BOS presses Richmond for solutionsas Session heads toward budget

By Sophia Clifton 

At the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors business meeting on Feb. 18, county leaders and their Richmond lobbyist delivered a detailed progress report on the 2026 General Assembly session and highlighted where important county priorities now sit as the legislature moves into budget negotiations.

Jonathan Freeman, the county’s contracted lobbyist, opened his briefing with a blunt status check: “We are officially post crossover; crossover was yesterday,” he told the Board, noting how the calendar has compressed around key deadlines. 

He added that “budget Sunday is this upcoming Sunday, February 22,” and that proposed budget amendments “will be available by noon on Tuesday, February 24,” signaling that many of the most consequential decisions are about to shift into the budget process.

That schedule matters because several top Loudoun priorities—including housing grant reforms, the Oak Hill conservation bills, and measures tied to energy and transit funding—are either moving quickly through committees or have been converted into budget fights. 

As the county’s staff report makes plain, the Board’s 2026 Legislative Program “includes legislative priorities and positions that guide staff and the County’s contracted lobbyists … during the session,” and staff pledged to use that plan to shape the county’s advocacy.

Some items have cleared early hurdles. Freeman reported that the House and Senate versions of the local housing-grant bill “both passed their chambers” and are now in local government committees—a sign staff view as positive because “the language mirrors each other.”

The staff report similarly framed housing grants as a priority the Board adopted last year and is now actively advancing.

Other measures are less certain. The Oak Hill Farm package—bills intended to allow the state to accept roughly 1,240 acres for a state park—has split fortunes: One delegate’s bill “got out of the House unanimously,” Freeman said, while a Senate companion “was left in Senate Finance,” effectively turning the matter “into a budget conversation.”

The staff report describes these bills as authorizing the Department of Conservation and Recreation “for the purpose of establishing and operating a state park,” language the Board supports.

Energy and data-center legislation dominated much of the exchange. Supervisors pressed Freeman and county staff on bills that would let localities help pay to underground transmission lines through new local financing mechanisms—even authorizing an additional taxing authority tied to a new high-usage customer class known as GS5. As Freeman explained in the meeting, the GS5 category was created by the State Corporation Commission and covers users consuming “25 megawatts or more” of power.

Many supervisors expressed discomfort about shifting costs to county taxpayers or ordinary businesses. “If our constituents learn that we can levy another tax, it’s gonna fill our boardroom,” Supervisor Juli Briskman (D-Algonkian) said, arguing local residents would come to the Board demanding action—even though, as Freeman and county attorneys stressed, the legislation still requires a multi-step SEC feasibility finding and leaves substantial discretion in how costs are split.

Against that backdrop, some measures aim squarely at reallocating costs away from ordinary ratepayers. Briskman successfully moved the Board to endorse a bill that would require the State Corporation Commission to examine whether Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power are “unfairly burdening non-data center customers with transmission costs,” and to determine by January 1, 2028, whether generation and distribution costs have similarly unfair impacts. 

Her motion passed 9–0. Her explanation was that the bill “is actually going at where the solution could be found,” because counties cannot compel utilities to bury lines or otherwise force actions by the SEC.

Other housing proposals remain contentious. The county’s staff packet lists the local anti-rent-gouging authority and broader housing bills the Board is tracking, but Freeman told supervisors that the Senate version of the anti-rent gouging bill “was defeated … in commerce and labor,” while the House bill was “continued to 2027”—a procedural outcome he called “a soft way of killing a bill.”

The staff report recommends continued monitoring and evaluation of fiscal impacts, noting that “Staff will continue to evaluate fiscal impacts to the County of applicable introduced legislation and will evaluate applicable budget amendments once they are made public.” 

Transit funding, another priority Loudoun has pursued at the state level, has also run into headwinds. Freeman reported, “All of the transit funding bills have been defeated,” meaning matters that would have created dedicated transit revenue sources are now “a budget conversation.”

For Loudoun, that places renewed importance on the House and Senate draft budgets that will be unveiled the week of Feb. 24.

With crossover behind them, county officials must pivot quickly from bill-by-bill advocacy to budget negotiations and conference committee work where language differences are resolved. 

Freeman warned supervisors that a number of measures could be handled on a “rocket docket” if their language matches across chambers, but several others, including faith-and-housing and by-right transit-oriented development bills, may head to conference where final text will be negotiated.

Several bills Loudoun supports, child-care expansion, school meal proposals, targeted retirement benefits for local responders, are moving and tracked in the staff packet; several high-impact bills related to energy costs, data centers and housing have either been delayed, converted into budget items, or remain contested; and the season’s next act—budget amendments and conference committee deals—will likely determine whether county priorities are funded or further delayed. 

The staff report asks the Board to remain engaged and promises follow-up analyses: “Staff will continue to evaluate fiscal impacts … and will evaluate applicable budget amendments once they are made public.” 

With both the calendar and stakes compressed, supervisors urged continued vigilance. As Freeman closed his update, he thanked the Board for its attention to a session where “we continue to lobby the conferees both in the House and the Senate.” 

Loudoun’s next window to influence outcomes will be in Richmond’s budget negotiations and the conference rooms where final compromises are made.