AGENDA ITEM 2: Public Forum There were no speakers for the public forum.

WEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (Designated Staff) NICEVILLE COMMUNITY CENTER, 204 N. Partin Drive,, FL JUNE 17, 2010 Members Attending: Yvonne Earle, Chairperson Dale Blanchard Annie Cameron Russell Christesen William Conyers Charles Dean Covey Wayland B. Davis Charlene Greenwald Tony Namlick Bill Readdy Bob Reid Hugh Thornber Smith Pam Smith Thomas Stein Diane VanOeveren Okaloosa County Valparaiso Destin Ft. Walton Beach Freeport Ft. Walton Beach Ft. Walton Beach Santa Rosa Beach Destin Others Attending: John Alaghemand DRMP Mary Bo Robinson TPO Staff Ben Faust DRMP Nick Nickoloff` TPO Staff Gene Martin PBS&J Mary Beth Washnock TPO Staff Rusty Williams FDOT Dorothy McKenzie TPO Staff Tim Smith FDOT Bob Baronti TPO Staff Jim DeVries FDOT Elizabeth Schrey TPO Staff Zena Riley FDOT AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order. Chairperson Earle called the meeting to order. She announced it would be the last meeting Mr. Nick Nickoloff would be attending for the CAC. She expressed her gratitude for the great job he has done, and stated that he would be missed terribly. Mr. Nickoloff said he enjoyed working with the CAC. AGENDA ITEM 2: Public Forum There were no speakers for the public forum. AGENDA ITEM 3: Approval of April 15, 2010 Meeting Minutes. Mr. Namlick moved for approval of the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Davis and uunanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM 4: Enclosure A Consideration of Resolution O-W 10-15 to Amend the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Cost Feasible Plan to Include the Four-laning of US 331 from Owls Head to Edgewood Circle, the Design Phase of Four-laning of US 331 from Edgewood Circle to 1-10, and the SR 85/Duke Field/7 th Special Forces Unit Overpass Mr. Wiley Page, of PBS&J, advised that the amendment is subject to all requirements, such as public involvement, as required in the adoption of the LRTP. He said a public hearing would be held at the TPO meeting on June 17, 2010. Public involvement meetings were held for the amendments for the Cost Feasible Plan on May 11, 2010 and May 13, 2010.

JUNE 17, 2010 PAGE 2 Mr. Page said SR 85 interchange at Duke Field had a signal, and ultimately needed to have an interchange to support traffic of new facilities. The project was to be federally funded for approximately $15 million from Defense Access money, which was to be new money to the LRTP. Mr. Page reported there were two segments for the project for US 331, running from Owls Head to Edgewood Circle, and Edgewood Circle to I-10. The segment from Owls Head was to be widened to four lanes, receiving funding from various sources. This was considered new money in that it is from the Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP). Some resurfacing dollars were being used, as well as local county dollars. The project is estimated to cost $11 million. They were continuing the segment from Edgewood to I-10 with four lanes. Mr. Stein asked if consideration was ever given to doing the northern half because the northern segment traffic is heavier. Mr. Page advised he did not know, although they could look into it. Mr. Page stated that the next step would include the adoption of the amendments at the TPO meeting later that day, and transmittal of those amendments to Federal Highway and FDOT. Mr. Hugh Thornber Smith asked where the new money is generated from. Mr. Jim DeVries advised that it was not really new money, but rather new money to the Cost Feasible Plan. He said for this project they were using resurfacing funds, and TRIP funds. It was new money to the Cost Feasible Plan, but not new to FDOT s program. Mr. Namlick asked if they needed to add something to the Resolution to clarify the federal funds for the overpass for SR 85. He referred to the final paragraph in the narrative where it said Special Forces Overpass design, construction, and construction and engineering funds. He said they clarified that these were federal funds, and separate from the DOT and local funds, and asked if this should be included. Ms. Washnock advised they could recommend this to the TPO. Mr. Namlick moved to recommend the TPO authorize the TPO Chairman to sign Resolution O-W 10-15, with the exception of adding the federal funds clarification, to amend the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Cost Feasible Plan to include the four-laning of US 331 from Owls Head to Edgewood Circle, the design phase of four-laning of US 331 from Edgewood Circle to I-10, and the SR 85/Duke Field 7 th Special /Forces Unit overpass. The motion was seconded by Ms. Greenwald and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM 5: Enclosure B Consideration of Resolution O-W 10-16 to Adopt the FY 2011-2015 Transportation Improvement Program - Chairperson Earle called Ms. Elizabeth Schrey to speak. Ms. Schrey advised that the draft of the TIP was online for review. She said they added project links to the projects, and corrected the phase codes. Also, they enhanced the online map to be user friendly, and added a user s manual. Ms. Schrey reported that they added the SR 85 at Duke Field interchange project to the draft. Mr. Namlick moved to recommend the TPO authorize the TPO Chairman to sign Resolution O-W 10-16 to adopt the FY 2011-2015 Transportation Improvement Program. The motion was seconed by Mr. Covey and unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM 6: Enclosure C Consideration of Resolution 10-14 to Adopt the Eglin Parkway (SR85) Corridor Management Plan (CMP) - Mr. Alaghemand advised the draft of the CMP was posted on the FDOT website. He said the plan would be posted on the website after it is finalized. It would be presented to the local government in July. Mr. Davis asked if they found any unique things, not covered in the project, during the study. Mr.

