‘Eliminating ag completely would be a mistake’

After two hours of questions and debate, the Agriculture & Extension Education Committee voted 3-2 to forward a proposed agriculture staffing plan model to the county’s Finance & Personnel Committee for consideration.

The proposed staffing model would ultimately cost Pierce County an additional $5,788 for the 2022 budget year. In a more regional approach, the new pilot model proposed by UW-Madison Extension would provide two agriculture educators covering four counties: Pierce, Polk, St. Croix and Barron. One educator would be a dairy/livestock expert, the other a crops/soils expert.

Currently, Pierce County shares agriculture agent Michael AG AGENT

From Page 1

Travis with Pepin County. Travis, who has served Pepin County as its agriculture and natural resources educator since 2013, has served Pierce County part-time in the same capacity since Jan. 1, 2019. He splits his time 20 percent in Pierce, 80 percent in Pepin. Prior to this arrangement, Pierce County went without an agriculture agent between Greg Andrews’ retirement in 2016 and Travis coming on board.

While AEEC Chair Dean Bergseng, a dairy farmer, has been a strong advocate for the proposed pilot model, others on the committee aren’t convinced Extension agriculture agent coverage is a need. County Board Chair Jeff Holst, while not on the AEEC, was at the meeting to speak his blunt piece.

“The model is a screwed-up mess,” Holst said. “But it’s getting better. It’s better than when there was an agent in every county.”

Barron and St. Croix counties have already committed to moving forward with the pilot model, Area Extension Director Kristen Bruder said. They’re also committed to covering costs until other counties come on board. St. Croix County currently has full-time agriculture agent Ryan Sterry, who specializes in dairy. He would cover the four counties, while a crops/soils agent would be hired as well. Polk County will soon consider the proposal at its Environmental Services Committee.

“It seems more palatable to them to have a more regional approach,” Bruder said.

Regardless of whether Pierce County joins the pilot program or not, Travis’ .2 coverage of Pierce County ends at the end of 2021.

Position benefits

Holst asked how many calls the current ag agents get. He argued that other county departments need to provide evidence/numbers that a position is needed when requesting a new position.

“Are there any statistics to back it up?” he said of the proposal. “I don’t use them but that doesn’t mean other people don’t.”

Heidi Johnson, the Agriculture Institute Director at UW-Madison Extension, said service questions from the public are only one aspect of Extension work. They are also proactively providing information to the community and conducting research. Field days and workshops would be held more often with the proposed model, because the agents would actually have time to do those, whereas currently, Travis does not.

Holst said farmers can be an obstinate group, so he’s still questioning the need.

“If we’re not filling up a .2, how will we fill up a .5?” he asked.

Travis spoke up and said he is in fact doing enough work in Pierce County to “fill up the .2.” He said he gets at least six service calls a week from Pierce County in the spring/summer. He added that many farmers in Pierce don’t know they have a .2 ag agent, because there wasn’t one for awhile after Andrews retired.

“Service calls are not our primary purpose as educators, but it’s a service we provide,” Travis said. “There is a growing understanding in Pierce County, ‘oh, we do have access.’” Extension educators also provide access to University researchers interested in addressing local issues that affect residents’ everyday lives.

“I’m confident that if you expand that, it would certainly fill a need throughout the county,” Travis concluded.

Extension educators provide a “lot of unseen service,” Johnson said. For example, Sterry in St. Croix has been fielding multiple Pierce County calls.

Holst said he has not heard “any positive response” about the current ag agents, except their help in getting Pierce County farming staff vaccinated against COVID-19.

Committee member Kris Sampson, Prescott, asked if the Extension educators’ activity could be tracked, with a set number of conferences, workshops and field days expected. This way Pierce could be sure it’s getting its 25 percent, she said.

“No one in Prescott thinks of using it (Extension),” Sampson said.

Bruder admitted that getting the word out on Extension’s benefits and offerings has always been a problem. To address it, Extension is working to create email/mailing lists and figuring out ways to get the word out. A new tracking system is being implemented as well, to document activity.

Committee member Mel Pittman agreed more Extension activity information should be provided to the committee and county. He pointed out that Andrews always listed his calls in a monthly report.

Bruder said the .2 Mike Travis coverage was a “Band-aid fix” that will end at the end of the year. His position with Pierce was negotiated with Pepin County. The new pilot model is Extension’s ongoing solution and replacement of that fix.

“This is the first year,” Bruder said. “It’s going to be an evolving process, bringing this model in. You could be trailblazers in the pilot program. There’s no script for this. We’ll continue the conversation.”

In 2021, the entire Pierce County Extension budget was $96,559. This included the full-time 4-H/Youth Development educator, a fulltime Human Development educator, a .25 Horticulture educator, and the .2 Agriculture educator (Travis).

The proposed Extension budget for 2022 is $111,400. This would include a .5 Agriculture educator (shared with four counties), the others listed above, plus a 2 percent cost of living wage increase ($2,865).

