The Kansas State Fair wants to close its money-losing racetrack in Hutchinson, with officials telling lawmakers that the area could be better used for a smaller dirt track and a money-saving permanent stage.

The 67th Hutchinson Grand Nationals Auto Races were held in July, and 2023 could have been the last year. Race fan efforts to convince the Kanas State Fair Board to reconsider its decision have since escalated.

“What they don’t understand is that, to have a facility like this, it costs a lot of money,” said Bryan Schulz, the fair’s general manager. “I’ve been doing a profit loss statements for the last few days that Rep. (Paul) Waggoner has requested. … It’s costing us way too much money to continue having that on the grounds.”

The Kansas State Fair racetrack loses money

When considering the fair’s revenues and expenses from the races and food and beverage, which are separate contracts, the fair stands to lose about $11,000 this year.

The races brought in about $63,000 in revenue, but the fair will lose about $12,000 after expenses. Food and drink brought in about $18,000, but expenses will bring the profit down to about $1,000.

“We can’t continue doing that,” Schulz said.

The Hutch nationals have three days of races, and the fairgrounds hosts zero races the rest of the year.

Schulz said the fair has not been approached by promoters in recent years to have more races at the fairgrounds. Additionally, were races to continue, “The track itself, it is in dire need of some updates.” Concrete wall panel replacements would cost at least $56,000, he said.

Racing fans want to save the Hutchinson racetrack

Schulz testified before the Legislative Budget Committee on Tuesday.

Rep. Troy Waymaster, R-Bunker Hill and chair of the House Appropriations Committee, said he has received a lot of emails about trying to keep the racetrack open.

So has the fair board, Schulz said, prompting the board to decide it will possibly revisit the topic after the fair.

“But again, no promoters have stepped up and said that they’re interested in keeping the track open and/or additional monies that it would take to bring that track up to speed,” Schulz said.

Schulz said there are no official attendance numbers. While the races are considered sellouts, he estimated there were a couple thousand empty seats out of 9,000 total when he stopped by.

Ending the races in Hutchinson discussed for almost 20 years

Removing the racetrack is not a new idea, Schulz said, with the fair board having discussed it after an incident in the 2000s and then again in the 2010s.

“In 2004, I believe, the board had made a decision to stop racing during the fair,” Schulz said. “Because I believe it was during one of their races, coming out of turn No. 3 into 4 a wheel flew off of one of the sprint cars, went over the wall, bounced several times and almost hit two young girls. So at that point in time, the board had made a decision to stop racing during the fair. They also started looking at the revenue streams that were coming in from this. We did not and do not have a promoter, other than the three days of the Hutch nationals.”

When Schulz was hired in 2021, the question of what to do with the racetrack area was brought to his attention.

The buildings and grounds committee in November recommended to the fair board that 2023 should be the last year of the Hutch nationals and racing at the fairgrounds.

“Because it is not being utilized,” he said. “It is about 18 acres that we could be putting into use of something else. It would just be the actual track itself. We would continue using a portion of it where the grandstand entertainment stage is set. But we will be able to use a lot more of the area where the actual track is for other purposes, including parking and other vendors during fair time.”

Here’s how the fair would redevelop the 18 acres

The fair already has an idea for how it would use the 18 acres where the racetrack sits.

Members of Kansas’ congressional delegation say they remain optimistic about the fate of the once-every-five-year Farm Bill — though there is an acknowledgement that lawmakers could blow their Sept. 30 deadline in advancing the key agricultural package.

Extensive negotiations over the bill, which must be passed once every five years, are commonplace, as are delays requiring a short-term extension of the many programs that must be authorized.

Kansas officials have made clear their desire to see a deal reached sooner rather than later.

“I know the rest of the delegation is working every single day to make certain that that happens,” said U.S. Rep. Jake LaTurner, R-Kansas. “We have to protect crop insurance for our farmers. We have to provide certainty for them. We are going to work diligently to get this done.”

But there are signals that conflicts over spending could make for a more contentious dynamic than in years past.

And while agriculture groups say they are optimistic about a deal, their message is similar to that of Chris Tanner, a northwest Kansas farmer.

“If you have to get an extension to get it right, well, that would be worth it,” said Tanner, who is vice president of the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers. “But, from a farmer’s standpoint, if we get an extension so we can play politics, well, that’s kind of disheartening as an American citizen.”

Farm Bill unlikely to be done on time, lawmakers acknowledge

The behind-the-scenes work of crafting the Farm Bill has been going on for years and it is the first time in years that former U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, of Kansas, won’t be involved in shepherding it through the legislative process.

But lawmakers have not yet begun the process of rolling out a final version of the bill and advancing it to the U.S. House and Senate floors.

