Beaufort County Council narrows US‑278 project scope, approves agreement that shares overrun risk with SCDOT

Beaufort County Council voted on Monday night to send a revised intergovernmental agreement for the US‑278/William Hilton Parkway (Gateway Corridor) project to the State Infrastructure Bank, approving a pared‑down bridge plan and a funding arrangement that assigns the South Carolina Department of Transportation responsibility for up to 29.08% of any cost overruns.

The decision followed a lengthy public‑comment period on Hilton Head Island in which residents, town council members and local officials sharply disagreed about whether to proceed. County Administrator Mike Moore told the council the revised package fixes the funding sequence to follow the IGA, retains a $120 million SIB commitment and sets a target completion around the end of 2030 (construction projected to begin in March 2028). Moore noted the county has already spent approximately $13,070,000 on the effort to date and that the revised design avoids relocating an underground water line — a change Moore said could save roughly $15–$20 million.

Why it matters: the council's vote keeps a major state funding offer on the table while redefining the project's physical limits. Many island residents told council they wanted the county to use previously earmarked referendum funds to address local intersections and corridor work rather than expand capacity. Others — including town and state delegation supporters — argued that losing $120 million in SIB funds would set the region back and that simultaneous planning for the island corridor could proceed in parallel.

Public speakers pressed both positions. DJ DeLong said the presentation materials appear to obligate Beaufort County taxpayers for any excess over "the $311,000,000" figure shown in public materials and urged the council not to proceed without clearer inflation protections. Felice Lamarca, a Hilton Head council member, reminded the panel that the 2018 sales‑tax referendum authorized $80 million for repair and replacement of bridges but not a much larger capacity project; she urged caution about future requests for money. Christopher Cliff and Richard Bussey called parts of the county's process a "bait‑and‑switch" that ignored earlier recommendations and citizen advisory input.

At the dais, Vice Chair Tabernick moved an amendment to change Article 3, paragraph 3.3 of the proposed IGA so that if project costs exceed estimates, SCDOT would be responsible for a pro rata portion of cost overruns "not to exceed 29.08 percent" of the total overruns, based on SCDOT's $90.6 million contribution to a $311.6 million project. That amendment passed on a roll‑call vote. The council then adopted the main resolution, as amended, in a separate roll‑call vote.

Council members raising concerns asked how a potential repayment obligation to the SIB would be funded if the project missed its completion deadline; Senator Davis, speaking as part of the state delegation, told council that SIB grants commonly include repayment provisions if a project is not completed and urged local leaders to develop a master plan for on‑island corridor work so state and federal funds can follow. Administrator Moore said staff will press for contract provisions that incentivize timely completion and noted DOT will lead construction contracting and management.

Votes at a glance: the council recorded roll calls on both the amendment and the main motion. The amendment limiting SCDOT's share passed (recorded yes votes from Tabernick, Passamont/Passamette, Lawson, Glover, Dawson, Cunningham, Bartholomew and Chair Howard; Reitz and Brown voted no). The main motion as amended also passed on roll call with a majority of council members voting yes.

What comes next: the resolution directs staff to advance the revised IGA to the State Infrastructure Bank for negotiation and possible adoption; the SIB must act before the deadline stated in the county's letter (a June deadline was referenced in the staff presentation). Council also directed staff to continue coordinating with SCDOT and county legal counsel on final contract language, timing and performance incentives. The meeting record shows the council returned to executive session later in the evening; no additional public action on the project was taken at that time.