Watchdog concerned with road bond
Posted/updated on: February 13, 2026 at 2:37 am
SMITH COUNTY — Smith County commissioners voted Tuesday to move forward with seeking an independent audit of the county’s road bond program after a local watchdog group raised concerns about a reported $7 million discrepancy.
Grassroots America first brought the issue before the Smith County Commissioners Court, according to our news partner KETK. During its Dec. 16, 2025, meeting financial records tied to the voter-approved Road Bond Program were questioned. On Tuesday, commissioners approved a motion authorizing the county’s purchasing director to advertise for and receive sealed bids for requests for proposals for independent auditing services to review road bond expenditures and compliance. Any contract resulting from the bid process will return to the court for final approval.
The Road Bond Program was initially approved by voters in November 2017 with 73% support after an engineering assessment found more than one-third of county roads in poor condition. The plan was divided into two phases with a combined estimated cost of $84.5 million and a six-year completion timeline. Voters approved the second phase in 2021.
Grassroots America has argued the project is now years behind schedule and significantly over budget. Figures presented to the court show the total projected cost has climbed to more than $135 million, while Phase I is about 40% complete.
Grassroots board member Tom Fabry previously told commissioners that financial records provided by the county include duplicated line items and missing documentation, creating what the group describes as a $7 million gap that warrants a forensic and compliance audit.
During Tuesday’s discussion, Precinct 3 Commissioner J. Scott Herrod said he supports pursuing an audit but raised concerns about cost and prolonged uncertainty.
“I hope there is a firm out there that is interested and has the ability to do this work, and that the cost comes in at a number that we can swallow,” Herrod said. “Any idea that there is any type of fraud or misuse of funds, we’ve gone from a typo or decimal error to where we’re having this conversation weeks upon weeks and hours upon hours.”
Herrod said the continued debate has created strain and emphasized the need to keep projects moving.
“We’re having fatigue within our vendors in a lot of areas within the county, and my main goal is that we keep moving forward,” he said. “I am happy to look back on what’s happened in previous years and previous courts, but the focus is on moving forward.”
He added that several projects in his precinct have been delayed and said the unresolved audit question continues to linger.
“Truly, with this continuing to hang over our heads, I don’t know if we’re getting any closer to an answer,” Herrod said.
County Judge Neal Franklin also addressed the discrepancies raised in December, suggesting some of the disagreement may stem from differing interpretations of financial data.
“Hopefully, Mr. Fabry will get with us and review Mr. Davis’ information because we were way apart,” he said, referring to County Engineer Frank Davis. “There was talk of $7 million, and then Mr. Davis came forward and showed where we had a difference of potentially $500, and that’s way different.”
Franklin said he has heard concerns from residents about the potential cost of an audit. “I’ve had a lot of general public come up to me and say, ‘How are you going to pay for that?’” he said.
Under Tuesday’s action, the county will review submitted audit proposals before deciding whether to hire an outside firm. No auditor has been selected, and no cost has been approved.
County officials said the court will evaluate proposals once they are received and determine which firm, if any, will conduct the review of road bond expenditures.
