Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Mulberry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gwinnett delegation splits as House approves annexation expanding Mulberry by roughly 45 parcels
Summary
The Georgia House approved House Bill 6 47 to annex about 45 parcels into the newly created city of Mulberry after an extended debate over local process, property rights and delegation rules. The measure passed 98–76.
Get email alerts on the Annexation Mulberry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Georgia House on a close vote approved legislation to annex roughly 45 parcels into the city of Mulberry, a newly formed municipality in Gwinnett County, after a lengthy floor debate about local control and procedure.
Representative Deborah Donatucci, whose district contains the affected properties, introduced House Bill 6 47, saying the annexation “simply allows the city of Mulberry to expand into my district adding roughly 45 parcels to the city limits.” Donatucci told colleagues the parcels include “a mix of residential dwellings, commercial properties, and undeveloped land primarily located along one road on the north end of my district,” and said moving the parcels into the city would give residents “a greater local voice over how this land is developed.”
The bill’s sponsor framed the change as a response to constituent concerns about high-density growth and local infrastructure, and described the measure as giving citizens more direct control through a locally elected council rather than county commissioners.
Opponents, including Representative Jasmine Clark, the chair of the Gwinnett delegation, urged members to resist what they called an end-run around a long-standing county delegation process. “House Bill 6 47 is a hyper local bill that annexes certain county properties into the city of Mulberry,” Clark said. She reminded members that the cityhood of Mulberry had been expedited last year and argued the local delegation process — which calls for negotiation between city and county and notification to delegation members — had been bypassed. “A vote for yes on this bill is a vote against local control and local government,” Clark said, asking members to protect the delegation’s rules.
Representative Sam Park also spoke in opposition, framing his remarks around property rights and due process for affected residents. Park asked whether property owners had been consulted, whether notice had been provided, and whether residents would be left to face new taxes or zoning restrictions without an opportunity to weigh in. “This bill proposes to annex numerous parcels of land and we must ask, have all affected property owners been consulted?” Park said, warning of litigation and long-term consequences if this precedent were set.
Supporters, including Donatucci and several colleagues who questioned the speed of past local processes, said annexation would allow more local control and was responsive to constituents who asked for city governance to manage development. During floor questioning, members also asked light-hearted questions about the city’s name and local history; Donatucci answered that Mulberry was created by residents seeking local planning authority.
After debate, the House ordered the previous question and the bill passed on final passage by a margin of 98 yeas to 76 nays. The sponsor’s presentation and subsequent questions and speeches occupied a substantial portion of the afternoon’s legislative time, with multiple Gwinnett delegation members speaking on both sides.
The vote does not itself change zoning, tax rates, or immediate land use; it changes municipal boundaries and allows the city of Mulberry to apply municipal planning, zoning and services to parcels inside its corporate limits. The transcript record shows repeated appeals by opponents for fuller local negotiation and for a delegation process that involves both city and county leaders.
Next steps: because the House approved the bill, it will go to the Senate for consideration. The transcript does not record any contingent implementation schedule or immediate changes to tax rates or zoning; those matters are commonly handled later through local ordinances and the city’s planning process.
For readers: the controversy centers on process as much as policy — whether state-level action should move forward when local delegation procedures designed to mediate annexation disputes were not followed, and whether property owners had adequate notice and opportunity to participate.

