1979-09-04
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
667 North Carroll Avenue
Southlake, Texas
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 4,1979
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Consider: Resolution 79-27. Appointment of Board of Adjustments
Member. Allow for regular meeting dates.
Oath of Office.
2. Consider: Emergency repairs to Fire Unit #3003.
3. Consider: Resolution 79-28. Support of Tarrant County Sixth
Year Community Development Block Grant Program.
4. ZA 79-26. Zoning request for a 3.33 acre tract of land out of
the Samuel Freeman Survey, Abstract 525, Tracts
5C1F and 5R.
Present zoning is Agricultural. Request is for
A-3 Single Family District. Owner: Joe D. Hughes
Public Hearing
5. ZA 79-27. Zoning request for a 21.95 acre tract of land
out of the Francis Throop Survey, Abstract 1511.
Tracts 1B3 and 1B1A2. Present zoning is Agricultural.
Request is for A-3 Single Family District.
Owner: Miles Pierce
Public Hearing.
6. Consider: Approval of FY80 Budget
7. Consider: Approval Tax Levy Ordinance No. 250.
8. Consider: Fire Department Mutual Aid Agreement, Liability.
9. Consider: Lone Star Gas Company, Rate Increase.
10. Discussion: Janitorial Service
11. Mayor's Report
12. Bills for Approval
I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the bulletin
board and on the front door in city hall, 667 North Carroll Avenue,
Southlake, Texas, on Friday, August 31,197 at 2 p.m.
City Secretary
N a
~ ~~y uF' ti(.1U_'llil.AlCE, TEXAS
IYf n ~ t~
a HiJlUtCLi of Peyular city council meet' 1,4
September 4,1979
cIInc 7:30 p.m.
,C t' t ► . cal ty of Southlake, Council
chambe 1:i
`V1 t,67 N. Carrull Avenue.
y southlake, Texati
NAML OF 1
1 PACE 1 NIA-A NO.
_ M~1111:a1 - - - -
COUNCILPERSONS PRESENT: Mayor; Pat
Hawk, Councilpersons; Louise Morriso ,
iShari Massey, AC Urbanosky.
I I COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: Mayor Pro
i Tem; Sam Sparger, Councilperson;
Lloyd Latta
STAFF PRESENT: Attorney; Joe
Gregory, Police Chief; Daymond Gaddy,
Fire Chief; Bob Steele
The invocation was led by Mayor
Pat Hawk.
The minutes of the August 31,1979
city council meeting were approved
Ias presented.
i ff
rrison x x (Resolution 79-27 was approved as RESOLUTIOT
urbanosky x (presented, allowing Eleanor Kasper 79-27
Massey x i x to serve as the new Board of Adjust- APPROVED
~I ~ments Vice-Chairman, and Fred
I~ ~i Merrill as a new alternate member.
I~ Resolution also sets the second
and fourth Monday evenings of each
~I I month as regular meeting dates.
x After discussion concerning the REPAIRS
Morrison x ,
Urbanosky X I x needed repairs to the transmission TO 3003
Massey x of Fire Department Unit 3003, APPROVED
approval was given to convert the
it transmission from standard to
Ii Iautomatic.
G II '
ll
Morrison j x Resolution 79-28 was approved. RESOLUTInT
Urbanosky ~x pThe Resolution acknowledges the 79-28
Massey x Ix Cities support of the Tarrant County APPROVED
"Block Year Community Development
~I iGrant Program.
Morrison x lix J;ZA 79-26 was approved changing the ZA 79-26
Urbanosky x ix zoning on a 3.33 acre tract of land APPROVED
ssey x out of the Samuel Freeman Survey,
bstract 525, Tracts 5C1F and 5R.
r
lfl Ul Ul
f~ M 'v
t I'I'Y tit 111'111LAKk:, TEXAS
0 t'1 U MI nut eLi of RAeyular City Cawlcil Muutl y
I.,t` ' September 4,1979
'I'IInc 7:30 p.m.
,Cn P I.k. Ct ty of Southlake, Council) N. Cariull Avunuu.
