Fluoride,

from p. 1

Klevgard. “I don’t feel I have the right to make the decision for everybody.”

After Klevgard made her motion, more discussion followed. Council member Kayla Schar said she would rather move forward with a decision and not keep people waiting. She said people had been vocal on this topic, with people visiting her office (she’s the Greenwood city clerk) and calling her at home to voice their opinions. She said of everyone she had talked to, only one person had expressed interest in keeping fluoride; the rest wanted to get rid of it. There was also a post put on a community Facebook page, with 15 people commenting they wanted the fluoride removed and only one wanting to keep it.

“At every council meeting I’ve been at, there’s been more people wanting to remove it than wanting to keep it. I guess, we’re elected to represent the people,” said Schar.

However, Hall commented that for those people who wanted to keep fluoride in the water, it may be difficult for them to speak out because they are going against the more vocal group.

“As a community business manager, I’m putting myself at risk saying that I want to keep it in,” she said.

After a bit more discussion, the council wanted to move forward with at least some type of decision and not keep the issue lingering.

“What if we put an end to it right now now and do a vote?” said council member Dave Geier. “The odds of us all being here for a meeting are not great.”

“It does feel like it’s a continuous pushing it off. Either we’re pushing it off till we’re all here or we’re pushing it off until April,” said council member Amanda Stephens.

However, in the end, the council settled on the idea that it was better to formally get the public’s opinion; that way they knew they would be doing what the majority wanted, especially since it has become such a contentious issue. After Stephens’ comment, Bobrofsky seconded Klevgard’s motion to put fluoridation on the ballot. The council voted 5-2 to put the issue on the April 2026 ballot, with Bobrofsky, Geier, Klevgard, Lindner, and Stephens voting in favor of the ballot measure; and Froeba and Schar voting against it.

The council had the option of making the vote binding or non-binding. They chose binding, which means the city must follow the results of what the people decide.

The council’s decision was not necessarily satisfying to all in attendance, especially those who have spoken at multiple meetings and seen the decision continually pushed back. The issue of putting fluoride in the water was first brought up at the Nov. 19, 2024, council meeting. At that time, the council voted to recommend the matter to the utility committee for further discussion. The utility committee met on Dec. 3 and sent the issue back to the full council because they felt the whole council needed to deliberate on it.

The full council met on Dec. 17 and decided to refer the matter back to the utility committee, have the utility committee come up with a way to get residents’ input on the matter, collect the data and bring it back to the full council in April for discussion. The utility committee did not come up with a definitive action step, but tossed around the idea of a referendum vote. At the April 15 council meeting, the council decided to table the fluoride issue, because a couple of council members were absent and they wanted to have input from the full council before making a decision. That was what led to the discussion at last week’s meeting and the decision to take it directly to the public.