Prince William County adopts FY2026 budget, approves levies amid taxpayer objections

The Prince William County Board of Supervisors adopted the fiscal year 2026 all‑funds budget and a slate of tax levies and fees at its April 27 meeting after several hours of discussion and public comment. Key votes included adoption of the real‑estate property tax levy, the fire levy and the school budget. Several supervisors and members of the public warned that rising property assessments are pushing tax bills higher even where the board reduced the tax rate.

The budget vote follows public comments from business owners and residents who said rising assessments driven by data‑center sales are increasing tax burdens on long‑standing industrial and small‑business properties. "The tax assessment has gone up $8,000,000 in the last five years," said Barry Braden, who identified himself as a developer and a 25‑year member of the county commercial development committee, and said his 10‑acre heavy industrial lot near Hornbaker Road and University Drive has seen assessment and tax increases that threaten continued operation as an industrial site. Ben Baldwin, who identified himself as "from Kohl's," criticized the board's majority for approving additional school funding and described the budget as a "con" that increases average residential bills.

Representing firefighters, Mitch Nason, president of the Prince William Professional Firefighters and a 20‑year veteran, thanked the board for proposed safety investments and urged additional funding for cancer screenings after the union reported recent diagnoses among members. "We've had six members diagnosed in the past 12 weeks," Nason said, asking supervisors to consider further investments in firefighter health and staffing.

Why it matters: The board approved a budget that the chair described as reflecting county priorities including schools, public safety, parks, and capital projects. Opponents said the package still increases household tax bills because rising property assessments offset reductions in the tax rate. Several supervisors called for future review of the fire levy structure, transit funding options and longer‑term enrollment and staffing trends in the school system.

Votes at a glance - Real‑estate property tax levy for FY2026 — approved, motion passed 5–3 (Supervisor Vega, Supervisor Weir and Supervisor Gordy recorded as voting nay). - FY2026 fire levy — approved, motion passed 5–3 (the transcript records three nays; recorded phrasing: "Supervisor Angry, Vega, and ... voting nay"). - Personal property, business/professional license, motor vehicle levies, personal property tax relief, special district levies and parks and recreation fees — approved, motion passed 7–1 (Supervisor Vega recorded as voting nay). - Stormwater, solid waste, land development, building and related fees — approved, motion passed 6–2 (transcript records Supervisor Vega and another supervisor voting nay). - Budget and appropriate FY2026 all funds and adopt the FY2026 capital improvement program — approved, motion passed 6–2 (transcript records two nays). - FY2026 school budget — approved, motion passed 5–3 (Supervisor Vega, Supervisor Weir and Supervisor Gordy recorded as voting nay). - Transit special revenue fund (PRTC funding included as presented) — approved, motion passed 7–1 (Supervisor Vega recorded as voting nay). - Amendments to the county’s compensation policy — approved, motion passed 6–2 (transcript records two nays, one identified as Supervisor Vega). - Hiring incentives/retention adjustments for hard‑to‑fill positions (including adult detention center sworn personnel) — approved unanimously. - Additional administrative and fee resolutions on the agenda (6h, 6j and related) — approved; several passed unanimously or by 6–2 margins as recorded.

Discussion and context Board members split along familiar lines during debate. Opponents of the package said growth in assessed values (fueled in part by data‑center land sales) is producing large tax bill increases for some residents and small businesses, and they urged deeper cuts to the proposed spending or different revenue approaches. Supporters argued the package funds long‑needed projects — including parks and recreation improvements, public‑safety staffing and facilities, juvenile services, homeless navigation centers and specific capital projects such as Old Bridge Road and Gordon Boulevard intersection improvements — and noted the county has used one‑time federal funds and bonds to accelerate projects.

Several supervisors called for future committee review of fund structure and policy changes: Supervisor Bodie asked for a Finance and Budget Committee review of the fire and rescue financing and the fire levy; other supervisors asked staff to study the potential for dedicated transit funding (a countywide or district commercial/industrial tax was mentioned for future committee consideration). County staff confirmed that the present transit line item fully funds the PRTC director's proposed budget but does not include potential service expansions or enhancements, which would be considered separately.

Formal actions and clarifications The meeting record shows formal motions, seconds and roll calls for each levy and the budget. Where roll call lists individual 'yes' and 'no' votes were not read aloud, the clerk announced final tallies (for example, several motions were recorded as passing 5–3 or 6–2). The record also contains multiple supervisors' statements about school reserves, the revenue‑sharing agreement with the school system, projected enrollment declines, and the need for greater accountability on both sides.

Public comment highlights - Barry Braden, Hornbaker Industrial Park developer and long‑time commercial development committee member, said higher assessments are pricing industrial lots toward data‑center uses and threatening local small business tenants that house about 1,000 employees. - Ben Baldwin (Kohl's) criticized the board's majority on fiscal grounds, saying the net effect on average homeowners is an increase of roughly $273 a year in property tax bills. - Diane Johnson (Woodbridge District resident) spoke during public comment about a family matter involving the Department of Social Services; her remarks were personal testimony and not connected to the budget votes. - Mitch Nason, president of the Prince William Professional Firefighters, thanked the board for proposed public‑safety investments and asked for additional resources for cancer screenings for career, volunteer and retired firefighters.

What the record does not show The transcript records vote tallies and discussion but does not include line‑by‑line recorded votes by each board member for every motion. Where the transcript quoted board members only by surname, this article follows the transcript's naming convention ("Supervisor Vega," "Supervisor Weir," etc.). The transcript did not provide complete itemized spending plans for the $20 million the board added above the schools' initial request; several supervisors said the school division has not yet presented a plan for that additional amount.

Next steps and meeting schedule Supervisors directed staff to bring follow‑up items to committee for further study, including a review of the fire‑levy funding model and a staff presentation on the potential commercial/industrial (C&I) tax option for transit funding. The board's next meeting is scheduled for May 13.