The Courier sent a request for comments on the Service Delivery Strategy discussions and votes to members of the Mableton City Council.
The following council members submitted responses: District 2 Councilwoman Dami Oladapo, District 4 Councilwoman Patricia Auch, District 5 Councilman T.J. Ferguson, and District 6 Councilwoman Debora Herndon.
Some of the responses were written and sent before Friday’s vote approving the temporary agreement with the county, while others were written and sent after the vote, and the responses of individual council members reflect this. We’ve written whether the response came before Friday’s vote or after in the introduction to each council member’s comments.
The email to council members included the following questions, but they were free to format their response as they chose:
Why did you vote the way you did on the temporary Service Delivery Strategy agreement?
To your best understanding (given the time-critical nature of the issue), what is going on with the negotiations at the time you respond to this?
Is another vote scheduled? (Editor’s note: as mentioned, the original request for comments was sent before Friday’s final vote)
Also, is there anything you think our readers should know that you’re willing to state here on the record?
District 2 Councilwoman Dami Oladapo
District 2 Councilwoman Dami Oladapo sent the following response (her response was submitted after Friday’s final vote):
I initially voted no on this agreement because the voters of Mableton District 2 entrusted me to serve as their councilwoman — a trust I value deeply and will never take for granted.
Today, however, we found ourselves at a difficult crossroads. My foremost responsibility remains to the people who elected me. With the very real risk of Public Safety services being withdrawn from Mableton if an agreement is not reached, I could not, in good conscience, support any action that would jeopardize the safety of our residents.
While I firmly believe the County is unfairly double-taxing the citizens of Mableton, I will not allow this dispute to create harm for our community. This is my home — where my husband and I are raising our two children — and where public safety must remain a top priority, particularly for our seniors and youth.
Faced with this reality, I made the difficult decision to vote in favor of the agreement. Once implemented, I fully expect the City to immediately begin negotiations with the County to secure a better, fairer deal for our taxpayers. Our residents deserve transparency and accountability in how their dollars are being spent.
District 4 Councilwoman Patricia Auch
District 4 Councilwoman Patricia Auch submitted the following response (her response was written before the final vote):
Q: Why did you vote the way you did on the temporary Service Delivery Strategy agreement?
I voted against the temporary Service Delivery Strategy because it is the expectation of citizens that we will create this city without levying additional taxes. The campaign slogan of the pro-cityhood campaign was “same taxes, better service.”This is a narrative even Cobb County helped to facilitate, therefore I am not inclined to support an agreement that will require our citizens to pay additional taxes for the exact same services we as Cobb County citizens have been paying for with our county taxes this entire time. Only after Mableton has incorporated has the county decided that they will no longer offer the same services to the city at the same cost.
Furthermore, the county has not provided evidence that police services actually costs what they are claiming it costs, and if it does, then why did they not submit that information when the feasibility study was being conducted? Why did they not tell citizens that incorporation would result in a price increase to their police services? When the campaign for cityhood was underway, the county facilitated the narrative just as much as the proponents that the city could be funded without additional taxes. Why do I say that? Because there was cityhood forum hosted by our Cobb County District 4 Commissioner Monique Sheffield, the Mableton Improvement Coalition, Austell Community Taskforce, and Cobb County on August 17th, 2022. At that forum, initially both campaign groups were invited to participate on a panel to present information: the proponents of cityhood, and the opposition to cityhood. Before the forum, however, the opposition group that was initially invited was disinvited by Commissioner Sheffield from participating on the panel, while the proponents were given a table in the front and permitted to give a pro-city presentation. This presentation spouted the validity of the feasibility study and the idea that Mableton would be a city with “same taxes, better service.”
Q: To your best understanding (given the time-critical nature of the issue), what is going on with the negotiations at the time you respond to this?
I have not been given any updates on what is occurring with negotiations.
Q: Is another vote scheduled?
As of 12:29 p.m. on Friday, May 30, 2025, there is no special-called meeting scheduled, and I have not received any information about any potential new agreements. Eventually, there will need to be an IGA in place, so a vote will eventually have to occur.
Q: Also, is there anything you think our readers should know that you’re willing to state here on the record?
It comes down to one of these two scenarios being true,
Either:
1.) The county is price gouging Mableton and the deal isn’t fair. In this case, the city should not agree because an agreement to unfair terms it is not in the best interest of our citizens.
Or
2.) South Cobb has been subsidized by the rest of the county and Mableton has actually been receiving more than their fair share from the county all along. But if that is the case, then South Cobb is better off being unincorporated and Mableton should not only not accept the agreement but also disincorporate.
In either of the above scenarios, the city should not accept the county’s offer.