1 SODUllaka, Tuxcw
1N1V:X ►~1•
NAML OF 1 2
PAi;E
Ml•:MHI•:H - r -
Joe D. Hughes, owner, was not present
nor were there any comments from
11 the floor during the public hearing.
j Zoning was approved for A-3 Single
~I I I Family District.
i
Morrison x II x ZA 79-27. Bob Taylor was present ZA 79 27
Urbanosky x and represented Miles Pierce, owner ZONING
Massey x x of the 21.95 acre tract of land out APPROVED
r of the Francis Throop Survey, Abst.
Ij ( 1511, Tracts 1B3 and 1B1A2. Request
;was made that the zoning be changed
~I from Agricultural to A-3 Single
j ,Family District. There were no
i 'comments during the public hearing.
jMotion was made and approved.
I
I' The proposed Budget FY 80 was FY80
lpresented for council approval. BUDGET
{After discussion, Councilperson APPROVED
Morrison made a motion," we take
~i $10,000, from general fund and
~I earmark for engineering for a
j I apossible sewer system. This should
be committed from existing funds".
I ! I li The motion died for lack of a
~I second.
Councilperson, Urbanosky commented
that we have a sewer committee and
a plan for a future system in
ISouthlake.
110ne change was made from the propose
ibudget and that was an adjustment
II due to the confirmation of the
'amount we will receive from Revenue
p { I Sharing Funds. Mayor Hawk stated
11he has reduced the contingency
x J~ preserve so that the budget will
Morrison
Urbanosky x x (,balance as presented.
i
Massey X , IIx Approved was given to the FY80
E Budget.
c
l/l Ul
n (•I'I'Y IIF' ~;(.►U'ilI1.AKE, TEXAS
M N to
`'1 u u H11mi c s of Regular City Ca►w►Cil MeeLl y
'i V; 'September 4,1979
I Inc
0, I't...c CILY bt 5outhlaku, Council
1 u67 N. Carroll Avenue.
SoLlthldka, TCxdy
NAME (4.
. ~
1 PA(.E 1 NIY: X NO
Morrison x j x The Tax Levy Ordinance No. 250 IORDINANCE
25OUrbanosky x x was approved as resented after NO. p APPROVED
Massey II i~x Mayor Hawk reviewed it for Council.
Quinten Hicks and Vernie Henderson RATE
Morrison i x x I were present to represent Lone Star INCREASE
Urbanosky x x Gas Company in their request for a APPROVED
Massey I x Rate Increase. Mayor Hawk reviewed FOR LONE
II for council the worksession previou STAR GAS.
j ly held with both Lone Star Gas
I i I represented and City Council presen .
Hawk also reviewed the increase
given them by Grapevine and Westlak .
i ~
After discussion concerning the
rate of return, motion was made and
approved we accept the same rate as
f Grapevine and Westlake.
i~ The ordinance is to be drafted and
1 I approved at the next city council
meeting.
Morrison x 'i II ix The Janitorial Service for city JANITORIAI
Urbanosky ppx x hall was discussed. Motion was SERVICE
Massey c 1~ Ix made and approved that the city DISCUSSED
I~ employees will perform the duties
as requested by them, in exchange
i~ for $125. per month for the
II I employee fund. Cleaning supplies
` will be purchased by the fund.
I Motion included the City purchase
a vacuum cleaner.
~ MAYORIS REPORT
1
i
'iMayor Hawk indicated that the
;'engineering report for the Paluxy
Wells has been sent to the Texas
e i it (Water Resource Board. Carter and
1 Burgess is working with vigor to
imaintain our time schedule.
i jMayor Pro Tem, Sparger, attended
!Mayors Council Meeting where they
i
I M
I j
t ul U)
nl t :;tlll'i111AKk , l TEXAS
I ' 'y t l E•'
td 1 u cv M, I,tit c:ti uE Feqular City COWICil Meeti y
v M y ~ h'it C : September 4,1979
,y x11114 : 7:30 p.m.
City Ot southlake, Council
j I`~ LIIdI11IJCrS.
