Behind the debate on the Johnson County Education Research Triangle lies a fundamental question:

Should local taxpayers make a bold step and help pay for what has traditionally been a state responsibility?

If approved by voters Tuesday, supporters say, an eighth-cent sales tax increase would help transform Johnson County into a bioscience powerhouse and expand degree offerings to train tomorrow’s work force.

The triangle’s three points:

  • A University of Kansas cancer research center in Fairway.
  • A Kansas State University campus focused on food and plant safety.
  • An expanded KU Edwards campus in Overland Park, with new degrees in business, engineering, science and technology.

Each facility would receive $5 million a year under the proposal.

Great idea, but who ought to pay?

AzeltineAzeltineJames Azeltine, chairman of the county park board, is one of the few politicians willing to speak out against the tax.

“The minute county funds are spent for state universities,” he said, “you can kiss any future state funding goodbye.”

Funding higher education locally — and doing it in affluent Johnson County — sets a dangerous precedent, said Dolores Furtado, a former microbiology professor at the KU medical school and a former Johnson County commissioner.

Anyone trying the same approach in outstate Kansas would crush taxpayers with a heavy debt load, she said.

FurtadoFurtadoFurtado says she could support the tax if it were applied at the state level so all Kansans could support the bioscience effort.

Backers of the tax, however, say Johnson County can’t count on state funding and shouldn’t miss an opportunity to invest in the future.

And local support for higher education is not unprecedented. Topeka, for example, helps support Washburn University.

In the last two decades, the University of Kansas and Kansas State University have seen the state-funded portion of their budgets fall from 48 percent to 24 percent. And the trend shows no sign of reversing.

State lawmakers take different views on the tax but agree there’s no money in Topeka for the triangle.

“Higher education funding is a state obligation,” said Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, an Olathe Republican.

“But what drove supporters is that there would never be enough funding at the state level to fund something like this. This year, we may be cutting spending before we’re done just to survive.”

Said Lansing Republican Kenny Wilk, chairman of the House Taxation Committee:

“I understand the opponents’ position. But they’re asking the wrong question. There are few counties in America that this kind of proposal can even get on the ballot.”

Johnson County voters, Wilk said, are fortunate to have the choice.

Dick Bond, a former state Senate president, is one of the behind-the-scenes architects of the proposal, which is being pitched as an economic development tool. He and others have cited the County Economic Research Institute’s estimate of a $1.4 billion payoff over the next two decades.

Pull Bond aside, and he’ll tell you that if the tax is defeated, the blame will fall squarely on today’s troubled economy.

Still, supporters of Question No. 2 are upbeat.

LoganLogan“Johnson County voters get the triangle. They love making investments in education,” said campaign coordinator Fred Logan, a Prairie Village attorney.

But in the final hours of the campaign, some vocal critics are having none of it. They worry about fiscal oversight, among other things.

“Don’t fall prey to their emotional claims,” said Tracy Thomas, a former Shawnee council member and public relations business owner.

“Remember, the ballot wording fails to tell you it is a ‘forever tax’ and a secret bond issue that will immediately borrow $70 million and finance it forever.”

ThomasThomasWith a $19,000 budget, Thomas has bought television and radio spots in an effort to undermine the larger campaign coordinated by Logan and Mary Birch, a government liaison with the Lathrop & Gage law firm.

Triangle supporters, Thomas says, are playing the cancer card to curry favor with those touched by the disease.

“They’re falsely claiming it’s cancer care,” she said. “It’s really using people as guinea pigs. It’s pills and placebos. It’s not cancer care. It’s not surgery, or a free hospital bed with a fluffy pillow.”

Logan dismisses the criticism, saying scores of supporters have said they want such a facility that holds the potential of becoming a top-flight treatment center in the nation.

For 75 percent of Johnson County residents, Thomas says, the University of Kansas cancer center would not be in their insurance network.

Not true, Logan said. Most trials are free and open to anyone. Many are funded by large pharmaceutical companies.

Thomas also blamed the Johnson County Commission for not negotiating intellectual property rights that would return to taxpayers a slice of any future profits stemming from the triangle.

She also fears that the $5 million annual share for the cancer center would be bankrolled in Wyandotte County, where the KU Medical Center is located.

Logan points out, however, that the legislation specifies that all the money be spent in Johnson County.

Azeltine, who 13 years ago nearly lost his life to spinal lymphoma, said he could have supported the tax had the ballot question been more transparent and included an expiration date.

When they go to their polling places, voters will weigh those concerns as well as the larger question:

Should the state pay? Or is it up to us?

 

On the Web