Kansas State urges $130 million state appropriation to replace aging veterinary diagnostic lab

President Richard Linton of Kansas State University told a joint House–Senate appropriation subcommittee that the Kansas Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory needs a new facility and asked the state to fund the full cost of construction.

Linton said the lab — which performs about 500,000 diagnostic tests annually, employs roughly 110 people, and was built in 1967 — provides services that support Kansas’ $57 billion livestock and food sector. He quoted an independent economic study that found the lab generates an estimated $2.51 billion in annual economic impact and about $25.7 million in state tax revenue in a typical year.

Linton said: "Based on the detailed analysis presented in this report, it is evident that the Kansas State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory is a critically important and high impact asset for the state of Kansas." He told lawmakers the report recommended new facilities and infrastructure to sustain and expand services.

Why it matters: The diagnostic lab supports disease diagnosis, food-safety testing, surveillance for foreign and zoonotic threats (diseases that can transfer from animals to humans) and research tied to the university’s veterinary college and animal-science programs. Linton noted that roughly 64% of the lab’s annual funding comes from out-of-state sources and that the lab handles tests used nationally, for example high volumes of rabies testing.

What was requested and the committee response: Linton said Kansas State is requesting a $130,000,000 appropriation and that the university would ask for that to be a 100% state-funded capital appropriation, with the state providing the facility while the university provides operations. No formal vote occurred during the hearing; committee members repeatedly expressed support and asked questions about timing, alternatives (renovation vs. new build), partnership opportunities and workforce impacts. Chairman Mosher and others noted the budget was now in the Senate and that higher-education budget work was expected soon.

Details lawmakers pressed for: Committee members asked whether renovation of existing buildings was possible; Linton said renovating the multi-building, spread-out lab would likely cost more and deliver less than a new facility. He estimated a planning phase of about six months and construction of roughly two to 2.5 years for a new building. Lawmakers also asked whether capacity (tests performed, staff levels) would increase immediately; Linton said capacity would rise over time as staff and technical capacity are scaled up.

Partnerships and competition: Linton cited competing investments at peer university labs (Iowa State, University of Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado State) and said new laboratory facilities help attract industry MOUs and corporate research partners. He linked the lab’s mission to the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) and USDA partnerships and said a modern diagnostic lab would better enable high-level collaboration with NBAF and private industry in the "animal health corridor" that spans Kansas and Missouri.

Funding context and federal grants: Committee members asked about dependence on federal competitive grants and recent changes in federal funding. Linton said Kansas State has grown competitive funding but faces short-term uncertainty for about $119 million in competitive grants, including a previously announced $50 million USAID grant that may be affected; he described industry partnering as one strategy to diversify support.

Safety and containment: Representative Roth asked about biosafety risks. Linton distinguished the diagnostic lab (BSL‑2 and below) from BSL‑3 and BSL‑4 research containment facilities, and said containment protocols make risk extremely low. He said worst-case scenarios (tornado-level destruction) were considered and that containment design is robust.

Closing and next steps: Linton thanked the committee and repeated that the project was a "smart investment for Kansas." Committee leaders said they would relay the hearing’s tone to leadership and explore budget pathways; no formal appropriation was approved at the hearing.

Ending note: Committee members from both parties expressed broad, public support in the hearing, while noting timing and budget constraints; the request will be considered as the state budget process moves forward in the Senate.