Pass it on

Local communities paying for state-owned infrastructure from which they derive economic benefit could have many applications in the state.

The idea that counties where state universities are located should raise local sales taxes to address the maintenance backlog at those schools a weak proposal that nonetheless is refusing to die.

It almost makes one wonder if the motivation is somewhat punitive, a way for legislators to punish state universities and their home communities for some unknown offense.

House Speaker Melvin Neufeld’s statement this week that “Lawrence would kind of be like Maple Hill if KU wasn’t there” drew some chuckles, but even the residents of Maple Hill who spoke to the Journal-World didn’t think it was fair to raise local sales taxes to fund university repairs. The idea being promoted by Neufeld and supported by other legislators shows a significant disregard for the support services local communities already provide for universities and the important role state universities play in the lives of all Kansans.

Legislators who support the plan justify the additional tax by saying that university counties derive significant economic benefit from the schools that are located there. That clearly is true, so let’s apply that principle to other statewide responsibilities. We’ve already mentioned in this space that perhaps Shawnee County, which gains a huge economic advantage by being the home of state government, should pay an additional tax to maintain the state-owned buildings in Topeka. The tax increase would have to be sizable to even touch the $173 million lawmakers have spent to renovate the state capitol and build a nice underground parking garage for themselves.

Let’s also think about highways in the state. The Legislature probably will be considering a new highway package next year and will be looking for ways to fund it. Why not ask the counties that Interstate 70 passes through to pony up some additional sales tax revenue? Clearly, having that highway pass through their counties is an enormous economic benefit.

Neufeld also justifies the local tax proposal by pointing out that community colleges in Kansas receive tax support from their home counties. That’s true, but this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Community colleges were founded by local residents who retain significant control over them, including the ownership of the campuses. Local boards, for instance, are responsible for seeing that the physical structures on those campuses are maintained. For state universities, that maintenance is the state’s responsibility. Legislators may be angry that universities have allowed the backlog of maintenance to get to its current point, but that is the fault of the state or its university administrators, not of local communities, which have no oversight of such matters.

One more thought. Neufeld lives in Ingalls, a town of about 330 population in Gray County. People in Ingalls can travel about 25 or 30 miles east or west and take advantage of the offerings at either Dodge City Community College in Ford County or Garden City Community College in Finney County. And yet, Gray County taxpayers make no special financial contribution to either of those schools. Is that fair?

State universities serve students from Ingalls and hundreds of other towns across Kansas. They provide graduates, research and expertise that are an economic benefit to the entire state. Just like highways or any state-owned building in Kansas, they benefit people far beyond those in the local community. Trying to pass the state’s responsibility to maintain university campuses on to local communities is poor public policy and a poor precedent for any other community that derives benefit from state-financed infrastructure.