Feature Story – Page 2

Memorial Day: Remembering Hugo J. Ehlers – ‘Everybody’s Friend’

May 15, 2018 by Bailey LeRoux

Joy Melts to Sorrow

Tragic Telegram Delivered as Town Celebrates Peace

By Julie Anderson, Editor

The Armistice went into effect on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918 (French time), and as word spread across the globe, townsfolk took to the streets to rejoice. The good people of La Grange rested in the knowledge that their young men had been spared, as not a single casualty had befallen them. Or so they believed.

One sunset and one sunrise later, celebration turned to sorrow as a telegram was delivered to the parents of Hugo J. Ehlers stating their son “fell in action.”

An obituary published in the local paper offers a moving description of the depth and breadth of the sadness:

Remains of Private H. J. Ehlers Interred at La Grange Friday

The only toll exacted by the world war from La Grange was Private H. J. Ehlers, son of Hugo and Agatha Ehlers, who died while in service for his country at St. Etienne, France. News of Hugo’s death which occurred October 10, 1918, came to La Grange November 12, just one day after the great news that arms had been lowered and preparations for peace were underway. To celebrate in the hours of one day such glorious tidings as were those which gave us the assurance that armistice had been signed, and in the hours of the morrow bow our heads in sorrow at the unwelcome tidings that Hugo, or Jimmie as we called him – and he whom all had loved so much, had paid the supreme price a few days previous is but another illustration of life’s unfathomable and mysterious ways of awarding destiny.

Hugo was a La Grange boy, in truth and in fact. His was a disposition – never changing – that won him love, respect and good will, divided among all classes. No distinction in such friendship, neither was there preference, he was Jimmie Ehlers to all, that meant everybody’s friend. He cast not his castor into the arena as warriors of old, he went at the call to become a soldier for his country. With the same cheerful smile that had helped to bring cheer to all he came in contact with, Jimmie walked forward and grabbed the rail of the iron horse drawn coach to appear before his superior officer. And he died in the service of his country, a true soldier, on the field, in active service.

In bringing back these crumbling remains of our young friend in order that his dust may mingle with the dust of his native land, we come together to pay our last respects, with a feeling of sorrow, yet recognize our duty. Within the breasts of the all of us there is revived a strong love for patriotism and a sympathy for those who loved him with a prior right. Jimmie was one of our young men, and at this late day, as we lower the human clay to the last rest, we pause long enough to shed a tear.

The remains reached La Grange from San Antonio Friday morning, and lay in state at the Presbyterian church until the afternoon, the ceremonies conducted by Rev. M. H. Arnold of Smithville. At the new cemetery they will rest. In silent manner the many tokens of love – flowers – were placed upon his earthen couch. The attendance was very large and comprised sympathizing friends from all sections. Private Ehlers was a member of Medical Corps, 143d Regular 36^th Division. (Obituary contributed by Rob Brown, http://www.fayettecountyhistory.org/obituaries_e.htm#ehlers_hugh.

Loss in La Grange

Seeking to learn more about Hugo Ehlers, County Progress found at least three sites honoring the young man from Fayette County who died at age 25 on the battlefield in France. According to one record, Ehlers “displayed great courage. He unhesitatingly went forward over open ground and contributed to the capture of several machine-gun nests as well as numerous prisoners. Was killed at his post of combat.”

Along with his parents, Hugo left behind one sister and six brothers: Mrs. J. C. Steinbrook and V. M., Walter J., Alfred, Helmuth, Werner and Leslie Ehlers. We also learned that Hugo was a volunteer firefighter who was known and loved for his cheerful disposition.

Hugo is one of 4,700-plus Texans listed on the Texas WWI Honor Roll who “died in support of the war effort at home and at sea and in foreign land, 1 April 1917 to 31 Dec.1918,” described Danny Jones, creator of the Honor Roll, https://sites.google.com/site/vets4taps/home.

“The Honor Roll is made up of remembrances memorializing the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of these Texans who gave all,” shared Jones.

