Students back fee‑disclosure bill; UConn warns meal‑plan refund language would hurt dining services

Students, researchers and lawmakers debated HB 5,170, a bill that would require higher‑education institutions to disclose non‑tuition fees at the time of enrollment and to return unused meal‑plan funds.

"Requiring a disclosure helps students better understand their costs and holds universities accountable," Adin Baladan, a Yale undergraduate, told the committee as he urged passage of the bill to curb so‑called "junk fees." A student researcher from Middlesex Community College catalogued common extra charges — technology fees, matriculation fees and graduation fees — and estimated UConn's non‑tuition fees at roughly $1,700.

University witnesses said some fee information is already published and cautioned that the meal‑refund requirement in the bill could damage operations. "Dining employs 420 full‑time staff and over 900 student employees," Michael White, UConn's executive director of dining, said, warning that requiring refunds of unused mandatory meal‑plan funds would reduce revenue that funds dining operations and could reduce options and hours for students. He said the mandatory resident plans include unlimited dining access plus flex passes and points, and that some a la carte point purchases are already refundable; mandatory plan balances are typically settled at the end of the academic career rather than each semester.

Committee members pressed witnesses on practical implementation: how and where fee lists are presented, whether program‑specific fees could be disclosed by major, and how refunds would work for unlimited plans. UConn officials described tools (admissions offer letters, cost‑of‑attendance pages, financial‑aid shopping sheets) used to notify families, and conceded that navigation of opt‑out settings for optional bundles may occasionally cause student confusion.

The committee heard differing views on whether the bill is duplicative of existing statute or whether it would provide meaningful improvement in transparency and consumer protection. No vote was recorded; committee staff and stakeholders were asked to explore technical fixes to the meal‑refund language and to consider the operational impacts described by dining services before moving forward.