Search Results for: road funding

Funding roads without new taxes (presenting another option)

WBTW-TV: News, Weather, and Sports for Florence, SC

Earlier this year, and again next week during the budget debate, I am offering a solution to our crumbling roads and infrastructure needs.

Simply put one of my bills I pre-filed in December – and the budget proviso I will offer next week – says “once the SC House of Representatives approves our budget; any “extra revenue” must go to roads”. That’s no new taxes; yet more money for what many agree is a critical problem in South Carolina: fixing our roads.

Weeks ago, I joined several House members to again prioritize funding for our roads – without raising taxes. That bill designated revenue from the sales tax on cars to go towards highway funding instead of the General Fund. Again, without raising taxes.

Last week I filed the “Marketplace and Infrastructure Fairness Act” which, like the other proposals I’ve introduced or supported, “fixes our roads” without raising taxes.

I’ve been joined by more than 30 House Members from throughout our state. Republicans and Democrats alike. I’d appreciate your thoughts. If you feel fixing our roads without raising taxes can and should be done before considering raising taxes, I hope you’ll contact your elected officials and let them know to support these efforts.

From WSPA.COM

COLUMBIA, SC — A bill just filed in the South Carolina House would use all the money collected from online sales taxes for roads and bridges in the state. But first, the U.S. Congress would have to pass a law to require all online retailers to collect the sales tax from their customers.

Right now, an online retailer that has a physical presence in South Carolina, like a brick-and-mortar store, has to collect the sales tax. So if you go to walmart.com to buy something, the website will add the sales tax, since Wal-Mart has store locations in the state.

But if you buy something from an online retailer that doesn’t have a location here, it won’t charge sales tax. You’re supposed to keep track of it and pay it on your state income tax return as a “use tax”.

But the federal government is considering a bill called the “Marketplace Fairness Act”, which would give the states authority to require all online retailers to collect the sales tax at the time of the transaction, regardless of where the online retailer is located.

Rep. Nathan Ballentine, R-Irmo, introduced a bill Thursday in the state House that would send all the money that would be collected from that additional sales tax to roads and bridges in the state.

In a news release, Rep. Ballentine said, “Momentum appears to be building in the US Capitol to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act. Our bill directs any funds sent back to South Carolina as a result of this new federal legislation specifically to our State’s infrastructure needs. South Carolina’s commerce depends on healthy businesses and roads and, if and when this federal bill passes, we will be ready.”

He says a conservative estimate of how much money his bill would bring in, if the federal bill becomes law, is $70 million a year.

The Roads Bill – Conference Report

For more than 3 years, the SC House of Repesentatives has been working towards a solution to fix South Carolina Roads. With limited success, and road bumps in the Senate, it appears that THIS year could be the year our state’s infrastructure needs are finally addressed in a responsible manner.

After a rare feat in the Senate this year, Senators voted to kill a filibuster and passed their version of a bill to help the state. Last week, House and Senate conferees worked to combine the two versions (House/Senate) into a compromise bill that will hopefully pass both chambers – and more importantly – be able to garner enough votes to overturn an inevitable veto by Governor McMaster.

Here are the “main points” of the conference report. If you have questions, please post below or contact me here or by email me at NathanBallentine@schouse.gov.

HOUSE/SENATE CONFERENCE REPORT ON ROADS BILL

Governance and Reform

● Provides real accountability and transparency at the Department of Transportation (public records, mandated meetings, ethical requirements for commissioners)

● Gives Governor complete control of the Commission with a clear line of authority and at-will removal

● Requires General Assembly to approve all 9 Highway Commission appointees

● Highway Commission organized to reflect regional representation with 7 Congressional districts and 2 statewide at-large members appointed by the Governor (adds 1 member to current structure)

● Strengthens DOT’s control over project authorization and financial decisions by the State Transportation Infrastructure Bank

Funding

● Creates a long-term and sustainable funding stream by increasing the motor fuel user fee by 2 cents/gallon over the next 6 years, not exceeding 12 cents/gallon

● Safeguards taxpayers from future automatic tax increases by not indexing for inflation

● Protects SC taxpayers from continuing to solely foot the bill for infrastructure repair by not using General Fund dollars and captures 30% of the motor fuel user fee revenue from out-of-state motorists

● Creates an Infrastructure Maintenance Trust Fund to ensure all new revenue collected from the motor fuel user fee is used only for existing infrastructure needs

