COUNCIL ACTION ON FEES MUST BE SEEN IN CONTEXT

Without consensus to show for their debate, members of the Cape Girardeau City Council acted last week to raise fees for residential solid waste disposal. The decision, like any that involves money shifting from private pockets to a public treasury, would not be a popular one in any circumstance; that trash fees are involved touches a particular nerve with local residents, who remain unsettled by the community's transition into a recycling program. While our sympathies are with those who would rather keep the money in the citizens' hands, reflection prompts us to grudgingly accept the council's action as necessary.

Cape Girardeau and the rest of the nation have learned in recent years the cost of being a throw-away society. As the amounts of American refuse have increased, so has the price of dealing with it. And the dynamics of this governmental enterprise have shifted. Until the mid-1980s, Cape Girardeau used federal revenue sharing dollars to help pay for its solid waste program; there was no residential collection fee. When federal funding was phased out by Washington, voters in Cape Girardeau approved (in August 1986) a measure that called for a residential garbage pickup fee of $4.85 a month.

With last week's action, the residential trash fees climb to $10.54 a month from $8.90; each year since the payment's inception, the monthly fee has risen an average of 95 cents. That is not a figure to gladden the hearts of most Cape Girardeau residents.

However, it is important to keep in perspective broader aspects of solid waste disposal. State and federal mandates have been heaped upon local governments since the time of the residential fee's debut. In addition, Cape Girardeau's municipal government has, for the most part, separated itself from the landfill business, constructed a transfer station, launched a recycling program and put in motion a composting plan, all for economic or regulatory reasons.

In moving full steam into its recycling effort, City Hall irked some residents by removing from them one day of general refuse collection. However, municipal officials have acted diligently in trying to keep pace with state regulations that require recycling programs before this decade is out. Whether executed now or later, these programs have costs that must be borne by cities, not the authorities that ordain them; Cape Girardeau has chosen to move along with the directives.

Where has it taken this city? In the 1985-86 fiscal year, the Cape Girardeau solid waste program cost $1.2 million. In the coming fiscal year, projected expenses for the program top $2 million. The ante is being raised, mostly because of environmental decrees made elsewhere.

Can the city do anything? Comparing rates with other municipalities, as was done by one citizen at the council meeting last week, does little good; the variables (such as degree of compliance with recycling requirements) are too great for these comparisons to have meaning. Officials might do well, however, to study some type of volume-based billing system for refuse collection, as has been suggested. Linking fees with the measure of residents' use of the system makes sense; whether it can be accurately and practically determined is something to be reviewed.

While we can't rejoice at seeing residents pay $1.64 a month (or roughly a nickel a day) more for trash collection, our feeling is that the program has to remain solvent even in the face increased regulatory demands. And until state and federal agencies stop loading obligations on cities without providing a means of funding, local councils will continue having to make unpopular decisions.