A veteran of the U.S. Air Force, Jones is now retired and spends a great deal of time researching records and honoring veterans, especially those from World War I, by creating remembrances. In 2015, Jones launched the creation of The Honor Roll, a two-year endeavor that he completed in 2017, the 100^th anniversary of America’s entrance into World War I. Jones also created a Texas WWI Centennial Facebook Site.

The sacrificial story of Hugo Ehlers is also shared on The Fayette County TXGenWeb Project website, www.fayettecountyhistory.org/, part of the all-volunteer USGenWeb Project. The obituary at the beginning of this article was found on this site, along with a second obituary titled “La Grange Soldier Hero Is Laid to Rest at Home” contributed by Matt Cross. “The remains of Hugo Ehlers, private in the 143d infantry, medical detachment, who was killed in the Argonne, October 10, 1918, were brought here Friday morning and interment was held in the new cemetery the same afternoon at 4 o’clock. The services were conducted by Rev. M. H. Arnold of Smithville and all business houses in the town were closed,” the article reads.

The Fayette County TXGenWeb Project site includes a variety of links, one of which is Footprints of Fayette, a collection of local history articles written by members of the Fayette County Historical Commission, said Rox Ann Johnson, volunteer and lead coordinator of The Fayette County TXGenWeb Project. Johnson also is a member and past-chairman of the Fayette County Historical Commission.

Footprints of Fayette, the brainchild of Fayette County Judge Ed Janecka, includes another moving article on Hugo Ehlers, “Soldier is Lost” (see related stories).

Finally, we located Hugo’s name engraved on a plaque located alongside the Fayette County Veterans Memorial, a brick and stone gazebo-type structure on the courthouse square reflecting the style of the Fayette County Courthouse that sits in the background.

The following is etched into the memorial stone:

“No greater sacrifice can be made by the citizens of a democratic nation than to serve in its armed forces in times of war or in times of peace. Fayette County proudly honors and pays tribute to its citizens who accepted the call to arms and served gallantly in securing freedom for the state of Texas and maintaining it for their nation throughout history.”

Fine and Fee Collection

May 8, 2018 by Bailey LeRoux

Cooperation, Communication Pay Off

By Julie Anderson

Editor

For more than 10 years, Laura Prado has supervised the collection of court costs, fines, and attorney’s fee for criminal charges within Potter County including five district courts, three county courts at law, and four justice of the peace courts.

Having previously assisted in developing the collections program for the city of Amarillo’s municipal court, Prado is well familiar with the keys to a successful collections program including communication with defendants and cooperation with county partners.

When it comes to maximizing collections, “keeping in contact with defendants is crucial,” Prado shared. “We send a lot of correspondence and make a lot of phone calls.”

Prado’s department also fosters effective working relationships with probation and parole officers, “who are great in reminding their clients about their obligation to the court.”

“We are enforcing a court order,” Prado emphasized, “so it is important to have the judges on board. After all, we are collecting for their courts.”

Another key to a well-oiled collections program is “effective, efficient software,” Prado offered. “This is a must, so do your homework in this regard.”

For counties looking to revamp or strengthen their program, Prado suggested observing other programs and procedures.

“Every collections department runs their office just a little different,” she noted, “so contacting other departments can be beneficial.”

Prado is no stranger to revamping a program. In fact, during the last several years, Prado’s bold move to restructure her personnel flow and the challenges that come with employee turnover resulted in her nomination for a special honor.

Every year, the Governmental Collectors Association of Texas bestows the Becky Sirmans Award “to the individuals or programs selected for finding a way to succeed in spite of seemingly insurmountable obstacles and challenges embodying the spirit to never give up.”

“Last year I felt that some restructuring needed to be done in regards to personnel,” Prado explained. With this came a period of rebuilding where Prado worked diligently to train and retrain staff members to ensure the highest level of performance within her department.

“This job isn’t an easy one,” Prado noted. “Some of those who were trained could not handle the job, and some just did not like the dynamics of it.”