● Does not increase or change fees for South Carolina driver’s license applications or renewals

● Increases funding for County Transportation Committees targeted to repair rural and secondary roads

● Captures revenue from alternative energy motorists by creating a biennial registration fee for all hybrid and electric vehicles

● Established a road use fee to capture revenue from out of state truckers

● Raises the cap on motor vehicle sales tax to $500 and creates a $250 out of state maintenance fee

● Incentivizes road construction industry to return to SC with responsible infrastructure investment

● Provides $640 million in new annual revenue for infrastructure maintenance needs when fully implemented

Tax Relief

● Includes responsible tax relief to offset the user fee increase for South Carolina motorists

● Offers a refundable income tax credit equal to the motor fuel user fee increase that must be reauthorized prior to 2023

● Enhances already existing College Tuition Tax Credit for every South Carolina tuition-payer to enhance workforce development

● Contains a non-refundable Low Income Tax Credit for working families (not federal model)

● Increases the maximum income tax credit from $210 to $350 for dual income household joint filers

● Reduces SC manufacturers property tax burden by $35 million using a phased-in approach over 6 years

The “Roads Bill” – we vote next week! Your thoughts?

February 9, 2017

House Ways and Means Committee Passes Roads Bill
Includes Long-term Funding and Governance Reform

(Columbia, SC) – House Speaker Jay Lucas (District 65-Darlington) issued the following statement after the Ways and Means Committee amended and adopted H. 3516 . The bill will be added to the House legislative calendar next week for debate in the coming weeks.

“South Carolina has the most dangerous roads in the country. Businesses and job creators continue to stress the importance of infrastructure repair as a necessity to further economic investments. For the past several years the General Assembly has allotted a significant portion of the general fund surplus to roads, but pressing needs for education, social services, and retirement deficits will require those monies this year. Our citizens have demanded that those who use our roads must be the ones to pay for repair, not just the South Carolina taxpayer. The House also understands that every dollar raised for infrastructure repair should be used solely for the intended purpose of fixing our roads and bridges, which is why additional funding will be placed in an Infrastructure Maintenance Trust Fund.

“A gradual increase to the state’s motor fuel user fee is the most responsible option to generate a long-term, sustainable funding stream for road repair. I will not support using general fund revenue for road appropriation again. House Majority Leader Gary Simrill and Ways and Means Chairman Brian White have worked extensively on this infrastructure plan and I commend them for their efforts. As the House roads bill moves to the floor for debate, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its passage as fixing our roads is my number one priority.”

Provisions Included in the House Road Funding Bill:

• Creates an Infrastructure Maintenance Trust Fund
• Increases motor fuel user fee 10 cents/gallon over a 5 year period
• Biennial motor vehicle registration fee increase of $16
• Increases auto sales cap to $500 for South Carolina drives
• Capitalizes on out-of-state registered vehicles
• Creates biennial registration fees for all hybrid and electric vehicles
• Creates a motor carrier road user fee for out-to-state truckers
• Reforms governance of the SCDOT Highway Commission

(HERE IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – FROM ME – REGARDING THE SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL DATA)

State of SC Department of Transportation 2017

Tax Foundation: State Gasoline Tax Rates

The State: The House’s roads bill would cost $60 a year for a driver who travels 15,000 miles a year in a vehicle that gets 25 miles per gallon

The State: Gas-tax hike a ‘last resort’ – Governor McMaster

SUPPORTS:
South Carolina Alliance to Fix Our Roads
SC Chamber of Commerce

OPPOSES:
Americans for Prosperity

The Roads Debate: House plan? Senate plan? ANY plan?

sc-roads-bill-png

After more than 300 days since the House passed our plan to fix our state’s infrastructure needs (reform and funding), the Senate voted this week on their plan.

Now that there are 2 proposals, the question becomes “Which plan do you think is BEST?” Unless the House concurs with the Senate plan this week (which means we agree to Senate bill with no changes), legislation will head to a conference committee in the weeks ahead to “iron out” differences for a solution that can find enough votes to pass both chambers and gain the support of the Governor.

What are your thoughts? I believe the “comments section” now finally is working again (after receiving more than 8,000 spam comments in the past few months and a virus that took down several posts and every comment going back to when the website started)

As always, feel free to let me know your thoughts here , or email, or comment below.

