There are lots of financial decisions Gov. Sam Brownback and legislative leaders should have to answer for in the coming election. The decision to paint and refurbish the state’s executive plane isn’t one of them.

This week, The Associated Press reported that the state’s executive aircraft, which is getting a new paint job, a spruced up interior and upgraded avionics this year. The improvements will cost taxpayers nearly $900,000, according to records obtained by the AP.

Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley pounced on the report as an opportunity to crtiticize Brownback and the Legislature’s Republican leadership. Hensley said the spending was “highly ironic” at a time when state funding for transportation had been cut dramatically in an effort to balance the state budget.

“It is not a huge sum of money obviously compared to the budget as a whole, but it is symbolic of, you know, our misguided priorities in terms of where money should be spent,” Hensley told the AP.

It should be noted that the improvements to the state’s 2001 Raytheon King Air 350 went unnoticed during budget discussions. It wasn’t until after the AP researched the issue and sought costs that critics emerged.

The reality is the state’s plane is 16 years old and due for upgrades. The Kansas Highway Patrol operates the state plane at a cost of $267,325 per year.

The AP report listed improvements in the budget as $69,249 for painting, $157,744 to refurbish the interior, and $397,825 to upgrade the plane’s aviation electronics systems. Total cost of the project is $624,818.

It seems reasonable and responsible for the state of Kansas to have a plane for the governor and other state leaders to use to conduct business on behalf of the state. Keeping the plane in good repair with regular maintenance, painting and equipment upgrades is logical.

There is a serious debate to be had about Kansas Department of Transportation funding, which was cut by more than $450 million — 23 percent — from 2014 to 2016 as state leaders shifted transportation funds to other parts of the budget to balance it. The prudence of those cuts is a debate worth having and ultimately, state leaders should be held accountable for those decisions. But holding up $625,000 on upkeeping the state plane as an example of wasteful spending on a luxury while cuts are being implemented elsewhere simply isn’t a valid argument.