Tucson police found 39-year-old Julio Alonso Carreon slain in a South Side driveway early Friday morning, spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco said. Homicide detectives are investigating.

Tucson Police Department was responding to reports of gunshots when they found Carreon in the 1400 block of East Ganley Terrace Drive, near South Park Avenue and East Bilby Road, Pacheco said.

Carreon was found lying the the dirt driveway of a home minutes after police received the reports, about 2:20 a.m., he said.

Pacheco said Carreon appeared to have sustained gunshot wounds, and the home he was lying near was not his own.

A man, a woman and a child were inside the home but unharmed, Pacheco said. Police are trying to establish the relationship between Carreon and the home’s occupants.

The shooting does not appear to be random nor gang-related, he said, though no motive had been established as of 7:30 a.m. Friday morning.

At that time, police were in the process of getting a search warrant for the home and canvassing the neighborhood for witnesses.

Two vehicles were reported leaving the home after shots were fired, Pacheco said, though descriptions were conflicting.

Police had not identified a suspect as of 7:30 a.m.

Leal says Trasoff meeting in “twos and threes” with colleagues improper

City Council budget talks derailed Tuesday amid allegations of a violation of the state’s Open Meetings Law.

In proposing a plan to cut spending to nonprofit groups and other jurisdictions that could save the city $1 million, Councilwoman Nina Trasoff described meeting with her colleagues “in twos or in threes.”

The descriptions raised questions for at least one council member who was not included, as three of his colleagues were. A meeting of four council members represents a quorum and makes public notice necessary under the law.

After listening to Trasoff’s explanation of her proposal and how she came to it, Councilman Steve Leal said: “That’s really a violation of the Open Meetings Law. That violates transparency.”

He said he was rebuked in the 1990s for similar action.

Trasoff said later that she met separately with council members Regina Romero, Karin Uhlich and Shirley Scott “to get their input on some of the things I was thinking.”

She said what she proposed integrated her colleagues’ suggestions, so she felt that she could not alone take credit for the savings plan.

“But it doesn’t represent an agreement,” she said. “And we didn’t vote. I’m not even sure that my colleagues would vote for it.”

Trasoff denied that her meetings were inappropriate.

“There was no rotation (of speaking with other council members),” she said. “There was no collusion.”

At least one legal expert said Trasoff’s chain of meetings was an example of “polling the public body” and a violation of the law.

“If she’s meeting with them separately and trying to achieve consensus, it’s a violation,” said Dan Barr, a lawyer who specializes in media law with Perkins Coie Brown and Bain in Phoenix. “Why is she meeting with a quorum if not to achieve a level of consensus?”

Barr said that if a court was to find that there was a violation, it would nullify legal action related to the illegal discussion.

In this case, that means the city budget and its most politically sensitive bits.

Trasoff said her motivation in identifying the savings was to avoid instituting a tax on residential rental properties, a proposal hundreds of Tucsonans have protested at public hearings.

Protesters have highlighted the city’s $12.7 million allocation to so-called “outside agencies” such as Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities, the Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau and the Tucson Pima Arts Council as a place to cut spending and thus avoid the $17.4 million in proposed tax increases in a $1.3 billion budget.

That funding, however, has historically gone to organizations that function as key sources of political support and to groups that officials view as complementary to their policy aims.

Before the acrimony broke out, City Manager Mike Letcher tried to make clear what those policy aims are in the context of the budget.

“One of the things we need to explore is ultimately, what kind of community do we want in the future?” he said. “. . . $68 million (in expected sales tax revenue) is gone, and that’s serious.”

Marie Nemerguth, assistant to the city manager, said that under the proposed budget, residents can expect stable public safety staffing and a cut of 8.6 percent to the allocation to outside agencies from the year before.

She described how the city has eliminated 400 positions, cut department budgets by more than 7 percent and public safety allocations by 2.5 percent, as well as forcing employees to take what amounts to a 2 percent pay cut and benefits cutback.

Trasoff portrays her proposal as a way to face the issue head-on.

She suggests funding two job training programs that began under Pima County Interfaith Council, a group with substantial political clout, for six months and then requiring JobPath and School Plus Jobs to submit to a competitive process.

She recommends cuts to the amounts Letcher recommended the council give to Tucson Gem and Mineral Society and other groups but adding funding to Tucson Botanical Gardens, Tucson Children’s Museum, Tucson Museum of Art and the Critical Path Institute.

“It’s just a concept,” she said, after running through the changes.

Scott and Romero backed Trasoff up, at least about the appropriateness of the meetings.

Scott bristled at Leal’s suggestion that the talks were out of line, pointing out that she sometimes has lunch with him.

Romero said she thought Leal took the meetings out of context.

“I have to have the opportunity to speak to my colleagues, of course without breaking the law,” she said. “I really appreciate (Trasoff) wanting to build some consensus in the group.”

