The group pushing for East Cobb Cityhood is demanding that Cobb government officials stop holding town hall meetings and making public statements about the four upcoming Cityhood referendums in the county, including a May 24 vote in East Cobb.
Craig Chapin, chairman for the Committee for East Cobb Cityhood, sent a letter on Monday to Cobb Commission Chairwoman Lisa Cupid, alleging that the county is actively “campaigning against the referendums.” More:
“Based on the available facts, it appears Cobb County has violated Georgia law in its efforts to defeat the four Cityhood initiatives in Cobb County’s respective Referendums. Cobb County has, at the least, allowed county officials and employees to oppose Cityhood efforts, on County time and through official County channels. And they have done so by promoting baseless speculation in the guise of ‘education.’ Worse, the County’s ‘education’ consists of half-truths and even outright lies.”
The Cityhood group’s letter demands that the county also using public resources “to oppose the Cityhood Referendums. We have previously expressed our concern on the implicit and explicit bias in Cobb County’s awareness campaign and activities with the opposition ballot committee(s) to a group of Cobb executives. Not only has the unlawful behavior not been curtailed, but it also continues at an increasing velocity.”
You can read the full letter by clicking here; copies were sent to the other four Cobb commissioners, County Manager Jackie McMorris and County Attorney Bill Rowling.
Cityhood committee spokeswoman Cindy Cooperman also forwarded a copy of the letter to East Cobb News.
Cobb communications director Ross Cavitt told East Cobb News late Tuesday afternoon that Rowling is preparing a formal reply to the letter, and insisted that the county’s efforts are neutral.
“We’re not trying to take sides on this,” Cavitt said. “We’re trying to provide information to the many questions we’re getting from the public” about the cityhood initiatives “and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.”
Cobb officials were holding their fourth in a series of Cityhood town hall meetings Tuesday evening at the Cobb Civic Center, and a town hall for the Vinings referendum is scheduled for next week.
They held a meeting in late March at the Sewell Mill Library and Cultural Center (ECN coverage here) and have created what county officials are calling a Cityhood Resource Center.
The East Cobb Cityhood committee’s letter accuses Cobb officials of using county resources to participate in legislative hearings and activities when the East Cobb bill was being considered in the Georgia General Assembly.
In particular, Cupid is accused of “unlawfully” engaging “without the approval of the BOC [Board of Commissioners],” a lobbyist to fight the bill.
That lobbyist was identified as former Cobb Commission Chairman Sam Olens. His law firm, Dentons, has been hired by the county to do lobbying, but Cupid has said publicly Olens has not lobbied on the cityhood issues.
The letter also alleges that county officials shared “misleading, incomplete and factually inaccurate information” about the financial impact to the county budget should all four Cityhood referendums (East Cobb, Lost Mountain, Vinings and Mableton) pass.
The county is saying the loss to its annual budget would come to $41 million and savings would amount to $4.3 million; the East Cobb Cityhood group says it “is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts by the county with the intent to dissuade voters. The county has disclosed it intends to redeploy these funds for other roles not currently filled having nothing to do with the Cityhood efforts.”
The letter doesn’t indicate what it thinks the actual financial numbers are. (While Cobb officials have said fire services in the proposed City of East Cobb would be $12 million a year, a financial feasibility study conducted for the East Cobb Cityhood group estimates the annual expenses would come to $5.7 million.)
The East Cobb Cityhood group’s letter also states that Cavitt and Cobb commissioner Jerica Richardson attended a meeting of the anti-Cityhood East Cobb Alliance in March, and that “neither has made any attempt” to attend or participate in East Cobb Cityhood group public meetings.
“This demonstrates a clear bias and is evidence of supporting the anti-city campaign,” the letter states.
The letter took issue with comments by Cobb public safety officials who’ve said response times in a City of East Cobb would increase (East Cobb is the only one of the four proposed cities that would provide police, fire and E-911 services).
The East Cobb Cityhood group also is accusing the county of providing “misleading and inflammatory literature” at town hall meetings.
The East Cobb group is demanding that questions directed to the county about cityhood “shall be funneled through a named and appropriate resource at the director higher or level.”
The group also wants the county to allow Cityhood groups to “respond and share data and responses to the County’s questions and information.”
Finally, the East Cobb Cityhood group is saying its letter is also serving as an open records request for the county to provide how it prepared financials and have the county commission a state-approved university to conduct an impartial third-party financial analysis of the four cityhood ballot measures.
