[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6587870,"mediaKeyId","5534362-2d8609803e9294557f92273c62227d79","parentId",5534362,"title","Alachua County commissioners back federal food-security bills and discuss farmers market, food-hub planning","audioSeconds",729,"startMs",3414000,"endMs",4143000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5534362-2d8609803e9294557f92273c62227d79&start=3414&end=4143","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5534362-2d8609803e9294557f92273c62227d79/thumbnail_3414000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6587870/Alachua-County/Florida/Alachua-County-commissioners-back-federal-food-security-bills-and-discuss-farmers-market-food-hub-planning","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6587870-b63b0f8f2fabf312e2f09ca2d7b20fbc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153130&Signature=mWCVzdb1ZN8nqMmoie28v8WPMznOYBl8Bz6TOFN7XmX9fnqLJRXOeDhrAA4yxJDkH3FFC0YCniY4cDHizNsf3o8JAWfZFlGdK-bcuu7U81BkOcWsthaLgqSIjxp8xD7H8g0J6-t7s35Hn-BuVhfjCU3Hr3FFtkwolPvWHRCCmh~yibyOFUEGa24GSfvArOq6tduk2LrGazLA9oFj3XGxI3Z1W92rCRrO8KxRtr-cllPDLSBQfp-RcXZRvccEhzvNtugvr-PdvCb3GVu3Nvqap73v8cDge-kBa4E2961A3chBkvMB5mr3mKz4MD99y~y0fWeQXgsw6qlVfW-aQA4duA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Alachua County","date","2025-08-05T00:00:00Z","article","Alachua County commissioners on Aug. 5 voted to support two pending federal food-policy bills and a state-level Farm 2 proposal and asked staff to refer those items to the county’s lobbyists, following a staff briefing and public discussion about farmers markets and a local food-hub feasibility effort.

A commissioner moved that the county support the Strengthening Local Food Security Act (Senate), the Local Farms Feeding Our Communities Act (House) and a Farm 2 proposal to increase local purchasing in institutional food programs; another commissioner seconded. After no further discussion the board voted in favor and the motion carried.

Before the vote, commissioners and staff discussed overlapping workstreams: a consultant-led feasibility and business plan for a county food hub intended to support aggregation, processing and wholesale access for local producers; an ongoing farmers-market survey developed with IFAS faculty; and the city’s planned redevelopment that will require the current market site to relocate in the coming year. Staff said the consultant’s study could include options for a market attached to a hub but that any retail or grocery solutions would be evaluated separately and could involve multiple players including the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and possible private developers.

Speakers raised several practical concerns: market vendors and customers need adequate notice and options if the main market relocates; some vendors accept SNAP EBT but a county-wide double-bucks program that previously matched SNAP purchases was cut and is currently not available; and the feasibility study aims to inform how to coordinate support across multiple markets countywide rather than concentrate investment in a single site. Staff encouraged interested residents to join advisory-board mailing lists to receive agendas and materials in advance.

Commissioners and staff also discussed local real-estate constraints — one long-vacant grocery plaza on Hawthorne Road was mentioned as a potential retail location but county staff said private owners have made negotiations difficult in the past. Staff described coordinated conversations among county staff, the CRA and other stakeholders to align the food-hub work with farmers-market planning.

After the discussion, a motion to support the federal and state bills and refer them to the county’s federal lobbyists passed without recorded opposition. The commission instructed staff to include the bills in the county’s legislative agenda and to coordinate with state and federal contacts as part of the lobbying work.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Commission Special Meeting @ 1:30 p.m.\tAugust 05, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners voted to support two federal bills and a farm-to-institution proposal and refer them to the county’s lobbyists; the meeting also covered farmers-market relocation concerns, a food-hub feasibility study and the status of SNAP double-bucks at markets.","taxTitle","Alachua County, Florida","taxId",2872,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6587874,"Alachua County delays vote on updated advisory-board rules after extended discussion on staff seats, attendance and public comment",2077,33000,2110000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5534362-2d8609803e9294557f92273c62227d79&start=33&end=2110","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5534362-2d8609803e9294557f92273c62227d79/thumbnail_33000.jpg","/articles/6587874/Alachua-County/Florida/Alachua-County-delays-vote-on-updated-advisory-board-rules-after-extended-discussion-on-staff-seats-attendance-and-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6587874-72915e6af4599c5b595e927f347ea709/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153130&Signature=ZB-SjbXqoqgctn~HBxlTWndDRcairmFAI7OIQgXSpTudIfqPTiXOB7bgsgW0-XVuSWOuBv9s~~69lou~d~NHpNTUdLR5m9Jrgpy5N5OFbZWzRo-OtaG4~yKCEl4pVbn9PrKuI91-N6j9fNBxgC88yzaV8qafMf9~j7bUqtQ20YTvcvzNL1xSDlDP7NXL46Kd74aZ85H66uensGNksz7gQ4RS7Hu239VefJMBm12dXx1z9SzaD9keRXx9QwTvw5QR8tT3XvKxBw6NyIP0GmFScw45DFxGznrLDmNtWI-JndpNt77tFeYnq3P00JyBToJ6RthEmbIgfN1PngjdiigYcA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Alachua County commissioners on Aug. 5 debated proposed revisions to the county’s advisory-board guidelines, touching on county employees holding board seats, attendance and removal rules, remote participation, public-comment procedures and training for board chairs and liaisons. Staff presented the draft changes and commissioners agreed to refer the item back to staff for additional edits rather than approve it at the meeting.

