Eustis commission tables perpetual utility easement for Greenwood Cemetery after residents and commissioners raise scope, visual and control concerns

The City Commission of the City of Eustis on Dec. 11 paused action on a proposed perpetual utility easement that would allow Duke Energy Bridal LLC to run overhead power and a 2‑inch potable water main across the eastern edge of Greenwood Cemetery to supply a new fountain and related improvements.

Rick (city staff) presented the measure, Resolution 25‑106, saying the easement would provide an overhead point of connection from Orange Avenue roughly 300 feet into the property to power the fountain at the Tranquil Gardens and supply water to new features. He said the work would be sited in an area with no known burials and that Duke requires an easement to protect its assets.

Several commissioners and members of the public objected to key terms. Commissioner Asbodie and Vice Mayor Ashcraft questioned the resolution’s use of the word "perpetual," expressing concern it could grant Duke rights beyond the immediate project and potentially allow future uses not intended by the city. Commissioner Asbodie asked whether the easement language would permit Duke to later place transmission infrastructure or relocate the centerline without additional approvals. Vice Mayor Ashcraft and others worried about the visual impact of new overhead poles along the cemetery edge and asked whether the city had priced an underground conduit alternative.

Local business owner Daniel Divanonzo urged the commission to preserve local control and warned that long, open-ended agreements could limit future municipal options. He also suggested that the city could take responsibility for a short underground conduit up to a pedestal, leaving ownership of the drop point to Duke.

City staff said Duke would not be serving other customers on the line "for our use" as currently proposed, and city counsel noted the draft instrument prohibits moving monuments, markers or columbarium features without the city's prior written approval. Still, commissioners pressed staff to narrow the easement's scope, require clearer limits on third‑party service and provide cost estimates for undergrounding versus overhead installation.

After discussion, Commissioner Asbodie moved to table Resolution 25‑106 so staff could review options, meet with Duke and present a revised instrument addressing specific scope, access and visual impacts. The motion was seconded and approved by roll call.

Next steps: staff will reread the instrument, price underground conduit options, evaluate alternative routing (including possible service drops through adjacent private easements), and return to the commission with a redraft and recommended timeline. The commission recorded the tabling as a formal action pending the revised proposal.