Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/654069
SPRING 2016 | ADVOCATE 11 at the capitol out of economic downturns and avoids future litigation and the accompanying funding delay that goes with it. Do these triggers mean the Legislature can never fund increases to K-12? No. The legislature can increase K-12 funding. The other areas of the budget, AHCCCS, Department of Child Safety (DCS), DPS, etc. would have to decrease in proportion so that all other areas of the budget are less than 50%. Remember even when the state funded all day kindergarten, the K-12 general fund percentage did not exceed 43% of the total general fund expenditures. In addition, this restriction is only for general fund appropriations to K-12 and funding from a different identifi ed revenue source would not be covered under this restriction. (Again, also remember that the 50% trigger only has legal effect in 2025-26 and beyond.) Using current year general fund expenditures as a guide, for the aggregate trigger to be activated, one of the following scenarios would have to occur: 1. The Legislature would have to increase revenue (tax increase) by about $1.5 billion in one fi scal year, and then direct that all of that new revenue be appropriated to General Fund K-12 spending, with no additional increase to any other area of the budget. 2. The Legislature would have to increase the K-12 General fund spending by $700 million, while simultaneously cutting $700 million from other areas of the budget. A $700 million dollar cut would wipe out the $660 million spent on universities in general fund dollars or the $356.5 million spent on child safety. Is this the end of the movement to address Arizona's K-12 funding issues? Absolutely not! Even after the settlement, Arizona still will be near the bottom of states in terms of funding. Recent cuts in Career and Technical Education and the change to current year funding must be addressed this legislative session. Funding for school facilities must be addressed to once again comply with the provisions of Roosevelt v. Bishop – by either the Legislature or through the courts. Finally, Prop. 301's sales tax expires in 2021 and must be renewed – and hopefully expanded – in either the 2018 or 2020 general elec- tion. The settlement of the infl ation lawsuit is a good fi rst step; but it is only a fi rst step. Can the Prop 123 monies be used for employee compensation in this School Year? Yes! H.B. 2001 expressly allows school districts that receive ad- ditional funding or budget capacity from Prop. 123 to use the ad- ditional funding "for increased employee compensation in fi scal years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017." See H.B. 2001. Is the Prop. 123 money considered "one time" money for the purpose of school budgeting? NO! Prop. 123 guarantees infl ation funding in perpetuity. Also, as the $625 million in Additional Funds will be paid over 10 years, school districts can budget their share of this money, and it should not be considered "one-time money." Phoenix Union CTA member Kathryn Baumgardner discussing the Global Goals with library patron, Roger. a. For this trigger to be utilized, there needs to be a decreased share of the budget in all other areas of general fund expenditure. b. If total "general fund" K-12 appropriations, not including Trust Land funds, sales tax revenue, federal funding, equals 49% of the total general fund appropriations, then the Legislature may suspend infl ation and reduce K-12 funding by the equivalent of the prior year infl ationary adjustment c. Aggregate trigger: If total "general fund" K-12 appropriations, equals 50% of the total general fund appropriations, then the legislature may reduce K-12 funding by the equivalent of twice the prior year infl ationary adjustment. What does it mean that the Base Level is reset every year even if the trigger is in effect and appropriation for full infl ation is not provided in a given year? It means that the critical compounding effect of infl ation funding is preserved for future years. As an example, let's say both triggers are in play and the state does not have to pay for infl ation that year, saving the state $70 million. The next year, the economy has improved and the triggers are not in play. In that year, the state would not owe schools $70 million but rather $140 as the base gets adjusted each year. This was a critical reason the plaintiffs supported the deal: it offers an orderly way in and an orderly way