Hall County sent a new Service Delivery Strategy (SDS) to the state for approval at the end of last month, but that agreement has been returned to the county for some revisions.
"[The Department of Community Affairs] DCA rejected Hall County’s SDS on Friday," said DCA Director of Marketing MaryBrown Sandys via email. "Since the deadline for having a plan in place has expired (June 30), all new state funding has been frozen as of that date. Funding will be withheld until there is a plan in place."
Hall County government spokeswoman Katie Crumley on Wednesday morning classified the revisions as "minor."
"It is not unusual for the County to receive feedback on the SDS document from DCA as a part of this process, and we are still confident that it will be approved," Crumley said in an email statement.
Crumley said the issues pointed out by DCA involved mainly "semantics" in the way the forms were completed and not in actual delivery of services.
"As such, the DCA official who contacted us requesting these minor revisions said he doesn't’t believe a new round of signatures is necessary. We are currently working with the cities to make the requested revisions and submit an updated version to DCA," Crumley wrote.
All of the cities in Hall County - with the exception of Lula - signed off on the agreement before it was submitted to the state.
Lula has had a dispute with the county over a 2006 sewer agreement, arguing that the county is duplicating services by running sewer lines into an area that Lula already serves with its sewer facilities.
In fact, Lula has threatened legal action against Hall County over the sewer agreement, and the topic arose at Lula City Council's Monday night meeting, before council was aware DCA had returned the SDS to the county for revisions.
Lula City Manager Dennis Bergin said the 2006 sewer agreement, one city leaders say county leaders backed out of, is a separate issue outside the Service Delivery Strategy.
“Nonetheless, the council wants to seek the opportunity of what legal means are available,” Bergin said. “It’s somewhat convoluted in this regard. Service Delivery is one issue, and as you know the claims for a contract dispute from 2006 are another. I understand the council wants to hear some direction from their legal team and we’ll go from there.”
Bergin said council will to meet with an attorney to discuss the possibility of moving forward with legal action, though he gave no specific date for a meeting.
