Town council weighs scaled‑down US‑278 bridge plan as funding shortfall forces choices

Hilton Head Island town council members, Beaufort County officials and state representatives discussed a scaled‑back option for the US‑278 (William Hilton Parkway) corridor and the structurally weakened Mackin Creek eastbound bridge at a Jan. 9 special workshop, after a November referendum failure and letters from the South Carolina Infrastructure Bank and the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) tightened the timeline for a funding plan.

The meeting centered on a proposal circulated by State Senator Tom Davis that would build a new three‑lane eastbound span from Moss Creek to Windmill Harbor at an estimated $250 million–$258 million, use roughly $40 million left over for on‑island corridor and Stoney Historic Community improvements, and preserve the existing westbound span for the near term. That scaled approach, proponents said, might keep the project eligible for a categorical exclusion under federal rules and avoid an immediate suspension of the broader US‑278 project.

Why it matters: the project as previously scoped relied on a combination of a $120 million grant from the South Carolina State Infrastructure Bank (SIB), local county contributions and $90 million the county expected from a special‑use sales tax referendum. The referendum failed Nov. 5, 2024, and county and state correspondence since then has asked Beaufort County to explain how it will cover an approximately $190 million shortfall. A November 18 letter from SCDOT Secretary Justin Powell and a November 7 letter from SIB chair John White set deadlines and raised the possibility of terminating or restructuring agreements if funding is not identified.

Town staff and Senator Davis told council the current ‘‘universe of money’’ that can be counted today — the town contribution in land, money already spent, an additional $16.1 million Secretary Powell offered, and other in‑hand state and local funds — totals about $298 million. Under that calculation, the scaled bridge plus shore improvements would be within that pool, but that leaves little additional money for a larger on‑island package or multipurpose paths.

Sean (town project lead) summarized the timeline of intergovernmental steps: the town adopted a memorandum of agreement (MOA) on June 28, 2024 and forwarded it to Beaufort County and SCDOT; Beaufort County staff later returned a response that split the town MOA into two documents (one for the bridge/design project and one for Stoney community/economic provisions); the county received the SIB letter and the SCDOT letter after the failed referendum; and the SIB extended its 15‑day ‘‘shot clock’’ until March 31, 2025. Reading Secretary Powell’s letter aloud, Sean said the state’s engineering team ‘‘determined a decision must be made by March 31, 2025 if the US‑278 project is continued with funding identified for construction.’’

Senator Tom Davis, who said he had met with Secretary Powell and SIB officials, presented a written three‑page proposal that he said is ‘‘predicated upon a finite amount of money, roughly $300 million.’’ Davis told council he had secured a commitment of $16.1 million from SCDOT and that, in his judgment, the SIB’s $120 million commitment is ‘‘at risk’’ and that it is unlikely the SIB will provide an additional $90 million after the referendum defeat. He recommended focusing first on the eastbound span replacement — the element SCDOT engineers flagged as most time‑sensitive — and treating the on‑island corridor improvements as a separate project so each can proceed on its own permitting and funding track.

Council members pressed staff and the county for clarifications about the proposal and next steps. Councilwoman Tammy Becker said the council needs ‘‘sunshine’’ and faster notice of meetings and documents; she asked for specific dates and records about when county materials were issued and when town council members were notified. Several council members, including Michael (county representative) and Councilman Brown, urged rapid follow‑up and asked staff to prepare a critical‑path timeline and cost‑component breakdowns for the next public workshop (town staff confirmed a proposed Jan. 28 workshop and Beaufort County planned a county workshop Jan. 21).

On technical scope and cost: staff said the $257.7 million figure for a three‑lane eastbound span assumes three 12‑foot travel lanes with 10‑foot shoulders and excludes a multipurpose path; adding a continuous multipurpose path would raise the bridge estimate by about $60 million (Senator Davis and staff cited a $318 million figure with MUPs included). Staff said SCDOT is preparing an itemized opinion of probable cost for bridge, intersection and roadway components and expected to deliver component breakdowns in mid‑January.

On municipal consent and MOA status: several council members expressed concern that the county’s redlined MOA no longer reflected the town’s June 28 agreement and that, as returned by county staff, the documents split the original town MOA into two parts and removed or altered many of the town’s earlier provisions. Council members characterized the existing municipal consent as not currently valid without further negotiation and said the town must either reissue or renegotiate consent once the county and SIB positions are clear.

Public safety and schedule pressure were recurring themes. Council members and SCDOT correspondence noted SCDOT’s bridge inspection rating of 4 out of 10 for the existing Mackin Creek eastbound structure; Secretary Powell’s letter to the county, read into the record, warned that annual inspections and saltwater exposure made the bridge ‘‘at risk’’ of load posting, which would affect emergency vehicles, school buses and commercial traffic. SCDOT indicated a path to move forward with a replacement span if a funding and scope decision is finalized by March 31.

Public commenters at the workshop urged a range of responses: some, including several longtime residents, urged the council to accept a scaled replacement and to move quickly for safety and economic reasons; others urged more aggressive island‑side planning and questioned the visual and neighborhood impacts of a large bridge. A few speakers suggested exploring repair options: public speaker DJ DeLong asked, ‘‘Why have we not heard about this repair as an option?’’ and urged staff to solicit rough‑order‑of‑magnitude estimates from firms that specialize in carbon‑fiber and other marine column repairs.

What the council directed (nonbinding workshop directions): staff said they would post Senator Davis’s proposal online, request and circulate the DOT cost component breakdowns when available, prepare a critical‑path timeline with decision points tied to the March 31 deadline, and begin a focused master‑planning exercise for the Windmill Harbor through Cross Island Parkway on‑island improvements to match whatever funding remains. County and town staff also expect to meet before Jan. 21 and to present an updated MOA/IGA negotiation plan once cost components are clarified.

No formal votes were taken on project changes. The only formal action during the recorded portion of the workshop was procedural: council members adopted the meeting agenda at the outset.

Council members scheduled follow‑up: town staff proposed a Jan. 28 workshop to review DOT component numbers, refine the on‑island master plan around the available ~$40 million and return to council with a set of milestones and choices to meet the March 31 deadline. Beaufort County said it would hold a Jan. 21 workshop for county council.

The workshop closed with staff and elected officials agreeing to speed information exchange with Beaufort County and SCDOT and to return to public workshops with cost breakdowns and proposed phased options. The council emphasized that any final municipal consent or MOA changes will be subject to formal consideration once the county and state provide the requested cost and funding clarifications.

Votes at a glance

- Adoption of the special workshop agenda — motion moved and seconded; outcome: approved (procedural vote; no tally recorded in the transcript).