Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kansas Veteran Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Veterans office seeks counsel, IT and building funds; committee debates lapsing reappropriations for VCAP grants
Summary
Legislative analysts told the committee the Kansas Office of Veteran Services helped secure more than $525 million in federal benefits for veterans in FY2025, requested a general counsel post and office move funds for FY27, and the panel discussed special committee lapses that may remove previously reappropriated VCAP dollars intended for veteran service organizations.
The Kansas Office of Veteran Services (KOVS) presented its budget request and project list to the Committee on Social Services Budget, and staff and lawmakers spent significant time clarifying which reappropriated funds would lapse under motions adopted earlier by the special committee on state budget.
Molly Pratt, fiscal analyst with Legislative Research, said KOVS assisted in filing about 17,700 claims in fiscal year 2025 that yielded more than $525 million to Kansas veterans. Pratt outlined multiple FY26 reappropriations and FY27 requests: SIBF carryover for the Topeka veterans home construction (about $17.2M appropriated in 2023, $13.7M likely to carry into the next fiscal year pending matching funds), cemetery rehab/repair projects, and fee‑funded projects for veterans homes.
For FY27 the agency requested three enhancements: a general counsel position (approx. $162,500 SGF and one FTE) to handle contracts and statute interpretation, $77,349 to cover increased lease costs tied to a move from the Jayhawk Tower to the Land and State Office Building (about 2,000 additional square feet), and $35,758 for IT infrastructure and hosted data services as the agency transitions to OITS‑managed hosting.
A sustained portion of the hearing focused on the Veterans Claims Assistance Program (VCAP) grant. Pratt explained the program is funded from SGF and the $1,000,000 appropriation is split between congressionally chartered veteran service organizations (VFW and American Legion). She said the grant functions as a reimbursement program and that, due to timing, about $150,000 in FY25 reappropriated funds intended for the VSOs were not budgeted by the organizations in time; the special budget committee's motions would lapse those reappropriations unless the legislature re‑appropriates them.
Committee members sought clarity on whether the base $1,000,000 VCAP line remains in the budget (Pratt said it does) and whether the unspent FY25 reappropriations ($150,000 plus approximately $13,000) are available absent legislative action (staff said the lapsed reappropriations would revert to the general fund unless reappropriated). Staff agreed to email prior analyses and provide the committee with a budget committee report showing starting amounts and the effect of the special committee motions.
No formal appropriation votes were taken at the hearing; members directed staff to include governor recommendations and special committee actions when preparing draft recommendations.
