Bridging the gap: Hilton Head, Beaufort County Council could reach agreement on U.S. 278 soon

Months of gridlock between the Town of Hilton Head and Beaufort County may come to an end soon to pave a clear path for the U.S. 278 Corridor project.

Since spring of this year, Hilton Head and the county have been locked in what state Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort, compared to a ping-pong match over their vision for changes to U.S. 278 approaching the island. Disagreement on whether the island should be connected to the mainland by one six-lane bridge, as the county envisions, or a pair of three-lane bridges preferred by thousands of island residents, has been the most prominent of several contentious points.

The Town Council debated the county’s amendments to Hilton Head’s proposed “memo of understanding” Tuesday night, a high-profile agenda item that brought dozens of residents to the council chambers.

Last month, a county committee voted to “narrow the scope” of the project in an attempt to get it moving. On Sept. 12, it agreed to send one last “memorandum of understanding” to the town to reach a middle ground on the project. The holdup came after the Town of Hilton Head recommended that another traffic study be conducted.

After over two hours of discussion and public comments on the county’s changes — which some members of the public said were an attempt to “bully” and “vassalize” the Town of Hilton Head — Mayor John McCann said the council would send a new version of the MOU to the county for consideration at the Beaufort County Council’s meeting next Monday.

“I will then call a special meeting either next week or the following week to vote on (the MOU), up or down, when we get the county’s comments back,” McCann said.

Residents refuse ‘surrender’

The memo presented in the council meeting’s agenda packet was thoroughly struck through with red marks, indicating where the county had suggested changes of language or removal of specific parts of the memo. Ward 4 Councilwoman Tamara Becker and some residents were frustrated to find the memo included in the packet was also different to the version presented at the meeting.

In the county’s revisions to the memo, the two bodies would “agree that one bridge will be designed and constructed.” It also proposed the county and town create a committee to select a firm for an independent review of the project’s impact.

The proposed members would be the county’s transportation program manager, its assistant administrator for infrastructure, and the county administrator alongside the Hilton Head town manager and assistant town manager for community development.

The uneven balance of representatives on the committee concerned some Hilton Head residents, who saw the proposed apportionment as a way for the county to exert its influence.

“As a final insult, the County Council (in the MOU) even attempts to wrest control of the independent consultant selection process from Hilton Head town government,” Gray Smith, a resident of Hilton Head, said at the meeting. “(County Council Chairman Joe Passiment) and the County Council are once again attempting to bully Town Council into acquiescing to and approving their totally one-sided county MOU version.”

Another resident, Richard Busy, said he was one of the nearly 10,000 who signed a petition urging Town Council to reject the current MOU, despite the county’s claim that it is willing to move forward with its plan with or without Hilton Head’s cooperation. The move could also split the project into smaller pieces, leaving the town with more responsibility to shoulder alone.

“There truly should be an independent review done. Too much is at stake,” Busy said. “The threats from the County Council should be ignored. We should not surrender to the county.”

Tuesday night’s public criticism was a carry over from social media outcry following County Councilman Stu Rodman’s vote in favor of the one-bridge county resolution. Rodman represents Hilton Head’s District 11 on the County Council.

Despite the apparent distance between the two parties, Davis said the town and county are closer to an agreement than it seems.

Compromise in sight?

Near the end of the lengthy debate, Davis said the Town Council had identified a set of concerns he felt confident he could convince County Council to address on Monday.

One of those was securing equal representation for the town and county on the committee to select an independent review firm. At the meeting, Rodman said the county would be willing to adjust the committee’s makeup to address the issue. Becker petitioned for the revised committee to include citizen representatives as well as county and town officials.

Another attempt to reach an agreement, Davis said, was an additional paragraph to affirm the Town of Hilton Head approving the MOU would not be construed as municipal approval for the project without the independent end-to-end study being completed.

“Moreover, (the town) is expressly withholding municipal consent until ... it’s had a chance to get the data from this independent contractor, to assess that data and make an informed decision,” Davis said.

Including the full scope of work for the project and potential review, Davis said, is another potential addition to a finalized MOU.

Rodman said he and the County Council were “in agreement” with much of what was discussed Tuesday evening, and that he supported the second independent review moving ahead. His primary concern, though, is the potential rising costs if the project is bogged down longer.

There has been a discrepancy in how much a role inflation is projected to play in the project costs. Davis said the estimated costs have risen $8.5 million in the last five months, while Rodman previously predicted costs could rise $50 million with a six- to nine-month delay.

What is important for the project’s funding, Davis said, is to ensure the project isn’t bifurcated or delayed long enough to lose the $120 million that the South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank has set aside for construction.

“I don’t mean to say that if we continue ping-ponging back and forth that money doesn’t become at risk, because it will,” Davis said. “What I’m telling you is, based on what’s happened so far, it’s not yet at risk.”

Town officials acknowledged the need for compromise on their end as well. Ward 6 Councilman Glenn Stanford said if the county is willing to address the issues raised by Hilton Head in the MOU, he’d be willing to accept a single-bridge construction plan.

“I say that hesitantly because I don’t want one bridge, I want two bridges,” Stanford said. “But I understand that the bridges are not within the town limits of Hilton Head Island, so we don’t have much jurisdiction over that. I’m willing to accept that as a concept.”

Ward 3 Councilman David Ames agreed that at this point in the process, the town should “do its darndest” to mitigate the environmental and traffic impacts of a one-bridge construction.

With both sides prepared to make concessions, future language on the MOU should be adjusted to affirm the town and county as equal partners in the project, Ward 1 Councilman Alex Brown said.

“When you start to talk about the benefits of the project, we can talk about that both ways — off island and on-island,” Brown said. “But when you talk about ... the negative impacts, that’s a one-way street. There’s no way that we can say we’re not equal partners when (the town) is absorbing all of the impacts.”

Becker said while she understands the frustration some harbor regarding how long the project has been discussed without significant progress, it’s essential that all parties involved come to the table and make sure construction is done right.

“Keep in mind that what’s good for Hilton Head is good for the county, and is good for the state,” Becker said. “So we stick together, and we make sure that this bridge, whatever it is, is the best it can be for our residents.”