Date: 09 Nov., 2007
POSITION PAPER
TO: Regent member
FROM: Shocker Black & Golds
RE: WSU’s Fair Share of the State’s
BOR Capital Improvements Budget Moneys
Dear Sir,
This letter is further to our request to the Board of Regents at last months 18th October, 2007 Thursday meeting, for the Board to consider its lack of funding for some 43 years of any new building for WSU from the States’ BOR capital improvements budgets; and for the Board to agree to take over the debt servicing, principal and interest, of WSU’s new engineering lab building in the amount of $900,000 per year to the year 2017; and our subsequent short discussion of the issue at a break and at the end of the meeting.
The purpose of our request is to seek the vitiation of the Board’s insidious, improper and unjust policy, improperly initiated before S.B. 345 which de-packed the Board of Regents, when KU then had monopolistic control of the Board, of providing no state moneys for capital improvements for any new building to WSU, and requiring WSU to rely upon the 1.5 Wichita/Sedgwick County mill levy to fund any new building. The new WSU engineering lab building is owned by the state. It is a state building. Sedgwick County tax payers directly through the 1.5 Wichita/Sedgwick County mill levy, we submit, have no legal obligation to fund new buildings belonging to the state, for WSU. Any new buildings for WSU are the obligation of the state and the Board of Regents. Presently, the continuing 43 year old KU Board of Regents’ policy has, and has had, the effect of double taxation on Wichita / Sedgwick County tax payers, and it is long since time that this insidious unjust policy should be stopped.
I. Issue #1
Background History
When WSU came into the state system of higher education in 1964, the legislature required the citizens of Wichita to approve a 1.5 mill levy for the stated purpose of guaranteeing the payoff of the then existing capital improvements debt of the Wichita University, so that the assets of the university could be transferred to the state debt free. The issue was not presented to the voters for their approval as a 1.5 mill levy in perpetuity but rather simply till the existing capital improvements debt could be paid off. There was no intention, and the citizens of Wichita were not presented with, and did not vote to be taxed to pay for future capital improvements, at what was then to become Wichita State University. In fact, one of the purposes of entering into the state system was so that the state would be responsible, inter alia, for any future capital improvements of Wichita State University. And, after our admission into the state system, the State legally assumed responsibility for WSU and any future WSU capital improvements.
The purpose of, and the only jurisdiction of the Board of Regents over the 1.5 mill levy, was oversight jurisdiction to see to it that the 1.5 mill levy money was in fact spent to pay off the then existing capital improvements WSU debt. Moreover, another reason for oversight jurisdiction only, was the fact that the Board has a built in conflict of interest with the 1.5 Wichita/Sedgwick County mill levy budget vis-a-vis the state’s Board of Regents’ budget; as precisely evidenced by the double taxation issue of Wichita/Sedgwick County citizens uniquely in the state from all other counties. The debt we speak of, then consisted primarily of $1.5 million debt on the then named Henry Levitt arena. Said debt was paid off decades ago, but the tax has continued, we submit, legally on an ad hoc year by year basis at the sole discretion and pleasure of the Wichita City Council, and subsequently, the Sedgwick County Commission. I believe it was not until 1988 that the Sedgwick County Commission determined without any public proposition and vote, to extend the 1.5 mill tax on real estate property within the city limits, from the city limits to all real estate property within the complete Sedgwick County limits. But, in any case, the reason for the BOR oversight jurisdiction has long been satisfied, and to be frank, there is no longer any justifiable legal basis for any BOR jurisdiction over the 1.5 mill levy whatsoever.
Last year on October 19th 2006, before you were a member of the Board, I spoke to the Board of Regents on last years 1.5 Wichita/Sedgwick County mill levy budget, and ask that they put the issue of the funding of WSU’s new Engineering Lab building on the following months Board agenda for discussion. It is my understanding that the KU president of the Board, Mr. Reggie Robinson would not allow the issue to be put on the agenda. Again, who owns the new WSU engineering lab building? The answer clearly is that since 1964 and WSU entrance into the state system, the state has owned all buildings on the WSU campus, as it does for all universities and colleges. Why is it then do you suspect that Sedgwick County tax payers, uniquely in the state, still have to debt service $900,000 a year to the year 2017, principal and interest, if it is a state building? The answer is because of an insidious Board of Regents policy started by KU when KU had monopolistic control of the majority of the regents and the Board: an average of 4.453 members per year on a 9 member board at the time of our study for the then previous 35 years WSU had been in the system, with WSU then having a total of only 5 alumni representatives for the same 35 year period. It is clearly evident, that the purpose of the KU regents’ policy of denying WSU any money from the states Board of Regents Capital Improvements Budget, was in order to substantially and effectively increase KU share by giving KU, WSU’s share also. In the FY 2006 and FY 2007 distributions, KU had approved some $435 million for 22 projects, K-State $210 million for 13 projects, and WSU had approved $10,930,000 for 3 projects, but received $0 state dollars towards the single building project of a new engineering lab building in the amount of $10,000,000 but funded by the 1.5 mill levy. In 43 years since WSU came into the state system, to our knowledge and belief, WSU has received no moneys whatsoever for any new building from the state’s Board of Regents Capital Improvement Budgets for those years. Recently WSU did receive some state moneys for maintenance, as did KU and K-State to a greater extent, but we continue to receive no state money for any new building capital improvement.
