We got one!

Prop 312 claim rolls in … The return of camping in washes ban … And give a mouse a cookie.

The City of Tucson just got its first Prop. 312 claim — and it’s exactly the kind of test case officials were bracing for.

Prop 312, which voters approved last November, requires municipalities to reimburse property owners for losses they claim resulted from unenforced public nuisance laws — such as rules banning panhandling, illegal camping, and public urination.

A homeowner in a gated community on the city’s northwest side has submitted a claim for $2,883.

But that’s not the amount the city is likely to pay if the claim is accepted. Due to a quirk in the legislative-referred initiative, the city would only be responsible for $115. That figure reflects the amount the homeowner paid in primary property taxes to the city.

The majority of her property tax bill goes to other governmental entities, including Pima County, which isn’t responsible for enforcing laws in Tucson city limits.

That’s according to City Attorney Mike Rankin, who said the city expects to respond to the claim in the coming weeks.

The homeowner’s case will also hinge on whether the city has failed to enforce its laws.

Under the law, property owners may apply to the Arizona Department of Revenue for a refund of the taxes they paid to a local jurisdiction, equal to the amount they spent on “reasonably necessary” efforts to mitigate the effects of that jurisdiction’s alleged failure to enforce nuisance laws.

Read the full text of Prop 312 here.

In a 30-page filing, the homeowner doesn’t allege she was robbed or that her property was damaged. Instead, she makes vague references to homeless encampments in the nearby (county-owned) Rillito River wash, and suggests — without providing evidence — that unhoused people were responsible for a brush fire, vehicle break-ins, and “attempted home invasions” in the neighborhood.

Her submission includes several Facebook posts about local break-ins and sightings of unidentified individuals in the neighborhood.

The law allows property owners to seek rebates on qualifying purchases. In this case, the homeowner is seeking reimbursement for the cost of installing security doors and new locks.

The homeowner lives in the City of Tucson, but city officials say the encampments in question are in the nearby Rillito River, which lies within Pima County’s jurisdiction.

Councilmember Kevin Dahl, who represents the area, said his office has been working with the HOA to explore long-term solutions to the area's chronic homelessness issues. He noted that many people live in washes, particularly along the Rillito.

This case could test the limits of the new law, especially since the incidents the homeowner documents are more than two years old — and at least one of the expenses she’s seeking reimbursement for was incurred about 18 months ago.

In other words, some of the purchases she’s citing happened before voters even approved Prop. 312 in November.

Only one expense appears to have been incurred after the law went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

It’s worth noting that while Rankin said the city expects to respond within weeks, if this claim escalates into a lawsuit, he may not be around to see the outcome.

Rankin, who has served as Tucson’s City Attorney since June 1, 2004, is retiring in September.

The fight over what to do about Proposition 312 just got more complicated.

For months, councilmembers have been publicly waffling over whether changing city ordinances would actually prevent more claims from rolling in. Meanwhile, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero has insisted from the start: people are going to be coming after them over Prop. 312.

Now, someone’s officially filed a claim — the first one — putting real pressure on the Tucson City Council to act.

And the Council is once again gearing up for another vote on whether to ban sleeping in city washes.

Sound familiar? That’s because they’ve been deadlocked on this for about two months.

The swing vote is likely Rocque Perez, the Council’s newest member, who was appointed just last month. Everyone else has already taken a side.

Romero, along with Councilmembers Karin Uhlich and Nikki Lee, reluctantly backed the ban. Vice Mayor Lane Santa Cruz and Councilmembers Kevin Dahl and Paul Cunningham voted no, arguing it would effectively criminalize homelessness.

Cunningham, who’s been vocal about finding better responses to the city’s growing unhoused population, said flat-out that banning sleeping in washes would just create more problems than it solves.

He hinted that next Tuesday’s version of the proposal will look a little different than what they debated in March — but didn’t offer details.

It’s pretty clear that Congress is hopelessly gridlocked when it comes to solving the big issues of our day.

Meanwhile, state governments are stepping in to deal with artificial intelligence — regulating the industry and its applications in a patchwork of different and sometimes conflicting laws.

In this week’s A.I. Agenda, we look at how President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful” budget bill would put a stop to that, barring states from enforcing any laws regulating or restricting the industry for the next decade.

Critics say it’s a dangerous overreach that will let big tech run roughshod over citizens — even some MAGA Republican lawmakers hate it.

But can AI succeed if it’s subject to the whims of 50 wildly different state legislatures?

We crunch the numbers on what states and Congress are doing on AI, and what might be lost if the “big beautiful” budget bill becomes law.

Plus, lots of charts, your first robot purchase and the shifting definition of “model.”

A lot can change in AI in a week. Get the weekly breakdown that helps you understand it all.

---

Arizona Regents aren’t exactly getting a slow summer.

In this week’s Education Agenda, we previewed their annual meeting to approve budgets for the state’s three universities.

Revenues are mostly looking good. But enrollment is down at two out of three universities, fueled by lower international students thanks to the Trump administration's policies. And UA is still strapped for cash.

Regents also had to break out the thesaurus on their polices, swapping words like “diversity” for “differentiation” to keep the Trump administration happy.

Plus, a jaw-dropping confirmation hearing, vetoed bills, strange press conferences, more budget cuts to schools and budget documents from the Legislature.

And the coolest kids in Arizona are hanging with the governor.

Sign up for the weekly Education Agenda, delivered every Wednesday — even during summer break.

---

Water is wet, right?

That’s one of the few fundamentals that all sides can agree on.

But sometimes it’s not. And, no, we’re not talking about ice.

In this week’s Water Agenda, we’re talking about “paper water” — the marketplace of buying and selling the rights to water across Arizona.

Sometimes it’s developers buying water rights so they can build new housing. Sometimes it’s a person trying to turn a profit. And sometimes, it’s the city of Tucson for reasons they refuse to disclose.

We dive into the mystery water auction in Tucson, and the weird world of water sales in Arizona.

And get to know old friend / new Water Agenda reporter Arren Kimbel-Sannit. Welcome aboard, Arren!

Plus, the big annual water conference in the Rockies was … less big. We’re past peak snowpack. And aquifers without borders.

For all that and more, sign up for the Water Agenda today.

Translation: You didn’t give me enough money to begin with.

That’s the final word from Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos, who says his department can’t operate within the $171 million budget approved for FY2025 — and he’s done pretending otherwise.

In a blunt message to the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Jan Lesher, Nanos made it clear: “The FY2025 General Fund Adopted Budget is insufficient to support the operations of a public safety entity.”

In other words, stop asking him to make cuts. He’s not going to.

As of now, the Sheriff’s Department is projected to overspend by about $4 million — although roughly $1 million of that is offset by revenue the department pulled in beyond what the county expected.

So what happens next? We’ll find out Tuesday when the Board of Supervisors meets — but this wouldn’t be the first time the Sheriff’s Department ends the year in the red.

As for next year: The Board has tentatively signed off on bumping the department’s budget to $180 million.