Prado had to start over several times throughout the restructuring, all the while keeping up with the daily workload, meaning working after hours and an occasional Saturday.

Her efforts were successful, resulting in a collections program that continues to honor the court orders all the while keeping channels of communication open between the courts, the collections department, and the defendants.

Another important aspect of Prado’s job as collections manager is staying apprised of the latest rules established by the Office of Court Administration (OCA).

Mandated Collection Programs

The OCA’s Collection Improvement Program (CIP) uses a set of principles and processes designed to assist cities and counties with collecting court costs, fees and fines assessed in criminal cases when defendants are not prepared to pay at the time of assessment and when additional time to pay is requested, explained Amanda Stites, OCA court services manager. The CIP is designed to improve the enforcement of a defendant’s compliance with the payment of costs, fees, and fines that have been ordered by a court without imposing an undue hardship on the defendant or the defendant’s dependents.

House Bill 3167, which passed during the 85th Regular Legislative Session, increased the population threshold for counties required to have a collection improvement program from 50,000 to 100,000. Effective June 1, 2017, counties and cities with a population of 100,000 or greater are required to comply with CIP requirements (Code of Criminal Procedure 103.0033).

On Aug. 19, 2016, the Texas Judicial Council approved amendments to the rules that govern the implementation and operation of programs operated by counties and municipalities to improve the collection of court costs, fees and fines (Title 1, Chapter 175, Texas Administrative Code), Stites stated. The changes to the rules were designed to ensure that local programs engage the judiciary in situations in which a defendant may not have the ability to pay the assessed court costs, fees, and fines without undue hardship.

“The rules were amended to help ensure that the procedures used to manage cases, from the imposition of legal financial obligations, to notice practices, through ultimate disposition, are consistent among local programs, and that local program practices do not inadvertently result in the removal of the court’s role in the determination of a defendant’s ability to pay,” Stites continued. Those amended rules went into effect on Jan. 1, 2017.

OCA provides training and technical assistance on the CIP to judges and collection program staff. For more information about the CIP, contact Stites at amanda.stites@txcourts.gov or 512-463-1643. The CIP rules are available online at http://www.txcourts.gov/cip/.

When it comes to delinquent cases, the CIP rules state the following: “Each local program must have a component designed to improve collection of balances more than 60 days past due.” Some counties have met this requirement by contracting with an outside source.

Outsourcing Delinquent Collections

The Texas Legislature has given counties the authority to assess a 30 percent fee on a delinquent fine or fee when contracting with a private attorney or public vendor to improve collection of balances more than 60 days past due.

Potter County Justice of the Peace Debbie Horn took office in May 2006, right after the decision had been made to outsource collections with Perdue Brandon Fielder Collins & Mott‚ LLP.

The law firm does all of the legwork, Horn observed, as the firm has the resources and personnel to make multiple attempts to contact the defendants to take care of their outstanding cases.

“Most of the time that means paying their fines and court costs which in turn generates revenue at no cost to the county,” Horn continued. In addition, once a year the firm participates in a warrant roundup that generates contact from defendants “which allows us to dispose of a lot more cases.”

In June 2014, Montgomery County Justice of the Peace Precinct 4 completed the installation of NET Data’s case management system, said Brian Stanley, chief of staff for Montgomery County Justice of the Peace James Metts. At the same time, the court signed on with NET Data’s affiliate, Graves Humphries Stahl, Ltd. (GHS), to pursue delinquent fines and fees.

Up until that time, a lack of resources didn’t allow the in-house collections program to continually work older cases, Stanley noted.

“Since, by statute, all fees payable to the vendor are a part of the fines and fees paid by the customer, our county has incurred no costs for these efforts, nor has to discount its portion of a fine or fee,” Stanley explained, “so our county has enjoyed additional revenues without incurring any additional liabilities.”

Harris County Justice of the Peace David Patronella, who serves Precinct 1, Place 2, said his court has been using an outside vendor since 2009.

“The impetus was that Harris County was being directed by the state to do a better job of collecting fines and costs on criminal cases,” Patronella offered. The court contracted with Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP.

