Topeka ? In recent years, Ed Hammond of Fort Hays State University has exuded confidence, almost a Pollyanna figure among his fellow university presidents, an apostle of adding students to solve his institution’s budget difficulties.

Now Hammond is starting to sound a little pessimistic about fiscal issues, saying he and his colleagues need more general tax revenues from the state to keep their universities in good shape and keep campuses open to students from all backgrounds.

The campuses haven’t gotten much attention from legislators, who are studying various issues in advance of the Jan. 14 start of their 2004 session. Yet legislators are likely to feel strong pressure next year to provide more general tax revenues for higher education.

“At that point, the Legislature is going to have to get back into the game,” Hammond said during a recent interview. “The Legislature is going to have to step in and fulfill its responsibilities to the higher education system.”

Providing money is the chief responsibility about which Hammond and other officials at Board of Regents institutions worry.

Higher education is among the biggest pieces of the state’s budget, trailing only the Department of Education, which provides aid to public schools, and the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. The state expects to spend $1.66 billion on its universities, community colleges and technical colleges under the current, fiscal 2004 budget.

Legacy of cuts

The fiscal 2004 budget for higher education is 7 percent larger than the fiscal 2002 budget. But that figure is of no comfort to higher education officials.

The state is spending less of its general tax revenues in fiscal 2004 on higher education than it did in 2002.

¢ Chancellor renews funding criticism (9-12-03)¢ 6News video: Chancellor Hemenway calls on state officials to increase university funding¢ Complete text of Hemenway’s convocation remarks

The 2002 budget allocated $706.5 million in general tax revenues to the higher education system, compared to $673.9 million under the 2004 budget. The difference is about 4.6 percent, and largely a legacy of cuts imposed last year by then-Gov. Bill Graves to avoid a deficit in the 2003 budget.

The result is that universities are relying more heavily on other sources of money — most notably tuition and fees — to finance their operations.

In fiscal 2002, general tax revenues financed 45 percent of the higher education system’s operations. As of fiscal 2004, the figure had dropped to below 41 percent. At Kansas University, the figure is just under 30 percent.

Tuition for Kansas residents who enroll at KU next fall will be 51 percent higher than it was for their older brothers and sisters only two years ago.

Adding students

Over the past three years, Fort Hays State has kept its percentage increases in tuition in single digits, with Hammond arguing that the university could deal with its budget problems by adding students, particularly for its Internet and satellite classes. During the current semester, its enrollment jumped 15 percent.

But Hammond acknowledged that such growth cannot be sustained because of the strain it eventually puts on resources. In fact, the strategy was supposed to be short-term.

He and other higher education officials worry that raising tuition more will prevent some students from getting to campus. And when the Board of Regents approved the latest round of increases for students in June, member Lew Ferguson described those increases as “a tax increase on the parents and students of Kansas.”

For 2000, the nonprofit National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education gave Kansas a B grade for the affordability of its higher education system to students. As of last year, that grade had dropped to a C-minus.

Broken promises

Adding to higher education officials’ aggravation is the sense that governors and legislators have, collectively, broken a big promise.

In 1999, the state reorganized the higher education system to give the regents — instead of the State Board of Education — supervision of community colleges and technical colleges. The reorganization law came with the promise of more money — essentially a bribe to mollify enough balky higher education officials and pull in enough legislators to get the law passed.

But regents have not seen the promised increases in general revenues; instead they’ve actually seen their total share drop. Making the experience more galling were assurances this past session that they were being “held harmless” by not having their appropriation of general revenues cut further.

Hence, Hammond was not quite as sunny in his assessment of the near future as he has been on tours in recent years. And the demand for general tax revenues for the campuses is building.