Councilsaternate move toward scaled William Hilton Parkway bridge scope as funding, SIB deadline loom

Beaufort County Council and the Town of Hilton Head Island met jointly to review six South Carolina Department of Transportation project options and a draft joint resolution that would scale the William Hilton Parkway Gateway Corridor project to match currently identified funding. South Carolina DOT presented cost estimates for six alternatives; staff and elected officials discussed funding, engineering costs not yet included in earlier totals, community safety spending for the Stoney neighborhood, and next steps toward adoption of a joint resolution for consideration at the next county meeting.

The discussion matters because DOT has rated the existing eastbound bridge in deteriorating condition and the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) has set March 31 as a decision deadline tied to continuing project funding. Without a revised, agreed scope before that date the SIB could modify or withdraw funds, which would alter which options remain feasible and could delay construction planned for 2027.

DOT project manager Craig Wynne summarized the six options and their estimated all‑in construction costs. Option 1 — described in staff materials as the “lifeline” eastbound replacement without a multiuse path and including a Hog Island connector — was shown at roughly $257.7 million for bridge work alone; adding a multiuse path increases that option to about $319 million. Wynne also presented higher estimates for the full two‑span replacement (approximately $467 million) and a single eastbound Mackay/Mackie Creek span replacement (about $89 million). Wynne said the proposed new eastbound bridge would be built wide enough to accommodate a future third lane and shoulders, and that a multiuse path could be added as an add‑alternate in procurement but DOT had not produced a separate cost estimate for a separated bike/ped lane built within the new structure.

County staff gave a funding breakdown showing $298,850,000 currently identified for the project: about $101 million from the county (roughly $80 million in sales tax and $21 million in impact fees), a $3.35 million right‑of‑way donation from the town, $74.5 million from SCDOT, and $120 million from the State Infrastructure Bank. Staff also said Secretary Powell had committed roughly $16.1 million in additional DOT funding to cover increases tied to replacing the single Mackay/Mackie Creek span. Engineering design and NEPA work since 2017 totals about $13.07 million spent to date on a $28 million engineering contract; staff said roughly $15 million in remaining engineering costs were not reflected in some of the earlier option totals and that those costs were allocated pro rata in the updated handout shown at the meeting.

Senator Tom Davis, participating by video, told the councils he had discussed the plan with SIB leaders and JBRC members and said he believed the scaled, good‑faith proposal had a “greatly higher likelihood of success” than asking the SIB for additional funds. “I feel very confident in our ability to make a strong case to keep the entire $120,000,000,” Davis said, while also noting there is no guarantee and the SIB could still act differently.

Staff described the draft joint resolution as reaffirming DOT’s Option 1 elements: replacement of the two eastbound spans over Mackay/Mackie Creek and Skull Creek with a three‑lane eastbound “lifeline” bridge (striped for two lanes initially), retention of the existing westbound bridges, no access onto Pinckney Island from the new bridge, repurposing one of the existing Skull Creek bridge lanes for two‑way local access to Pinckney Island, construction of a Hog Island connector to serve Mariners Cove and Blue Heron Point and tie back to U.S. 278 at Windmill Harbor, and retention/upgrades to the Windmill Harbor traffic signal. The draft also allocates $6.5 million to assist with water‑line relocation cost differences (with any excess relocation cost to be the responsibility of the public service district) and $3.5 million in local county funds to a near‑term Stoney community safety project overseen by the town.

Councilmembers and public speakers raised multiple concerns and requested clarifications. Several council members indicated support for the scaled Option 1 or a close variant, often while urging that the Stoney community safety work be better defined and funded. Residents and advocates pressed officials to preserve a future bike/ped connection on the bridge or to include a protected multiuse path; DOT staff said a multiuse path adds materially to cost but could be included as an add‑alternate in a design‑build procurement. Multiple speakers — including Stoney neighborhood residents — emphasized safety and quality‑of‑life impacts and asked that money be committed for local improvements if federalized bridge work leaves local corridors unchanged.

Council and staff next steps: County staff said they would gather input from the joint meeting, refine the draft resolution based on comments (including more detail on the Stoney safety spending and technical edits), and place the joint resolution on the county council agenda for a future meeting where a formal vote can occur. Staff and DOT noted that if the revised project scope is adopted, parts of the NEPA documentation will need updating and that DOT expects to keep the project on a schedule aimed at construction procurement in 2027 if the SIB and federal reviews permit.

Votes at a glance: A procedural motion at the meeting to approve the meeting agenda passed by unanimous consent (motion by Tabernick; second by Brown). The joint resolution to adopt a revised scope was discussed and will be placed on the next county council agenda for formal consideration; no formal vote on that resolution occurred at this joint meeting.

Public comments and technical clarifications: Members of the public and council asked DOT and staff for (1) clearer definitions of what the Stoney safety project would fund, (2) whether relocation and remaining engineering costs could be absorbed without reducing project scope, (3) how Pinckney Island access would be handled under the scaled option, and (4) how a multiuse path could be procured as an add‑alternate. DOT staff said some remaining engineering will be required whether the project proceeds as bid‑build or design‑build and that a design‑build procurement can incorporate add‑alternates and not‑to‑exceed terms. DOT also said public outreach and any necessary NEPA adjustments would be required if the project scope is revised.

The meeting closed with staff and DOT thanking both councils for the joint session and confirming staff would circulate edits to the draft resolution and schedule the formal county vote. The SIB decision timetable and the March 31 date were cited repeatedly as the immediate scheduling constraint for a final, jointly agreed plan.