WHAT COUNCIL SAYS, DOES RAISES ISSUE OF GOVERNMENT TRUST

It isn't the money. It is the principle. When the Cape Girardeau City Council approved user-fee increases for the municipal golf course and some other recreation programs that were above a 5 percent cap adopted by the same council a year ago, it sent a bad message to the city's taxpayers.

These are the same tax-sensitive taxpayers who will be asked in August to approve a half-cent increase in the city sales tax to pay for street improvements. Many of them are wondering if they can depend on the council's word.

A year ago the council approved a resolution saying it wouldn't impose any increases in taxes or fees above 5 percent without voter approval. Mayor Al Spradling III, some voters will remember, made holding down taxes a key part of his successful campaign.

In the meantime a committee that was assigned the task of reviewing the city charter made a recommendation that the tax and fee cap be made a part of the charter, giving it more teeth and less wiggle room for elected officials who might want to skirt the limits.

The fees approved by the council that exceed the cap in the resolution aren't going to break anyone financially. In fact, the council is on the right track when it expects users of city facilities and services, particularly those that are used only by people who chose to do so, to pay the cost.

Raising golf fees a few cents more than 5 percent isn't what has taxpayers concerned. It is the notion that the council would say one thing and do another that is so questionable.

At first, the mayor and some council members suggested that the resolution didn't apply to user fees. But the resolution clearly says "user fees." Then the explanation was offered that the resolution wasn't supposed to include golf and other recreation fees. Then the mayor said maybe the council should amend the resolution, since the city needed to raise SOME fees more than 5 percent in order to balance the budget.

In the broad view, it probably isn't good budget policy to have the council hamstrung by arbitrary limits on fees, even though taxpayers -- and the ones who vote in particular -- really like black-and-white limits. The council should have leeway to make sound financial decisions, and hard rules sometimes make that difficult.

But, doggone it, when a council votes to impose limits on itself and then tries to sashay around them, it just isn't right.

It would have been nice if the city council, knowing it needed to raise some fees above the 5 percent limit, had put the horse before the cart by amending the resolution before voting to raise the fees.

Of course, city council members are sensitive to how voting taxpayers would likely to react to such a move. It would be politically imprudent to look so wishy-washy.

So where does all this leave the council, the mayor and the taxpayers? In the uncomfortable position of distrust brought on by an action that never should have happened.

It would be nice if the mayor and city council would own up to the taxpayers. Just say, "We goofed on this one, but here's why we think we need to raise some fees more than 5 percent."

This would be a whole lot better than trying to bamboozle the voters by saying a 5 percent limit isn't really a 5 percent limit.

The mayor and those council members who voted for the fee increases -- as they looked at copies of their own resolution -- have a giant-sized foot to be removed from a politician-sized mouth.