9. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on an Ordinance of the City of Abilene, Texas, and Providing for the Extension of the Boundary Limits of the City of Abilene, Texas, and for the Annexation of Certain Territory - 440.2 acres - Lying Adjacent and Contiguous to the Present Boundary Limits of the City of Abilene, and Granting to All the Inhabitants of Territory, all the rights and Privileges of other citizens and Binding the Inhabitants by All of the Acts, Ordinances, Resolutions and Regulations of the City of Abilene; and Adopting a Service Plan Agreement (Michael Rice)

[9. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on an Ordinance of the City of Abilene, Texas, and Providing for the Extension of the Boundary Limits of the City of Abilene, Texas, and for the Annexation of Certain Territory - 440.2 acres - Lying Adjacent and Contiguous to the Present Boundary Limits of the City of Abilene, and Granting to All the Inhabitants of Territory, all the rights and Privileges of other citizens and Binding the Inhabitants by All of the Acts, Ordinances, Resolutions and Regulations of the City of Abilene; and Adopting a Service Plan Agreement (Michael Rice)]

CARRIES. >> WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NINE AND I WILL ASK MICHAEL RICE THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO

PRESENT THIS. >> BEFORE YOU IS THE SECOND AND FINAL READING FOR THE ANNEXATION OF 440 POINT TWO ACRES NEAR THE POWER PLANT. WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ANNEXATION AND ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THEIR PROPERTY WILL BE ZONED AS AO. THIS IS A PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS SHOWING WHERE THIS IS. IT IS WHERE THE CROSSHATCHED AREA IS. I WILL ASK ANY COURT -- ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM NINE. IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I WILL

ACCEPT A MOTION . >> SO MOVED .

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MCALISTER AND A

[00:10:06]

SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BEARD. WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

[10. Ordinance (Final Reading) CUP-2024-11: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner, to Apply a Conditional Use Permit to Approximately 0.15 Acres to Allow a 150’ Monopole Tower within General Retail (GR), Located at 2560 X Barrow Street (Tim Littlejohn)]

>> ALL YESES. THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> I MOVED TO ITEM NUMBER 10 AND I ASK TIM LITTLEJOHN TO

PRESENT. >> UP FOR CONSIDERATION IS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2024-11 TO ALLOW A 150 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER WITHIN THAT GENERAL RETAIL LOCATED AT 2560 X BARROW STREET. HERE ARE THE PROPERTY VIEWS AND NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT AND WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED.

THE ONE OPPOSED SAID THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THE BUSINESS AREA AROUND THERE AND THE ONE IN SUPPORT, THAT IS MR. JOHNSON. THIS DOES MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID HEAR THIS. THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND THIS WILL REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY

VOTE TO PASS. >> QUESTIONS OF TIM? AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> GOOD MORNING. I AM LETTING GALLOWAY AND I REPRESENT TITAN TOWERS AND THE LAND OWNER. WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD A 150 FOOT MONOPOLE AND WE HAVE A CUSTOMER, AT&T, THAT IS TRYING TO INCREASE COVERAGE AND ADD TO CAPACITY. AT&T IS ALL OVER THE CITY BUT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A HOLE AND THEY WANT TO FILL THAT WITH A CAPACITY SITE. I CITED IT IN THE SHOPPING CENTER BECAUSE FROM CELL 14TH ALL THE WAY TO THE FREEWAY IS MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL SO THIS APPEARED TO BE THE BEST CITING. THERE ARE LIGHT STANDARDS UP AND TALLER BUILDINGS AND ETC.. THE ONE THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION IS OUT OF TOWN AND I COULD NOT CONTACT THEM. THEY WERE NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS WHAT THAT WOULD BE. THE POSITIVE, FROM MR. JOHNSON, HE IS A REALTOR IN TOWN AND HE HAS THREE PROPERTIES IN THIS SAME BIG BLOCK SUBDIVISION AND HE IS FOR IT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD TIME TO LOOK AT THE PROPAGATION MAPS THAT SHOWS WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS. WE WILL BE ABLE TO HOLD MULTIPLE CARRIERS. IF AT&T NEEDS IT POSSIBLY VERIZON AND T-MOBILE WILL NEED IT ALSO. SO WE ARE TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE AND

INCLUDE THEM. >> THE SMALL TRACT SURROUNDED BY THE SMALLER ONE, IS THAT OWNED OUTRIGHT?

>> THE SMALL TRACT IS. IT IS AN ISLAND THAT WAS CARVED OUT 20 OR 30 YEARS AGO. BUT, THIS TRACK IS THE OLD MR. GEEZ THAT HAD SOME UNUSED LAND ON THE BACKSIDE OF IT.

>> THANK YOU FOR SAYING MR. G'S.

>> WE ARE STILL IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND .

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. IF THERE IS NO

[11. Ordinance (Final Reading) CUP-2024-12: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner, to Apply a Conditional Use Permit to Approximately 2.75 Acres to Allow for a Tattoo Parlor, More Specifically Applied to Building 4, Suite 403, Located at 4601 Antilley Road, Suite 403 (Tim Littlejohn)]

FURTHER DISCUSSION WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

>> ALL YESES. THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10.

>> UP FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER

[00:15:03]

X BARROW TO AND THIS IS FOR A TATTOO PARLOR ADDS 4601 ANTILLEY ROAD. THIS IS THE THE LOCATION MAP AND THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. HERE ARE THE USES WITHIN RETAIL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING. PROPERTY VIEWS. HERE IS THE BUILDING WHICH THE C.U.P.

WOULD BE TIED TO. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT AND WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE IN OPPOSITION. THIS REQUEST MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL WITHIN THE LAND AND ELEMENT CODE.

PLANNING AND ZONING DID HEAR THIS AND APPROVED IT SUBJECT TO

OPERATION. >> AND THIS IS MAINLY PERMANENT

MAKEUP? >> THEY DO DO SOME FINE LINE TATTOOING SO , THEY DO THAT AS WELL BUT THIS IS MAINLY THE

PERMANENT MAKEUP. >> IN THE SAID A HIGH-END SHOPPING CENTERS THERE IS NO LIGHTS?

>> CORRECT. IT IS A SALON. >> I KNOW ON THE MAP , THE PHOTOGRAPH, IT SHOWS A BLANK SPOT. THERE ARE SEVERAL EXISTING OFFICE COMPLEXES AND THIS IS TO JUST PUT ONE INSIDE . IT IS NOT TO BUILD A BRAND-NEW BUILDING.

