Loading...
Minutes 01-30-92SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1992 AT 6:00 PRESENT Arline Weiner, Mayor Edward Harmening, Vice Mayor Jose Aguila, Commissioner Lillian Artis, Commissioner Lynne Matson, Commissioner Carrie Parker, Asst. City Manager James Cherof, City Attorney Sue Kruse, City Clerk CALL TO ORDER Mayor Weiner called the Special City Commission Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. This meeting was called for the purpose of discussing the proposed County Commission Charter amendments. PRESENTATIONS Mike Mertino, President, Palm Beach County MuniciDel League, made the first presentation. The purpose of his attendance at this meeting was to help the Commissioners understand the problems which will be faced by cities and municipalities concerning some of the programs being followed by the County Commissioners; spe- cifically, the ballot referendum. For the last several years, the Municipal League has been involved with issues concerning Palm Beach County. In the last year, it has concerned itself with the Planning Council. In 1986, the Planning Council was formed. The Charter was quite specific in its duties. Trela White was instrumental in getting the Planning Council back on course after it had strayed. Mr. Martino focused on the Charter language. There is little basis for this to be on the ballot. The issue is on the ballot in way that suggests "apple pie and motherhood". The language on the ballot is general, but the language in the Ordinance is somewhat deceptive and will transfer all of the municipal power with regard to land use to the County Commissioners. They will decide what to do with land development regulations. It further suggests that sign ordinances could come under their purview. Their reasoning for the ballot language is to suggest to the public that there is no countywide planning in Palm Beach County. Since 1985, there has been more planning in Palm Beach County than most care to discuss. The implementation of the Growth Management Statute allowed planning in Palm Beach County. We have spent millions of dollars in planning. Diversity is an asset and will disappear under the language in this ballot issue. Most of the comprehensive plans are in compliance. One of the local governments which has not complied with the Growth Manage- 1 MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY ~0, 1992 ment Statute and with DCA's requirements is Palm Beach County. They have a traffic element which is not in compliance at DCA for over a year. They cannot get it into compliance because they did not supply the necessary backup data. The Municipal League's position is that there was a Planning Council. On November 26th, the County Commissioners decided to disband the Planning Council. In December, under the Charter requirements, the municipalities regrettably decided to sunset the Planning Council. Mr. Martino stated he has heard of a situation in Palm Beach County regarding borders such as roads, the environment, and water. He stated all of what he said was something which was part of the planning process in Palm Beach Gardens. It was reviewed in the context of the borders. When public hearings were held, Palm Beach County had an opportunity to comment along with South Florida Management District and any other entity dealing with the city. The plans were submitted to DCA who distributed them to the agencies and probably Palm Beach County for comment. He stated that to suggest borders were not con- sidered is ignorance of how the plan~ works. The County Commissioners have a lot of work and he feels they don't truly understand what the Growth Management Statute states and the requirements of its implementation. In the last several years, the Municipal League has been a viable organization involved in the processes and creating ideas. Municipal League members are elected officials similar to county officials. Mr. MartinO suggested municipal officials be treated the same as county officials. He stated that powers would be transferred to the County Commissioners, taxes would be raised, bureaucracy will increase, government will be taken away from the people and it will do the least good in the area of creation of jobs. The referendum boils down to a power grab on the part of the Commissioners. In order to get the message out to the voters, the Municipal League has suggested the following: The Municipal League no longer has standing since the Planning Council was dissolved. It is now an infor- mational source to resolve the ballot issue. A political committee has been formed. It is a single issue oriented committee focusing on the defeat of the ballot referen- dum. This committee is known as the Save Our Local Environment (S.O.L.E.) Committee. Nancy Graham is the Chairwoman. She is Mayor of West Palm Beach. 