Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press city on easement, utilities and assessments for Bender’s 5th Addition
Summary
Residents and property owners questioned fence placement on a newly platted easement, who must pay to extend utilities and how assessments will be applied; city staff said ordinances make the fence legal now and engineers advised developers typically pay utility extensions and owners are usually assessed for street costs.
City officials and residents at the Nov. 18 Spring Grove City Council meeting debated who must pay for streets and utility extensions in the newly platted Bender’s 5th Addition and whether an existing fence sits on a 5-foot easement.
At issue was a fence that currently marks the property line where the new plat establishes a five-foot easement. Property owner Nathan Sherburne agreed to allow a trench to be dug behind the fence so it would not have to be moved now, and warned that “if the fence is to be taken down now, he will bill whoever is the one who takes it down and it needs to go back up on his property.” Clerk/Administrator Jana Elton said city ordinances make the fence legal in its current location and that the agricultural-side easement will not take effect until that land is platted.
Residents also asked who is responsible for power-line maintenance and whether early developers should be reimbursed if later owners tie in to previously installed lines. Elton relayed guidance from City Engineer Tim Hruska that when a developer creates a subdivision they are expected to extend power to the back of their lot for future connections and that a later property owner who builds behind them similarly must extend service for their lot. Elton said, consistent with that approach, the city does not plan to reimburse earlier owners for the cost of prior extensions.
On assessments, Elton said the city’s financial advisor generally recommends that new street construction be at least partially assessed to property owners; she noted past projects sometimes split costs 50/50 between the city and property owners. Guest Mark Corpstein pushed back, saying in a prior project totaling $1.5 million “none of that cost was assessed to the property owners” and warning that assessing owners would drive residents from the community. Mayor Bryan Wilhelmson pointed to the purchase agreement’s “Additional Terms,” which say: “Buyer shall be responsible for all costs associated with connecting Buyer’s utilities to public utilities.”
Property owners asked for help matching future road elevations to individual grading plans; Elton said Hruska will provide detailed plans by spring 2026 with approximate elevations accurate within plus or minus six inches. Elton also said the city could complete electric infrastructure now and invoice property owners, including for unsold lots, when they purchase—an approach Sherburne accepted as a cost-saving measure.
Utilities Director John Sylling said drainage for the east side of the addition will remain as-is for now; future builders may move a waterway closer to their property line but must maintain the ditch. Elton said some reconstruction and raising of the lower cul-de-sac may be needed near one driveway to ensure proper flow to the ditch.
No formal decisions were finalized at the meeting; council members and staff said they will return with additional information and engineering plans. The council also noted that two new home-construction permits tied to the addition have already been issued.
