N.C. Ferry Tolls: Hanig Tried to Remove Them. 25 Senators Voted to Stop the Effort

Developing investigation: Additional legislative responses and public records remain pending. This report will be updated when new information materially changes the record, while significant findings may be reported separately.

Last updated: Aug. 20, 2026

RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina is asking coastal residents for input on new ferry tolls after lawmakers have already made the central decision: every state ferry route must begin collecting them by Jan. 1.

That includes the Currituck–Knotts Island ferry, a route residents have historically used without paying a fare.

The upcoming public meetings can influence rates, passes, exemptions, and how tolls are collected. Under current law, they cannot decide whether Knotts Island remains toll-free.

So another question has moved to the center of the debate:

How did the statewide mandate become law?

The legislative trail shows a detailed toll plan emerging in the Senate, surviving an attempt by Sen. Bobby Hanig to remove it, disappearing from the House version of the budget and then returning in the final agreement.

The record identifies many of the lawmakers who controlled those stages.

It still does not identify who first requested statewide tolling — or who pushed to put it back after the House left the expansion out.

The Senate plan was already detailed

By April 2025, Senate Bill 257 contained more than a proposal to study ferry fees.

Section 43.15, titled “Ferry Tolls,” set proposed fares for routes that had previously been free.

For Currituck–Knotts Island, the Senate version called for $1 per passenger, $3 for a vehicle under 20 feet and $6 for a vehicle over 20 feet.

Fiscal analysts used the proposed rates and Ferry Division ridership figures to estimate revenue, showing that the proposal had already advanced from a policy idea to a route-by-route pricing plan.

The Senate Appropriations/Base Budget Committee was chaired by Brent Jackson, Ralph Hise and Michael Lee.

Their committee positions do not prove that any one of them wrote the ferry provision. They do establish who chaired the Senate budget process from which the proposal emerged.

Hanig tried to remove it

The next day, April 16, Sen. Bobby Hanig filed an amendment that would have deleted the ferry-toll section.

Hanig represents a northeastern district that includes Camden, Currituck, and Dare counties.

His amendment never received a direct up-or-down vote.

Instead, the Senate voted on whether to table it.

The official roll call identifies Brent Jackson as sponsor of the motion. It passed 25–22.

Jackson, Hise and Lee voted to table Hanig's amendment.

So did Senate transportation appropriations chairs Michael Lazzara, Bill Rabon and Vickie Sawyer, along with Senate leader Phil Berger.

Republican Sens. Hanig, Norman Sanderson and Bob Brinson joined Democrats in voting against tabling the amendment.

That vote is especially significant because, unlike later votes on the entire state budget, it dealt directly with an effort to remove the ferry-toll provision.

A vote to table does not prove who authored the proposal. It does establish who voted to stop Hanig's removal effort at that stage.

Then the statewide expansion disappeared

The House later rewrote Senate Bill 257.

Its version still addressed ferry-toll proceeds and vessel-replacement funding, but the Senate language requiring historically free routes to begin charging fares was gone.

So was the route-by-route pricing schedule.

The distinction is important.

The statewide toll mandate did not simply travel unchanged from the Senate to the governor's desk.

It disappeared from the House version.

Then it came back.

The two chambers went to negotiations

When the House substitute returned to the Senate in June 2025, senators rejected it 37–9.

That was a vote on the entire House budget, not ferry tolls alone. It would be inaccurate to say individual senators rejected the House plan specifically because the statewide ferry expansion was absent.

What the vote did was leave the chambers with competing versions and send the budget toward negotiations.

The Senate's final conference delegation consisted of Brent Jackson, Ralph Hise, Michael Lee, Buck Newton, Tom McInnis, David Craven Jr. and Bill Rabon.

Jackson chaired the delegation.

When the final agreement emerged in 2026, statewide ferry tolling was back.

The final law changed the method, not the mandate

The final agreement did not revive the Senate's original route-by-route prices.

Instead, it directed the N.C. Board of Transportation, in consultation with the Ferry Division, to establish tolls for all ferry routes and set them in a manner intended to help fund passenger-vessel replacement.

The law requires toll collection to begin no later than Jan. 1, 2027.

It also establishes a $150 annual commuter pass for qualifying coastal residents and active-duty military personnel and exempts school buses and qualifying student-transportation vehicles.

The conference record names the senators who negotiated for their chamber.

It does not say which negotiator requested, defended, or agreed to the return of statewide tolling.

Goodwin says he opposed the toll provision

Rep. Ed Goodwin, whose House district includes Currituck County, voted for the final state budget containing the mandate.

His position on the toll provision itself was different.

Asked whether he supported requiring tolls on the previously free routes, Goodwin answered:

No.

He said the state budget had already been delayed for more than a year and a half and that his vote reflected the larger appropriations package rather than agreement with every provision.

Goodwin also said he tried to get the toll language removed.