JUNE 17, 2010 PAGE 3 Alaghemand said there were no unique items, and that it was like any corridor that requires some safety and operational improvements at intersections. He stated they may not need a signal at the intersection at Hospital Drive because traffic no longer warrants it. Mr. Davis asked if the original profile of the road bed was going to remain the same, with the low drainage problems. Mr. Alaghemand said they identified several drainage areas throughout the corridor, and were hoping that when resurfacing they would be able to resolve some of the areas. Mr. Readdy said when it rains it becomes an impassable area, and suggested larger pipes. Mr. Alaghemand advised that the problem areas were highlighted, and could be considered part of resurfacing projects. Ms. VanOeveren asked if they were only marking the lights that have an issue. She also asked if they could create some footnotes, or a page of code words, next time. The term reverse condition geometric enhancement was used, and she was not sure what that meant. Mr. Alaghemand said there were more explanations in the report. In reference to the drainage discussion, Ms. VanOeveren asked where the drainage was presently going, i.e., if it was going into the bayous in a semi-untreated state requiring treatment. Mr. Alaghemand said they did not get into drainage in detail; however, it was normal to treat the water before it was dumped into the bayou. Mr. Smith readdressed the drainage problem that was brought up at Mary Esther. He said it may be too hard to handle because it currently is grandfathered in and dumped into the bay. He continued by stating that modifications would probably require treatments in catch ponds. He asked how they should go about doing something of this magnitude, and considered it a major safety item. Mr. Alaghemand said his recommendation was to consider this a separate project, because drainage is a major task to review. Mr. Nickoloff responded by stating that drainage is not an issue being addressed in the study, and not the purpose of corridor management planning. Even so, they are trying to bring the problem areas to DOT s attention. In the case of SR 85, it was hoped that DOT could address some of the drainage issues in the resurfacing project. Mr. Nickoloff continued that all they can do as the TPO is bring it to the attention of DOT, or the local government responsible for the drainage. He said the drainage was brought to their attention on SR 85 as part of the resurfacing project. He advised they could make a motion to request DOT to look at a drainage problem in a particular area. Mr. Namlick asked if the drainage problem was a maintenance cleaning out problem, or if it was a structural deficiency in the movement of water. Mr. Alaghemand said it could be a combination. He continued by stating some of the problem of the pavement holding the water could be corrected by resurfacing. He also said that in a more detailed study it could be the conveyance is not sufficient to handle that much run off. Mr. Covey said the last time they paved SR 85 the drainage was a problem, and they did some work to alleviate the problem in the Racetrack and SR 85 area, although there was still a large problem. Mr. Nickoloff said the problem could be the road itself, or the adjacent development that has occurred with an impervious surface with run off onto the road. It could be a land use problem or a roadway drainage deficiency problem. Mr. Nickoloff stated they could bring the drainage issues to DOT for their consideration, and ask them to respond without the expectation that they would fund a project. Ms. Cameron said she thought there should be coordination between the storm water run off management in Okaloosa.