2 SINUT S - SPECIAL CITY CO IssIO" ETINS BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY $0, 1992 The legal issue is being studied. The Municipal League suggested that the municipalities consider their legal options. A meeting was held with twenty (20) city attor- neys in attendance. It was determined the municipalities have options which need to be further studied and pursued. A subcommittee meeting was held today and a larger meeting will be held next wednesday. Within a few days after that meeting, we expect to learn what the options are. The cost of the legal option needs to be considered. At this point, the cost is unknown, but Mr. Martino pointed out that the road and bridge legal question did not cost a lot of money. He hopes this will cost no more than that effort. The fee will be equally disbursed among all involved. Trela White, Municipal League Attorney, explained that that Charter was created in 1986 to create a Land Use Element only. There were protective mechanisms. The cities' adoptive plan was to be submitted to the Planning Council and should have been a composite of all the plans in the County. The cities were assured their plans would not be changed on the composite unless there were intergovernmental incompatibilities (ii) which could not be resolved with a neighbor. All of these double ii's were worked out with the exception of six throughout the County. A compromise was agreed upon. The Planning Council voted 12-4 to allow the Planning Council to continue and asked the County not to change the Charter language. If, after a chance, it couldn't work, then it could be amended. The County did not agree. The municipalities asked the County Commissioners to give the Planning Council a chance. The County refused. For this reason, the municipalities decided to sunset the Planning Council. The County has placed an Ordinance on the Charter in ballot language which will take away the planning and zoning powers of the cities. If this referendum passes, the citizens will have to appear before the County Commissioners regarding zoning. Their voices will fall on deaf ears. The cities will lose their home flavor. The County Commissioners will have staff attend meetings to attempt to convince the voters that this referendum is a good idea. They will say that when the cities sunset the Planning Council, $3 million was wasted. They will make it appear that they are trying to salvage the plan. She explained the Ordinance which has been passed by the County Commissioners. She specifically referred to Ordinance 92-1, Page 4, Section 7 2 which describes the scope. It points out that in addition to adopting, amending, implementing and enforcing the Countywide Future Land Use Element, the County Commissioners intend to coordinate the land use planning process of all govern- ments within the county; to plan and coordinate countywide growth; to set goals, objectives and policies in the Countywide MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 30, 1992 Future Land Use Element for water conservation, environmental regulation, solid waste, historic preservation, the non-municipal roadway system, school siting, urban redevelopment, affordable housing, mass transit and other countywide issues. Ms. White stated this is overkill. All of the above-mentioned items do not appear in the ballot language. It lists only four items. She feels the four items which appear on the ballot are the four no one would object to. On Page 5 of the Ordinance, it states the County will have control over the cities' land development regulations. This refers to the zoning codes. On Page 7, Section 7.9 under Consistency Requirement, it states, "All elements of the local government's Comprehensive Plan and all land development regulations shall be consistent with the adopted Countywide Future Land Use Element." Ms. White further read, "All developments undertaken by and all actions taken in regard to...", and stated this refers to permitting. She said the County could create a countywide land use map and designate land with a different land use than already planned. The cities will then be forced to change their plans to meet the County's plan. The County intends to appoint a Local Planning Agency. If the city had an application from a developer which went through the Planning and Zoning Board and everything had been worked out, it would then be necessary to go to the County. At that point, they could turn it down with the cities losing valuable time money and effort. ' When the Planning Council was repealed, the County hired the entire Planning Council staff through a budget transfer even though a county hiring freeze was in place. This staff included fourteen (14) people. The County claimed this did not cost any money. The cities thought they would be saving money when they repealed the Planning Council. That money was used to hire that staff through a budget transfer. At the January 7th County Commissioners, Meeting, the Charter revision was adopted. There were many city officials present at that meeting whose arguments fell on deaf ears. With regard to the lawsuit, the cost is unknown at this time. If all cities join in, the costs will be spread out. There will be an update on Wednesday with the attorneys. More than fifteen cities have already agreed to join. If the amendment passed, tremendous bureaucracy will be seen along with the loss of local control. This referendum is not about planning; it is about power. 4 MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 30, 1992 Commissioner Aguila questioned what will happen if the cities are successful in defeating this referendum. Ms. White explained that the League would like the presentation of an Intergovernmental Coordination Council which would work with the cities but not have control of the Land Use Elements. It would resolve disputes. The League also suggested that the cities sponsor their own Charter amendment which can be done by a peti- tion with a certain number of signatures. This amendment could say that unless enough cities which make up a majority of the population agree with the County to place something on the ballot, it cannot be placed there. This would be the best means of protection for the cities. At this point, four Commissioners can place whatever they choose before the voters. Many of the times, the voters are not informed and will let it pass. Mr. Martino explained that the planners took the ballot language and the Ordinance and listed what they felt were