By Pat Herrity, Republican Member of the Fairfax Board of Supervisors, Springfield District. Subscribe to Pat’s newsletter on his website, PatHerrity.org.

At our last meeting, the Board voted 9-1 to approve the FY 2024 Carryover Review, which included approximately $180 million in County surplus funds and $59.2 million in unspent pandemic federal aid. This spending comes in the SAME YEAR as a 7 percent increase in the tax bill of the average homeowner and in the SAME WEEK as discussing the need for more revenue generated by an up to 12 percent tax on prepared food and an admissions tax of up to 10 percent. These amounts do not include an equally large surplus by the school system that could not provide an answer as to how it spent $83M of last year’s surplus.

Although many of the items included in the carryover review were good – funding critical IT infrastructure, fire department equipment, victim services support, park maintenance, etc. – I voted against this spending because:

1)     We knew most of these critical needs existed, yet the Board deferred addressing them in the FY 2025 budget in order to fund other projects, including new spending on Board “priorities.” The Board has made a habit of funding important items out of carryover surpluses instead of including them in our priority setting during the budget process. Instead of weighing these important priorities against all of the priorities in our budget, the Board pushed them to be funded out of carryover when there is less public attention.

2)     The surplus shows that the Board could have provided tax relief for residents in the FY2025 budget process as we had more than a sufficient margin to save the average taxpayer hundreds of dollars by further reducing the tax rate. I was the only Supervisor to vote against the FY2025 budget.

3)     Surpluses have grown over the last five years. While the County cannot budget too closely to our estimated revenue to avoid a deficit, we maintain reserves in the case that there are major deviations. Our carryover surpluses for the past several years have increased substantially and demonstrate our capacity to save money for taxpayers. 

4)     There is no requirement to spend the surplus. Some or all of this surplus could have been carried over to next year’s budget, used to pay down our pension liabilities or pay down our bond debt. It may also have been able to be returned to taxpayers.

5)     Next year is expected to be a difficult budget year. County agencies have been asked to provide the County Executive with 10 percent budget reduction and the Board has put new taxes, including ones that the citizens have soundly rejected, on the table. These surplus spending decisions should be made in context of the overall budget and resident priorities.

During our discussion on the Carryover Review, I clarified with our budget staff that the Board is under no legal obligation to spend the surplus funds identified in the carryover package. My colleagues took issue with my use of the word “surplus” to describe the carryover funds. While the County historically has its preferred terms, carryover is understood by residents, businesses, the federal and state governments plainly as a surplus.

At our last Budget Committee meeting, the Board discussed the need for “revenue diversification,” which would be more plainly described as “new or increased taxes.” The revenue diversification methods the Board discussed included the need for more taxes generated by an up to 12 percent tax on prepared food, and increase in the Probate Tax, an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel tax) and an Admissions Tax of up to 10 percent. Numerous people who testified at the carryover review public hearing mentioned that they opposed a meals tax especially when the County is running a surplus. As I reminded my colleagues, our residents are not stupid, they can see through the doublespeak.