BREAKING NEWS: Moody’s Put Wilton’s Aaa Ratings Under Review in June. Why Didn’t Town Hall Tell Elected Boards or the Public?

Moody’s placed Wilton’s Aaa credit ratings under review June 30 because it lacked sufficient current financial information, according to rating documents reviewed by GOOD Morning Wilton. The action covered both the Town’s issuer rating and the underlying ratings on its listed outstanding general obligation bonds.

The rating agency warned that if it did not receive the information within 60 days, it could take further action, including withdrawing the ratings. Wilton’s FY2025 audit was unfinished then and remained unfinished as of Monday, Sept. 28.

Two months after Moody’s announcement, an unsigned, unfinished draft of Wilton’s FY2025 financial report was posted Sept. 1 to EMMA, the public municipal bond disclosure system. CFO Dawn Savo later wrote that the draft had been posted “per our bond advisor to accommodate Moody’s.”

On Friday, Sept. 25, Moody’s confirmed Wilton’s Aaa ratings. Its accompanying list identifies the information received for Wilton as “Draft 2025 financials.”

The sequence raises questions that have not been answered publicly: When did Savo, First Selectwoman Toni Boucher and Town bond adviser Barry Bernabe learn Wilton was under review? What information did Moody’s ask for? Was the Sept. 1 posting to EMMA a response to that request, and why were Wilton’s Boards of Selectmen and Finance not formally briefed about the review at meetings where the public could also be informed?

At least one BOF member did not know about the Moody’s review until today. Kim Healy told GMW that she learned of it from the newsroom’s request for comment, though she had discovered the separate EMMA filing earlier in September.

The Moody’s documents do not identify which Wilton officials received notice of the June action, what Bernabe or another Town official discussed with the rating agency or whether Moody’s requested that the draft be posted publicly to EMMA.

From a December warning to a 60-day review

At the Board of Finance’s June 9 meeting, Bernabe, of Phoenix Advisors, answered questions about late municipal audits and their potential consequences for bond ratings. GMW reported June 10 that he emphasized completing Wilton’s audit before the end of December.

“It’s the policy of Moody’s that they give municipalities a year and a half,” Bernabe said. He cautioned that Moody’s could withdraw the rating on Wilton’s outstanding bonds if the audit was not completed by year’s end.

Bernabe also said the Town would be unable to issue new bonds after June 30 until the FY2025 audit was completed and a new rating was issued. “We will not be able to issue new bonds until that audit is released,” he said.

Bernabe made those remarks before Moody’s placed Wilton under review. On June 30, however, Moody’s identified a shorter, immediate period in which it sought sufficient information: 60 days. Ratings withdrawal was one possible outcome, not a decision Moody’s had already made.

That distinction calls for an explanation from Bernabe. Did his June 9 answer describe a general timeline while leaving out the possibility of an earlier information review? Once Moody’s acted, what did he tell Savo and Boucher or the BOF about the risk and the steps needed to resolve it?

Moody’s June action affected 120 local government issuers, including Wilton. Being placed under review did not mean the Town had lost its Aaa ratings. Its subsequent Sept. 25 action confirmed existing ratings; it did not address whether the Town can obtain a rating for its planned new bond issue without a completed audit.

Why was the draft posted to EMMA — and why weren’t the BOS and BOF informed?

The draft FY25 financial report was made available to the bond market via EMMA on Sept. 1, before it was formally provided to the Board of Finance or Board of Selectmen. It contained incomplete material and disclosed that Wilton’s previously issued FY2024 financial statements had understated capital assets by approximately $9.58 million. A table explaining the correction contained conflicting figures; the table was corrected in a later draft.

Savo said the FY25 report was uploaded to EMMA at Bernabe’s recommendation:

• Savo did not attend the most recent Board of Selectmen meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 22, but answers she wrote to questions from BOS members were read aloud at the meeting. One noted that, “A draft [of the financial reports] was done for the end of August and posted to EMMA per disclosure rules by our bond advisor.”

• In a separate email read at the meeting, Savo distinguished the unfinished draft from a final audit that had not yet been issued. “The FY2025 audited financial statements have not yet been finalized, so there is not a final audit link available on EMMA, just an earlier draft from 8/30 that was necessary per our bond advisor to accommodate Moody’s,” she wrote.