the complica- tions to municipal government. The attorneys did the same thing. (A copy is attached to the original minutes of this meeting on file in the City Clerk's Office.) The S.O.L.E. program was put together as a position paper to help speakers present their case to the public. By following this program, a consistent message will be given throughout the County. In response to Commissioner Matson's question regarding a media blitz, Mr. Martino stated a political consultant has been hired and a budget has been prepared. One of the things done in Delray to show that they were deeply interested is that the individual Commissioners have personally donated $25 each to the suit. He suggested the Commissioners in Boynton Beach do the same. A municipality cannot spend public funds in this manner. S.O.L.E. will shortly produce an information document for the purpose of educating the public. The ballot language is vague and it is necessary to inform the public. Mr. Martino further pointed out that the unincorporated areas also need to be educated regarding the referendum. This move will affect them also. They need to realize their taxes will be affected along with jobs in the county. He pointed out that the uncontrolled growth during the last ten years has been in the unincorporated areas. He further pointed out that there are departments existing now which cannot manage their current responsibilities. It would be disastrous to give them more responsibilities. Mayor Weiner pointed out that S.O.L.E. mentions delays in pro- cessing plans. Mr. Martino stated that the planners of municipa- lities met to review the Ordinance from a structural standpoint. They determined it could take approximately one to one and one- half years to get something done. There will be thirty-eight local governments which will need to transmit twice a year at the same time. 5 MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY ~0, 1992 Chris Cutro, Planning Director, expressedopposition to the County setting goals for urban development. He further stated that it will take eighteen months to file an application under this new amendment. He pointed out that if everything goes per- fectly, the minium time for processing will be nine months with the maximum being two years. This situation will not work because developers are looking for quick responses· Mr. Cutro said that Section 7.9 states all elements must be consistent· He questions who will review the site plans, zoning and building permits. He stated he will refuse to do this work for the County. Section 7.12 talks of uniformity. The uniformity they refer to will take away the city's ability to define what it wants in the future. The County is now trying to impose their vision for what the cities should be. Mr. Cutro is insulted by this Ordinance because it assumes only the County knows what must be done. The County has other issues they need to focus on. He stated the entire Ordinance is filled with "trust mes". He stated he does not trust them. He also feels this Ordinance is not a planning tool. It will cost at least $1 million to implement. The cost to the taxpayers will be even higher and he sees no reason for it. Jim Cherof, City Attorney, summarized the three legal points as follows: The County's proposal is an abridgment of the cities' rights under the State Constitution and under Chapter 163. The proposed Ordinance is defective in its form and in content. The referendum is also defective. It does not set forth what is at issue in a clear, concise manner and it is misleading. He concluded that the City has standing to challenge what the County is attempting to do. He advised that the Commission can take action now, take action later, or take no action at all. He further advised they can join the lawsuit or institute a separate lawsuit, or take no action and await the outcome of what occurs at election time. Mr. Cherof requested authorization to participate with the other city attorneys in a discussion on how to mount a single lawsuit with Boynton Beach participating and to explore how it will be done, what Boynton Beach's role will be, our responsibility for cost and where the money will come from. 6 MINUTES - SPECI~J~ CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY $0, 1992 Marilyn Huckle, of 656 Castllla Lane, is a member of the Planning and Zoning Board. She explained that she only received the backup material tonight and has not had an opportunity to investigate it. However, she feels this is a very serious problem which needs further study. Education and further expla- nation should be the first priority and she supported joining S.O.L.E. Murray Howard, a member of the Planning and Zoning Board, agreed with Ms. Huckle and feels more information is necessary. Bob Olenik, ~r,, 29D Crossings Circle, is Interim Executive Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce. At a meeting attended by Mayor Weiner and Mr. Olenik, seven Chambers of Commerce represen- tatives had authorization to unite with S.O.L.E. to defeat this referendum. The Boynton Beach Chamber of Commerce voted last Thursday to unite with S.O.L.E. to defeat this issue. He explained that the Boynton area Political Action Committee Board of Directors will meet tomorrow and he will ask them to commit funds for education purposes to defeat the ballot question. It is important to educate the residents and the western area citi- zens in COBWRA. COBWRA has a positive relationship with the County Commission and Mr. Olenik is concerned that they may be influenced into voting for this issue. It is important that they are educated on both sides of the issue. Mr. Olenik envisions a