Romero also said she disagreed with the central point of Trasoff’s plan – deciding which outside agency gets what – preferring instead “an across-the-board, depoliticized cut” based on this fiscal year’s allocations.

Uhlich, who listened to the meeting by phone, didn’t enter the debate and focused on her proposal: to increase the utility tax by 2 percent instead of 1 percent to replace the rental tax.

After the study session, City Attorney Mike Rankin said, “There was no violation of the Open Meetings Law today.”

As to whether Trasoff’s string of meetings constituted a violation, he said, “From what I heard today, no comment.”

Gomez

For Republican Judith Gomez, running for the Ward 5 seat on the City Council is about telling the truth.

“That’s the foundation of my life,” the 27-year-old mother of three said. “That’s what I teach my sons. Sometimes it’s going to be hard, but it’s about integrity.”

On the matter of truth-telling, she wants to start with the city budget, with how the city ought to manage its cash as a family does: necessities first.

“The council says they put public safety first, but I think when you study the way that they’re disbursing the money, it’s not true,” said Gomez, the wife of a Pima County Sheriff’s Department sergeant.

She says public safety is at the top of her priority list. She thinks the budget proposed for the fiscal year that begins July 1 diverts money from the city’s necessities, which she lists as public safety, smooth roads and economic development.

“They’re sending money to things that are less important than public safety,” Gomez said.

Among the recipients of money Gomez would prefer went to the Tucson Police Department are Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities and the Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau.

Honesty and family are undercurrents when Gomez speaks about seeking the council seat for Ward 5, roughly the area south of 22nd Street. Democrat Steve Leal has held the seat for 20 years but chose not to run for re-election.

Gomez describes her decision to decline admission to college as a quest for a greater challenge.

“I grew up in a broken home,” she said. “The challenge I decided to take up was to have a family and the security of a family and to have that family be healthy.”

She became a bookkeeper, a guardian of financial accountability, she says, emphasizing that she’s quick to learn.

“Just because I don’t maybe have the same things behind me that other people have, I can do this. I can learn,” she said.

Gomez hopes the Legislature won’t obliterate the funding for downtown redevelopment, but she advocates an overhaul.

“We need to build something that will bring revenue to Tucson,” she said. “Rio Nuevo was supposed to bring (progress) to Tucson, not decay, not delay.”

She says she’s opposed to a tax increase and thinks the current City Council is ducking its responsibilities by laying too much blame on the national economy.

As a solution, she offers an ear. She pledges to listen closely to Ward 5′s residents.

The other part of her solution is compromise. “You can’t find solutions by being rigid,” she said.

Shaun McClusky of the GOP is also seeking the Ward 5 seat, as is Democrat Richard Fimbres. The primary will be held in September.

The Tucson-Pima County Historical Commission will honor locals who’ve advanced the cause of historic preservation at a ceremony May 31.

Past winners include people involved with the Southern Pacific Depot, the El Presidio project and the Fort Lowell Historic District.

This year’s awards will be given from 3 to 5 p.m. at San Pedro Chapel, 5230 E. Fort Lowell Road.

Entry is free.

For more information, call 791-4213.

Private firm cleaning up at Tucson’s expense

Bill Hill and Chris Landeen dump their trash at the Los Reales Landfill, 5300 E. Los Reales Road.

Tucson officials estimate a transfer station opened in November by garbage giant Waste Management will siphon 100,000 tons of trash and $3 million in revenue from the city over the next year.

The lost revenue, in combination with plummeting prices for recyclables and high prices for gas, mean the 5-year-old and much scorned city garbage fee is set to go up. Landfill fees have already seen increases.

Environmental Services Department Director Andrew Quigley has asked the City Council to raise the trash fee to $14.50 per month beginning July 1.

A City Council vote on the proposed 3.6-percent increase is set to follow a public hearing June 2.

That day, the council also is slated to tentatively approve a $1.3 billion budget that, as of Friday, included $12.4 million in new or increased taxes and millions more in raised fees. The same day, the council will weigh whether to raise bus fares.

With a budget that relies heavily on sales tax receipts, the city has been struggling to pay its daily bills.

The Environmental Services Department is in similar shape, also having to contend with volatile gas and recyclables prices and relying on sources of funding that are on the decline, most notably private haulers’ landfill fees.

While the public landfill business appears on a downhill slide, Waste Management is reporting increased landfill profits.

The company stated in its first quarter earnings statement that its landfill revenues rose 3.1 percent from the same year before even as its overall earnings dropped more than 16 percent amid a recession.

Waste Management operates the largest network of landfills in the country, with 277 sites accepting more than 116 million tons of waste per year, according to its Web site.

Two of those sites are in the Tucson area, and both have represented challenges to the local governments operating nearby dumps.

A transfer station at 5200 W. Ina Road contributed to Pima County raising landfill fees last year and second-guessing the timing of the closure of its Northwest Side landfill at Tangerine Road.

