The release, on Thursday, of City Manager Mark Palesh's first budget caught many off guard with his plan to cut property taxes by 11 percent. Standing alone, this is welcome news for the mayor and city council, especially in an election year when three seats are up. Yet, coupled with a sizable new fee for trash and increases for sewer and water rates, this is a budget that puts members of city council into an interwoven dilemma.

The city manager has learned from two of his predecessors, James Malone and John Salomone about how not to do a trash fee. They would not commit to removing the cost of collection from the general fund. It looks as if he has provided the incentive to city council to adopt the idea, by having a commensurate reduction in property taxes.

Many have long believed that a fee system for paying for a government service, such as trash collection, has been long overdue, but it has not been presented well in the past. This time around the city manager is making it clear that by going with his plan not only do most of the 2,300 tax exempt properties, that currently don't pay for collection, have to do so, but the roughly 66 percent of the properties that are not tax exempt will be paying more of a fair share now. They no longer will pick up the unfair burden of costs for those who don't pay, but receive a benefit.

While there may be many who will complain about the proposed trash fee, they will be fighting an uphill battle with the mayor and city council. Either eliminating or reducing the fee will result in losing the 11 percent property tax cut or, worse yet, result in a tax increase - something no one will want to do in an election year.

By interweaving both together, the manager has created a political dilemma for the mayor and city council - cut a proposal that may spread costs more fairly, but will have some vocal critics, or continue a system that sees property taxes increase, which won't please any property taxpayer.

Looking at last year's budget brouhaha, the city manager also stayed away from controversial staffing cuts. While overall he is reducing staff, he did it in non-sensitive areas, where there is not a political constituency and price for making cuts. While he has hinted to changes (i.e cuts and/or restructuring) down the road in both the fire and police departments, he didn't propose major cuts at this time. Instead he is proposing cuts in non-public safety areas where few taxpayers will rally to restore cuts in staffing.

What is surprising about the budget is the 5.9 percent increase in spending, close to double the rate of inflation, even with the staffing cuts. Expect city council to halve that if they can get consensus.

Cosentino is a former mayor of the City of Auburn and can be contacted at cozguytho@aol.com