A proposed change in procedure for Sarasota's Charter Review Board

A follow-up to the most recent Charter Review Board meeting, at which Bob Waechter submitted an amendment to the Sarasota County Charter, and the Board agreed to review it at its next meeting. Neither Waechter nor the Board disclosed the content of the amendment, but a person in attendance requested a copy and read aloud from it. It proposed to change the Board from an elected panel to an appointed Board.

Following the meeting, one person who'd been in attendance sent an email to each member of the Board. A copy is below:

To the Charter Review Board: 

I attended your Jan. 20th, 2016 meeting. Much of the discussion involved efforts on your part to be more meticulous about procedure. While this is laudable, I was surprised to learn that you do not routinely make the texts of proposed amendments docketed for review easily available to the public. 

Not publishing proposed amendments as soon as you receive them fails to provide open participation to the public in this process. These are, after all, amendments that could eventually impact great numbers of people. While you appear conscientious about allotting time for the pubic to speak at meetings, it would be consistent for you to adopt a rule or bylaw to the effect that proposed amendments need to be published promptly upon submission to the Board. 

This can be easily accomplished if you would require all amendments to be submitted via digital format -- in a pdf or text file that then could be posted to your page on the county's site. Virtually no resources or storage space would be required for this purpose. 

With this procedure in place, amendment proposals could be shared with the general public via the Internet on many sites, virtually immediately upon submission. One result would be more informed meetings, as those attending will have had time to read and consider new proposals. 

Another benefit: You would avoid even the appearance of impropriety as was raised at the Jan. 20th meeting in which several members of the public objected to Mr. Waechter's proposal being submitted and set for review without having shared its title or intent with those present in the meeting chamber. I understand this was not the first time Mr. Waechter had appeared with his amendment, but for myself and other first-timers, there was a sense of inappropriate secretiveness. 

If you do not have staffing for this purpose, I'm sure we can find a public-minded citizen who can create a dedicated site whose sole purpose would be to publish amendments submitted to the board at no charge in a timely manner. 

Thank you for considering these thoughts. 

Thomas Matrullo
Sarasota, FL

Several days later, Donna Barcomb, Chairman of the CRB, responded:

Dear Mr. Matrullo, 

I do not know why we haven't published proposed amendments previously however I think it is a good idea. I do believe we need to address this as well as some other procedural "rules" or by-law amendments. 

Thank you, 

Donna Barcomb

Ms Barcomb is the only member of the Board to respond to date. She will be stepping down from the Chair to be succeeded by Richard Dorfman. Other members of the Board include: Anthony Sawyer; Pat Wayman; John Fellin; Steven Fields; Joe Justice; Jim Gabbert, and Bruce Dillon

The Sarasota Charter Review Board, Waechter, and Public Process

From today's Herald Tribune:

Bob Waechter, Sarasota County's former GOP chief, gave the board a proposed written charter amendment calling for the board members to be appointed, rather than the current system which elects the members. He said he would discuss the details during the next meeting. 

Waechter's proposal calls for a 15-member appointed board chosen by county commissioners and other officials. The move, the proposal states, would not disenfranchise voters. 

“It is time, after 24 years, to again ask the voters what they think,” he wrote.

At the Charter Review Board's meeting last night, Waechter handed copies of his proposal to members of the Charter Review Board, but did not say what it contained. The Board then agreed to consider Waechter's proposed amendment at its next meeting, in May.

Bob Waechter handing his proposed charter amendment to
Sarasota County's Charter Review Board

A board whose purpose is to publicly consider amendments to Sarasota County government thus accepted and voted to formally review a proposal whose contents were undisclosed -- until one citizen in attendance stood up, asked for a copy of the proposal, and stated that in fact it does call for an appointed, rather than publicly elected, panel.

Currently amendment proposals submitted to the Board are not published. To find out what they contain, one needs to go to the Clerk of the Court's office and seek them out.

Should proposals for Charter amendments be submitted for review without public awareness? Would it not be more consistent with the Board's purpose for it to adopt a procedure something like this:

1. Require all proposed amendments to be submitted as a digital file - preferably a pdf. 

2. Publish all amendments accepted for consideration to the Internet with reasonable promptness - within 24 hours of submission, for example. 

