KLRD analysts and a Board of Regents finance official told the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency that the six state universities overseen by the Kansas Board of Regents use a mix of general fee funds (tuition) and restricted fee funds (student activity, program and enterprise fees) to finance campus operations and services.

KLRD presentations identified roughly 50 distinct special revenue and enterprise funds across the six universities (Kansas State, University of Kansas including KU‑Med, Emporia State, Fort Hays, Pittsburg State and Wichita State). KLRD said approximately 75% of those funds are special revenue and about 25% are enterprise funds such as parking operations. KLRD’s fiscal data sets showed FY25 expenditures from the general fee fund at roughly $837.6 million and a combined general plus restricted fee fund expenditure total of about $2.3 billion; presenters emphasized those figures are expenditures rather than revenue receipts.

KLRD principal fiscal analyst Dayton Leminion told senators the largest category of fee‑fund expenditures is salaries and wages; electricity and procurement card (p‑card) charges were among the largest vendor payments listed in itemized vendor reports. KLRD’s vendor extract for fiscal year 2025 showed extensive vendor‑level detail for agencies when downloaded; KLRD noted vendor extracts can be very large (the example shown for a single agency was hundreds of pages).

Matthew Willis (KLRD) reviewed tuition trends and reported that in‑state undergraduate tuition and fees have increased over time, with KU and Kansas State at the high end. Board of Regents vice president Elaine Frisbie described the board’s annual tuition‑and‑fee approval cycle: universities submit a detailed proposal (a 96‑page report this year) and the Board of Regents’ Fiscal Affairs and Audit Committee reviews proposals in May with final board action typically in June. Frisbie said student governments are involved in fee proposals and that campus leaders present projected enrollment, market‑pay adjustments and other campus‑level drivers that feed tuition and fee proposals.

Committee members pressed for more detail on a range of concerns: whether restricted fee funds are being carried forward in large balances, whether fee funds are being used for items committee members viewed as outside the traditional scope of student fees (senators cited line items such as contracted services and some vendor payments), and whether the Board of Regents or campuses conduct routine spot checks to ensure fees are spent for their stated purposes. Frisbie said the Board of Regents follows statutory authority (citing KSA 76‑7,19 authority to set tuition and fees) and board policy, but told the committee the Regents office lacks staffing resources to do campus‑level spot audits and that third‑party reviews occur only periodically or in specific circumstances.

Committee discussion included requests for follow‑up materials: campus and fund‑level ending balances, total fee revenue collected (versus expenditures), itemized vendor reports where feasible, and further breakdowns that separate student‑governance‑controlled “student activity” fees from other restricted fee categories. Senators also asked for institution‑level reporting of indirect cost revenues from sponsored research and for a clearer accounting of affiliated corporations and where revenue from research contracts is stored and audited.

Ending: Committee members directed staff to work with KLRD and the Board of Regents to obtain additional documentation on FY receipts versus expenditures, fund carryovers, affiliated‑entity reporting and vendor detail so legislators can consider follow‑up oversight options during the session.