Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee approves SB 139 to annex border parcels into Mulberry
Summary
A House committee approved SB 139, a bill from Sen. Dixon that would annex commercial and some larger tracts contiguous to the newly incorporated city of Mulberry. The measure passed on a 10-5 roll call after testimony from the city mayor and questions about county consent and resident input.
A House committee voted to approve SB 139, a bill that would annex parcels along border streets into the newly incorporated city of Mulberry, following testimony from the bill sponsor and the Mulberry mayor and a 10-5 roll call.
Senator Dixon, who presented the bill, described it as "a simple annexation bill that came at the request of the city of Mulberry," saying the measure would allow the city to absorb commercial nodes and several larger tracks that currently leave one side of some streets outside city limits. "This rounds us off where the city would annex and and control that entire commercial node," Dixon said, arguing the change is aimed at future development and design consistency.
The municipality's mayor, Michael Coker, told the committee the bill addresses situations where the city controls one side of a street but not the other. "This bill specifically deals with properties that are on the border of the city," Coker said, adding that most parcels affected are commercial and that annexing them would allow city residents "to then have the say or the control in what happens to those specific properties." He said his office had attempted to contact Gwinnett County officials in recent months without success.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on county support and the process used to incorporate Mulberry. Representative Whit Park and other lawmakers raised concerns about whether county officials had agreed to the annexation and whether residents included in future annexations would have a direct vote. Senator Dixon said the county and the city were "currently in discussions and trying to resolve this" and also told the panel that several state legislators representing the area had signed on in support of the bill.
The committee proceeded to a motion to pass the bill, moved by Representative Thomas; a second was not recorded in the transcript. Members conducted a roll call; the committee chair later reported "10 yeses and 5 in opposition," and the measure was reported approved out of committee.
The bill and surrounding discussion highlighted a recurring issue in recent municipal incorporations: boundaries drawn at formation sometimes leave partial blocks or commercial nodes split between city and county control. Senator Dixon said the original incorporation referendum for Mulberry was successful with roughly 56% support, and she characterized the annexation as a routine follow-up that other new cities have pursued. Mayor Coker and the bill sponsor said the annexation is intended to provide consistent land-use controls along streets that now have mixed jurisdiction.
Committee members and public commenters also noted past annexations and intergovernmental negotiations elsewhere in the county, citing Peachtree Corners and other examples as precedents for post-incorporation boundary adjustments. The record before the committee did not include a formal written position from Gwinnett County approving or opposing SB 139; members were told by the sponsor that county and city officials were in discussions.
The committee's approval sends SB 139 on for further consideration in the legislative process.
