By this time next week, a bill calling for a referendum to create a City of East Cobb may have passed the Georgia legislature and would await with the signature of Gov. Brian Kemp.
After only 10 days of legislative action, HB 841 easily has flown through the House and a seven-member Senate committee, and likely will be acted on by the full Senate this week.
Although the East Cobb bill was submitted nearly a year ago, that the legislation has taken on dramatic and confusing new dimensions since November, and especially in the last three weeks.
After filing an initial bill with a “city light” set of proposed services—planning and zoning, code enforcement and parks and recreation—then-State Rep. Matt Dollar brought a substitute bill with him to the State Capitol when the 2022 session began.
Instead, it included police and fire services—a controversial part of the initial East Cobb cityhood bill that was abandoned in 2019—along with planning and zoning and code enforcement.
Those were services that were evaluated in a financial feasibility study conducted by Georgia State University researchers and released in November.
That was the first surprise. Cityhood leaders said at the time that there was “unilateral” support for police and fire services from citizens they surveyed over several months, but they never bothered to tell the public about it until the study was done.
After a House committee approved Dollar’s substitute in mid-January, the East Cobb Republican lawmaker came back to the same panel to amend his bill a week later.
That’s because his bill would move up the referendum date to allow voters in the proposed East Cobb boundaries to decide on cityhood from November to May.
So would the three other cityhood bills in Cobb County—Vinings, Lost Mountain and Mableton—that are currently before the legislature.
After the initial committee meeting, Dollar also was questioned extensively about a governance structure that would have six city council members, who would choose a mayor from among themselves every two years.
So Dollar amended his substitute bill yet again, to still have six council members—with two each living in one of three districts—and a mayor elected directly, citywide.
The House Governmental Affairs Committee also heard from Cobb Commission Chairwoman Lisa Cupid, who said the county was still assessing the financial impact of cityhood and that she wanted voters to have more complete information.
While the county has had more than a year to prepare for this moment, the significant change in services in East Cobb, plus additional changes since the bill has been considered in the legislature, should prompt a pause.
What’s the rush to having a referendum in May? Not just in East Cobb, but in the other three proposed cities?
They comprise more than 200,000 people, or roughly a quarter of Cobb’s population, and voters are being asked to consider significant changes to their local governance. These shouldn’t be rammed through the legislature and then onto the May 24 primary ballot.
Dollar—who abruptly resigned his seat in the legislature this week after the House transferred his bill to the Senate—said it was to avoid having a special election in early 2023 for city council elections, should an East Cobb referendum pass in November.
But Cobb taxpayers will soon be footing the bill for a special election to fill the rest of Dollar’s unexpired term, with his successor likely serving only in a caretaking role after the legislative session is over.
At a Senate committee hearing on Thursday, State Rep. Ed Setzler, an Acworth Republican who’s sponsoring the East Cobb and Lost Mountain bills, was asked if he would delay the East Cobb referendum to November.
“The consensus among the community was to get moving,” Setzler said, not bothering to explain who those community members may be.
Another committee member who wanted to see the proposed city council districts that haven’t been released in map form asked to table a motion to favorably report the bill, but that failed.
Most of those doing the questioning on Cobb cityhood bills in the legislature have been Democrats. But Republicans easily control the Georgia legislature, and since Democrats took control of the Cobb Board of Commissioners last year, GOP members of the Cobb delegation have been busy with cityhood bills (the Mableton bill has two Democratic co-sponsors, one of whom voted for the East Cobb bill).
Concerns over controlling development and growth are the focal points of those bills. When the East Cobb bill was filed last year, I thought it was a vast improvement over the 2019 effort, which never made sense with its focus on police and fire services.
The GSU feasibility study for the current bill is scant on details about how an East Cobb city of about 60,000 people could afford and fund full-service public safety services. There would be one police precinct and two fire stations, but the financials are basically line items about annual revenues and expenditures.
The main revenue source would be the 2.86 mills in the current Cobb Fire Fund.
There’s not much in the study about the true cost for salaries and benefits (including pensions) for 71 police officers and an unspecified number of firefighters. Nothing is in the study about expenses needed to train and equip them.
Those aren’t the only areas where the feasibility study conclusions just don’t add up. That’s why the East Cobb bill should be amended to push back the referendum to November.
Voters deserve the time to educate themselves about the issues and to be able to question the lawmakers and cityhood supporters who are putting this before them.
That hasn’t happened since late last summer, before public safety services were added to the financial study, and before the fast-moving event taking place now at the Gold Dome.
There should be public, in-person or hybrid town halls—not the virtual-only meetings that have taken place over the last year—for those purposes. They could be done this spring and fall, as the previous cityhood group did in 2019.
But those pushing the East Cobb bill in the legislature don’t seem to be interested in that.
(None of whom, by the way, actually live in East Cobb with Dollar departed. State Rep. Sharon Cooper is a co-sponsor of the bill and voted for it in the House, but didn’t speak during floor debate. State Sen. Kay Kirkpatrick is more supportive than two years ago but she is running for re-election in a district that doesn’t have the proposed city of East Cobb and is not a sponsor of the bill.)
East Cobb cityhood supporters have been making the repeated point that that citizens deserve the right to have a referendum.
I agree that they do, but the feasibility study they commissioned is flawed and the legislation that is built around it has changed a lot in such a short amount of time.
It needs to be improved before those voters go to the polls.
Related:
- Democrat announces campaign for Ga. House special election
- East Cobb Cityhood bill passes Senate committee
- Cupid speaks out on cityhood, redistricting issues
- Cobb Republicans file bill to redistrict county commission seats
- East Cobb Cityhood bill sponsor resigns from legislature
- Cobb Republicans file school board redistricting bill
- East Cobb Cityhood bill passes Georgia House
- East Cobb News Cityhood page
- East Cobb News Politics & Elections guide
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!