The draft guidelines were presented by Gina Beals, assistant county manager and chief of staff, who told the board staff tracked 672 volunteer appointments since tracking began and reported 22 current vacancies as of the prior afternoon. Beals said staff created an advisory-board handbook and that Nathalia (Neftali) Duspin, the county’s advisory-board coordinator, is entering routine agenda items and managing logistics including a volunteer appreciation event planned for October.

Commissioners and members of the public debated several substantive points in the draft. On county employees serving as advisory-board members, staff recommended allowing employees to hold designated seats when the enacting ordinance or resolution explicitly permits it but not otherwise, citing potential overtime and “sunshine law” conflicts if staff serve on boards that oversee matters related to their employment. One commissioner said the proposed change shifts appointment discretion from the manager to the commission and could reduce criticism of manager-level waiver decisions.

Attendance and removal policy drew prolonged discussion. The existing rule in the draft removes members after missing more than half of the last six meetings (effectively three of six). Commissioners and public commenters said that rule can produce long vacancies on boards that meet quarterly — for example, an animal-welfare advisory board that meets quarterly could lose a member only after 18 months of absences under the six-meeting window. Speakers urged a softer, more consistent approach, including notice before removal and manager discretion to waive removals for extenuating circumstances such as medical emergencies.

The draft would restore a manager waiver for excused absences and clarify a process: staff would track attendance and notify members approaching removal; the advisory-board coordinator would handle follow-up communications. Commissioners asked that the communications be measured and kind rather than a terse automated notice. Beals said the coordinator will handle those communications going forward.

Remote participation rules in the draft would allow a member to participate remotely only if a physically present quorum votes to permit that member to participate; commissioners noted that remote participation should be allowed for non-convenience reasons (for example, work travel or medical recovery) and that any remote participation rules must preserve quorum and voting rules defined by each advisory board’s founding ordinance or resolution.

Public-comment procedures were a prominent subject. Several speakers, including public commenter Catherine Rupert, said advisory boards sometimes direct members of the public to bring complaints to a committee but that those complaints are not always heard or addressed in practice. Staff explained the draft tracks the statutory minimum for public participation and suggested advisory boards may exceed that minimum. Commissioners discussed options including (1) requiring at least one open public-comment period per meeting, (2) directing liaisons to encourage chairs to place public comment earlier so items can be heard before action, and (3) clarifying that public comment on propositions must occur at or before the final decision as required by state statute.

Commissioners also discussed standardizing liaison practices (agendas, backup materials and sharing emails from the public), minimum notice for agendas (staff said a minimum one-week posting is already intended), and training for chairs and liaisons, including a short handbook and brief video orientation for new appointees.

A motion to approve the proposed changes (introduced as a “Resolution for ’25” and to authorize the chairman to sign) was moved and seconded during the meeting, but after public comment and further commissioner discussion the motion was withdrawn and staff were asked to return the item on consent after incorporating the public’s suggestions — specifically, additional language and procedures addressing public comment and communications. The board did not adopt the proposed changes at the meeting.

The discussion included numerous requests that staff improve clarity, set consistent liaison procedures for distributing agendas and materials in advance, and develop a kinder, more consistent approach to notifying members who are at risk of removal. Commissioners asked staff to return the item with clarified language on employee seats, attendance waivers, remote participation and public-comment process so the commission could approve a revised resolution on consent at a future meeting.","The county’s commissioners discussed proposed changes to advisory-board guidelines, including limits on county employees serving on boards, attendance and removal procedures, remote participation and public-comment rules. A motion to approve the changes was moved and seconded but later withdrawn and referred back to staff for revision.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Alachua County commissioners back federal food-security bills and discuss farmers market, food-hub planning

Alachua County delays vote on updated advisory-board rules after extended discussion on staff seats, attendance and public comment