The opening of Rincon Transfer Station at 5890 S. Mann Ave. in November is causing consternation among city officials because private haulers who once dropped waste at the city’s Los Reales Landfill have begun using the Waste Management facility.

Quigley estimates the shift will mean 20 percent less trash – 100,000 tons – entering the city’s Los Reales landfill next fiscal year, which begins July 1.

Waste Management Arizona spokeswoman Melissa Quillard would not say how much trash the Mann Avenue transfer station accepts. She said publicizing the information could give competitors an advantage.

But Quigley is certain a large proportion of the trash that had been going to Los Reales is now headed for ultimate disposal at Waste Management’s Maricopa and Pinal county dumps.

In a bid to recoup some of the financial losses that follow from the diverted trash, Quigley has offered cut rates to haulers that promise to deliver a set amount of waste.

He hasn’t received any responses yet, though he said haulers expressed interest when he first came up with the deal.

“Right now, we’re just waiting,” he said.

Councilwoman Nina Trasoff praised Quigley for his attempt to extend a deal to the haulers.

“I think that the money he’s going to recoup that way is a very creative approach,” she said.

Regardless of how successful the contract program is in luring haulers back to Los Reales, Environmental Services will almost definitely need other revenue to stay in the black.

That leaves the City Council with an unpopular political decision and one that brushes up against campaign promises made by at least two council members.

Both Trasoff and Councilwoman Karin Uhlich campaigned against the $14 a month trash fee four years ago, saying it was too expensive and implemented inappropriately.

They said when the fee was imposed the year before – 2004 – public comment opportunities were lacking and the waiver program for low-income city residents was inadequate.

Now they’re faced with upping the price.

“(Raising the trash fee) will never make me happy,” Trasoff said. “But it’s been demonstrated that there’s a real need and the money is used for garbage services. I can live with it so long as I know that we have a meaningful waiver program in effect.”

Uhlich takes a similar stance, though she puts the proposed increase in the context of a plan to attach fees to indexes.

“I think there seems to be support on the council to apply indexes across all city fees so that we avoid the large adjustments, which are historically more the norm,” she said.

The reason for indexing, Uhlich said, is that increases will be predictable and therefore easier to incorporate into budgets.

So that applying an index wouldn’t simply mean prices increase gradually but without any relationship to cost trends, Uhlich suggests using indexes that apply directly to the fee at hand.

A fuel index, for example, could be applied to a garbage fee because fuel is one of the primary costs in collecting trash, she said.

Councilman Rodney Glassman, like Trasoff, is not entirely opposed to indexing, though he is wary of applying indexes across the board.

“It’s important when looking at the question of indexing to consider other factors such as the economy and the actual cost of providing the services,” he said. “I support indexing as part of a pricing model but not something that can be relied upon as the sole indicator of price adjustment.”

He advocates giving department directors more leeway in setting fees and running departments more like businesses.

He also thinks the trash fee increase is a better alternative to letting garbage services suffer because there’s not enough money to pay for them.

“It’s unrealistic to think that the department can continue to provide services without adjusting their rates over time,” he said.

Councilwoman Regina Romero also seems to accept the fee increase but is less enthusiastic about using an index.

“It seems that the fees are accumulating,” she said. “At the same time, I see the budget holes.”

The Rincon Recycling and Transfer facility, 5890 S. Mann Ave.

———

TRASH AT A GLANCE

Los Reales Landfill, 5300 E. Los Reales Road

Hours: 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday

Residential rates: $10 for a covered load weighing less than a ton; $30 per ton for heavier, covered loads; uncovered loads cost $5 more

Commercial rates: $30 per ton for covered loads; $5 more for uncovered loads

Waste Management’s Rincon Transfer Station, 5890 S. Mann Ave.

Hours: 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday through Friday; 7 a.m. to noon Saturday

Residential rates: $38 per ton plus $14 per load for loads weighing less than 500 pounds

Commercial rates: $38 per ton plus about $5 in variable fees

Source: City of Tucson and Waste Management

Shaun McClusky describes representing the South Side on the City Council as his “sole ambition.”

“I’m not using this as a steppingstone,” he said, hinting that some members of the council intend to move on.

McClusky, 37, a Republican, said he is running for the Ward 5 council seat now held by Democrat Steve Leal, who is not seeking re-election, in part because he feels like public safety has been given an unwarranted back seat in city government.

“The most basic function of government is public security and public safety, and they haven’t provided that,” he said of the current, Democrat-dominated council.

McClusky is a former Davis-Monthan airman now working as a Realtor and property manager for Rincon Ventures, a company he helped found in 2007.

McClusky backs the citizen’s initiative being funded by the Tucson Association of Realtors that – if it makes it onto November ballots and passes – would increase the number of police officers and firefighters.

He also wants to make sure that money allocated to police is not diverted.

McClusky is especially concerned that funds intended for public safety are distributed instead to what city officials call “outside agencies” – nonprofits and other groups that provide services complementing those provided by the city, for example, crisis services.

