A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE BRIDGE THAT CROSSES TAYLOR CREEK ALONG SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 901 IN YORK COUNTY "JACK ARMOUR MEMORIAL BRIDGE" AND ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS LOCATION CONTAINING THESE WORDS.
Summary
H. 3004 is a concurrent resolution requesting the South Carolina Department of Transportation to name the bridge that crosses Taylor Creek along South Carolina Highway 901 in York County as the "Jack Armour Memorial Bridge" and to place appropriate signs or markers at the site. The resolution is commemorative in nature and does not create a new regulatory program, tax, or funding mechanism.
The bill’s text explains the request through a series of "whereas" clauses honoring Jack Lee Armour of Rock Hill, including his long service at Rock Hill Printing & Finishing, his church involvement, and his connection to the bridge repair project near his home. The resolution would formally recognize him by directing the Department of Transportation to install memorial signage if the request is carried out.
Impact
If adopted and implemented, the resolution would affect state transportation naming practices by asking the Department of Transportation to designate a specific bridge in York County with a memorial name and erect signs reflecting that designation. It would not amend the South Carolina Code or alter substantive rights, but it would result in a ceremonial change to roadway signage and official recognition of an individual on a state-maintained bridge.
Sentiment
The available text suggests broadly positive and respectful sentiment toward the bill, with the resolution framed as a tribute to a local resident and community member. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so there is no evidence of opposition or debate in the available record. The tone of the bill is appreciative and commemorative rather than controversial.
Contention
No notable points of contention are shown in the provided materials. Because there are no committee transcripts, amendments, or recorded votes included, it is not possible to identify any specific objections, fiscal concerns, or disagreements among legislators. The measure appears to be a straightforward honorary naming request with little or no apparent controversy.