>> THAT IS RIGHT. >> AND IT WILL BE TIED WITH THE C.U.P. WITH THE ONE SUITE. IF SOMEBODY MOVES BACK IN WITH THE SAME USE THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE SAME CRITERIA.

>> WHAT ARE THE HOURS OF OPERATION? I KNOW THAT WAS A

CONCERN. >> IT IS NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL AND YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO STAY OPEN UNTIL 9:00 SO I THINK THEY ONLY PLAN TO BE OPEN UNTIL 6:00.

>> IN THE PLAN OF OPERATIONS IT SPECIFIES THEY WILL NOT DO ANYTHING AFTER 6:00 SO WHAT PUTS THE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION ON THEM. ARE THERE CONCERNS FROM STAFF WITH REGARD TO ENFORCEMENT? ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THEM SAYING IT IS ONLY UNTIL 6:00 AND PUTS THAT FIRM RESTRICTION IN

WRITING? >> THIS IS A RESTRICTION THAT THE OWNER PUT ON THEMSELVES. THEY DO NOT TAKE ANY APPOINTMENTS PAST 6:00 AND STAFF DOES NOT HAVE CONCERN.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE WOULD NOT BE A -- AN

ENFORCEMENT CONCERN. >> I READ THEY STOPPED OPERATING AT 6:00. BUT THEY STOPPED TAKING APPOINTMENTS?

>> OPERATIONS STATE THEY WILL NOT DO ANY TATTOOING AFTER 6:00. IT IS THE THIRD LINE FROM THE BOTTOM. THEY CAN GUARANTEE NO FINE LINE TATTOO SERVICE WILL BE DONE AFTER 6:00 P.M.

THAT WAS JUST A QUESTION I HAD REGARDING ENFORCEMENT.

>> SO, SHANE, YOU WILL HAVE TO GET YOUR TATTOOS PRIOR TO 6:00.

HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 11 . IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME

FOR THE RECORD. >> GOOD MORNING. I AM THE PROPERTY AGENT FOR THE OWNER . WE PUT NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL AS A PLUG FOR THE CENTER THAT HAS BEEN BUILT OUT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IS PROBABLY THE BEST FIT IN TERMS OF USES THAT MIGHT GO IN THERE AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE HEALTH SERVICES AND PERSONAL SERVICES AND KNOWING THAT THERE WOULD LIKELY BE A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS A UNIQUE USE BEING REQUESTED THAT WE BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE. THE TENANT IS HERE AND QUESTIONS CAN BE

DIRECTED TO HER. >> THANK YOU. WE ARE STILL IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PERIOD. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO

SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? >> I AM ALLIE ANDERSON AND I AM THE OWNER OF THE PARLOR REQUESTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU

[00:20:01]

HAVE THEM. >> NO QUESTIONS.

>> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 11? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> SO MOVED. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY MCALISTER AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CRAVER . SEEING NO FURTHER

[12. Ordinance (Final Reading) OAM-2024-02: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the City of Abilene to Amend the Land Development Code to Amend the Sign Regulations. Specifically, to Allow for Type III Off-Site Signage and Provide Development Standards Including, but Not Limited to, Size, Location, and Separation (Tim Littlejohn)]

DISCUSSION WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

>> ALL YESES. THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12.

>> UP FOR CONSIDERATION IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2024-02 AND THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY AND WE WANT TO MAKE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR A TYPE III OFF-SITE SIGN AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALLOWS IN PERMITTED DISTRICTS THE MAXIMUM AREA FOR ADVERTISING AND 50 SQUARE FEET. ONE THING TO LOOK AT IS MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IS 2000 FEET FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL USE OR DISTRICT AND IT IS LIMITED TO ONE PER PARCEL . THE MOTION IS PERMITTED BUT IT DOES HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE IN THE CODE.

HERE ARE THE ARTERIAL STREETS PERMITTED AND ADDITIONALLY FACTORY SIGNS WOULD BE ALLOWED ON BUTTERNUT STREET , ELM STREET OVER TO SOUTH TREADWAY. 2ND STREET FROM SOUTH ELM TO TREADWAY ALL THE WAY TO FOURTH STREET. THESE ARE THE INDUSTRIES THAT WERE WILL BE ALLOWED FOR THE SIGNS ON TOP OF TYPE ONE AND TYPE II USES. SOUTH FIRST IS A SMALL PORTION OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW THIS TYPE OF SIGN. HERE IS THE SMALL PORTION OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT THAT IT WILL BE ALLOWED NOW. THE AMENDMENT WILL IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTION PROVIDED BY CITY COUNCIL BY OCTOBER 17, 2024. PLANNING AND ZONING DID HEAR THIS AND THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS? >> NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION BUT, THE AREA IS LIMITED TO THE SOUTH DOWNTOWN AREA AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS RAISED. WE REACHED OUT TO BUSINESS OWNERS

BUT CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT ? >> STAFF MET WITH THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNERS AND PRESENTED WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING AND WE TOOK A POLL OF THOSE PEOPLE AND IT WAS 2-1 AGAINST ALLOWING IT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. THE SOUTH SIDE OWNERS WERE IN FAVOR OF IT AND SO THAT IS WHY YOU SEE WHAT IS ALLOWED ON THE SELL SIDE.

>> I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARITY.

>> YES, SIR. >> AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 12. IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD NEGOTIATED CHANGE. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF NOT LIMITING IT BY GEOGRAPHY BUT RATHER BY THE DISTRICT OR THE ZONING IN GENERAL. I THINK IT IS PROBABLY THE RIGHT CALL TO DEFERRED TO THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION AND IF TWO THIRDS ARE SAYING NO, WE DON'T WANT THIS, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD COMPROMISE. I WILL SUPPORT IT.

I MAKE A MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT .

I WOULD RATHER THAT IT BE THE SAME BUT IF THEY ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT I SUPPORT THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE CONTROL

IN THEIR OWN AREA. >> WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER MCALISTER IS ABSTAINING. THE REST ARE YESES

[13. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2024-32: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner, to Change the Zoning of Approximately 2.59 acres from Planned Development District 28 (PDD-28) to General Commercial (GC), Located at the 4300 block of Southwest Drive (Tim Littlejohn)]

. >> WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 13.

