Oversight Objective: Quantify unit cost and utilization commitments

I. Hugh K. Leatherman Terminal (HLT)

In dollars per pier container, what is the fully loaded cost to handle a container through Leatherman versus Wando (labor, operations, equipment, and allocated overhead)? Rationale: Moving containers through a higher-cost terminal without fixing the cost problem only increases losses. The real issue is identifying what makes Leatherman more expensive and whether that can be corrected.
What specific annual pier-container volume does SCPA commit to route through Leatherman in FY 2026, FY 2027, and FY 2028? Rationale: Taxpayers need an objective utilization benchmark for a system-scale public investment.
What is SCPA’s portfolio routing target by terminal for FY 2026–FY 2028 (percent of pier containers at Wando vs. Leatherman vs. North Charleston), and what is the operational reason for that balance? Rationale: “Wando-centric operations” is a choice. Legislators should require explicit targets—and the justification.

Oversight Objective: Reduce I-526 / Don Holt truck pressure through measurable routing actions

II. I-526 Truck Pressure and Terminal Routing

What is SCPA’s written plan to reduce port-generated container truck movements on I-526 over the next three fiscal years (with annual targets and the specific operational changes that achieve them)? Rationale: If congestion relief is the policy goal, the plan must contain measurable targets—not general statements.
What share of Wando’s pier containers are truck-only versus rail-bound versus local delivery, and what is SCPA’s target to reduce the truck-only share over time? Rationale: If the majority of containers are truck-only, shifting marginal growth to a terminal that reduces highway dependence is a rational policy option.
If Leatherman and the Port Access Road are available for truck operations, what prevents SCPA from shifting a defined share of vessel calls from Wando to Leatherman to reduce I-526 exposure? Rationale: This forces SCPA to identify the real bottleneck: labor rules, carrier preferences, berth windows, gate hours, costs, or internal policy.

Oversight Objective: Quantify the recurring workaround costs and require an exit strategy

What is the annual cost of truck-to-rail incentives/allowances/workarounds like the Rapid Rail program, and what is the published plan to reduce or end them (with dates)? Rationale: A recurring workaround should have a measurable endpoint, not become a permanent operating subsidy.
In the most recent fiscal year, how many containers were moved under these programs, and what was the implied public cost per container? Rationale: Legislators should be able to state the unit economics of the workaround in one sentence.

Oversight Objective: Clarify externalized transportation liabilities

Of the I-526 / Don Holt corridor projects under discussion, what share of the capacity need is attributable to port-generated truck traffic (methodology and estimate)? Rationale: If port logistics materially drive project scope, that relationship should be disclosed explicitly.
What is SCPA’s funding commitment (if any) toward transportation projects driven by port freight demand, and where is that commitment documented? Rationale: If costs are shifted externally, legislators should understand the allocation, the precedent, and the funding plan.

Oversight Objective: Establish a clear self-sufficiency test

After accounting for operating revenue, operating expense, interest expense, and state/federal appropriations, what was the net surplus or shortfall per pier container handled in FY 2023–FY 2025? Rationale: This is the simplest “self-reliance” test that reconciles the operating business, financing cost, and public support in one metric.
2) Over FY 2023–FY 2025, what portion of capital spending was funded from internally generated cash versus new debt or direct state appropriations? Rationale: Expansion paid for internally signals strength; expansion paid for externally signals reliance on public support.