1 bo7 N. Carroll Avenue.
SoUtlll,Ake, Tuxds
HAVE of 1 PAt;E 4 1N1.CK Nil. l
I
discussed the Selection of 5 Member
it Board for Single Appraisal Tax
District. A copy of the proposed
method of electing the 5 member boa
is on file in the city office.
Morrison X x The bills submitted, were approved
Urbanosky i , x for payment. (attached hereto and
Massey ; x I x made a part hereof).
II The meeting was adjourned by Mayor
Pat Hawk.
I '
w II
i 1 I
Mayor
!
ATTEST:
I' ; If ;I
i
City Secretary
!I
~I
Ii
RESOLUTION 79-28
RESOLUTION REGARDING CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 'S PARTICIPATION IN
TA.RRANT COUNTY`S SIXTH-YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
July 17, 1980 - July 16, 1982
WHEREAS, the 93rd Session of the Congress passed and the
President of the U. S. signed into law, the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 for the specific purpose of developing viable
communities, and
WHEREAS, Tarrant County has been designated as an "URBAN COUNTY"
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development entitled to a
formula share of program funds provided said County has a combined
population of 200,000 persons in its unincorporated areas and its
included units of general local governments with which it has entered
into cooperative agreements, and further
THAT, Article III, Section 64 of the Texas Constitution authori-
zes Texas counties to enter into cooperative agreements with local
governments for essential Community Development and Housing Assis-
tance activities,
NO1% THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of SOUTHLAKE
that the City Council of SOUTHLAKE Texas supports the
application of Tarrant County for funding of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974. To this end: (1) the City of SOUTHLAKE f
Texas asks that its population be included with that of Tarrant
County, Texas; (2) authorizes Tarrant County to cooperate with the
City of. SOUTHLAKE in undertaking or assist the City
of SOUTHLAKE in undertaking essential Community Develop-
ment and Housing Assistance activities, specifically urban renewal
and publicly assisted housing if these activities are specified in
the application, and all other activities listed as "Community
Development Program Activities Eligible for Assistance" under Public
2.
Law 93-383, The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,
Title I, Section 105, and listed as "Eligible Activities" under the
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, Chapter V, Part 570 as amended,-
"Community Development Block Grants." (3) authorizes the Mayor of
SOUTHLAKE , Texas to sign such additional forms as requested
by-the Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to the
purposes of this Resolution.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 4th day of September 1979.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Secretary Mayor
Commissioners' Court Clerk County Judge
RESOLUTION 79-27
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of
Southlake, Texas, did pass and approve
ordinance No. 161 on the 7th day of
January,1969, wherein provision is made
for a Zoning Board of Adjustments;
And,
WHEREAS, said provision calls for five
persons to serve on such Board with all
the powers and duties given them under
said Ordinance;
And,
WHEREAS, the Board has no regular meeting
day or time;
Now,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT:
1.
Eleanor Kasper, an alternate on the Board
be appointed as a permanent member to serve
as the vice chairman.
2.
Fred Merrill, be appointed as an alternate
Board member to replace Eleanor Kasper.
3.
The Board of Adjustments
andofoset urththeir
Monday
secondwish
meeting dates as the
evening of each month at 7:30 p.m.
1979.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE 4th day of September,
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary
co Np).%
MAYORS' COUNCIL
4
TARRANT COUNTY
August 14, 1979
TO: Mayors & City Secretaries of the Member Cities of the Mayors' Council
As 1980 is fast approaching, it is time once again to secure cooperation agreements
from all the non-metropolitan cities participating in the Tarrant County Consortium.
These agreements will again enable us to obtain Block Grant Funding from the Federal
allocation provided under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
The total available money for which Tarrant County is eligible.in 1980 is approximately
$2,967,000. As each city is aware, it may choose, not to participate with the Consortium
during any funding year. However, since the program has been of great benefit to the
cities of Tarrant County in the past and has the potential for even greater benefit
in the future, the County feels it would be in each city's best interest to participate
again in the County's program as established by the Mayors' Council of Tarrant County.