***

TIM SMITH The Greenville News
On the same day the Senate gave final approval to its roads bill, House leaders attacked the plan, blasting it as “deceptive” and “irresponsible.”

The Senate’s bill, which actually amends a very different House bill, would dedicate $400 million annually for roads from the General Fund and transfer the power to appoint the state’s highway commissioners from the Legislature to the governor.

The bill now returns to the House, which next week will debate the budget. The original House bill would raise about the same amount of money through a sales tax on gas and by increasing the cap on the sales tax on cars, as well as give the governor the power to appoint highway commissioners, reform the State Transportation Infrastructure Bank and offer a financial carrot to counties willing to take over local roads in the state inventory.

“The Senate’s deceptive plan to fix our crumbling roads system is irresponsible and prioritizes politics over a sound solution,” House Speaker Jay Lucas said in a statement Thursday. “Not only does their plan mislead the people of South Carolina into thinking that a large pot of general fund money will be available every year for roads, it also practices reckless budgeting that jeopardizes the prosperity of our economy. While I acknowledge the Senate’s governance reform efforts, kicking the can further down the road and into a giant pothole defies the test of real leadership.”

House Ways and Means Chairman Brian White of Anderson said the Senate roads bill was not a serious attempt to address the state’s long-term infrastructure needs.

“The Senate’s plan is not a fix for our chronic roads problem,” he said. “It’s a plea for the House to budget them out of their inability to pass a comprehensive roads bill. The House has budgeted hundreds of millions of dollars for roads in the last several years and will continue to do so while we wait on the Senate to get serious about a long-term fix for our roads.”

Rep. Gary Simrill, a Rock Hill Republican who helped craft the House roads plan last year, said using General Fund money to fix roads does not solve the problem over the long run.

“As additional money was made available, the House eagerly fought to set aside resources to improve the condition of our crumbling infrastructure rather than grow the size of government,” he said. “Over $1 billion in general fund money has been appropriated for road repair over the last three years. These short-term solutions proved to be a step in the right direction, but much like the Senate plan, do not provide for South Carolina’s long-term infrastructure needs.”

Senate Republicans did not take the criticism lightly. [Read more…]

House Roads Plan comes to the floor

road-work-sign

Earlier this year, there were two bills filed that had several cosponsors and it appeared one of these would be the legislation used to begin the debate on roads/infrastructure.

One bill (H.3579) was the “House Ad-Hoc Committee” bill which came from months long work of a bi-partisan committee formed by House Speaker Jay Lucas. The House Transportation Infrastructure & Management Ad-Hoc Committee was chaired by Rep. Gary Simrill (R-York) and, considering the parameters given (“fix our roads”), the committee presented a thorough bill.

Another bill (H.3580) had a very important component that was outside the parameters given to the committee above: tax relief – massive tax relief that was outlined earlier this year in Governor Haley’s State of the State address. This bill was filed by Rep. Tommy Stringer (R-Greenville).

While there were several discussions between sponsors of both bills as well as the Governor’s Office and staff to reach a compromise ; a third bill (H.3878) was filed that would provide much smaller tax relief in hopes of moving forward and being added to H.3579 as filed by the House Ad-Hoc Committee.

The last week of of March, the House Ways and Means full committee voted to combine the Ad-Hoc Committee bill related to roads and Rep. White’s bill related to income tax and those bills now move to the whole House as “H.3579” Video of the committee can be viewed here.

Much has been written about the need to improve our state’s infrastructure system and every House member knows the importance of getting something passed sooner; rather than later. As I’ve shared at hundreds of meetings in my public service career, I believe you sent me to Columbia to “do something” rather than “do nothing”. Working with a total of 124 House members, 46 Senators, and 1 Governor means rarely will a bill ever be exactly like you or I would like to see it. With that in mind, I would like to hear your opinions on the House proposal. Please contact me directly through my website; email me at NathanBallentine@schouse.gov; or comment below. Through the floor debate and amendment process, this bill may experience changes; but I wanted to share information provided by the House Ways & Means Committee so that you know what the bill does:

1. Restructuring: There are two key components to restructuring in H. 3579. The first restructures the Department of Transportation and the second component restructures the State Infrastructure Bank.