I did, however, try to negotiate with leadership to exclude that provision in the budget.

He said he knew Currituck County opposed the proposal and supports addressing or repealing the mandate in a future session.

Pressed on who originally put the provision into the budget and which leaders he approached, Goodwin did not provide individual names.

I do, however, believe that the answers you seek lie within the Senate, since that's where the provision originated.

The bill history supports that narrower point: the detailed statewide proposal appears in the Senate budget before the measure moved through the House.

Who personally initiated it remains unresolved.

The coast had already objected

The proposal was moving through Raleigh despite formal opposition from communities that rely on the ferry system.

Currituck County commissioners unanimously opposed tolling the Currituck–Knotts Island ferry in May 2025.

Currituck also joined Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Dare, Hyde, Jones and Pamlico counties in formally opposing new ferry tolls and increases to existing fares.

Those resolutions do not establish that every resident opposed the policy.

They do establish that eight affected county governments had objected before the statewide mandate ultimately became law.

That raises a question separate from who wrote the provision:

What evidence persuaded lawmakers to proceed despite the objections from those communities?

The paper trail may provide answers

The investigation has now moved beyond votes and lawmakers' recollections.

A public-records request filed Aug. 19 seeks NCDOT and Ferry Division emails, draft legislation, toll calculations, revenue projections, meeting records and communications with legislators and legislative staff.

NCDOT assigned the request number 787161227978 and said it has been sent to the appropriate custodian for collection and legal review.

The records sought include documents that could identify who requested the original toll schedule, who proposed tolling previously free routes, what happened around Hanig's amendment, and what communications occurred as statewide tolling disappeared from the House bill and later returned.

No responsive documents had been produced as of this report.

Jackson has also been asked directly about his role, including why he sponsored the motion to table Hanig's amendment, whether he was involved in developing the original provision, and what occurred during the final negotiations.

His response was pending at publication.

Residents get a voice — after the mandate

NCDOT's public process still has consequences.

Residents can influence rates, payment systems, commuter passes, exemptions, and other implementation details.

The Knotts Island listening session is scheduled for Sept. 3 from 6 to 8 p.m. Public comments remain open through Sept. 14.

But the General Assembly has already answered the larger policy question.

Under current law, NCDOT cannot simply decide that Currituck–Knotts Island will remain free.

The public is being asked largely how the mandate should work after lawmakers already decided that it must happen.

The audit comes after the toll deadline

The General Assembly has separately ordered a performance audit of the Ferry Division examining finances, operations, maintenance, costs, and possible alternative sources of revenue.

The audit report is due Jan. 15, 2027.

The statewide toll deadline is Jan. 1.

The timing does not predict what the audit will find.

It does mean toll collection is scheduled to begin two weeks before lawmakers receive the final audit they ordered to examine the Ferry Division's finances and other revenue options.

The unanswered questions

For Knotts Island, the ferry is not simply an optional ride across the water. Without it, motorists traveling to mainland Currituck must travel through Virginia before returning to North Carolina.

The legislative record now establishes much of what happened in Raleigh.

A detailed toll proposal emerged through a Senate budget process chaired by Jackson, Hise and Lee. Hanig tried to remove it. Jackson, Hise, Lee, Lazzara, Rabon, Sawyer and others voted to table that effort. The House later produced a budget without the statewide expansion. Seven senators represented the Senate in the final negotiations. Statewide tolling returned.

What remains unresolved is more precise:

Who first requested statewide ferry tolling? Who pushed for its return? What justification outweighed the objections of affected coastal counties? And was its restoration connected to any broader budget negotiation?

No evidence reviewed so far establishes that the ferry provision was traded for another appropriation, project, or policy concession. That should not be assumed.

But the legislative trail makes the question one that the officials involved can answer.

What residents can do now

The mandate is law. The decisions behind it remain subject to public scrutiny.

Residents can attend the Sept. 3 Knotts Island meeting, submit comments through Sept. 14, and ask their representatives whether they support repealing, delaying, or modifying the mandate before toll collection begins.

Those who voted to table Hanig's amendment can also be asked a direct question:

Why did you vote to stop the ferry-toll provision from being removed?

For Senate budget leaders and conferees, the question is different:

Who requested statewide ferry tolling, who supported putting it back after the House left it out, and will you release the records showing how that decision was made?

Accountability does not require assuming wrongdoing.

It requires establishing who made a consequential public decision and allowing those officials to explain why.

This investigation continues

Verified information will continue to be published without waiting for every official to respond.

Responses that materially clarify the record will be incorporated into the reporting. Major findings — including records that identify who originated or restored the mandate — may be published as separate follow-up reports.

NCDOT Public Records Request No. 787161227978 remains pending.

Reporting note: Official records establish committee leadership, amendments, procedural votes, conference membership and the legislative path of the ferry-toll provision. They do not yet establish which individual originally authored or requested the statewide mandate. This report distinguishes documented actions from questions that remain under investigation.