3. Make the CRB site known to the public so that the actions and process of the Board become more widely known.

The amount of computational power and storage to handle this chore is minimal. If the Board needs help, it can write to us at sarasotavision@gmail.com. We'll be happy to help.

The spectacle of Mr. Waechter handing his papers to the officials while refusing to even state what his amendment contained smacked of disdain for public awareness -- even as his apparent desire to do away with the public's involvement in choosing Board members suggests a peculiar disregard for democratic process.


Election of officers

The Board concluded its session with an election of officers for the coming year:

• Richard Dorfman - Chairman.

• Anthony Sawyer - Vice Chair

• Jim Gabbert - Chair Pro Tem

Cathy Antunes urges anyone interested in how Sarasota County operates to be at the May meeting of the CRB:

• Go to the May CRB meeting!  Mr. Waechter is proposing that our Charter Review Board be an appointed rather than an elected body.  It will be critical for citizens to show up and speak out against this proposal. Her commentary in full is here.

Tell the Board what you think: Email The Charter Review Board

Lobeck: The Cabal and the Charter Review Board - UPDATE

As a follow-up to the email below, please email the Charter Review Board to tell them not to take away our right to elect the Charter Review Board by making it appointed by the County Commission:
Email The Charter Review Board

Protect Our Right to Elect the

Charter Review Board




Unlike other communities, Sarasota County has an independent, elected Charter Review Board with the power to put Charter amendments directly on the ballot for a public vote. That avoids the need to get over 14,000 signatures or a vote of the County Commission.

Developers and their supporters are scared by that. They know that given the opportunity the people will vote for measures to rein in their control over local politicians and policies, as they have over the years.

On Wednesday, January 20, the developer cabal will make another effort to take away the citizens’ right to elect the Charter Review Board. The CRB will hear a proposal to do that, as requested by Bob Waechter, the long-time henchman of the developers, who works each election year to recruit candidates to the developers’ liking.

You may remember Bob Waechter, who stole the identity of a candidate for County Commission and sought to discredit her by making false campaign contributions in her name, and was charged with a felony as a result (to add to a prior felony conviction).

The Wednesday meeting will be at 6 pm at the Anderson Center, County Commission chambers, at 4000 South Tamiami Trail in Venice.

Citizens will have a chance to speak against this proposal during Open to the Public at the beginning of the meeting, for up to 5 minutes each.

If the CRB votes to approve the proposal for consideration, it will go to a CRB committee for consideration and then back to the CRB for final approval of a motion (which requires a 2/3 affirmative vote) to place the change on the ballot.

On May 6, 2009, the developers lost a previous effort in the Charter Review Board, by a tie vote, to have a committee consider taking away the citizens right to elect the body. They lost a previous effort to do the same thing in 2006, by a 6 to 3 vote of CRB members against it.

In the 1980’s and early 90’s, the Charter Review Board sponsored good measures, which were approved by the voters, to create $200 campaign contribution limits for local politicians, to require voter approval for the County to raise property taxes or deepen taxpayer debt beyond certain limits, to require full disclosure of property owners seeking rezonings and to require testimony under oath at rezone hearings so that developers tell the truth.

The problem is that it takes a two-thirds vote of the Charter Review Board to put a measure on the ballot and about half its members currently tend to go along with the opponents of citizen power.

This got that way when those forces recruited and supported candidates to take over the Charter Review Board in 1994, in reaction to a Charter Review Board proposal to amend the County Charter to provide a right of citizen initiative and referendum over County ordinances.

Since 1994, the Charter Review Board has done little but attempt to repeal or weaken the reforms added to the Charter by a pro-reform Charter Review Board in the 1980's and early 1990's. They tried to repeal the tax cap but the voters turned them down. They tried to tie the borrowing cap to annual increases in real estate values but the voters turned them down (later approving a much more modest indexing of the limit to the consumer price index). They tried to repeal the campaign contribution limits (because as we know the developers are the ones who like to pour the big bucks into campaigns) but again the voters turned them down

Ultimately, the anti-reformers want to take away the citizens’ right to elect their Charter Review Board and just make it a committee of the County Commission.

The CRB was right in 2009 and 2006 to preserve the citizens’ right to elect an independent, elected Charter Review Board as a source to put measures on the ballot to protect and enhance citizen rights and interests.