The bottom line is that Sedgwick County tax payers are continuing to be double taxed for educational capital improvements for new buildings, uniquely in the state from all other counties. And, the Board of Regents continues to improperly and perhaps illegally rely, upon the Wichita/Sedgwick County 1.5 mill levy for WSU, to fund new building capital improvements for WSU, notwithstanding the Shocker Black & Golds presentation and request to the Board last October 19th 2006.
The last time I researched the state numbers, and I must admit it has been a while, I think some 10 years or so ago, Sedgwick County residents pay more tax money to the state than any other county, with the possible present exception of Johnson County, which was then close, and for which I haven’t presently checked. I submit the solution to this unfair double taxation of Sedgwick County tax payers uniquely in the state, is not to quit the Wichita/Sedgwick County 1.5 mill levy for WSU, but to require the Board of Regents to quit their policy of giving WSU no moneys from the state’s Board of Regents Capital Improvements Budget for new buildings to WSU; but rather to require WSU to receive its fair share of the state’s funding for the Board of Regents’ Capital Improvements Budget. 43 years of unfairness due to political control of the Board is enough. It is time to correct this injustice to our university and the double taxation to Wichita/Sedgwick County tax payers.
This year on October 18th, a year to the day from our last presentation on the issue to the Board, we again spoke to the issue and again ask the Board to take over the $900,000 a year debt service till the year 2017 on our new engineering lab building, and to stop the Board policy that effectively uniquely double taxes Wichita/Sedgwick County residents from all other counties in the state. I had previously asked for just two minutes to speak to the agenda item of the Wichita/Sedgwick County 1.5 mill levy, but when I got to the meeting I still hadn’t been advised as to whether or not I would be allowed to speak, and when the issue was under discussion, I went up to the general counsel for the Board and ask her if I would be allowed two minutes. She said she couldn’t tell me. Please note she did not tell me she did not know, but rather that she couldn’t tell me. When the discussion was over, and Christine Downey was getting ready to call for a vote on the F.Y. 2008 1.5 Wichita/Sedgwick County Mill Levy for WSU, I had to stand up, force the issue, and ask: “Madam Chairman, I asked for two minutes to address the Board on the Mill Levy, but I haven’t been advised whether or not I will be allowed to do so.” Only then, after I forced the issue, did she say that since I came up from Wichita – she obviously knew who I was and why I was there – she would allow me two minutes, which was all I believed I needed to again make our point.
II. Issue #2
Proper Use of our Mill Levy Moneys
Another reason we need to obtain our fair share of the states’ capital improvement budget for the BOR institutions, is precisely so that we can use our 1.5 mill levy moneys to solve our loss of some 9000 traditional students problem the Board of Regents fostered upon us in 1986, vis-a-vis the 442 students less than K-State we were at the time, with K-State precipitously losing students and WSU continually on the rise. I dealt with this 20 year old WSU loss of traditional student problem, that the Board continues to show no public concern over, in a 40 page response, dated Nov. 2nd ‘06, to the Wichita Eagle’s article, provided to some 200 community leaders, with a copy to the City Council, the County Commission, and the then Board on Regents members. You were not on the Board at that time, but I am sure you can obtain a copy from members of the Board at the time, or if not, if you let me know I will provide you with a copy.
The bottom line for the Shocker Black & Golds is that our mill levy moneys should now be used for substantive enhancement of the university, not used as replacement moneys for our fair share of the Board of Regents budget for the state universities. We have no incentive whatsoever for replacement uses and double taxation, and we submit the Board of Regents needs to seriously consider correcting this insidious injustice, as we do not intend to go away until it is corrected.
III. Issue #3
July 26th 2006 Study of State
Capital Improvement Moneys
At last months Board meeting on the 18th of October you advised you intended to look into the issue of capital improvement moneys for WSU. On July 26th 2006, I accomplished a study of Board of Regents FY 2006 and FY 2007 documents provided to me by way of Kansas Open Records Request, and posted it on our web site: www.Alumnishockerblackandgolds.com I am inclosing a copy for your review. I believe the study to be accurate within my ability to understand the coding information, acronyms and pseudonyms without definitive explanations, and elliptical language couched in education speakese not familiar to the public at large, that only the Board administration and members know the real meaning of. I speak specifically of the basis for funding of projects, i.e., precisely where the money is coming from. I am also providing the FY 2006 and FY 2007 documents provided to me by the Board, so that if I have made erroneous assumptions, you can correct my numbers and analysis.
