Budget hearing turns into heated debate over police department, meals-tax reallocation and utility-rate changes

Purcellville — A scheduled public hearing on the proposed FY2026 budget erupted into a prolonged and sometimes contentious debate on April 8 after residents criticized the timing and content of the budget and after several council members proposed major fiscal shifts including rescinding the town’s police-code chapter and redirecting meals-tax revenue.

During the public comment period residents raised legal, procedural and fiscal objections. Beverly Chasen (speaker 16) told council she believed tapping the general fund to support utilities was "damaging" and questioned whether the town had authority under the Code of Virginia to impose taxes without a two-thirds vote. Multiple speakers, including Mary Jane Williams and others, referenced petitions and called for greater transparency.

At the budget workshop portion, a council member (speaker 5) moved that staff prepare an ordinance to rescind chapter 42 of the town code — a step that would begin the process of transitioning primary police coverage to the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office. Supporters argued the town’s police department has been financially burdensome and that the sheriff’s office already provides overlapping coverage; one proponent described annual general-fund savings of more than $3.2 million. Opponents — including other council members and many attendees — warned that the town would lose community policing programs, that coverage could decline and that the council had not sufficiently discussed the operational details with the sheriff’s office.

The town attorney (Gifford Hampshire) told council he had not yet completed research into whether public hearings were required for some of the proposed transfers and urged caution. Several motions followed: a proposal to allocate 100% of meals-tax revenue to the utility enterprise fund was moved by one council member but received no second, and another motion to reduce water and sewer rates (numbers discussed were 9% and 11%) was moved contingent on Stantec modeling. Council also moved to allocate additional funds to bring wastewater and water reserves to higher target levels and to direct the town manager to provide 1–5% merit increases; those motions produced further procedural questions and mixed roll-call votes.

The debate highlighted deep divisions on council and in the community over priorities, transparency, and whether short-term rate relief and capital spending trade off with public-safety and service continuity. Town counsel recommended the council verify legal notice and hearing requirements before finalizing transfers or rate changes. The meeting record shows multiple motions and roll-call votes on reserve funding and merit increases; in several instances council members said they were voting 'present' or abstaining because they had not had adequate time to review legal implications.