[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6339323,"mediaKeyId","2262207-8074da1fd488152a4aaddd1bfc665221","parentId",2262207,"title","K‑State president backs split of $7.5 million, lawmakers request accreditation and budget details","audioSeconds",2948,"startMs",0,"endMs",2948000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2262207-8074da1fd488152a4aaddd1bfc665221&start=0&end=2948","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2262207-8074da1fd488152a4aaddd1bfc665221/thumbnail_0.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6339323/Kansas/KState-president-backs-split-of-75-million-lawmakers-request-accreditation-and-budget-details","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339323-0c3499f563b849015fd52c05f154d903/orig.mp4?Expires=1771194309&Signature=feMIvQ5JmFKzzThvGfhwQLFREBXlXrWnzY44ncJqLnwd8kMCP0vH5W1mitbb9MjuraT-r8LTKcJcyvFjAecBk~L4t-sbfqoZX00-WUwIQjocicjamufpnlYHMpItxHaXjPA3kPtuYp~Ds1FdkiJiM8nsXhwcKuTfd1EYnxtweBL2zowKpm8uRvmyjuvx-WZ~MWY5PxcWdKWI3FEjrFvHOvWuSW79~98YIoDdbFUCJ0c1hoBw5me9j24RZiRZg06net4KXMb3lTOZmEkOIp5l-~K4~boXyd1ew4R2LQdDPX06SVBRKMIinkHdwFuJAM94VYRgrHAzUABoj-OQ1gzrDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","KS Legislature","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Kansas State University President Richard Linton told the House Committee on Higher Education Budget on an appropriation amendment that the university can work with a proposed split of $7.5 million — $4 million for K‑State 105 and $3.5 million for the College of Veterinary Medicine — but asked lawmakers for more time and data to confirm long‑term effects.

The committee was reviewing a change adopted in a House Appropriations report that would divide a $7.5 million appropriation between the university’s statewide economic development initiative, K‑State 105, and operational and faculty support for the veterinary college. President Linton said both uses are important but serve different purposes: K‑State 105 for statewide economic growth and the veterinary college for essential operational capacity and accreditation risk mitigation.

Why it matters: committee members flagged accreditation risk at the veterinary college and raised questions about whether K‑State 105 duplicates other small‑business support services. Lawmakers asked for documentation they said they need to judge the tradeoffs and confirm whether the split would meet both priorities.

Linton said the veterinary college is “about $12 million plus under the average of support” compared with peer programs nationwide and described two immediate needs: faculty additions and operational funding. He said the college is at roughly 60% out‑of‑state, 40% in‑state enrollment and that the university’s goal with added state support is to move that to roughly 60% in‑state, 40% out‑of‑state to better meet Kansas workforce needs. He told the committee the university would not be adding slots under the plan; rather, it would change the mix of in‑state and out‑of‑state students.

On faculty, Linton said the university’s aspirational target to be a top‑3 to top‑5 veterinary school would require “another 40 plus faculty lines over time.” He described the $3.5 million allocation as intended to address essential operational support and some faculty needs to lower an accreditation risk he said is “on the fringe.”

On K‑State 105, Linton said the program leverages the university’s cooperative extension network across all 105 counties and that the existing appropriation is $5 million; he said only about $250,000–$300,000 remains in‑house at the university for administration and that the program seeks roughly a 1:1 match from partners. He said early K‑State 105 activity produced more than 400 jobs toward a broader goal the university sets for 3,000 jobs and $3 billion in economic impact by 2030.

Several legislators pressed for specifics. Vice Chair Sanders said accreditation should be the top priority and asked whether the $3.5 million should be larger; Linton replied that both items are important and that the split would reduce the footprint of K‑State 105 but still be effective. Representative Haskins asked for the veterinary college’s accreditation status and documentation; Linton agreed to provide an executive summary or status report from the American Veterinary Medical Association review to clarify what progress is required to avoid probation or other sanctions.

Committee members also asked for budget‑model details. Linton described an institutional move away from the existing responsibility‑centered (RCM) budget model toward a model intended to better align incentives with the university’s strategic plan. He said, without dean verification, he had a working figure that approximately $3.2 million from vet‑school revenues has been transferred back to the main campus under the current model and agreed to verify that number in writing.

Other specifics raised during the hearing:
- Tuition differential cited by the university: $595 per credit hour in‑state versus $1,351 per credit hour out‑of‑state (figures provided by President Linton during questioning).
- K‑State 105 current state appropriation: $5,000,000; university says the majority is passed through to counties and communities.
- Fiscal year 2025 State General Fund for K‑State Research and Extension: cited as $61,900,000.
- President Linton said the veterinary college currently enrolls more out‑of‑state than in‑state students (approximately 60/40) and that shifting that balance is a central policy objective tied to student tuition differentials.

What the committee asked for: lawmakers requested (1) an executive summary of the veterinary college’s most recent accreditation findings and any required status reports; (2) verification of the $3.2 million RCM transfer figure and a breakdown of what vet‑school revenues are retained versus swept to central administration; (3) a budget‑implication memo showing what cuts to cooperative extension would look like if K‑State 105 were funded only from existing extension appropriations; and (4) the economic‑impact report K‑State recently provided the Kansas Board of Regents documenting K‑State 105 outcomes.

The committee did not vote on a final recommendation. Committee members and the president agreed to provide the requested documentation and data to inform whether the split is feasible and how it would affect accreditation risk and extension services moving forward.

