Hilton Head council approves joint resolution on US‑278 corridor with two‑way access priority, reserves $5 million for Stoney community

The Hilton Head Island Town Council voted 6–1 on March 4 to approve a revised joint resolution with Beaufort County outlining project scope and a funding strategy for the William Hilton Parkway (U.S. 278) Gateway Corridor Project. The resolution adds language referencing a Feb. 28, 2025 letter from South Carolina Department of Transportation Secretary Justin Powell, asks that the project be procured as a design‑build with scoring preference for solutions that provide two‑way access to Pinckney Island, requests a 40 mph speed limit on the corridor, and directs that a minimum of $5,000,000 in local funds be set aside and made available to the town upon Federal Highway Administration approval.

The resolution was moved by Councilman DeSimone and seconded by Councilwoman Becker. The roll call vote was Desimone — yes; Bryson — no; Becker — yes; Mayor Perry — yes; Mayor Pro Tem Brown — yes; Councilman Alfred — yes; Councilwoman Tunner — yes. Councilwoman Bryson explained her no vote, saying, “In my mind, we haven't done justice to our residents or to the future, and so I have to vote no.”

Why it matters: the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) requested a joint scope-and-funding response by March 31 for consideration. Council members and staff said the SIB decision and any Federal Highway Administration approvals remain required before work can begin; the town and county framed the resolution as a signal that they are cooperating on scope and funding as the SIB evaluates the project.

What the council approved and why The council approved a version of the joint resolution that Beaufort County had approved Feb. 24, with several Hilton Head edits. Key revisions adopted at the March 4 meeting were: - Addition of a new whereas clause incorporating the Feb. 28, 2025 letter from SCDOT Secretary Justin Powell that commits to using a design‑build procurement and to include scoring preference for bidders who propose alternatives that provide two‑way access to Pinckney Island. - Modification of the project scope language (removal of the word “lifeline” in one provision). - A design preference that the new bridge be configured to provide two‑way access to and from Pinckney Island rather than relying solely on repurposing the existing Skull Creek Bridge lanes. - A request that SCDOT reduce the William Hilton Parkway corridor speed limit to 40 miles per hour. - Incorporation of several town staff cleanup edits from Attachment 7 of the council packet. - Language that a minimum of $5,000,000 in local funds be set aside and reserved for a local road project in the Stoney Historic Community and made available upon approval of the project by the Federal Highway Administration.

Town staff and Senator Tom Davis told council members the SCDOT letter gives procurement flexibility through a design‑build approach so bidders can propose alternatives for Pinckney Island access. Assistant Town Manager Sean Collin summarized the SCDOT letter and thanked Senator Davis for his work in obtaining it: “So those are the points that were included in this letter, from Secretary Powell. And I want to say, thank you to Senator Davis for working with Secretary Powell, to deliver this.”

Concerns raised during discussion Council discussion and public comments focused on eastbound access to Pinckney Island, the status and timing of waterline relocation, who controls final decisions, and how quickly local funds would be available. - Several council members and public commenters said the original design options left eastbound drivers without direct access to Pinckney Island and would force lengthy detours to make U‑turns. Senator Davis had spoken to Secretary Powell and relayed that SCDOT can include scoring points in a design‑build procurement for bidders who provide solutions that allow eastbound exit onto Pinckney Island. - Council members and staff discussed a Hilton Head Public Service District (PSD) estimate for waterline relocation. Town and county briefings cited an Act 36 allocation for utility relocation equal to 4.5% of construction costs. Staff reported a project construction estimate of approximately $200,000,000 and said roughly $9,000,000 in the Act 36 allocation would cover utility relocation within the construction estimate. The county had set aside an additional $6.5 million, yielding roughly $15.5 million in expected funds to match a recent PSD estimate of about $15.2 million for waterline work. Collin noted that if costs exceed those amounts, the town’s 14.33 million in reserve funds could be tapped. - Council members noted that Beaufort County and SCDOT retain decision authority for parts of the project; if Hilton Head adopts edits to the joint resolution the changes would be returned to Beaufort County for its consideration and might require another county vote.

Public comment and council reaction Three residents spoke during the public‑comment portion on this item. Richard Bezey of Indigo Run warned that “the devil's in the details,” urging close attention to procurement language. Peter Christian and Christopher Cliff urged the council to press for direct eastbound access and to ensure the town’s concerns are represented; Cliff told the council, “This is a difficult project. It is the most significant thing we do. Do a good job.” Council members responded by emphasizing ongoing engagement with SCDOT and Beaufort County and that future design work and public meetings would follow procurement decisions.

Votes and formal action The council’s formal action was a motion to approve the joint resolution as amended (mover: Councilman DeSimone; second: Councilwoman Becker). The outcome was recorded as approved (6–1). The text of the motion, the incorporated Powell letter (attached as Exhibit B by the council), and the $5,000,000 local funds language will be transmitted to Beaufort County and included in the packet submitted to the State Infrastructure Bank for review by its March 31 deadline.

Next steps and remaining uncertainties Council members and staff repeatedly stressed that the resolution does not finalize design or construction; it signals cooperation on scope and funding and sets the town’s preferences for procurement scoring. Staff said SCDOT’s procurement, SIB review, and FHWA approvals remain necessary and that the county will need to accept any substantial edits the town makes to the county‑approved resolution. Council members said they expect continued outreach and further public meetings as design and procurement details are developed.

Context and history Council members and staff noted the project has been under study for years and was discussed in a Jan. 9 series of meetings and a joint Bluffton workshop on Feb. 12. Beaufort County approved the joint resolution Feb. 24 with a slightly different text, and the March 4 council action was framed as a Hilton Head update and set of additions intended to clarify the town’s priorities for SCDOT and the SIB.