The Mesa City Council voted unanimously Sept. 8 to approve a four‑year term contract to supply water and wastewater treatment chemicals that continues the city's fluoridation program using hydrofluorosilicic acid, and asked staff to report back on whether a voter approval limits council authority and how long current chemical stocks will last.

The measure matters because residents raised health and policy concerns during public comment, and council members wanted clarity about whether a voter-approved measure from 1999 affects the council's ability to change fluoridation policy.

At the start of the item, citizen speaker Alex Francik urged the council to remove fluoride from the public water supply, saying the compound used, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is corrosive and that "emerging science and ethical consideration demand we reconsider adding such a hazardous chemical to our drinking water." Francik cited studies he said link higher fluoride exposure to lower IQ and urged an amendment to the contract to exclude hydrofluorosilicic acid.

Chris Hassard, the city's water resources director, told the council the voters approved adding fluoride about 20 to 25 years ago and described how the city currently fluoridates to a level of about 0.7 parts per million. Hassard said the compound used has a low pH and that "at all our water treatment plants, we add that compound to fluoridate to a level of about 0.7 PPM." He also said Mesa's water remains in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act whether or not fluoride is added, and that fluoridation is an "aesthetic" addition.

Council members asked legal staff and Hassard to research whether the earlier voter approval constrains the council's authority to stop fluoridation and to confirm how long the city's on‑hand supply of the chemical will last. City Attorney Mr. Smith told the council he would research the legal question and report back. Hassard told the council he expected the existing supply would likely last weeks to months and said he would confirm the exact timing the following day.

Despite the public comments urging removal, the council voted to approve the contract. The motion to approve the four‑year term contract for water and wastewater treatment chemicals was made by Councilmember Pillsbury and seconded by Councilmember Duff and passed unanimously on a voice vote.

The council also noted operational context: the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant, co‑owned with the City of Phoenix, and two other plants that serve parts of the city also fluoridate; Hassard warned that even if Mesa stopped fluoridation at its own plants, water delivered from the co‑owned plant would continue to be fluoridated.

The council directed staff to return with clarified legal guidance about the 1999 voter action and with a precise inventory and supply timeline for the hydrofluorosilicic acid so the council could consider the issue further at an upcoming meeting. No change to the city's fluoridation practice was made at the Sept. 8 meeting beyond approving the contract.

What happens next: staff will report back with legal research about the voter approval cited by residents and with a confirmed inventory and lead‑time estimate for the chemical; the council indicated it could schedule further discussion or a study session based on that information.