In this way, each city will be assured of a voice in deciding how to spend a guaranteed
amount.
Should a city decide to opt out of the Consortium, it would be ineligible for Tarrant
County's Urban County Block Grant Funding, It should also be noted, however, that
a city is ineligible to compete for discretionary balance funding as long as it remains
a part of the Consortium. Both the HUD Aria Office and Tarrant County must be noti-
fied no later than October 1, 1979 should my city decide to opt out.
Cooperation agreements for 1980-1982 are basically the same as the one used last year.
However, the agreement now covers a three-year period. This does not change a city's
ability to opt out in any given year. A copy of the agreement has been included with
the letter for review and adoption by your City Council. This must be signed and re-
turned no later than September 21, 1979 to the Tarrant County Planning Dept. The wording
cannot be changed. We recommend that you simply complete and adopt the attached. resol-
ution instead of re-typing it.
Also included for your information is a copy of HUD Notice CPD 79-15 which outlines the
Urban County Qualification process for 1980. Listed under the section entitled Review
Standards, are the responsibilities of Tarrant County as the Community Development Block
Grant applicant.
If we can be of further assistance, or answer any questions concerning next y'ear's
funding or HUD procedures, please feel free to call on us at any time.
Sincerely,
Ed Jackson
Director
Tarrant County Planning Department
/kb
enclosure
. t1. S. DEPARTMENT OF HCMINO AND UPE -N DEVELOPPI.ENT
r" SU ~I'I'Y PLA'y:<Ti~~ TM
CPD 79-15
July 5, 1979
Expires January 5, 1980
AM Re-gional Administrators, Regional Directors for CPD, Area
TO: Managers, and CPD Division Directors
1
Corrnunity Developnent Block Grant. (CDBG) (qualification Process
S U EJECT: for Fiscal Year 1980, Urban Counties
&'irKG T" To
UnJer the Ccmunity Development Block Grant (CD33) program, certain units
of general local government are entitled to receive a formula grant only
if they rr12t sp4cified requirements. Counties within metropolitan areas
m_y c-ualify as "urban unties" if they possess necessary powers and if
they Jrepresent at least 200,000 of their residents for purposes of carrying
out housing and community develcp,ment activities. (The exact definition of
an urban axinty can be found at 24 CTR 5570.3(w) of the regulations.)
P'JRF'J~E
l?]1S n^tlce estaajlishes r' jL2Lreitl' 7')l 6eau'l.ir'1es a1A 9erierw_ proicdilr^s to
be followed in determining the qualification of eligible counties as "urban
counties" for the Fiscal Year 1980 program year. It is -7rperative that
final. deter.ninations be made with respect to entitlement configurations M
late than ~ave.bcr 1979. Failure to make such determinations will delay
determination of all formula entitlement amc>unts. for metropolitan cities
and the metropolitan and rxcrLmntr0`- lit-an balances and delay implementation
of the .mall Cities Program. Therefore, the Department d as. not expect to
appro-,,e any request for waivers of the tine limits established by this Notice.
Determination of Essential Powers for Urban Counties
rMe first step in qualifying urban counties requires that NUD determine
annually:
(1) i"Trr!ther the county is authorized to undertake essential
Farm pity development and housing assistance activities
in its unincorporated areas, if any.
(2) In Vn ich of its included units of local gover rr~ant the
County is authorized to ur0ertake essential community
develgx,,~ent and housing assistance activities without the
f CCC:DISTiUBUIlON:W-1,w-3-1,R-1,R-2,R-3-1(r-PD),R--5,R-5-1,R•-5-2
l
j
consent of the governing body of the locality. Such units
of local government will be included in the urban county
unless they specifically "opt out."
