House rider would cap tuition used for state grants at U of M Twin Cities level

The higher education conference committee heard detailed arguments over a House rider that would cap the tuition and fee amount used to calculate state grant awards at the level of the University of Minnesota Twin Cities for the 2024–25 academic year, with allowed increases of 1% in fiscal 2026 and 1% in 2027.

The measure is a house-only provision labeled R1 in the side-by-side, described to the committee by nonpartisan staff as rider language that would apply only for the coming biennium. “This provision is a house only provision that you can find on r 1 of the side by side,” said a staff member identified in the transcript as Mister Hopkins.

The House co-chairs said the provision is intended to restrain tuition growth that has pushed up state grant costs. Chair Rehrig said the cap was a response to “big increases in tuition, and particularly at the University of Minnesota,” and said the measure would produce about $17,000,000 in savings to the state grant program in the biennium.

University of Minnesota officials and private college representatives urged the committee not to adopt the cap. Meredith Fergus, financial aid analyst for the Office of Undergraduate Education at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, said the cap would be “punitive” because it reduces award dollars for about 13,000 Minnesota State Grant recipients at the U of M and shifts uncovered costs onto students. Nate Peterson, executive director of student finance at the Twin Cities campus, joined Fergus in warning the cap could deter low‑income students from enrolling at certain institutions.

Paul Serkvenick of the Minnesota Private College Council told the committee private colleges set tuition well before the state sets grant amounts and that, after netting institutional aid, “our net tuition has been flat” in recent years. Minnesota State system representatives and faculty associations argued the existing cap gives an outsized advantage to students at higher‑priced institutions because the grant formula ties the cap to the Twin Cities campus level.

Several committee members said they supported intervention to address perceived inequities. John Bowen and Representative Coulter described the change as a way for the legislature to regain control of a variable that currently hinges on the University of Minnesota Board of Regents’ tuition decisions.

The Office of Higher Education and the governor’s team said the governor’s proposal does not include a tuition‑cap provision. “The governor's proposal does not have something related to the tuition and fee cap,” said Megan Flores, manager of state financial aid programs at the Office of Higher Education, and Dennis Olson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, confirmed that the provision is not in the governor’s bill.

No formal action was taken in the committee during this hearing; members asked questions and received testimony from representatives of the University of Minnesota, Minnesota State, private colleges and higher education staff.

How the proposal would interact with other state grant parameter changes and rationing procedures was discussed later in the meeting; nonpartisan staff said the tuition cap is one of several levers that affect overall state grant spending.

The committee moved on to other parameters after the testimony and discussion.