Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Story County Veterans Affairs director asks supervisors to fund additional position amid rising caseload
Summary
Veterans Affairs Director Zach Skelton told the Story County Board of Supervisors during a Jan. 28 budget work session that his office is handling roughly 1,200 cases and needs an additional Veterans Service Officer and administrative support to keep service quality from slipping.
Get email alerts on the Veterans Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Story County Veterans Affairs Director Zach Skelton told the Story County Board of Supervisors at a Jan. 28 budget work session that his office is handling about 1,200 veteran cases and is seeking a full‑time accredited Veterans Service Officer position plus administrative support to keep up with growing demand.
Skelton said he and county general assistance staff are already logging a substantial amount of unpaid or overtime work: “Between our office, we have 1 employee assigned. That is me,” he said, adding that an admin assistant and other staff contributions amount to an average of 22 extra hours per week. “My fear is that … if we exceed that capability then either each veteran that comes in is going to get a lower quality of service or we won't be able to handle every veteran that comes in.”
The request appears tied to workload and outreach. Skelton presented a county comparison showing Story County’s veteran population (noted in his materials as 36,100) and the office’s caseload of about 1,200 cases, and said Story County’s staffing ratio is low compared with similarly sized counties. He said meeting with veterans consumes roughly 61% of his time and that, in a recent quarter, Erin Rewertz handled 49 cases while Skelton handled 71.
Skelton said the outreach that brings veterans to the office creates additional demand: “Every time we have a veteran come through and they're happy with our service, I get 2 of their buddies that come back through,” he said. He also noted federal policy changes such as the PACT Act (2022) expand presumptive conditions and may increase claims from younger veterans exposed to burn pits, projecting interaction with these veterans for years.
Supervisors asked about how added staff would change who provides direct veteran services. Skelton said accreditation rules require a VSO to maintain roughly 20 hours per week in accredited service, so an admin hire would not substitute for an accredited VSO’s casework; an admin could, however, handle outreach, newsletters, website updates and other time‑consuming tasks that are currently deferred. Supervisors confirmed they do not approve new positions at the work session; staffing decisions will be made later in the budget process after all departments and levy positions are reviewed.
Other budget details discussed included vehicle and facility costs and the offices’ shared administrative needs with General Assistance (GA). Skelton said the office returned a vehicle to the county because of maintenance issues and noted an increase in rent and utilities in his request to cover additional staffing. Supervisors and staff discussed potentially splitting a full‑time administrative position between GA and VA if authorized.
Skelton also reviewed non‑staff items the office handles, including grave markers for veterans. He said the county holds roughly 100 markers in inventory and that markers cost about $60 each plus a $10 pole; he credited the Ames American Legion with purchasing many markers but said Iowa law makes counties ultimately responsible for grave markers. He asked supervisors to note that destroyed or missing markers require replacement and that some marker types (for peacetime veterans) are currently out of stock.
Supervisors pressed briefly on potential federal funding risks from a reported federal freeze; Skelton said available guidance at the time suggested direct VA compensation paid to individuals was being treated as excluded, but that some program funding (for domiciliary or other services funded through grants or programs) had uncertain status and could carry “question marks.”
There was no formal vote on staffing during the session; supervisors said they would review the request as part of the larger budget and levy work before making a final staffing decision.

