County growth‑management staff presented draft tools for joint planning with the City of Palm Coast, including a joint planning agreement (JPA) and an interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) intended to coordinate annexations, utility extensions, roadway maintenance and coastal resource management.

Adam Engel, the county’s growth management director, said the comprehensive plan for 2025–2050 calls for formation of a joint planning committee with three primary tasks: collaborative planning and population projections (including school siting and public facility concurrency), a coastal resources management plan and preparation of ISBAs with neighboring municipalities.

Commissioners debated which mechanism would give the county leverage to protect unincorporated interests. Commissioner questions focused on whether an ISBA (which can include annexation rules and transfer thresholds such as a 51% adjacent‑property test) offers more enforcement teeth than a JPA, and how to treat county thoroughfares, impact fees and enclaves.

"We have to look at ways that we increase leverage on certain things," one commissioner said, urging concrete terms for roads and service responsibilities. Staff noted that recent statutory changes have narrowed what counties may comment on in municipal comp plan amendments, increasing the importance of voluntary interlocal agreements and clear comp‑plan designations such as county thoroughfares.

Public comment amplified those concerns: residents urged that joint planning include beach management, compound‑flooding and reclaimed‑water infrastructure and said that rapid annexation or piecemeal approvals risk shifting stormwater and infrastructure burdens onto unincorporated neighborhoods.

Late in the workshop, attorney John Tanner and local residents pressed the board to initiate Florida’s intergovernmental dispute resolution process (chapter 164) in response to Palm Coast’s recent annexation and a companion comp‑plan amendment for the Summertown/Veranda Bay area. Tanner said the dispute‑resolution statute provides a required procedural step and a mediation path prior to litigation and argued that invoking it now preserves the county’s—and local residents’—right to full review and negotiation.

County counsel advised that adopting a resolution to invoke the statute would start a clock for joint meetings and mediation and would toll related litigation, but he also warned that administrative challenges to comprehensive plan amendments have a high evidentiary burden and new rules can expose a challenger to fee risk if unsuccessful. The board asked legal staff for options and asked that the matter be discussed further at tonight’s board meeting and, if necessary, in a special session.

What’s next: staff were asked to circulate draft ISBA/JPA language and maps, to provide a site plan and cost breakdown for planned park projects (e.g., Malacompter), and to return with legal and procedural options related to the dispute‑resolution request.