“The outsourcing has allowed court personnel to concentrate on managing dockets and dealing directly with the public,” Patronella noted. The outside firm has greater resources than the county court and has performed the job with effectiveness, efficiency and professionalism.

Unfunded Mandate Legislation: Past Efforts Lay Groundwork for Future Progress

May 1, 2018 by Bailey LeRoux

By Julie Anderson, Editor

An unfunded mandate is a state law or regulation that requires a local government to perform certain actions, with no money provided for fulfilling the requirements.

During the Regular Session of the 82nd Texas Legislature, Rep. Burt R. Solomons filed House Joint Resolution 56 (HJR 56) calling for the prohibition of unfunded mandates. Oldham County Judge Don R. Allred was there in person to offer his applause.

“This was an important piece of legislation for counties,” recalled Allred, a past president of the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas (CJCAT). “Unfunded mandates from state and federal governments have been the single greatest factor in the increase of county budgets over the last several years.”

HJR 56, filed on Jan. 10, 2011, sought a constitutional amendment that would bar state lawmakers from imposing any mandates on local government without paying for them. The legislative language read: “No bill enacted by the Legislature on or after January 1, 2012, requiring a local government to establish, expand or modify a duty or activity that requires the expenditure of revenue by the local government shall be effective until and unless the Legislature appropriates or otherwise provides for the payment or reimbursement, from a source other than the revenue of the local government, or the costs incurred for the biennium by the local government in complying with the requirement.”

Companion legislation was filed by Sen. John Carona in the form of Senate Joint Resolution 17. Both resolutions would have applied to counties, cities, community college districts, hospital districts, and other special districts.

In addition, House Joint Resolution 89 filed by Rep. Garnet Coleman proposed an unfunded mandate amendment that applied only to counties.

Both HJR 56 and HJR 89 made it to the House Calendars Committee but not to the floor, and SJR 17 did not get a committee hearing on the Senate side. Had any of these resolutions passed through the Legislature, voters would have made the final call in the November 2011 election.

If At First You Don’t Succeed…

What may have been considered a defeat in 2011 was actually deemed by many as a sign of progress considering the statistics involved:

Some 95 bipartisan authors and co-authors supported HJR 56, only five short of the two-thirds needed for House passage of a constitutional amendment.
The majority of Texas counties passed resolutions in support of HJR 56, resolutions which played a major role in educating lawmakers.

Legislative analysts have long suggested that some bills take multiple presentations, session after session, before garnering the needed support. Resolutions similar to HJR 56 were again filed in the 83rd and 84th sessions; while they did not make it out of committee, lawmakers were once again exposed to the concept.

Fast forward to the most recent legislative session, the 85th which met in regular session Jan. 10-May 29, 2017, and in special session July 18-Aug. 15, 2017.

2016-17 CJCAT President Woodrow W. “Woody” Gossom Jr., Wichita County Judge, observed the hearing of House Joint Resolution 73 by Rep. DeWayne Burns which, like HJR 56 filed some six years earlier, called for a constitutional amendment to restrict unfunded mandates:

A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a constitutional amendment to restrict the power of the legislature to mandate requirements on a municipality or county.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Article III, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 68 to read as follows:

Sec. 68. A law enacted by the legislature on or after January 1, 2018, that requires a municipality or county to establish, expand, or modify a duty or activity that requires the expenditure of revenue by the municipality or county is not effective unless the legislature appropriates or otherwise provides, from a source other than the revenue of the municipality or county, for the payment or reimbursement of the costs incurred for the biennium by the municipality or county in complying with the requirement.

SECTION 2. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 7, 2017. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: “The constitutional amendment to restrict the power of the legislature from mandating unfunded requirements on a municipality or county.”

The bill received 95 of the 100 votes it needed on the second reading, and on the third reading secured “127 Yeas, 18 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.”

History was made as the resolution passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. The resolution was then sent to the Senate and referred to the Business and Commerce Committee, where it remained without advancement. We now move on to the 86th Texas Legislature, which will convene Jan. 8, 2019.