• Since the Sept. 22 Board of Selectmen meeting, GMW has made a series of requests for information from Town officials under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In a Sept. 24 email to both boards obtained by GMW, Savo gave a fuller account: “Given the delay in completing the FY2025 audit, our bond advisor advised posting the unsigned draft to EMMA to provide updated financial information to the municipal bond market.”

The draft was posted before it was formally provided to either the BOF or the BOS; most board members were not formally notified about the posting by Savo or Boucher. Emails show that individual BOF members subsequently discovered the public posting and sought answers. They do not show that Savo or Boucher had formally briefed the full BOF about the posting or Wilton’s Moody’s review.

• BOF member Kim Healy had discovered the EMMA posting and alerted other board members in a Sept. 9 email. She asked why a report with numerous unfinished sections had been filed. Member Kari Roberts then urged BOF Chair Tim Birch to get an explanation from Town Hall, writing that the board needed to understand a filing connected to bond issuance.

• On Sept. 19, Healy pressed for a special BOF meeting and a chance to review a revised draft before it was finalized. She also asked Birch whether the auditors had told him that the EMMA draft called for restating more than $9 million in FY2024 figures.

• Birch has told GMW that he learned of the EMMA filing after the fact.

• At the Sept. 22 BOS meeting, selectmen also questioned why an unfinished draft had been made available publicly while their board had not been formally given a copy.

What was Boucher’s role?

As first selectwoman, Boucher is Wilton’s chief executive and administrative officer. The Town Charter makes her responsible for coordinating Town offices, having financial reports prepared as required by the BOS and continuously reviewing the Town’s financial needs. The full BOS also has responsibility for overseeing Town affairs and keeping itself informed.

Those responsibilities put a separate set of questions to Boucher: When did she learn Moody’s had placed Wilton under review? What did she do with that information? Did she know in advance that an unfinished financial report would be posted publicly, and did she approve or review it? Who decided what the other selectmen and BOF members would be told?

Her answers would also clarify whether the lack of a formal briefing reflected a decision she made, advice she received or a failure in the Town’s process for informing elected boards. The available records do not yet establish when Boucher first knew of the June review.

GOOD Morning Wilton has requested copies of all communications since June 1 among Savo, Boucher, Bernabe, Moody’s, Wilton’s bond counsel and BOF leadership concerning the ratings review, missing financial information, EMMA, the draft FY2025 report and the Sept. 30 target for completion.

We have also specifically requested any records and instructions pertaining to the Sept. 1 EMMA upload.

What does Sept. 30 mean?

Savo has targeted Sept. 30 for completion of the FY2025 audit. In a Sept. 26 email to Healy, she wrote that she had contacted BOF leadership about changing the target date because it had already been reported to the state and Wilton’s rating agency.

Healy had called Sept. 30 a “self imposed deadline” and urged Savo to correct known errors before filing. Savo replied that many of Healy’s findings were being addressed and that the board would receive a corrected version when available.

Savo’s email says the Town had reported the Sept. 30 target to the state and Moody’s. It does not establish that Moody’s imposed that date or agreed to take a particular action if the Town met it. Town officials and Bernabe have not publicly explained how the target date relates to Moody’s June review or Sept. 25 confirmation.

The confirmation resolved the June review for now, but it does not end the need for a completed audit. In its Sept. 25 announcement, Moody’s said issuers that supplied unaudited financial statements could be placed under review again if they do not provide finalized audits within the next two to three months, depending on their fiscal year-end dates.

Wilton has retained its Aaa ratings. What remains unclear is how close it came to losing them, what assurances or information were exchanged with Moody’s and why some elected officials overseeing the Town’s finances had to discover key parts of the process after the fact.

GOOD Morning Wilton sent detailed questions Monday to Savo, Boucher and Bernabe, as well as to members of the BOS and BOF. As of publication time, Boucher had acknowledged receiving the questions but had not answered them.

GMW received an automatic email reply from Savo saying that she is out of the office until Monday, Oct. 5.

Healy was the only BOF member to respond by GMW‘s requested deadline. She said she had learned about the Moody’s rating news from GMW‘s request for comment today and that the BOF has not been provided an explanation from Savo, Boucher or any other Town official. 

GMW obtained a series of emails that show Healy has also identified several errors in the draft financial materials that had been posted publicly and provided several proposed corrections to Town officials. Despite this, no newer version has been shared with her.

“No updated draft has been shared with the BOF since 9/23. I expect to review the final version before it is formally finalized. All of my corrections that were provided to the CFO have yet to be confirmed as updated in the report,” she wrote to GMW Monday.