JUNE 17, 2010 PAGE 4 Mr. Smith said the tabulation for the other things was approximately $6 million. He asked where that money would come from, and how the items would be implemented. Mr. Nickoloff replied by stating they had $1.3 million currently programmed. He thought it was in 2015 of the current DOT five-year work program. The purpose of the funding was to fund the projects identified in the study. It was to be an ongoing pool of money with $1.3 million being programmed in successive years. As the study was finished they would try to get the required projects finished, and the next corridor would be Beal Pkwy. from Mary Esther Blvd. to Racetrack Road. Then the funding would be used to fund projects identified in the study done in the coming year. Mr. Smith moved to recommend the TPO authorize the TPO Chairman to sign Resolution 10-14 to adopt the Eglin Parkway (SR85) CMP. The motion was seconded by Mr. Namlick and unanimously approved. Mr. Smith said he thought the CAC ought to express major concern that the drainage issue has not been addressed in the Corridor Management Plan. Mr. Namlick seconded. Mr. Stein verified that it was going to be addressed with DOT. Chairperson Earle said it should go to the county and DOT. Ms. Washnock read back the motion for clarification stating, The CAC has a major concern that the drainage was not properly addressed in the Corridor Management Plan. Mr. Smith said it was not addressed at all. Mr. Stein said it did have a drainage portion in the document, so they needed to refer to the document drainage section. It was stated that it was not addressed in depth, and that in depth needed to be added. Ms. Pam Smith asked if they should offer specifics. Chairperson Earle said Eglin Parkway, Shalimar or Racetrack would be some specifics. Chairperson Earle said multiple comments had been raised regarding poor drainage during the public involvement phase of the project, and that the CAC wanted to re-emphasize the issue. Ms. Washnock asked if it would be expedient for staff to draft a letter and bring it back to the next meeting. It was decided to advise the TPO that day and write a letter to bring back to the CAC. Ms. Washnock asked what the specific concerns were that were to be addressed in the letter. Concerns were as follows: 1) Water can t flow off the surface fast enough to make it safe, 2) Shalimar by the courthouse-- drains are in the middle of the road. Same situation exists on Hollywood, Mary Esther, 3) Racetrack and Eglin, 4) Between Cinco Bayou Bridge and Racetrack.--undersized pipe to take away water. The question was asked what FDOT does with drainage. Mr. DeVries said they have probably looked at every drainage problem on the road. He said the TPO could ask FDOT to readdress it, and asked for a list. Ms. VanOeveren asked about an idea that Destin had implemented. All the manholes from Airport Road to Benning on 98 had giant washing machine type devices to collect debris off the road before it gets dumped into the harbor. She asked if they were successful or if it was an idea that sounded good but didn t work. Mr. DeVries said he did not know if they worked. He said to compile on the project, and they could ask their district engineer. Ms. VanOeveren requested Mr. DeVries to ask the TCC people if they are still functioning in Destin, and if was a good idea to consider for Eglin Pkwy. Ms. Washnock said she could ask the TCC if she had more information. Mr. Davis said there were two people on the board that experienced a total blackout from rain on their windshields. Mr. Blanchard said if they looked at the map they could pick out areas. He named Beachview Drive to Patton Drive, before Cinco Bayou, including the entire area around the big curve. He said he had been blacked out there about a month ago. Ms. Washnock asked to clarify what they were going to do as there was a motion and a second on the floor. She said they wanted to express to the TPO that there were concerns about the drainage plan within the

JUNE 17, 2010 PAGE 5 CMP. Specifically, it was not in depth enough. She said she had three places listed and they needed to clarify that, and if they had additional locations she wanted those. She said they would express it to the TCC, as well as the TPO. She listed the following: Shalimar Courthouse, and Hollywood and Mary Esther. Mr. Smith asked if she was proposing these in the motion. Ms. Washnock said she was asking what to put in the motion. Chairperson Earle said Mr. DeVries wanted specific areas. Mr. Smith said that he thought it was the responsibility of the TCC, and staff, to name the areas. Chairperson Earle said they could give examples, such as Racetrack and Eglin, Shalimar area near the courthouse and post office, and just north of the Cinco Bridge. Ms. Washnock confirmed that these were just examples. Ms. Washnock read the motion: The CAC has a major concern that drainage was not addressed in depth in this Corridor Management Plan, and to give examples such as Racetrack and Eglin, north of Cinco Bayou Bridge on Eglin, and Shalimar in front of the post office and courthouse. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Washnock said she would work with Chairperson Earle, and send her a draft. AGENDA ITEM 7: Enclosure G Consideration of Resolution O-W 10-18 to Approve Regional Bonding Priorities Ranking Criteria and the Draft Regional Bonding Priorities for Inclusion in the Feasibility Study of Advance Funding of Transportation Capacity Projects Mr. Page said this process was being undertaken because of action taken in the 2009 legislative session, House Bill 5013. The Regional TPO was instructed to undertake the study of looking at the feasibility of advanced funding projects within DOT s work program through the use of bonds. It was determined that they can issue bonds and move things forward in the work program. Mr. Page advised that the Legislation called for the development of a plan. The Florida-Alabama and Okaloosa-Walton TPOs developed the plans, and the Regional TPO used input from those plans to prepare priority lists. One