Counties press DOT reform bill authors to keep road transfers voluntary and workable

Members of the Revenue Policy Subcommittee heard extended testimony and questioning over whether the DOT reform bill would shift responsibility for thousands of miles of secondary roads from the state to local governments and how the DOT commission changes would affect project programming.

Owen McBride of the South Carolina Association of Counties told the panel that language in section 575105 (identified in testimony as section 29 of the bill) should make clear transfers are voluntary and asked that the clause requiring roads to be transferred in "good order" be removed. "A lot of these roads are not in great condition ... So that requirement that they be in good condition as soon as they get transferred to the county is not really achievable," McBride said, urging the committee to strike the standard or provide clearer local discretion.

Lawmakers pressed DOT representatives on several points: whether local governments or DOT would evaluate candidate roads; whether federal permits would need amendment to allow tolling on previously permitted free facilities; and how many miles are in different candidate groups. The DOT representative said the agency had prepared a preliminary inventory: roughly 20,000 miles of low‑volume neighborhood streets that could be candidates for local assumption, about 10,000 miles of higher‑volume secondaries that would be evaluated case‑by‑case, and the remainder—the interstate and primary network—would remain in state control.

The DOT official emphasized the transfers would be voluntary and described mechanisms for local negotiation. On federal permitting, the official said permits written for free facilities would likely require at least an amendment and engagement with the Federal Highway Administration where federal oversight applies; such amendments, the official said, normally take less time than starting a new environmental review.

On commission structure, sponsors described a proposal to reduce the DOT commission from nine to seven members, shift seats to congressional districts and narrow the commission's duties so the commission approves overarching priorities while staff handle detailed programming. A sponsor told the committee that change could save "anywhere from two to four months" in getting projects programmed.

Members and witnesses repeatedly stressed the financial and staffing constraints counties face. McBride and others warned that many rural counties lack maintenance capacity and that assuming large inventories would require local funding (transportation sales‑tax 'pennies', CTC funds, general fund or new local referenda) and careful phasing.

The subcommittee did not act on amendments during the hearing and will reconvene to review proposed changes.