MORE WATER-RATE INFORMATION WOULD BENEFIT CONSUMERS

The city of Cape Girardeau wants to raise water rates 5 percent to cover the cost of increased operations. Some residents wonder why the increase is needed on the heels of a water system sales tax and bond issue that voters approved last fall.

The proposed rate increase -- the maximum allowed by the city charter -- has left some hard feelings on both sides.

The City Council was wise to table the request for two weeks to allow time for more information to be brought forth and provide a cooling-off period for upset water users. More information can only help everyone better understand this request.

The council may have little choice but to pass the 5 percent increase. That is because the increase is already factored into the 1996-1997 city budget, which the council approved last spring. The rate increase would generate about $190,000 in additional revenue annually.

The numbers that the city staff has provided to the council may underscore the need. The city's total operating budget for the water plant this year is $4,039,370 -- $341,000 over last year. This increase includes a rather significant jump in the cost of chemicals.

In reality, the proposed 5 percent increase wouldn't be that noticeable on most water bills. The average monthly residential bill would rise about 74 cents. The average commercial customer would see rates increase about $3.13 a month.

But the timing could be better. If the council knew this rate increase was built into the budget, it should have been mentioned during the campaign for the water bonds. It might have avoided some of the hard feelings and confusion.

To be fair, the city made it clear that the $26.5 million bond issue and quarter-cent sales tax would be used for capital improvements, not operations. The city said the sales tax would avoid any increase in rates to fund these capital improvements. But customers may only remember that a rate increase would be avoided -- not what that rate increase would have paid for.

Perhaps the real issue is the practice of approving a budget that depends on later votes -- by the council or by residents -- to raise rates. The council would have been well-advised to approve the water rate increase when it passed the budget, delaying implementation until February.

Now the city must deal with a public relations headache of shaken public trust.