As close as I can tell from the analysis I accomplished on 26 July ‘06, KU had 22 projects approved at a total cost of $435,346,403 of which some $185,532,522 had then been currently accomplished, and of which some $130,570,522 or 70.4 percent, had been paid for by state funds. K-State had 13 projects approved at a total cost of $210,463,920 of which some $69,777,244 had then been currently accomplished, and of which some $3,356,690 or 4.8 percent, had been paid for by state funds. WSU had 3 projects approved at a total cost of $10,930,000 of which some $7,010,000 had then been currently accomplished, and of which some $145,000 had been paid for by state funds. However, the small amount of $145,000 for WSU was for a “Campus Energy Plant Study”. In short, WSU’s $145,000 was for a study, and not any state money for the new $10,000,000 engineering lab building.
WSU has needs for new buildings also, a new engineering lab building, but this new state building for WSU is being funded by the 1.5 Wichita/Sedgwick County mill levy, with no funding from state money whatsoever. I guess we are suppose to just be happy they let us build the building at all, and just go away and hide, while KU and K-State receive millions in state funds for their buildings; which Kansas State Tax moneys come in the largest measure to the state, from the citizens of Wichita/Sedgwick County. Only if you are the chancellor of KU or KU is your university, could you consider this hidden insidious procedure fair and equitable. By the way, I am a KU law school graduate as well as a WSU graduate. The last time I received any information on the subject from the KU alumni association, there were only some 1500 members of the KU alumni association living in Wichita/Sedgwick County. By far, the tax paying citizens of this community are supporters of WSU, our local university, not KU. If chancellor Hemenway and the KU folks want to additionally tax and surcharge Wichita/Sedgwick County citizens for KU facilities and purposes, they should first see to it that Lawrence Kansas is first taxed directly for such purposes through their own 1.5 Lawrence/Douglas County mill levy for KU.
In addition to the 26 July ‘06 article I am inclosing, the following numbers show how I obtain the bottom line numbers, thus:
FY 2007
Current & prior yrs state funds
KU: $ 2,165,000 RR (Repair & Rehabilitation)
$40,000,000 KUCR (KU Center for Research)(Multi-disciplinary
Research Building)
$ 3,500,000 TE/RF(Tuition Enhancements/ Restricted Fees)
(Wescoe Hall office & Classroom infill)
$45,665,000
$ 8,800,000 SGF (State General Fund)(Utility Tunnel
Improvements)
$54,465,000
KU Medical Center:
$53,175,522 RB (Revenue Bonds)
$16,700,000 RB (Revenue Bonds)
$ 6,230,000 SGF (State General Fund)
$76,105,522
Total: $130,570,522
K-State: $ 2,652,244 SGF (State General Fund)(KSU-S Aero lab expansion, $3,788,922)
$ 515,000 SGF (State General Fund)($9,705,000 Memorial
Stadium Renovations)
$ 189,446 SGF (State General Fund)(Debt service Memorial Stadium Renovations)
$ 3,356,690
WSU: $ 145,000 SGF (State General Fund)(Campus Energy Plant
Study)
$10,000,000 ($6,400,000 RB, $3,600,000 RB, which revenue
bonds are debt serviced on the 1.5 mill levy, with no moneys from the state.)
Note also, that the two revenue bond amounts listed for the KU Medical Center, do not identify if they are debt serviced by state moneys or private KU moneys. I’ve assumed the former, but it may not be correct.
Note also for K-State, that K-State received $2,652,244 in State General Funds for K-State’s new Salina Aeronautical Lab expansion, and another $189,446 in annual debt service of same, towards a $3,788,922 total amount. When I was in undergraduate and graduate Aeronautical Engineering School in the 1960's at WSU, we then had the third best rated Aeronautical Engineering School in the country, rated only behind Stanford and MIT at the time. Every professor I had was a Dr. I doubt that it is much different today. K-State has already received $2,652,244 in state funds towards its new Salina Aero Lab expansion plus $189,446 annually, headed towards $3,788,922; but at the same time WSU can’t obtain a single dollar from state funds for its on campus new engineering lab building, but has to debt service it on the 1.5 mill levy. And, KU’s new $40,000,000 multi-disciplinary research building may also be funded with state moneys?
By the way, why is it do you suspect that president Beggs in his 8 years tenure, has yet to even ask for a single dollar for any new building construction from the State’s Board of Regents’ capital improvements budget? I submit the answer is clearly that president Beggs was committed by chancellor Hemenway and the KU folks, Frank Sabitini chairman of the selection committee, KU professor on leave to the Board Dr. Steve Jordan then chairman of the Board of Regents and vice chair of the selection committee, and the 3 or 4 other KU graduates who were on the selection committee, not to ask for any state moneys for WSU for capital improvements, as a condition of obtaining the position. Nor has, nor will either president Beggs or chancellor Hemenway publicly discuss or deny the assertion.
