One city councilor and a handful of residents expressed dismay over a seemingly hasty decision to overturn an ordinance requiring fluoride in the city’s water system during the July 8 City Council meeting.
Fluoride No More
Prior to the third and final reading of an ordinance bill repealing a municipal code that requires fluoridation of the city’s drinking water, Councilor Ken Bronson – who was absent at the June 24 meeting – let the council know he was not happy with the move.
Bronson said he made multiple attempts to attend that last meeting virtually but was unable to get through. He would have opposed the motion to remove fluoride.
He said during this meeting that the community had only 48 hours (47 hours, 58 minutes, to be exact) to prepare for this topic, and questioned why it was being “crammed through so quickly.”
“This was voted in by the people. The least we can do if it’s gonna be taken out is put it before the people for a vote,” he said. “For seven councilors to be able to take such a huge issue as this and sweep it through without community input, I think, is a major disgrace to our community.”
Members of the public also addressed council on the matter.
Larry Horton, who sits on the Health Committee, indicated he believes the city should have approached the committee and the local medical community for their input. He added that if the addition of fluoride was voted on and approved by voters, then it should also be put to the voters to remove it.
Local dentist Ivan Wolthuis expressed his support for the fluoridation of the water and added that the matter came up “very quickly and suddenly” with apparently little communication.
“I wonder how much communication and transparency we had with the entire community on this issue,” Wolthuis said. “This is a subject that really requires some discussion…I think this deserves more discussion and a review of the science and the literature.”
One other spoke in opposition to removing fluoride without input from the public, and one person supported the council’s decision to remove fluoride.
Mayor Susan Coleman apologized for not reaching out to the Health Committee.
Bronson said he would like to see the question placed on the next election’s ballot.
Councilor Josh Thorstad said the council was elected by 10,000 people to make these decisions and it’s up to the council to “do what’s best for Sweet Home.”
Councilor Angelita Sanchez addressed Horton’s concerns by saying there are conflicting beliefs by dentists on both sides about fluoride, and an idea presented to her by a citizen is for the city to provide fluoride to anyone who wants it.
“You can also get a prescription, you can also brush your teeth,” she said. “There are a lot of different ways to get fluoridation outside of city water.”
The council adopted the ordinance 5-2; councilors Bronson and Aaron Hegge opposed.
Abatement Leads to Lien
The council approved a motion to place a $47,779.21 lien on the property at 780 9th Ave. after the city hired a company to clear the property of multiple vehicles.
Deputy City Manager Cecily Pretty’s report stated code compliance “issues” regarding vehicles and open storage on the property spanned a number of years – at least as far back as 2009. Since 2023, Code Enforcement had been “actively working” with the property owner, Kenneth Oberg, to resolve code violations, but little improvement was noted.
City Manager Jason Ogden told the council there has been “a longstanding pattern of code violations. The site has a well-documented history of issues, including open storage, public health nuisances and inoperable vehicles.”
He said the city made multiple good-faith efforts to work with the property owner.
Oberg was notified in February and again in March this year of pending abatement. It was reported that Oberg told the city he would work on the problem, but the code enforcement officer found “few improvements” weeks later. Abatement work was conducted in April. Final invoices were sent in May.
Taxpayer dollars pay for nuisance abatement work, forcing the city to place a lien on abated properties if the property owner does not pay back the costs.
John Origer, who was hired to do the abatement, said he hauled off more than 40 cars that were “packed in” the lot, and that his crew tried to help Oberg save as much stuff as he could by loading items in his truck to move elsewhere because his shop and garage were “packed to the rafters.”
Origer said Oberg was able to reclaim some of his cars that were towed by a different tow company.
“We did what we could to help him out as much as possible,” Origer said.
Oberg, 65, addressed the council, telling them he had surgery in October 2024 and was issued a notice by Code Enforcement that he had until October 2025 to clean up the property. He further said he had cleared up a lot of stuff but, come April, Code Enforcement informed Oberg they would have to remove items from the backyard as well because it could be seen from the road.
“This crew came in and took every little piece of the stuff I had,” he said. “All my yard tools, my lawnmower, my picnic tables, two brand new barbecuers.”
He added that he feels like the situation was unjustified.
“I got all kinds of evidence showing that I did the best that I could possibly do,” Oberg said. “I think this thing should be reevaluated…I felt the city did something wrong to me. If we can’t get it reevaluated, then I might have to seek legal, higher authorities.”
Resident Joseph Sands, who lives adjacent to Oberg, also addressed the council on the matter, stating the problem has been an issue for at least a decade while he’s lived next to Oberg. He disagreed that Oberg made “good faith efforts” to clean the property, and said that years of rain ruins and devalues the cars sitting on the property.
“That property’s been a source of vermin, dogs running loose, dogs being on other peoples’ lawn leaving large amounts of feces, and just being a general nuisance to the neighborhood,” Sands said. “When you live by people that treat their property that way, it’s not only degrading their own property, but it’s also the property the people that live next to them and their overall quality of life.”
Former neighbor Aleaha Myers told the council about issues she observed while living next to Oberg’s property, including noise, disturbances and “an ongoing buildup of vehicles and debris.”
“We also dealt with persistent sanitation concerns from animal waste in the alleyway and on our private property, as well as an alarming rat population,” she said. “Our concerns extended to what we believed to be potential environmental hazards due to the visible storage of fuels, chemicals and oils on site.”
As a realtor broker herself, Oberg’s property has “significantly impacted” the value of nearby homes, she said.
The council voted 5-1 to place a lien on the property. Sanchez opposed and Hegge excused himself from voting for conflict of interest.
In other business, the council:
- Heard from Jerry Whaley, who complained about a “house cat issue” in the city, with yards “overrun by scat.” He asked the council to look into doing something about an apparent cat overpopulation.
- Adopted a revised investment policy, moving the Weighted Average Maturity from two years to 2.5 years.
- Held a public hearing for and approved a special procurement process allowing staff to negotiate a contract with Timber Framers Guild to design and construct a bandstand at Sankey Park.
- Approved an updated fee schedule regarding meeting spaces in City Hall, event support and food trucks.
- Heard from Ogden about a trip he took to Washington, D.C., on July 1 to present at the National Conference for Ending Homelessness. He and FAC’s executive director shared about the city’s shelter and the community court program.
- Directed staff to look into the possibility of providing fluoride to low income families in the city.