mass mailing to all of the citizens regarding this issue. The Chamber will help fund this mailing. Mr. Olenik feels COBWRA will be the key. Mayor Weiner agreed and stated her dismay at learning the Voters Coalition position in favor of the County referendum. The Commission agreed with Commissioner Matson's suggestion that the meeting of the Community Association Institute, to be held on February 22nd, would be a good opportunity to educate the public on this issue. Steven Owens, of 5?24 Boynton Cove Way, said he is interested in this issue. He has been present at political clubs and at orga- nizational meetings throughout Palm Beach County. He underscored the need for education on this issue. He believes some people are familiar with this issue, but noted that there have been staff members present at all of the meetings he has attended handing out information on the referendum. The information is brief and seems to be "on the side of the angels". He suggested advertisement to educate the public of the opposing view. Mayor Weiner stated the County has voted $10,000 to use on adver- tisement for this issue. MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 30, 1992 DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS FOR CITY COMMISSION -~CONSIDERATIONAND POSSIBLE APPROVAL - City Commission Dosition on the DroDosed Charter Amendments Commission Aguila feels this is a serious situation. He stated we need to go forth with full force and expense should not be a concern at this pOint because we will either pay now, or pay more dearly later. He supports joining the lawsuit, and anything else supporting the defeat of this referendum. Commissioner Matson is offended by the language in this referen- dum. The Boynton Citizens Coalition was organized because attempts were being made to eliminate the City's Planning and Zoning Board. That Coalition was successful in getting the City's message across to the public. She feels it is scary that the County would seek'Unilateral control of everything. She agreed with Commissioner Aguila that everything should be done to stop this referendum. Commissioner Artis wants the municipal way of life preserved and therefore, she is 100% in favor of joining the efforts to defeat the referendum. vice Mayor Harmening thinks theMunicipal League and all those involved understand completely what is happening. He also suggested that we may be on safe ground in pursuing this legally and would like to know precisely what County employees are doing in terms of supporting this. There could exist a Hatch Act violation. Motion Commissioner Matson moved to oppose County Ordinance 92-1. COmmissioner Aguila seconded the motion. Commissioner Aguila amended the motion to specifically oppose the proposed Countywide Growth Management Charter amendment before the Commission tonight. Vice Mayor Harmening seconded the amended motion. Commissioner Matson accepted the amended motion. The amended motion carried 5-0. The motion carried 5-0. Authorization to utilize City facilities for Dublic forums on the issue Mayor Weiner suggested a workshop meeting be arranged to educate the citizens and COBWRA members. Vice Mayor Harmening thought this was an excellent idea. 8 MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOY~TON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 30, 1992 Motion Vice Mayor Harmening moved to grant and authorize the use of all City facilities for public forums on this particular issue. Commissioner Matson seconded the motion which carried 5-0. Direction to City staff to establish one or more oppor- tunities for a public forum on the issue There was general consensus from the Commission that staff be directed to establish opportunities for a public forum on this 'issue. Vice Mayor Harmening pointed out that if this Ordinance does pre- vail, certain members of the staff and certain departments could be severely impacted. It would be wise for them to become aware of this fact. Authorization for Mayor and any other City Commissioner tO speak on this issue Mayor Weiner feels the Commissioners are the best sources of information to educate the public. There was a unanimous deci- sion that the Commission will speak in opposition of this Charter amendment. Attorney Cherof will check to see if it is per- missible for the City Planner to attend any of the speaking enga- gements with the Commissioners. Mr. Martino stated that the S.O.L.E. packet can be reproduced for informational purposes. Mr. Martino feels that if information is going to be given to Palm Beach County residents, both sides should be presented. Mr. Martino is preparing to register a complaint regarding the information being distributed by the County. The County's response is misleading and it should be challenged. The S.O.L.E. Committee will generate an ongoing series of infor- mation and pamphlets. Mr. Martino reminded the Commissioners that they can donate funds individually to S.O.L.E. and should invite others to do the same. Mr. Martino pointed out that the Commission scares people by making them ithink Palm Beach County could wind up looking like Dade and Broward Counties without such an amendment. He stated that is impossible because of the rules and regulations of growth management in effect today. They are also attempting to divide the County over solidlwaste and a furnace issue. He reminded the Commission that it is~important to remain united. It will be necessary to respond to the important issues. 