Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

DOT: Parkway pact honored

Foes of private meetings deny that two open sessions on the Suncoast Parkway expansion satisfy legal terms.

By CATHERINE E. SHOICHET
Published December 13, 2005

State officials say public meetings they hosted in June and August to discuss the possible extension of the Suncoast Parkway into Citrus County met the terms of a legal settlement.

The agreement, between the state Department of Transportation and Citrus County property owners Bobby Roscow and Teddi Bierly, came after a judge ruled that private state meetings about the toll road project violated the Sunshine Law. The settlement required the state to hold meetings for government officials to rehash publicly the issues about the possible parkway extension that they had already discussed in private.

In a 14-page motion filed in Leon County Circuit Court on Friday, DOT assistant general counsel Robert D. Vanhorne said the meetings "effectively carried out the letter and spirit" of the judge's ruling and met the terms of the agreement.

Bierly and Roscow maintain that the DOT, which oversees the Turnpike Enterprise, breeched the terms of the May agreement.

In a motion filed in October, their attorney, Ross Burnaman, asked a judge to sanction the department and to order officials to disregard information discussed privately between Jan. 7, 2003, and Aug. 6, 2004.

"They didn't comply at all. They weren't within a country mile," Roscow said Monday. "We'll be happy to see them in court."

Vanhorne asked a judge to deny the request for sanctions and close the case.

Leon County Circuit Judge Terry Lewis is slated to handle the case, but a hearing date had not been scheduled Monday afternoon.

Burnaman's motion outlined nine violations of the agreement. But Vanhorne contested those claims.

He said Burnaman's allegation that presentations from government agencies at the meeting violated the mediation agreement is "vague and ambiguous."

According to Vanhorne, Burnaman's claims that all the agencies present at the private meetings did not participate in the public meetings - and that some agencies sent different representatives to the public meetings - are moot.

The DOT, he wrote, "has no authority to order those agencies nor the agencies' employees to carry out any particular task or assignment."

In January 2002, transportation officials said the possible extension of the parkway from U.S. 98 through Citrus County and ending at U.S. 19 near Red Level would cost $200-million. Since then, the project's price tag has increased.

The Florida Turnpike Enterprise's tentative five-year plan, presented in Brooksville last week, included more than $163-million earmarked for the project. That number included funding for engineering and acquiring right of way, but not for construction. Earmarking the money is not an indication that the state intends to extend the road. The state still hasn't decided whether it will build.

In 2003, a group of several local, state and government agencies - known as the Environmental Resource and Regulatory Agency Group - began meeting in private to discuss the possible extension.

Bierly and Roscow sued the DOT to open the meetings, and a judge sided with them in August 2004. The plaintiffs and the state entered into mediation and agreed to hold two "curative" meetings held on June 28 and Aug. 29.

"We acted in good faith and so did the agencies who were participating," Vanhorne said Monday.

Roscow said the lawsuit over the Sunshine Law violation was only the first step in his opposition to the toll road extension.

"However this is decided, the next case is coming right up, and it will be a lot worse," he said.

--Catherine E. Shoichet can be reached at cshoichet@sptimes.com or 860-7309.

[Last modified December 13, 2005, 01:30:24]