Article Text

Fairfax City has set a maximum advertised real-estate tax rate of $1.15 per $100 of assessed value for fiscal 2026, giving officials more room to respond to federal funding uncertainty and other looming expenses.

The rate approved by the City Council on March 11 is 12 cents above the current $1.03 rate—and 2.5 cents higher than the $1.125 rate Acting City Manager Bryan Foster proposed in February.

That does not mean homeowners will ultimately pay the $1.15 rate. It establishes a ceiling while the council holds budget hearings and work sessions, and officials could adopt a lower figure before finalizing the budget.

Still, the possibility of a sharp increase has alarmed residents already confronting higher property assessments.

Longtime resident David Geller said his city taxes have generally risen only a few percentage points each year, largely because of assessments rather than changes to the tax rate. Under the proposal, however, he estimated his total 2025 bill could jump 20 percent.

“I’m just flabbergasted,” Geller said, adding that he opposed raising the rate to either $1.12 or $1.15.

Linda Hoye, a resident since 1998, said her assessment had climbed 40 percent in two years. Although she loves Fairfax and wants to remain there, she said the rising cost made her feel discouraged from staying.

Don Pitchford reported a 32-percent increase in his property taxes over two years, while some neighbors had experienced increases exceeding 40 percent. He said those costs were placing substantial pressure on families, seniors and retirees.

Pitchford urged Fairfax to preserve its history of comparatively low tax rates, attract more commercial development to the central business district and reduce its reliance on costly outside consultants.

Havon Abdi, who has lived in the city for 14 years, said incomes were not keeping pace with inflation and higher taxes. She noted that residents on her private road maintain it themselves and do not receive city services such as snow removal.

Abdi said a $1,300 increase in her tax bill would be untenable and leave her feeling pushed out of the community.

Officials cite mounting unknowns

During a work session, council members pressed Foster and Chief Financial Officer JC Martinez to explain why the city needed to advertise a rate above the manager’s recommendation.

Martinez pointed to several unresolved financial risks. If Fairfax abandons the George Snyder Trail project, he said, it would have to return $3.7 million received from the Virginia Department of Transportation, reducing the city’s unassigned fund balance.

The city also faces indirect exposure to federal funding disruptions through Fairfax County and other partners. Its school-tuition contract with the county will not be settled until September or October, Martinez said.

Another potential expense comes from a proposed state budget provision offering a $1,000 bonus to every Virginia teacher. Local governments typically bear most of that cost, and Fairfax had not included it in either its fiscal 2025 or fiscal 2026 budget planning.

Councilmember Stacey Hardy-Chandler described the advertised $1.15 rate as insurance against unpredictable costs rather than a commitment to impose the maximum.

“If it’s lower, it’s lower,” she said, calling the additional room a financial buffer.

Councilmember Tom Peterson asked what a recession could mean for city finances. Martinez said the effects would depend on its severity but warned that significant federal workforce unemployment could hit Northern Virginia particularly hard.

Such a downturn could reduce meals-tax and sales-tax collections and potentially weaken real-estate revenue, he said. City finance officials plan to monitor revenue projections and advise the council if corrective action becomes necessary.

Martinez said he believed a recession—or at least an economic downturn—was possible under current conditions.

Cuts could reach employees and programs

Asked whether Fairfax could make deeper spending cuts instead of raising the tax rate, Foster reiterated that his proposed budget adds no positions or programs. It funds existing city services at their current levels.

If revenue falls below the amount needed to maintain those services, Foster warned, the city would have to cut employees and programs. While that option remains available, he said residents might not welcome the consequences.

After Mayor Catherine Read ended the work session and reconvened the regular meeting, the council approved advertising the $1.15 rate by a 4-2 vote. Peterson and Councilmember Stacy Hall voted against it.

Councilmember Rachel McQuillen later addressed residents on the “Fairfax City 411” Facebook page. She noted that all but one council member had served for only a few months while confronting federal policy changes, the previous city manager’s departure, a major increase in Fairfax County Public Schools tuition costs, rising property values, inflation and several critical infrastructure projects.

McQuillen said advertising the higher rate was intended to encourage residents to weigh in on budget priorities, not to conceal a predetermined decision.

Residents were invited to provide feedback at a Budget Town Hall scheduled for Wednesday, April 2, from 4 to 7 p.m. at the Sherwood Center, 3740 Blenheim Blvd. in Fairfax. The event was planned as an open house, allowing attendees to arrive at any time.