Austin‑Travis County Food Plan adopted; staff outline early implementation steps and consultant contract
Loading...
Summary
City staff told the Environmental Commission that the Austin‑Travis County Food Plan was adopted in October 2024; an implementation dashboard and a consultant to form an implementation collaborative are in place, and staff outlined priorities including farmland preservation, floodplain urban agriculture pilots, and metrics development.
Edwin Marty, food policy manager with Austin’s Office of Climate Action and Resilience, briefed the Environmental Commission on Feb. 4 about adoption and implementation of the Austin‑Travis County Food Plan. Marty summarized why the plan was created — rising food insecurity, limited local food production and loss of farmland — and said the plan condenses thousands of public comments into nine goals and 61 strategies intended to guide city, county and community action.
Marty reported the county commission and city council adopted the plan in October 2024 and that the city has launched a public implementation dashboard to track progress on all strategies. He said just over half of the 61 strategies have been started since adoption, and that staff and Travis County structured an interlocal agreement to fund a consultant (Willard Nichols & Torres) to stand up an implementation collaborative to coordinate cross‑sector delivery and prepare to pursue future federal funding opportunities.
Commissioners asked about metrics, farmland preservation and use of buyout/floodplain properties for agriculture. Marty said staff intentionally avoided single headline targets (for example, a simple reduction in food insecurity) because such metrics can carry unintended consequences (for example, displacement through gentrification). He highlighted efforts to identify locally appropriate crops and said strategy teams will produce five‑year implementation targets and metrics during the consultant‑led collaborative. He also noted staffing for plan‑level implementation is two and a half positions with programmatic support across departments; broader implementation relies on coordination with nonprofits and private sector partners.
Commissioners proposed additional recommendations, including examining PUD and affordable housing requirements for food security components and exploring city and county land for community food production; the commission subsequently adopted a resolution supporting the food plan and added those specific implementation recommendations for staff follow‑up and reporting.