Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Extension topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fremont County extension department proposes 10% budget cut to preserve core services
Summary
Extension staff proposed a 10% reduction in their FY26 budget that would preserve two staffed offices while trimming operations and travel; staff warned reduced travel and in-person outreach would make service delivery more difficult.
The Fremont County extension department presented a proposal for a 10% reduction to its fiscal-year 2026 budget that would reduce operational funds while maintaining the office workforce at Riverton and Lander locations.
An extension representative told commissioners that the department previously employed more educators and administrative staff but now is down to two educators, two full-time administrative roles and one central nutrition coordinator. The presenter said salary and benefits make up about 88% of the department’s budget and that operational uses (travel, printing, supplies) make up roughly 12%.
The department proposed reducing its FY25 budget from about $198,457 to $178,552 (a 10% cut). The representative said one employee has waived health insurance and that the county could realize roughly $22,644 in savings if that waiver continues; the proposal also calls for roughly $4,850 in additional operational savings by reducing travel and printing.
Staff cautioned that a 10% reduction would make in-person outreach and travel more difficult, particularly for 4-H and agricultural programming, but said it would allow Extension to keep offices open in Riverton and Lander and prioritize core services.
Commissioners asked for line-item clarifications; staff said some increases in FY25 were caused by recent SOC pay adjustments and hiring at higher salary levels for a new 4-H educator. The extension representative asked the county to explore outside funding sources to sustain programming over the longer term.
Commissioners tentatively accepted the 10% reduction as the department’s proposed scenario for budget planning and asked extension staff to seek non‑county funding opportunities and to return with any material changes for final budget adoption.