Five of the ten Charter Review Board members are up for election every two years, to a four-year term. Candidates run from five districts (the same as the County Commission districts) but all votes are county-wide. It is a partisan election, so there is a primary as well as the November general election.

Three factors favor running for Charter Review Board rather than other political offices:

1) There is no filing fee.
2) The position is a fairly minimal commitment, as the Charter Review Board meets infrequently, in evening meetings.
3) The financial disclosure requirement is minimal, requiring the listing only of significant property, debts, business interests and sources of income, with no amounts.

Citizens who favor citizens’ rights and interests belong on the Charter Review Board. Anyone who would act contrary to those rights and interests do not.

The vote Wednesday on whether to take away the citizens’ right to elect our Charter Review Board is an important one.

-- Dan Lobeck

An email from Cathy Antunes

This email is dated Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016  [links added]:

Hello all,

Our County Charter is our local constitution.  It has served us well, and has been a way for citizens to shape and guide our County government.

On Wednesday night the Charter Review Board (CRB) will meet at 6 p.m. in Venice. On the agenda: a twenty-minute presentation from Bob Waechter.

Some news reports indicate Mr. Waechter may present on reducing citizen input to the CRB and/or suggesting that CRB members be appointed, not elected, Other reports indicate Mr. Waechter may be acting as a "placeholder" and someone else will present on the topic of a common law grand jury. 

Why is the Charter Review Board accepting counsel from Mr. Waechter at all?

As you may remember, a Publix surveillance videotape showed Mr. Waechter purchasing a debit card in the name of a Republican candidate, which he later used to donate to Democrats in her name.  The FBI wanted our state attorney to give Waechter's felony identity theft case to them, but the state attorney refused and permitted Mr. Waechter to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.  Through his actions Mr. Waechter has displayed complete contempt for the integrity of our local elections. 

Tomorrow night you have the opportunity to witness what recycled or completely new approach may be proposed by Mr. Waechter (or his designee) to undermine citizen input through the County Charter.  Show up and learn how the CRB functions, question why Mr. Waechter is advising them, see what may be unfolding at the outset to reduce your voice in your government. 

At last week's Republic Executive Committee meeting CRB board member Richard Dorfman shared that Mr. Waechter and his cohorts may propose abolishing the Charter Review Board - a bizarre suggestion.  

The CRB and our County Charter exist to serve the public.  Let's keep it that way.

Cathy Antunes 

Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government.


*Meeting details:

January 20, 2016         6:00 p.m

Charter Review Board Regular Meeting

Robert L. Anderson Administration Center

4000 South Tamiami Trail

Commission Chamber

Venice, FL 

The Charter Review Board gives citizens 5 minutes each to provide public input.  Public input typically begins at 6:05 pm.  Please attend and speak for preserving publicly elected CRB officials and time for public input during CRB meetings.

More on this:

http://thedetail.net/2016/01/13/waechterians-at-the-gate/

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20151018/ARTICLE/151019643/0/APN

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20160118/ARTICLE/160119621/0/APN?p=1&tc=pg

What does Waechter want at the Charter Review Board?

From The Detail:

Waechterians at the Gate

January 13, 2016 cathycantunes@gmail.com Corruption, County Charter, County Elections, Elections, Ethics, Sarasota GOP 

Your presence is kindly requested at the January 20th Charter Review Board meeting.* Here’s why:

We have a lot to celebrate and give thanks for in Sarasota. Sarasota County is a “home rule” county—one of 21 counties in the state of Florida with a County Charter. Sarasota County instituted a local constitution, or County Charter, in 1971. Amendments to our County Charter can be initiated by citizen petition, the County Commission or the Charter Review Board. The CRB works on behalf of the citizens of Sarasota County to review and recommend changes to the County Charter for improvement of County government. Charter amendments are put to referendum for voter approval. It’s a system which has served us well. But in the past decade we’ve seen numerous proposals, each one defeated, which would have undermined citizen powers through the County Charter amendment process. Bob Waechter has been one of the principals in such efforts, proposing changes which would constrain effective citizen engagement in local government. Waechter is at it again.

You might remember Bob Waechter. He was caught on videotape purchasing a debit card in the name of a fellow Republican—a candidate for County Commission he wanted to defeat. He made donations to Democrats with the card. Mr. Waechter was charged with felony identity theft. Thank goodness for security cameras. Without the videotape, we’d have to rely upon the former Sarasota GOP chair’s conscience to kick in and let us know the donations were fraudulent. How long would that take? 

