Office of Resilience requests $117 million in nonrecurring funds, seeks $43 million reserve replenishment

The Office of Resilience told the Economic Development Budget Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee that it is seeking $117 million in nonrecurring state funds and an additional $43 million to replenish reserves used in the immediate aftermath of recent storms.

The request matters because the agency said federal recovery money was smaller for the most recent declared storm than for previous disasters, and state seed funding has allowed it to start repairs and mitigation work while federal approvals are pending.

At the hearing the agency’s presenter (identified in testimony as Ben) summarized accomplishments, ongoing work and specific budget requests. He said the office released a statewide resilience plan and atlas in February 2024, has placed more than 12,701 acres into protection (mostly wetlands), and coordinated a data study with analytics firm SAS to reduce redundant purchases of geospatial and other data. He told the committee the office manages 44 infrastructure projects, six home-buyout programs (about 90 homes in process), and 22 planning studies for cities and counties.

On grants, testimony said the state is a partner in an approximately $421 million EPA grant across five states, and South Carolina’s share was described in testimony as $50 million, with a potential later $38 million through the Nature Conservancy. The presenter also said the state received about $124 million in an EPA "solar for all" grant aimed at lowering energy bills for low- and moderate-income customers by coordinating utility-scale installations rather than rooftop solar on individual homes.

On disaster recovery, the Office reported prior closures and results: more than 1,142 homes repaired or replaced after Hurricane Matthew, 488 homes repaired or replaced from the 2018 Florence floods (figures provided in testimony), and a cumulative total of 3,459 homes repaired or replaced across earlier storms using roughly $293 million, “on time, on budget, and no findings,” the presenter said. The agency also described work on stormwater projects (an award of $19.8 million in early 2024 was cited) and a multi-phase cleanup of the USS Yorktown; the presenter stated an expected completion date in his remarks but the numeric date in the record was unclear.

Officials described the scale of applications following the most recent storm they discussed (Hurricane Helene): testimony said about 443,000 people applied for individual assistance through FEMA for that storm, compared with roughly 70,000 applicants for the prior three disasters combined; the agency said it has been awarded about $150 million in federal funds for that event, a smaller allocation than the agency received for earlier storms. The presenter said federal rules require 15% of that award be used for mitigation.

To bridge gaps while federal funds are processed, the agency asked for several specific nonrecurring allocations: $43 million to replenish the state disaster reserve (the agency said $30 million of the reserve was held at the General Assembly’s direction), $30 million for statewide stormwater infrastructure projects and mitigation, $15 million for voluntary buyouts in repetitive flood areas, $5 million for local plans and studies, $18 million for an elevated walkway at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) campus in Charleston, $1.2 million to develop a comprehensive system of record for project and citizen-level tracking, $5 (million?) for resilience planning and coordination (testimony referenced planning/coordination funds), $4 million for watershed coordinator positions (eight watershed coordinators at $500,000 each), and $1.2 million for data contracts with universities. The presenter described an existing reserve fund used to pay temporary disaster case managers (about 50 initially trained; testimony said about 60 staff are now working), and said the agency expects FEMA reimbursement for some case-management costs through a $22 million grant.

Committee members asked about timing of federal funds, private contributions for specific projects, and the mechanics of spending state reserve dollars before federal reimbursements. The office said the earliest the recently appropriated federal money could be available was July or August (as described in testimony), and that some reimbursable expenses are being structured to follow HUD and FEMA procurement and environmental-review processes to preserve the possibility of federal reimbursement. The agency noted differences between homeowner damage self-reports and FEMA damage determinations: testimony reported about 1,500 owner-reported destroyed homes versus 203 FEMA-confirmed destroyed homes so far, and emphasized limitations in FEMA housing payout levels.

The presenter highlighted repeated external audits, including HUD and HUD Office of Inspector General reviews, a revolving loan fund audit and an American Rescue Plan audit, and said those audits returned “no findings.” He closed by asking committee members to consider the nonrecurring allocations so the office can continue mitigation and recovery work while federal funds are finalized.

Less critical details: committee members praised the office’s audit record and asked for follow-up information about private funding commitments for specific projects (for example, MUSC’s share of the walkway project), which the agency said it would provide if available.