Dunn County review could eliminate four University Extension educator positions, staff warn

Dunn County’s Community Resources and Tourism Committee heard onetime budget documents and testimony that four University Extension program areas are under review and could be cut if the county seeks levy savings.

The Area Director (University Extension) told the committee the budget workshop identified crops and soils, horticulture, livestock and community development and leadership as programs for possible reduction. “We were alerted that four of our programs were identified as being reviewed,” the Area Director said, and staff were asked to provide recommendations to county administration.

The report supplied to the committee includes corrected, county-specific cost figures for each program and explains how co-funded educator positions are charged to counties. The Area Director said each of the four positions is 0.33 full-time equivalent (FTE) and shared among three counties; the county-facing cost figures include a proportional share of educator flat fees, office supplies and travel. The report also shows how federal and state Smith-Lever funds multiply the county levy investment.

Committee members pressed staff on who uses Extension services. Deanna (Extension staff) said, “typically what we’re seeing is those small farmers needing the most help,” and added that community development and horticulture services assist organizations, municipalities and county departments as well as individual residents.

Supervisor Larry Bjork described the practical role Extension plays for small and beginning farmers. “Extension is needed 100% for the smaller farms,” Bjork said, adding that Extension provides hands-on knowledge — for example, on animal husbandry and lambing — that many new or small-scale operators lack.

The Area Director explained the financial reality: personnel are the largest cost, and at 0.33 FTE there is little room to reduce a position incrementally without effectively eliminating the educator. The report lists estimated levy savings per program if the county eliminates an educator and warns that losing a 0.33 FTE often results in that FTE being reallocated to another county; restoring it later is difficult.

County supervisors asked whether the board could make piecemeal cuts. The Area Director said the contract is organized by program areas and the county can choose to reduce specific program lines: “So yeah there’s that opportunity or that option.”

Dan (county staff, budget/administration) explained the review and decision process: department heads have until Sept. 18 to return detailed submissions; the county administration will compile those items and present them to the executive committee (the county’s budget committee) in October. “The decision to choose a program over another is not mine… That is a policy decision to be made by the board,” Dan said.

Committee members suggested the Extension report should name specific services that would be lost if a position is eliminated — for example, local childcare and EMS-related leadership work, the Area Director said — so supervisors can show concrete impacts to the full county board.

The Area Director also reported staff layoffs and position changes attached to state-level reductions in programming. Two staff members will be laid off Oct. 1 and two more on Dec. 1; one staff member accepted a position with the school district and has already left Extension.

Votes at a glance

• Approval of prior meeting minutes — voice vote; motion carried. No mover or seconder recorded in the transcript; no dissent was recorded.

What happens next

The Area Director said the detailed documents are due to county administration and will be bundled by the internal administrative/budget committee for the executive committee’s review. Supervisors asked for material supervisors can bring to the county board to explain specific local impacts if positions are cut.