He worries those groups look for handouts too quickly, an idea anathema to his small-businessman identity, he said.

He said easing restrictions on businesses and increasing economic development measures are high on his priority list.

McClusky is critical of the budget proposal the council is currently considering not only because he said he thinks more money should go to police and fire, but also because he’s against tax increases. As a property manager, he’s dead set against the proposed rental tax.

Calling himself a problem solver instead of a politician, McClusky promotes “an economically sensible approach.” He cites investing in geothermal energy for long-term savings and reducing city services to primary obligations, such as public safety, as examples of that.

He pledges to embody that sensibility by rejecting the vehicle and gas payments that are a council perk.

Looks elsewhere to help balance the budget

After two weeks of public hearings and negotiations about Tucson’s proposed budget, City Manager Mike Letcher has submitted revisions.

Letcher’s plan softens what hundreds of residents told the City Council was the most onerous part of the $1.3 billion proposed budget – a tax on landlords who own three or more residential rental properties in Arizona.

Several council members have hinted they’re opposed to the tax, which hundreds protested at recent public hearings. It is one of several proposed taxes and fee increases in Letcher’s budget that are expected to raise $17.4 million. The money could help balance a budget facing large shortfalls because of steep declines in sales tax collections.

Letcher now suggests a 1 percent tax on rental properties, instead of the 2 percent he initially proposed. The change would mean about $5 million in new revenue.

To help compensate for receiving about $5 million less in new revenues than estimated in his first proposal, Letcher suggested eliminating a $2 million payment to the city’s Housing Trust Fund that was intended to cushion the financial blow to renters. The trust fund provides down payment and rental assistance, among other services.

He also recommends increasing Parks & Recreation Department fees to bring in another $200,000. No details were provided on which fees would be affected. Letcher’s earlier proposal had left the fees untouched.

Cuts in payments to nonprofits and other governments considered “outside agencies” were also proposed as a way to balance the books.

Letcher suggested a $1 million cut in distributions to nonprofits and other groups from the current fiscal year, bringing the total to be divvied up to $11.7 million. Those groups got nearly $15 million from the city last fiscal year.

Letcher wrote in the letter delivered with his proposed budget that the council would have to decide how to allocate the “outside agencies” pool.

It’s a decision council members dread because the groups that have historically received the money have been strong sources of political support.

Ideas on how to enact the cuts range from making a strong statement of priorities with the money to using the list of last year’s recipients and slashing evenly across the board.

Letcher also looked to raise bus fares to make up some financial ground.

An increase in bus fares – the issue that prompted hundreds to speak out at council meetings last year – would be used to offset about $1.8 million of a proposed $32 million contribution from the city’s general fund to its mass transit fund. No fare increase was included in the city manager’s earlier proposal.

The council is considering raising regular fares to $1.25 from $1 and day passes to $3 from $2. Economy fares would not be affected.

Under an agreement with the Regional Transportation Authority, the city must contribute $32 million to the transit system next fiscal year as “maintenance of effort,” Transportation Director Jim Glock said.

Including bus fares in the city’s general fund payment would not violate the agreement, Glock said, noting that service levels would be maintained.

Councilwoman Karin Uhlich rallied opposition to a fare increase last summer. She has said she would prefer a fare increase be pumped back into the transit system.

Under that scenario, federal grants that are now used for maintenance could also help pay for new buses, said Roy Cuaron, transportation finance director.

The council is scheduled to discuss the changes during a study session Tuesday.

Also set for Tuesday is a public hearing on how the city plans to spend its $2.5 million federal stimulus allocation aimed to preventing homelessness.

The proposed expenditures include short-term rental assistance, moving costs and data collection.

———

IF YOU GO

• What: Tucson City Council meeting

•When: Study session begins at 2 p.m., regular session at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday

•Where: Council Chambers, 255 W. Alameda St.

The seaport of Guaymas, Son., shown in a 2005 file photo, could be an important part of making Tucson an international port.

Tucson could be a major international transportation hub, but if the city’s serious about that, there should be one person in charge, the region’s economic development group said in a recent report.

Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities, or TREO, advocates the hiring of an inland port director and creating a new organization whose mission would be to advance “Puerto Nuevo.”

The director’s salary would be paid by business contributions, said Sarah Smallhouse, who headed the advisory committee that helped write the report. “Think of it sort of like a trade association,” she said.

The idea – in the works since 2005 – is to use Tucson’s logistically convenient geography to its economic advantage.

The city sits at the intersection of east-west and north-south interstates I-10 and I-19 and a similar convergence of rail lines.

About 72,000 of the city’s jobs are already in the transportation sector, the report states.

But to be a major player, TREO says, the city needs to look at improvements related to to trucking, air freight and ocean access.

Key components of TREO’s plan involve building an I-10 bypass, setting up a larger rail yard near Marana and improving infrastructure connecting Tucson to the seaport of Guaymas, Mexico.

The report also recommends the development of food processing plants because of the tons of Mexican agricultural products shipped daily through the city.

Most of the related development is anticipated along Valencia Road.

Smallhouse said the project is realistic despite the recession and should be the domain of business owners, not government.

A paid director could coordinate the work of a volunteer board, she said, characterizing the port as likely more “virtual” or “promotional” than “bricks and mortar.”

That was music to the ears of the City Council, in the midst of a budget process that will undoubtedly involve millions of dollars in both spending cuts and new taxes.

“I think this is really wonderful,” Councilman Steve Leal said. “There could be all kinds of jobs in this.”

Laura Shaw, TREO’s vice president of corporate and community affairs, said the process of hiring an inland port director had not yet begun.

No files permanently lost on the 200 terminals affected

Police Officer Larry Lopez had read 18 e-mails before he opened one instructing him not to turn on his computer: A computer virus was spreading through the department.

That was almost two weeks ago. Tuesday, Lopez was allowed to boot up for the first time since then. He generally uses a computer daily.

About 200 Tucson Police Department computers were affected by the virus, but all were taken out of service and checked out, said Ann Strine, the city’s chief information officer.

About 25 computers are still down, undergoing a slow reconstruction, Strine said.

Patrol car laptops and communications systems weren’t affected because they are on separate networks, she said.

But for days, at least some officers were unable to write reports, input evidence or access records. It left many officers wondering how they did their job before computers became commonplace.

“We did more by cell phone,” Lopez said of the past two weeks. “You had to think of things to do that don’t involve computers.”

Officer Mike Gurr responded to questions about what he did by gesturing pulling his hair out.

Newly installed police Chief Roberto ViIlaseñor had a more positive spin on the episode.

He said it represented a healthy reality check, a test of bureaucratic reorganization and an indicator of social change.

“Two years ago, officers would complain about typing up their reports,” he said. “In a way, (officers’ dismay at losing computer access) is a measure of success.”

The influx of information technology experts into TPD also demonstrated the benefit of the recent consolidation of city department IT sections, Villaseñor said.

Having so many computers out of service at one time tested how TPD would function if there were a more serious emergency, he said.

“We’ve got to be flexible,” he said. “I think it was a good exercise.”

Strine anticipated no lingering problems from the virus and said no files were permanently lost. Officers were notified of the virus by phone and through messengers, as well as through e-mail, she said.

Lopez said he was glad to be able to just log back on.

The City Council voted Tuesday to approve a $1.75 million settlement with the family of an 8-year-old boy electrocuted at a city ballfield last summer.

City Attorney Mike Rankin said the deal was reached during an April 24 mediation session attended by the family of DeShun Glover, city officials and representatives of the city’s former primary electrical maintenance contractor, Fluoresco Lighting and Signs, 5505 S. Nogales Highway.

Rankin said the family also reached a settlement with Fluoresco but the terms of that deal were confidential.

DeShun was electrocuted July 25 while at a youth baseball game with his family at Reid Park Annex fields, city officials said at the time.

When it began raining, he remained standing next to a pole while others ran for cover. Then he suddenly collapsed.

Family members ran to him but were driven back by electrical shocks. He was finally separated from the current by his father.

An exposed wire in one of the park’s electrical “pullboxes,” also known as junction boxes, caused the electrical current that killed DeShun, according to a report the city commissioned from George J. Hogge, principal engineer of Engineering Forensics Experts LLC.

The report blamed Fluoresco for improper equipment installation. “The failure of the Fluoresco workmen to eliminate that hazard was clearly well below the minimum standard of care for a professional tradesman,” Hogge wrote.

Fluoresco has not received work orders from the city since July, said John Sefton, deputy director of the city’s Parks & Recreation Department. Secondary contractors have been used instead, he said.

Sefton said electrical maintenance contracts will be opened for bid in June.

The City Council also directed city staffers Tuesday to contact the Glover family to offer to find a way to memorialize DeShun.

Villaseñor

Roberto Villaseñor was formally appointed Tucson’s police chief at a City Council meeting Tuesday.

The vote was unanimous and followed by a standing ovation and a string of hugs and handshakes.

“He’s the guy for the job,” said Officer Larry Lopez, president of the Tucson Police Officers Association, the police union. “I have no reservations at all.”

Each member of the council praised Villaseñor and the process that made him chief.

The vote concluded the second search since former Chief Richard Miranda retired last year to become assistant city manager.

The first search – a nationwide recruitment – ended after a seven-hour closed council discussion that revealed no consensus pick. The council then opened the position only to candidates from within the Tucson Police Department.

Villaseñor, 50, was selected over eight other local candidates, including two finalists in the earlier, nationwide search – Assistant Chief John Leavitt and Capt. Brett Klein.

“It’s just clear that we have an outstanding police department,” Councilwoman Karin Uhlich said of the pick.

“I’m very pleased with the process that brought about this nomination,” Councilman Rodney Glassman said.

Villaseñor said Tuesday that watching the initial recruitment process made him wish he had applied in the first round.

“Sitting back in the audience I realized I had made a mistake (in not applying),” he said. “I was thinking, ‘I want that, I want that. My work up until now has prepared me for it.’ ”

When the search was re-opened, Villaseñor applied, though he still had reservations about having to move into the city limits to comply with a recent council ordinance. He now lives in unincorporated Pima County.

But when his 11-year-old son agreed to switch schools in exchange for a cell phone, the decision was made.

“That’s a fair trade,” VIllaseñor said. “I’d always encouraged him to pursue his dreams, and he turned it around on me.”

Villaseñor said he doesn’t anticipate making major strategic or organizational changes, but he will be making appointments to fill his assistant chief spot and the position of deputy chief when Interim Chief Kermit Miller retires in June.

Among his top priorities are being creative with how money is spent to accommodate budget cuts and harnessing volunteer power.

The 29-year department veteran will officially take over the 1,100-officer force Wednesday, with a swearing-in ceremony slated for Friday.

Villaseñor will be paid a yearly salary of $160,000, according to the ordinance the council approved Tuesday.

If Tucson voters are going to have a say on how many police officers and firefighters the city should have, they’ll have to sign a petition to get it on the ballot.

The City Council was scheduled to talk Tuesday about the provisions of a citizen’s initiative that could cement police and fire department staffing standards, but it didn’t.

Councilman Rodney Glassman, who requested the discussion be put on the agenda, asked the council to table the talks. It was possible the council could have put the issue on the November ballot itself, forgoing the need for gathering petition signatures. But Glassman’s motion to table the item passed without discussion.

Before the meeting, Glassman had received a letter from Rick Hodges, the CEO of the Tucson Association of Realtors, the backers of the initiative, asking him to cancel the discussion.

“We have spoken to other members of the council and at this time, there is clearly not the level of support to refer our proposal to the ballot that we had hoped for,” Hodges wrote.

After conversations with police and fire union members, Hodges wrote, “We feel that taking this concept straight to the citizens of our community is most appropriate through a citizen’s ballot initiative.”

Glassman said that the city has not in the past given initiatives a fast track to the ballot. He declined to speak about council support for the measure.

The initiative proposes increasing the ratio of police officers from 1.9 officers per 1,000 residents to 2.4 officers per 1,000 residents.

That would mean the hiring of more than 600 officers over five years, taking into account attrition such as retirements and resignations, Assistant City Manager Richard MIranda wrote in a memo to the council.

The new cops and firefighters would cost up to an extra $7.9 million each year for wages and benefits, $8.6 million a year for pension contributions, $1.3 million a year for fuel and car maintenance and $7.9 million to buy more vehicles over the hiring period, Miranda wrote.

He also detailed the costs of hiring support staff, training and other items.

Council gets earful on plan to balance city budget

Reuben Hart (left) high-fives Ron Marcischak after Hart spoke during a public hearing on the city's budget at a City Council meeting Tuesday at the Tucson Convention Center. More than 500 people were in the meeting and another 200 gathered outside the room.

The 500 audience seats for the Tucson City Council’s budget hearing Tuesday were full before the meeting started.

Another 200 or so anxious commenters gathered along the walls, in the hallway and in the lobby of the Tucson Convention Center, waiting for a chance to have their say. Or at least watch or wave signs, perhaps clap or, perhaps more likely, boo.

A loud chorus of boos ushered the public hearing from a spot at the end of the night’s agenda to the top of the list of regular agenda items.

About 120 people turned in cards to speak. The turnout was largely to voice opposition to about $17.4 million in new or increased taxes in the city budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. About $10 million of that amount is anticipated to come from a tax on residential rental property.

About a third of the crowd wore red, a statement of solidarity against taxes in general and the proposed rental tax in particular.

Some in red were allied with the organizers of the Tucson Tea Party, which rallied 3,000 to protest taxes in front of City Hall last month.

Others wore red for the coalition of housing associations arguing that the tax would affect the poorest Tucsonans at a time they can least afford to pay.

Stories of economic woe followed one after the other. Some speakers were in tears. Others made jokes about considering eating cat food.

“Now I can’t afford to be sick,” said Reuben Hart, a disabled veteran with cats he said are better fed than him. “I’m sick of it.”

For others, the case was simple, even impersonal. “I don’t want to pay any more taxes,” Mikki Niemi said. “They could cut pay 10 percent and get rid of take-home cars, then ask for more taxes.”

Trent Humphries, an organizer of the Tucson Tea Party, opposes all the tax and fee increases, saying none addresses business infrastructure.

“They just want their slush funds,” he said of the council. “If we took care of the spending problem, we wouldn’t have to (raise taxes).”

Dale Bieber, a retiree on a fixed income, explained his process of dealing with the economic downturn and recommended the council follow his lead.

“I couldn’t increase my income because it’s fixed,” he said. “So I had to cut my costs. I learned the difference between needs and wants, and I wonder if you’ve learned the difference between needs and wants.”

Several speakers asked the council to personally demonstrate the sacrifice they’ve requested of city employees and residents.

Some suggested the council take a 2 percent pay cut to match the 2 percent rental tax.

John Kromko, a longtime local activist who is putting together a petition that would try to force a repeal of the proposed rental tax, suggested city employees and the council take a cut of 1 percent for every $10,000 in pay, a savings plan similar to that put in place by South Tucson’s government.

James King, a self-described city “garbage guy,” asked, “What will you do for us?” He described his own compromises: five days of furlough, higher benefit payments, more for rent.

Bob Klug, who owns three rental properties, worried he wouldn’t be able to pass on the tax to renters.

He and several others suggested that a large proportion of landlords fail to report rental property income now and are less likely to if they have to pay more taxes.

“Are you going to have overworked police crashing apartments?” Klug asked.

City Finance Director Silvia Amparano said in a fact sheet released Monday that enforcement would match that of businesses that pay sales tax.

Melanie Morrison of the Arizona Multihousing Association said the issue of tax evasion was likely to make those who pay the lowest rent – those who rent at complexes rather than in single-family homes – shoulder the heaviest tax burden.

“(Landlords who own fewer properties) are more likely to skirt the tax because they’re less visible,” she said.

Under the proposal, landlords with more than three properties in Arizona, at least one in Tucson, would have to get a business license and collect the tax.

Officials estimate that a renter who pays $600 a month would pay about $144 more a year. The estimate does not take into account an administrative cost.

Though opposition was stiff, suggestions other than council sacrifice were sparse.

Melanie Nelson of the Pima County Interfaith Council, whose causes – KIDCO, an afterschool program; School Plus Jobs, a youth employment program; and Job Path, a training program – stand to benefit from the tax increases said, “This is why we encouraged them to start early with a public process.”

Another public hearing on the budget will be held May 5.

Melanie Morrison of MEB Management Services, which manages apartment complexes, says landlords with fewer properties are more likely to skirt the rental tax because they are less visible.

Tucson may see higher bus fares after all.

Almost a year after rejecting a fare increase proposed by the Transportation Department, the City Council voted Tuesday to have an ordinance created that would raise regular fares to $1.25 from $1.

The vote on the ordinance will occur after a public hearing scheduled for June 2, City Attorney Mike Rankin said.

The council voted unanimously to have Rankin draw up the ordinance, although Councilman Steve Leal took pains to ensure that he was not voting to raise rates.

“There’s parts of this that I do not support,” he said.

Leal later explained that among his concerns was the availability of economy passes at places along bus routes.

Tuesday’s motion was put forward by Councilwoman Nina Trasoff and seconded by Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, who spearheaded opposition to the increase last summer based on questions about data supporting it.

The new proposal advanced the recommendations of the citizens’ committee that was created after the proposal last summer was voted down.

The group advised raising regular rates to $1.25, increasing day passes to $3 from $2 and raising express passes to $1.50 from $1. The group did not recommend an increase for the economy fare but supported more long-term planning.

Transportation Director Jim Glock told the council that not raising fares last summer under a slightly different schedule caused a $2 million loss to the mass transit fund for the fiscal year that ends June 30. He was responding to a question from Councilman Rodney Glassman, who supported the increase last year.

The talk of fee increases widened divisions among council members about how to keep the city in the black.

Leal is a vocal supporter of regular fee discussions in the council. Others including Uhlich advocate considering an index system that would incrementally raise fees over time, ideally avoiding sudden and sharp increases. A proposal to have the directors of departments in which fees are supposed to cover operating costs set the rates also was floated Tuesday.

Trasoff said she understood the council’s role as setting policy on how to adjust fees. In the other camp, Leal said that would be an abdication of responsibility of elected officials and a compromise to the transparency and accountability council members say they have been pushing.

A proposal to increase golf fees amplified the debate. The fees of the golf program are supposed to cover the city’s costs, but this fiscal year, the golf fund was short $1.5 million.

The council voted unanimously to have an ordinance increasing the fees drawn up for a later vote.

Also Tuesday, an increase in water rates that would amount to about an extra $1.80 a month tacked onto the bills of 90 percent of Tucson Water users moved a step closer to reality.

Officials emphasized the $11 million in spending cuts Tucson Water has put in place and the low price of city water compared to bottled water. With the increase, a gallon of tap water would still cost one-tenth of a penny, Director Jeff Biggs said.

“I think it’s a pretty good deal for our customers,” he said.

The increase would generate a 10 percent increase in water rate revenue.

Letcher says a top priority is balancing city budget

New City Manager Mike Letcher says it's not in his makeup to leave when there are problems.

It’s hard to get Mike Letcher to boast.

Tucson’s new city manager emphasizes that he’s been second in command a long time, that he learned his lessons through time and practice, that he’s not the type to jump at the top job for the prestige.

In talking about his ascension to city manager after eight years in the deputy spot, Letcher does not focus on how the promotion is the capstone to a 30-year public service career.

For him, it’s more personal, more about the process of government. Letcher has now held the jobs of two mentors of his early management career – Mark Keane, former Tucson city manager in the 1960s, and Jack Urie, former Tucson No. 2, whom he met after graduating with a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Kansas.

When he says that, he beams.

But the moment’s brief, cut short by a glimpse at a Post-it note on the table in his office: another task, another meeting.

It’s been three weeks since Letcher, 55 took up the city manager’s seat, first as interim following the firing of former City Manager Mike Hein, then without the qualifier. The City Council voted April 21 to ask him to stay on. He had planned to retire in November.

Letcher stepped in amid a recession that’s chopped about 20 percent from the city’s sales tax base and threats from the state Legislature to make over or squelch downtown redevelopment plans.

He inherited a bureaucracy slimmed by incentive retirements and reorganizations and staffers nervous about the economy and more management change.

The past weeks have been a whirlwind of meetings, briefings and late-night budget revisions. He and the city are negotiating his pay and benefits.

The Tucson Citizen sent Letcher a list of questions to gain more insight into the man who now runs the municipal machine:

QUESTION: Why did you agree to be city manager, especially given the problems besetting the city this year and into the future?

ANSWER: It may be hard for some people to understand, but there are times in our lives when we have to do the “right thing.” I could not just walk off and let this community, mayor and City Council and employees down. It’s not in my DNA to leave when there are problems.

Q: What made you decide not to retire? How long do you plan to be city manager?

A. I owe a lot to the people who trained me early in my career in Kansas City, Charlottesville (Va.) and Amherst (Mass.). Most importantly, I feel that by continuing to work I can honor the investment that former Tucson City Manager Mark Keane and his Deputy City Manager Jack Urie made in shaping who I am today. There is no way I would let any of them down or others who shaped my career by leaving at a time when I am needed the most.

Q: What does your family think about the decision, especially considering the time demands?

A. My family is supportive.

Q: What’s good about Tucson city government? What needs to be improved?

A: It’s not about what is good or bad. We have to find within this community and ourselves the will to make things better. We need to focus more on what is best not only for today, but the many tomorrows that will come. Remember, we are all part of this community and the government that is responsible for serving us.

Q: What are your top priorities in the short term and in the long term?

A: Balance the budget, work with the Legislature to strengthen Rio Nuevo, maintain our bond rating, improve communication and relationships with our mayor and City Council and city employees. Create meaningful opportunities to engage citizens.

Q: Assess the status of Rio Nuevo. What’s its future?

A: The mayor and council are taking great steps to get Rio Nuevo aligned with expectations of the state Legislature. We are doing all of the right things to ensure that Rio Nuevo will continue to improve our downtown.

Q: Describe your management style.

A: Work with the community, mayor and council and employees to build the strategies, organizational structures and systems to continue to maintain our quality of life in Tucson. I’m the same person at work as I am at home. What I say is what I do.

Q: How will your leadership be different from Mike Hein’s?

A: I don’t compare myself in management style to other people. I’ve got my own style.

Q: How did working under Mike Hein and Jim Keene (the previous two city managers) prepare you for this job?

A: Both Mike and Jim did great things for this community. I appreciated the opportunity to work with both of them.

Q: What was the best thing you’ve done for Tucson?

A: Developed the concept of the Financial Sustainability Plan. (The plan allocates increases in revenue to public safety, parks and transportation. Because revenues have declined, the plan is suspended.)

Q: What successes did you have in other municipalities that you could apply here?

A: Setting annual work plan and management expectations with the mayor and City Council. Engaging the community in dialogue on city issues. Align employees and their work with the needs of the community. Letting employees know that they are appreciated and we need them to provide excellent customer service to citizens. Innovating constantly to find better ways to cut costs, diversify our revenues and improve services.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself. What do you like to do outside work? Do you have any group affiliations? What causes do you support?

A: I love running with a group of friends every Saturday. My family and I have a great church we attend. I love attending football games for my youngest son. My oldest son and I love getting sports autographs. I am very proud that my middle son may follow me in public service. I have a great friend and wife.

Q: What should Tucsonans know about you that they probably don’t?

A: I was raised in the military and have moved my whole life as a kid and in city management. My family and I have found our home in Tucson. We plan to live here as long as God has planned. It is an honor for me to serve you. I will not let you down.

———

MIKE LETCHER

Age: 55

Education: master’s in education from the University of Kansas

Years in Tucson government: 8

Total years in government: 30

Former posts: city manager of Winsooki, Vt., city manager of Sedona; assistant town manager of Amherst, Mass.

Family: married, with three children