Please also note that K-State received $515,000 on the FY 2007 budget of State General Funds for its football stadium. K-State gets its Aero lab in Salina paid for by state funds and obtains state general funds for its football stadium; but WSU will not ask, and does not receive a single dollar in state funds for its new engineering lab building. When we have raised these issues, all we receive is deafening silence out of the Board of Regents, and they simply figuratively thumb their nose at us and drive on without comment with a policy they know to be, and that can only be described as, corrupt. I am writing this primarily because you are a new member of the Board and you impressed me with your attitude, as I thought that you exhibited you were an open mind on the issue, wished to study the data, and would let the data guide your reason.
Emporia State University:
Please note on the FY 2007 capital improvement summary, page 2, that the new addition to the Emporia State University Library in the total project cost of $7,379,000 is being funded from the State General Fund. Emporia State receives a few million in state funds for a new building, but not WSU.
Pittsburg State University:
Please note on the FY 2007 capital improvement summary, page 3, that the renovations to Pittsburg State’s McCray Hall in the amount of $3,437,280 are being funded by the State General Fund. Pittsburg’s KSANG Armory Classroom project in the total project cost of $14,404,547 with $7,778,016 currently expended, had as of FY 2007, received $4,025,763 from the State General Fund. And, their new Kansas Polymer Research Center, total project cost of $4,000,000 has some part of $3,455,500 financed by revenue bonds for which the debt service is not identified.
Fort Hays State University:
Please note on the FY 2007 capital improvement summary, page 3, that the renovations to Fort Hays State’s Picken Hall in the amount of $4,300,000 are scheduled to be paid for by the State General Fund. Again, significant millions for Fort Hays in state funds, but not a single dollar in state moneys to WSU for WSU’s new engineering lab building.
IV. Issue #4
Tuition Accountability/Loss of Traditional Students
Please also note from the above and from the Board documents provided, for KU, the $3,500,000 is funded in part from “tuition enhancements”. I believe this relates to the Board’s “tuition accountability rules whereby for increased enrollment, the institution gets to keep one years tuition before sending the tuition to the Board. WSU is the only university in the state that has no tuition accountability fund with the Board, as we continue to have a loss of traditional student problem, caused in the first instance by the Board of Regents actions and involvement 20 years ago in suspending football at WSU while at the same time hiring president Wefald and emphasizing football at K-State to stop the loss of student problem at K-State. But for Board of Regent action with no jurisdiction over athletics at KU, K-State, or WSU, etc., we would not now have this continuous 20 year old serious loss of traditional student problem, that publicly seems not to bother the Board of Regents, and for which president Beggs is trying to put his finger in the dike, by buying Wichita students with presently over 2000 mill levy scholarships, and 400 to 500 more on the way for this year.
We currently have some 17 percent of our student population on mill levy scholarships, never authorized or voted upon by the citizens of Wichita/Sedgwick County, with more on the way, as Beggs desperately tries to keep the university afloat and not subject to tuition accountable rules of making up the money difference for loss of student enrollment.
In fact, when president Beggs took the position starting January 1, 1999, our enrollment for the spring semester was 14,209. Eight years later on Beggs’ watch, our enrollment for the spring semester was 14,045 a loss of 164 students. But that is not the whole story. During the same time period, every university and community college in the state increased enrollment except WSU. And, while the actual number was a loss of 164 students, we now have over 2000 students bought by Beggs with our mill levy money for scholarships; but for Beggs buying students with mill levy money, he is in actuality down over 2000 students on his watch alone. But for our mill levy money buying students, our enrollment would be 12,000 instead of the current 14,045. The net result and effect it is submitted, is that Beggs is requiring Wichita/Sedgwick County taxpayers to pay Beggs’ debt pursuant to tuition accountability rules for his loss of some 2000 students on his watch.
Until president Beggs is relieved from his commitments to Hemenway and the KU folks who hired him as conditions of his hiring, not only to not seek any state capital improvement moneys for any new buildings for WSU, but also to not bring back football at WSU, WSU will continue to be seen as a non-traditional university without a football program, and as a result thereof, WSU will continue to lose traditional students from the Wichita area that would otherwise go to WSU. Instead they will continue to go to KU and K-State, thereby increasing their enrollments and tuition accountability moneys. There are substantive folks with ties to the community that have made it known, taken together, that they are willing to commit $20,000,000 to start the fund raising campaign to return football to WSU. With over 2000 scholarships presently on the mill levy, another 85 football scholarships can readily be accommodated, without impacting any other present line item. But because of president Beggs commitments to chancellor Hemenway and the KU folks who hired him, and who don’t want competition from WSU for traditional students they are now obtaining from Wichita/Sedgwick County, Beggs is unwilling to even talk to these folks. “I’ll have to think about it”, he advised Mayor Mayans. As far as the Shocker Black & Golds are concerned, Beggs can be president for life. But if he continues his improper commitments to the KU folks, and will not consider the return of football, or even to ask for a single dollar of state moneys for new capital improvements; then he thereby will not be properly representing our university he is legally obligated to represent. In the future, any new WSU president should selected unshackled by KU folks’ involvement, and uncommitted in his hiring process on policy matters contra to the clear best interests of the university he is to represent.
