Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Extension Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Extension staff present options to cut $37,000; committee asks for program usage data before choices
Summary
Extension staff presented scenarios that would save roughly $37,000 by reducing or eliminating part‑time or educator positions. Committee members asked for program participation numbers and peer‑county staffing comparisons before deciding priorities.
The Richland County education standing committee reviewed a staff memo listing options to reduce roughly $37,000 from the extension office budget. Extension staff described a menu of scenarios that cut support staff hours, reduce educator FTE, or eliminate positions; committee members requested participant and program‑usage data to guide priority decisions.
The extension representative explained that $37,000 in reductions would likely require reducing office hours, cutting part‑time support positions or reducing educator percentages. Example savings figures shown to the committee included: eliminating the part‑time support staff (roughly $30,000), reducing a 35‑hour full‑time support position to 28 hours (about $7,700), reducing the agriculture educator from 50% to 33% (approximately $7,600), or eliminating the 4‑H position outright (about $52,000 in savings). Reducing the human development educator from 80% to 60% would save approximately $9,000; eliminating that position entirely was estimated around $36,000.
The extension representative said the part‑time support staff primarily serves 4‑H program administration and cautioned that cutting that position would shift backend duties onto program educators. The committee asked the extension to supply utilization statistics — participants by program, educator caseloads and county comparisons — so elected members could weigh program impact and community use when choosing where to reduce services.
Committee members also asked how reduced hours would affect employee pay and benefits. The extension representative said hourly employees would remain paid hourly but with fewer weekly hours (for example shifting a 35‑hour role to 28 hours) and that some staff might find reduced hours unsustainable.
Next steps: extension staff will compile program participation numbers, regional staffing comparisons and a consolidated packet that maps programs to staff effort; the committee plans to review that data at the next meeting and decide prioritization of services.
