The idea of using local property taxes to supplement state university funding raises many questions.

Residents of Kansas communities fortunate enough to be the home of a state university fully appreciate what an important asset those schools are. They give a huge boost to the local economy and add vitality to the community in many other ways.

Because they appreciate the contribution a university makes to their community, they also support those schools in many ways. Although the state pays no local property tax on its university campuses, the host communities provide many services that support those campuses and the students who attend class there.

However, a suggestion floated by Dick Bond during his first meeting as a member of the Kansas Board of Regents may strike many university communities as questionable. Bond’s idea was to levy local sales or property taxes in university communities to provide money for new facilities or local scholarships.

“We ought to seriously look at the opportunity for local counties to provide support to the university in their county,” Bond said.

Counties and cities already provide significant support to those schools. If they are to be asked to levy additional taxes dedicated to these universities, how many other Kansas communities should be asked to support the state institutions in their cities? Should Ellsworth be asked to levy a property tax to support the state correctional facility there? Should Larned residents pay extra taxes to support the state’s mental health facility there? Should Topekans pay additional property tax to support the expensive new state office building in their downtown area?

All of these institutions were approved by the Kansas Legislature and exist to serve a statewide mission. It’s a much different proposition than asking residents to pay more local taxes to support their local schools. Kansas University and the other five state universities are part of the state’s university system. The state sets the priorities and missions for these schools and should provide the funding to carry out those goals.

Bond acknowledged that “Obviously, you don’t want to give them (state legislators) an excuse to withhold funds,” but it’s hard to imagine the creation of local property taxes to support state universities wouldn’t have that effect. Especially in the state’s current budget crisis, legislators are looking at every conceivable form of alternative funding. State universities in Kansas already are heavily dependent on private gifts to support their missions, and the large tuition increases that are being phased in over the next several years will significantly raise the portion of university budgets funded by their students.

Wichita currently levies a 1.5-mill property tax to provide additional funds for scholarships and other expenses at Wichita State University. Because Wichita is the state’s largest city, that tax raises about $5 million a year for WSU. Similar levies in the state’s other university towns would raise far less. Such inequities raise additional questions about the fairness of Bond’s suggested approach.

University towns in Kansas love and appreciate the schools they are privileged to have in their communities, and they support those schools in many ways. But using local tax levies to provide additional funding for those schools raises many questions. The state’s university system is a statewide entity that serves a statewide mission and its funding should come from statewide sources.