(3) In which of its included units of local government the -
county is either not authorized to undertake essential
ccnmunity deve1g)ntent and housing assistance activities
or may do so only with the consent of the governing body
of'the lecali.ty. Such a unit will be included in the
urban county or-ly if it and the county enter into a
cooperation agreement to undertake, or assist in under-
taking, the essential activities,
Generally, Area Offices should be able to make the powers determina-
tions for mesa counties without a s-itmission from the county. A sub-
mission may be required where there has been a change of powers in the
county or of. individual units of government as a result of a change
in state or local law, a referern-lu'm, or sane other method. Ho,%7ever,
the fact that a previous determination has been made for one urban
county in a particular state does not mean that a new determination
will not have to be made for another county trying to qualify in that
state. In many instances, individual legislation pertaining only to
one or certain counties was passed, or the county was required to take
certain actions to make the enablia-ig leggislation effective.
The Area Office wi11 notify each existing or prospective urban county
of it's powers determination no later than August 20, 1979. The noti-
fication will provide the county with a period of 15 days to 4nform
the Area Office of any disagreement it has with the determine", ion.
Proc`ehires and Deadlines for _Includina Units of Coverruaent
Urban counties containing potential "opt out" camiunities must notify
those camunities no later_ than August 30, 1979, of their right not to
be included in the urban county. The Notice must advise such ccjianisni-
ties that they must inform both the urban county and the Area Office no
later than October 1, 1979, if they decide to "opt out."
Counties should be advised that the "opt out" decision is only for a
one year period, and all their included communities must make a deter-
mination with respect to Fiscal Year 1980, regardless of the
decision to be excluded in any previous year.
Each urban county must notify the Area Office no later than September 16,
1979, of the ccamiunities it has notified and subnit a copy of the noti-
fication that was utilized.
All potential participants, including those that must sign cooperation
agreements as well as "opt out" types, and whether or not they are
2 -
u ID
currently participating with the cxx)unty, must also be notified that
they cannot apply for a discretionary balance grant in any program
year in which tney are a participating jurisdiction of an urban
county. This restriction applies to any portions of general local
government that may be located outside of the urban county.
All cooperation agreements with an urban county, whether new, revised,
or continuing, must be submitted to the Area Office no later than
October 1, 1979; any agreement submitted thereafter will not be
accepted. Where existing multiyear agreements will continue in force
without change for the Ogling year, counties may submit a certifica-
tion to that effect by October 1., in lieu of the agreements, listing
all affected units of government. Only the demographic data from the
included units of government, those not electing to "opt out" or those
that are covered by a cooperation agreement, will be considered in ccm-
puting the entitlement amount of the urban county. All counties must
ensure that t:he submission to the Area•Office covers every unit of
goverrLient that should be used in the ocmputation, including these
that do not decide to "opt out."
General Rea irements for Cooperation Aeements
All cooperation agreements for Fiscal Year 1980, whether new, revised,
or oontinuing must meet the following requirements:
(1) The agreements must state expressly the agreement of the county
and the cooperating unit of local government to "cooperate in
undertaking, or assisting in undertaking, essential c cmunity
developlrent -uhd housi.nc assistance activities, specifically
,urban renewal and pub1.3 c11~ assisted housing." As an alterna-
tive to this wording, reference to the state legislation autho-
rizing such activities is acceptable for use in cooperation
agreements, but only with the approval of the HUD Area Counsel.
(2) The agreement must not contain any provision for veto or other_
restriction which would permit the support to be given by the
county or their cooperating units cf local government to the
activities referred to in the block grant application for the
program year(s) covered by the agreement to be blocked or with-
drawn after HUD approval of the application.
(3) The agreement must extend at least through the program year
covered by the application for which the cooperation agreement
is executed. _ However, the Area Office should urge .counties --try
persuade cooperating units of general local government to
execute multiyear agreements.
(4) Agreements may not contain a provision for termination or with-
drawal by the county or the cooperating unit of general local
governrnent after the deadline for submission of cooperation
agreements to HUD.
