In the city manager’s proposed budget for FY 2016, the residential real-estate tax rate would increase by 2.5 cents – to 1.065 cents per $100 assessed valuation. The City Council can ultimately decide to lower the tax rate but, for now, it’s advertising it at the proposed amount.

Meanwhile, it’s holding public hearings and workshops on the budget, so the idea will receive a great deal of thought and discussion before the budget is finally adopted and the tax rate is set.

At the March 10 council meeting, resident Mike Roskind said he supports the Police Department’s requested $20,000 expenditure for body cameras, saying it should be “triple” that number. He also said training funds for the Fire Department shouldn’t be reduced.

Former City Council member Steve Stombres encouraged the City to “keep the tax rate low for the homeowners.”

AT THE CURRENT real-estate tax rate of $1.04 per $100 assessed valuation, a person owning a home valued last year at $300,000 paid $3,120 in real-estate taxes. But this year, because of average 2.9-percent assessment increases, that same home is worth $308,806; and if the tax rate rises 2.5 cents, his tax bill would be $3,289 – or $169 more, for a 5.41-percent hike.

“I’ve always felt we do our budget process backwards,” said Stombres. “I believe we should first reach consensus as a Council on what the tax rate should be and then approve the projects within those constraints. That would force you to prioritize.”

He also said Fairfax should set aside 10 percent of the stormwater-management fund for a public/private partnership. “There are 100 private stormwater systems in the City,” said Stombres. “But the owners don’t adequately know how to maintain them and, eventually, the City will be on the hook for them. It’s a public/private problem, and we need to be ready.”

Then City Clerk Melanie Burrell read into the record a letter written by resident Becky Steckle. “[City] staff has failed to show budgetary restraint,” wrote Steckle. “Anything that can be frozen should be; hold the line on spending. The taxpayers must not be treated as an ATM, and you should use our funds wisely and prudently.”

She also objected to the proposed, merit-pay raises for City employees and contended there are places in the Parks and Recreation Department budget that could be cut. She concluded by asking the Council not to raise the real-estate tax rate.

The Council members then discussed what the maximum tax rate to be advertised should be. And Finance Director David Hodgkins noted that the equalization tax rate – the amount at which homeowners won’t have to pay higher tax bills – would be $1.025 per $100 assessed valuation. That would be $.015 lower than the current rate.

Councilwoman Nancy Loftus favored the equalization rate, but none of her colleagues agreed. Councilwoman Ellie Schmidt wanted to keep the rate flat at its current $1.04 level.

“It still equates to a tax increase for our citizens [because of higher home assessments],” said Schmidt. “And their other costs, such as food and medicine, are also going up. We have upcoming meetings where we can still do some cutting.”

But Councilman Jeff Greenfield asked what types of cuts could be made in order to eliminate a minimum of $2.1 million in expenditures from the budget, if the tax rate were set that low.

“It’s a challenge; and at the next meeting, I’ll make specific suggestions,” said Schmidt. “But we’ve got to look across the board at the whole budget.”

However, said Councilman David Meyer, “If we didn’t raise the tax rate, we’d be reducing the proposed budget by $2.1 million without any discussion about where we’d be cutting. There are some significant uncertainties, as we move forward – particularly in our school contract – that could leave us in a difficult position through no fault of our own.”

Besides, he added, “We just listened for hours and hours to staff present their case for this budget. I’d encourage us to adopt a higher advertised tax rate so we can talk about what our priorities really are.”

Meyer noted, too, that during past, tough economic times, the City postponed dealing with its infrastructure problems. So, he said, “We have to address our needed investments in our infrastructure. We have a responsibility to do what has to be done.”

Loftus, though, said, “It’s not a cut at $1.04; it would be a budget freeze at $1.03.” Suggesting a possible $1.04, she said, “Let each department head choose how to spend the money they receive. When the economy tanked, our citizens and businesses faced challenges, too, and are still facing them today. And with assessments going up, the City will receive more money from their tax bills, anyway.”

REGARDING THE CITY’S non-discretionary spending – over which it has no control, Loftus said, “A lot of it is because of our education contract with Fairfax County – which is keeping its tax rate flat. I think setting [ours] at $1.04 is perfectly reasonable. Our employees got raises last year, but our citizens work hard, too, and they don’t get raises every year.”

However, replied Greenfield, “Throwing sand in people’s faces doesn’t build relationships. We’re trying to end the budget process before it begins. Our contract with Fairfax County may rise, there’s a 28-percent increase for court services through the Sheriff’s Office and we may receive more students in September.”

“Tonight is just the advertised tax rate, not the adopted one,” he continued. “I don’t understand how we can get to $1.04, recognizing that two/thirds of our budget is nondiscretionary and we have bills to pay and roads to maintain.”

Greenfield then warned his fellow Council members not to box themselves into a corner so quickly. “There’s no more low-hanging fruit in this budget unless we make significant cuts to city services and amenities,” he said. “I’m prepared to make more cuts, but not tonight, so I can’t support $1.04.”

Meyer then moved that the Council advertise the tax rate as proposed, at $1.065 per $100 assessed valuation, and his motion passed, 3-2.

“All of us are going to work toward a lower tax rate,” said Mayor Scott Silverthorne. “This number just gives us flexibility.”