies authority for distribution and management of funds, potentially through a state agency (e.g., Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety, or a related agency) and/or a nondiscretionary grant process.

Eligible projects and activities

  • Grants or funding opportunities for local governments, tribal entities (if applicable), and designated partners to implement mitigation measures.
  • Eligible activities may include:
    • Infrastructure hardening (e.g., flood control measures, stormwater system improvements)
    • Buyouts and acquisitions of hazard-prone properties
    • Elevation projects for utilities or homes
    • Construction or retrofit of critical facilities to withstand hazards
    • Natural infrastructure projects (e.g., wetlands restoration, floodplain reclamation)
    • Data collection, mapping, and planning to support risk reduction (e.g., hazard mitigation planning, risk assessments)
  • Preference or scoring criteria may favor projects with high benefit-cost or multi-hazard resilience benefits, and alignment with state hazard mitigation plans.

Matching requirements and leverage

  • The bill may set matching requirements for local/state applicants (e.g., requiring a percentage match from non-federal funds or in-kind contributions) to maximize leverage of available resources.
  • Encourages or mandates leveraging federal hazard mitigation funding programs (e.g., FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program) where applicable.

Oversight, reporting, and accountability

  • Establishes reporting obligations to track fund disbursement, project progress, and outcomes.
  • Requires performance metrics (e.g., estimated hazard reduction, avoided damages, number of properties protected) and periodic audits or reviews.
  • Defines recordkeeping requirements and timelines for reporting to the General Assembly or relevant oversight committees.

3. Affected entities

  • Primary: State agencies responsible for hazard mitigation, emergency management, and public safety.
  • Local governments (cities, counties), and potentially special districts or municipalities that undertake mitigation projects.
  • Utilities and critical facilities that may participate through grant eligibility for resilience upgrades.
  • Stakeholders involved in land use planning, flood control, and disaster resilience (e.g., planning departments, floodplain managers).

4. Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Status: Filed (2026-04-30). No committee referrals or final act information provided in the current record.
  • If enacted, the bill would typically include effective date provisions (often a specific start date or upon enrollment) and transitional rules for existing projects or funding streams.
  • The bill would likely require annual or multi-year appropriation cycles, with funding disbursed through a competitive grant process or formula-based allocations, subject to appropriation by the General Assembly.

Practical impact to watch

  • Increased dedicated funding for hazard mitigation could accelerate resilience projects across communities.
  • Clear rules on eligible activities and reporting may improve project selection, accountability, and outcomes.
  • Local governments might need to align applications with state mitigation plans and ensure match or leveraging requirements are met.

If you want, I can pull in the latest amendments or committee referrals and provide a more detailed line-by-line summary.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.