Here’s what you need to know:

• Property Taxes Hit Record High: Even with a tiny rate reduction to $1.22 per $100, rising assessments mean the average family pays $499 MORE in property taxes next year – on top of a 60% increase over the last decade.
• New 10% Food Tax Betrays Voters: Democrats added a 4% meals tax (bringing the total to 10%) despite voters rejecting this TWICE in referendums (1992 and 2016). When voters said no, Democrats lobbied Richmond to change the law and bypass voter approval.
• No Real Spending Cuts: Facing a $271 million budget shortfall for 2027, Democrats rejected Herrity’s proposal for an independent budget review and refuse to examine wasteful policies that inflate costs by 16-25%.
• Hard-Hit Industries Ignored: Democrats imposed this tax on restaurants still recovering from the pandemic and now facing federal workforce reductions and tariffs.
• Procedural Games: Democrats eliminated the Budget Committee meeting where supervisors could openly debate alternatives, effectively silencing opposition.
• Herrity’s Alternative Rejected: His balanced budget plan would have delivered a real tax rate reduction with NO meals tax while restoring critical services through common-sense cuts – but Democrats wouldn’t even discuss it.

Pat Herrity proposed real solutions including reviewing costly policies like Prevailing Wage requirements and Project Labor Agreements that drive up construction costs by 16-25%. Herrity wanted to cut Board office budgets instead of hammering taxpayers. But Democrats said no to every efficiency measure while reaching deeper into your wallet.

When you’re paying 10% tax on your family dinner AND seeing your property tax bill jump by $500, remember who fought for you and who didn’t. Pat Herrity stood alone for fiscal sanity while every single Democrat voted to make Fairfax County even more unaffordable.

Here is the report from Pat Herrity’s office:

May 7, 2025

Meals and Real Estate Tax Increases, Some Restorations and Looming FY 27 Shortfall 

Yesterday the Board voted 9 to 1 to approve the final adjustments to the FY 2026 budget prior to formal budget adoption on May 13th. While the budget adjustments included initiatives I support (see below), I voted against the adjustments because they do not significantly reduce the tax burden for residents and included a 4 percent increase in the tax on meals bringing the total to 10 percent. Even with a reduced real estate tax rate of $1.22 per $100 of assessed value, next year the average homeowner will still see an approximately 6 percent ($499) increase in taxes due to the increase in assessments in addition to the impact of the meals tax and numerous fee increases. This is on top of a 60 percent increase in real estate taxes over the last 10 years. The Board also approved Budget Guidance for the FY 2027 Budget which I opposed because it again excluded my call for an outside review or deep dive on the budget, the Capital Improvement Plan, and Third Quarter Review which I supported for the reasons below.

FY 2026 Budget Approval. Unfortunately, there was a change in our Budget Process and there was no Budget Committee Meeting last Friday. This is typically the forum where we propose changes and can have open and honest discussion on any Supervisor’s proposed changes. I am disappointed that we did not have that opportunity for that discussion – especially given the proposed cuts to critical programs and the number of public speakers we had this year. I shared my thoughts on how we could balance the budget with a tax rate reduction, no meals tax, additional reductions to non-critical services and restore critical services via email with the entire Board last week.

You can view my budget amendment proposals here. You will find it restores more of the cuts to critical services than the Board approved budget including rescue units in addition to ambulances, the Middle School After School Program, High School crossing guards, restoring landscaping funds at County office buildings, services at our senior centers, the homeless coordinator, half of the reduction to police overtime, restores the cut to CERT and increased funding for park maintenance and library collections. This was done by a series of common-sense reductions that are fully explained in the link including a reduction to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s budget and Celebrate Fairfax. My budget has the reduction in the proposed real estate tax rate and no meals tax.

You can view the Board’s approved budget adjustments here. As in prior years, the Board only provided one additional cost saving suggestion (a small fraction of my proposal to cut Board office budgets) to the cuts in the County Executive’s proposed budget, despite significant testimony from our residents about the growing tax burden and a forecasted $271 million budget shortfall going into FY 2027. This shortfall does not account for federal policy changes since January.  

