Parkway status just got murkier
Confusion reigns over a 1998 study that gave ''build'' status to an extension.
By BARBARA BEHRENDT
Published October 1, 2006
To build or not to build? That has always been the question about a Suncoast Parkway extension through Citrus County.
But at last week's County Commission meeting, some in attendance were shocked to find out that the question had actually been answered - eight years ago.
And few people who had closely watched the project even knew it.
Officials with Florida Turnpike Enterprise explained that a 1998 planning, development and environmental study had concluded that the project had achieved "build" rather than "no build" status.
The turnpike officials told commissioners that the project was at a "crossroads." Did commissioners want them to pursue a federal oversight track or a state track?
The former was essentially a dead end, they said, because it wouldn't lead to federal money and because federal oversight was no different than state.
The latter path meant proceeding with the 1998 study, which already identified a route for the road and concluded that it should be built.
In a room peppered with residents wearing "no build" buttons and T-shirts, that wasn't a popular sell.
But confusion - and a sense that the cart was before the horse - were what prevented parkway officials from seeking the full-throttle support they had sought.
The Suncoast Parkway now ends at U.S. 98 near the Citrus-Hernando line. The extension would bring the limited-access highway north to U.S. 19 near Red Level. The 27-mile stretch would cost $879-million.
State officials explained last week that the 1998 state study had been shelved when no state funding was available for the project. A couple of years later, the turnpike decided to seek federal funding and began a federal planning and development study.
Then federal funds dried up and that study was never completed.
But officials said now state road funds are available to move to the next step. So, on Tuesday, Christopher Warren, deputy executive director and chief operating officer of Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, asked commissioners for their permission to dust off the state study, update it and move forward.
Commission Chairman Gary Bartell was confused. Approving what Warren was asking for meant approving the determination to build. Just a day earlier he had met with the same parkway officials and had been told that the commission was only to choose between federal funding and state funding.
Nothing was said about the state process already including the forgone conclusion that the project was a "build" project.
On Friday, Bartell said he thought that the turnpike officials has backed the commission into a corner.
They could choose the federal process, which would mean a delay of three to five years and a cost of $3-million to $5-million and no federal dollars would likely be available.
Or they could go the state route, where there were funds, but they would be giving their approval to the construction of the road, he said.
"I just feel that they need to be aboveboard and they were not aboveboard, in my opinion," Bartell said. "The antiparkway people, this adds a lot of fuel to the fire for them."
Even at Tuesday's meeting, Bartell voiced concerns about what had been asked of the commission.
"I thought that the no-build option was still out there," Bartell said at the meeting. He also questioned whether the turnpike officials had yet determined whether the road was needed and how they would answer environmental concerns along the way.
Those answers would come later, Warren said. At the point that 60 percent of the project design is done, the turnpike officials would be able to answer specific questions of financial viability and environmental protection.
Bartell said that the county would never build a road until they knew it was needed and he questioned the order of the state's process.
"I just want to make sure that the need is there and the economic benefit is there before we jump out there with 100 percent support," he said.
Hearing the concern from commissioners and many residents who spoke, Warren assured the commission that the Turnpike Enterprise leadership would return with answers to their questions in the coming months before seeking another vote of support for the parkway extension.
With that assurance, the commissioners voted 4-1 to support updating the state study on the project. Joyce Valentino cast the sole dissenting vote.
As much as the discussion didn't sit well with Bartell, even after it was over, it also didn't sit well with the Turnpike Enterprise team, according to spokeswoman Joanne Hurley.
After the meeting, Hurley said she decided to seek a verbatim transcript of the discussion because she sensed there had been some miscommunication.
On Friday, after hearing that Bartell did not believe the turnpike officials had been aboveboard, she said she believes that their message had been delivered poorly.
The terms "build" and "no build" are technical terms used in the formal planning, development and environmental study. When that type of study concludes, it concludes with a determination of whether a project is a "build," which means the officials go to the next level with it, or a "no build," where no more work is done.
A project termed a "build" project "doesn't mean that's the final say as to whether the shovel gets to the dirt," Hurley said. "There are other steps along the way. There are hurdles."
She said that the turnpike officials should have made that much clearer to the commission and the public during their presentation.
"We were thinking of the finality of approving the use of the study, not the finality of building the road," Hurley said.
She also said that people could have been confused about the "no build" option still being on the table because when the federal study was begun, it was started from scratch. Since it was never completed, no decision on a "build" or "no build" project was ever reached.
Additionally, Hurley said that some people in Tuesday's audience were confusing the idea of proving economic feasibility, which is related to how project dollars can be collected through bonding, with traffic counts and revenue projections, which is a completely different process.
All those details will be made public long before the decision to begin building the parkway extension, Hurley said.
"We never expected them to give a final blessing. We don't make decisions with no information," she said. "It was just a misunderstanding that this was the final decision."
Hurley said that she planned to talk to the turnpike officials and craft a letter to the County Commission to clear up any confusion about what happened at Tuesday's meeting.
She also said she did not yet know the details of the re-evaluation and updating process of the 1998 study but that information would be made public in the coming weeks. Hurley said turnpike officials had already promised that the public would be informed and have an opportunity to give input during that process.
Bartell said he encouraged Hurley to get a letter to the commission soon because he knows he was not the only person confused by the messages sent on Tuesday.
He also said that as far as he is concerned, until he sees justification for the parkway extension, "no build is still on the table."
Hurley doesn't disagree with Bartell on that point. The commission's vote of community support is necessary for the project to move forward.
"There is such a crying need for transportation projects in the state of Florida. So many projects are needed in so many places, why would we ever push a project in a community that doesn't want it?" she said.
Barbara Behrendt can be reached at 564-3621 or behrendt@sptimes.com.