Falls Church staff present spring FY25 budget amendment that moves school appropriations and funds stormwater credits

City staff presented a spring FY25 budget amendment at a Falls Church City Council work session that would reallocate departmental savings, appropriate program fee revenues, and use fund balances for a set of one‑time projects affecting general government, schools and the stormwater capital program.

Finance staff member Miss Bawa said the amendment requests several appropriations across funds: roughly $226,000 in the general fund (including $159,000 from recreation and parks program revenues and $50,000 in permit revenues), an appropriation for school operating funds of about $1,317,009.82 (made up of roughly $1.05 million in planned fund‑balance use and $267,009.62 in state grant funds), and a stormwater CIP request of $790,000 drawn from the stormwater fund balance. The proposal also includes CIP adjustments, an insurance reimbursement tied to a damaged traffic signal and other one‑time items.

On schools, staff said the $1.05 million of fund‑balance use would cover items including an estimated $850,000 for a baseball‑field fence and $500,000 toward the stadium concession stand (the schools and city previously budgeted a portion of this work). Staff also described $298,000 in state grant funds tied to standards‑of‑quality (SOQ) position bonuses; school representatives told council the school board planned to match the bonus for non‑SOQ positions and would show the match in school fund accounting.

On stormwater, staff described a proposal to purchase nonpoint‑source nutrient credits as part of Falls Church’s Chesapeake Bay requirements. Staff said the local request would be $640,000 for one block of credits; about half of the cost would be funded by a state grant and half by local match, and the purchase represents part of a larger multi‑year program of purchases and project work included in the city’s CIP. Staff also requested an additional $150,000 to cover higher construction costs on an existing stormwater project, bringing that project budget to $830,000, with the grant match accounted for in the request.

Other general‑fund requests described by staff included $117,000 to replace a library rooftop HVAC unit, $300,000 in anticipated outside legal expenditures, and several interdepartmental transfers funded by salary savings and contract underspends. Staff said the requested general‑fund transfers and appropriations would be covered by under‑spending, targeted fee revenues and insurance reimbursements; the staff memo identified $774,700 in general‑government appropriations funded by those movements.

Councilmembers pressed staff for clarity on year‑end fund balances and how the proposed appropriations would affect the city’s fiscal targets. Councilmember Debbie said she expected year‑end reporting in September and asked that re‑appropriated balances be visible and clearly documented. Councilmember Laura asked whether jail and sheriff costs would require higher budget authority in future years as population grows; staff said they had increased those line items in the FY26 budget process.

Councilmembers also asked questions about the timing and transparency of the school bonus program: the schools indicated they had received state funds for SOQ bonuses and planned to match bonuses for non‑SOQ positions; some council members said they would have preferred to consider that proposal earlier in the city’s budget discussions to consider parity with general government staff.

No formal vote or ordinance was adopted at the work session. Councilmembers asked staff for additional detail — including up‑to‑date fund‑balance tables by fund, clarifications of the school fund balances after the proposed appropriations, and confirmation of grant match plans — before any final action.

Next steps: staff said they would return with more detailed year‑end reports and with any required ordinance language if council directs final appropriations.