[00:25:06]

>> THIS IS ZONING CASE 2024-32 . THIS IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.59 ACRES FROM THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 28 TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT 4300 BLOCK OF SOUTHWEST DRIVE. THIS IS THE MAP AND THE CURRENT ZONING. HERE IS THE PROPOSED USES AS REQUESTED IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL. HERE IS THE PROPERTY VIEWS AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY WITH IN -- IN RETURN AND THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF -- WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. HARKS AND WRECKED DID HEAR THIS AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID HEAR THIS CASE AND THEY RECOMMEND TO YOU APPROVAL.

>> QUESTIONS OF TIM? AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 13? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL

ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> SO MOVED .

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCALISTER.

>> SECOND. >> IN A SECOND BY COUNCIL

MEMBER MCALISTER FOR . >> I -- COUNCIL MEMBER YATES.

[14. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2024-35: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner, Represented by Jacob & Martin, to Change the Zoning of Approximately 64.25 Acres from Agricultural Open to Planned Development District 191, Specifically, to Have a Residential Single-Family Base Zoning, Located at 7501 Old Forrest Hill Road. (Tim Littlejohn)]

WE ARE READY TO VOTE . >> ALL YESES. THE MOTION

CARRIES.. >> WE MOVE ON TO NUMBER 14.

THIS IS ZONING REQUEST 2024-35 AT 7501 OLD FORREST HILL ROAD.

HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING AND VIEWS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. HERE IS THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN FOR THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY IN RETURN. THIS WILL BASICALLY BE AN -- BASE WITH AN ALLOWABLE 5000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. THIS MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND P AND Z IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT SETS OUT -- A LOT WITH A 50 FOOT INTERIOR SETBACK. CORNER LOT EXTERIORS SIDE SETBACKS OF 15 FEET AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER

QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF TIM? AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 14? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> CLAYTON AND PHARAOH AND I AM THE DEVELOPER . THIS IS A MORE COMMON LOT SIZE BEING FOUND AROUND THE STATE AND I BELIEVE THE LACK OF US HAVING STANDARD ZONING WOULD RESULT IN A AN LEC CHANGE IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO BUT THIS IS A NEED THAT IS CURRENTLY HAD THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A WAY TO FIT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANYONE ELSE FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD? ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL

ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IF NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE ARE READY TO

[15. Ordinance (Final Reading) Z-2024-36: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on a Request from the Owner, to Change the Zoning of Approximately 134.86 Acres from Agricultural Open (AO) to General Retail (GR), General Commercial (GC), and Multi-Family (MF), Located at 7450 HWY 83-84 (Tim Littlejohn)]

VOTE . >> ALL YESES. THE MOTION

CARRIES. >> LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 15.

>> UP FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS ZONING CASE 2024-36 AND THEY REQUEST RE-ZONE OF 134.86 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL OPEN TO

[00:30:04]

GENERAL RETAIL , PORTION TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND SOME MULTI FAMILY LOCATED AT 7450 HIGHWAY 83-84. HERE IS THE LOCATION. AND THIS WILL BE AN EXTENSION OF THE --. THERE ARE SOME PROPERTY VIEWS AND YOU CAN SEE IT IS UNDEVELOPED. HERE IS THE CONCEPT PLAN SEEING SHOWING WHERE THE DISTRICT IS BEING REQUESTED. THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE.

HERE ARE THE USES FOR AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE. HERE IS THE PROPOSED USES IN GENERAL RETAIL. IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

AND MULTI FAMILY. NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY IN RETURN. THIS REQUEST MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL . P AND Z DID HEAR THIS CASE AND THEY

RECOMMEND APPROVAL . >> QUESTIONS OF MR. LITTLEJOHN? AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM?

>> IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE

RECORD. >> THIS DOES SUPPORT DACHSHUND IT LINES UP WITH LONG-TERM LAND PLANNING THAT HE HAS SO THAT LINES ARE NOT ARBITRARY. THEY GENERALLY LINE UP WITH WHERE YOU WOULD EXPECT DIFFERENT USES TO SWITCH. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. >> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 15? SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC CARRYING.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> SO MOVED.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY BEARD AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER

[16. Ordinance (Final Reading): Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Repealing Ordinance 53-2000 and Permanently Terminating the Fluoridation of Water Supplies Within the City of Abilene's Water Distribution System (Rodney Taylor)]

PRICE. WE ARE READY TO VOTE. >> ALL YESES. THE MOTION

CARRIES. >> WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 16 AND I WILL ASK RODNEY TAYLOR TO PRESENT THIS ITEM .

>> RODNEY TAYLOR , DIRECTOR OF WATER SERVICES. THIS IS REPEALING ORDINANCE 53-2000 AND TERMINATING FLUORIDATION OF THE ABILENE WATER SUPPLY. THIS WAS PASSED NOVEMBER 2000 BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND AUTHORIZES IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FLUORIDATION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE SYSTEM. THIS HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN IN PLACE THE WHOLE TIME UNTIL RECENTLY.

IN SEPTEMBER A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FOUND THAT THE RECOMMENDED DOSAGE OF FLUORIDE AND FLUORIDATION SYSTEM RESULTED IN A POTENTIAL PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE AND ORDERED THE EPA TO TAKE A REGULATORY ACTION TO ADDRESS THAT. IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, IN SEPTEMBER STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO TEMPORARILY DISCONTINUE THE FLUORIDATION UNTIL THE COUNTY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED A TEMPORARY ORDINANCE SUSPENDED SUSPENDING FLUORIDATION UNTIL CERTAIN CONDITIONS WERE MET THAT WERE DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE. THE CITY EXPRESSED INTEREST IN PERMANENT DISCONTINUANCE OF FLUORIDATION.

WITH PASSAGE WE WOULD TAKE ACTION TO NOTIFY THE TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION TO PROVIDE A 60 DAY NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY REGULATION AND NOTIFY CUSTOMERS WITH A 60 DAY NOTICE OF THE RESULTS OF THIS ORDINANCE. ANY

QUESTIONS? >> QUESTIONS OF RODNEY? THANK YOU AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE

[00:35:02]

ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PERSON? JENNIFER BELL?

>> I AM IN FAVOR OF ENDING WATER FLUORIDATION AND WE SHOULD DO IT AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL THIS IS A BALLOT MEASURE BUT THAT WAS AN UNJUST VOTE. CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MEDICATE OUR WATER . YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION AND A DUTY TO END THE POISONING OF OUR WATER. THANK YOU.

>> WE ARE STILL IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM?