list was made to do the bonding study, using the priority ranking criteria that the Regional TPO developed. There was discussion about how to recognize local government funding for phases of projects. It was decided that funding contributions would be used to add points in the ranking criteria. Ms. Washnock advised that the item went before the Florida-Alabama TPO, and they approved the criteria, and the list of projects, based on the criteria. Mr. Smith said the list was worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and potentially a bond issue of $30-40 million could be floated. He said it was feasible to do that, but not practical. He continued to say he did not remember discussions in January about how much it would constrain the TPO and staff in discretionary monies over 30 years. He asked if a fourth was set aside, what would be left for emergencies. He thought the whole issue should be readdressed. He said it had nothing to do with approving what they had before them, but rather someplace along the line it was authorized and funded, although he did not understand that that was what had occurred in the January meeting. Mr. Page said a lot of Mr. Smith s comments were echoed throughout the entire process. Mr. Smith said it started with an Escambia County commissioner coming in three or four years ago promoting the idea, apparently with no knowledge of how much was available to do it. Mr. Smith stated he could understand the Regional TPO supporting it because it was about the only way they would get any money. Mr. Page said they were moving ahead into the legislative discussion, and it would indicate the reasons behind making a list. He continued to say that while there was a limited amount of money, it was a methodology allowing projects in the DOT work program in the fourth or fifth year. When the projects come forward, it would be like a revolving line of credit, and as they are paid off they can do the next

JUNE 17, 2010 PAGE 6 phase. By utilizing this strategy they would get things done quicker. The debt is paid off in a four or five year period, and then they could re-bond money to move to other phases of the project, or move other projects forward. Mr. Smith said Mr. Page was implying that new money was coming along all the time; although apparently he could only project $2.5 to $3 million each year, at most over 30 years. Mr. Martin said Mr. Smith was taking the $30-40 million as an absolute amount; however, it was an amount based on a picture that was taken on the last adopted work program. He continued to say the variable is that the Legislature allows up to 25% of the discretionary funds in the region, to pay the debt service on a bond. He said it fluctuates from year to year, and it grows as time goes along. The $30-40 million was a number that they had to use to kick it off to get some reasonable explanation of size. They had to know what the priorities were and how they rank them, in order to determine what the costs are, and what they can phase. He said they are going to advance one phase at a time until they accomplish a project. He said they were thinking about floating a single bond for 30 years, which is the length of time the Legislature authorized the life of the program. Mr. Martin said they can float a 30-year bond, capturing an amount of money that can be justified currently, and go home and pay for it. He related that they are also promoting working on a project-byproject basis. They can project into the next five years that the Department is planning to fund the project. Then they pull the money in, advance of the phase, and use the money that the Department has programmed to basically retire the bond. Then they can recycle, or revolve it and move to the next phase of the project, or move to the phase of another project and pull it in when they can see that the Department has the funding for another project. He said they are all following the same priority list, and the Department is going to fund the future phases based on the priority list. They are going to be putting together agreements with the Department to deal with the repayment and the refunding of the money back to them. He said they are simply in the latter scenario of bonding the money with a five or six year window to repay it, and take the bond out of the picture. Mr. Blanchard asked if each county is responsible for approving the bonding. Mr. Martin said this was discussed in the January meeting, and the TPOs and counties did not want to be held liable. He continued by stating that as they drafted the legislation, they drafted it in the legislation that the authority does not have the ability to encumber or obligate the counties for any repayment. It is subject to legislative action. Mr. Stein said they were borrowing money to build something sooner, and the cost would be more because they would be adding interest. Mr. Martin said they were borrowing money at a rate to advance something, and the whole premise of it was that the interest rate they were borrowing with was less than the inflation rate of later construction. He stated that if construction prices go up 5% over the next five years, they would be looking at approximately a 33% increase in today s estimated cost for a project, or a phase compared to the fifth year out. He said there are other factors besides interest to be considered such as bond costs which could make it higher than just the interest rate. Mr. Stein said they would be committing the future generations to pay for the present improvements. Mr. Namlick stated that presently they were just asking for approval of the criteria; however, the concept is one of living beyond their means, on a credit mechanism. He asked if it was too early to stop the process. Mr. Martin said it was not too early to stop the process. He said there were two processes. They could have the priorities and criteria set to move forward and answer the question, or they could decide whether it is feasible based on unknown projects, unknown costs, and then try to decide if the concept moves forward.