A. Department of Transportation (DOT)

The Governor appoints Highway Commissioners (7 districts and 1 statewide) with a Joint Transportation Review Committee screening process approval. These commissioners serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The Highway Commission will then appoint a secretary with the advice and consent of the Senate. Commissioners hold no “terms” and may only serve a combined 12 years on the commission (retroactive).

B. State Transportation Infrastructure Bank (SIB)
The SIB Board expands from 7 to 13 members. It would consist of 7 district highway commissioners, 3 appointments from the Speaker of the House, and 3 appointments from the Senate President Pro Tempore. Of those appointments from legislative bodies, 1 of each must be an ex officio Representative and Senator. SIB members would have no terms and may only serve a combined 12 years (retroactive).

The SIB would lower its current $100 million project minimum to a $25 million project minimum and must follow project prioritization set forth by the South Carolina Department of Transportation in accordance with ACT 114. Only a Joint Resolution can override prioritization criteria requirements. However, only one project may be re-prioritized in a single Joint Resolution.

2. Transfer of Local Roads: Local governments that wish to take ownership of local roads (as identified by SCDOT) in their political subdivision may do so. In doing so, these local governments would be eligible for additional C-Funds. Should local governments opt in to take ownership of additional roads, they would receive transferred roads in three phases:

Phase 1: Local governments select 1/3 of identified roads in 2016.
Phase 2: Local governments select 1/3 of identified roads in 2018.
Phase 3: Local government select final 1/3 of identified roads in 2020.

As part of the phase-in process, the monies allocated to participating local governments would see an increased C-fund allocation of $1 million in year one followed by additional revenue increases in phase 2 and phase 3. Participants who opt in during phase 2 in 2018 would see a $500,000 annual increase in C-funds. Finally, participants who opt-in during the final phase would see a $250,000 annual increase in C-funds. C-funds would no longer come with a mandate requiring a percentage of funds be spent on state roads; this decision would rest with local decision makers.

3. Funding Components: There are two funding components.

A. Gas Tax
1. Per Gallon Tax – Currently it is 16.75 cents per gallon of motor fuel (gasoline and
diesel). This proposal would drop it to 10.75 cents per gallon of motor fuel.
2. Excise Tax – A wholesale indexed excise tax of 6% would be applied to a 6-month
average of the wholesale price of motor fuel.

B. Auto Sales Tax – Currently the auto sales tax is 5% of total vehicle costs capped at $300. This proposal would raise that cap to $500. Currently the auto sales tax is broken down with 20% going to education, 40% to the DOT, and 40% to the General fund. Under this proposal, the 20% capped at $300 for education remains, the 40% of the $300 designated to the General Fund moves to DOT and all funds over the $300 also go to DOT.

4. Control Component: This proposal includes two controls designed to prevent dramatic changes to gas prices from affecting the revenues dedicated to infrastructure.

A. Penny Control
The wholesale excise tax would not fluctuate more than one penny in a 6-month period.
B. Lifetime Control
The combined gas tax (comprised of the per gallon AND excise) cannot exceed 26.75 cents/gallon.

5. Revenue Generated:

A. Estimated New Revenue: Under this proposal revenues generated would be $428 million annually. Approximately $100 million from the auto sales tax cap increase, and shift of remaining General Funds to DOT.The remaining $328 million from the gas tax increase.
B. Gas Tax Revenue Sources
Out-of-State motorists currently comprise 1/3 of the revenues from the gas tax. Under this proposal that would equal $109 million.The Average driver (driving 11,000 miles/year in a car receiving 22 miles per gallon) would pay an additional $50 annually.The remainder is paid by “high usage vehicles” to include citizen commuters and transportation related industry.

6. Income Tax Reduction: Under this proposal an income tax reduction would be phased in over a two-year span beginning with fiscal year 2015-2016. The relief is realized by increasing the amount of exempt income in each existing tax bracket by $140 in the first phase, and another $140 the second, for a combined total of $280.

A. Cost to the General Fund
2015-2016: $1,337,967
2016-2017: $25,510,778
2017-2018: $21,910,558

B. Average Savings: The average South Carolina taxpayer with this income tax reduction would save $48 annually.

Richard Franklin Road improvements – update

2014 Richard Franklin

Photo credit: @StateHouseWife

You may recall earlier this year, I mentioned infrastructure improvements that were coming our way .

Today you should see one of the projects, that has been long overdue on Richard Franklin Road, begin. Bear with it a couple of weeks and it will definitely be worth it.

