The Flagler County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on Monday, February 23, 2026, to consider formally ratifying a settlement that ended a formal legal dispute between the county and the city of Flagler Beach. The conflict had centered on five separate issues connected to the Veranda Bay and Summertown residential development projects along John Anderson Highway. By the end of the short meeting, four of the five commissioners voted to approve the settlement, officially closing the Chapter 164 conflict resolution process.
How the Dispute Began
The county had previously passed a resolution that triggered what is known as a “Chapter 164” conflict resolution process — a Florida law that requires local governments to try to resolve disagreements before going to court. The dispute involved the city’s approval of Ordinance 2025-26, which allowed higher-density housing in a coastal high-hazard area near John Anderson Highway, a road the county owns and maintains. The county raised concerns about how this decision would affect flood protection, hurricane evacuation, traffic, road maintenance, and an older legal agreement about water services known as the “water wars” settlement.
Representatives from both governments, along with the developer, met on February 13, 2026, to work through the issues. County Attorney Al Hadid, County Administrator Heidi Petito, Deputy County Administrator Percy Sales, and the Growth Management Director represented the county. The city sent its attorney and city manager. According to the county attorney, all five issues were resolved — four at the February 13 meeting itself, and the fifth shortly after, once the developer provided additional clarification.
The Five Resolved Issues
The first issue involved the original water services settlement agreement from 2007, which required the city to provide potable water, sanitary sewer, and reclaimed water to the Veranda Bay and Summertown projects. The county acknowledged that the city’s approval of Ordinance 2025-26 satisfies the remaining obligations of that old agreement, and that those duties have now been transferred to the city and the developer, with no further responsibility on Flagler County.
The second issue concerned flood protection and environmentally sensitive land near the development. The county and city agreed to work together with the developer for a period of three years to try to preserve sensitive environmental lands that are part of a Florida Forever conservation funding application. They also agreed to look for other possible funding sources to help acquire these lands.
The third issue focused on John Anderson Highway itself and the impact the new housing density could have on hurricane evacuation times. The developer agreed to make what is called a “proportionate fair share” financial contribution — referred to in the agreement as the John Anderson Highway Mitigation Contribution — to help offset any transportation impacts caused by the development. The county made clear that the top priority for those funds would be to prevent any worsening of evacuation clearance times. If evacuation times are not impacted, the money can be used for general road planning, maintenance, landscaping, and improvements along the John Anderson Highway corridor.
The fourth issue dealt with whether the traffic study submitted by the developer was adequate. The county agreed to release the developer and the city from having to produce a new or updated traffic study specifically for John Anderson Highway. However, the agreement still requires the developer to provide any project-specific road improvements — such as signs, turn lanes, and acceleration or deceleration lanes — as part of any county right-of-way permit for access to John Anderson Highway.
The fifth and final issue addressed who should own and maintain the portion of John Anderson Highway adjacent to the two projects. The city said it is unwilling to take over ownership or maintenance of that section of road. Because the city has also not adopted transportation impact fees of its own and does not have an agreement with the county to collect them, the developer voluntarily agreed to pay the mitigation contribution described above at the time each building permit is issued. The settlement makes clear that this contribution is not meant to fully cover all future road costs, but rather to represent the developer’s fair share of the impacts caused by the projects.
Public Comment: Concerns About Water and Wildlife
One member of the public spoke during the comment period. John Tanner, who said he represents the nonprofit group Preserve Flagler Beach and Bulow Creek, Inc., raised concerns about both John Anderson Highway and the water services agreement.
On the highway, Tanner noted that many members of his group live along the road, which he described as a unique stretch of old Florida. He said residents want a firm commitment from the developer about how traffic will be routed. He also brought up a decades-old discussion about whether an overpass or underpass had been required as part of the original development plan, saying his group believed it was required, not optional.
“John Anderson Highway is a piece of the environment,” Tanner said. “The houses along John Anderson actually provide a wildlife sanctuary.” He noted that gopher tortoises are frequently seen along the road and that residents had worked to reduce deer deaths there by stopping the practice of feeding them.
On the water issue, Tanner raised questions about the original water wars settlement and whether the city taking over the developer’s obligation to build a reuse water treatment plant was legally appropriate. He said the original agreement required the developer to design and pay for the plant and deed it to the city. He estimated the project at roughly $47 million and said he was not satisfied with the shift in responsibility. “I think it’s about a $47 million bill,” Tanner said, adding that simply because the city is willing to take it on “does not nullify” the original agreement.
Commissioner Discussion: Reclaimed Water and Environmental Land
Commissioner Carney, who identified herself as a Flagler Beach resident, said she had done additional research on the wastewater facility. She cited a February 3 email from the city manager stating that the current project is estimated at $46,377,000 and would be funded through a state revolving fund loan at a low interest rate. She noted that this figure does not include infrastructure for distributing or using reclaimed water.
Carney also pointed out what she saw as a disconnect in the city’s planning. She said the city’s plan calls for spending $9 million between now and 2030 to distribute reclaimed water within the city, while at the same time the developer’s own documents say that Summertown alone will use “nearly all” of the 700,000 gallons of treated wastewater that Flagler Beach currently releases into the Intracoastal Waterway. She said she questioned why the city would invest in that infrastructure if the developer would absorb most of the reclaimed water anyway.
“At a public meeting, the developer — I asked the question, how much of the water are you going to use reclaimed? The answer was almost all of it,” Carney said. She added that the city manager later denied hearing that statement. Carney concluded that the reclaimed water situation and the developer’s level of participation in it remained unclear, calling it a matter for the Flagler Beach City Commission to resolve.
Carney also spoke at length about the Bulow Creek conservation land. She said she was satisfied with the three-year commitment to pursue preservation of the environmentally sensitive lands near the development but wished the county had tried to buy the land earlier. She asked that the property be made a high priority for acquisition using the county’s existing Environmental Sensitive Lands ad valorem tax fund, which she noted is not permanent and will eventually come up for renewal.
She also mentioned attending a recent Florida Department of Transportation meeting about the Bulow Creek Headwaters Regional Park, saying the land has been set aside for future Flagler County use. “I believe that protecting that headwaters is a very key role of ours,” she said. Carney requested a six-month update from staff on the status of that property and all other environmentally sensitive land acquisitions the county is pursuing.
Following discussion, the board agreed by consensus — without a formal vote — that the Bulow Creek property should remain a top priority for the county to acquire through whatever means are available.
Commissioner Hansen Thanks Staff
Commissioner Hansen, who made the motion to approve the settlement, thanked county staff for resolving the conflict without going to court. “We gave them the direction to get together and come to an agreement that was acceptable to the city,” he said. “I think the process worked out.”
The Vote
The motion to approve Resolution 2026-05, ratifying the settlement of the conflict assessment meeting with the city of Flagler Beach, was made by Commissioner Hansen and seconded by Commissioner Dance. The commission took a roll call vote. Commissioner Dance voted yes. Commissioner Hansen voted yes. Commissioner Carney voted no. Commissioner Pennington voted yes. Commissioner Richardson voted yes. The motion passed 4 to 1, with Commissioner Carney casting the lone dissenting vote.
With the vote complete, the meeting was adjourned. The formal closure of the Chapter 164 conflict resolution process means the county and the city of Flagler Beach are no longer in an active legal dispute over the Veranda Bay and Summertown development projects, though several practical matters — including the three-year environmental land preservation effort and ongoing road management — will continue to be worked on in the months and years ahead.
This article is based on the official transcript of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners Special Meeting held February 23, 2026. The Chapter 164 Florida conflict resolution process is governed by Florida Statutes Chapter 164.
