Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 4h Extension Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission delays decision on 4-H extension building; seeks state help and better utilization
Summary
Commissioners discussed whether to return the county-owned 4-H extension building to the extension board, raised safety and staffing concerns about a single county employee onsite, and agreed to defer any action until next year while pursuing state assistance and other uses for the building.
YANKTON, S.D. — Commissioners debated the future of a county-owned building used by the countys 4-H extension program and decided to postpone any transfer or other major action until Jan. 1 of next year while the county and 4-H leaders seek state assistance and explore alternate uses.
Commissioners and department heads described tensions over sharing the building with the county contact center and noted language in the deed that could require an extension agent to occupy the property to keep the countys interest in the deed. Commissioner Ryan said the two uses (contact center and 4-H) could compromise each others missions and noted budget savings from returning the building might be roughly $25,000 to $40,000 a year, depending on what is counted.
Several extension stakeholders attended the meeting. Randy Frank, a member of the public and participant in county extension matters, told commissioners that processing applicator licenses is an extension function handled by state extension and not the local 4-H adviser: "When you hire Katie as a 4-H adviser, taking care of the applicator licenses is not her job. She is not a state employee. That is extension," Randy said.
Extension staff said they check mail and messages daily and post notices on the office door when they step away for field work, and the county said it had taken steps to lock exterior doors and require call-in entry to address safety concerns. Commissioners expressed concern that only one county employee can be present in the remote building at times and discussed possible cost-saving alternatives such as getting a state extension presence to share duties or finding other county departments to use vacant office space.
The commission agreed to contact the state extension agent to request additional support, to continue exploring in-house uses for the building, and to hold off on any final decision until January. "We're not doing anything until January 1," one commissioner said. The commission asked county staff to reach out to state extension and report back.