>> TAMMY FOGEL. WE USED TO PARTNER TOGETHER TO FIGHT UNJUST LAWS ON MEDICINE FORCING PEOPLE TO DO THINGS AND THOSE WERE DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT BY CITIZENS VOTING ON THINGS. WHAT I AM CONFUSED ABOUT IS WE TEMPORALLY PAUSED IN NOVEMBER AND THERE WAS TALK AMONGST THE COUNCIL TO HAVE A TIME STAMP OR TIME RELEASE ON THIS. TO MAYBE TWO YEARS OUT .

THERE WAS NO PRESSURE TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN HAVE A TIME WHERE WE WOULD EVENTUALLY DECIDE WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO. THE WATER IS SAFE FOR RESIDENTS SO INSTEAD OF SEEING IT THROUGH THE CORRECTWAY WE ARE TAKING A SHORTCUT AND THE CHARTER DOES NOT INDICATE THAT YOU CAN OVERRIDE ORDINANCES THAT CITIZENS HAVE VOTED ON. I HAVE LOOKED AT HOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL THIS IS AND I HAVE FOUND ZERO EVIDENCE. I ASKED THE ORGANIZATION THAT I LOVE AND SUPPORT WHERE THE EVIDENCE FOR THAT IS AND THERE IS NONE. THE ONLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL THING THAT I HAVE SEEN IN REGARDS TO FLUORIDE IS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND I DON'T THINK THAT APPLIES HERE. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO TODAY BUT I DO WANT TO VOICE THE FACT THAT IF CITIZENS VOTE ON SOMETHING AT THE BALLOT THERE SHOULD BE MORE PROTECTION OF OUR VOICE RATHER THAN JUST GETTING TO APPEAL SOMETHING THAT EVEN IN THE PACKET IT SAYS, THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTH. WE CAN'T USE THAT. I UNDERSTAND THE BALLOT BUT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS FOR A MESSY PROCESS AND I AM JUST BAFFLED THAT IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, THIS HAS BEEN THE SECOND TIME THAT THE VOTERS DECISIVE COMMUNICATION TO YOU AS COUNSEL IS TO NOT DO THIS AND YOU ARE UNDOING IT. IT IS NOT EASY TO STAND HERE AND SAY I WANT YOU TO DRAG OUT THE PROCESS BUT THERE IS NO RUSH TO DO IT. OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN A QUICK FIX AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS NOT JUST EMAILS THAT YOU TAKE BUT IT IS ALSO AT THE BALLOT. I STRONGLY OBJECT AND SAY YOU REPRESENT US. LET US TELL YOU WHAT TO DO AND NOT YOU

TELL US. >> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO

SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 16. >> ERIC BANGS , RESIDENT OF ABILENE. I ECHO WHAT TAMMY SAID. THIS WAS PUT IN PLACE BY THE PEOPLE OF ABILENE IN 2000. I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNDO WHAT WAS DONE. I AM IN FAVOR OF GETTING READY -- RID OF FLUORIDE BUT THERE IS NO RUSH. IT HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT AND WE HAVE SAFER WATER NOW. I AM BAFFLED AS TO WHY WE NEED TO PUSH THIS THROUGH. LET THE CITIZENS OF ABILENE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK IN AND SAY LET'S GET RID OF FLUORIDE BY VOTING. NOT BY CITY COUNCIL TELLING US WHAT

WE ARE GOING TO DO. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION?

>> KNOW . >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTION.

[00:40:03]

>> MY UNDERSTANDING, AND THIS IS PROBABLY EITHER STAN LEE OR MR. ROBERT BUT THE VOTE IN 2000 WAS NOT A BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT PASSED THE ORDINANCE. IT WAS A NONBINDING REFERENDUM TO UNDERSTAND THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. AND THEN THE COUNCIL PASSED THE ORDINANCE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT. >> I SAY THAT JUST TO POINT OUT THAT THE FIRST BALLOT INITIATIVE EVER THAT THE VOTERS VOTED ON LANGUAGE TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE WAS THE SANCTUARY CITY ORDINANCE. VOTERS DID NOT VOTE ON THIS. SO THE COUNCIL PASSED IT AND THE COUNCIL, REGARDLESS OF IF THEY DID THAT, THEY CAN CHANGE IT BUT THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS IF THE COUNCIL HAD CHANGED THE SANCTUARY CITY ORDINANCE. THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS. THE OVERWHELMING RESPONSE TO THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN PLEASE END FLUORIDATION AND AS WE ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE CITIZENS, IT IS THE SAME AS WHAT HAPPENED IN 2000. VOTERS VOTING ON A NONBINDING REFERENDUM. DOES

THAT HELP AT ALL? >> NO.

>> IT DOESN'T? >> WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS TODAY?

>> THIS IS BEFORE YOU BECAUSE THE MAYOR ASKED THAT WE MOVE THIS FORWARD AND WHAT I RECALL FROM THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT WHAT TOOK PLACE AT COUNSEL, THERE WOULD BE A TIME LIMIT FOR WHEN THE TEMPORARY STOP WOULD BE THERE. BUT THERE IS ALSO DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER COUNSEL SHOULD JUST END IT PERMANENTLY OR GO BACK TO THE VOTERS. THERE WAS NOT CLEAR DIRECTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THAT. WITH THE REQUEST OF THE MAYOR, AND IT JUST TAKES ONE PERSON TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION, WE HAVE WORDED THIS ORDINANCE SO THAT THE COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REPEAL THE ORDINANCE. IF COUNSEL CHOSE TO REPEAL THE ORDINANCE BY VOTING YES ON THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. IF COUNSEL CHOSE NOT TO PASS THIS AND IT FAILED, IF COUNSEL WANTED TO PERMANENTLY STOP IT WOULD NEED TO GO TO THE VOTERS. THE INTENT OF THIS ITEM IS TO FORCE THE DECISION ON THE COUNCIL THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACTION. SOMETIMES THE BEST WAY TO RESOLVE AN ARGUMENT IS TO PUT THE QUESTION FORWARD . THAT IS MY INTENTION,

TO SEE CLEAR DIRECTION. >> IF WE WERE TO VOTE THIS DOWN

WOULD IT TRIGGER --? >> IT WOULD NOT. WE TALKED ABOUT SANCTUARY CITY AND ONE THAT CAME BEFORE US WE AS A COUNSEL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PASS IT THAT DAY OR SEND IT TO THE VOTERS. I THOUGHT THIS WAS IMPORTANT FOR THEM BUT I FEEL THE SAME WAY WITH THIS. THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR THE VOTERS TO MAKE A DECISION ON. THAT IS JUST ME. I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE HYPOCRITICAL ON MY BEHALF TO HAVE SENT ONE TO THE VOTERS AND NOT SEND THE OTHER TO THE VOTERS.