3 -
(5) The inclusion in a cooperation agreement of an allocation
formula, or other pro rata distribution system, for deter-
mining how much funds will be prograrmed for use in the
individual participating units of general local government
raises serious questions about whether the application
requirements for entitlement grants (Subpart D) will be
met. These requirements pertain to an assessment of the
needs of the entire urtxan county, and the developTient of a
plan, strategies and activities which are not only appro-
priate to addressing those need, but which also give
maximum feasible priority to activities that benefit low-
and moderate-income families, or aid in the prevention or
elimination of slums and blight. Special rules have been
developed for black grant applications to ensure that
these requirements are met. Counties should be advised that
the inclusion of a pro rata allocation provision in a
cooperation agreemennt, even with a provision calling for
override when necessary to riot the application require-
ments, will be catise for a sLringent review of their block
grant application to ensure that the program benefit
requirements urraer §570.302 of the re;ulations are being
adhered to.
Counties and their, included units of government should
become Ear-niliar with the co',il tip's responsi::,i? ity as an
applicant in this regard, a-s reflected in paragraph (2)
under the section entitled Review Standards in this Notice,
and ensure that the cooExeration agreement reflects the
proper relationship bet teen them to ena.! >le that role t D
be fulfilled.
(6) The agreement must be authorized by the governing b Day of
the county and by the governing body of the cooperating unit
of general local government and executed by the Chief
Executive Officer of each bcdy.
(7) The agreement must contain.., or be accompanied by, a state-
ment from counsel to the county that the terms and provi-
sions of the agreerrient: are fully authorized under_ state
and local law. A mere certification by counsel that the
agreement is approved as to form is not sufficient and is
unacceptable.
(8) In recognition of the applicant's ultimate responsibility
under the performance review standards (reference paragraph
(1), (4) and (5) under the Review Standards section of this
Notice), and in order to ensure successful acccunplish-
meant of the community development program End the housing
goals, a county may also include any provisions in the
_ 4 _
cooperation agreement authorized under:- State or local law
Lkh1Ch legally obligate the cooperating units to undertake
the r-ecessary actions, as determined by the county, to
carry out the Co:rmunity JDevelccx.-):,Pent Program and -Housing
Assistance Plans, and/or neet other requirerr>rnts of the
block. grant program anod other applicable laws. .
N3tification of Qualification and Entitlei,,-ent
As scQi c passible after su:3ittal ar-0 no later than 30 days thereafter,
HUD will cck7iplete its review of all cooperation agreements and notify
each potential urban county of the following:
.(l) ',iether or not the county qualifies in Fiscal Year 1980
as an urban county! and
(2) All oa-=Lmiti'es for w`I-).ic!~ cooparation agrea-mnts are
approved, the "opt out" co,rnunities-,high have infoim
H'JD they (lo not wish to ba included, anal the "opt out"
vammuniti.es that are included.
A final entitlement figure for which tl-ie county gray apply in FL--cal
Year 1980 will be sufplied as soon as possible after October 31, 1979.
Authority for Review
Review and approval functions of urban counties will generally be
carrieJ out by the Area Officx-. Such offices have full authority to
make p+,,ers determinations, appri-ve caaperation agreements, and review -
and ap.nv-, applications. Area Offices also have full authority to dis-
approve co,-~-ration agreements, except when such action would have the
effect_ of precluding entitlement status by bringir-rg a county belorer the
200,000 jx)pulation threshold level. Area Offices will-trans=it their
findings to Headquarters for final verification of entitlen-rent status
and detenr>ination of entitlement mounts.
Review Standards
The standards for review of a__licatioro from urban counties will
generally be the sa-a-- as for all other entitled units of govenurnent.
Counties and their included units of general local goverment should
be made aware of the review requirements as contained in HUD Harr3-
book 6503.1, dated March 29, 1979, as well as the following additional
considerations: - - - -
;(I} the county as the applicant must take full responsibility
for preparation of tt-r° application arx3 seeing to the
execution of the prrx3ram. This is txue, even when, as a
matter of administrative convenience or as a result of
5
4
state law, the county agrees to permit the participating
units of general local government to carry out the
essenti-al activities.