I’m in contact as well with Rob Penny (Richland County – Transportation) to check on some other projects that were a part of the “Penny Tax” that passed during a time most of us would rather forget. As I learn more about those projects, I’ll keep you informed.

Yesteray, I shared information those other projects (along with estimated cost and funding source). As I’m sure you have heard, roads ain’t cheap….but we need to find a way to improve them (and bridges) and figure it out soon. We can’t keep kicking the can down the road in the General Assembly.

Nathan’s News readers have seen a few of my infrastructure proposals over the years. Some have received bipartisan support from a handful of colleagues; but have not made it through the process to become law. I want to be sure we exhaust ALL possibilities before we raise the gas tax.

What are your thoughts?

Photo below is just one small section of the road. Those that drive it regularly know the entire road is like this – or worse. I took photo earlier this week before the repair work started.

2014 Richard Franklin 2

Infrastructure: Road Widening in the future?

2014 Infrastructure

The State of South Carolina is divided into Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Councils of Governments (COGs). Northwest Richland County falls within the Columbia Area Transportation Study (COATS) MPO. The COATS MPO is a transportation policy-making organizations made up of representatives from local government and transportation authorities. SCDOT works very closely with this organization on improvements to primary/secondary routes within greater Richland and Lexington Counties.

There is essentially one funding program available that can address widening needs along primary routes such as Broad River Road (US 176) and Dutch Fork Road (US 76). The System Upgrade Program is funding made available by the SCDOT Commission to address MPO and COG priorities such as intersections, road widening, and new location projects. The SCDOT Commission currently allocates $16.7 million in System Upgrade funding to the COATS MPO each year, however, approximately $4.9 million of that is utilized to pay off debt service from a previous bonding program. Therefore, approximately $11.8 million is available each year for Richland and Lexington Counties to address intersection, road widening, or new location projects.

COATS maintains a Long Range Plan that includes a list of ranked and prioritized widening projects in accordance with State Law. That project list, which runs through the year 2035, has 62 projects identified for widening. Of those 62, only the top 18 fall within the cost constrained portion of the plan. Currently there are five sections of roadway along either US 76 or US 176 between Irmo and Chapin identified as a widening need:

#15 Broad River Road from Woodrow Street to US 76 ($12.8 M)
#18 Broad River Road from Woodrow Street to I-26 ($6.8 M)
#22 US 76 from Sid Bickley Road to Three Dog Road ($17.7 M)
#24 US 76 from Twin Gates Road to Three Dog Road ($26.0 M)
#57 US 76 from Murray Lindler Road to Sid Bickley Road ($21.5 M)

To view the complete ranking list of widening projects, go http://centralmidlands.org/2035-long-range-transportation-plan.html and look under the section “Prioritized Project List”.

Richland County also passed a 2012 referendum for a sales tax to fund transportation projects. Currently included on the list is the widening of Broad River Road (US 176/76) from Royal Tower to the Peak Interchange (High Priority Project). You may contact Rob Perry, Richland County Transportation Director, for more details on their program and anticipated schedules.

Road Improvements: Richard Franklin and more…

2014 Richard Franklin

For any pothole or resurfacing requests of Richland County Roads, please email ombudsman@rcgov.us or contact our local county councilman, Bill Malinowski. If the road is maintained by the SCDOT, then contact me directly.

Ever since I was elected, it seems “potholes, intersections and roads” are what most people seem to care most about. Over the years, we’ve seen several improvements in the area. Too many to post over. Here’s a post from the past from the past and another years ago , most importantly, here is the latest information on some “most talked about” areas in the district:

1) Kennerly Road/Coogler Road intersection. No timetable but this is one of the intersections slated to be funded by the “Penny Tax” in Richland County. Years back, Senator Courson and I worked to get “flashing signals/signage” but even today there are still accidents at this location.

2) There is NO ‘bridge’ being considered from our area to Blythewood across Broad River (aka a northern arterial/connector from I-77 to I-26 over the Broad River) It’s not in any 20 year plans but it seems the “myth” always comes up every few months or so.

3) Richard Franklin Road. Finally! Contracts are being let and a full depth reclamation/resurfacing is expected to be completed by the end of summer.

4) Traffic Light at intersection of Highway 6 and Farming Creek. Work should begin spring 2014.

5) Replacing Shady Grove Bridge (over I-26) with a new 2-lane bridge. Should occur in 2014.