While the flat fee per county for the ag model is $21,800, that is not the amount the budget would increase for year 2022, Bruder said. The actual difference for the Pierce County budget is about $12,000.

To save money and apply that toward decreasing the increase for the .5 ag agent, Bruder proposed eliminating the fall/winter 4-H intern, which would result in $5,639 in savings, making the amount Extension is asking for $5,788.

Bruder said ideally, they’d like to keep the 4-H intern, but she’s trying to find a way to make the ag model more palatable for the county.

“What if we’re giving up something we utilize for something we may utilize?” Holst said. “It’s comparing apples to canned peaches.”

County Administrator Jason Matthys explained that F& P is facing a $260,000 deficit for the 2022 budget year in requested positions.

An emergency position at the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office plus new staffing requests totaled $468,000 at first, but F& P was able to trim that down to $260,000. It’s tough to prioritize mandated services when so many unknowns are at play, such as insurance rates and the state levy, Matthys said.

“I’m supportive of the model but we need to look at the facts,” Matthys said. “What are the trends? Many use their own agronomist. I’ve received no complaints about the ag coverage.”

Bergseng said he’s willing to research grants available through Compeer or other businesses in order to secure funding to move the proposed ag model ahead.

“I commend you,” Holst said. “You’ve really scraped around trying to get this through.”

Matthys said factual documentation of specific needs is needed, as related to how the extra money would address those needs, if Bergseng is going to try to secure other funding.

Extension Horticulture Educator Diana Alfuth jumped in, saying that ag clientele has changed over the years, but ag education is still very much needed. She used her neighbors as an example, who are new sheep farmers. They would love to have more information on managing manure on a small farm, therefore helping prevent groundwater problems. Would the county rather have young farmers, who are cropping up on an increasing number of small farms in the county, go to the internet for information, or a trusted source?

“To me, as a Pierce County taxpayer, this $6,000 is money wellspent,” Alfuth said.

Johnson pointed out that agronomists hired by bigger farms usually get much of their information from Extension. Large farms still need un-biased, research-based information, she said.

“Sure, companies do research, but they have a vested interest in the outcomes,” Johnson said. “Extension provides non-biased research, a unique niche. It looks at a variety of solutions.”

“I do believe there is a great need for Extension in the research end,” Holst admitted.

Bruder added that while Extension is not a mandated program, it works with mandated programs, such as public health, to address their objectives. An example is water quality issues.

“I’m not trying to see a service,” Bruder said. “I’m really not. But I am saying I think it’s a good deal as a constituent. I just want you to make an informed decision. I do feel strongly that completely eliminating ag in Pierce County would not make sense. I want to find a way.”

Budget

Travel costs

Another argument Holst made against the proposal was increased travel costs. He called the proposed travel budget “unrealistic” because gas prices have gone up to more than $3 per gallon.

Bruder admitted estimating a full travel budget is tough, because it’s impossible to predict miles traveled and gas prices. However, it would be split between the four counties and is part of a separate budget.

Bergseng fired back that AEEC has returned $159,000 to the General Fund over the past six years due to open positions.

“I’m not picking on Extension,” Holst said. “I’m picking on everyone.”

Pittman asked about the possibility of businesses that request Extension services sharing in the travel costs of agents, or charging mileage for service calls.

“What if one county uses the educators more than others?” asked Pittman. “Those that want the service have some skin in the game.”

Johnson countered that the load for administering the billing might outweigh the cost-sharing benefit.

“What if they’re (the agents) researching something that benefits all counties?” Johnson asked. “My suggestion would be letting this play out for a year. We can always revisit this.

“Our goal is to work with these educators to make sure it feels like things are spread evenly (among counties).”

Signatures

Bergseng said he collected signatures in support of the ag model Tuesday, July 13 by visiting farms from Martell to Prescott. Mary Brand from the Pierce County Dairy Promotion Committee and Town of River Falls Supervisor John Galgowski also collected signatures.

“Ag is the number one industry in our county and I think we should help it,” Bergseng said.

Committee member Daniel Puhrmann questioned Bergseng if “the real information” was given to the signers. He also asked the ages of the signers, to which Holst said he probably shouldn’t do that.

“Well, are they farming?” Puhrmann asked. “I could get signatures from the high school if I needed to.”

Committee member Jerry Kosin said only two dairy farmers were on Bergseng’s list. He also said he spoke to four people, who were against the proposed ag model. He suggested adding a part-time person in Land Conservation to the county would have complete control over the person.

Bruder countered that if $5,788 is a problem, that a part-time position would be at least $35,000.

“I know, but we’d have him the shole time and he’d bring more money into the county,” Kosin said.

Pittman told Puhrmann that if he’s picking apart the ages of the petition signatures, then he’s missing the real point.

“Can Extension help them in a positive way to get what they need done?” Pittman said. “We can throw it to the wayside in one year if it’s not working.”

The F& P Committee will take up the ag model question at its Oct. 4 meeting.