Skip to main content

Read the latest Blog Post by CFGF Board Member Peter Falcone on Resource Protection Areas (RPAs), the vital buffers that help safeguard waterways and stream beds in our community from the impacts of development, and the effects of the county's development approval process.  Click on BLOGS above to read the whole post.

Proposed 2027 County Budget — Administrative Savings Overview

On behalf of Citizens For Great Falls, the chart depicted below was submitted to Dranesville Supervisor James Bierman and Fairfax County School Board Representative Robin Lady, on March 22 2026, outlining a series of budget recommendations for their consideration. The chart illustrates approximately $30 million in potential administrative savings identified across Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) and general county operations.

 

Our recommendations emphasize FCPS central administration, contracted services, and internal operational efficiencies — and are specifically structured to avoid any impact on classroom instruction, school-based staffing, or countywide public safety services.

These figures represent constructive, community-oriented savings targets aimed at supporting responsible budgeting while preserving the services Fairfax County residents value most.

Citizens For Great Falls – FY 2027 Budget Reductions
Citizens For Great Falls

FY 2027 FCPS / County Budget
Targeted Reductions Justification Sheet

Proposed savings aligned with FY 2027 FCPS / County budget rationale
Item What We Propose How It Aligns with FY 2027 Budget Rationale
1. FCPS Vacant Central Office Positions $7M Freeze nonessential central office vacancies and permanently eliminate long-unfilled administrative positions; reassign duties within existing teams where feasible. Brings the budget in line with actual staffing levels and mirrors County and FCPS emphasis on "efforts toward greater efficiency" and limiting new resource requests, achieving savings without reducing current services or classroom staffing.
2. FCPS Nonessential Consultant Contracts $6M Scale back or cancel non-mandated consultant contracts in professional development, strategic planning, communications, curriculum consulting, and IT modernization; shift appropriate work to internal staff. Targets a known cost driver—contractual and professional services—while following the FY 2027 direction to implement agency-level savings that offset required increases, protect classroom instruction, and build internal capacity instead of relying on recurring consultant spend.
3. FCPS Software & Licensing Consolidation $4M Eliminate redundant or underutilized HR, analytics, workflow, and training platforms; consolidate licenses and negotiate enterprise pricing; delay noncritical upgrades 12–24 months. Responds to ongoing IT operating cost pressure by focusing on consolidation and smarter procurement, consistent with County and FCPS efforts to manage license and support costs while preserving essential instructional and information security systems.
4. FCPS Administrative Facilities & Leases $3M Reduce leased administrative office space through consolidation and expanded telework; pursue energy-efficiency improvements and right-size office footprints. Aligns with the County's broader push to rebalance facilities spending toward capital renewal and maintenance, shifting dollars from dispersed administrative overhead to higher-priority needs without affecting classroom space.
5. FCPS Training, Travel & Internal Programs $2M Limit central office travel and conferences; shift professional development to virtual or in-house formats; pause nonessential pilot initiatives. Uses the same first-line savings tools the County is applying (reductions in travel, training, and discretionary programs) to generate modest, targeted reductions that protect school-based training required by law or contract and maintain direct services to students.
6. Countywide Consultant Reductions (Non-FCPS) $5M Freeze new consultant contracts in non-public-safety agencies and reduce the scope of existing planning, analysis, and communications engagements; prioritize internal capacity. Supports the County Executive's strategy to implement a sizable reduction package while keeping the tax rate flat, by focusing cuts on back-office consulting rather than on core public safety or human services, and moderating overall budget growth.
7. County Administrative Overhead (Non-FCPS) $3M Reduce administrative travel, training, internal program budgets, and noncritical technology upgrades; freeze nonessential hiring in non-public-safety departments. Extends the County's documented approach of trimming administrative overhead (printing, equipment, training, personnel savings based on actuals) to realize savings with minimal service impact, helping balance the budget and prioritize high-impact programs.
8. Montessori Pilot at Great Falls ES – Transparency Request Transparency Seek clarity on site selection (including whether Title I schools were considered), long-term local funding after grant expiration, impacts on existing resources, and success metrics; request ongoing community input. Reflects FCPS and County commitments to transparency, equity, and data-driven decision-making by ensuring a partially grant-funded initiative is evaluated against clear criteria, equity goals, and budgetary tradeoffs in a year when both FCPS and the County face structural pressures.
Total Proposed Reductions (Items 1–7) $30,000,000
Citizens For Great Falls  |  FY 2027 Budget Advocacy  |  Great Falls, Virginia

Citizens For Great Falls is actively engaged on the issues that matter most to our community.