Meals Tax and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Increase. In addition to increasing the real estate tax burden, the Board also voted 9 to 1 to approve a 4 percent meals tax, bringing the total tax on prepared food to 10 percent, and increased the transient occupancy tax increase (TOT) by two percent.

I do understand that up to 30 percent of the tax comes from non-residents and that is a strong argument for it, but our residents have told us resoundingly twice that they oppose it. It is also a single industry tax on an industry that was just recovering from the pandemic and is now dealing with the impact of federal workforce reductions and tariffs.

We’ve heard significant testimony from residents and business owners that this will adversely impact them: The cost impact of food for families that use prepared meals This is a single Industry Tax that the industry does not support. The County’s communication with industry has been very limited. Staff have identified that compliance with this trust tax will be especially burdensome for small businesses. With a probable recession on the horizon, this is not the time to put additional pressure on an industry that could be impacted by people tightening their budgets.

Most importantly, our residents have already soundly rejected the meals tax in referendums in 1992 and 2016, with 58 percent and 56 percent opposed respectively. When residents rejected the referendum, the Board went and lobbied the General Assembly for the authority to implement a meals tax without a referendum. We should be listening to our residents, not going around them to implement this tax. More details on this tax to come.

I’ve heard from several of my Board colleagues that the goal of this tax is to fix a revenue issue. With FY 2026 revenue totaling $11.7 billion, it is disingenuous for this Board to say that is a reason to justify a 10 percent total tax on prepared food.I support diversifying our tax base – but as a means of reducing the tax burden on our residents. I do not see a significant reduction in the tax burden as a result of this tax.

Budget Guidance for FY 2027. For several years now I have shared my proposed guidance on the need to do a deep dive into the budget and I shared it again with the Board this weekend. The vast majority of line-item cuts were proposed by the County Executive and staff. Our County Executive and Office of Management and Budget staff do an incredible job each year of trying to find savings, and proposing greater efficiencies, but they can’t set priorities for the Board. As staff work under the direction of this Board, an outside budget review group would provide a greater diversity of perspectives and options on the budget. As my proposed guidance states, I am wide open to the format.

While line-item cuts are sometimes necessary, if we want to look for ways to significantly reduce the tax burden and address the $271 million shortfall in FY 2027 then we need to consider how Board processes and policies are driving up costs. Those are not going to show up as line-items in the budget and it is too late to do them in the short time between February and April. These include things like:

Prevailing Wage and Project Labor Agreements

The move from LEED Silver to Gold

According to our own staff, those two alone increase project costs 16 to 25 percent before the impact of our land use regulations.Our Operational Energy Strategy is not fiscally constrained. If staff continue to follow our EV policy, it will drive the police department to almost double the number of police vehicles – where is the review of that cost?Our Sustainable Development Policy is not fiscally constrained.Collective Bargaining, which is generating millions in administrative costs alone.The cost and time impact of our Land Use RegulationsThorough review of our employee benefit costsReview of the programs started during the pandemic for continued needBenchmarking against other jurisdictionsEtc.

Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”). I supported the proposed CIP primarily because it deferred the $185M Judicial Annex Building for at least one year and asks staff to look for savings. This project would have generated a $17M hole for debt payments in FY2027. I commented that their cost savings search should start with the Prevailing Wage and Project Labor Agreement and change from LEED Silver to Gold. According to our own staff, those two Board-approved (over my objections) policies alone increase project costs 16 to 25 percent before the impact of our land use regulations. At a conservative 20 percent that would be a $37M savings on this project alone. That does not include the cost of other land use regulations the Board approved which further drive up the cost of projects.

Third Quarter Review. One bright spot of the morning was Third Quarter Review, where the Board usually spends the available funds on one time and unfortunately recurring items. This time the Board approved a cut in Board members’ discretionary funds for small projects and put the $10M balance in a Reserve for Economic Uncertainty related to the federal workforce reductions and concern over the impact of tariffs. I supported Third Quarter Review.