Also slated for 2014:

* Broad River Road (I20 to Koon Road) slated for resurfacing
* Capers Chapel Road – Chipseal resurfacing
* Julius Richardson Road – Thin lift resurfacing
* Lykes Lane – Thin lift resurfacing. (While Lykes Lane is no longer in District 71 after reapportionment, I remember years ago everyone appreciating the traffic signal there and wanted to let them know I haven’t forgotten about them).

Be safe out there! And if you’re curious about funding for our roads. I have offered several proposals to my colleagues before voting to raise your taxes!

SC needs to be ready! Improving roads without a new tax


Above video courtesy of Robert Kittle and WSPA.com

South Carolina Rep. Nathan Ballentine, R-Chapin, wants the state to be ready in case Congress passes the bill into law. He’s sponsoring a state bill for what to do with the new sales tax money the state would start getting, which he says is estimated to be $70 million a year. The new money would go to state roads and bridges.

“This is not something new. People are supposed to be paying this tax already; they’re just not, and this is a way to make sure that it gets collected and it gets to where the people need it, on the roads that they travel every day,” he says.

While opponents of the bill say it’s a tax increase, technically it’s not. If you buy something online and are not charged the state sales tax, you’re supposed to keep a record of that purchase and then pay that sales tax on your state income tax return. Very few people do, Rep. Ballentine says.

For more on this story, click on the WSPA website . Of course, Nathan’s News readers knew about this proposal several weeks ago .

I’ve been joined by more than 30 House Members from throughout our state. Republicans and Democrats alike. I’d appreciate your thoughts. If you feel fixing our roads without raising taxes can and should be done before considering raising taxes, I hope you’ll contact your elected officials and let them know to support these efforts.

Kennerly Road / Coogler Road Intersection

When it comes to letters and calls from the community (relating to our roads) it’s THIS intersection that I hear about the most! Today I took the picture above but I could’ve posted photos from various accidents over the past year, or the large number of cars in the morning/afternoon for school drop-off/pick-up, etc.

Instead just a normal photo from the Coogler Road side.

If you’re not familiar with this location, you might not be able to notice there’s a curve (blind?) right before the intersection. Inevitably someone pulling out doesn’t see the traffic coming or they either underestimate the speed at which the cars are traveling. The result? Not good. A couple of accidents and many, many near-misses.

Since I’ve been elected, we’ve seen many road improvements in our community . I’ve been pleased with the Department of Transportation and their attention to our needs and I again say “thank you” to the Department and Thad Brunson (Administrator, SCDOT Engineering District 1) in particular.

At this intersection, Senator Courson and I have pushed for (and received) improvements with SEVERAL signs placed as you approach the intersection in either location. The intent is to draw people’s attention to the dangerous conditions. These signs include the usual warning signs as well as another set of flashing signals that were installed. We’ve also worked with Richland County Sheriff’s Department and had patrols monitor for speeders. Still, it appears accidents and congestion continue to happen.

So what’s next?

Serving on a few of the committees I have, I’ve learned that roads and signals cost money – LOTS of money! Being in state government, I’ve also seen how we have yet to improve funding for our infrastructure and, of course, I know how money is just not there for the improvements we need (for the state as a whole). Richland County Council even considered a sales-tax dedicated specifically for roads but that proposal was defeated.

To get the money, there’s two things that can happen at the state level. The gax tax can go up. (Note: No, thank you!) or we can dedicate money in the budget specifically for roads. The latter is exactly what the House tried to do last year when we passed a bill to take the sales tax on cars and dedicate that to road improvements. Unfortunately, the bill didn’t get out of the Senate.

To talk more specifically about this intersection….the cost just to put in turn lanes needed for a traffic signal runs roughly $900,000.

I’ve even thought about a traffic-circle (as others have thought, as well). We run into the same thing though…costs. Still runs about $900,000 PLUS the SCDOT has to get right-of-way from the property owners at the corners because more space is needed when you do a traffic-circle.

The cheapest way to help would be a Four-Way Stop put at the intersection. That is currently what we are pursuing but I’m not sure what the SCDOT traffic studies will tell us. While my gut and my eyes tell me we have to do more, the intersection still doesn’t meet the criteria for a traffic signal, traffic cirlce, or four-way stop.

Stay tuned for more details within the next two weeks…