>> I HAVE A STATEMENT AND THEN A QUESTION. I STRUGGLE WITH THE LOGIC OF YES, WE BELIEVE FLUORIDE IS TOXIC AND THERE ARE STUDIES THAT SUPPORT THAT BUT WE BELIEVE THE MAJORITY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON PUTTING A TOXIN IN THE WATERS SO, THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE TO START WITH AND THE TERMINATION OF FLUORIDATION STARTED WITH A COURT DECISION AND I BELIEVE SOME CREDIBLE INFORMATION THAT THERE ARE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IS THERE ARE POTENTIAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES THAT OUTWEIGH THE BENEFIT OF HAVING FLUORIDE IN THE WATER SUPPLY.

[00:45:07]

IF THAT JUSTIFIES THE REMOVAL IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE JUST SEND IT TO THE VOTER AND WE WERE ELECTED TO TAKE REACTION AND REACT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. THAT IS A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN THE SANCTUARY CITY ISSUE OR ANYTHING ELSE. MY QUESTION, I HAVE NOT READ ANYTHING. NOTICE WILL GO OUT TO EVERY SINGLE WATER USER THAT WE INTEND TO DO THIS AND WE HAVE TO PROVIDE 60 DAYS NOTICE SO THE PERMANENT REMOVAL WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL THAT TIME

ELAPSES? >> EVERY CUSTOMER WOULD GET

ONE. >> EVERYBODY THAT USES OUR WATER WILL GET A NOTICE THAT THIS IS HAPPENING AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT PREVENTS US FROM REVISITING THIS IF PEOPLE COME BACK AND SAY THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT. WE CAN ACT OR REPEAL OR WHATEVER. WE CAN CHANGE WHAT WE ARE DOING BASED ON FEEDBACK OVER THE COURSE OF A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

SO I DON'T SEE THE ISSUE. OF REPEALING NOW AND IF TIME GOES BY AND WE HEAR SOMETHING DIFFERENT WE CAN ACT ON THAT AT

THE TIME. >> I HAVE A SIMILAR OPINION BUT, I REREAD THE OPINION FROM THE COURT AND BASICALLY, MY TAKE FROM THAT IS THE JUDGE IS SAYING THERE ARE STUDIES THAT COULD BE DONE TO GIVE US A REAL NUMBER OF WHERE THE DANGER LEVEL IS SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE A STUDY, YOU TAKE THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO. SO HE DIRECTED THE EPA TO GO BACK AND EITHER RE-EVALUATE WITHIN THOSE STUDIES OR PERFORM THE STUDY SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE A TRUE LEVEL OF WHERE IT BECOMES DANGEROUS. SO THAT IS MY SUPPORT OF THE TEMPORARY ACTION. SO THE JUDGES RULING WAS WHERE WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE LINE IS INSTEAD OF RELYING ON THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO. IN MY VIEW IF WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE STATEMENT FROM THE JUDGE AND HIS RULING AS A PERMANENT ACTION ON OUR PART, HE IS USING WORST-CASE SCENARIO NUMBERS OF 0.04. I AM NOT READY TO GO THERE. WITH REGARD TO THE SAFETY ISSUE I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DECIDE HERE. I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO GO BACK FOR ANOTHER REFERENDUM ON SOMETHING THAT IS AN 80 PAGE DOCUMENT JUST FROM THE COURT CASE. I AM NOT COMFORTABLE GOING TO THE PERMANENT SOLUTION BECAUSE THE PERMANENT SOLUTION IMPLIES THAT WE WOULD BE REMOVING FLUORIDE, IN MY MIND, BY ACCEPTING THE SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATION. I AM IN FAVOR OF WAITING ON THE OUTCOME FROM THE EPA TO REEVALUATE, DO THE STUDIES AND COME UP WITH A MORE SCIENTIFIC ANSWER THEN WORST-CASE. WE SHOULD CONTINUE WITH WHAT WE HAVE AND NOT DO A PERMANENT CESSATION.

>> EVEN IF WE DECIDE NOT TO APPROVE THIS TODAY THE

TEMPORARY BAND STAYS IN EFFECT? >> YES .

>> HOW LONG CAN WE CALL IT TEMPORARY?

>> WE PUT PARAMETERS IN THERE. TWO YEARS OR FINAL REGULATIONS BY EPA. THE APPEAL PERIOD HAS NOT RUN YET. THERE ARE ABOUT TWO MORE WEEKS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO APPEAL. THAT

[00:50:01]

COULD BE A FACTOR AS WELL. WE PUT TWO YEARS AS THE OUTLINE

TIME PERIOD. >> ROBERT, IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO REMOVE A NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE?

>> FROM THE ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE STANDPOINT PEOPLE CAN DO THIS AT THEIR HOME WITH FILTRATION AND SOME CHOOSE TO DO THAT. WE DO NOT HAVE THAT ELTON TO OUR TREATMENT PLAN AT THIS TIME HOWEVER, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF TALKING AND DISCUSSING EXPANSION FOR THE FUTURE GROWTH OF ABILENE AND THE REMOVAL OF PFAS, ANOTHER CHEMICAL THE EPA SAYS NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. THE REMOVAL OF PFAS WOULD ALSO MEAN THE REMOVAL OF

FLUORIDE . CORRECT ? >> ANY IDEA WHAT THAT WOULD

COST? >> IT IS ABOUT $150 MILLION.

>> WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF FLUORIDE BUT THE

ADDING OF FLUORIDE? >> TODAY .

>> WHICH WE ARE NOT DOING TODAY. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THE NATURAL FLUORIDE WITH THIS DISCUSSION.

>> CORRECT. >> FOR ME, LOGICALLY, THAT IS THE ACTION WE ARE TAKING. THE DIRECTION IS IT HAS TO BE 0.04

TO BE CONSIDERED SAFE. >> WE ARE LOOKING AT THE DISCONTINUATION OF FLUORIDE IN OUR SYSTEM.

>> SAID TEMPORARILY THE EPA EITHER DOES IT OR WE COME BACK IN TWO YEARS. I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE WITHHOLDING OF ADDING FLUORIDE WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE EPA TO REDO THEIR NUMBERS. NOW IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT DO WE DO AS A RECOMMENDED LEVEL. WE DO HAVE .4 SO NOT ADDING, IT'S NOT LIKE THAT GOES TO ZERO.