There is concern that the Farm Bill will be coming to a head at the same time as a series of key spending bills needed to avert a government shutdown, meaning lawmakers will have to prioritize.

“The challenges perhaps are greater than they normally are,” U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, said in an interview Friday. “Congress is, sadly, historically slow. There’s no reason that you can’t reach an agreement in advance of a deadline instead of after a deadline. But it seems that Congress always is waiting for them.”

With a price tag expected to top $1 trillion for the first time ever, conservative Republicans may take a more hardline approach to the Farm Bill than in years past, creating worries that the process could resemble a contentious fight to raise the debt ceiling earlier this year.

Lawmakers have said they expect the most conservative members of the U.S. House Republican caucus to be on board, something LaTurner echoed.

“We’ve had folks second-guess the ability of the House Republican Conference to come together to pass meaningful legislation,” LaTurner said. “And we’ve done it time and time again since January and I’m confident we’re going to do it on this.”

Despite its name, the Farm Bill is overwhelmingly comprised of programs focusing on nutrition, notably the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

Some members want to use the reauthorization of the nation’s largest food safety net program as a way to leverage change, such as an expansion of work requirements for recipients or requiring that benefits be used only on healthy foods.

Others want to spin SNAP off from the Farm Bill entirely. Past delays in passing the measure have often been because of the program, which affects 40 million Americans.

U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, noted that delays in the Farm Bill are often de rigeur and would necessitate a short-term extension, with the hope of getting a permanent solution to President Joe Biden by the end of the calendar year.

“The challenge in D.C. is that it seems like we just go from one crisis to another and it doesn’t give us the ability to make good long-term plans,” Marshall said in an interview following a Topeka event this week. “So I’m trying to get it right and we’ll get it done by Dec. 31.”

Crop insurance and safety net programs key for agricultural groups

The biggest priority for the state’s agricultural groups is reauthorizing crop insurance, which must be done in the Farm Bill.

In the U.S., the federal government helps subsidize and regulate the most commonly used plans sold by private insurers. Typically, those plans will cover any number of naturally occurring issues that farmers might encounter and payouts are based on the value of a specific crop.

Ryan Flickner, senior director of public policy for the Kansas Farm Bureau, said avoiding a situation where crop insurance access could be restricted or means tested was imperative.

“Crop insurance is the cornerstone of risk protection in a state like Kansas,” he said.

But advocates are seeking some tweaks to the program nonetheless.

Wheat production in Kansas typically falls into two categories. Farmers might plant wheat in the fall after previously harvesting soybeans or corn in that same spot over the summer months. In other cases, they might leave those fields fallow in the spring and summer before using them for wheat.

If a hailstorm or other natural disaster wreaks havoc on their crop, the two methods would be treated the same way for crop insurance purposes, even though they require different levels of investment and have different yields.

Then there are two programs that provide aid to farmers who either are hit with lower-than-expected crop prices or who are seeing a period of high-income bottom out.

Payouts in the Price Less Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage programs, however, are tied into per-acre rates set by Congress. Tanner said he hadn’t availed himself of either in years because the rates have not been updated and are out-of-whack with the increased costs farmers now face.

While funding can vary depending on the commodity involved, Tanner said wheat farmers would need a 20% increase to bring the programs up to market rate.

“It’s not a safety net. It’s safety asphalt,” he said of the current setup.

How can Kansas farmers be supported in drought conditions?

The Farm Bill negotiations come against the backdrop of a challenging few years for many Kansas farmers.

Currently, there are 83 counties in the state that have received a drought disaster designation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Nearly 70% of the state remains in some form of drought, with 30% of the state in extreme or exceptional drought.

For Tanner, this was a much better growing season than last year, which he termed a “devastating” moment for Kansas agriculture.

“As an agriculturalist, you go out and you plant your crop and hope for a harvest,” he said. “Just seeing things not even make it to a reproductive stage in the field because they burned up due to drought is not the reason I started farming.”

A rainier than usual July has helped in much of western Kansas, but there are wide swaths of the state that would need as much as a foot of rain to relieve the drought conditions, according to National Weather Service data.

Using the Farm Bill to help farmers weather more extreme climatic conditions has been a priority for many policymakers.

“Instead of placing burdensome regulations on farmers and ranchers with already thin margins,” Gov. Laura Kelly wrote in a letter to congressional agriculture committees last year, “the next Farm Bill should invest in voluntary conservation programs, drought-resistant crops like sorghum and cotton, robust crop insurance, and biological and technological innovation that will drive down the cost of regenerative agriculture in the long run.”

For Zach Pistora, a lobbyist for Kansas’ chapter of the Sierra Club, the goal was to invest in local food systems that are more resilient in the face of drought and other environmental hazards.

Critics have said crop insurance in its current form isn’t always the best way of doing that and could make farmers less likely to adapt in the face of climate change.