Kansas bill would let public, independent and technical colleges form permissive affiliations; opponents warn of tax and debt risks

A bill before the Committee on Higher Education Budget would make affiliations between Kansas public universities, Washburn University, independent colleges and technical/community colleges permissive rather than requiring a follow-up legislative approval, but it drew questions Wednesday about local tax levies, bond debt and community control.

Jill (committee staff) told legislators HB 25 23 authorizes affiliations by mutual agreement of the institutions’ governing bodies and the Board of Regents and removes the need for a separate act of the Legislature. "This bill really does four things," she said, explaining the measure allows universities and independent colleges to affiliate with each other and with tech or community colleges and contains boilerplate provisions addressing faculty, pending lawsuits and the transfer of powers and duties.

Supporters said the change would reduce a procedural barrier that can stall affiliation efforts. Representative Steven Howe, a bill sponsor, called the proposal "a freedom bill" that would let institutions seek efficiencies amid declining enrollments. Blake Flanders, president and CEO of the Kansas Board of Regents, said past permissive affiliations produced enrollment gains — citing an 83% FTE increase at Washburn Tech and a 32% FTE increase after Wichita State connected with WSU Tech — and argued legislative delay can chill local initiatives.

Opponents, including Heather Morgan, executive director of the Kansas Association of Community Colleges, said the bill as drafted could create more obstacles than it removes. Morgan warned HB 2523 could automatically transfer campus buildings, local property-tax levies and other liabilities to the state unless agreements explicitly address them. "If the community college board has no ability to levy taxes, how do they pay debt service on that?" she asked, highlighting concerns about bond indebtedness, capital improvement levies and other local levies that currently support community-college operations.

Jill pointed committee members to bill language (page 6, lines 15–19) requiring an affiliating university or college to "assume and agree to pay all the bonded indebtedness of the affiliated community college," but also noted bond indebtedness would remain a charge on the community college district territory unless the agreement specifies otherwise. She and others acknowledged those details will be negotiated in each affiliation agreement.

Lawmakers pressed on practical effects: Representative Riley asked whether institutions could reach outside geographic proximity to affiliate and who would control the decision. Jill answered that affiliations require mutual agreement among the governing bodies — the Board of Regents or the independent institution’s board and the technical/community college’s governing body — rather than unilateral assignment by any single party. Representative Haskins noted the bill amends nine statutes and repeals the statutory service-area provision.

Community-college witnesses urged a simpler permissive structure that safeguards local taxpayers and does not automatically transfer liabilities or preclude creative local arrangements, such as limited levies retained for campus upkeep. Proponents said the bill is intended as a permissive tool, not a forced consolidation; opponents said, practically, some provisions (for example, automatic tax-levy cessation on affiliation) need tightening to avoid unintended consequences.

Chairman Turk closed the hearing and indicated the committee expects to work amendments before Wednesday’s session to address the raised concerns.

Ending: The committee did not vote on HB 2523; the chair said members would seek amendments and continue work at a later committee meeting.