House approves Mulberry annexation; lawmakers split over service-transition bill

ATLANTA — The Georgia House on Thursday approved a legislative annexation that expands the corporate limits of the newly incorporated City of Mulberry and separately passed a related measure intended to govern the transition of county-delivered services to the new city.

Supporters said the annexation rectifies boundary issues after last year’s cityhood vote and ensures residents near Mulberry have local control over planning and zoning. Opponents said the two bills were rushed through and would force Gwinnett County to subsidize services for Mulberry while reducing the county’s control and legal protections.

Representative Evestration, who presented Senate Bill 139, told the chamber the annexation would bring nearby commercial parcels and other properties into Mulberry’s limits to yield more coherent service delivery and to reflect “community of interest” boundaries. Evestration said residents who voted for cityhood deserve continuity in services and that the annexation had support from the representatives whose districts are affected.

Opponents, including Representatives Sam Park, Jasmine Clark and several other members of the Gwinnett delegation, argued the process should have been handled through the local-delegation process and over a longer timeframe. They said county and city attorneys were already communicating and that the Legislature should not override local negotiation. Clark called the rushed timetable “a last-minute project” and warned the bills risked years of litigation.

The measures sparked extended debate about local control, county finances and the limits of legislative intervention. Critics said Senate Bill 138 — the companion measure that lays out service-transition rules — included provisions that would waive sovereign immunity for Gwinnett County in certain circumstances and require refunds of some tax revenues to Mulberry even before the city assumes some services. Proponents called those provisions narrowly tailored and necessary because of what they described as the county’s unwillingness to negotiate agreements needed to run the new city.

Representative Evestration described a string of lawsuits and, he said, what he characterized as “bad-faith” actions by the county that delayed service agreements and left newly elected Mulberry officials with unresolved operational questions. Mayor Michael Coker of Mulberry, present in the gallery, was cited by the bill’s proponents as saying the city had been impeded in efforts to secure routine county services.

After nearly three hours of debate on both bills and multiple rounds of questioning, the House recorded the following votes: - Senate Bill 139 (legislative annexation expanding Mulberry city limits): passed, yeas 96, nays 74. - Senate Bill 138 (service-transition rules for newly incorporated municipalities in certain counties): passed, yeas 96, nays 69.

The recorded tallies show a closely divided chamber on both measures. The bills now head to the governor.

Opponents insisted their votes were not a rejection of Mulberry’s cityhood but a protest of process and of legislation they said could saddle Gwinnett County taxpayers with added financial burdens. Supporters said the measures preserve the will of voters who approved cityhood and are intended to avoid service disruptions for constituents.

What happens next: The city and county will still need to work out many operational details during the transition period described in SB 138. The House debate left open many of those details, and both sides said litigation remained a possibility if negotiations fail.

Speakers: Representative Evestration (bill presenter); Representative Sam Park (opponent); Representative Gabe Okoye (opponent); Representative Jasmine Clark (opponent and Gwinnett delegation chair); Representative Beth Camp (in favor); Mayor Michael Coker (Mulberry, present in gallery).

Background: Voters approved incorporation of Mulberry in 2024. Supporters say local control of planning and zoning is the goal; critics say the city was created on an accelerated schedule and that the state should not substitute itself for local negotiations.

Ending: Lawmakers on opposite sides of the debate said they hoped the vote would prompt better local collaboration. Opponents said they will press for procedural safeguards in future local-city matters; supporters said the measures ensure Mulberry residents receive government services they voted for.