Local Efforts

As early as 2004, 253 counties had already passed resolutions denouncing unfunded mandates and supporting a constitutional amendment prohibiting them. For counties and cities that are at the statutory maximum tax rate, unfunded mandates give local governments no option but to cut services for their constituents. For those who are not capped out, unfunded mandates force tax increases.

“Unfunded mandates can have a devastating impact on county budgets and can limit a county’s ability to provide essential services by diverting funds already allocated to specific programs to the mandates sent down from the state,” declared Hays County Commissioner Debbie Gonzales Ingalsbe, a CJCAT past president and current chairman of the CJCAT Commissioners Education Committee.

Prior to 2004, the CJCAT addressed unfunded mandates in a resolution on fiscal notes with the following clause, “THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas urges the Legislature of the State of Texas, in all future legislative sessions, to expand the legislative fiscal note process to fully recognize all costs of any legislation to counties and to adopt a constitutional amendment or legislation to prohibit such unfunded and/or under-funded mandates.”

In 2004, the CJCAT leadership crafted a resolution dedicated solely to the issue of unfunded mandates, which has been passed every year since, with a few modifications, by the State Association and its Regional Associations at their respective business meetings and has served as a key component of the CJCAT legislative platform. The following was passed by the CJCAT in September 2017:

Opposition to Unfunded Mandates

WHEREAS, Texas counties are responsible for the operation and management of many and various governmental programs as required or authorized by state law; and

WHEREAS, some county government programs are fully or partially supported with funds disbursed by the State of Texas pursuant to the state appropriations process; and

WHEREAS, the State of Texas, acting through the Texas Legislature or through a state agency or executive order, may enact laws or promulgate rules that have the effect of imposing mandatory financial obligations upon Texas counties; and

WHEREAS, the State of Texas, through the Texas Legislature or through a state agency or executive order, mandates that counties implement certain governmental programs or perform certain duties and obligations including financial commitments by a county to expend county funds in connection therewith; and

WHEREAS, during each regular session of the Texas Legislature, all state funds that support county programs are reviewed through the state appropriation process and by other state budgetary review systems; and

WHEREAS, the aforementioned review process may result in a reduction, or cessation, of state financial support of county government programs causing an unforeseeable disruption and reduction of the county budget and operations; and

WHEREAS, Texas counties cannot achieve reliable financial planning and the necessary bond ratings sufficient to support county-related obligations when the state mandates a new program that is not fully funded or under conditions where the state reduces or fully withdraws prior funding and disbursement for county government programs;

NOW, THEREFORE, the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas and its 254 current member counties do hereby resolve that for the foregoing reasons, it is in the best interests of Texas counties and their taxpayers to support and favor the passage of legislation in the form of an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Texas that would expressly prohibit the imposition of a mandatory governmental program on Texas counties, whether by an act of the Texas Legislature or a state agency or by executive order, unless the State of Texas has fully funded and disbursed all necessary funds to enable Texas counties to operate said governmental program.

The Association has provided a sample resolution for individual counties to pass which includes the text above with a modification to the last graph as follows:

NOW THEREFORE, the Commissioners Court of ______________ County, Texas does hereby resolve that for the foregoing reasons, it is in the best interests of Texas counties and their taxpayers to support and favor the passage of legislation in the form of an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Texas that would expressly prohibit the imposition of a mandatory governmental program on Texas counties, whether by an act of the Texas Legislature or a state agency or by executive order, unless the State of Texas has fully funded and disbursed all necessary funds to enable Texas counties to operate said governmental program.

“The primary legislative objective of the State Association is the prevention of unfunded mandates,” emphasized Jim Allison, general counsel to the CJCAT. “Legislators have an unending supply of ‘good ideas’ without funding. Every session, we successfully defeat numerous bills with proposed unfunded mandates. Despite our efforts, some unfunded mandates are enacted.”