Continue reading at The Detail

*Meeting details:

January 20, 2016
6:00 p.m
Charter Review Board Regular Meeting
Robert L. Anderson Administration Center Commission Chamber
4000 South Tamiami Trail
Venice, FL

The Charter Review Board gives citizens 5 minutes each to provide public input. Public input typically begins at 6:05 pm. Please attend and speak for preserving publicly elected CRB officials and time for public input during CRB meetings.

Shoot first, aim later?

Letter to Ray Eubanks, of the state Dept. of Economic Opportunity from Vicki Nighswander:

Dear Mr. Eubanks, 

Safety and health are constantly brought up at County land use hearings, MPO meetings and other county and city update meetings as a paramount driving factor in considerations. However, the consequences of growth have not been embraced and brought into the decision making processes. The Comprehensive Plan is like a bible for planning purposes. It brings up and defines the communities unique variables. 

What is needed now more than ever is a dynamic process of needs assessment of the consequences of growth, not just for Sarasota County, my adopted home, but throughout this state that is experiencing huge growth and development. I would like to suggest an additional chapter for each county that requires ongoing needs assessment re. the community consequences of growth and sets plans in motion to make sure there is no further negative impact. 

Case in point in the building and development approval processes that attention be paid to not further impacting on proximity intersections that are already experiencing significant crashes. The crash data and the building approval process must start meshing. Entrances and exits from new developments and buildings must be evaluated so that the locations put the least amount of added density on already congested and high accident areas. Then it can be said for this one factor safety has been addressed. When you don't look at the ecological factors of building and development, you are missing the boat when it comes to safety and the broad spectrum of health as well. The environment has been forgiving but with growth it's reaching its saturation point and negative impacts are the result. 

Please consider a dynamic health and safety analysis on an ongoing basis focusing on the consequences of growth defined by each community on an ongoing basis. Safety and health as primary concerns of communities must be more than words. 

Here's another case in point for my area. New building has been proposed and approved for areas adjacent to I-75. The County has its traffic crash data, the state has its data. It's not put together as a health and safety concern as there is no doubt that a new community right next to a state highway with entrances and exits within a mile will cause further congestion let alone more accidents in the area. But that issue wasn't even addressed. The data wasn't put together on the County vs the State Rd intersections. I heard no discussion other than once again those in authority exclaiming that safety is first on their minds. MPO is forced into addressing accident intersections after the incident to figure out how to improve the intersection, change light patterns, change sidewalks etc. When all of this could have been thought out initially when lives and money can be saved. There is enough data out there to be on the front end of safety and health in the building approval process.

Thank you for your consideration.
The consequences of growth are upon us. 

Sincerely,
Vicki Nighswander MAT, MPH

Cattlemen Rd. at Bee Ridge Rd. in Sarasota - a perilous intersection.

"There is no doubt that a new community right next to a state highway with entrances and exits within a mile will cause further congestion let alone more accidents in the area."

Proposed offramp delivering cars to Walmart and Wilkinson Rd., Sarasota. 

 "All of this could have been thought out initially 

when lives and money can be saved."

More retrofitting on Bee Ridge Rd.

Developer Above the Law

Pat Neal seems to think he can proceed with his controversial Perico Island project prior to and independent of legal permission:

Two days from mediation, Neal starts controversial construction on Perico Island

Bradenton Herald, Matt Johnson

PERICO ISLAND -- Two days before he's scheduled to go to court mediation over a wetland filling project, Pat Neal stood on a silty shoreline clearing to watch the first pieces of storm sewer pipe go into the ground at his newest, smallest and perhaps most controversial housing development.

The construction is the first stage of work at Harbor Sound, a four-home subdivision that Neal, chairman of Lakewood Ranch-based Neal Communities, is building for members of his family.

Under challenge for nearly a year, the project has raised the ire of local environmental groups because it includes about an acre of shore wetlands Neal wants to fill for the homes he plans to build. Those groups, which include Suncoast Waterkeeper, Sierra Club, the Florida Institute for Saltwater Heritage and Manasota-88, have lined up to oppose a Southwest Florida Water Management District permit that will allow that filling to happen. Former Manatee County Commissioner Joe McClash has headed the effort.

