Volusia board votes to buy Spring Vista parcels for Enterprise Elementary after heated DeBary debate

The Volusia County School Board approved two purchase contracts for the Spring Vista parcels in DeBary on April 22, voting 4–1 on both measures after more than two hours of staff presentations and public comment.

The board voted to buy 6.44 acres (item 17.05) and 18.97 acres (item 17.06) of the Spring Vista property, with Vice Chair Reuben Colon moving both motions and Jamie Haynes (Chair, District 1) and other board members joining the majority. Donna Brosmer (Member, District 4) cast the lone dissent on both votes.

The votes come after an extended staff briefing from Superintendent Carmen Balgobin and planning staff on capacity needs in DeBary and technical differences among available parcels. "This is not money that can be used on teacher salaries," Superintendent Carmen Balgobin said, stressing that the half‑cent sales‑tax and other capital funds proposed for the project are limited to capital uses. "These are capital funds, and they are categorical, and they are earmarked only for certain things like building of schools."

Why it mattered: Volusia officials told the board the city of DeBary has far more school‑age children than its single elementary school can hold. Planning staff said DeBary Elementary already carries an enrollment of roughly 766 students and that hundreds of city residents are currently transported daily to other schools. Ron Young, director of planning and construction, told the board 276 students are bused from DeBary to Enterprise and 459 to River Springs, and staff estimated the two routes together cost roughly $365,000 a year each — about a half‑million dollars combined — in transportation costs the district partially subsidizes.

Staff and engineers contrasted Spring Vista with a previously purchased parcel on Buckley Road that engineers and the state flagged as costly to prepare for construction. "To fill that site [at Buckley] would take about 1,600 dump‑truck loads of dirt," Ron Young said, citing geotechnical work; staff told the board the Buckley parcel has a very high water table, wetlands and would require substantial road improvements. By contrast, Young said Spring Vista has a deeper water table and does not require the same level of site remediation, although the city and some neighbors have raised other objections.

Public comment was divided and often emotional. DeBary Mayor Karen Jose urged caution and said the city’s November quasi‑judicial proceedings found Spring Vista inconsistent with the city comprehensive plan, citing traffic, business activity near the site and impacts on adjacent properties. "DeBary stood ready to help," Mayor Jose said, but she said the city council’s hearing found the site incompatible. City Manager Carmen Rosamondo told the board the city would vigorously defend residents and the comprehensive‑plan decision in court if necessary.

Residents on both sides of the issue addressed the board. Supporters said the city needs a school now to stop families leaving the public system or the city; opponent comments focused on school‑day traffic, emergency‑vehicle access, loss of yards, and alleged mismatches with DeBary’s comprehensive plan. "There will be miles worth of school drop‑off line" and hazards for neighbors, resident Emily Dennen said at the podium. Opponents also pointed to the Buckley parcel, which the district owns, and asked why it would not suffice. Planning staff and state reviewers told the board Buckley is costly and technically difficult to develop for school use.

Legal and process questions: DeBary officials pointed to an interlocal agreement between Volusia County and its municipalities (executed February 2003 and amended 2007) and told the board the city must determine whether a school site is consistent with its comprehensive plan. School attorney Gilbert Evans and staff noted they have sought guidance from the Florida Department of Education and the Office for Educational Facilities, and the superintendent said department staff had reviewed the earlier Buckley engineering work and advised that Buckley posed serious site‑preparation costs and traffic issues. The board heard repeated cautions that proceeding without municipal agreement could trigger legal challenges; Superintendent Balgobin said the district had tried multiple times to meet with DeBary officials and commissioners to explain the technical record.

Price and appraisal: Board materials and staff said the parcels have appraisals and that an earlier interim agreement referenced an $8.4 million combined valuation for a set of acreage the district evaluated. During the presentation staff cited the appraisals the board had received in its administrative materials; planning staff said the larger parcel’s owner had recently pursued industrial zoning for the property but that the owner told staff he prefers a school and had not listed the land for sale.

Board action and what’s next: The board approved both purchase contracts, 4–1. Superintendent Balgobin said the purchases are funded from capital sources (half‑cent sales tax proceeds, impact fees and certificates of participation) and are not general‑fund operating dollars. Ron Young said site design and permitting will follow, and that the district will pursue the required state facility reviews and any traffic and drainage permits. Several board members urged renewed engagement with DeBary leadership after the vote.

Why it matters locally: District staff say buying Spring Vista would allow the district to keep more DeBary students inside Volusia County Schools and reduce long daily bus runs. City officials and neighbors say traffic patterns and the municipal comprehensive plan must be respected and that litigation is possible. Both sides told the board they acted for students.

Ending note: Board members framed the decision around the district’s constitutional duty to provide school capacity for neighborhoods. Vice Chair Reuben Colon said the choice reflected that duty and the reality of limited developable sites in DeBary; Donna Brosmer, the lone dissenting vote, said the legal and planning risks and the premium price made her unwilling to proceed.