Critics believe another layer of government will inevitably lead to higher taxpayer costs. Those could come from the city itself, if it spends more than initial estimates suggest, or from Cobb County, if it raises taxes to replace the revenue that would be diverted to the city of East Cobb.
And, they say, voters were given too little time to consider the pros and cons. Last year, cityhood supporters told residents the elections would be held in November 2022, but Republican lawmakers this legislative session amended the bills to move the referendums up to the May 24 primary ballot.
Supporters have said they wanted higher turnout for the first election of city leaders, which would be held this November, but the change makes it likely that fewer voters will decide if they want a city in the first place.
“You (the voters) should ask why this was pushed so fast, with so little transparency?” said Bob Lax, a member of the East Cobb Alliance, which opposes cityhood. “...It affects all of us, and it’s permanent. We can’t undo this. If you have concerns, if you have doubts, if you have questions, I would urge you to vote no.”
East Cobb is unique among the three cityhood movements that will appear on the May ballot because it will provide the most services. The proposed city charter calls for zoning, code enforcement and parks, as well as police and fire. A feasibility study completed by Georgia State University found that without raising taxes, the city would have a $3 million surplus, with about $28 million in revenue from property taxes, fees and insurance premiums vs. $25 million in expenses.
The study was a flashpoint at the debate, with both sides misrepresenting its contents at times.
Lax complained inaccurately that the bulk of the city’s startup costs were missing from the final balance sheet. In reality, the study includes $4.57 million in startup costs to buy things like office furnishings, computer equipment and police gear. But they’re financed over time through a short-term loan, with annual payments of $985,000.
On the other hand, supporters dismissed a question from the audience about how the city planned to pay for parks. “It’s in the feasibility study, so you can go read it,” Chapin said at the debate.
The study does detail how much the parks would cost: About $2.6 million, with projected revenues of $172,000 from user fees. But the study doesn’t assume the city will provide parks and recreation at all, discussing it only as a potential service in an appendix. Parks spending is not included in the city’s projected budget, and no funding source is identified.
A recording of the debate is available on the Rotary Club’s Facebook page.