Linton closed by reiterating the university’s willingness to work with the proposed split while emphasizing the accreditation concern at the veterinary college and the economic leverage that K‑State 105 provides across the state.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee on Higher Education Budget 02/11/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Kansas State University President Richard Linton told the House Committee on Higher Education Budget that the university can work with a proposed split of $7.5 million — $4 million to K‑State 105 and $3.5 million to the College of Veterinary Medicine — but lawmakers asked for accreditation documentation, budget‑model details and verified figures before endorsing.","taxTitle","Committee on Higher Education Budget , Standing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",19123,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":46,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6339318,"Board of Regents explains funding history and formula differences; lawmakers press for clearer comparisons",3311,6259000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2262207-8074da1fd488152a4aaddd1bfc665221&start=2948&end=6259","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2262207-8074da1fd488152a4aaddd1bfc665221/thumbnail_2948000.jpg","/articles/6339318/Kansas/Board-of-Regents-explains-funding-history-and-formula-differences-lawmakers-press-for-clearer-comparisons","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339318-5cafef4312e4906e28065a1948ce0ada/orig.mp4?Expires=1771194309&Signature=SiWEpWpeJ3hpslI8agUaNfjCOYQ7jdjmOqLWboUyo~5X94umspn-ZuSpctKKyVqCD~ChFYs4SYkfp6B5U2Fc3yn36LnEvegIpoXcVDx3zWPOgHCLWDztKvHdAELZsz2KaCYHYXceYIEIZ4V3JxQOEu~3iJ6UNL3qzV80i5x3oZvaLcSqziQuZ5TbEPhvKD5xa6Zjsz6ojngH05NDEa1Z37IQn4KamfrTWvWeuOaDiTRoSoJl~td4O~kypfZr27CQYjouH-0Fmyn7BlPvBrWPXCmD~cM-IHd1MOCivSyApOWVdc5FWBZ7P9h0yQUq9uH0rN~mudhmYe4QScvQaj~uZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kansas Board of Regents President Blake Flanders and staff briefed the House Committee on Higher Education Budget on the state's higher‑education funding history, the evolution of university budgeting models and the technical and community college tiered cost model during a presentation that traced changes since Senate Bill 345 (1999).

The board's presentation summarized three major phases: an earlier general‑use model in which state funding and tuition were interchangeable, the 2002 shift to a tuition‑ownership model with separate operating grants for state universities, and a 2011‑era cost model for two‑year institutions that the legislature fully funded over a multi‑year recentering through 2022.

Why it matters: committee members raised concerns about perceived disparities in per‑FTE state support between regional universities and the larger research institutions. Lawmakers asked the Board of Regents for clearer, comparable measures that separate operating appropriations from special‑purpose line items and mission‑specific funding such as medical centers and research surveys.

Blake Flanders said Senate Bill 345 created the modern Board of Regents to provide a unified voice for higher education and to present a systemwide budget. Kelly Oliver (Board office) explained the 2002 change to tuition ownership, which allowed institutions to retain tuition revenue gains but also left them exposed to declines without state backfill. Elaine Frisbie (vice president for finance and administration) described the two‑year sector's tiered cost model implemented after Senate Bill 143 (2011), which groups more than 10,000 courses into tiers to calculate per‑credit costs for technical and nontechnical instruction.

Key points from the presentation and questions:
- Washburn University: cited as an example of a municipal university with a recurring line item; fiscal year 2023–24 operating grants were noted at roughly $14.0 million and increased to $14.27 million in the most recent appropriation.
- Two‑year cost model: tiered courses account for a subset of instruction costs; presenters said roughly 71% of two‑year college courses are non‑tiered general transfer courses. The model calculates instructional costs by aggregating instructor salary, instructional support and institutional support and then applies tiered adjustments for technical course consumables and equipment.
- Funding recentering: the board recentered community and technical college state aid over three years beginning in 2022 so that the sector's tiered and non‑tiered funding reflects modeled costs; staff said total tiered/non‑tiered appropriations for the sector increased significantly since 2022.

Lawmakers pressed for an apples‑to‑apples comparison. Representative Sawyer asked about the operating‑expenditure‑per‑FTE chart and was told that per‑FTE comparisons are blunt instruments because institutions differ in mission and in non‑student methods of service delivery (for example, state funding of geological surveys or law enforcement training centers that do not enroll traditional students). Representative Amix asked which comparison best measures state support; staff said no single chart is ideal and suggested significant stakeholder input would be required to design a university funding formula.

On policy next steps, Flanders said the board and its staff have the capacity to develop a funding‑distribution model but emphasized that any new model must be paired with sustained funding and political willingness to implement change rather than letting a developed model sit without adoption. Several members proposed broader conversations or a task force to consider goals and distribution criteria.

The session concluded with committee members asking the Regents staff for more granular breakout tables (operating appropriation per FTE excluding special mission items; historical trend lines by revenue type) and for explanations of which line items should be counted in baseline comparisons.

No formal committee votes were taken during the presentation; members asked the Board of Regents to provide additional detailed materials for follow‑up review.","Kansas Board of Regents President Blake Flanders and staff reviewed the history of higher‑education funding, the tuition‑ownership shift and the two‑year tiered cost model. Legislators asked for clearer, apples‑to‑apples comparisons among institutions and suggested a broader process to consider any new distribution formula.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

K‑State president backs split of $7.5 million, lawmakers request accreditation and budget details

Board of Regents explains funding history and formula differences; lawmakers press for clearer comparisons