CCAC students could face 'significant' rise in tuition
Community College of Allegheny County's chances of getting the same amount of funding as this year took a hit on Wednesday, when a county councilman changed his 2013 budget plan to include the cuts proposed by the county executive.
Councilman Bill Robinson, D-Hill District, changed his funding allotment to CCAC to match the $23.2 million county Executive Rich Fitzgerald proposed. Robinson last week proposed restoring $1.76 million of the $2.5 million cut.
“My colleagues over the years have been very generous with the community college, but I did not sense that generosity would extend to this year,” Robinson said.
CCAC President Alex Johnson told council last week that if the $2.5 million proposed cut goes through, there would be a “significant” tuition increase next year.
Council plans to continue discussions on Tuesday regarding Fitzgerald's proposed $799.4 million budget. Several council members have proposed alternate budgets that include extra funding for Controller Chelsa Wagner's office, which Fitzgerald slashed by 10 percent.
The differing plans set the county's millage rate between 4.69 mills and 4.73 mills. A person with a home assessed at $100,000 would pay between $469 and $473 in county property taxes. The county is required to reduce its current millage rate of 5.69 mills to offset the rise in overall assessed value because of the reassessment.
Bobby Kerlik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.