MUNICIPAL REVENUES SHOULD BE INVESTED HERE

Individuals and businesses of this community have an obligation to pay taxes that work for the benefit of all. That is a responsibility basic to a democratic system of government. Other responsibilities are just as vital if less clearly defined, and many in this city answer the call of civic duty in corporate and personal ways. As the door should swing both ways, the city government also has a duty to the community that goes beyond those spelled out by ordinance. With this in mind, we strongly believe the city government would best serve the community by investing its available revenues locally.

To preface this contention, credit city administrators for their vigilance in wanting to do the right thing with city funds; money in the coffers not being used for daily operations is put to work for citizens here. An investment team made up of municipal officials and community members directs dormant money to interest-drawing accounts. This is a wise and commendable undertaking.

We bring with these plaudits a difference of opinion concerning the approach the city takes in making investments. Some of the money is going to out-of-state financial institutions. Our feeling is the money should be kept at home.

Of the $5.85 million available for investment last year, the city steered $2.3 million away from Missouri financial institutions. Of that amount, some funds were deposited in savings and loan institutions in California and Maryland. The reason for these long-distance investments, according to the panel making decisions, is simply return; the city got a better rate elsewhere and the money was shipped out.

We can't question the logic or intent of this. Our dispute is with the philosophy applied. Our confidence is strong enough that the city's money is safe in these investments; still, correlation can be made between risk and return, with higher returns naturally posing greater risks. Our comfort level would be increased with the money closer at hand, where problems are not unheard of, but at least are detectable at an early stage.

Admitting to contradiction, our philosophical virtue in this matter might be softened if the financial return of the out-of-state investments were more significant. As it happens, the city's increased financial gain from its interstate investments was $15,000 for the last six months of 1990. A six-figure return might convince us that citizens here are well-served by these investments. Many local bankers, who might disagree with the city's investment policy, would probably join us on that point. In fact, the $15,000 advantage, even if gained with complete security of assets, does not benefit the community to the point of dispatching the funds elsewhere.

If the money were kept in a local setting, perhaps it could be put to work as additional capital for a business startup or commercial expansion. With the success of such loans, income would be produced, jobs would be created and tax revenues would increase; the $15,000 seems trifling in that light and the community would be the beneficiary.

The intentions of the city's investment committee are good and investments to date look fine on a ledger. True, some local banks have statewide ties and, true, some local banks depend on out-of-state securities. But there is more than money involved. Beyond the mercantile duties they perform, banks are asked to be good community citizens in a number of ways. Banks are asking City Hall to look beyond mere finances for the purpose of community good. We agree with that request. The money is paid here and should be invested here.