Residents and stakeholders press Jackson County over insurance procurement and state bills; call for open RFPs

Several Jackson County residents and local stakeholders used public comment during the Aug. 12 Board of County Commissioners meeting to press elected officials to re-evaluate the county's procurement of its insurance program and to explain the county's position on recent state legislation they say reduces local authority.

Why it matters: County insurance contracts are a recurring budget item that residents say can be a major driver of county costs. Public speakers asked commissioners to issue an open RFP so independent insurance carriers can compete, and several speakers raised concerns about transparency and whether the county's current procurement path gives residents the best value.

What residents said - Jack Staver, a resident who said he was attending his first meeting, urged the board to re-bid the county's insurance contract and described the current procurement as "derelict in your duty" if the county does not solicit competitive proposals. Staver asked whether the board had to notify the incumbent insurance provider before issuing an RFP and sought the procurement language that would require such notice.

- Sally Baptist and Karen Shone (public commenters) asked commissioners to revisit the insurance procurement and to consider whether the county should run a public RFP so competing carriers can present options. Baptist also raised national-security concerns about some solar panels and said she had material suggesting certain panels include devices that merit local review.

- Multiple speakers referenced two state actions they said limit local control: the Live Local Act (passed in 2024) and Florida Senate Bill 180 (passed in 2025). Commenters asked commissioners whether the county or its newly chosen state lobbying firm supported or opposed that legislation and urged elected officials to defend local planning authority.

County staff response - County counsel/administration told the board that the county's existing insurance agreement includes a notification clause that requires informing the incumbent insurance provider within a specified period (described in the meeting as a 90-day notice) before issuing an RFP. Staff also said the board previously discussed the insurance matter and had taken prior action; staff indicated that any decision to reopen procurement would be a policy choice for the board.

What commissioners did and did not decide - The meeting record shows extensive public comment and questions to staff; commissioners did not vote on reopening the insurance procurement during the Aug. 12 meeting. Several commenters asked the board to consider open bidding and to clarify the county's position on the Live Local Act and SB 180.

Context and next steps - Residents requested that the board publicly explain the insurance procurement path and confirm whether vendors were notified in accordance with existing contract language. Several speakers asked the board to ask the newly selected lobbying firm about its position on SB 180 and the Live Local Act and to report back. The commissioners did not make a policy change on insurance at the Aug. 12 meeting; any formal reopening of procurement would require a future agenda item and vote.

Ending: Commissioners heard public comments and staff clarifications on procurement rules and state legislation. Residents and community groups asked the board to place insurance procurement on a future agenda and to seek clarity from the county's lobbying partner about recent state bills affecting local government authority.