The financial burdens placed upon counties by the Legislature in recent decades have become onerous for local property taxpayers, either causing local property tax hikes or reductions in services. The approximate percent of the county budget consumed by unfunded mandates will vary from 50 percent to 70 percent, Allison reported.

In order to paint a clearer picture – complete with facts and figures – of the cost of unfunded mandates, several county associations joined together to develop a comprehensive survey and follow-up report. The 2016 Unfunded Mandates Survey was conducted online by the Texas Association of Counties in cooperation with the Texas Association of County Auditors, the Conference of Urban Counties and the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas during the summer and fall of 2016.

This survey report was released last year as a communication tool to help explain the cost of unfunded and underfunded mandates on property taxpayers. In the coming months, counties will be contacted and survey data will be updated in preparation for the 86th Session of the Texas Legislature, said Tim Brown, senior analyst with the Texas Association of Counties County Information Program, which helped prepare the survey report. The 2016 study is available at http://bit.ly/unfunman2EvqW3v.

The Task at Hand

The CJCAT and its Legislative Committee continue to keep a watchful eye on interim studies, attend related meetings and hearings, and lay groundwork in preparation for the 2019 legislative session. However, the task at hand – supporting legislation to restrict unfunded mandates – requires both a collective effort in Austin combined with individual work on the home front, emphasized CJCAT President Alma Moreno, San Patricio County Commissioner. When it comes to individual efforts, here is a list for consideration:

Pass resolutions calling for the prohibition of unfunded mandates at the local level and make sure copies of these resolutions land directly in the hands of lawmakers.
Ensure your county responds to forthcoming requests for data necessary to update the 2016 Unfunded Mandates Survey in preparation for the 86^th Texas Legislature.
Establish regular contact with your individual senators and representatives, not only to deliver your copies of local resolutions, but to visit in person about unfunded mandates and how they specifically impact your county’s ability to provide local services.
Do not assume your constituents or your legislators understand the innerworkings of county government; be prepared to have an open discussion about the roles and responsibilities of Commissioners Courts and the county/state partnership. Along with engaged conversation, offer resources to both your constituents and lawmakers on how county government works. For example, the April issue of County Progress included an educational article, What You Wish Your Constituents Knew About County Government, the County Budget, and the Property Tax.

“We are 254 County Strong!” shared Moreno. “If only two members of each county in our Grand State become active, what a message over 500 Judges and Commissioners could send!” she continued. “Let’s continue to keep Texas county government strong!”

Commissioners Court Advanced Curriculum

April 16, 2018 by Bailey LeRoux

As of September 2017, 619 County Judges and County Commissioners have earned their Commissioners Court Advanced Curriculum certification giving them an in-depth understanding of not only their particular office, but county government as a whole.

Commissioners Court Advanced Curriculum (CCAC) is a comprehensive educational program designed specifically for members of Commissioners Court.

“This program strengthens the credibility of our elected officials,” declared Cherokee County Commissioner Byron Underwood, chairman of the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas (CJCAT) County Commissioners Education Committee. “The advanced curriculum helps us learn about every aspect of county government including the duties and responsibilities of all elected officials, which helps us all excel in our official duties.” Underwood received his CCAC Completion Certificate in 2010 during his first term in office.

CCAC was adopted by the County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas in 1992 to provide curriculum for an advanced study in county government. The program is continually updated, as foundational information provided in the original program is merged with material necessitated by legislative changes and the new and varied challenges faced by a rapidly growing state.

The development of CCAC is a combined effort of the CJCAT, V.G. Young Institute of County Government, a part of Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, and the Texas Association of Counties.

CCAC provides a comprehensive course of study as follows:

Phase I Orientation – All hours offered at LBJ School of Public Affairs

Phase II Basics – 16 hours

Phase III Advanced Instruction – 32 hours

Phase I Orientation courses currently are offered at the LBJ School of Public Affairs Seminar for Newly Elected County Judges and Commissioners, which is conducted in Austin every January following an election year. Since it is not feasible to require County Judges and Commissioners to retroactively attend the LBJ Orientation Seminar, County Judges and Commissioners who assumed office prior to Jan. 1, 1995, are permitted to substitute 16 hours of other approved instruction for the orientation course.