Exactly! It would appear that the fascist tendencies of big developers and power-mad politicians are bound & determined to steamroll the residents of Cobb County for their own massive gain.
I guess the real question is do you want your tyrant to be from East Cobb or from South Cobb?
Well said. I second the motion. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it. Resident of Marietta for 40 years. Alice Schrutt
What’s more expensive? A special referendum that’s been on the radar for a year or an expensive, taxpayer funded lobbyist hired unilaterally by an elected official trying to consolidate her power. Why the need to lobby AGAINST the PEOPLE’s vote? Is this an attempt by Cupid to “disenfranchise” her own constituents? I thought democrats were against voter suppression?
As State Rep. Teri Anulewicz correctly puts it, as proposed this is not a “city,” it’s a gigantic HOA. And we all know how well HOAs operate
That’s how many of us here in East Cobb feel as well. Many of us. including myself are completely against this and want to see it dead and buried and I hope it gets shot down by a wide margin if it makes it to the ballot.
Some red flags for the proposed city and the current bill:
1. Residents would pay both city taxes and county taxes.
The city council can raise the millage rate to 1 mill for the city property tax without voter approval.
And they can also levy a new ad valorem tax on personal property without voter approval.
2. Residents will pay higher franchise fees — for cable, electricity, gas, and landline phones.
3. Resident’s homeowners insurance will likely increase because the city will have a new fire department, with a lower fire rating.
4. The Feasibility Study is inaccurate and incomplete.
No funding is listed for the Municipal Court, the Court/Town Hall building, the retirement plan, or fire trucks, ladders, fire protection gear, etc. What other expenses have been omitted or forgotten?
5. There will only be 2 fire stations.
For comparison, Marietta (which is comparable in population and size) has 6 fire stations. This is a critical safety issue.
6. Council members will be elected by the entire city, not the district they are representing.
For comparison, for the Cobb Board of Commissioners, only those who live in that district can vote for their commissioner.
7. There have been NO public hearings on the current bill.
8. If this bill passes the GA Senate, the voting date will be May 24, the primary election date — when there’s typically a low voter turnout.
And this date does not allow Cobb County time to complete impact studies.
9. Real estate developers are providing a significant amount of funding for the pro city effort.
Owen Brown — who has a Florida address — has already spent over $66K on a feasibility study and lobbyists. He owns a company that specializes in building strip malls and larger malls.
And his company already owns 3 strip malls that are located in the proposed city boundaries.
And as a reminder, only those who live within the proposed city boundaries are eligible to vote on this.
This is a very convincing response. Please send it as a letter to the Marietta Daily Journal and the AJC. Thanks.
Second response to J: Again, this is the most concise, informed, and yet thorough detailing of problems in the “city” proposals. It needs much further publication. Do you mind if I cite your letter as support in my efforts in calling for responsible and complete discussion of the plan and a delay to November for a vote?
The city hood is another layer of government that will require citizens to pay more taxes. As a lifelong Republican, I am not in favor of more taxes and big government. East Cobb is fine the way that it is.
Wendy,
You wrote an excellent article that does what the press is supposed to do, but sadly, we don’t see much of that these days. Holding politicians’ (of any party) feet to the fire to ask probing questions about legislation and their other actions, so that the people both have a voice and a critic that works on their behalf. Congratulations for a job well done.
And as one other respondent said – your article isn’t pro or anti city, it is asking valid questions about the process, and why it is being handled basically in ‘smoke-filled back rooms’.
While I am a vocal opponent of city formation, I have stated that IF the vote is held in November as part of the primary voting process AND the city is approved, I’ll live with the decision of the voters. So, should the vote be kept on the May primary date, I just ask everyone living in this proposed city boundary to turn out in droves and BURY this once and for all.
Thank you for this great editorial that is neither pro-city nor anti-city; it’s pro-potential-citizen. There is so much in this entire proposal that is either incomplete or missing that it never should have passed the House. Before the committee signed off on it, they made a change to it; before it passed the full House, other changes were made to it; and it still has lots of problems, not the least of which is that the feasibility study does not take into account all the expenses that will be required.
Why, indeed, is this being pushed so hard through to the referendum process? Isn’t part of the responsibility of the legislature using their expertise to ensure that bills sent down for referenda are thoroughly vetted using the multiple resources available to the representatives and senators but not the general public?
What are some resources other than news articles I can use to educate myself about this? Any recommendations are appreciated. I want to get involved but I don’t know enough to have an opinion.
Excellent Editorial. Hoping more people will wake up and see what you have so succinctly stated here. This referendum is a Whitewashing of our beautiful diverse community …building walls and driving out those who built the foundations of what makes East Cobb so desirable. Shame on Matt Dollar and Sharon Cooper.
Supporters say its all about zoning. But the funding for a comprehensive planning and zoning staff is not there. Developers will have the upper hand when dealing with a skeleton city staff That staff will have to evaluate things like building compliance, water retention, sewage capacity, drainage, traffic issues etc. And developers regularly threaten to sue if their projects are not approved. Cobb has a whole staff of specialists who can evaluate all the plans and are knowledgeable enough to make the case against the big developers if necessary. The small city staff would be overwhelmed . This will force the city to tread lightly when trying to oppose any large developments.
Excellent observations, Richard. As it’s people related to real estate and its development that are the strongest proponents of the city in the first place, we know whose applications would be approved – at least in the short term before people catch on – so no investigations or law suits would be necessary. It also begs the question of what recourse the citizens of the proposed city would have to development they oppose. Small wonder that the powers-that-want-to-be are pushing this through as fast as they can.