9 MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY ~0, 1992 Resolution supporting the goals of Save Our Local Environment (S. O. L. E. ) Motion Vice Mayor Harmening moved to direct the City Attorney to draw up a resolution supporting the goals of Save Our Local Environment and bring it back at the Commission meeting. Commissioner Matson seconded the motion which carried 5-0. Resolution t_9 find the Countywide Future Land Use Element (CFLUE) to be "no{ in compliance. (ProDosed Resolution No. R92-19) Mayor Weiner explained that this resolution was passed by the City of Delray Beach and we have piggybacked on the language. Motion Commissioner Matson moved to find the CountyWide Future Land Use Element to be "not in compliance". Commissioner Aguila moved to adopt Resolution R92-19. Harmening seconded the motion which carried 5-0. Vice Mayor Authorization for the City Attorney to attend municipal attorney's group meeting and to report back to the City Commission findings and reco~endations or other action recommended by the City Attorney Motion Commissioner Aguila moved to authorize the City Attorney to attend the municipal attorney's group meeting and report back to the City Commission his findings. Commissioner Matson seconded the motion which carried 5-0. Mayor Weiner asked Mr. Cherof for his opinion on any other necessary legal action. Mr. Cherof asked for authority to explore with the other attorneys a letter of understanding bet- ween the cities regarding dealing with the cost of the legal fees.. Ms. White said this issue has been discussed at the meetings and it would be prorated on either a population or tax base situation. It will be equitably prorated if the City joins in now before a lawsuit is filed. More than fifteen cities have joined conceptually by letter. 10 MINUTES - SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 30, 1992 Motion Commissioner Aguila moved to make it clear that the City of Boynton Beach is to join the other municipalities in the lawsuit and pick up our share of the expense. Vice Mayor Harmening seconded the motion which carried 5-0. OTHER ACTION Commissioner Matson informed the Commissioners that the South County Council of Government will discuss this at their next meeting. She will present Boynton Beach's position on this issue. Commissioner Matson requested the names of those who will speak at the Community Association meeting on February 22nd in order to prepare an agenda. Carrie Parker will handle the administrative portion of the request. Mr. Martino attempted to discuss another charter referendum at this meeting. Mayor Weiner explained that our Ordinance does not permit the discussion of any topic other than the one advertised. Mr. Martino requested this subject be put on the agenda for an upcoming City Commission meeting. Mayor Weiner asked Mr. Martino to provide a letter for inclusion on the agenda. Mayor Weiner thanked all for attending the meeting. There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 7:50 p.m. THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH ATTEST: ~i~ 'Clerk ' "- " ~cording Secretary (Two Tapes) 11 Mayor ~~~~~'Commis sioner Answers to questions about the March ballot issues: Countywide Growth Management and Land Use Authority Charter Amendments. lOth 1. Q. What is the issue? A. The issue is whether the citizens of Palm Beach County want growth management standards to be developed individually by 38 local governments or whether the citizens want a single countywide elected body to develop and enforce growth management standards in the County. 2. Q. What _-_,_~_thority would the charter amendment give the Board of County Commissioners if approved by the voters? A. If voters approve the ballot issue, the Board of County Commissioners would be given the authority to manage growth countywide by implementing the Countywide Future Land Use Element and to create a board to enforce resolution of growth management disputes between local governments. 3. Q. What is the Countywide Future Land Use Element? A. The Countywide Future Land Use Element, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in December 1991, sets growth management standards both in the cities and in the unincorporated County for land uses, the protection of water resources, the environment, solid waste disposal, roads, mass transit and other growth management matters. This Countywide Future Land Use Element was developed over the past five years by the Countywide Planning Council which was established by voters in 1986 and was composed of 17 local government officials. The Council's responsibility was to develop and administer this Countywide Future Land Use Element. 4. Q. Why are the voters of Palm Beach County being asked to voice their opinion again on countywide growth management? A. In December, 199L a majority of municipalities voted to abolish the Countywide Planning Council. Voters are being asked by the Board of County Commissioners to decide if they want Countywide growth management by a Countywide elected body that cannot be abolished w/thout approval of the voters. 3 5. Q, Is there a local agency now to do this kind of growth mar, agement? A. No. Currently. there is no agency in the County to manage growth on a countywide basis. 6. Q. Is there a state or regional agency responsible for overseeing growth management within the County? A. Yes, The State Department of Community Affairs and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council look at each local government's growth management plan. Their reviews are focused on meeting stale or regional rather than local concerns. 7, Qo Do the cities and the County already have growth management plans? A. Yes. The municipal,~ties and the County have each prepared and adopted individual plans to address growth management within their own jurisdictions. Approval of the ballot issue would place the responsibility on the Board of County Commissioners to insure that all these local plans meet minimum standards as set in the Countywide Future Land Use Element and do not conflict with one another. 