Even though that permit is now in dispute and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has yet to sign off on a second permit required to do the work, Neal is starting construction. He said he does not believe he will be denied permission to do the wetland work.

"I feel, ultimately, we will prevail," he said Monday. "If need be, we'll go to the highest court that has jurisdiction."

Continue reading here . . .

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/news/business/article48515295.html#storylink=cpy

"Who is this stooge?" Hiaasen on Guv's Park Plans

Carl Hiaasen: Scott’s plan would ruin our state parks

BY CARL HIAASEN

chiaasen@miamiherald.com

Gov. Rick Scott is one boot-step closer to denaturizing Florida’s state parks.

A Senate committee last week voted 7-1 to confirm Jon Steverson as Scott’s hand-picked choice to lead the shriveled and demoralized Department of Environmental Protection.

One of Steverson’s missions is to fulfill the governor’s dream of opening state parks to hunting, cattle grazing and commercial timber harvesting. The second part of Steverson’s job is to take the heat for this obscene idea, and he’s getting plenty.

Environmental leaders and citizen groups have blasted the scheme . . .

. . .

“I’m not looking to commercialize parks,” Steverson said. “And I’m not looking to ruin the park visitor experience.”

Gunfire, cowpies and logging trucks — the ideal visitor experience for you and your family!

You may wonder: Who is this stooge?

. . . 

Originally, Steverson and his staff envisioned legalized hunting only in parks larger than 1,000 acres, but the Times has reported that it’s now being considered as an option for parks of all sizes.

Such a proposal would be incomprehensible under any other governor. Blue Spring, Ichetucknee, Crystal River, Cedar Key, the Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock to name a few — these parks are sanctuaries treasured by Floridians.

Steverson says each one will be evaluated individually before any changes are are made. Based on his actions so far, there’s no chance he’ll do the right thing.

The governor’s obvious philosophy is that public lands don’t really belong to the public, but rather exist to be privately exploited.

MORE at the Miami Herald . . .

See also: A letter of concern about Florida's state parks

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/carl-hiaasen/article45660777.html#storylink=cp

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/carl-hiaasen/article45660777.html#storylink=c

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/carl-hiaasen/article45660777.html#storylink=cpy

A letter of concern about Florida parks

The following email from a three-decade veteran of DNR/DEP explores three of the threats posed to Myakka River State Park. The committee meeting he refers to (tomorrow) is taking place today NOV 18.

-----------------

Dear Chairman Dean and other Committee Members:

I am unable to attend tomorrow's committee meeting because of an important medical appointment, and am resorting to emailing you as a group.  I hope that you will give some consideration to what I am writing.  I am a little over one month retired from the Florida Park Service where I served for 29+ years, mostly in the central office.  In my positions, including supervision of the management of the park's natural and cultural resource management programs, I participated to some degree in all the discussions and decisions of the upper management team.

I regret to inform you that by all evidence at hand, the current and immediate past DEP leadership intends to change the basic mission of the Florida State Parks for the worse.  Over the last few years, DEP has already removed from the state parks' own division much of the central office oversight of the day-to-day responsibilities of managing the state park system.  These responsibilities include finance and accounting, planning interpretive services for the public, managing park concessionaires, design and construction of park facilities, and even managing the day-to-day operations of parks.  I can tell you that the state park staff saw all this transfer of responsibility no less than a deliberate dismantling of the state park system.  The actions were especially confusing because Florida State Parks were arguably the nation's best state park system and no accusations of impropriety or dysfunction were ever made.  The changes were only said to be made for "efficiency" and all happened completely under the state legislature's radar.  The state park staff are quite disheartened at the recent manipulations by DEP leadership, although no current employee will be able to say so, because loyalty to top DEP administrators is strictly required and enforced with aggressive firing practices.

Your committee will consider three important proposals tomorrow.

