03/08/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the statement with regard to "new" population; should the issue be voted upon favorably, there would without doubt follow another election by petition where the measure would probably be defeated again; the city's right to fluoridate was ~ questioned in that it did not have license to dispense medication; fluoridation ~ of the public water supply violates the people's constitutional right of freedom of choice and of religion (for those whose religious beliefs prcluded their taking medication); according to the EPA of 1974 only those additives counteracting con- tamination of water supplies were required; a notable difference in mortality statistics in those cities having water supplies fluoridated has not been ex- plained; no conclusive proof that fluorides are safely taken; question of legality - whether constitutional rights can be voted upon. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mayor Anderson noted letters in favor of placing the fluoridation issue on the ballot received from the president of the State Public Health Office and from the Lane County Health Advisory Committee. Councilman Bradley questioned the reason for putting the issue on the ballot if the Council had the authority to order fluoridation of the city's water supply by ordinance. Councilman Williams answered that the State legislature had decided fluoridation could be adopted by local jurisdictions through a vote of the people. Also, it seemed to him that when -the voters had cast a majority on both sides of the question, as happened in this community, then it would seem only proper to ask them for their decision. Councilman Keller added that just the fact that the issue was controversial would make it appropriate to submit to the voters, plus the fact that voters on both sides of a controversial issue usually learn when such an issue is presented on the ballot. - Mayor Anderson hoped the Council would place the issue on the ballot since both the number os voters and character of the population had changed since it was last voted upon. He also felt that since it was last voted upon it had been shown fluoridation was not the great threat it was reported to be. In view of the small majority on the issue in previous elections - particularly the one in which the order to fluoridate was repealed - and because of the time elapsed since the last election, he thought the issue deserved public consideration. Mr. Bradley moved that the Council call a public hearing with regard to requiring EWEB to fluoridate the water supply without going to a vote of the people. There was no second. Council Bill No. 1047 - Adding Section 2.196 to City Code providing for fluoridation of water supply, effective upon approval of voters, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Lacking unanimous consent - all Council member present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no, the bill was held for second reading. Council Bill No. 1048 - Ordering special election concurrently with general election November 2, 1976 re: Fluoridation of water supply, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. -- --- 3/8/76 - 10 13 a.,. . ~~