Disaster Relief Grants for Localities

Summary#

HB 5819, titled LOCAL DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING, is an introduced bill that would amend the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, the State Finance Act, the Budget Stabilization Act and the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act. Its stated goal is to provide grants to local governments for costs tied to the disaster in the Governor’s August 18, 2026 proclamation; that result would depend on an appropriation.

  • The Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security would have to award grants in Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028, if money is appropriated, to local governments in 15 named counties.
  • Grants would reimburse eligible expenses already incurred for disaster relief and restoration services. Those services include supplies, temporary shelter, repairs to essential services, and work to return damaged property and its contents to their pre-disaster condition.
  • The Agency would have to make rules, including a system for prioritizing grants. Applicants would have to provide invoices, show the damage came from the named disaster rather than unrelated events, and show that the funds would serve a public purpose.
  • The bill would allow the Agency to use Budget Stabilization Fund money for the grants, but only in amounts approved by appropriation and only in those two fiscal years. That money would not have to be repaid.
  • The bill would allow emergency rules to put the grant system in place. That emergency-rule authority would expire two years after the bill’s effective date.

What it means for you#

  • Local governments in Alexander, Champaign, Cook, DuPage, Ford, Fulton, Kane, Lake, La Salle, Marshall, McLean, Pulaski, Tazewell, Vermilion and Will Counties: They could apply for reimbursement of qualifying costs tied to the August 18, 2026 disaster. They would have to meet the evidence and public-purpose requirements; the bill does not guarantee each applicant a grant.
  • Residents and businesses: The bill does not make individuals or businesses grant applicants. It does not directly create a new benefit for them or require them to pay a fee.
  • State government and taxpayers: The Agency would have to make grant rules and award grants if an appropriation is available. The bill does not itself appropriate money.

Money#

No publicly available information on the total cost or appropriation amount.

  • The bill permits use of the Budget Stabilization Fund only up to the amount appropriated for grants in Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028.
  • Grant money from that fund would not have to be repaid.
  • The bill gives no estimate of Agency staffing or administrative costs.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not set the grant amounts, funding limit, application deadline, decision timeline, or appeal process.
  • It requires invoices about damage and repair costs, but the eligible expenses also include services such as transportation, food, medical supplies and temporary shelter. How those costs would be documented is not specified.
  • The Agency must create a prioritization system, but the bill does not say what priorities or scoring rules it must use.
  • The supplied material does not include the full current versions of the amended Acts, so existing disaster grant programs and how this bill would overlap with them could not be verified.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it could help affected local governments recover costs they have already incurred in responding to a specific declared disaster.
  • Requiring invoices and proof that damage came from the named disaster could help connect grants to documented disaster costs.
  • A public-purpose requirement and a priority system could guide how limited appropriated funds are distributed.

Case against#

  • The bill does not guarantee funding: grants depend on future appropriations, and it sets no minimum amount.
  • The Agency would set the priority system, but the bill gives few directions about how to rank applicants. This could leave important allocation choices to later rules.
  • The mismatch between the broad list of services and the invoice requirement focused on damage and repairs leaves uncertainty about which expenses would qualify and how applicants would prove them.