Georgia committee advances SB 138 to force Gwinnett-Mulberry transition talks after permit disputes and lawsuits

Senator Dixon, the bill sponsor, told a legislative committee SB 138 is narrowly tailored to the newly formed City of Mulberry in Gwinnett County and would require the county to engage in the two-year transition process for transferring selected services to the city.

The bill matters because it addresses an ongoing dispute over which government entity will provide code enforcement, permitting, stormwater and other services during a statutorily defined two-year transition period. Committee members heard competing accounts from Gwinnett County officials who urged a negotiated intergovernmental agreement and from Mulberry officials who said the county has refused to cooperate and canceled permits after the city’s creation.

Senator Dixon said the bill applies only to Mulberry and Gwinnett County and argued that Gwinnett had “not even begin to talk” with Mulberry officials, leaving the city unable to operate. He told the committee that, in his view, Gwinnett County “would like to see the city go bankrupt and be starved out,” and that the legislation would “force Gwinnett County to come to the table and adhere to the transition statute over the two-year period.”

Gwinnett County Attorney Mike Ludwisack told the committee his office prefers a negotiated intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the county and Mulberry rather than a legislative solution. He said his office had only recently begun preparing a comprehensive IGA and transmitted a draft to Mulberry’s city attorney the day before the committee hearing. "It's much easier to argue over the meaning and interpretation of a piece of legislation than it is to argue over the meaning of an agreement that the parties themselves prepared and agreed to," Ludwisack said.

Todd Edwards of the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) said his organization’s concerns center on precedent and specifically on the bill’s waiver of sovereign immunity language and on how the bill defines the county’s "actual cost" for services such as policing. Edwards said the bill may omit indirect or administrative costs from those calculations and expressed concern that the waiver language could extend to other matters arising during the transition period.

Michael Coker, mayor of Mulberry, described canceled permits and other operational disruptions after the city’s establishment. He told the committee that some permit applicants received notices shortly after midnight on Jan. 1, 2025, saying their applications were canceled; he said fees were not refunded and that a requested speed bump application for a high school was canceled after near-fatal crashes. "I feel like I'm in a mafia movie," Coker said, and asked legislators to pass the bill to allow the city to function and protect residents. He said the Mulberry charter was approved by referendum last year with 58% voting in favor.

Committee members questioned witnesses on whether county and city attorneys had been communicating and when the first written statement of Mulberry’s requested transition services was provided. Ludwisack said the county received formal written detail of Mulberry’s requests first in SB 138 and that his office only began drafting a proposed IGA after the bill was introduced; he told the panel that the county transmitted its draft IGA to the city attorney the day before the hearing.

After public comment and questions, Representative Martinez made a motion to advance SB 138; the committee chair called the question and the motion passed, with the committee recording one opposed vote. The committee clerk stated the bill will move onward to the Rules Committee.

What was decided: SB 138 was advanced out of the committee to the Rules Committee. What remains open: the content of any negotiated intergovernmental agreement, the status of canceled permits and refunds, the legal effect of the bill’s waiver-of-immunity language if the bill becomes law and ongoing litigation cited by witnesses.

Next steps: the bill will be considered by the Rules Committee; witnesses and staff said attorney-to-attorney negotiations are ongoing and that the county had transmitted a draft intergovernmental agreement shortly before the hearing.