Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hcad Forensic Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City representative urges Granbury ISD to press DA after forensic audit claims $3.3M in appraisal‑district excess funds
Summary
A city representative told the Granbury ISD board a forensic review of the Hood County Appraisal District identified $3.3 million in excess funds moved to other accounts, with $1.9 million returned and roughly $1.3 million still claimed due; he asked the board to contact the district attorney to seek further action. Trustees questioned whether the forensic audit found fraud and noted some funds were returned; no board action was taken.
Jim Jarrett, speaking on behalf of the City of Granbury during public comment, urged the Granbury ISD board to press the district attorney after what he described as a forensic audit of the Hood County Appraisal District (HCAD).
Jarrett said the forensic review identified about $3.3 million in excess funds that were moved into other accounts and not properly reported to taxing entities. He said $1.9 million had been returned and that roughly $1.3 million remained unpaid to taxing entities, with Granbury ISD as the largest affected entity. "We have $3.3 million. The lion share of it belongs to this school district," Jarrett said, asking trustees to "publish a letter to the district attorney encouraging him to move this along." He also said the city would consider taking the matter to a grand jury if the DA declined to act.
Jarrett singled out roughly $818,000 he said was transferred into a retirement account and about $397,000 he said was spent on surveys and architect fees for a proposed building. He described portions of the transfers as "excess funds" that, in his view, were not properly communicated to taxing entities and were not approved via required amendments.
Board members asked detailed questions about the forensic work and whether the report found criminal conduct. Several trustees and other speakers noted that auditors and taxing entities had recovered $1.9 million and that the forensic‑audit executive summary and the full report differed in phrasing. "Fraud was never mentioned," one board member said after reviewing the executive summary and report excerpts; another noted the forensic audit identified improper transfers and recommended clearer policies.
Speakers debated legal mechanics cited in the report, including whether line‑item transfers versus formal budget amendments were lawful under Texas tax code, whether required 30‑day notices were provided to taxing entities, and how TCDRS (Texas County and District Retirement System) contributions had been recorded. Jarrett urged the board to seek closure; other trustees cautioned that pursuing legal action or asking the DA to convene a grand jury could carry legal and financial costs for taxpayers if litigation or prosecution followed.
No board vote or formal action was taken on Jarrett's request at the meeting. A trustee reminded the public that this discussion had not been posted as a board agenda item and cautioned against converting public comment into unposted board discussion; the presiding officer acknowledged those procedural concerns. Jarrett and other speakers said they would provide documentation and asked the board to consider directing staff or counsel to follow up.
The board closed the meeting without taking the requested step to contact the district attorney; trustees said staff and counsel could be directed to return the matter as a posted agenda item for formal consideration if the board chooses to do so.