>> SO, JUST TO GET RATIONAL MOVING FORWARD, WOULD YOU WANT

THIS TO GO TO A REFERENDUM? >> I THINK THIS IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE THAT IS IN FLUX. SO, THERE ARE THINGS THAT -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SCIENCE WAS THAT WAS PRESENTED IN 2000 WHEN IT WENT TO THE VOTERS. I LIVED HERE AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT WAS PRESENTED FROM THE CITY BEFORE THAT REFERENDUM. THIS IS LIKE THE SMOKING BAN. IT WAS A REFERENDUM , DO YOU WANT TO BAN SMOKING OR NOT? DO YOU WANT TO ADD FLUORIDE OR NOT? I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE LANGUAGE WAS.

>> I DON'T SHARE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ONLY PLACE THAT YOU CAN GO IS TO THE .03 OR FOUR OR WHATEVER. I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU HAVE TO DRAW FROM THE JUDGES RULING. THERE IS A DEMONSTRATED HARM AT HIGHER LEVELS , HIGHER LEVELS THAN WHAT WE HAVE. WHERE IS THAT LINE? AND THE EPA PAST INVESTIGATIONS ON THIS ARE INADEQUATE SO HE IS BASICALLY SAYING GO BACK AND TAKE ANOTHER

LOOK. >> THE .04, THAT IS THE EPA LOGIC ON HOW THEY TRACK HARMFUL MATERIALS OF ANY KIND. HE IS USING THEIR FORMULATION OR CALCULATION.

>> TO FORCE THEM TO DO AN EVALUATION. I DON'T PERSONALLY THINK THAT IS A GOOD NUMBER FOR THE EPA. THAT IS THE SAME APPROACH THEY ARE TAKING WITH THE PFAS. WHAT IS THE LEAST DETECTABLE LEVEL THAT WE CAN DETECT AND THAT IS THE LEVEL THAT WE WILL USE WITH NO ADDITIONAL DATA ON WHETHER IT IS HARMFUL. THAT IS A SIMILAR PARALLEL BUT A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

[00:55:06]

I DON'T THINK THE JUDGE IS SAYING THAT THIS IS A SAFE LEVEL OR THAT THE EPA IS SAYING THIS IS A SAFE LEVEL. I THINK THE EPA IS SAYING YOU HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH WORK ON THIS SUBJECT AND YOU HAVE TO DO MORE WORK. IN THE MEANTIME I SEE NO PRODUCTIVE USE IN CONTINUING TO ADD FLUORIDE TO OUR WATER. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INGESTED FLUORIDE VERSUS TOPICALLY APPLIED FLUORIDE IS LESS. FLUORIDE, TO BE APPLIED TOPICALLY WHETHER IT IS TOOTHPASTE OR A TREATMENT AT THE DENTIST IS WIDELY AVAILABLE AND EASY TO ACCESS. I DON'T FEEL LIKE ANYBODY IS BEING DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT CAVITIES BY US TAKING IT OUT OF THE WATER. THERE IS LITTLE DOWNSIDE TO US ENDING IT FOR ME, IF THE BENEFITS DON'T OUTWEIGH THE NEGATIVES THEN WE SHOULD JUST END IT AND I

SUPPORT ENDING IT IMMEDIATELY. >> THAT IS WHAT THE JUDGE HAS ASKED THE EPA TO DO. SHOULD THAT HAPPEN OR NOT? THAT IS WHY AM OKAY WITH TEMPORARY. LOGICALLY, IF YOU FOLLOWED THE DECISION BASED ON HIS DECISION, IT IS SAYING, EPA, HERE IS YOUR CALCULATION AND THIS IS THE LIMIT YOU WOULD END UP WITH WHICH IS 0.04. THAT IS THE NATURAL OUTCOME OF SAYING WE WILL FOLLOW THE JUDGES RULE. THAT IS WHERE I LAND. SO, TEMPORARY WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE EPA IS SUFFICIENT.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER --. >> I WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE RESIDENT CONCERNS. THROUGH A NONBINDING RESOLUTION WE CAN CHANGE AN ORDINANCE THAT WE CREATED WHETHER IT WAS REFERENDUM OR COUNSEL ORIGINATED BUT THE COUNCIL ENACTED THIS IN 2000 SO WE CAN CHANGE IT. I HAVE NO CONCERN AS FAR AS IF WE JUST STICK WITH THE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT. I HAVE NO CONCERNS ABOUT THE COUNCIL TAKING ON THIS ROLE TODAY. I THINK WHAT -- WHERE I VIEW IT IS THE JUDGE IS SAYING, THE TAKE AWAY FROM THE RULING WAS, WE AS A CITY AIR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. MAYBE THERE IS A DETRIMENT TO PUTTING FLUORIDE IN AND MAYBE NOT AT CERTAIN LEVELS BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN THIS. REMOVING IT, WE DO NOT KNOW WHERE THAT DATA IS. JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM THE RULING I THINK THE TAKE AWAY IS UNTIL IT IS CLEARED UP WE SHOULD BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED AND IT MAY NEVER BE CLEARED UP BUT WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK IN FIVE YEARS. THE FEDS DO NOT MOVE QUICKLY SO IT MIGHT BE A YEAR OR IT MIGHT BE FIVE. WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND SAY WITH THE NEW EPA DATA, MAYBE IT IS BENEFICIAL.

YOU HATE TO BE THAT FLIP-FLOP. MY RATIONALE WOULD BE LET'S NOT TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN PUTTING THE CHEMICAL IN. THEN IF WE NEED TO WE CAN AN ACT IT IF THERE IS A BENEFIT TO

CITIZENS. >> WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

>> MY POINT IS, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED UNLESS THERE IS AN OVERRIDING BENEFIT. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD . SO ABSENCE THE GREATER GOOD, ABSENT THAT, JUST BECAUSE WE CAN DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD. SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT KEEP THE FLUORIDE IN THERE? I DON'T SEE THAT WE SHOULD BUT WE CAN. IN MY OPINION, JUST BECAUSE WE CAN, THERE IS NO OVERRIDING REASON WHY WE SHOULD. IS THERE A BENEFIT? BUT

[01:00:09]

THERE IS ALSO A POTENTIAL HARM SO GIVEN THE DATA, MY POSITION, JUST AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IS, WE CAN BUT WE SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY BECAUSE THERE IS NO OVERRIDING REASON . DOES THAT

MAKE SENSE? >> THAT WE ACCOMPLISH THAT WITH THE TEMPORARY THAT WAS ENACTED MONTHS AGO AND THAT STARTED THE TWO-YEAR CLOCK. I'M NOT FOLLOWING IF YOU ARE ARGUING FOR PERMANENT OR COMFORTABLE WITH TEMPORARY?

