Fort White: Council Approves $10.4 Mil FY27 Budget – Missing Financial Data, Procedural Irregularities Set Up Town For a Do-Over
September 23, 2026 4:40 pm | 6 min read
Presiding Officer Kathryn Terry (left), Councilman
Lonnie Harrell (right)
FORT WHITE, FL – On Monday evening, September 21, the Town Council approved a $10.4 million budget for fiscal year 2027, but not before pointed questions about missing financial data and procedural irregularities will force a do-over before September 30 for the Town to comply with Florida law.
While missing data was not the hallmark of last year's budget process, the Town’s failure to approve a budget resolution was. Monday evening was no different, with the Town’s new legal counsel, FoldsWalker (Leonard Ireland of Counsel), dropping the ball by not ensuring a budget resolution was ready and not understanding the budget adoption process.
The budget was approved without a formal resolution.
The budget session exposed serious gaps in Fort White's financial recordkeeping and raised questions about transparency and adherence to public meeting requirements. The proposed FY 2027 budget document completely omitted any comparison to the current year's approved budget (FY 2025-26), forcing council members to base their decisions on two-year-old data from FY 2024-25.
The Town’s failure to formally open the public hearing before moving toward budget approval was a procedural oversight that led to procedural confusion.
It was not a big crowd for the budget hearing.
Lack of Budget Continuity
The absence of FY26 data created confusion and made year-over-year comparisons impossible. Your reporter questioned the missing column, challenging the council about the omission, making year-over-year comparisons impossible: “If you look at the budget document, fiscal year 25-26 is missing. Where is it?”
Town officials struggled to clarify.
Well, it's not audited, and it's not finished. It's not even started.
– Interim Clerk Hunter on the FY25-26 budget
Interim Clerk Hunter explained that the new budget was based on actual 2024-25 data rather than the current year's approved budget. He said the fiscal year 2025-26 was "not audited, and it's not finished. It's not even started."
Your
reporter followed up, addressing Councilman Harrell, who
approved last year’s budget, “The budget was approved,
Mr. Harrell. I think you voted for the budget, but it's
not in there. Where is it?”
Mr. Hunter finally conceded the figures were "just missing." Your reporter questioned why North Florida legend Richard “Dick” Powell of Powell & Jones – paid $2,250 monthly as financial advisor – had not provided an explanation or included the data.
Although Mr. Powell had full access to the Town’s financial information, both computerized and printed, and had previously audited the Town’s books and prepared the budget document being presented, Mr. Hunter said, “We just hired him, I believe.”
The public hearing was never formally opened as required by standard governmental procedures.
The Procedural Conflict: another irregularity
Interim Town Clerk Glenn Hunter (left), Town Attorney
Leonard Ireland (right)
The public hearing was technically opened right at the beginning of the agenda item when Presiding Officer Kathryn Terry said, "The first thing is for us to move into a public hearing to discuss the budget and seek approval on that." Interim Town Clerk Glenn Hunter verified, "So, you're opening up the public hearing," to which Ms. Terry replied, "Yes."
However, the floor was not opened to the public at this time. Instead, Mr. Hunter spent the next 18 minutes reading through the budget line-by-line. When he concluded, Councilman Harrell, without missing a beat, moved to approve the budget before the public had been invited to speak.
Your reporter asked, “Where is the public hearing?" stating that the hearing should precede the motion. Town Attorney Leonard Ireland incorrectly argued that there could be "nothing to discuss until the motion and second."
It was only after the motion was seconded that Presiding Officer Terry explicitly opened the floor for the public to speak: "Okay, a motion's been made... So now we'll have public comment."
After your reporter finished questioning, Ms. Terry asked, "Would anybody else like to make a public comment on the budget?"
Without formally declaring the public hearing closed, she immediately rolled into calling for the vote.
Town Councilwoman Monica Merricks ponders the situation.
Budget Highlights: Tight Margins and Big Projects, Everyone Pays to Support Fort White
The general fund budget projects $488,975 in revenues against $471,329 in expenditures, leaving a narrow surplus of just $17,646—a dramatic drop from FY25’s $129,857 surplus. The FY26 budget surplus, if any, is unknown or unspoken.
