Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/654069
10 ADVOCATE | SPRING 2016 at the capitol parties were bound by a confi dentiality order, and the parties never met with each other, leading to several misunderstandings through- out the process. Eventually the parties declared impasse in August 2015 and resumed litigation. In mid to late September of 2015, the Governor's Offi ce approached both sides about again resuming settlement discussions. The parties agreed, and this time the par- ties were in the same room. While there were many disagreements on how to resolve this lawsuit, all the parties were committed to discussing many different possibilities for settlement. Finally, when an agreement acceptable to the parties was reached, the Governor called a Special Session on October 28, 2015. During settlement negotiations, what were the goals of the Plaintiffs? The Plaintiffs had the primary goal of resetting the Base Level as high as possible because the Base Level funding reset represents perma- nent increases to education funding. Plaintiffs also wanted to get money into schools as soon as realistically possible, and the Plaintiffs did not want policy strings attached to the money. The overall value of the settlement was also a consideration as well as maintaining the infl ation mandate as passed by the voters in Prop. 301. Why did the Special Session happen in October 2015? After many attempts to craft an agreement acceptable to the parties, a tentative agreement developed in late October. The Governor's offi ce felt strongly if the Special Session was not called on October 28, 2015, then they could not guarantee it would pass. The Plaintiff 's attempted to delay the Special Session, due to concerns over the possible negative impact on pending bond and override elections, but they were unable to get agreement. What are these economic contingencies and how do they protect the Base Level reset? The contingencies are known as triggers and in certain economic conditions will protect the general fund or the trust. However, in the event of any trust or economic trigger, the Base Level amount will be reset to account for infl ation. 1. Economic triggers: When both TPT growth (sales tax) and non-farm employment growth are less than 2% but greater than 1%, based on the prior 12-month calendar year, then the legislature may not fund infl ation adjustment for the next year, but when the trigger is lifted the Base Level is adjusted to account for infl ation. When both TPT growth (sales tax) and non-farm employment growth are less than 1%, based on the prior 12-month calendar year, then the legislature cannot fund infl ation for the next year, but when the trigger is lifted the Base Level is adjusted to account for infl ation. a. The trigger only impacts infl ation in the year the condition is met, and once the trigger is lifted, the Base Level gets adjusted to account for the infl ation in year or years not funded and going forward. 2. Aggregate trigger: This is unlikely to ever occur as since 1992, general fund expenditures have never exceeded 43%, including when Arizona funded all day kindergarten. (It also is NOT effective until 2025-26.)