Minnesota State colleges and universities brace for budget reductions, tuition hikes as state funding falls short
A college degree is already expensive, and it could cost students even more at some Minnesota public colleges and universities next year.
The Board of Trustees governing the Minnesota State system — which serves 270,000 students across community and technical colleges and universities like St. Cloud State, Metro State and Minnesota State University in Mankato — discussed tuition increases ranging from 3.5 to 9% in each of the next year to plug budget shortfalls.
Bill Maki, vice chancellor for finance and facilities, told WCCO the average increase will likely land somewhere in the middle and vowed the schools wouldn't balance their budgets on the backs of students, so reductions and streamlining resources will follow, too.
The board will consider each school's tuition proposal and make a final decision in June, and they will discuss options again at a meeting later in May.
"There's many factors that go into setting tuition rates, and student affordability is one of the strong values of Minnesota State, [and] that it is a primary source of operating revenues. So balancing and having the availability of the experiences that students expect versus how much they pay is something where there's trade-offs that will need to occur," Maki said.
The other primary source of revenue supporting Minnesota State programs is state funding. But a bleak state budget picture — a projected $6 billion deficit in the future if lawmakers don't act wisely this session — means the Legislature is tightening the belt.
The House and Senate still need to hash out the differences of their higher education budget blueprints, but Minnesota State is bracing for no new funding, something Maki explained has not happened in a decade. He said whatever the final deal is will likely amount to a funding cut since last budget there was an influx of one-time dollars.
"We look forward to being able to move forward and do it in a very thoughtful, deliberate way to try to minimize the impact the best we can to students," he said.
The focus of lawmakers in both chambers, working with fewer resources, is on shoring up the state's financial aid program. Maki said that it will help blunt the impact of any tuition increase for families.
The colleges and universities within the system are the cheapest in the state, with tuition ranging from about $6,200 to $10,000 per year. In the previous two years, tuition remained flat, according to the Board of Trustees' documents. The highest increase in the last decade was 3.4%.
During the Minnesota Senate's debate on the higher education budget bill Thursday, GOP Sen. Zach Duckworth blamed Democrats who controlled the State Capitol the previous two years for the current budget outlook. He attempted to shift funding away from the North Star Promise Program, which provides free college for students whose families make less than $80,000, to implement a tuition freeze at Minnesota State.
DFL Sen. Omar Fateh of Minneapolis countered that previous Legislatures contributed to the budget shortfalls state schools are facing.
"A lot of the challenges higher ed has been facing, including costs, is due to years of disinvestment that's been occurring — year after year after year, the state not investing in our higher education, not investing in our students," Fateh said. "So we did that. We invested a record number of dollars in higher ed last biennium."
Last year, the University of Minnesota's Board of Regents voted to raise tuition for this school year by 4.5%.
The Legislature must adjourn on May 19 to avoid a special session.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Advertisement Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' Advertisement House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Advertisement Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.'
New York Post
37 minutes ago
- New York Post
Bill Clinton endorses former top aide Cuomo for NYC mayor
Ex-President Bill Clinton on Sunday endorsed his former Housing secretary Andrew Cuomo in the Big Apple's mayoral primary, describing the city as in 'crisis'' and his pal as a 'competent leader.' In a robocall released by Cuomo's campaign, the Democratic former commander in chief urged New Yorkers to back the ex-governor in the Tuesday's Dem showdown. 3 Former President Bill Clinton formally endorsed his previous HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, for New York City mayor in a robocall to voters. Paul Martinka Advertisement 'The election will decide the next mayor of New York, and I urge you to vote for Andrew Cuomo,' Clinton said in the recorded message. 'As president, I chose Andrew to be my secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and he never let me down.' Clinton, 78 — who lives in tony Chappaqua in Westchester County — noted that Cuomo worked in his presidential administration on such issues as affordable housing and helping to stave off hate, including 'discrimination, including against the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and antisemitism,' he said. The ex-president said Cuomo can fix what he called a city in 'crisis. Advertisement 'New York City is facing major challenges. There is a desperate need for affordable housing, homelessness is at a crisis level, and public safety must be restored,' Clinton said. 'It is imperative that New York chooses a mayor who has the ability, talent, and experience to do the job. 'He's a fighter who knows how to make government work, and at a time when our basic rights are under assault, I know he'll stand up and protect the people of this city,' he said of Cuomo, adding his Dem buddy has the ability to raise the 'progressive standard.' 3 Clinton expressed his confidence that Cuomo could lead a city in 'crisis.' Matthew McDermott Advertisement Cuomo, 67, responded to the endorsement with gratitude. 'I am honored to have the support of President Bill Clinton — a personal mentor, friend, and hero. His administration was one of the most accomplished in modern political history,' Cuomo said in the message. Cuomo, who resigned in disgrace as governor in 2021 amid a slew of sexual-harassment allegations, is aiming for a political resurrection in his mayoral comeback bid. Cuomo has vehemently any accusation of wrongdoing. Clinton similarly had a presidency rocked by scandal. Advertisement His Oval Office affair with then-22-year-old intern Monica Lewinsky led him to be impeached by the House for perjury and obstruction of justice — though he was acquitted by the Senate and never resigned. 3 The two Democrats have had political careers rocked by scandal. Richard Harbus Clinton's endorsement of Cuomo comes just two days before the city's Tuesday primary. Democratic kingmaker and 84-year-old South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn endorsed Cuomo on Friday — as surging socialist contender Zohran Mamdani's campaign garnered a mix of fresh condemnation and support. In the city's ranked-choice voting contest, Cuomo currently prevails 55% to 45% against Mamdani in a potential seventh round, according to a recent Marist College Institute for Public Opinion survey. The poll indicated a big drop from a Marist poll conducted in May, when Cuomo led Mamdani 60% to 40% after all the other candidates were eliminated and second preference votes transferred to the two finalists.
Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Fox News
AOC, other angry Democrats, call for Trump impeachment over attack on Iran
Progressive champion Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a handful of other Democrats quickly floated the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump for launching a military strike on Iran without Congressional authorization. "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," the four-term congresswoman from New York wrote on social media Saturday night, soon after the president announced the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Ocasio-Cortez charged that Trump "has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." Democrat Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois also argued that the president's order to bomb Iran's nuclear sites without seeking Congressional approval could be considered an "unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten, a four-term representative whose district covers southwestern Chicago and surrounding suburbs, wrote Saturday night on social media that "this is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program….to be clear, I do not dispute that Iran is a nuclear threat." But he highlighted that "no president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." "I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach," Casten added. "I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval." The calls for impeachment are the most visible, and furthest reaching, representation of the party's anger with Trump for taking unilateral action against Iran. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top Democrat in the chamber, wrote that the president had "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." "Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action," Jeffries added in a statement. While the executive branch technically doesn't have the legal authority to order a foreign military attack without the approval of Congress, previous presidents, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Trump during his first term, launched comparable military actions in Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran. Congress has not actually declared war since 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, and legal scholars have long been divided on whether the president has the authority to unilaterally launch a military strike.
