S.C. Transportation Bank refuses to continue funding I-95 project over financial concerns

HARDEEVILLE, S.C. (WTOC) - The South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank has denied additional funding for the I-95 Exit 3 interchange project at the South Carolina-Georgia border, effectively stalling the major infrastructure development after costs spiraled from an estimated $82 million in 2019 to over $150 million.

In a Feb. 7, 2026, letter obtained by WTOC through a Freedom of Information Act request, Bank Chairman John White told SCDOT Secretary Justin Powell that the City of Hardeeville, Jasper County, and property owners have failed to demonstrate they can fund their portion of the project.

The decision comes months after state leaders celebrated groundbreaking on a separate $825 million I-95 widening project. At that event, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster said, “Our economies are growing, we’re growing in very smart ways, we’re being very careful, and we hope that’s going to produce more and more surpluses so we can keep doing this all over the state because this is key to our future.”

However, the Exit 3 project faces a concerning fate due to financial concerns and lack of transparency from local partners.

Project background and escalating costs

The Bank had already committed $56.2 million to the Exit 3 project through $28.1 million in loans and $28.1 million in grants, approved in July 2020. In November 2024, the Bank approved an additional $35 million in grants and $10 million in loans, extending the repayment period by 10 years.

The project includes construction of the Exit 3 interchange on Interstate 95, along with Parkway North and Parkway South in Hardeeville. Originally estimated at approximately $82 million in 2019, construction costs have “soared since 2019,” according to White’s letter.

When SCDOT put the construction contract out for bid in December 2025, the lowest bid came in at over $150 million, with the interchange portion alone costing $89.5 million.

Financial red flags prompt denial

White outlined several concerns that led to the Bank’s decision to deny additional funding:

Missing financial documentation: The Bank requested financial information from property owners and their three LLCs after the original developer sold the property in November 2025 without notifying the Bank. The new owners refused to provide the requested documents.

City refuses to prove debt capacity: Despite claiming it has bond debt capacity, the City of Hardeeville refused to provide calculations to demonstrate its ability to fund its portion of the project.

Speculative funding proposals: Property owners proposed obtaining a future mortgage dependent on a property appraisal, rather than providing guaranteed funding such as a Letter of Credit.

Changing deal terms: The funding structure has changed “numerous times” over six years, with multiple draft term sheets containing unresolved problems.

Timeline of denials

The Bank said no to additional funding requests three times between January and February 2026:

• Jan. 23: Bank denied the City and County’s request for additional financial assistance
• Jan. 29: Bank denied an updated funding proposal
• Feb. 7: Bank issued final denial after rejecting two term sheets

White insisted that construction contracts for both parkways be executed simultaneously with the SCDOT contract for the Exit 3 interchange by March 9, 2026. This requirement was rejected in both term sheets submitted by the project sponsors.

Bank’s position

Despite the denial, White emphasized the Bank’s support for the project’s goals.

“The Bank again wholeheartedly supports the Exit 3 Project and the projected benefits it may bring to the low country,” White wrote. “However, the Bank has a fiduciary responsibility to numerous stakeholders that the Exit 3 Project gets timely constructed and that a flourishing development occur in the vicinity of this infrastructure.”

White added that the Bank “does not want to fund an interchange to nowhere” and cannot make a “leap of faith” based on speculative funding mechanisms.

“The City, County, and Owner team are requesting the Bank trust them that they can secure adequate funding down the road,” White wrote. “The Bank does not believe this leap of faith is warranted at this time.”

The Bank’s refusal to certify funding means SCDOT is unlikely to move forward with the $150 million construction contract, leaving the major infrastructure project in limbo.