The Senate Education Committee on Feb. 14 voted 6–1 to send House Bill 265, the Higher Education Strategic Reinvestment Act, to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation after adopting amendment 3.

Representative Karen Peterson, sponsor of HB 265, told the committee the bill implements the legislature’s decision in HB 1 to move roughly $60 million from institutional budgets into a strategic reinvestment fund and creates a process for institutions to apply for those funds. She said institutions will develop three‑year reinvestment plans that local stakeholders and industry will inform, with plans reviewed by the Utah System of Higher Education and the Board of Higher Education before funds are released to institutions in September via the Executive Appropriations Committee.

Commissioner Jeff Lambert, representing the Board of Higher Education, said the board is neutral on HB 265 and described alignment between the bill’s intent and duties already required by law, including data collection and performance monitoring. Lambert said the board will issue guidance and provide data resources to help institutions craft justifiable reinvestment plans and emphasized the need for flexibility so presidents can tailor plans to institutional missions.

Peterson described additional bill provisions that: require institutions to consider administrative efficiencies and low‑enrollment or low‑performing programs for reallocation; cap bachelor’s degrees at 120 credit hours, with a process for exceptions needed for accreditation or licensure; and accelerate program-review cycles from seven years to five years.

Committee members and public commenters raised concerns about protecting humanities and arts programs, faculty and shared governance, and the risk of compounding prior budget cuts. Multiple speakers from industry and education groups — including Kelvin Cullimore of BioUtah, John England of Libertas Institute, and representatives of Utah’s faculty unions and arts organizations — testified about workforce needs, the value of liberal-arts education, and the need for clear qualitative and quantitative metrics. Several speakers asked that faculty, staff, and students be included in institutional decision-making around program reallocations.

Senator Wilson moved amendment 3 to resolve a technical issue raised by Utah Valley University’s architecture program; the amendment passed unanimously. Senator Reiby (Reby) proposed adding a council of presidents to consultation language (amendment 4); the committee rejected that amendment on a roll call, and the sponsor said he would accept continued work on the bill but might not support it on the Senate floor. The committee adopted the underlying motion to send HB 265 as amended to the full Senate with a 6–1 vote, Senator Reiby recorded in opposition.

The bill tasking the Higher Education Appropriations Committee to review enrollment-based funding models and performance metrics also aims to preserve student protections by phasing adjustments across three years and allowing teach-outs to prevent students mid‑program from being unable to finish.

Committee members emphasized that institutional flexibility is central to the bill’s design; opponents pressed for stronger language guaranteeing shared governance and for clearer definitions of the qualitative and quantitative metrics institutions must meet.