>> I'M SAYING TAKING THE TEMPORARY ASIDE, LET'S SAY IT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST AND THE COUNCIL WAS JUST LOOKING AT IF WE SHOULD PERMANENTLY BAN OR NOT. IN MY OPINION WE DON'T HAVE A REASON TO ENTER THAT SPACE AND SAY YES TO FLUORIDE.

THERE IS NO OVERRIDING REASON WHY WE NEED TO BE IN THAT SPACE SO PUTTING THE TEMPORARY ASIDE, LOOKING AT IT , IF THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE IN THE SPACE AND WE

SHOULD NOT BE THERE. >> THERE ARE ARGUMENTS FROM THE DENTAL ASSOCIATION THAT IT IS NOT JUST CAVITIES. IT IS PHYSICAL HEALTH THAT IS POSITIVELY IMPACTED BY REDUCING CAVITIES AND FLUORIDE IS SHOWN TO REDUCE CAVITIES. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE THE EPA COMES FROM AND I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SUPPLEMENTING THAT BUT THE EPA HAS DIRECTION NOW TO DO THE RESEARCH AND THEY CAN CHOOSE NOT TO. WITH A NEW PRESIDENT COMING IN AND NEW CABINET MEMBERS, WE WILL SEE WHAT KENNEDY PUSHES FOR AND HIS POSITION AND HIS ROLE. IT MAY BE THAT THEY COME BACK AND THEY SAY WE NEED TO HAVE A MUCH LOWER LEVEL. WE MAY HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS WITH PFAS. I DON'T SEE A BENEFIT IN TAKING ACTION TODAY. A LOT CAN CHANGE IN THE NEXT TWO OR THREE MONTHS THAT MAY CAUSE NEW ACTION TO

TAKE PLACE. >> I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A BENEFIT AND THE BENEFIT IS THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS. IF WE DO NOT PASS THE PERMANENT BAND TODAY IT DOES NOT TRIGGER THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS AND RARELY DO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SUCH A COMPREHENSIVE MECHANISM TO GET FEEDBACK BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO REVISIT THIS IN A YEAR OR TWO YEARS OR ONE EVER. EVEN THOUGH WE USE THE WORD PERMANENT IT IS NOT REALLY PERMANENT. WE CAN AMEND THIS OR STRIKE IT AND GO BACK AND PASS ANOTHER ONE BUT PASSING THIS TRIGGERS EVERY SINGLE WATER METER CUSTOMER GETTING A NOTIFICATION AND RARELY DO WE HAVE THAT SCOPE OF NOTIFICATION WHERE IT HAS TO GO TO EVERYBODY. WE WILL HEAR BACK IN THAT TIMEFRAME. AND GIVES EVERYBODY THE OPPORTUNITY AND WE CAN SAY EVERY PERSON THAT HAS A WATER METER GOT NOTIFIED.

>> WE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION TODAY. WE IMPLEMENTED TEMPORARY IN LATE SEPTEMBER AT THE DIRECTION OF THE MAYOR AND AT A SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL MEETING , THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION WAS UPHELD. WE ARE NOT ADDING FLUORIDE AND THIS IS THE EPA RECOMMENDATION. THERE IS A COURT CASE THAT CAN EXPLAIN THE BULLET POINTS OF WHERE WE ARE. WE CAN CHOOSE TO NOTIFY THE

PUBLIC. >> I THINK THERE IS ENOUGH INFORMATION OUT THERE ON THE POTENTIAL DANGERS TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO STOP THIS. WE CAN'T SAY IT IS DANGEROUS BUT WE MIGHT KEEP IT IN. I AM IN AGREEMENT THAT LET'S TAKE IT OUT AND LET'S LET THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS WORK AND

SEE WHAT HAPPENS. >> I KNOW WE HAVE SOME STRONG OPINIONS. COUNCIL MEMBER CRAVER .

>> TO YOUR POINT, I SIDE MORE WITH SHANE BECAUSE WHEN I HEAR SOMEBODY SAYING WE ARE GOING TO TAKE AS IF IT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN TAKEN. WE HAVE ALREADY SUSPENDED FLUORIDE IN THE WATER

[01:05:04]

AS OF NOW AND I THINK -- I GUESS WHERE I AM HAVING A HARD TIME IS , WHAT IS THE MEASURED APPROACH TO WHERE WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY RESPONDING AND REACTING IN A WAY THAT WE HAVE NOT ALREADY TAKEN MEASURED APPROACHES. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS UNDERBELLY OF DANGER IN FLORIDA SO WE HAVE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED IT . WHAT I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS, YOU ARE SAYING, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, YOU ARE SAYING, TO YOU, BY REMOVING IT PERMANENTLY, YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE BECAUSE YOU FEEL IT COMMUNICATES A MORE DECISIVE APPROACH TO THE COMMUNITY OF WHAT ACTION WE HAVE TAKEN. IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

>> THERE IS A JUSTIFICATION TO TEMPORARILY REMOVE IT BECAUSE OF HEALTH SO AT WHAT POINT CAN THERE BE A JUSTIFICATION FOR KEEPING IT IN. WE ARE STOPPING WHAT WE ADD AND OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROBLEM, IF YOU WILL SO BY ENACTING THE PERMANENT BAN IT TRIGGERS A NOTIFICATION PROCESS THAT ALLOWS US THE AVENUE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK. FROM A LOGIC STANDPOINT , IF WE ARE SAYING IT IS DANGEROUS, LET'S TEMPORARILY TAKE IT OUT, WHILE I UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO DO THAT, IF IT IS DANGEROUS, LET'S TAKE IT OUT . IT IS A

SIMPLE THOUGHT PROCESS TO ME. >> I WANT TO PROVIDE ONE MORE PIECE OF INFORMATION. YOU LIKELY HEARD IT BUT THIS GOES TO THE POINT THAT SHANE MADE ABOUT THE .04 . BY IMPLEMENTING THE PFAS REQUIREMENTS, IT SHOULD BE REMOVING FLUORIDE TOO BECAUSE IT WILL BE A VERY SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY.

>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT NATURALLY OCCURRING FLUORIDE?

>> YES. >> I THINK THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ME ON WHY WE SHOULD TAKE ACTION TODAY IS, LET'S SAY THE EPA DOES A STUDY AND THEY COME BACK AND SAY THE CURRENT LEVEL OF WHAT WE DEEM SAFE IS .5 AND THEY COME BACK AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO ADJUST THAT TO 1.2 AND WE ARE GOING TO ADJUST IT TO 1.6. AT THAT TIME I WILL NOT BE IN FAVOR OF ADDING FLUORIDE BACK TO THE WATER TO REACH THE 1.6 LEVEL.

