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 policy plan rewrite sparks calls for delay on public hearing

Jared Wenzelburger / Fairfax County Times | Published on 10/3/2025

Fairfax policy plan rewrite sparks calls for delay on public hearing


Fairfax County’s plan to hold a public hearing on Oct. 15 for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan’s Policy Plan is facing pushback from Citizens for Great Falls (CFGF), which is asking the Planning Commission to postpone the review until early 2026 to allow more time for public input.

On Sept. 10, Fairfax County released a draft amendment to the Comprehensive Plan’s Policy Plan.

This document guides future decisions on land use, housing, transportation, the environment, economic development, and public facilities. The 300-plus-page draft, along with a staff report, also introduces new sections on equity and data centers. A public hearing on the draft is scheduled for Oct. 15 before the Planning Commission.

Just a week after the release, CFGF submitted a request to Planning Commissioner Phillip Niedzielski-Eichner asking that the hearing be delayed until the first quarter of 2026. CFGF President John Halacy stated that the short timeframe — approximately 34 days between publication and the first hearing — does not provide residents or community groups with an adequate opportunity to review the proposed changes or share meaningful feedback.

In an interview with the Fairfax County Times, CFGF board member Peter Falcone expanded on those concerns. He described the draft as a “massive rewrite” of the county’s core policy document and said it will shape decision-making across every part of Fairfax County.

“Every decision, every special zoning exception, every special permit is going to be affected by this policy plan,” Falcone said. He added that the roughly 34 days between the draft’s release and the first hearing “does not leave a lot of time” for community groups to study the changes or inform the public.

The group also emphasized that volunteer-led organizations like CFGF do not have paid staff or consultants and rely on community members to analyze and comment on policy proposals. Falcone added that much of the language in the draft is abstract and will require explanation by staff, leaving little chance for residents to fully absorb what is at stake before October.

Beyond the Policy Plan hearing, the Planning Commission has a full October calendar, with zoning amendment hearings set for Oct. 8, 16, and 22. CFGF said the crowded schedule further limits its ability to prepare comments on each proposal.

Data centers, a new section in the draft, were highlighted as a particularly pressing issue by members of CFGF. Falcone noted that their growth has stirred controversy across Northern Virginia, with effects on neighborhoods, energy use, and countywide planning decisions.

While CFGF’s work began in Great Falls, the group stressed that its concerns extend countywide.

“We continue as an organization to advocate for citizen engagement and public engagement in this policymaking process. It’s a very important part of it,” said Falcone. “The public needs to know about this and the significance of the changes that are going to be made. This will shape how the entire county operates; it’s not limited to Great Falls.”

As of late September, CFGF had not received a response from the Planning Commission to its postponement request. The group did hear back from Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff McKay, who acknowledged receipt of the request, but no decision has been made.

Falcone added that public awareness of the draft remains low. “In the week or 10 days since this was published, it doesn’t seem to be striking any notes in the public forum,” he said. “There is continuing interest in getting this action postponed so there will be more time.”

Return to Previous Page