The budget has no property tax revenue. Fort White relies instead on discretionary sales taxes ($129,000), franchise fees ($52,000 for electricity), state revenue sharing ($38,500), a half-cent sales tax ($73,000), and other state revenue and revenue sharing. Everyone pays to support Fort White.
Mr. Hunter mentioned that the budget contained errors. The $6,000 "rents" line item was unidentified until Ms. Terry recalled it came from the Gun Club, which pays $500 monthly.
Mr. Hunter explained that an $82,942 miscellaneous revenue figure from 2024-25 was "a misprint." He reduced it to $1,500 in the new budget.
The enterprise fund budget—covering grant-funded infrastructure projects – totals $9.9 million. Major projects include a $7.1 million wastewater system Phase 2, a $1.5 million wastewater system expansion, $938,500 for water infrastructure improvements, and $355,879 for a Yulan Street SCOP (DOT-funded) grant project.
Personnel changes: the town clerk salary drops from $69,954 to $60,000, while a new $36,400 line item appears for an administrative assistant. Workers' compensation costs fall dramatically from $11,333 to $5,000, while FICA taxes rise to $8,844. Retirement and insurance costs for administration are eliminated entirely in the new budget –changes Mr. Hunter attributed to the departure of a previous employee (“Buster”).
Professional services for legal counsel, FoldsWalker, are budgeted at $60,000. The FoldsWalker contract calls for $48k. This is a 25% increase for anticipated extra work above the $ 4k-per-month fee. No one said a word. The FoldsWalker invoices and the “99s” – the claimed actual billing before discounts - have been withheld by Mr. Hunter.
We pay this guy $2,250 a month to do this. He’s got 40,000 years of experience, and there's no explanation on why the budget numbers aren't there.
A new $27,000 line ($2,250 a month) for “accounting consultant” for Richard Powell appears for what appears to be a few hours-a-month to run reports in QuickBooks.
The comprehensive planning budget increased from $7,500 to $12,000 to reflect what Mr. Hunter called a new contract. It wasn’t a contract; it was a “Task Order” connected to a Continuing Engineering Services Contract with North Florida Professional Services. At the present time, neither the FoldsWalker nor Interim Clerk Hunter knows if the Continuing Engineering Services Contract includes “Comprehensive Planning Service.” Mr. Hunter said he would check. FoldsWalker said it wasn’t a problem.
Subscriptions and Uncertain Expenditures
Your reporter questioned the nearly $4,000 FY27 expenditure for subscriptions and memberships. Ms. Terry explained it covered the Florida League of Cities and memberships in the Clerks Association and Managers Association. At current rates, those fees for Fort White would be under $500.
Mr. Hunter promised to provide a detailed breakdown: "We really don't know which ones they are."
Administrative Changes Reflected
There will be certainly some amendments to this budget through the year as we progress because we didn't have a lot of good information to work with. But I think it's solid enough to get us started." – Glen Hunter
Mr. Hunter was candid about the budget's shortcomings, telling the council: "There will certainly be some amendments to this budget through the year as we progress because we didn't have a lot of good information to work with. But I think it's solid enough to get us started."
He noted the Town has until the end of November to approve budget amendments once expenditures are finalized.
The budget presentation included no charts, graphs, or visual aids—just a line-by-line recitation of figures. Without the 2025-26 comparison year, council members and the public had no clear sense of how proposed spending compared to current-year allocations.
Town Attorney Leonard Ireland opines to the Council
Epilogue
Fort White's budget and budget hearing show a town government operating on thin financial margins with incomplete data.
The $17,646 surplus represents less than 4% of expenditures – leaving little cushion for unexpected costs. The missing fiscal year 2025-26 data means the council approved spending without knowledge of the prior year's spending.
Approving the budget before opening the hearing and no budget resolution shows a town council struggling. The absence of the mayor, a council member, and the financial advisor who prepared the budget also raises questions.
As Fort White stands on the cusp of major infrastructure improvements that could spur development, the September 21 budget hearing highlighted the town's need for stronger financial planning, better data management, and stricter adherence to government procedures.