Late last week East Cobb News conducted an interview with State Rep. Matt Dollar, an East Cobb Republican who for the second time is sponsoring a cityhood bill for a portion of East Cobb.
His bill will be taken up in the 2022 session of the Georgia General Assembly, and if it passes the legislature, a referendum would be held in November 2022 of registered voters within the proposed city boundaries on whether to create a City of East Cobb.
(You can read through the full text of HB 841 by clicking here.)
He said this renewed initiative is stronger than the 2019 effort, which East Cobb Cityhood leaders later abandoned after several town hall meetings and a public forum that included an opposition group.
(You can read previous stories on our Cityhood resource page.)
There are numerous changes from the 2019 bill, from services (planning and zoning, code enforcement and parks and recreation) to the form of government (weak mayor-city council) to the size a City of East Cobb (around 55,000).
The revamped East Cobb Cityhood group is having a virtual town hall with its leaders and Dollar on April 14.
Before answering our questions, Dollar prefaced his remarks:
“One of the biggest things I’m addressing right now for people with questions—most think this is the same ballot initiative as last time.
“Based on feedback from the last two years, there is a new map, a new city-lite model, and new governance framework. There is a new group leading the effort, committed to educating the voters, and leaving no questions unanswered.
“People want to know if this will raise taxes. The feasibility study will be completed in the next few months. I am very confident it will come back as being tax neutral to homeowners.
“The cost to cover the limited services of code enforcement, parks, and zoning, will be very minimal. And our tax base is extremely strong.
“Additionally, moving forward the council cannot raise the tax rate (millage rate) without a vote and approval of majority of registered voters in the city. This is a much higher threshold than just a simple majority of those that vote.
“From the map, to transparency, to even the ballot question—the new effort and bill address every major concern that was previously voiced.”
What follows is from an e-mail exchange between Dollar and East Cobb News that’s been lightly edited for style.
ECN: Why are the city boundaries so different from two years ago? This looks like most of the Walton attendance zone with areas west—including most of the Wheeler attendance zone—taken out. This doesn’t impact the schools but some readers have been wondering.
Dollar: The map is a result of two years of feedback and input from the community. People wanted a more cohesive map, and many felt the proposed city was too large.
This map doesn’t go as far south, west, or north as the last proposed map. The eastern border is still the same, the county line.
When I asked people “where is East Cobb?” the area most mentioned was the Johnson Ferry corridor. This map starts at Johnson Ferry where it crosses the river, and stops at the top end of Johnson Ferry at Shallowford Road. Johnson Ferry runs almost exactly down the center of the map. And I find this very interesting. If you look on Google Maps, the label “East Cobb” sits on the intersection of Johnson Ferry and Roswell Road. That intersection is located in the direct center of the proposed map.
This map is very compact, cohesive, with clean boundaries.
Why the change from a mayor-council form of government that was in the 2019 bill to the six-member council format with a mayor chosen by a majority vote?
I think the objective of cityhood is to keep East Cobb as unchanged as possible. With the authority spread out over a city council and a weak mayor position, it’s set up so a single person cannot come in with a “Vision For East Cobb.” We have seen what can happen with that—right over in Sandy Springs. People believe the “vision” of East Cobb should be what it already is.
To help ensure this, all actions of the council will require a super-majority vote. So for any action to be taken, it must have very broad support. Support from council members, who I believe will run on policies opposed to high density residential development, and over commercial development.
This idea came from feedback, and is based on the way the Cobb School Board is set up.
The Lost Mountain cityhood initiative in west Cobb is also following this same model.
What’s behind having three districts with two members each and one at-large instead of six districts? If I recall the 2019 bill had six districts.
This is actually not accurate. There will be just the six members (two from each district) and all would be elected at-large.
Because this proposed map is much smaller (about half the size of the map two years ago), six districts would mean each one would be extremely small. But the number of districts is not overly important, because the six posts will not be running just in a specific district, but will be elected citywide. This will make them accountable to everyone. And importantly, having three districts ensures there is representation from across the city.
Compensation for council members will be low, $8,000 a year—in line with other city-lite models like Peachtree Corners.
All six members would be elected city-wide. The six members will elect one among them to serve as mayor, for a two-year term. The role of mayor is mostly ceremonial. And very importantly, all actions taken by the council must be a super-majority vote. The idea is to keep East Cobb the same, and for any council action to happen, it must be a very good idea with strong consensus. And a very weak mayor position helps ensure that no one person will have a lot of say over our community.
When will there be a district map available?
The federal government will send population data from the 2020 Census to states in August or September. Districts can be drawn at that time.
When were you approached about filing another cityhood bill? At an East Cobb Business Association candidates forum last October you sounded like you were done with this. Did something change or were you still interested in pursuing a cityhood bill this year?
During this session I was contacted by a number of people asking if I was going to introduce another referendum bill. A new group of people decided they wanted the opportunity to vote. I gave them the feedback I’d received over the last two years, the positive and the not so positive. And the result is the new, simpler map, and extremely city-lite framework. Since then, several people have contacted me who originally did not support cityhood, who really like this plan.
They feel having local control over what gets done in our community (we have none now), while not increasing taxes is a good thing.
You also said at that forum that you thought the cityhood group didn’t do a good job selling its proposal. Do you feel differently about this, and are you more confident taking this legislation into the 2022 session?
I don’t think the first group working on this quite new what they were getting into. For everyone involved, this was their first time working on anything like this. Also, this was a brand new idea for everyone here, and new ideas are hard at first.
The citizen group leading this referendum effort is a different collection of people than the previous. I think they learned lessons from the initiative started three years ago. The new condensed map, and entirely new city-lite model are all evidence to that. I also think having watched the process last time has provided them with better ideas and understanding how to educate the community.
They are very committed to being open, transparent, and leaving no question unanswered.
Related content:
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!
Like this:
Like Loading...
