Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife And Parks Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas Senate committee rejects proposals to add $300,000 and multiple new Wildlife and Parks positions
Summary
A Kansas Senate committee debated equipment and staffing requests for the Department of Wildlife and Parks, including a $300,000 equipment add and proposals for eight and three new FTEs; the committee rejected the $300,000 equipment recommendation and both staffing proposals and instead moved to rely on fee funds and proviso language.
A Kansas Senate committee on budget matters declined multiple spending recommendations for the Department of Wildlife and Parks, voting down an add of $300,000 for equipment and subsequent proposals to authorize additional full-time positions.
Senator Francisco urged the committee to recommend adding $300,000 from the governor’s budget to buy standardized equipment and uniforms so enforcement agents can handle multiple duties without changing gear. "This $300,000 is what would help with that because they could have the same uniforms and the same equipment," Francisco said.
The request prompted questions about scope and source. Senator Shane asked whether any documented safety incidents motivated the request; Francisco said the testimony emphasized efficiency—enabling enforcement agents to take on a broader set of responsibilities—rather than specific safety events. Legislative fiscal analyst Luke Drury told the committee the $300,000 appeared in the governor’s recommendation but was not included in the agency’s original budget submission: "There was no enhancement or supplemental request submitted by the agency at the time of their budget submission," Drury said.
After discussion, the committee considered a motion to add the $300,000; the chair called for a hand vote and announced, "Recommendation fails, it is not recommended." The committee then debated staffing options: Senator Francisco proposed authorizing eight new FTEs with increased spending authority (about $737,000) to expand field coverage. Members pressed staff for context on current staffing levels—Drury noted the snapshot as of January showed 419 filled FTEs out of 465 authorized, and members said some vacancies may be seasonal or in recruitment.
That proposal was rejected. Francisco then offered a narrower alternative reflecting a House recommendation—three additional fee-funded FTEs with roughly $375,000 in additional spending authority to cover salaries and equipment. Staff estimated equipping the positions could increase costs to around $375,000; members again voted and the recommendation did not pass.
By the end of the session, fiscal staff summarized the committee’s formal recommendation to delete the state general fund appropriation to the agency for FY 2026 and FY 2027 and instead rely on fee funds, a net-zero change, and to include proviso language allowing the park fee fund to retain interest in 2027 rather than remitting it to the state general fund.
The committee did not adopt the equipment or staffing adds; the budget language and provisos will be included in the committee report to the full chamber for further consideration.