The letter concludes:
“Cobb County is knowingly presenting biased, incomplete, and inaccurate information to the public. Meanwhile, the County has stated that it has no official position on the cityhood initiatives. While this disclaimer implies neutrality, Cobb County’s behavior has been anything but neutral. As far as we are aware, no County official has ever said anything positive about the cityhood proposals. In fact, Cobb’s desire to thwart the Cityhood efforts are clear as highlighted above and designed to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in citizens’ minds—illegally influencing their vote.”
The first of two debates on East Cobb Cityhood will take place next Tuesday at Olde Towne Athletic Club. The debate between the Committee for East Cobb Cityhood and the East Cobb Alliance is sold out.
The East Cobb Business Association, which is sponsoring the event, said it would be recorded and posted on its website.
Related:
- East Cobb Cityhood group slams Vinings referendum lawsuit
- Anti-Cityhood sign to be removed from shopping center
- County officials take Cityhood town halls to East Cobb
- ECBA, Rotary Club to hold cityhood debates
- GOP special election candidate opposes cityhood
- East Cobb News Cityhood information 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!
“The East Cobb Cityhood group’s letter also states that Cavitt and Cobb commissioner Jerica Richardson attended a meeting of the anti-Cityhood East Cobb Alliance in March, and that “neither has made any attempt” to attend or participate in East Cobb Cityhood group public meetings.”
HUH?!?
How many public events have these whiny baby Cityhood folks HAD?
In addition to trying to silence the county, the cityhood leaders have turned down opportunities to debate the merits of cityhood; most recently they rejected an offer to host a debate by the East Cobb Business Association. With the 2 other events sold out and cityhood events limited to those within the proposed boundaries and only taking screened questions, why won’t the cityhood leaders agree to more information sessions where both proponents and opponents can provide real facts and data? Censoring the county and denying the validity of their analyses is giving us a glimpse of what a city of East Cobb will be like when it comes to zoning, increased taxes and fees, and other important decisions that will affect the residents of East Cobb. Public input will be quashed.
Yet another example of the pro city group attempting to silence anyone who shines a light on this effort and the potential impacts.
Everyone should examine how the pro city group plans to fund the proposed city without a tax increase.
Cobb will be transferring approximately $12.7M (2.86 mils) every year to the proposed city for fire protection.
That’s almost half of the proposed city’s revenue.
But, instead of using all that money to fund the city fire department, they deliberately chose to DEFUND the city FD, and use over half of that money to fund other city expenses — so they could claim in the Feasibility Study that the proposed city was financially viable without a tax increase.
The Feasibility Study lists an estimate of only $5.7M for the city fire department.
This estimate is based on other ISO 2 rated cities — LOWER than the current ISO 1 excellent level of service in Cobb.
Only 1.2% of US fire departments have an ISO 1 rating.
Cobb County FD estimated its cost to cover the proposed city is nearly $12.4M — over TWICE as much.
This is to continue the current ISO 1 level of service — the highest level.
And for comparison, Marietta, another ISO 1 rated Cobb city — with a similar population (60,000) and size (24 square miles) — has a budget of more than $13M.
So Cobb’s estimate for ISO 1 level of service IS comparable.
The pro city group continues to ignore these facts and claims that the difference is due to Cobb County “overcharging.”
A fire department with a budget of $5.7M can’t provide the same level of service as one with a budget of $12.4M.
The pro city group claims that a future intergovernmental agreement will fill in the gaps.
But, there’s NO estimate of this expense in the Feasibility Study.
The bottom line — the pro city group prioritized the city’s financial viability over public safety — by critically underfunding the city Fire Department.
This is a serious public safety issue that can’t be ignored.
I have so many friends living on the other side of the “wall” who are fearing for the degradation of overall cobb services… as these proposed “cities” attempt to pull away. All citizens and leaders deserve to be heard. NOT JUST the “financiers” of this city hood attempt.
Perfectly in character for the dishonest and secretive proponents of this illogical city hood scheme. Does not promote good relationships should this maneuver succeed. City hood proponents have been demanding, conspiracy addicted, and manipulative. Unfortunately I will not be able to vote against this scheme since I live one street over from the city that promises to pay less taxes and achieve better services. Good luck with that.
This is so wrong. You are being affected and deserve a say. Your services will be downgraded as tax dollars are pulled from the county and Emergency Services shuffled.