Dear Mr. Gibilaro:

I jusy got off the phone with Ms. Cheotka and she informed me that she had requested the September minutes believing that there would have been another ERRAG meeting since the July 2003 meeting as it was nearly the end of January 2004. She also wanted the Minutes not the Executive Summary. Your website only gives the executive summaries. We give the full minutes on our website at http://www.truthaboutsuncoast2.com/ after going through all the trouble of doing Public Information Requests. It appears from a recent newspaper article concerning rumors that you and others at FTE are very familiar with our website and in fact study it. I believe it would be reasonable for her to ask such a question and I also believe you would have known at the point (January 1, 2004)when you replied to her that a new meeting was being planned for February and might have volunteered this information. Instead you chose to not disclose this fact.

I'm therefore not insinuating anything. Let me make it perfectly clear. You and your colleagues at FTE and its consultants are doing your utmost to deceive people as to what is really being done on the PD&E Study.

You promised that the SPAG members would be given copies of the ERRAG meeting minutes, not the simplistic executive summaries available on your website. They haven't received them. You said that ERRAG minutes would be issued for review five days after the meetings. You haven't done this. We are still trying to get copies of the last meeting that supposedly were not completed until a month after the meeting and just recently made available. I have placed a request for the document and will have to pay for copies. As it is a PDF file, it could just as easily been emailed to me for free. You must have a reason for making it so difficult.

You said that members of SPAG would receive copies of the Determination of Applicability for 4(f) lands. They have not received it. You told ERRAG and SPAG that all conservation lands would be treated as applicable in that report("yes" was the word used in the ERRAG minutes), yet in the report that was submitted to FHWA you did the complete opposite. You also did not disclose at the November 2003 Open House either verbally or in the handout that FTE had sent a document in early July 2003 that argued or the elimination of the Sugamill Woods Tract of the Annutteliga CARL Tract and Lecanto Sandhills Tract as 4(f) applicable lands so that you could put the tollroad through them and still receive Federal funding.

You sent me a copy of SC1 traffic counts that were copied from the 2002 URS Report to FTE. You deleted all the columns giving projections out to I believe 2013 that showed even then only 8,400 vehicles would be using the road from US 98 to SR 50 (see the full pages in Appendix C, pages C-12 and C-13).

You told Janet Masaoy that the ERRAG had not signed a "partnering" agreement at their first meeting and then wrote her a letter of apology saying that you were not "100% accurate" in that statement. You can view the full color document on your website at http://www.suncoastparkway2.com/envresregaggro/pdf/ERRAGAgencyAgreement.pdf .

You published in the Open House handout that the SC2 would relieve local traffic and yet cannot produce the traffic study that would document such a statement or conclusion. In fact, you have repeatedly told me and others that the traffic and needs study will be part of the PD&E Study and your attorney just told me it was "pending." To me it looks and sounds like FTE already has the conclusion to the PD&E Study. And your consultant doing the PD&E's environmental statement says likewise at their website: http://www.hwlochner.com/projects/project.asp?projectID=B0A17577-E8CC-4E17-8362-2123B81E7368 .

You said in your most recent letter to FHWA explaining why certain corridors should be eliminated that SPAG had also suggested this. Those people that I know on SPAG have no recollection of this and you have always contended they are just "advisory" and do not make decisions nor does ERRAG by your own admission. The minutes for Meeting #5 state that many of the agncies attending that meeting said that the matrix developed by you for their approval was statiscally incorrect as it gave equal weight to all factors. You then used this matrix as support for arguing in your most recent letter to FHWA that seven of the ten alignments should be eliminated.

Let's stop with the "100%" verbage and start giving truthful answers not deceptive ones or ones that are outright untrue. I'm still waiting to hear the justification for how the FTE contends it only uses revenue derived from tolls yet is applying for $160M in Federal aid and has $55M budgeted in the FDOT Work-Program for 2003-2008 for "non-reimbursable" capital expenses to the SC2 as their contribution to the FIHS. Are they going to pave that portion a different color?

If you believe any of these statements to be false or distorted then I would be happy, in fact overjoyed, to see them corrected. Until I and others see this credible information, I would suggest that if you want to play in the sunshine, I'd suggest some heavy-duty sunscreen.