Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Extension Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portage County Extension highlights programs and requests modest increase in county support
Summary
County Extension staff briefed commissioners on 4‑H, agriculture and nutrition work — including growth in youth outreach and a new herbicide‑resistant weed concern — and asked for a modest bump in county funding; commissioners clarified cost‑share rules and that the nutrition educator’s position is funded separately.
Portage County Extension staff presented program highlights and a modest county funding request during the Nov. 20 Portage County Board of Commissioners meeting.
Katie Noyes Johnson, the county 4‑H educator, and colleagues described three program areas — 4‑H, agriculture and community nutrition — and handed commissioners a folder listing contact information and annual highlights. Noyes Johnson said the office reached roughly 1,225 youth this year through camps and school visits and cited strong volunteer support: “We have a really strong group of volunteers,” she said.
Seth Canberg, the agriculture educator, reported on harvests, on‑farm research and pest monitoring. He said soybean yields were somewhat below state averages and that corn harvest is ongoing. Canberg flagged an emergent weed problem: “Waterhemp’s a concern because… it’s really herbicide resistant,” and said genetic testing is under way to identify which herbicides are likely to fail so farmers can avoid wasting inputs.
Jeannie Yount, who coordinates the county’s community nutrition program, described the local impact of federal funding shifts. She said SNAP‑Ed funding was zeroed out at the state/federal level but that the county’s expanded food nutrition education program (EFNIP) funding remained steady; she reported 103 program graduates and said her program reached 475 families through nine‑week classes.
On the budget request, Extension staff asked the commissioners for a modest increase in the county contribution compared with last year and pointed the board to the materials in their packet. Commissioners asked for clarification on the educator cost‑share; staff explained that the university, state and federal contributions cover part of educator wages and benefits, and the county’s appropriation covers the local share. It was clarified on the record that the nutrition educator’s position is funded separately and not from the commissioners’ allocation.
The presentation concluded with commissioners thanking staff for outreach and program results. The board did not take immediate additional action on the request beyond the public Q&A recorded on the agenda; staff said they will return as needed with further budget detail.
