Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Fluoride topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council signals next steps on tap for Rolla water fluoridation after public notification period
Summary
Council previously authorized a 90-day notification process for possible changes to fluoridation; staff reported the city followed the notification steps required by state law and said a discussion will return to council on May 19, with any ordinance drafting to follow council direction.
Rolla City Council reminded the public and discussed next steps for a possible change to fluoride levels in the city water supply after completing a statutorily required notification period.
Staff said council previously authorized a process to consider removing or changing fluoridation and that state law requires 90 days’ notice to the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Health & Senior Services when a municipality seeks to change community water fluoridation. Staff said the city has posted monthly notifications to the city website and social media and that it had collected public comments through the city’s fluoride page (fluoride@rollacity.org or the designated web page). As of the meeting, staff said roughly 85 comments had been received and tabulated.
Staff said there is no immediate ordinance change scheduled; council could, at the May 19 meeting, choose to direct staff to draft an ordinance to alter fluoridation levels or to leave the current ordinance in place. If council votes to pursue removal or a change in the fluoride program, staff said the city would prepare a draft ordinance and could schedule a public hearing; the state notification process and required timing would apply.
Why it matters: municipal water fluoridation is a public-health policy that can trigger public comment and regulatory notice. The council’s next procedural step determines whether the city pursues ordinance drafting and a possible public hearing or leaves the current fluoride ordinance unchanged.
Discussion vs. decision: staff provided procedural clarification and a summary of public comments; no ordinance alteration was adopted during the May 5 meeting.
