Article Text

A routine Fairfax City budget vote stretched into a tense four-hour meeting May 6 as councilmembers clashed over whether they had enough information to approve the fiscal 2026 spending plan and its accompanying tax rates.

The debate included failed attempts to postpone the budget and delay a proposed Sherwood Center expansion. Council ultimately adopted the budget and tax rates unanimously after a lengthy recess and additional clarification from City staff.

Five of the six councilmembers are new to the dais after winning election in November. Returning Councilmember Billy Bates said he had not known before the meeting that some colleagues intended to seek a delay.

“New information is always coming out, and we have residents and staff holding their breath to see what we’re going to do,” Bates said. “I don’t know that it’s necessarily healthy to delay that another week, when they were expecting us to make a decision tonight.”

Councilmember Stacey Hardy-Chandler warned that postponement could harm City operations.

Police reduction becomes a flashpoint

Before the scheduled votes on the budget and Capital Improvement Program, Councilmember Tom Peterson said Acting City Manager Bryan Foster had changed the plan since the council’s final April 22 budget markup.

Hardy-Chandler said the only major change involved the size of a proposed Police Department reduction.

Seeking to hold the real estate tax increase to no more than 2.5 cents over the previous year, the council had recommended cutting more than $1 million from the police budget. After consulting the police chief and command staff, Foster reduced the cut to $652,000 and notified the council May 2.

Peterson also pointed to Fairfax County’s budget release on May 6. Councilmember Rachel McQuillen said she wanted additional time to examine its possible effect on the City and supported postponing Fairfax’s budget vote.

Foster said the independent city’s school arrangement with the county is based on actual expenses rather than budgeted figures. The county provides a lump sum, which the City’s schools may distribute within their operating budget, he said.

“Historically, the City’s school costs won’t change because of actions the county has taken,” Foster said.

City Attorney Brian Lubkeman said the council already had the information necessary to evaluate the budget and questioned what a delay would accomplish. Hardy-Chandler similarly said staff had answered numerous questions over an extended period and that the public had participated in the process.

Councilmember Stacy Hall raised concerns about a potential loss of federal grant funding and whether it could force future reductions by the City or county. Mayor Catherine Read said the council could adopt the overall budget and reallocate money later if necessary. Foster added that unexpected costs could be addressed through the Budget Stabilization Fund.

McQuillen moved to defer adoption until May 13, with Hall seconding the motion. Councilmember Anthony Amos opposed the delay, saying it could potentially frighten residents.

Peterson favored waiting, but Foster said the City still would not know the exact county school-contract transfer by May 13 because of how the process works. The motion failed when Read broke a 3-3 tie.

Foster reminded the council that budget work continues after adoption, including ongoing evaluations and quarterly reports tracking revenue and spending.

Sherwood Center project draws scrutiny

Hall then proposed delaying the planned $9 million Sherwood Center expansion for one year. The project, which remained under consideration, was included in the fiscal 2026-30 capital program and is part of a joint City-county effort involving the Sherwood Center and Willard Health Center.

Hall said the large expense required closer examination. Chief Financial Officer JC Martinez said postponing it would not affect the fiscal 2026 budget. McQuillen seconded Hall’s motion, but it also failed.

Hall cited $4.8 million in operating expenses and roughly $50 million in bonds that she said the City might have to issue later in the year. She estimated the resulting annual debt at as much as $4.5 million to $5 million. Combined with operating costs, she said the project could amount to about $10 million, equivalent to an 11-cent tax increase, before accounting for other capital projects.

Community Development and Planning Director Brooke Hardin said officials were refining the operating-cost projections and expected them to fall. He also said the City-county agreement allows flexibility over when debt is issued, with the two jurisdictions scheduled to discuss the matter that month.

Budget passes, but tax-rate vote initially fails

After further discussion, the council approved the budget. A separate vote on tax rates previously agreed upon April 22 then failed, prompting Lubkeman to warn that the newly approved budget lacked the corresponding revenue rates.

Lubkeman said previous councils had recognized that budget negotiations require compromise and then approved the tax rate needed to support the spending plan.

Read said the council had left its April 22 meeting with the outline of a budget and a 2.5-cent tax-rate increase, only for half the council to back away from that commitment.

“I find it interesting that half the dais wants to do everybody’s job in this City, except the job of Councilperson — to which they were elected,” Read said.

Hardy-Chandler said she had also believed an agreement was in place. She said she felt “held hostage” and questioned whether earlier negotiations and collaboration had been conducted in good faith, leaving her concerned about the council’s ability to function.

Peterson continued to seek more time. McQuillen said she needed clarification following the county budget’s release, while Read reiterated that the independent City has priorities distinct from Fairfax County and that staff had spent months answering questions.

McQuillen said constituents living on limited incomes had emailed her that morning with concerns about a tax increase amid continuing inflation. She said she needed to understand the situation fully so she could explain it to them.

Read responded that Fairfax has 25,000 residents and that elected officials must make decisions in the best interests of the entire City.

Amos cautioned against setting the tax rate too low, saying the next fiscal year’s outlook would probably be worse. He urged greater attention to cost recovery and economic development.

Hall said she was worried about the number of students who could come from residential developments approved by previous councils and the future cost of educating them. She cited tuition bills, redevelopment and overdevelopment among her concerns.

With numerous costly capital projects planned, Hall said the City could not continue approving everything. Although she had intended to support the budget, she said she was unsure whether Fairfax was taking on more than it could manage.

Amos acknowledged that some councilmembers, including himself, had remained uncomfortable after reaching a consensus April 22. Hardy-Chandler countered that new developments would continue to arise and should not bring the council’s work to a halt. Read called the failure to approve a budget and matching tax rate a breach of the council’s commitment to the City.

About three and a half hours into the meeting, McQuillen requested a five-minute recess. The council returned nearly 30 minutes later, and McQuillen said Foster had provided the clarification she wanted.

The council then unanimously approved the budget and tax rates. Read congratulated the members and thanked City staff for the extensive time they had spent responding to questions.