DeLand Commission backs staff to pursue enclave annexations, with Parade Circle as pilot

The DeLand City Commission on May 5 directed staff to pursue enclave annexations aimed at squaring city boundaries and to begin a pilot with the Parade Circle industrial enclave, city planners said.

Planner Sam Nelson presented the annexation options and maps and told commissioners that, after research, “staff believes that pursuing the Parade Circle Enclave Annexation to square off the boundaries as kind of a pilot, just to see how things go.” The presentation covered three common annexation methods—voluntary (applicant-initiated) annexations, covenant-based utility annexations, and referendum annexations—and noted state changes that enlarged the allowable enclave size for streamlined annexations.

Why it matters: commissioners said enclaves create planning, service delivery and public-safety complications when pockets of county land sit inside the municipal boundary. Several commissioners argued that bringing contiguous parcels into city limits would reduce confusion over utilities, code enforcement and emergency response and would spread the cost of services more evenly among those who benefit.

Key points from the meeting

- Staff and commissioners identified three near-term tracks: (1) pursue the Parade Circle enclave as a pilot, (2) bring in contiguous parcels that already have utility covenants where practical, and (3) continue studying larger areas such as Spring Hill, which would require either a referendum or broader outreach and feasibility analysis.

- Sam Nelson told commissioners the city has approved 22 voluntary annexations in the last five years and that his preliminary research identified roughly 250 parcels and a few hundred acres citywide that might be candidates for annexation under existing covenants.

- Commissioners discussed previous efforts in Spring Hill, including a referendum more than two decades ago that failed, and noted that a full annexation of that scale requires an annexation feasibility study and a plan to fund infrastructure improvements. One commissioner cited an earlier Spring Hill analysis that estimated about $10,000,000 in improvements would be needed to meet city standards.

- A staff member advising the commission summarized the covenant situation for many parcels: “you signed a covenant when you wanted utilities or somebody did. And now we're going to enforce that covenant because you are contiguous and we're going to do what we all said we would do and annex your property and we're going to pay for it. It doesn't cost you anything.” (attributed to an unnamed staff speaker in the transcript.)

Costs, process and next steps

Staff explained costs the city would incur if it initiates annexations—legal descriptions, sketch surveys, and outreach—and said some property owners in the Parade Circle have offered to front the cost for their parcels. Commissioners asked staff to prepare a budget estimate, scope of required surveys and outreach materials, and to identify low‑hanging‑fruit enclave parcels that are contiguous or minimally complex to bring in.

Staff also noted legal and procedural constraints: enclave annexations performed under a county-city interlocal agreement do not require referenda but do require county approval; areas like Spring Hill that do not qualify as enclaves would require either a referendum or pursuing covenants and staged outreach.

Commission guidance and outcome

Commissioners signaled consensus to move forward with staff recommendations: pursue the Parade Circle pilot, identify and prioritize other contiguous covenant parcels and smaller enclaves, and prepare cost estimates and outreach plans. No formal vote was taken; the record shows direction to staff and a request for budget and outreach materials.

What remains unresolved

Staff will return with a proposed budget, a list of candidate parcels and a recommended timeline. The commission did not set a formal schedule, and larger efforts such as a Spring Hill referendum remain contingent on further study, outreach and an interlocal agreement with Volusia County.