Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Budget Profile topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
KLRD outlines five‑year general fund profile as committees prepare to reconvene
Summary
KLRD staff presented a 32‑page state general fund profile showing agency requests, state budget committee deletions totaling $521.6M (FY26) and $655.8M (FY27) and a new baseline comparison box; committee members pressed KLRD on caseload and school finance assumptions and how reductions were calculated.
Dylan, of the Kansas Legislative Research Department, walked the Committee on Legislative Budget through a 32‑page state general fund profile intended to give lawmakers a five‑year outlook as they enter the session. The document begins with the agency requests for FY26 and FY27 and shows KLRD’s own estimates and the state budget committee’s recommended deletions and adjustments.
KLRD’s presentation said the state budget committee deleted $521.6 million from FY26 and $655.8 million from FY27, largely by removing reappropriations and enhancements. The profile also includes a new column that compares the agency request to the previously legislatively approved FY26 baseline so members can see the change from the last approved budget. Dylan cautioned that the committee’s deletions are “pretty aggressive” and may be revisited as subcommittees and budget committees reexamine reappropriations and enhancement requests.
Committee members asked for clarification on the mechanics of the reductions. Representative Hoffman asked whether the $700,000 difference shown in one comparison was an understatement or whether it reflected only expenditures; Dylan replied that those figures were an expenditure comparison and that revenues would be shown above them. Senator Petty pressed whether the listed reductions were additive; Dylan explained the profile starts with the agency request and the adjustments are separate reductions against that fixed starting point rather than cumulative across different baselines.
KLRD staff also described human services caseload and K‑12 school finance assumptions, saying the profile incorporates projected caseload changes (historically large additions) and projects current formulas forward for out years where no reauthorized school finance formula yet exists. Members requested a breakdown showing how much of the committee adjustments result directly from caseload and school‑finance changes; Dylan said the office could provide that detail on request.
Why it matters: the shorthand profile is intended to give both chambers’ budget committees a common baseline for decisions early in session. The document will be used across subcommittees and will be posted on KLRD’s website in the first week of session so legislators can view year‑to‑date totals.
Next steps: KLRD agreed to provide legislators with more granular breakout data (for example, the portion of committee adjustments attributed to human‑services caseloads or school finance), and members indicated they will use the profile to guide subcommittee reconsideration of reappropriations and enhancements.
