Dunn County committee weighs funding to replace eliminated SNAP‑Ed FoodWIse program

Dunn County supervisors heard on Aug. 12 that federal cuts to SNAP‑Ed have forced UW‑Extension to begin laying off FoodWIse staff and end the program locally, and the Community Resources & Tourism Committee voted to add $50,000 to the proposed Extension budget to fund a 0.5 FTE health and well‑being educator for further review. Kristen, an Extension staff member, said staff received layoff notices after “the elimination of the SNAP Ed dollars,” and that two local FoodWIse employees will be with the county through Dec. 1 while two others end their work earlier this fall.

The proposal matters because the county now faces a choice about whether to use local levy dollars to maintain some nutrition and wellness programming previously funded by SNAP‑Ed. “This action does eliminate the FoodWIse program nationwide, including here in Dunn County,” Kristen said, and she presented options including a county‑funded 0.5 or 1.0 FTE to continue and broaden nutrition education without the SNAP‑specific eligibility limits.

Committee members pressed for details about cost and scope. Kristen said a full FTE would likely cost about $70,000 to $90,000 including salary and fringe and that a 0.5 FTE would be proportionally smaller; the committee ultimately approved an amendment to the department request that adds $50,000 to the extension budget to reflect a 0.5 FTE for further consideration at the upcoming budget workshop. Committee members noted the position would be an open UW‑Extension recruitment and that Extension would handle recruitment and HR.

Supporters argued keeping some capacity preserves local programming and infrastructure. One supervisor said a half‑time position would at least retain expertise and avoid losing the program’s local relationships; another member said the county should be cautious about adding recurring costs given other budget pressures. Opponents described the federal cut as unfair but said the county’s levy is limited and that county resources should be targeted to statutory duties and existing priorities.

The committee vote to add $50,000 to the proposed Extension budget was a voice vote; the motion passed and will be part of materials discussed at the county budget workshop and by the executive committee before final county board action.

The staff also walked the committee through the department’s priority‑based budgeting spreadsheet and two technical budget clarifications: a contractual services line originally approved at $275,017 had been recorded in the adopted 2025 budget at $268,442 (a discrepancy staff said they are correcting), and several distributed IT and maintenance charges are populated by other departments and appear as shifted amounts in line‑item detail. Kristen and finance staff said any overages in contractual services this year would likely be covered from existing fund balances or internal adjustments and not immediately by adding levy.

The committee instructed staff to include the 0.5 FTE cost estimate in materials for the Sept. 9 meeting and the budget workshop, so the full budget consequence can be reviewed. No final hiring decision was made; the action at the Aug. 12 meeting merely amended the department’s requested budget to include the 0.5 FTE placeholder for continued discussion.