PRESS RELEASE

LYNNE PLAN FOR
SCHOOL FUNDING AND TAX REFORM

SCHOOL FUNDING

Lynne Abraham?s Immediate Plans to Fund the 
Requested by Superintendent Hite for Our Schools.

Lynne?s proposal for her ?rst year in of?ce would make the tough
choice of putting schools number one. It is based on con?dence that
Superintendent Hite?s plan is transformational and worth supporting
and Hite?s request for the is well?founded. Lynne also
proposes a plan for this year.

Specifically, for fiscal year 2015-2016, the ?nal year of the Nutter
administration, Lynne proposes that the City increase tax by
12.5% or and sell an asset worth likely to be a
portfolio of tax liens, to fund the balance of the SIOSMM, in order to
fund the schools at the level Superintendent Hite proposes. The
Mayor should work with Governor Wolf to get approval for a one?
time transfer of the City money from the asset sale directly to the
School District.

As Mayor, Lynne would propose to Governor Wolf for ?scal year
2016?2017 and thereafter that he devote the proposed in
property tax relief for Philadelphia to fund the schools going
forward, to be matched by the City?s recurring increase in
commercial tax of Obviously, these revenues could be
reduced in the event Council had approved an increase in real
property tax in 2015-2016.

There may be political obstacles and even technical issues, but this plan
is worth considering, now.

Although the next Mayor?s ?rst budget won?t take effect until the 2016-
17 ?scal year, Lynne Abraham?s Campaign has prepared a tax proposal

to address both the immediate and longer-term needs of the district. The
proposal represents the culmination of discussions with government
of?cials, budget and education advisors, and others.

As we understand it, Governor Wolf proposes for the schools
for basic and special education, plus a savings of regarding
cyber school obligations for a total of in school aid.
Superintendent Hite requests in local funding.

Both the academic outcomes and the physical condition of public school
facilities are unacceptable, and in the case of the buildings even worse
than acknowledged.

TAX REFORM

The complexity of our tax structure, the short~term compromises and
stop-gaps over the years, and the powerful fact that there are winners
and losers, makes reform essential, but dif?cult at the same time.
Because there inevitably are winners and losers in tax reform, the
Chamber of Commerce, which has had the bene?t of reports from two
tax reform commissions, has not advocated for speci?c tax reform
(beyond objecting to more taxes for the schools until there are
assurances the money is being well spent).

Superintendent Hite?s plan 3.0 should assuage fears that new money
invested in the public schools will go down the drain. His plan makes
sense and puts each student in a school with a pathway to a good
education. Our kids deserve no less.

That is why at the announcement of her candidacy, Lynne called for a
working group of stakeholders to begin day one of her administration to
arrive at a fair, coherent plan to rationalize our business and other taxes
and help us keep business, grow business and attract new employers
who would create wellmpaying jobs, and, most important, assure a
recurring, secure source of local revenue for the schools. There are
long-term needs and a short?term urgency.

Long term, the Sweeney/Levy plan makes sense. It is worth pursuing,
but it is uncertain. At best it is three or four years out, and faces
challenges in the Legislature. The Legislature is not always friendly to
Philadelphia and may have concerns about the reach of the precedent
throughout the Commonwealth. In any event, the Sweeney/Levy Plan
does not address school funding.

Long term, we should consider asking the Legislature to permit the City
general fund to share in an increased provided the School
District?s revenues are undiminished, as an alternative way to tax
commercial real estate as proposed in the Levy/Sweeney plan, but
without a constitutional amendment. But this does not address school
funding.

Long term, we should consider increasing the gross receipts tax and
eliminating or reducing the net income tax, as proposed previously by
former Councilman Bill Green and Councilwoman Quinones?Sanchez.
But this does not address school funding.

Long term, we should consider a land?value tax, which would tax land
value at a higher millage and buildings and improvements at a lower
rate. As a result, the City could keep rates low for homeowners,
stimulate development by taxing land holdings and provide funds to do
many of the things we cannot now afford. This could address school
funding, but has its own complexities.

But we need help on day one. And the schools are the number one
priority.