A group opposed to East Cobb cityhood is criticizing an independent financial review that concluded that a proposed city would be fiscally viable.
The five-member Independent Financial Group, consisting of East Cobb residents who are finance and legal experts, volunteered to examine a Georgia State University feasibility study and issued its report in September.
The East Cobb Alliance, which formed over the summer to oppose cityhood, said in a posting on its Facebook page over the weekend that “in the beginning, there were 5 people on the IFG, but the 5th guy resigned when he couldn’t stomach the baloney the other 4 were proposing…and, ‘baloney’ is putting it nicely.”
(Shailesh Bettadapur, a member of the IFG group, resigned two days before the report was released, according to Bill Green, another member of the review group.)
The ECA post further stated that “several members of ECA who have choked their way through reading this document consider it nothing but a bunch of mumbo-jumbo malarkey.”
The East Cobb Alliance took issue with the report above all over fire services. The Committee for Cityhood in East Cobb had state legislation introduced in March that would create a city of East Cobb with police, fire and community development services.
The ECA noted in its posting that in the IFG report, members of the review group and the cityhood group “are concerned the [GSU feasibility] Study may not have included all necessary fire protection expenditures.”
The ECA post continued:
“This is a group of 4 people, NONE of whom have ANY experience in the fire protection services world. No one on the GSU research team had ANY experience in fire protection services. No one on the Pro-Cityhood Committee has ANY clue as to what it takes to operate an effective fire department.
“Our County Fire Department, and our personal lives and property, should NOT be subjected to the whims of fools who have NO IDEA of what it takes to assemble, hire, train, OR operate a world-class Fire Department like we have right now.
“Tell your friends and neighbors about this IDIOCY being pushed upon us.”
The GSU feasibility study estimated an annual fire budget of $5.9 million. According to the IFG report (read it here), a city finance director in a nearby municipality said a City of East Cobb may have relatively lower costs for fire because it “has a low proportion of multi-unit residential housing and fewer tall buildings.”
The IFG, in its report, added $4 million for fire expenses estimates “as a placeholder” pending further budgeting information becoming available.
The East Cobb cityhood bill includes a proposed municipality of around 96,000 people, and five fire stations currently part of the Cobb County Fire and Emergency Services Department.
The ECA in recent days has examined other aspects of the cityhood proposal, including the possible purchase and use of the East Cobb Government Services Center on Lower Roswell Road, and the proposed cost of buying those five fire stations for the new city from the county.
The ECA also claims that a new City of East Cobb fire department “will not have the resources” to provide the top certified level of protection, also known as ISO-1. Cobb is one of around 240 fire departments nationwide to have that status, which is given by the Insurance Services Office, a non-profit that provides insurance information, including for fire and building codes.
“Should we kill a great Fire Department to build a new police department? Seems like kind of a weird trade-off,” the ECA asks.
Another topic covers police and jail services that have been proposed by the cityhood group. The GSU feasibility study suggested a 140-officer East Cobb police force, nearly double the number of officers on patrol in Cobb Police Precinct 4, which covers an area well beyond the proposed city lines. Currently Precinct 4 has a staffing of around 50 response officers, a shortage of less than 20 for what it’s been allocated.
“That just seems very bizarre to us when the land area will be half of their current coverage,” concluded the ECA. “Why should we vote to form a new city to correct a deficiency of 16 people . . . when the coverage territory of a new city will be 50% of the original precinct territory? For all we know, 71 people may be the ideal force for a PCEC.”
The East Cobb Alliance and the East Cobb cityhood group have been invited to a Nov. 12 forum hosted by the East Cobb Business Association.
The day before, on Nov. 11, the cityhood group will hold a town hall meeting at Wheeler High School.
The cityhood group’s public events, which follow town halls in the spring, also tentatively will include more meetings after the first of the year, when the Georgia legislature would take up the East Cobb cityhood bill.
That bill would have to pass the entire General Assembly for a cityhood referendum to take place in 2020.
Related stories
- East Cobb Business Association to hold cityhood forum
- Cityhood leader: Independent review “confirms” financial viability
- Financial review group: No police services to start
- Visit the East Cobb News Cityhood page
Get Our Free E-Mail Newsletter!
Every Sunday we round up the week’s top headlines and preview the upcoming week in the East Cobb News Digest. Click here to sign up, and you’re good to go!
How can the people pushing this ridiculous idea eliminate a key rationale and then say it’s still just as good an idea? In other words, it was an important reason before but it’s not important now. So then it really wasn’t important in the first place. Kind of undermines the truthfulness of the whole cityhood push.
It isn’t baloney, it’s bullshit.
Appreciate East Cobb Alliance support this group 100%. We do not need another layer of government.
East Cobb cityhood is being pushed without real underlying reasons that make sense to the population. It is different than Sandy Springs’ decades-long push to cityhood because East Cobb’s services are very good to excellent and not highly disproportionate to tax investment, as it was with Sandy Springs and Fulton County. This is why the effort is meeting opposition.