Is Auburn City Manager Mark Palesh about to face his first policy defeat? Several sources in city hall familiar with the workings of city government make it clear that his trash fee proposal is dead, and that as more details become available, it has virtually no support among members of the city council.

The proposal, which lacked much detail when it first came out, is being seen by many as just another way for Auburn to generate cash from a new source.

The manager is proposing a shift of the $1.2 million it costs for collection from the city's general fund, to the new fee that will be put on water bills. For most, the idea of having a commensurate reduction in property taxes in exchange for “paying for play,” the simple concept of paying for the service you receive, is easy to understand and accept. Yet, it is after these general concepts are expanded that the trouble starts.

As more questions are asked and more information is disseminated to the public, opponents of any change start to put up defensive arguments and move to the offensive. The number of 2,300 properties not paying for trash service now, was the first number tossed out in defense of the proposal. That number was initially, by some, seen as equivalent to a third of the city that is now tax exempt and not paying for general fund services, because they don't pay property taxes. It now seems as if the 2,300 is not the generally assumed tax exempt properties, but the number of second and multi-units properties in the city that city government may see as ripe for a new fee.

Opponents are envisioning that for every multi-unit that is owned there will be a new $108 trash fee. For example, an owner of three units will pay a $324 trash fee per year, wiping away any perceived savings on the general property tax side of the ledger if there was a property tax cut. While defenders of the proposal argue that this is a way to provide a tax cut, it looks, under this scenario, that the real beneficiaries will be only large single unit businesses, not the majority of residential taxpayers in Auburn. Proponents of the new fee are now on the defensive, not having gotten their spin and facts out early and strong enough.

With this uncertainty and perception, members of the city council, three of whom are up for election this year, do not want to be caught in the middle of a trash tax controversy, which makes them look as if they are raising taxes. For them it's easier to nix the trash idea this close to Election Day, no matter how important addressing the tax fairness issue is, than get caught in the middle of a controversy that likely can't pass at this time because of the number of unknowns. Better to go with no property tax decrease than a new unpopular fee that is hard to explain to voters.

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