See some of our latest actions below:

CFGF Testimony and Correspondence
Citizens For Great Falls

Testimony & Correspondence

Citizens For Great Falls is working on your behalf — engaging leaders and officials on the issues that shape life in Great Falls. Read about our recent efforts below.
Public Testimony
Dec. 3, 2025
TestimonySupport for Lift Me Up! Special Permit application.
Jan. 7, 2026
TestimonyChallenging a zoning determination on pickleball in a front yard.
Correspondence & Letters
Jul. 15, 2025
CorrespondenceTo County Planning Commission — six specific requests to amend the proposed Zoning Ordinance on Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) to improve safety and protect adjacent residential property owners from insurance rate impacts.
Oct. 15, 2025
CorrespondenceTo County Planning Commission — objecting to a draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment on Electrical Substations, citing noise, visual impact, and safety concerns for nearby residential areas.
Oct. 30, 2025
CorrespondenceTo School Board Rep. Robyn Lady — concerns and recommendations regarding the ongoing school boundary review process.
Jan. 12, 2026
CorrespondencePreliminary endorsement of the residential development plan for Castleton Hills (former site of Wolftrap Nursery).
Regulatory & Agency Outreach
Apr. 3, 2025
CorrespondenceTo Supervisor Bierman — documenting the overnight tanker truck accident in which more than 2,000 gallons of hazardous material were discharged on Leigh Mill Road, and urging action on the safety risks posed by tractor trailers hauling hazardous cargo through Great Falls.
Apr. 10, 2025
EmailTo Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality — requesting a formal investigation of the April 3 HazMat incident on Leigh Mill Road and assistance for homeowners in testing private wells that may have been placed at risk.
Citizens For Great Falls  |  Advocacy & Community Engagement  |  Great Falls, Virginia

News / Articles

Fairfax County delays trash talk on Unified Sanitation District plans

Jared Wenzelburger / Fairfax County Times | Published on 7/25/2025
Fairfax County delays trash talk on Unified Sanitation District plans
By Jared Wenzelburger / Fairfax County Times

Fairfax County’s move toward establishing Unified Sanitation Districts (USDs) continues to draw strong opposition from small, local trash-hauling companies. With the public hearing now delayed to Oct. 14, private haulers are intensifying their critique, claiming the new system will severely harm their businesses and the consumer experience.

“There are still significant outstanding questions in the community regarding the potential conversion to countywide, government-run trash service,” Springfield District Supervisor Pat Herrity said in a newsletter to constituents. “Residents and private haulers raised many concerns that the County needs to follow up on before any public hearing, including the legality of breaking many longstanding HOA covenants to accommodate a county-run trash service.”

Herrity was the lone dissenting vote on holding the preliminary public hearing at all.
County officials say the USD model—which would consolidate waste contracts for single-family homes under a county-managed system—promises cost savings, fewer trucks on residential streets, and more consistent service. Currently, approximately 90% of homes are contracted privately, while roughly 10% are served by the Department of Public Works and Environmental Services.

Small haulers, however, argue the shift toward a “lowest-bidder” model would automatically favor large national firms over local operators. Larry Foster of Evergreen Disposal, which serves around 20,000 homes in Fairfax County, warned that the plan would put many local haulers out of business. He added that homeowners would lose the freedom to choose and that costs could rise under a monopolized system.

“Fairfax County has repeatedly proven it can’t outperform the private sector in waste services,” said Jeff Edwards, president and owner of Evergreen Disposal, Inc. “Now it wants to centralize control, displace numerous long-serving local businesses, and sell residents a rigid, costly system under the illusion of progress.”

From the county’s perspective, officials emphasize that USDs could make waste and recycling services more affordable, consistent, and convenient by negotiating through large-scale contracts. They argue that the current system leads to inefficient truck traffic and price disparities among neighbors who receive the same level of service.

Virginia law requires a five-year notice before any change takes effect, meaning USDs could be implemented no earlier than 2030 even if the October hearing results in a vote to begin the process.

Opponents have also launched community campaigns to rally public support. Petitions warn that the changes could lead to higher prices, job losses, and diminished service flexibility. Many residents, particularly those in HOAs, are concerned about losing long-standing agreements with preferred haulers and the ability to tailor pickup schedules to their needs.

According to Citizens for Great Falls, a community-based organization that engages residents, stakeholders, and elected officials to advocate for outcomes that benefit the community, Fairfax County has yet to share a formal implementation plan for the proposed county-wide trash collection model—despite months of internal planning by county staff, consultants, and members of the Board of Supervisors. The group notes that key details remain unclear, including how the change would affect residents and the private companies that currently provide trash collection services to more than 300,000 households in detached homes and townhouses.

“The assumption that substituting county management for the private sector will inevitably yield better environmental outcomes and efficiencies is not a foregone conclusion. Without a robust framework for measurement and public reporting, projected emissions reductions and efficiency gains may remain speculative,” said John Halacy, a Fairfax County resident and president of Citizens For Great Falls. “Sustainable progress should be built on verifiable results, not on aspirational promises.”

In response to criticism, county officials say small haulers will still have the opportunity to compete for contracts. They emphasize that no final decision has been made and that the upcoming hearing is just one step in a broader public process.

As the Oct. 14 public hearing approaches, the county is ramping up public outreach through community forums, digital engagement, and informational materials. Officials say these efforts are designed to ensure that residents have the facts they need to weigh in on the future of trash collection in Fairfax County.

While the county sees USDs as a way to modernize and streamline waste services, small businesses and many residents fear losing the competition, care, and control they currently value.
Return to Previous Page