Dear Mr. Gibilaro,

1. Re your explanation regarding FTE's FAQ item on using tax dollars for FTE's system.

You answered:

>Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise receives no annual appropriation from
>state gas taxes or federal tax revenues, as does the rest of the Florida
>Department of Transportation. The Turnpike System is self-supporting, from
>toll and non-toll revenues, to maintain and operate our system.

The FTE FAQ does not say that FTE receives ANNUAL appropriation from taxes, as you had re-phrased in your email. That is not my question, which is, again I reiterate:

The FTE FAQ reads:

"Taxes do not fund the Florida's Turnpike System." (there is a period at the end of this sentence)

"Toll roads are self-supporting"

If that were true, then why 4(f)? Why have intention to apply at all for tax dollars if "Taxes do not fund the Florida's Turnpike System [period]".

I am not questioning the legality of using Federal funds for tollroads. I am questioning the misleading nature of the FAQ statement which would give the public to a false assumption regarding usage of tax dollars for tollroads.

Ordinary Joe-public reading that FAQ statement would think that NO tax dollars has/can/will go into building tollroads at all -- that would be a misled understanding, is it not? The part that is entirely ignored is that although tax dollars may not go into the operation and maintenance of tollroads, it can certainly go into the initial construction of tollroads, which carry the highest cost. We are both concerned about misleading the public, so perhaps that statement should be revised to allow the public a more accurate understanding. Tollroads are not all "free" of tax dollars as the FAQ makes it out to be.

You explained that "Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise has not requested any federal funds for the proposed extension of the Suncoast Parkway."

Again, this is word-mincing, isn't it? Having INTENTION to apply but not yet filing the final form is still INTENTION TO APPLY, correct? If FTE has intention to apply, then FTE has intention to use tax payers' money to build a toll road. The process itself is also not free of using tax payers money -- FHWA employees are tax-funded, right? All local and state agencies involved in the process are tax-funded as well. Someone must pay for the 4(f) review and necessary regulatory meetings.

Joe-public, if on-hearing that statement, would come to the incorrect assumption that everything about the Suncoast 2 planning is "free" and combine with the FAQ would thing everything about the road is "free". He would not understand the amount of effort and tax money being expended for the current 4(f) review (by all related government agencies) in order to allow the option to use tax dollars to fund the Suncoast 2 open. He would not understand that there is this possible reality that tax dollars will be used if FHWA approves. Most I would wager do not know that FHWA is CURRENTLY undergoing that process of 4(f) review directly related to giving tax dollars to fund a controversial tollroad.

> 2) The complexity of project issues, impacts and controversy have caused
> extended review and response times as well as delays in expected
> deliverables of project information.

Surely, there must be a list. Perhaps the top 3 most important items on the list would provide more information than nothing. And without adequate information, you know how rumors can spread.

You understand the difficulty of my position, I hope. On one hand, the public, myself included, are forwarded to you for authoritative information on the Suncoast 2. Yet, when I ask for information, they do not seem forthcoming, because the issues are too complex.

Certainly, even complex issues if they must be resolved, can boil down to a single statement of definition. Typically, they are bullet items because they are questions someone has raised in a meeting. Are we talking about THOUSANDS of top-level items here to complex and numerous to even entertain? I only need the concerns raised which is slowing down the process. Surely, these must be some bullet points on a task list somewhere, on someone's follow-up to-do list.

> And, as you know, since we have not completed our study for the
> extension of the Suncoast Parkway, it is premature to say if this project
> will be constructed.

Yes, I do know. My search here is mainly for information on the process and to clarity validity of claims to bring facts into the open. However, having said that, I also know what it means for a project to be in PD&E, that this phase is not as "preliminary" as the public may think, that much has been invested, and the more invested, the more difficult for stakeholders to back out -- not impossible, certainly, but it cannot be denied that the level of difficulty of scrapping any project increases with the investments put into it.

I am not sure the public understands the process at all, which is something I try to bring out into the open, so that they can make their own decisions based on facts and not sound-bites.

> 6) At the present time there are 10 Build alternatives identified.
> Following the reduction of these alternatives to a reasonable number and
> the receipt of traffic projections , the "No-Build" analysis will begin and
> not before. Any potential detriments to Citrus County if this roadway is
> not constructed will be identified as part of the "No-Build" analysis.

I understand that FTE is allowed to begin land acquisition when the project is at 60% completion, is this correct? If that is the case, please let me know at what % of completion the project will be when the No-Build analysis will begin.

> Suncoast 2 was identified as a need in the Florida Intrastate Highway
> Program as approved by the Florida Legislature