V. Issue #5
FY 2009 Systemwide Capital Improvement Requests
At the May 16-17, 2007 Board of Regents meeting, the Board approved the Capital Improvement Requests for FY 2009 – Systemwide. (See BOR Agenda, p.7). As a result of review of the Agenda, I provided our Open Public Records request to the Board’s general counsel and received the inclosed Table 1 and Table 2 three page documents both entitled: “FY Capital Improvement Requests – Summary of Institution Submittals”, both documents dated Kansas Board of Regents, May 17, 2007. In review of these documents in an attempt to determine the difference between the two, I noted for KU, Table 1 lists 14 projects and Table 2 lists only 11 projects. For Table 1, 10 projects listed as 5-14, are repeated for Table 2, as projects 2-11. For Table 1, projects 1 and 3 in the total project costs of $12,025,000 and $2,630,000 have apparently been included in the subsequent Table 2 under project 1 entitled: “Deferred Maintenance Program” in the total project costs of $180,000,000. No explanation of this $165,000,000 delta difference is apparent, or if it is, it is not obvious to simple folks like us hayseed public citizens. Also for Table 1, KU new building projects 2 and 4 in the amounts of $107,300,000 for a new Undergrad Science Teaching Facility and $46,580,000 for a new Pharmacy Teaching & Administration building
do not appear in Table 2, unless that is they are included and hidden so to speak, under “Deferred Maintenance”. Whether or not they are included in deferred maintenance, we at least know that the pharmacy building hasn’t gone away, as KU is currently advertising on our local TV news for the building alleging it is desperately needed, implying old people in western Kansas won’t be able to gets their pills and they might die as a result.
Turning now to KU Medical Center, in my review I noted Table 1 lists 11 projects and Table 2 lists only 6 projects. For Table 1, 5 projects listed as 7-11, are repeated for Table 2, as projects 2-6. Table 1 projects 1-4 in the total project cost of $56,391,000 are apparently now included in Table 1 project 1 entitled: “Deferred Maintenance Program” in the total project cost of $72,000,000. Apparently the deferred maintenance costs have increased another $15,000,000 without apparent explanation. Say, it’s only public money! What’s another $15 million.
Table 1
Since Table 1 has the most defined projects; and since you have the ability as a Regent to understand the coding information of acronyms and pseudonyms without definite explanations, subtly couched titles and information in education speakese that only the education types know the real meaning of, or in the alternative can require there explanation from the administration of the Board; and even though us farmers out here on the range don’t have much of a clue as to what the administrative education types are talking about; I will in any case take a stab at Table 1 and leave Table 2 for your analysis should you be so inclined.
I note for KU 14 projects in the total project costs of $403,155,600; with Current & Prior Years present funding in the amount of $79,544,600; and with State General Funds on schedule to pay for $165,310,000 through FY 2011.
I note for KU Medical Center 11 projects in the total project costs of $281,022,000; with Current & Prior Years present funding in the amount of $0; and with State General Funds on schedule to pay for $106,197,000 through FY 2012.
When I add the total project costs for projects 1-4 for KU and 1-6 for KU Medical Center, dealing with the State General Fund for both KU and KU Medical Center, I obtain $271,507,000. I also note for KU project 1 a Current & Prior Years listing in the amount of $3,225,000 listed as funded by Repair & Rehabilitation and Crumbling Classrooms, which I would assume is also state money, if not in fact State General Funds. I however did not include this amount as vis-a-vis $0 state funds for WSU, it frankly is not needed to make the corruptness point. I also note projects 7 and 8 for the KU Medical Center, a $8,550,000 “Parking Facility #4" and a $66,000,000 Ambulatory Care Facility, both of which are identified as funded by revenue bonds, but do not identify the important information as to where the moneys are coming from to debt service the revenue bonds. A total of $74,550,000 for two new buildings and the Boards administration can’t be bothered to identify on the summary document, and to the public, what is the source of the moneys debt servicing the revenue bonds. Why is it do I suspect that somehow state moneys may be involved in $74 million dollars worth of buildings for KU?
