Ormond Beach approves resolution advancing mediated settlement in Avalon Park water dispute after public pleas for transparency

The Ormond Beach City Commission on a 4-1 vote approved Resolution 2026-46A, a measure that advances a comprehensive settlement agreement and the mediation process tied to water and wastewater arrangements for the Avalon Park project, city staff and the city attorney said.

Mayor Jason Leslie called the vote after several residents used the meeting's public-comment period to press elected officials for more transparency and to urge the city to retain its water rights. The resolution's title, read by the city clerk, describes it as relating to a comprehensive settlement agreement and mutual release of claims, inclusive of the water and wastewater agreements negotiated in 2006 between the City of Ormond Beach and the City of Daytona Beach and referencing mediation under chapter 164, Florida Statutes.

Why it matters: The Avalon Park dispute concerns which jurisdiction will design, supply and collect revenue for water and wastewater service to a large development planned nearby. Public commentators warned that relinquishing Ormond Beach's role could shift long-term infrastructure costs and revenue away from the city.

During public comment, Jennifer Bridal urged the commission to stick with a government-led, negotiated path (which she called "Option 1") rather than accept what she described as a low buyout offer. "$2,000,000 does not come close to covering what the city has already spent, nor does it account for future obligations, infrastructure needs, operational impacts, or public risk we would inherit," Bridal said.

Colleen McMahon criticized the city's handling of litigation and spending on outside counsel, providing figures she said came from payroll and payment records. McMahon said residents deserve more disclosure about how outside counsel are selected and expressed concern that the city lacks in-house land-use litigation expertise for a case she described as large and complex.

Michelle Zirklebach, another resident, urged the commission to delay any final action until questions about who negotiated key figures and the age of supporting studies (including traffic reports) were answered. "We must consider cumulative traffic impacts from Avalon, Tomoka Reserve and other pipeline projects," she said.

Elena Craft urged commissioners to retain Ormond Beach's water rights and cited the 2006 agreement language she said requires Daytona Beach to install and pay for transmission upgrades west of I-95. She also quoted an exchange she attributed to court filings and counsel: she said critics in court described the Avalon effort as an attempt to remove Ormond from the agreement so Daytona could "collect the full revenue stream." Craft concluded, "There really is no justification for giving these rights away."

The vote: After receiving no substantive response from the dais on the questions raised during public comment, the mayor called the vote. The city clerk recorded the roll as follows in the transcript: Commissioner Tolland — Yes; Commissioner Sargent — No; Commissioner Deaton — Yes; Commissioner Briley — Yes; Mayor Jason Leslie — Yes. The motion carried 4-1, approving Resolution 2026-46A.

What the resolution does: The resolution as read by title moves the commission to approve participation in a settlement/mediation process described in the 2006 agreements and the related statutory governmental conflict resolution channel under chapter 164, Florida Statutes. The text read at the meeting cites Avalon Park, Daytona LLC and Avalon Park Land Holding LP as parties referenced in connection with the prior agreements and mediation.

What remains unclear: Commenters raised multiple factual questions that were not answered on the record at the meeting. Those included how the buyout figure (variously cited by speakers as $2,000,000 and by one commenter as $2,300,000) was calculated, who negotiated the figure and who was present at those negotiations; the precise scope and selection process for outside counsel and the full accounting of related payments; and whether traffic and other studies fully account for cumulative development impacts. The commission did not provide additional detail during the meeting and did not announce a follow-up staff report or timeline on those outstanding questions.

Next steps: The resolution advances the settlement/mediation process described in the agenda item. The commission adjourned with no further public business scheduled at the meeting.