While there’s not enough space in this column to review every single detail in the very large DOT Reform bill, I wanted to highlight some changes the House made that will impact cities. Shoutout to Greenville County Chairman Benton Blount for covering this topic in recent newsletters - but today I wanted to give a local lens to the changes being proposed. Note that these “pros” and “cons” are my opinion only and are based on the current version of the bill as of writing (May 5). These are also not every change in the bill, but just the major ones that I think the public should keep in mind.

1) Dissolving the SC DOT Commission 

Background: SC DOT is led by a Secretary of Transportation and governed by a Governor-appointed and Legislature-confirmed Commission, with one member from each congressional district plus two at-large members. 

Proposed Change: The House has proposed dissolving the Commission altogether and having the Secretary of Transportation become a Cabinet Member to the Governor.

a) Pros: This provides for direct accountability to an elected official, the Governor, and reduces bureaucracy.

b) Cons: There is a risk of reducing local input and local engagement by not having a citizen representative from all areas of the state helping inform and guide the work of DO

2) Removes “Devolution Program”

Background: State-owned roads can transfer to local ownership, but the state does not attach any funding to that transfer, nor do they improve the road before transferring it. A proposal in the original form of the bill created a “Devolution Program” which would allow cities and counties to take over ownership of eligible roads, but did not come with funding attached unless the city or county took ownership of all eligible roads in their jurisdiction. And even at that point, the only funding source that the bill made available to local governments, other than a pilot program of one-time funding, was to increase property taxes. To be clear - the program was optional, not mandatory.

Proposed Change: The House amendment eliminated the Devolution Program altogether. Based on feedback provided by cities and counties - including us in Fountain Inn as I submitted requested feedback to the Municipal Association of SC - the House learned that many cities and counties were not going to participate fully in the program due to the lack of funding attached.

a) Pros: Eliminating the program removed the shifting burden of road funding to local governments, many of whom would not be able to fully fund and support a road program.

b) Cons: By eliminating this program, the state will still have over 40,000 miles of roads to maintain, and at $1 million per mile to repave right now – it’s going to keep taking more money than we likely expect to fix each one.

3) Pothole Mitigation Program

Background: Potholes on state roads are a problem everywhere. In order to fix them, DOT has to know about them - and then a fix may take longer than we’d all like.

Proposed: The House proposed a $15M allocation to DOT for a Pothole Mitigation Program that would center around a publicly-available app where citizens can report potholes. Once reported, DOT would have seven days to repair the pothole, unless extenuating circumstances arise (e.g. there’s extensive damage under the road to address).

a) Pros: This is a welcome change that gives folks a more user-friendly way to report issues, and a legislatively-mandated timeframe for repair.

b) Cons: Will $15 million cover the costs? We’ll see.

4) County Transportation Committee Funding Restrictions

Background: A portion of state road funding goes directly to County Transportation Committees (CTCs). These are governing bodies, appointed by legislative delegations, that appropriate state road funds to local road projects. It’s a way to make sure locals help prioritize projects based on the needs on the ground and not only based on Columbia’s list. Right now though, at least 25% of all CTC funding must go to state-owned roads, not locally owned roads (city and county owned).

Proposed Change: The House proposed eliminating the minimum requirement of 25%, opting instead to let CTCs prioritize based on need, regardless of road ownership. However, the CTC must provide for a ranking system and update those criteria periodically.

a) Pros: This helps reduce the red tape that often comes with road funding. Local projects that are of highest need now don’t have to factor in road ownership when approaching CTCs.

b) Cons: Many needs here in Fountain Inn are on state-owned roads, so at times, that requirement can benefit communities with a larger number of state road miles.

There are many other changes in the House’s amended version, and changes that the Senate is likely to refuse to agree upon. The conversation altogether though is vital for our state’s road system. With over 40,000 miles of state-owned roads (one of the largest inventories in the nation), making sure the governance around our road system and relevant agencies is an imperative step in fixing our roads.

●  ●  ●