The Board can’t be bothered to keep track of $74 million for the knowledge and information of members of the tax paying citizens of the state, but we sure do know they can keep track of the $0 dollars going to WSU for new capital improvements. In any case, I didn’t include the $74 million in my analysis of state moneys going to KU and KUMC from the State General Fund for capital improvements, including new building capital improvements.
I note for K-State 14 projects in the total project costs of $224,319,288; with Current & Prior Years present funding in the amount of $93,711,136; and with State General Funds on schedule to pay for $64,243,288 through FY 2012.
Of the 14 projects for K-State, only projects 1-8 are receiving State General Funds. I note K-State is receiving $3,788,920 in State General Funds for a new Salina Aeronautical Lab Expansion. I also note K-State is receiving $35,054,368 for Renovation of Labs in Manhattan and also Classrooms. K-State is further receiving a paltry $2,000,000 for a new Hanger Door in Salina. But WSU doesn’t seem to qualify for any state moneys to pay for its new engineering lab building. We can’t even get a paltry $2,000,000 in state funds for a new hanger door, and have to be double taxed to support our local State university. The evidenced corruptness and unfairness of the Board’s policy towards WSU reeks, and if the case goes far enough so that the facts become general knowledge of the Wichita/Sedgwick County taxpayers, the Board may at some juncture, and I should underline may given my confidence level of the credibility of the Board as I have come to understand it vis-a-vis the facts, wish it had taken this opportunity to on its own initiative correct this 43 year old continuing injustice of the state funding no new buildings for WSU. Picking up the debt service of $900,000 a year on WSU’s new engineering lab building would be a start, but would even then by no means be WSU’s and Wichita/Sedgwick County’s fair share of state moneys for capital improvement new buildings being continually built by the state moneys.
In passing, for what its worth, I note for WSU 4 projects in the total project costs of $13,613,070; with Current & Prior Years present funding in the amount of $12,573,070; and with State General Funds on schedule to pay for $0 through FY 2013.
I note the revenue bonds for the new engineering lab building are being debt serviced by the 1.5 Wichita/Sedgwick County mill levy, although, again, you can’t tell that from Table 1.
I note for Emporia State 5 projects in the total project costs of $36,270,000; with Current & Prior Years present funding in the amount of $0; and with State General Funds on schedule to pay for $15,820,000 through FY 2011. I note that Emporia is receiving $9,170,000 in State General Funds for a new library addition. Even Emporia State gets $9,170,000 in State General Funds for a new library addition building, but WSU receives $0 for its new engineering lab building. I note $5,000,000 in State General Funds of something called: “Stormont Maint. Remodel/ Relocate”. Whatever is occurring is being funded by State General Funds. I also note $20,000,000 in revenue bonds for Emporia State’s Memorial Student Union Renovation, but again, no explanation of the funding of the debt service of the bonds is evidenced. Perhaps its student fees, since it’s the student union building, but it is otherwise not evident.
I note for Pittsburg State 11 projects in the total project costs of $111,806,818; with Current & Prior Years present funding in the amount of $22,942,818; and with State General Funds on schedule to pay for $38,201,000 through FY 2012. I note McCray Hall Renovations in the amount of $3,917,000 were entirely paid for by State General Funds. I note the new Axe Library Expansion in the amount of $16,011,000 is being entirely paid for by State General Funds. I note the new Fine and Performing Arts Center building in the amount of $30,000,000 is to receive $16,000,000 of its funding from State General Funds. I note the new College of Business/Conference Center building in the amount of $25,000,000 is scheduled to receive $2,273,000 in FY 2011. Finally for Pittsburg State I note the new KSANG Armory Classroom building now complete in the amount of $15,092,818 is identified on the previous FY 2007 Capital Improvement Summary, p. 3, as scheduled for $4,025,763 in funding from the State General Fund, and the present Table 1 still shows in part State General Fund funding, although not in amount. Say, if WSU could just get the State General Fund moneys for new buildings that Pittsburg State obtains, $38 million, WSU could afford to build their new engineering lab building, and three more just like it, without any money from the 1.5 Wichita/Sedgwick County mill levy. We could then use our money to solve the cause of our 20 year old loss of traditional student problem, along with the present $20,000,000 that stands ready to start the fund raising campaign.
I note for Fort Hays State 3 projects in the total project costs of $6,875,000; with Current & Prior Years present funding in the amount of $1,675,000; and with State General Funds on schedule to pay for $4,800,000 through FY 2010. For Fort Hays State, the $4,800,000 in State General Funds is funding the renovation of Picken Hall.
If it wasn’t for the shoatish attitude and acts of the KU folks suckling from the spigot of the State General Fund to the tune of 40 percent of the $1 billion, $77 million total present project costs, and presently scheduled for $271,507,000 of the Board approved $455,071,624 from state tax funds, or 59.7 percent of the State General Fund for such projects; perhaps, just maybe, the Board could see its way clear to give WSU its first state dollar for a new building in 43 years. Maybe even cut back KU from $271,507,000 to a paltry $261,507,000 and pay for WSU’s new engineering lab building.
