Hunt County treasurer warns audit delays have cost county a bond rating
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Hunt County Treasurer Britney Turner told commissioners the county has experienced repeated delays in receiving its annual audit, prompting Moody’s to withdraw the county’s bond rating on outstanding debt; she urged stricter audit timelines before renewing the external-audit contract.
Britney Turner, Hunt County treasurer, told the commissioners’ court that repeated delays in the county’s outside audit have put the county at financial risk and urged the court to consider scheduling requirements before renewing the auditor contract.
Turner said the county received a draft of audited financial statements for fiscal 2024 only late in January and that, because financial reporting was late, “we withdrew our credit rating on our outstanding bonds” from Moody’s. She asked the court to “exercise caution” before approving the renewal of the annual audit contract with the firm listed in the packet (appearing in the record as both “Rutherford Tailoring Company” and “Rutherford Taylor”), and suggested setting firmer deadlines in engagement letters so audits are completed within the nine-month reporting window the county has historically followed.
The concern arose during public testimony when Turner described her office’s recent audit timeline and the practical effects: she said the county’s draft for fiscal 2024 arrived in late January, after multiple notices from Moody’s starting in June 2025. She said those notices culminated in Moody’s withdrawing the county’s credit rating on outstanding bonds, which is now visible on financial websites.
Judge Benjie Stovall and several commissioners acknowledged the history with the county’s audit firms and said they have sent emails and attempted contact; they noted that one firm had undergone ownership changes and local staff turnover. Commissioners said it may be difficult to replace an auditor late in the season but agreed to contact the firm for clarity and consider adding stricter scheduling provisions to future engagement letters. The court pulled consent item number 3 for separate consideration and proceeded to move the remainder of the consent calendar.
The court did not take final action during the public comment period to terminate or replace the auditor. Commissioners indicated next steps: staff will contact the auditor for an explanation, and the court may revisit contract terms or procurement timing at a later date. The treasurer’s request to consider timelines and contractual “teeth” in engagement letters was left as direction for follow-up rather than an immediate directive from the court.