Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Higher Education Credits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JBC introduces technical fixes to higher-education tax credits after staff flags rising cost uncertainty
Summary
The committee agreed to introduce technical-fix legislation for higher-education tax credits already in effect, while staff warned the program’s cost estimates have grown (originally roughly $36.7 million, now potentially as high as $65 million) and recommended additional administrative funding to the Department of Revenue; motion passed 6-0.
Get email alerts on the Higher Education Credits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Joint Budget Committee voted to introduce technical fixes to the higher-education tax-credit statute, while staff told members the program’s estimated fiscal impact has grown and additional administrative resources may be needed.
Amanda Bickle and other JBC staff reviewed a second version of a bill that would make technical changes—change an academic‑year-to-calendar‑year reference, adjust reporting deadlines (moving institutional reporting from Jan. 15 to Jan. 31), clarify eligibility dates, and authorize limited Department of Revenue information sharing with the Department of Higher Education to administer credits subject to federal privacy law limits. Staff said these administrative changes would add roughly $135,000 in FY 2025–26 and $200,000 in the following year to the Department of Revenue budget to support implementation.
Bickle also summarized updated cost modeling. An earlier estimate put first‑full‑year costs at about $36.7 million; updated work with CU and other modeling now suggests a potential exposure closer to $65 million in early years, though staff warned the figure is uncertain and will become clearer only after further data collection.
Vice Chair moved to introduce the technical-fix bill draft; the committee approved introduction 6-0 and assigned sponsors for both chambers. Staff said the committee can revisit larger policy trade-offs and potential pay‑fors in the next legislative session if needed.