VI. Issue #6
$26 Million for a new Building for KU
When KU’s ancient Hoke, Hoch (s.p.?), auditorium burnt down in some fashion of cause, the KU Board of Regents at the time ultimately spent some $26,000,000 to “rebuild” the auditorium (they saved a portion of the front wall facing, with the rest of the building being new construction). It is of supreme opulent construction with terrazzo floors, Italian marble walls, and a huge space eating two story glass atrium. Only the best of construction for their university. The same amount of space could have been built for half the cost. Opulent construction for KU, but not a single dollar for new construction for WSU in 43 years. Just further evidence of the KU Board’s concept of equity and justice with state moneys.
VII. Issue #7
New $18 Million KU and K-State Library Buildings
A few years ago, I haven’t bothered to look it up in my files, KU received $18,000,000 in state funds for a new addition to its library, K-State received $18,000,000 for a new addition to its O’ferrell library, and WSU was to receive from the same state funding, some $10,000,000 for a new chemistry/biology building. However, the following year, before any moneys could be spent for construction, the KU controlled Board cancelled only the WSU funding. In the end, WSU received some small amount for repair of plumbing, as I recall, on the existing old chemistry building. Again, WSU received no state moneys for any new building, while KU and K-State received $18 million each.
In passing I note on page 50 of the May 16-17 ‘07 Board Agenda, item 3, identification of a June 2004 Board meeting authorizing KU to enter into a lease agreement on their new $5 million dollar library annex building, that was funded by “Tuition Enhancement Funds”, future maintenance to be funded by R&R allocations, i.e., state funds. This new building was on previous FY data that I do not have. Perhaps the additional traditional students KU presently obtains from Wichita, and associated first year tuition accountability money they get to keep, was the “Tuition Enhancement Funds” used to fund the building of the new KU $5 million dollar library annex building.
If so, why therefore would you suspect it would be in the interest of KU folks to allow WSU to appeal to traditional Wichita college students?
VIII. Issue #8
KU Medical Center
Last night on the nightly news, KU issued publicly its request to the state legislature for: “$50 million for a new pharmacy building”. Since the legislature isn’t in session presently to my knowledge, it appears KU is starting the publicity campaign a little early to drum up support for a new $50 million dollar building for KU. The evidence they submitted to the TV stations as justification for the expenditure, included a film of a single pharmacist in western Kansas that was the only pharmacist in the county. Apparently, they couldn’t find any county with no pharmacist. In any case, this was presented by some trotted out KU administrative vice president as a critical need verging on a pending disaster, that needed urgent state action, as: “KU only graduated 100 pharmacist a year, and even if they acted immediately it would take a $50 million dollar building and 6 years before KU could graduate 200 pharmacist a year.” Well lets see:
In the first instance, now days many older folks don’t even go to a pharmacist, but for convenience and more importantly for cost, many older folks now just obtain their medication by mail. The implication by the KU vice president was that if we don’t give KU a new $50 million pharmacy building, why folks in western Kansas will die because they will only have one pharmacist in their county and it would be too far to drive so they won’t obtain their medicines.
There are 24 counties in western Kansas west of Dodge City. With presently 100 KU graduate pharmacist a year, pursuant to the implied KU math, that’s about 4 new pharmacist per county per year for western Kansas, presently, without the expenditure of $50 million dollars for a new building for KU’s empire. But what the KU V.P. didn’t discuss, is how is it KU planned to make all these new KU pharmacist graduates set up shop and go into business in western Kansas. Evidently from their presented evidence, they can’t even make the 100 a year they are presently graduating go into business in western Kansas.
The FY 2009 capital improvement requests for the Board of Regents lists the KU Medical Center currently with 11 projects at a total project cost of $281,022,000, of which #5: “Pharmacy Patient Trng, Wichita” is listed as $4,406,000 requested from the State General Fund, and #6: ”Medical Education Building” is listed at a total project cost of $45,400,000 requested from the State General Fund. But the KU V.P. said they needed $5,000,000 for Wichita, and $45 million for KU at Lawrence. The KU Medical Center I believe is located in Kansas City, not Lawrence. But wait, under KU proper, Table I identifies project #4: “Pharmacy Teaching & Administration” building listed at a total project cost of $46,580,000 requested from the State General Fund. So, its not just two medical buildings KU wants, one $46.6 million building for Lawrence and one $4.4 million building for Wichita, but also a third $45.4 Medical Education Building for their Kansas City campus. So its $96,386,000 for three new medical buildings for KU’s empire building, while Hemenway and the KU folks controlling the Board’s administration won’t even allow WSU’s president Beggs to ask the Board for a single dollar for WSU for its new paltry $10 million dollar engineering lab building.