8. Q. What is the difference between the individual cities' and the Counts plans and the Countywide Future Land Use Element? A. The growth management plans prepared individually by the cities and County were designed to address growth management problems within their own boundaries. Certain types of growth management problems such as mass transit, the protection of the environment, and the capacity of solid waste facilities impact all citizens in the Coun~-y. Developments that result from changes in land use often have impacts which extend beyond the borders of a local government. The Countywide Future Land Use Element addresses these broader impacts. 9. Q. What are the effects of countywide growth management? A. The Board of County Commissioners believes that growth management on a countywide basis provides the ability to address and resolve growth management concerns which extend beyond the limits of any one of the 38 local governments in the County. Such concerns include limited roadway capacity, the protection of water resources, and the location and number of solid waste facilities. Countywide growth management would require developers to address the costs which all citizens of Palm Beach County would otherwise have to pay to support unplanned changes in adopted growth management plans. Countywide growth management gives all citizens throughout the County an opportunity to be heard concerning growth management decisions, regardless of the where they live. 10. Q. l~,rhat will it cost to operate the proposed Countywide Growth Management Program? A. In terms of dollars, under the Planning Council the 1991-1992 budget was $1,111,000. The proposed budget for countywide growth management program is $900,000 for 1992-1993 which reflects savings resulting from consolidation of the Council staff with County government. Costs beyond 1992-1993 for countywide growth management may increase or decrease depending upon future growth management requirements as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. ! I. Q. Are there costs for not having countywide growth management? A. Not having countywide growth management can result in our citizens having to pay for public facilities which were not anticipated in the adopted comprehensive plans. These costs can not be projected at this time. The Board of County Commissioners believes that a lack of coordinated countywide planning may negatively affect our quality of life. 12. Q. How does countywide growth management work? A. Countywide growth management requires that minimum standards in the Countywide Future Land Use Element be met by every local government in Palm Beach County. For example, a developer may request that a local government allow development ,~vithin its jurisdiction that would add a large population in an area which was not previously planned for dense residential development. Upon evaluation of the development the project would not be approved if it would be contrary to the standards in the Countywide Future Land Use Element. 13. Q. What will be the impact on cities and the County if this charter. amendment is approved? A. The Board of County Commissioners will have to approve future land use changes in the cities and the unincorporated areas of the County. Decisions to change individual local government growth management and land use plans will be reviewed for consistency with the Countywide Future Use Land Element. If it's found to not be consistent with the countywide plan, the changes could be rejected. Cities and citizens of Palm Beach County will be able to object to future land use changes before the Board of County Commissioners when a change is proposed to any local government growth management plan. 14. Q. Will the Charter amendment take away the right of self- government? A. The Charter amendment, if approved, will not take away the authority of individual local governments to zone or rezone property. provide municipal services, set more restrictive standards for management, or budget for their own needs. It will take away the authority of individual local governments in Palm Beach County to allow land uses within their respective areas that do not meet the adopted minimum growth management standards. The Bsllot States Countywide Growth Management And Land Use Authority Chc~rter Amendment Shall the Palm Beach County Charter be amended in accordance with ordinance No. 92-I to allow the Board of County Commissioners to exercise countywide !~rowth management and land use planning authority by implementing the Countywide Future Land Use Element, which sets prevailing standards for land uses, protection of water resources, environment, solid waste, mass transit and other related issues of Countywide concern; and to establish a cooperative process to resolve land use conflicts between local governments? Yes No If you approve granting the Board of County Commissioners the authority to enforce countywide growth management and land use standards by implementing the Countywide Future Land Use Element and to establish a cooperative process to resolve land use conflicts between local governments, vote yes. If you do not approve granting the Board of County Commissioners the authority to enforce countywide growth management and land use standards by implementing the Countywide Future Land Use Element, and to establish a cooperative process to resolve land use conflicts between local governments, vote no.