Phase II County Government Basics includes instruction concerning the duties and responsibilities of all county officers and departments. Phase III includes advanced instruction in the functions of county government. These courses are offered at the annual County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas regional and state conferences and the annual V.G. Young Institute of County Government School for County Commissioners Courts.

Valuable Budget Tools

April 9, 2018 by Bailey LeRoux

Calendar, Vision Help Guide Lengthy Process

Legal document…approved expenditures…statement of revenue…expenses and fund balances…

While these technical definitions of the county budget are certainly valid, the budget document often embodies much more to Commissioners Courts and the constituents they serve. In many counties, the facts and figures in the budget ultimately originate from a set of goals or vision statement. A segment of the mission statement is dictated by state law, as counties must fulfill responsibilities mandated by the State of Texas. Another segment of that mission is often more personal. For example, consider the Gregg County Mission Statement, included in the county’s finalized budget document: “Our mission is to provide quality services that are responsive, respectful and effective in a fair and equitable manner that will enhance the quality of life for Gregg County residents.”

Gregg County’s Mission Statement is rounded out by a multipronged vision and 10 overall goals.

Walker County includes in its budget document both general goals and primary goals that help direct budget proceedings. For example, the 2018 budget offered a multipage narrative on how the county approaches long-term planning, referencing initiatives including the Walker County Economic Development Policy and the Walker County Safety Community Plan.

“Walker County is also very involved in several interagency public safety task forces, and budgeting for grant match needs is a high priority budget item as is funding the personnel needed to address public safety concerns,” the budget reads.

The final budget document also lists primary goals that helped drive the 2018 budget process:

to aim at not adopting a tax rate that exceeded the calculated effective tax rate;
to maintain at least the same level of service to the community;
to continue with the equipment and vehicle replacement schedules;
to continue to budget for major maintenance to the aging buildings;
to continue to supplement the Road and Bridge Fund budget from one-time monies available;
to set aside monies for planning for future retiree health insurance planning –begin to build ongoing allocations into the budget and supplement with one-time monies available;
to meet the most pressing needs identified by the elected officials and department heads within the dollars available;
to maintain the budgeted fund balance at no less than the minimum level set in budget policies of 16.67 percent with a preference for a higher percentage; and
to fund ongoing costs with revenues generated in the current year.

“Commissioners Court met their goals,” stated Patricia Allen, Walker County auditor, in the 2018 budget cover letter.

Both Walker and Gregg counties use a budget calendar to guide the lengthy process, which usually spans a six-month period.

“The budget calendar allows for an organized effort in the budgeting process to happen in a timely manner,” shared Walker County Judge Danny Pierce. “Every department has ample time to separate needs from wants and prepare for presentation to Commissioners Court.”

The annual budget process is complex involving statutes for ad valorem tax, financial accounting, archival plans, salaries for elected officials, specialized local entities, and budgeting, explained Gregg County Judge Bill Stoudt. Each section of the law has specific requirements for public notices and/or public hearings.

“An effective budget calendar combines these requirements and ensures compliance with all statutes,” Stoudt continued. The calendar distributed in the Gregg County budget instruction manual and the annual budget provides major dates of interest to departments and the public, and the detailed calendar used by the Judge’s office includes deadlines and statutes for all the complex pieces of the budget cycle. The detailed Gregg County budget calendar is available to anyone upon request.

The Texas Association of Counties provides a detailed calendar on its website at https://www.county.org/for-county-officials/Pages/Budget-and-Tax-Planning-Calendar.aspx.

Both Gregg and Walker counties supplement the facts and figures within the budget with explanations of how decisions are made including budget policy, cash management strategies, and issues that affect the decision process.

“At the end of the day what matters is how we work together and do what is best for Gregg County,” Stoudt declared. “The bottom line is, we are public servants who are accountable to our citizens.”