Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Belmont council votes 4–1 to retain fluoride in drinking water
Summary
After presentations on handling, costs and infrastructure corrosion, the council voted 4–1 to keep HFS fluoride in the city’s water system. Staff had recommended removal on budgetary grounds but the motion to remove received no second.
Belmont City Council voted 4–1 to keep fluoride in the municipal water supply after a lengthy presentation and debate over costs, infrastructure corrosion and public health benefits.
Public works director Jonathan Wilson presented background on the city’s fluoride product (hydrofluosilicic acid, HFS), explaining how the chemical is produced, handled and added to treated water. "HFS is less reactive and toxic than some other types of fluoride. Um but it is still a hazardous substance," Wilson said, and he described corrosion observed at the treatment plant and recurring pump replacements.
Wilson outlined budget implications: the city spends roughly $9,000–$10,000 annually for the fluoride chemical, about $5,200 a year on reagents and testing, and roughly $3,800 every two to three years on transfer pumps. He added prior bonding had budgeted roughly $180,000 for additional bulk storage but staff now estimate one needed containment tank would cost about $100,000; converting the existing fluoride tank was estimated at about $16,000 versus $19,000 for a new tank.
Councilors debated the relative benefits and harms of fluoridation. Several members described being conflicted after reviewing studies and public comment; one councilor cited international comparisons and recent studies questioning the marginal benefit of ingested fluoride, while others emphasized mainstream dental‑health support for topical fluoride benefits and cautioned against abrupt changes to the water system.
A motion to follow the public works department recommendation to remove fluoride on budgetary grounds (motion by Charlie) failed to receive a second. A subsequent motion to retain fluoride (mover: Alex; seconder: Catherine) passed 4–1.
Staff said the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality provides a process for municipalities that wish to discontinue fluoridation, and that the plant is subject to annual state inspections; staff reported no state‑identified deficiencies. Council directed staff to include the capital implications discussed in upcoming budget materials and noted they will continue to review technical questions about storage, monitoring and emergency response.
The council’s vote keeps HFS in Belmont’s treatment process for the near term; staff will return with budget language and any required engineering steps tied to storage and corrosion mitigation.
