Counties warn S.831 could saddle local governments with costly road repairs

Owen McBride, speaking for the Association of Counties, told the Senate transportation subcommittee the bill’s Section 9 appears intended to allow voluntary transfers of certain state roads to counties, but the current draft does not clearly require mutual consent.

"As we read it, our understanding was the intent was for it to be voluntary on both DOT and the county side," McBride said, and he asked lawmakers to add explicit "mutual agreement" language so transfers are not unilateral.

McBride focused on subsection F, which the bill would require transferred roads to "meet or exceed the state highway maintenance standard and remain in a good state of repair" once accepted by a local government. He said many candidate roads are among the poorest in the state — including dirt or gravel local links — and that imposing an immediate state-standard requirement risks trapping counties with impossible upfront costs.

"These roads that are gonna be up for transfer are some of the worst condition roads in the state," McBride said. "So right off the bat, if a county were to accept roads, they'd be, according to this, a violation of this action." He asked that the subsection be removed or its compliance requirement delayed.

McBride also described the fiscal and governance mismatch he said the bill creates. Counties, he said, would likely need to raise millage or rely on local transportation "pennies" to pay for the rehabilitation. But those pennies are politically volatile and, in many counties, the County Transportation Committee (CTC) or legislative delegation — not the county government — controls the C funds that would pay for repairs.

"You have the legislative delegation appointing the CTCs, making the financial decisions on how to spend the money, but you got the county assuming the liability of the roads," McBride said. He warned that without control of the revenue streams, counties may assume liability for roads they cannot afford to bring to the state standard.

McBride raised a broad cost concern: the transcript records his estimate that DOT may seek to offload about "21,000 lane miles" and he referenced a very large per-lane-mile cost figure in testimony. The committee transcript’s wording of that per-lane-mile figure was unclear; McBride emphasized the aggregate scale of the problem and the immediate fiscal burden that upgrades would impose on local governments.

Senators pressed McBride on specifics. A senator from Berkeley asked whether counties could be forced to accept roads; McBride replied the current text says roads "may be transferred" and he recommended explicit mutual consent language. He also said he did not expect roads to revert to state control and that the transfers would focus on primary/secondary roads not eligible for federal aid.

A senator from Richland raised whether state and county maintenance standards differ; McBride deferred to SCDOT but said standards and costs vary across the state and that many counties simply lack the capital to perform major rehabilitation even if they can sustain routine maintenance.

McBride urged a gradual, phased approach rather than an abrupt one-year turnover, saying gradual transition and pre-transfer rehabilitation would make the policy workable and avoid leaving counties "trapped" if local referenda fail to secure additional revenue.

The subcommittee did not vote on any amendments during the hearing. The chair asked staff to schedule a final subcommittee meeting to work through the amendment package and requested fiscal data before that meeting.

The record: McBride’s testimony and follow-up exchanges appear in the subcommittee transcript beginning with his introduction and testimony and in subsequent Q&A; the subcommittee scheduled further work on the amendments ahead of the Feb. 18 committee meeting.