FUTURE ACTIONS, SHORT OF GOING TO THE EXTREME, THE .0 FOR MINIMUM LEVEL THAT THE JUDGE WENT WITH THAT HE IS USING TO MAKE THE EPA DO SOMETHING, THEY MIGHT COME BACK AND SAY IT TURNS OUT THAT IS THE RIGHT LEVEL BUT I STILL WILL NOT BE IN FAVOR OF RESUMING FLUORIDATION IN THE WATER . I THINK WE SHOULD PUT THIS TO BED AND IF THINGS CHANGE WE CAN ADDRESS THAT WHEN IT HAPPENS BUT LEAVING THIS AS AN OPEN ITEM WITH A TIME LIMIT THAT WE HAVE TO MONITOR AND PAY ATTENTION TO COURT CASES AND ALL OF THAT, I THINK REALLY IS NOT THE INTENT OR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. THE ONLY POSITIVE FEEDBACK THAT I HAVE SEEN HAS BEEN FROM A HANDFUL OF DENTISTS AND, LIKE I SAID, THIS ONLY REMOVES ONE AVENUE , THE ADJUSTED FLUORIDE. NOBODY IS BANNING FLUORIDE. NOBODY SAYS YOU CAN'T BRUSH HER TEETH OR GO TO THE DENTIST. IT IS STILL AVAILABLE AND MORE EFFECTIVE TOPICALLY APPLIED. MY ANSWER IS, IS THE ANSWER DOES NOT CHANGE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE

EPA SAYS. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THIS. YOU SAID THAT ANYBODY CAN BRUSH THEIR TEETH OR GO TO THE DENTIST. NOT EVERYONE CAN DO THAT . MONEY TO GO TO THE DENTIST IS NOT SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE CAN DO.

[01:10:10]

I MAYBE THAT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT CANNOT AFFORD THAT AND FOR SOME PEOPLE THE ONLY FLUORIDE THAT THEY GET IS IN THE DRINKING WATER THAT IS NATURALLY OCCURRING. WE MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYBODY CAN GO TO TO THE DENTIST AND GET A FLUORIDE TREATMENT BUT NO, THEY

CAN'T. >> WE HAVE SOME VERY STRONG OPINIONS HERE TODAY AND I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION. WE ARE ELECTED AND SOMETIMES WE ARE ELECTED TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS. I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A DECISION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE. WE ARE ELECTED TO MAKE THESE DECISION AT TIMES AND FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. IF THERE IS AN INKLING THIS COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO HEALTH THEM WE NEED TO ACT ON IT. THAT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. WITH THAT BEING SAID , I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DISCONTINUE THE ADDITION OF FLUORIDE

PERMANENTLY. >> I WILL SECOND IT.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE ARE READY TO VOTE.

>> I HAVE TWO NOS AND THE REST ARE YESES . THE MOTION CARRIES.

>> THANK YOU TO THE PUBLIC FOR THEIR INVOLVEMENT AND ALL OF

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE HAD ON THAT ITEM.

>> THAT WAS A GOOD DISCUSSION. >> IT IS NOW 9:42 A.M. WE WILL NOW RETIRE INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS MATTERS LISTED BELOW, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE NOTED TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS: A. 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY. B.

551.072, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT REAL PROPERTY. C. 551.073, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT GIFTS AND DONATIONS. D. 551.074, PERSONNEL MATTERS. E. 551.076, DELIBERATIONS ABOUT SECURITY DEVICES. F. 551.087,

[RECONVENE]

>>> IT IS NOW 10:23 A.M. AND WE RECONVENE IN REGULAR SESSION.

[18. Resolution: Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion and Public Hearing, and Take Action on Appointing Members to Various Boards and Commissions per the City Charter (Shawna Atkinson)]

>> IT IS NOW 10:20 3 AM AND WE RE- CONVENE -- RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. NO ACTIONS WERE TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 18 , ACTION ON APPOINTMENT APPOINTING MEMBERS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM?

>> TAMMY FOGEL, COMMUNITY MEMBER. YOU DID THIS LAST TIME.

I DID NOT GET TO BE HERE FOR THIS LAST TIME. I AM GLAD TO SEE THE SCREEN FOR WHO IS BEING APPOINTED BECAUSE, I KNOW LIKE BILL DUGGER HAS BEEN SERVING THE COMMUNITY IN A LOT OF WAYS.

THE LAST TWO EVENTS NO NAME WAS MENTIONED. I AM JUST PREEMPTIVELY SAYING HIS NAME BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY THE NAMES AND NOT JUST A MOTION TO APPROVE. THE APPOINTMENTS, I REALIZE IT WAS ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO WHEN I FIRST SPOKE AT A COUNCIL MEETING AND I WILL SAY I HAVE COME A LONG WAY . IT IS SO INTIMIDATING TO BE UP HERE.

WHEN PEOPLE ARE UP HERE THERE IS A LOT OF PRESSURE. IT IS REALLY EASY TO THINK -- YOU CAN COME ACROSS AS A BIT MORE INTENSE THAN YOU MEAN TO OR YOU CAN DO THINGS OUT OF ORDER. I

[01:15:03]

AM A REALLY FRIENDLY PERSON MOST OF THE TIME. WE HAVE HAD MOSTLY FRIENDLY ENGAGEMENTS OUTSIDE OF HERE. I WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND I'M TRYING TO LEARN HOW TO BECOME MORE PERSONABLE BUT, WE ARE ALL ABOUT BUSINESS HERE. I AM THANKFUL BECAUSE OF THE LAST THREE YEARS I HAVE BEEN PRESSING IN AND THE PEOPLE THAT HERE ARE PART OF THE WORLD THAT I LIVE IN. JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE WAY THAT WE SERVE THE COMMUNITY ARE HERE. PRICING THOSE NAMES AND ACKNOWLEDGING THOSE, ESPECIALLY THOSE LIKE BILL DUGGER WHO IS BEING REAPPOINTED. SOME PEOPLE GET TO SERVE ON BOARDS BUT NOT ALL OF US DO AND WE LIKE TO HONOR THOSE THAT ARE INVESTING THE TIME AND ENERGY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY WORKS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND . >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MCALISTER AND A SECOND BY REGAN. WE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Jan 09, 2025 City Council

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item