Fruitland incorporation supporters respond to Cape County Commission concerns

Cape Girardeau County residents hoping to create a village in Fruitland asked that the county reconsider their petition without many of the changes commissioners requested.

"We fully believe with the best of our ability that this petition represents the wishes of a significant majority of the residents, is in full compliance with the law, and will result in a progressive, growing community," said a letter to the county signed by six representatives, Timothy Sutterer, William S. Latimer, Brinda Luttrull, Omer Luttrull, Tommy Petzoldt and Sheila Luttrull. The statement was dated April 20 and emailed to the commission Monday morning.

Last August, 238 of the 302 taxable inhabitants of an area generally bound by Interstate 55, Route FF, County Road 541 and routes W and Y, covering 1,664 acres, petitioned the county to become a village.

State statutes governing incorporation of villages require a petition signed by two-thirds of taxable inhabitants be submitted to the county along with a boundary map. However, Missouri law allows for the county to determine what is "reasonable" in excess of the minimum before approving incorporation, according to the University of Missouri-Columbia incorporation handbook.

The county responded in February by identifying three "points of contention" with the petition -- the type of land included in the village boundaries, the village's financial plan and the services organizers intended to provide to residents

The county asserted that the village should include the historical footprint of Fruitland, which it said lies just north of the proposed borders. Petitioners say in their response that it would be unfair to redraw boundaries to include county residents who have not been a part of discussions about creating a village, which began in 2010.

"After incorporation of the Village, should any land owner, subdivision, or other entity desire to join the village, they could do so via voluntary annexation," petitioners said in their letter.

The county also took issue with the rural land included in the village, which county officials said can't legally be incorporated.

There is precedent in case law that annexed land be primarily urban in nature.

Proponents for the village argue that 75 percent of the owners of "agricultural" lands are supporters of incorporation and that "very few, if any of those parcels are used solely for agricultural purposes, and in fact include residential, commercial and industrial purposes."

Further, petitioners said owners of much of the land being considered agricultural by the county is actually industrial or is publicly planned for industrial use.

Proponents are referring to land that contains two quarries, Heartland Materials LLC and Strack Excavating LLC, and surrounding properties. Last fall, owners of properties adjoining the quarry lands, along with Heartland and Strack, approached Jackson for annexation. Voters turned over their annexation bid at the ballot. All the properties had asked Jackson for heavy industrial zoning for existing or planned industry.

The village's financial plan was another objection from the commission. Organizers reiterated that state statutes do not require submission of a financial plan to the county, but provided a sample plan estimating $75,752 in revenue and $75,480 in expenses and reserves to "demonstrate our diligence in insuring we would be a financially viable community."

Revenue sources include a potential half-cent sales tax, income from state motor vehicle gasoline tax, County Aid Road Trust (CART) funds and business licensing fees.

The county had a specific problem with the $10,000 in reserves included in the original petition, saying that it was insufficient to address "any possible unforeseen expenses that might arise."

Fruitland petitioners kept the reserve at $10,000 and said it was "unreasonable to expect a village, at start-up, to carry a significant amount of funds in reserve; a reserve will have to be built up over time, and the budget would include allocation of a percentage of income, set by trustees, to the establishment of that reserve."

Finally, the county wanted to see a timeline for establishment of village services and asked organizers to examine potential regulatory issues associated with services such as sewer or waste.

"The people of Fruitland are already served very well by other entities, and do not desire a change in the provision of those services -- among them, the County Sheriff for police protection, Fruitland Fire District for fire protection, Citizens Electric for electricity, PWSD No. 1 for water, and the County for County road maintenance," Monday's letter said.

The village plans to return CART funds to the county in exchange for upkeep of its roads and to create a contract with the sheriff's department, in line with the strategy followed by other small communities.

As for sewer, the letter says that the area is working with the Cape Girardeau County Sewer District No. 1 to outline possibilities for wastewater management.

Organizers said that their intent in creating a village is not to expand services, but to "provide for a mechanism and structure to promote and manage orderly residential, commercial, and industrial growth in the area."

In their conclusion, petitioners contradict the commissioners' claim that "many" residents have expressed wishes to be excluded from the village, citing county records that show that four potential residents have written to the county.

In March, Presiding Commissioner Clint Tracy said that he had received calls as well as letters from village opponents. In addition to written statements from residents, the county has received several letters from quarry owners that say they will take legal action to avoid being part of the village.

Tracy said Monday that the county received the petitioner's letter and that commissioners were "in the process of reviewing it." To take any action to move the process forward, he said, the matter would be formally included in future meeting agendas.

Sutterer said by email Monday that petitioners hope commissioners respond quickly and that "further debate" is not desired.

"We are both saddened and concerned that this effort on the part of residents of the County to improve the lives and community we live in has met with 'contention' by the elected leaders of the county," the letter to the commission said.

salderman@semissourian.com

388-3648

Pertinent address:

Fruitland, MO

1 Barton Square, Jackson, MO