JUNE 17, 2010 PAGE 7 Chairperson Earle said if they don t do anything she would do a project, such as the four-laning of 123 costing millions of dollars. She pointed out that the PD&E was ongoing and that nothing else was scheduled. She said she realized they were moving to the future and taking the future taxpayers money. She asked if that was worse than everybody being in line to go a short distance. Mr. Martin said if you hypothetically set everything aside, and say they have the means to borrow $100 million tomorrow to make it move forward; they could come home with the money Friday although it doesn t mean that Monday they could start building. There would still be phases to go through such as the PD&E, the design, the right-ofway acquisition, and construction. It could take six or seven years before they could drive on it. He stated they were talking about advancing phases, not projects. He said it would not make a project complete immediately. Ms. VanOeveren compared the situation to a mortgage, and said that the State told them they could not spend more than 25% of their income on a mortgage, which is a good business figure. She stated that a small mortgage has more fixed costs attached than a large mortgage. She said this was Mr. Smith s concern about the cost of floating a bond. She asked if they agree on a concept, if they could tie it to a large mortgage offering that maybe TPOs all over the State do, so it is not a $30-40 million one, but it is a $300-400 million one that the whole State is going for. She thought maybe they could benefit from the State s credit rating at the same time. Mr. Martin said no one else in the State was authorized to do this in this form. The process was being undertaken to establish a procedure by which it could be done, and enables the Legislation to move forward. Mr. Davis said if you follow the money, someone is going to win big. He asked, with all the corruption that there has been in the past year or so, if they would not be the Legislature s enablers for alleged potential white-collar crime by voiding the public s right to vote on bonding and taxation. He said they would be kingmakers if they agree on a concept of feasibility that would allow the Northwest Florida Regional Authority to capture all the construction in Northwest Florida. He said future generations would be at the mercy of the kingmaker, and he did not believe in making one kingmaker. Mr. Readdy moved that they do not accept Resolution O-W 10-18. The motion was seconded by Mr. Namlick. Ms. Pam Smith related that during the last few meetings they seemed to be moving more into political rhetoric. She asked that they address issues, and stated that they can succinctly state their opposition or support. She expressed that some of the rhetoric was coming across as hostility, and hostility directed sometimes towards some of their presenters. She felt they were not always being respectful towards their speakers by way of the tone that was used to ask questions and comment. Chairperson Earle said their voices are the elected officials, who are TPO. Mr. Namlick said if the CAC is to reduce their scope of review, things like the issue being discussed didn t belong on the CAC agenda. He thought it should just go to the TPO and let the TPO decide. Ms. Smith voiced that she thought they need to be careful about hostility, and show respect for each other. Chairperson Earle said she did not think they ever showed hostility towards members of the audience, and said she was sorry if they ever did. She also expressed her appreciation for staff. Mr. Thornber Smith said it needed serious review as to whether it was advantageous for the citizens. At the request of the Chairperson Ms. Washnock said they had a motion to not accept the resolution by Mr. Readdy, and Mr. Namlick seconded. Ms. VanOeveren said she thought if they obligate the money, the elected officials could not use the money elsewhere. They could obligate the money to large projects and it would make the world change more vastly than perceived it could now. Ms. VanOeveren advised supporting mechanisms for the larger projects, which would result in less money to fritter away on little projects.

