Lawsuit challenges county’s transfer of funds from parks agency budget, county officials say action was legal.
LARGO, Md. — A legal dispute over more than $39 million in taxpayer funds is escalating between Prince George’s County and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, with the agency filing a lawsuit seeking to block the county from redirecting money from its budget.
The commission argues the county’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget unlawfully transfers funds designated for parks, recreation and planning services into county-controlled programs, including grants for local nonprofit organizations. The lawsuit asks a judge to prevent the transfer from taking effect.
County leaders, however, maintain the budget process complied with the law.
“Our attorneys are vigorously defending the position of the county council,” Prince George’s County Executive, Aisha Braveboy said. “They have determined that the lawsuit is not valid.”
The dispute centers on budget changes approved by the Prince George’s County Council that would move more than $39 million from Park and Planning accounts into programs overseen by the county. Supporters of the transfer say the funding will benefit community organizations and address needs in underserved areas.
Braveboy said her role was to submit a balanced budget and that the council ultimately approved the spending plan.
“I’m okay with anything that is lawful that the council has done,” she said. “I don’t get to decide what they do. I can only send down a budget that’s balanced, which I did.”
Not all council members support how the changes were made. At-large Councilmember Jolene Ivey questioned whether significant revisions to the budget should have required an additional vote before final approval.
“I don’t understand why we don’t just hold the vote again because there are significant changes to this draft of the budget,” Ivey said during budget discussions.
Ivey said she requested another vote but was advised by legal counsel that it was not necessary. She warned that bypassing a new vote could create legal concerns.
“I think not voting on them puts us in legal trouble,” she said, adding that the process was “extremely unusual.”
“I don’t think it’s a good idea to let the public believe that we’re trying to hide something,” Ivey said.
Braveboy rejected suggestions that the funding approach is unprecedented, pointing to previous community programs that received support through project charge funding.
“This is not a new practice,” she said.
County Council Vice Chair Edward Burroughs defended the budget changes, arguing that the funds originate from county taxpayers and should be available to address local priorities.
“There is no money that Park and Planning has, generally speaking, that does not come from Prince George’s County taxpayers,” Burroughs said. “It’s all the county’s money. It’s all the county’s resources.”
Burroughs also criticized the commission’s spending priorities, citing expenditures on administrative operations and a new headquarters building while questioning decisions affecting community recreation programs.
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission has not publicly responded to the county’s latest comments. However, in its lawsuit, the agency argues the transfer would negatively affect parks, recreation services and planning projects throughout Prince George’s County.
Braveboy disputed that claim, arguing the county’s approach prioritizes community programs. Braveboy called a press conference Wednesday after to give an on-camera statement but did not take any questions about this.
“I’m concerned that Park and Planning cares more about paying their executives than providing money for programs for children in our communities,” she said.
The commission is seeking an emergency court order to halt the transfer before it takes effect. A hearing date has not yet been announced.
Meanwhile, council members Ivey and Sydney Harrison have requested a formal final vote on the FY27 Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission budget following what they described as substantive changes to the legislation.