(2) It must be clear from the application that the county has
developed an overall county strategy for addressing its
identified crx4nunity development and housing needs. While
it is anticipated that participating units of general local
government will, as part of the application formulation
process, identify their needs and priorities arx-1 propose
activities to address then:, the county is expected to exer-
cise control over t'ie final selection of activities to be
included in the application in order to ensure consistency
with the overall county strategy. Any application which
does not take this into account, and which indicates the
county has merely trmitted a collection of individual
community devel_c>pirnt programs or Housing FLssistance
Plans pre-pa-red by individual units of participating local
governments, may be disapproved bared on a finding that
the program as described plainly inappropriate to the
needs of the county as a whole.
(3) Despite the fact that th, units of local gover7mnt
participating in an urban county may differ screwhat from
orxe year to the next, urban counties are required to shod
planned fund allocation in all three years covered by the
Community Devel.cpm`nt and Housing Plan. Of course,
counties may Eirrend their thee"-year Plans in future years
to reflect changers; in the make-up of participating local
governr nts and a*y other significant changes in local
conditions.
(4) Tn county will be held responsible for the acccamplishrent
of the cormunity develco:rpent program and the housing assis-
tance goals, and for ensuring that the necessary actions
for such accenplis,`umnt are taken by the cooperating units
of general local governar_-nt. All cooperating units should
take actions necessary for the acco-nplishn-rant of the cormiu-
nity development and housing goals. If a cooperating unit
of general local government refuses to take necessary
actions, or take an action which imdes or precludes such
accanplishment it may be appropriate for HUD to impose a
sanction against the county (such as placing conditions on
the grant or reducing the grant) which is limited to or -
".concentrated on specific activities located within the
unit of local government responsible for the inadequate
performance . .
6 -
Experience over the past year has indicated that many units
of local government I>arti~ipati.ng with an urban county
lack a clear understanding of what is expected of them in
meeting the county's housing assistance needs. Therefore,
urban counties will be expected to take the following steps
related to the coning program year's application.:
(a) Identify those included units of local government
where CDBG funds have be en spent in the past, or are
planned for the coining program year, and where no, or
very little, lower income housing assistance for
families has been provided to date.
(b) For each such unit of local government, clearly
specify as part of the aOunty HAP goals the number
of unit and specific planned locations relating
to that unit of local governaner,t. Alternatively,
the county must provide a clear explanation as to
why such assistance his not and i.s not planned to be
provided there in adequate levels.
(c) Specify in the F...V,.P narrative the actions eacil
such unit of lc>c,-J. government will be expected to
take in the cxaming program year in order to facilitate
U-&- pruvision of such assistance.
(d) Upon suLni.tt al. of the application to HUD the
urban county shall send copies of the ILA.P (including '
the narrative Portion) to all participating units of
local government., in order_ to ensure that they have a
clear understanding of the role(s) they will be
expected to play in this re~-,ard.
(5) The -=nty is responsible for assuring that affirmative
action is undertaken in all cocperating units of govern-
ment with regard to fair housing and employment and ):xzi-
ness opportunities for minorities and women. To the
extent that the county is unable on its own to meet the
standards in HUD Handbook 6503.1, paragraph 7-4, in a
participating jurisdiction, that jurisdiction shall be
responsible for initiating effective local action which
meets these standards.
-.•__(6) luny urban counties use the exception clause in 24 CFR
.570.302 (d) (5) for approving projects as principally
benefitting low- and moderate-income persons when there
are w or only a few areas in the urban counties with a
majority of lows- and moderate-income persons. The regu-
lations require that any such projects must serve those
- 7 -
"areas having the largest proportions of log,;--- and moderate-
income persons in the locality." In the context of urban
counties, the "locality" means the urban county as a whole
and not individual participating units of local governnent.
-Therefore, the entire territory covered by the urban county
as a whole must be cortsidered in identifying areas having
the largest proportions of such persons.
(7) Expenditures of urban county fu.-As for activities other-
wise eligible will be permitted within metropolitan cities
(which are statutorily excluded from joining urban coun-
ties) or other areas outside of the urban county if such
activities are not plainly inappropriate to meeting tple
identified needs and objectives of the applicant urban
county.