The first issue of concern is the confirmation of Secretary Steverson.  Before my retirement, we in the central office of the Florida Park Service followed his every request to arrange policies and contracts for more aggressive timbering, cattle grazing in natural communities (not just improved pastures), to allow hunting for the first time in state parks, and to open all state parks to multiple uses for private profit for the first time.  No current staff are able to speak out against these new policies, but you probably have noticed an outcry from all the former state park directors and a multitude of former staff.  There are also citizen petitions and action groups that have formed to oppose these radical changes to the state parks as we have always known them.  All these new policies are counter to the clear intention for the state parks in both statute and rule.  I urge you to review this statutory guidance and determine for yourselves that the current direction proposed by Secretary Steverson is contrary to the longstanding legislative intent.  I am not a vindictive person, but I have no hesitancy in predicting that Secretary Steverson will do great harm to the Florida State Parks if confirmed, and I recommend that you find a way with the power vested in your committee to not confirm him.

The second issue is the proposal by DEP to manage its own divisions more autonomously (SB 400).  The bill currently assures the continuity of the Division of State Lands.  I urge you to amend the bill to also assure the continuity of the Division of Recreation and Parks.  The division has a long and honored tradition within Florida government as the administrator of Florida State Parks and is specifically listed as a partner agency with the Department of State's Division of Historic Resources in managing the state's most important archaeological and historic sites.  I am very worried that DEP leadership has plans (certainly secret so far) to further manipulate the state park system with authority provided with this bill.  If no such plans are afoot, there should be no objection by DEP to ensuring the continuity of the Division of Recreation and Parks in an amendment to this bill.

The third issue of concern is the free day admission to the state parks (SB 570).  Over my entire career within the leadership of the state park system, we discussed park fees countless times.  There are a couple of "take-aways" that I would like to share with you.  The first is that private recreational businesses near state parks always resented that our fees were so low that they could not compete on a level playing field. Consequently, they always wanted us to raise our fees to be closer to market value.  Independently, we also wanted to raise fees a little bit at a time over the years, because we wanted to achieve more financial self-sufficiency and also because it was very clear that we were under-valued. Unfortunately, we were usually denied by the Governor's Office or DEP, including again recently.  So be forewarned that even though free admission might seem as though it would increase attendance and benefit the financially disadvantaged, in reality what it will do is to further compromise private recreational providers.  Also importantly, it would also leave a gaping hole in the state parks' budget.  Replacing the budget from another source opens the door to those who would further change the financial structure of the state park system.  You probably will also hear that this would be a problem for many parks that are already at capacity.  This is absolutely true.  I recommend that you not approve this bill as it will do far more harm than good.

Thank you for your consideration of these points.  I will close by testifying that our state park system is being undermined on many fronts without justification.  I have seen it happen over the last few years and the current threats are the worst so far.  Your committee is faced with an important opportunity to preserve America's best state park system and honor the legislatures before you that thoughtfully declared what it should be.   

Mr. Dana C. Bryan

Tallahassee, FL

------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Chair: Senator Charles S. "Charlie" Dean, Sr.
850-487-5005 dean.charles.web@flsenate.gov

Vice Chair: Senator Wilton Simpson
850-487-5018 simpson.wilton.web@flsenate.gov

Other Committee Members:
Senator Thad Altman
850-487-5016 altman.thad.web@flsenate.gov

Senator Greg Evers
850-487-5002 evers.greg.web@flsenate.gov

Senator Alan Hays
850-487-5011 hays.alan.web@flsenate.gov

Senator Travis Hutson
850-487-5006 hutson.travis.web@flsenate.gov

Senator David Simmons
850-487-5010 simmons.david.web@flsenate.gov

Senator Christopher L. Smith
850-487-5031 smith.chris.web@flsenate.gov

Senator Darren Soto
850-487-5014 soto.darren.web@flsenate.gov

Towering fiasco?

From the Herald-Tribune

SARASOTA - County officials still haven't approved final building permits for the Nathan Benderson Park finish tower as tweaks to an agreement about how it will be paid for continued through October, Suncoast Aquatic Nature Center Associates' president told board members Wednesday.

Paul Blackketter said SANCA, the nonprofit that operates the 600-acre county park and lake, is also still collecting detailed cost and construction information at the county's request and he hopes officials will grant final approval by mid-November. His team submitted a draft of this information Tuesday, he said, and still needs to deliver a few additional items.

That draft shows that the county wants park staff, among other things, to submit an accurate cost estimate, proof of a contingency reserve and a pledge agreement that the park's foundation will cover the project in full.

Construction on the park finish tower, an important element to the 2016 Olympic Trials and 2017 World Rowing Championships scheduled at the venue, was supposed to have started in August . . . 

More . . .