UTILITY BALLOT MEASURES DESERVING OF `YES' VOTES

Cape Girardeau voters will be asked Tuesday to make a choice on three questions involving local utilities. Two are similar but separate questions for 20-year franchise agreements with Union Electric Co. for electric and natural gas service. The third is an $11.8 million revenue bond proposal for the city purchase of the local water system from Union Electric. All three are necessary and beneficial to the citizens of Cape Girardeau and deserve "yes" votes. The Southeast Missourian endorses their passage.

Utility franchise agreements are not documents to stir the blood. They are detailed contracts that spell out the relationship between a private utility company and a municipality. We believe the marriage of Union Electric and Cape Girardeau has been a good one. The company provides reliable service, executes rapid repairs when there are problems and is a good corporate citizen. There is no good reason to discontinue this union.

That's not to say that the lights and heat will be shut off in case of a negative vote on these questions Tuesday. The city has been without a franchise agreement with Union Electric since 1989, and the power will continue to flow under a previous agreement regardless of the ballot outcome. However, the city charter requires that a utility franchise agreement be in place and voters, if they reject Tuesday's offering, will be faced with the question again.

A citizens' commission was formed several years ago to study the utility franchises and the new agreements are carefully crafted to take advantage of that group's work. With the new agreements, there is almost no discernible downside for voters, and a great many things to recommend the package. The new franchise contract has provisions for a discount on street light billing, warranties on street repairs necessitated by utility crew damage, right of first purchase should Union Electric want to sell the system, among others. Most significant is a provision that allows the city to compete with Union Electric in the electric and gas business, which leaves an option for competitive rates in what is essentially a monopoly situation. None of these provisions will be in effect if the franchise agreement ballot issues are rejected Tuesday.

A more complex question is the water system purchase. A study of the issue throws the weight of the evidence to an affirmative vote.

The overriding fact in our decision is this: Union Electric does not want to own the water system. It owns no other such operation throughout its multi-billion dollar enterprise and retains the one in Cape Girardeau only because it came as part of the package when the company merged with Missouri Utilities in 1983. The water system will be sold. If it is sold to a private company, the allegiance of the company's management will be to its investors; if the city buys the water system, the allegiance will be to local citizens. There will be local control over the service.

Control is a essential word in discussing this question. By owning the water system, the city controls its development, its costs, its improvements, its future. Cost is another essential word. A new private owner of the water system could file with the Missouri Public Service Commission a rate increase application of almost 50 percent. Water rates will go up only three percent the first year under city ownership.

With city ownership, there are no profits or tax payments that must be built into the rate structure; the citizens reap the profits through lower water rates. Further, the city vows to facilitate improvements in the water system that could lead to a better fire insurance rating, thereby lowering costs to individuals and businesses.

For all this, the purchase of the water system will not require a tax increase; the $11.8 million in bonds will be paid from water system revenues.

There are some troublesome aspects to this Tuesday's vote, and they have little to do with the issues involved. Southeast Missourian polls in October showed citizens here were slow to study these ballot questions, though the issues will have long-range impact on the city. There might be a tendency to cast a "safe" vote of "no." There may also arise in voters an abstract disgruntlement at the thought of turning over controls of a vital utility to City Hall. We believe city officials have stated a good case for this purchase and will manage it effectively. Even if you don't share this belief, ask this question: Will the managers of a private company in another city care more for your interests than municipal officials here will? If problems arise in the system, will it be easier to seek redress here or elsewhere?

These ballot questions are important for Cape Girardeau. We urge city voters to cast "yes" votes on all three utility-related issues Tuesday.