The BOF has scheduled a special meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 29, to review several matters, including the FY2026 Financial Statement Detail, the FY2025 Preliminary Audit and the Audit Subcommittee’s report, among other items. According to Healy, the BOF “has urgently requested that Leslie Zoll from [the Town’s audit firm] CliftonLarsonAllen attend our meeting tomorrow.”

It was not confirmed as of publication time whether Savo would attend.

“[Savo] has not attended a BOF meeting since July so I hope she will attend our meeting tomorrow. She can always attend remotely. We learned of her vacation plans on Friday when a draft agenda was sent to us,” Healy wrote.  

This is a developing story. It will be updated if and when additional responses are received from officials or more information is available.

UPDATE, Thursday, Oct. 1 — In a statement sent to GOOD Morning Wilton on Wednesday, Sept. 30, First Selectwoman Toni Boucher confirmed the sequence of events reported in this article: Moody’s placed Wilton under review because of its delayed FY2025 audit, then confirmed its Aaa ratings after receiving draft financial information.

“However, after the town and its municipal advisor filed the draft 2025 audit on the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website, Moody’s took Wilton off their RUR list,” Boucher wrote. “After taking Wilton off the list, Moody’s also confirmed the town’s bond rating of ‘Aaa’.”

“We thank our CFO for this,” she added.

Boucher did not address GMW’s questions about when she first learned of Moody’s review, whether she informed the Board of Selectmen or Board of Finance, or why the review and potential ratings withdrawal were not disclosed at public board meetings. She also did not explain her role in authorizing the draft’s public posting or what commitments the Town made to Moody’s about completing the audit.

“I hope to review other questions you may have as soon as I am able,” she wrote.

Selectman David Tatkow

Selectman David Tatkow, responding Tuesday, Sept. 29, separately to GMW’s questions, said he learned of Moody’s review from this article.

“I do not ever recall being told that Moody’s had placed Wilton under review on June 30th. I read this in GMW last night,” he wrote.

Tatkow recalled being copied on an email from a Board of Finance member mentioning the EMMA posting around Sept. 9 or 10, although he said he would need to check his emails to confirm the date. He said the BOS had received a copy of the report but did not specify when.

“I have not received formal communication that I can recall from Toni, Dawn, or Barry Bernabe prior to the 9/22 meeting about what Moody’s requested or why the draft was publicly posted,” he wrote.

Tatkow said he wanted to hear Boucher’s explanation before reaching conclusions about what the BOS should have been told and when. He also confirmed that no special meeting specifically to discuss financial questions had been scheduled.

“I would like to hear Toni’s side of the story before coming to a conclusion on the appropriateness of having a public discussion on the ratings review,” he wrote.

Second Selectman Ross Tartell

Selectman Ross Tartell declined to answer the same questions, citing the Town’s Guide to Serving on a Town Board/Commission.

“I will follow town protocol as outlined in Guide to Serving on a Town Board/Commission for members of Boards and Commissions, and therefore, I will not be answering your questions,” he wrote.

The guide’s provision states: “In response to any press inquiries, only the Chairperson of the Board/Commission should speak on behalf of the Board/Commission.” GMW had expressly asked each selectman to respond individually, rather than on behalf of the BOS.

GMW followed up with Tartell to explain that distinction and ask him to reconsider. The follow-up also noted that, in his statement published last week supporting the Town’s financial rebuilding efforts, Tartell had written, “I also believe I have a responsibility to share my own assessment of that work and of our Chief Financial Officer.” “The Town should evaluate this work carefully, fairly and on the basis of accurate and complete information.”

In that earlier statement, Tartell also wrote, “The Town should evaluate this work carefully, fairly and on the basis of accurate and complete information.” GMW asked whether the newly disclosed Moody’s review and the related actions by Savo and Boucher met that standard.

Tartell has not yet responded to that follow-up.

Rich McCarty

Selectman Rich McCarty also cited the protocol invoked by Tartell rather than answering GMW’s questions individually.

“I too will follow the Town protocol as provided to you by Second Selectman Tartell,” he wrote. “I will also direct you to the several boards meetings back in June 2026 for information that may be helpful in answering some of your questions.”

McCarty did not identify specific meetings or statements, nor did he say when he learned of Moody’s June 30 review or address whether the BOS should have been informed.