(8) For.urban counties included within a HUD approveL F.reawide
Housing Opportunity Plan (AHOP), HTAP goals must be consistent
with the AHOP. Since the AHOP regulations require that goals
be established for each jurisdiction of 25,000 or more popula-
tion, each urban county included within an `:HOP shall separately
establish goals in its hAP for each such jurisdiction.
Notice to Counties
Area Offices will send a copy of this Notice to all existing ari-I poterl--
tial urban counties within their jurisdiction i Tnedi.ately upon recei0t.
By using "return receipt requested" mail, Area Office, will ensure .
del .vet-, of this Notice. Area Offices vil.l also z=.dvise urban counties
to i. rovide a copy of this Notice to all potential participating units
of general local government
Notification to Heackayar-ters
As previously stated, final entitlement calculations cannot be made until
all qualification data, pertaining to each eiiaible urixan county, are
available in the HUD Head .;uarters. The Area Office shall, as soon as
possible after ccmpleting its review of cooperation agreements and/or
"opt out" notification, and no later than Cctober 31, 1979, advise the
Data Systems and Statistics Division, CPD, of the following:
(1) List each county that appears to qualify in Fiscal Year
-.1980 as an urban county; and -
(2) For each urban county rist all of its-included communities
indicating:
(a) which have submitted approved cooperation agreements
or have not elected to "opt out"; and
- 8 -
i Y -if~ iii+
(b) which "opt out" coa-nunities have informed. the Area
Office they do not wish to be included.
Additional instructions and material to assist the Area Office in this
notification requirement will be furnished under separate cover.
Schedule
Upon Receipt Area Offices send curies of this Notice
to urban counties, using "-return receipt
requested" mail.
August 20, 1979 Notification by IRM of urban county
mowers determ.inaticr..
'August 30, 1979 Urban counties notify all potential
"opt out" units of goveLTffw nt of the
l
qualificC,tion prof:-ess for Fiscal Year
1930.
S<~pteaf:ber 16, ' 1979 Urban counties notify HUD of ccwununities j
they have notia-i&I, including a :ppy of the
notification.
1, 1919 Potential "opt outs c~ _na. aE,s advice
urban cx) ilti.es and HOD of heir deter-
mination not to Lxa :L)C:luCaC-c] in the url-.~ n -
C`37~L n ty.
octobar 1, 1979 a~adlirie for su,''miiission by county of
coq :.ration greuments arYJ list of non- I
"opt out" ocTimiunities
•OCtOl' I- 31, 1979 Area office advises urban counties of
result: of review of coop oration. agrees
nv nts. Area Office e sends listing to
Hea:3quarters.
IzraenLe r 1900 RUD determines entitlement amounts for
urban c cRmti.es .
i Assistant Sc cretar Community
1 f i Rlannizx and Live. cianent
i
-9--
BILLS FOR APPROVAL, CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4,1979
INSURANCE...
M.M. Administrators $ 962.94
FACILITIES...
Metro Lex Supply 240.86
UTILITIES...
General Telephone Company 65.00
Tri County Electric 132.25
Lone Star Gas Company 4.18
CITY ADMINISTRATION...
Travis P. Young Company 28.00
E. L. White 193.59
Regional Printing Service 40.50
Dian Bell (deed filings for Aug.) 25.00
Rohne and Hoodenpyle 189.47
Grapevine Publishing Company 96.10
POLICE DEPARTMENT...
Lancaster-Pittard Professional Assoc. 20.00
City of Grapevine, Ambulance 405.00
Regional Printing Service 30.79
Motor Supply Company 2.73
Payton Wright Ford Sales,Inc. 430.80
Miller Muffler 50.22
Metro Lex Supply 11.92
FIRE DEPARTMENT...
Colleyville Auto Parts 99.66
Riggs Equiptment Service 3,475.00
Riggs Equiptment Serivice 718.16
Bell Communications 339.60
Stewart Oxygen Service 24.00
Conoco ( all departments) 110.00
WATER DEPARTMENT...
North Star Laboratories,Inc. 42.00
Total...... $ 7,737.77