Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Fluoridation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission agrees to delay action on fluoride; may include referendum with charter review
Summary
Cooper City commissioners agreed to delay immediate action on removing fluoride from the municipal water supply and to consider placing the issue on a future ballot, potentially alongside charter review questions, while scheduling further public education and legal review.
The Cooper City Commission discussed whether to reverse a prior referendum that requires the city to add fluoride to the municipal water supply, and commissioners generally agreed to delay final action while exploring options for public education and ballot timing.
City Manager explained the city’s prior referendum required the city to add fluoride and that unwinding that decision would require another public vote. He recommended, for logistical and cost reasons, to consider adding the question alongside charter review items targeted by the Charter Review Board for the November election. The manager noted the supervisor of elections’ deadline for the November ballot is typically the second week in June and that adopting an ordinance would require two readings working backward from that deadline.
Several commissioners said they had heard “mixed reviews” from residents and asked for additional information. One commissioner asked for a series of workshops and to invite scientists or doctors to present both sides; another noted there is a possibility of state preemption from the Florida Legislature and suggested waiting until after the legislative session. For scheduling, one commissioner suggested beginning formal consideration in March 2026 to meet county election timelines for a November 2026 referendum if the commission elects that route.
Multiple residents who spoke during public comment urged removal of fluoride from the city’s water supply. Patty Fettner and other members of the public testified that they consider fluoride harmful and asked the commission to act sooner; speakers cited studies and asserted alternatives for cavity prevention. Commissioners and staff responded that, at present, the city is not planning an immediate unilateral removal and that any binding change would require either a commission‑adopted ordinance (with two readings) or a public referendum, depending on legal interpretation of the earlier vote.
The commission gave consensus to postpone final action and to include the issue in broader discussions (charter review or a future workshop); they requested staff return with timelines and potential legal implications after the legislative session and as the Charter Review Board prepares questions for a November ballot.