I guess they need the sob effect of old folks who can’t get their medication to boot strap another $45.4 million for a new “Medical Education Building” flying under the radar that they don’t bother to say anything about, but it isn’t the “Pharmacy Building”, and it isn’t for the sob effect pharmacy rationale they are pleading to the public. The KU chancellor who trots out vice presidents to plead his case for him, has in my limited experience, exhibited that his respect for Kansas straightforwardness and intellectual honesty is not highly developed, but his knowledge of political posturing and public manipulation more than makes up for it. But why be honest and straightforward with the total facts to the public, if doing so would have a chilling affect upon your apatite for State General Tax Funds and your desire for piggish empire building.
By the way, some 10 years ago, the KU senior class of graduating doctors was 54 as I recall, and 8 percent, or 4 doctors stayed in the state to practice, according to Board of Regents documents I reviewed at the time. How many doctors do you suspect we are getting for $281,022,000 in building funds as of FY 2009, not to mention the cost of running the medical school? In FY ‘95 as I recall, the state gave KU $311,000,000 just to run the KU medical school. So in FY ‘95 it cost us $78,000,000 for each doctor KU graduated that stayed in the state to practice. This has to be the biggest rip off in the history of the state annually, year after year. And, the KU folks stole (excuse me, transferred), WSU’s budding medical school when they had monopolistic control of the Board of Regents just to avoid any competition. In like fashion, how many pharmacists do you suspect will stay in the state and set up practice in western Kansas, even if we should spend $46.6 million and $4.4 million for a new “Pharmacy Teaching & Administration” building and a new “Pharmacy Patient Training” building, not to mention $45.4 million for a new “Medical Education Building” for KU’s empire. Say, a cheaper and quicker way to obtain pharmacist for western Kansas, if in fact there is such an urgent need, nowhere to be heard except emanating from the straightforwardly challenged KU folks, would be to advertise to the graduates of other states’ pharmacy schools offering say $500,000 cash to any new graduate who would set up business in western Kansas and stay for 3 or 4 years. With only 24 counties west of Dodge City, we could buy 24 new pharmacist for a total of $12,000,000 and save 6 years time and $38 million dollars, not to mention we would have guaranteed 24 new pharmacist who agreed to the contract for the $500,000 whereas under the illusory proposed KU solution to the pretended disparate problem, we would be guaranteed no new pharmacist in western Kansas, and only guaranteed some $51 million in two new buildings for KU, or is it $96.4 million for three new buildings, to help pressure raising taxes to Kansas citizens. Maybe the folks in western Kansas should just continue ordering their pills by mail, as its cheaper anyway. I think maybe.
The bottom line is that whenever it pleases KU and the chancellor wants new buildings funded by state funds, they just trot out the closest vice president to misrepresent a catastrophic condition and problem to the public for which the only answer is $50 million or so ($96.4) from the tax paying citizens of the state to help build KU’s empire; which misrepresentations are then used to pressure the legislature to authorize the money KU wants. But sadly, the president of WSU isn’t allowed, and won’t even, because of his commitment to chancellor Hemenway and the KU folks who hired him, ask for a single dollar in state money for a new engineering lab building at WSU; and the Board of Regents continues its double taxation policy of Wichita/Sedgwick County residents uniquely in the state from all other counties, by giving WSU no state moneys for any new building in 43 years.
IX. Conclusion
I will readily offer the caveat that because of the time I could make available for the above analysis of data and presentation, and in part do to the elliptical English description of terms and labeled funding and projects, for which education speakese I am basically unfamiliar, I may have erred in some fashion. If so, I stand ready to consider any such error you should call to my attention, and to respond appropriately as to whether I still have an issue, or need to apologize.
As I see it, the Board has two ways to go. It can take the high road and initiative and vitiate what we believe to be its corrupt and unjust policy applied to deny WSU any State capital improvements moneys for any new building in 43 years, and mitigate somewhat the continuing damages; or it can set back and do nothing, and observe whatever course it is nature will accommodate, and thereafter reap the benefits – or perhaps the detriments.
In appreciation of your time in consideration of this presentation of state funded capital improvements data and letter, we are
Respectfully submitted,
Shocker Black & Golds
By:
Fred Marrs
P.S. Since I was challenged at the October 18th 2007 Board of Regents meeting by a regent with the false assertion that the: “State provides no money to the Board for new capital improvements buildings”, and since I advised her, her statement was false and I would provide her documents to the contrary, and have now went to the effort to do so; I have determined to provide a truncated and somewhat revised version of the above to selected community leaders.
cc: The City Council
The County Commission
Christine Downey-Schmidt, Chair
Donna Shank, Vice Chair
The South Central Kansas Delegation
www.Alumnishockerblackandgolds.com
In truncated and somewhat revised fashion:
Some 200 community leaders