JUNE 17, 2010 PAGE 8 Mr. Reid said the concept was based on three pages of prioritized projects, and anticipated growth requiring the projects. He asked what they would do if some unanticipated environmental disaster occurred to Northwest Florida that changed things, stopping the growth. Ms. VanOeveren said a number of the projects were needed when the growth was five million people less. She said it looked like they were considering an evacuation route for Pensacola and travel to I-10. She said US 98 and I-10 are usually deemed to be two-thirds transit through the State, and maybe one-third local people moving around. She said unless things change on both ends of the world, some of the people would still be using US 98, SR 29, I-10, and so forth. She said those who wanted to get out in the event of a hurricane, or go somewhere like the airport, would be added to the deal. She thought these were level E and F projects already, so they were just bringing them up to C. She said Florida generally only considers growth that is already there, instead of great growth. Ms. Greenwald stated that she would support anything that would get them to SR 65, or the route up to Atlanta. She said finding a decent route to go north was stressful. Chairperson Earle called for a vote on the motion. A show of hands was called for to not accept the resolution. The motion passed 9-5 to not accept Resolution O-W 18. Mr. Smith addressed Mr. Martin, stating that he thought they were misdirected. He said he thought the basic issue was that they were challenging the entire concept. He asked to add to the discussion balancing off inflation rates with interest rates. He also said there is a significant amount of overhead when considering a bond issue. He said that detracted from what can actually be built. Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Smith, and advised that the consultant s role was not to guide or lead in any direction their decision, but rather to write the legislation if they decided to move forward. He also stated that the consultant puts together numbers to provide the CAC with information. AGENDA ITEM 8: Enclosure H Election of TPO Chair and Vice-Chair for FY2011 (July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011) Chairperson Earle informed members that the nominating committee consisted of Mr. Smith, Mr. Namlick, and Mr. Christesen. The committee recommended Mr. Steve Czonstka to be the Chairman, and Ms. Yvonne Earle as the Vice Chairperson. Mr. Namlick moved to nominate Mr. Czonstka to become Chairman of the CAC for the upcoming year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith. Mr. Readdy questioned why they would change the order of chair and vice chair: Ms. Earle was Chair, and Mr. Czonstka was Vice Chair. He said it ran well and he did not see a need to change. Mr. Davis moved to reinstate Ms. Earle as the Chairperson for the CAC; seconded by Ms. Greenwald. Mr. Namlick withdrew the nominating committee s first motion. The vote was unanimous to reinstate Ms. Yvonne Earle as the Chair, for FY2011. Mr. Reid moved to reinstate Mr. Steve Czonstka as the Vice Chair for FY 2011; Mr. Davis seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved. AGENDA ITEM 9: Enclosure J Consideration of Walter King as a New Member of the TPO s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Ms. Washnock said they were presenting for consideration Mr. Walter King as a new member of the TPO s Citizens Advisory Committee. She advised Mr. King was from DeFuniak Springs, and that to date DeFuniak Springs was not represented. Mr. Namlick moved to approve Mr. Walter King as a CAC member; Ms. Greenwald seconded. Mr. Thornber Smith said it was a requirement that the new member attend the meeting when voted on. Mr. Stein suggested waiting until the next meeting, and allow Mr. King the opportunity to attend the meeting. Mr. Smith moved that they table the nomination; Ms. Greenwald seconded. Mr. Namlick withdrew his motion. Chairperson Earle said there was no representation from Crestview or Mary Esther. Mr. Stein moved to table the item; Mr. Davis seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved.

JUNE 17, 2010 PAGE 9 AGENDA ITEM 10: Enclosure L TPO Meeting Schedule Chairperson Earle advised the next meeting would be held August 19, 2010. Ms. Schrey reported that priority workshops were to be held during July. All Committee and TPO members were to be invited to attend the workshops. AGENDA ITEM 11: Other Business - Ms. Washnock announced the Horizon 2060 Regional Workshops the Florida Department of Transportation was hosting. They would be held in Marianna the evening of June 17, 2010 at the Jackson County Agricultural Conference Center; and in Pensacola on June 22, 2010 at the Baptist Medical Park on University Parkway. With reference to the bonding for advanced projects, Mr. Smith asked if there was to be some gono-go decision point in the future. Ms. Mary Robinson responded that the Northwest Florida Regional TPO, the Florida-Alabama TPO, and the Okaloosa-Walton TPO, have jointly taken on the project at the direction of the Legislature. She said they are required to submit it to the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate. She thought the concerns expressed at the CAC meeting were valid as to what might happen with the information that they provide in their report. She said all they were trying to do at this point was to give them information that was requested. She further stated that the Legislature extended the deadline that was originally February of 2010 to February 2011. Ms. Robinson said they intend to complete the information and finalize the report by August 2010. Mr. Smith asked what the vehicle to the Legislature is. Ms. Robinson said it is directly to the President, the Speaker, and the Governor from the Northwest Regional TPO. Staff will transmit it under the cover of the TPO Chairman. Mr. Smith said therefore there was no vested interest by their senators or local representatives as they were not sponsors. Ms. Robinson said there was a local representative that moved it through in the 2009 session, being Mr. Greg Evers. Ms. Greenwald asked if Mr. Gordon Goodin was the original person recommending. Ms. Robinson said it was Commissioner Valentino from Escambia County. Chairperson Earle thanked Mr. Nick Nickoloff for his service. AGENDA ITEM 13: Adjourn There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Approved by CAC Date: Signed: