The press stands idle moments after the final issue was printed late Friday night.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tucson late Friday to stop the closure of the Tucson Citizen, which was announced by the Citizen’s owners early Friday.

The lawsuit said closing the Citizen stemmed from an agreement between Gannett and Lee Enterprises Inc., owner of the Arizona Daily Star, to eliminate competition and increase profits to both companies.

The case has been assigned to Judge Raner Collins, but Goddard said in a phone interview Friday night that his staff could not reach Collins to “express the urgency of the case.”

“Usually there is some district judge to handle emergency motions and we are trying to find one,” Goddard said. “But I’m not at all certain we will be able to find one; it is a small panel in Tucson.”

Kate Marymont, vice president of news for the Gannett Co. Inc., told Citizen employees Friday that the last print edition would be Saturday. Gannett will continue to run a “modified” Web site of daily commentary and opinion with a weekly insert of editorial content appearing in the Star, she said.

She said two people accepted positions with www.tucsoncitizen.com but declined to say how many staffers the Web site would eventually hire.

“That’s my starting point,” Marymont said.

A preliminary job description for those hired showed that the site would focus on the “watercooler buzz” of the day.

Staffers would likely link to other Web sites and blogs, offer an opinion and open the discussion to commenters in an online forum. The site would also incorporate social networking, the document showed.

The staff will be responsible for defining the Web site’s form, Marymont said. “I’ve left it to them.”

The recently launched Metromix entertainment hub will continue on a “provisional basis” only, Marymont said.

Gannett’s joint operating agreement with Lee Enterprises Inc. also will terminate Saturday, although the two companies will continue as business partners in Tucson Newspapers, a subsidiary that handles all noneditorial operations for both papers. The JOA has been in effect since 1940.

Under the arrangement, Gannett takes the unusual step of partnering with a newspaper publication in which it has no editorial say to retain its profit interest in the operation.

Lee and Gannett will continue to share equally in the operating costs and profits of Tucson Newspapers, also known as TNI Partners, just as they did with the JOA, CEO Mike Jameson said. TNI, though, will no longer receive the limited antitrust immunity offered JOAs under the Newspaper Preservation Act.

The 1970 act gives newspapers operating under a joint operating agreement an exemption from federal antitrust laws in the hopes of increasing editorial diversity in cities and towns.

The announcement brings to a close months of uncertainty for the paper. Gannett announced in January that it was offering the Citizen archives, Internet domain name and lists of subscribers and advertisers to potential buyers, but not its 50 percent share of the JOA. If no buyer came forward, it intended to close the paper March 21.

On March 17, Gannett delayed the closure, saying “viable” buyers had come forward. The paper has operated on a day-to-day basis since.

Marymont informed Citizen employees of the closure at 9:30 a.m. Friday, about 30 minutes after notifying interim Editor Jennifer Boice.

“This is not about the journalism,” Marymont said. “Do not in any way take this as a reflection on your journalism. You have done outstanding journalism for decades.”

Laid-off employees will receive a week’s pay for every year they’ve worked for the paper up to 26 weeks, with a two-week minimum.

Boice, who has worked at the Citizen for 25 years and was appointed interim editor in July, could not hold back tears when making the announcement

“It’s been a difficult time,” Boice said. “But it’s also been fun. We’ve had people, even when our time was limited, going all out on stories, doing an incredible job of keeping the newspaper not only going, but good. And I am really grateful to all the people here who have put forth their heart and soul and energy in letting us go out with our head held high.”

Goddard was informed of the Citizen’s pending closure when Stephen Hadland, CEO of the Santa Monica Media Co. and the final bidder in the sale, wrote a letter Friday morning asking Goddard to intervene.

“The Tucson Citizen has been systematically destroyed by its owners and I believe it remains a viable and popular newspaper in the community,” he wrote.

Goddard said Hadland’s request was compelling, especially after he spoke with Gannett representatives.

“Their lawyer was unable to tell me how the proposed Web site would serve Tucson as a separate editorial voice,” Goddard said. “We took action because there was nothing in front of us that indicated any commitment to a vigorous continuing presence for the Citizen in some form.”

Reached Friday at his Santa Monica office, Hadland said, “We were, we are and we remain a bona fide buyer. We made a substantial cash offer; we later amended the offer to close to half a million dollars and were told that nothing less than $800,000 would be acceptable.”

In addition, Hadland said, he was “amazed” that Gannett was shutting the printed paper and going to an online-only operation because during negotiations, “a printed edition was an absolute requirement of Gannett’s.”

“This is the biggest perversion of the Newspaper Preservation Act that I have ever witnessed,” said Hadland, who publishes five weekly papers in the Los Angeles area.

Goddard said the arrangement between Gannett and Lee did not, in his mind, “meet either the spirit or the intent of the (antitrust) exemption” granted through the federal act.

The U.S. Justice Department began an investigation into the sale of the Citizen in February, when potential buyers told Justice representatives they were being told by Gannett’s sales broker that the Citizen wasn’t a good deal because Gannett wasn’t selling its interest in the JOA.

Marymont confirmed discussions with Justice were ongoing for the past month, but would not say Justice insisted on having a Web site instead of completely closing the Citizen’s presence in Tucson.

She said Gannett had not determined the length of commitment to the new Web site, and that there “is no legal document” saying the site has to remain operational for a certain time.

“In our conversations with the Justice Department, it was agreed that it was important we sustain a second voice in the community,” Marymont said.

Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona said Friday that Justice “closed its investigation today and no enforcement action was taken.” She would give no further details.

National media experts had predicted the paper would never sell because, without the JOA, the Citizen was all loss and no profit.

Thus the paper appeared poised to be another casualty of a newspaper industry struggling to survive amid declining advertising revenue and Internet competition.

But the Citizen defied the odds, at least for a while, because of the federal investigation.

At least five people expressed interest in buying the Citizen. All decided against bidding when they couldn’t persuade Gannett to include the JOA in the sale.

The Citizen was started in 1870 as a weekly, the Arizona Citizen, preceding Arizona’s statehood. Its reporters were on the front lines covering everything from the raids of Pancho Villa to the first university-led space mission.

In its last two months, the paper reported on its own predicted demise.

“A newspaper doesn’t close, it dies, and the death leaves a hole in the community,” said Boice.

Associated Press writer Art Rotstein (left) and Tucson Citizen reporter Renée Schafer Horton ask Gannett Co. executive Kate Marymont (right) about the company's decision to close the Citizen.

———

Other troubled newspapers

• Hearst Corp. printed the last edition of Seattle’s oldest newspaper, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, on March 16, turning it into an Internet-only news outlet with 20 staff members, down from more than 150.

• E.W. Scripps Co. in February closed the 150-year-old Rocky Mountain News, one of two daily newspapers in Denver.

• Employees of the San Francisco Chronicle were told in February to prepare for closure or massive layoffs.

• The Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and The Philadelphia Inquirer sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in recent months.

• The Ann Arbor News announced in April it will close in July. In its place, the Web-based media company AnnArbor.com LLC will be launched, publishing continuously online and a print edition twice a week. About 272 employees remain at the News, and experts estimate that will fall to fewer than 50 for the Web venture.

By Carli Brosseau, Renee Schafer Horton

A motion for a temporary restraining order is in the process of being filed, said Anne Hilby, spokeswoman for Goddard’s office.

The case has been assigned to Raner Collins, Hilby said, “but we do not yet know if he will rule on it before tomorrow morning.”

“The process has been initiated,” Hilby said. “We will be notified by the court as how Judge Collins will rule.”

Collins could not be reached for comment.

Kate Marymont, vice president of news for Gannett Co. Inc., visited the Citizen newsroom Friday morning to say the paper would print its final issue Saturday, continuing with a “modified” Web site focused on opinion and commentary.

When asked about Goddard’s action, Marymont said she could not comment without seeing the actual filing.

“I have little to say, I’d need to see what was filed and speak with our lawyers,” Marymont said.

Goddard was informed of the Citizen’s pending closure when Stephen Hadland, CEO of the Santa Monica Media Co. and the final bidder in the sale announced by Gannett in January, wrote a letter Friday morning asking Goddard to intervene.

“I am requesting the Arizona Attorney General’s office file a Temporary Restraining Order preventing the Gannett Corporation from closing the Citizen and require Gannett to continue printing the newspaper pending a sale to a qualified buyer,” Hadland wrote. “The Tucson Citizen has been systematically destroyed by its owners and I believe it remains a viable and popular newspaper in the community.”

Hadland has contended from his first bid that Gannett was not serious about selling the paper because it was only offering the name of the paper, its Web site, archives and a subscriber list, but not the 50 percent interest in the joint operating agreement it has with Lee Enterprises Inc., owner of the Arizona Daily Star.

The JOA has been in effect since 1940 and allows Lee and Gannett to share equally in the operating costs and profits of Tucson Newspapers, also known as TNI Partners, a subsidiary that handles all noneditorial operations for both papers.

Hadland,who said his bid for the Citizen “assests” was $400,000, considers his media company a qualified and viable buyer, something Marymont denied in speaking with employees Friday morning.

“In the end, there was no buyer,” she said.

Hadland said in a phone interview that if a paper goes without printing one day, it loses all value and that is why he urged Goddard to act quickly.

By Carli Brosseau, Renee Schafer Horton

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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.