Last week, HB265, a bill changing the way funding for higher education is allocated, passed the House of Representatives with a 63-9 vote. The bill comes after Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz called for budget cuts to higher education institutions last fall.
What is HB265?
HB1, which has already passed, established the base budget for Utah’s universities. Part of that bill reallocated $60 million of Utah’s higher education budget to a strategic reinvestment fund.
Ten percent of each university’s instructional budget was added to the reinvestment fund. This 10% is the amount of money each university is responsible for reallocating in their budgets. The U will need to reallocate roughly $19.6 million.
HB265 would give each university three years to implement a strategic reinvestment plan. If a university can reduce or eliminate areas worth at least the same amount as its reinvestment funds, it can earn that money back.
The bill outlines six criteria that universities should use to build their strategic reinvestment plans: enrollment, completion rate, professional outcomes, workforce demands, program costs and alignment with the institution’s mission.
It also requires that bachelor’s degree programs do not exceed 120 credit hours for both general education and degree-specific courses. If a program requires additional licensing or accreditation, it can be 126 credit hours if the Utah Board of Higher Education approves it.
Debate Around Reinvestment
One point of concern surrounding HB265 is the bill’s potential impact on humanities and arts programs.
During a House debate on the bill earlier this month, Rep. Sahara Hayes, D-Millcreek, rose in opposition of the bill. She said that even after multiple conversations with the bill’s sponsor, she still had some concerns about the bill’s vague language.
“I am very nervous about the idea of tying the returning of the university’s funding to some relatively vague terms,” Hayes said. “We talk a lot in the bill about what we’re evaluating, but not necessarily how it’s being evaluated.”
Rep. Tiara Auxier, R-Morgan, and member of the Higher Education Appropriations Subcommittee, said she originally voted against this bill because of similar concerns. She felt the bill’s criteria could threaten fine arts and other similar programs.
But the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Karen Peterson, R-Davis, assured that each of the six criteria listed in the bill must be considered when creating the strategic plans.
For example, in Utah, the average starting salary for a teacher is around $55,000. But just because teachers tend to have a low income doesn’t mean teaching programs will lose funding because teachers are in high demand.
After this clarification, Auxier said she changed her vote in favor of HB265.
During the bill’s discussion, multiple representatives rose in favor of the bill.
Rep. Neil Walter, R-Washington, said this bill allows universities to evaluate their programs and operations and look for opportunities to improve. He emphasized the bill isn’t intended to target arts or humanities programs.
“This isn’t an attack or … suggesting that a particular discipline or particular field of study is not valued. I think that’s absolutely the wrong way to look at this,” Walter said. “Our humanities, our performing arts, our liberal arts, they’re a critical part of our education infrastructure.”
Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost, D-Salt Lake, whose district includes the U, said that she hadn’t decided how she personally felt about the bill, but she hoped that a focus of the bill would be to reduce the cost of education for students.
“I do hope that as we’re having this conversation, that if we’re looking at really strategic reinvestments, that the greatest impact and number one goal for these institutions is that we are driving down the cost of education for students,” Dailey-Provost said. “I think that if we can really stay focused on that we are moving in the right direction.”
Dailey-Provost ultimately voted in favor of HB265.
The bill will be heard in the Senate Education Committee.
Stephanie Green • Feb 20, 2025 at 10:36 am
I understand the fear when the word “Cuts” is stated. But this is also an opportunity to take the road less traveled and economize. Look for waste in the system. Use that! If a couple of people were reallocated to find waste throughout the organization, money could be found and those “CUTS” wouldn’t be felt.