District 5 Councilman T.J. Ferguson
District 5 Councilman T.J. Ferguson submitted the following (his response was written before the final vote):
Q: Why did you vote the way you did on the temporary Service Delivery Strategy agreement?
As I stated on Wednesday, this deal had way too many holes and missed opportunities to fill those holes. As a salesman, I have been taught to be ready to walk away from bad deals and this was a bad deal. So I said no.
What I agreed to on Friday was not what I was presented on Wednesday night. (Editor’s note: this refers to the Friday, May 23 meeting between the city and the county.) So I said no. I did not feel the City was presented with all the facts and the county’s intentions so I could not approve this resolution. We the City spoke at length about this issue but my questions weren’t getting adequately answered.
Please make sure you know; my vote against this proposal was not a de-annex vote, it was a take care of Mableton vote. Paying an additional $9.5 million for a year hurts Mableton, as the Mayor stated. And not having a plan for the future hurts Mableton. It’s just wrong. Citizens need to understand that we became a city to deliver better service: Code Enforcement, Zoning, Waste and Beautification, and other decisions are being made with the citizens in mind right now.
The city and myself have built an amazing relationship with our LOCAL Public Safety teams – Cobb County Sheriff, Police, and Fire Departments. I am so confident in these men and women. They are on speed dial right now and respond quickly when I reach out. Our citizens didn’t have that level of comfort before. Just recently, I had a citizen reach out because of a situation they have happening near their home and church. It would have taken months for the county to respond, but we’ve taken days. Eighty thousand residents being heard by seven is much more effective than 800,000 residents being heard by five.
I realize the ramifications for the other cities and the county. But I also realize, I was elected to office by the citizens of District 5 in the City of Mableton and they are my number one concern, which is why I voted how I did.
Q: To your best understanding (given the time-critical nature of the issue), what is going on with the negotiations at the time you respond to this?
My ask is that we have a long-term deal or negotiation strategy in writing from the County. I’ve spoken with the Mayor and others, and I’ve clearly stated that without this in place, along with a clear negotiation strategy and timeline, I’m still not on board.
Also, is there anything you think our readers should know that you’re willing to state here on the record?
When I ran for office, my mindset was what is best for the City of Mableton and I will hold to that. Today my thought process is: City, Citizens, County – in that order. Yes, I respect the other cities and the county, 100%, and I am a City Councilman for Mableton. – When I drive down Floyd Rd, South Gordon, Mableton Parkway, Glore Rd, and Austell Rd, or walk the Silver Comet Trail, my question is always: “TJ, what can you do to make this area better for you and the people of the City of Mableton?”.
District 6 Councilwoman Debora Herndon
District 6 Councilwoman Debora Herndon submitted the following (her answers were submitted after the final vote Friday evening):
Q: Why did you vote the way you did on the temporary Service Delivery Strategy agreement?
During the campaign for the City of Mableton, proponents of the city set the expectation that there would be “same taxes, better services.” There were town hall meetings and other informational sessions where this slogan was touted, and no other information was provided to the contrary.
As a result, citizens were under the impression that the city could be created without additional taxes being levied. This impression was also supported by the feasibility study. I voted against the temporary Service Delivery Strategy because now Cobb County will not only be keeping the entire millage that Mableton residents pay into the general fund to cover the cost of police, but residents will also have to pay an additional $9.5 million dollars for police service.
This effectively creates double taxation, and citizens would also be paying more money for the exact same services that were provided by Cobb County prior to incorporation. In addition, there was no information provided about how much Cobb County actually pays for Mableton to have police service, and there was no information provided on what would happen with the approximately $41 million annually that Cobb will continue to collect from the residents of the city. Unless I am in support of double taxation and paying more for the same services, I could not in good conscience vote for this type of financial impact to our citizens.
Q: To your best understanding (given the time-critical nature of the issue), what is going on with the negotiations at the time you respond to this?
Since I am completing this question after the special called meeting, the negotiations still entailed the County charging $9.5 million for police services. Additional concessions, including flexibility in payment terms and the County’s willingness to facilitate further negotations, were also included.
Q: Is another vote scheduled?
Another vote occurred on May 31, with Councilmembers Davis, Oladapo, Jeffcoat and Ferguson voting in favor of the resolution. Mayor Owens also voted in favor. Both Councilmember Auch and I voted in opposition.
Q: Also, is there anything you think our readers should know that you’re willing to state here on the record?
I had hoped that the outcome of the vote would have gone differently, but I do understand that many of the councilmembers were concerned that the citizens would not have police protection unless they agreed to Cobb County’s demands. Ultimately, I do not see this as a win for our citizens but, given Cobb County’s agreement that they would resume negotiations in the near future, I am hoping we can receive better terms and more transparency on the actual cost of services provided by Cobb County, so that we can make more informed decisions in the future.