Fairfax previews draft FY26–27 budget and warns of 10% cuts if Measure J fails

The Fairfax Town Council met in a special budget workshop on April 2, 2026, to review a proposed FY26–27 draft budget and a parallel “worst‑case” scenario showing what a 10% cut would mean if the proposed Measure J sales tax does not pass. Finance director Michael told the council the draft (Budget A) reflects the council’s strategic plan and that staff also prepared Budget B as a transparency measure that would cut roughly 10% of discretionary spending if sales tax revenue were lost.

Michael said property and sales taxes together account for about 71% of the town’s projected revenues and that the town expects roughly $9 million in property taxes and about $6.5 million from the basic Bradley‑Burns sales tax this year. He told the council that a full year of Measure J would eventually add roughly $370,000 annually but that the town’s near‑term assumptions must include uncertainty because sales tax projections are sensitive to economic changes and the timing of implementation.

Why it matters: staff said the largest share of spending—public safety and contracted fire services—cannot be cut easily, so reductions would fall on other departments, capital projects and town services. Michael told the council that management trimmed roughly $1.2 million from department requests to produce a balanced draft that meets reserve targets but added the workshop is intended to gather council direction before staff returns with a revised draft on April 15.

Council members pressed staff for detail on the timing and effects of contingency cuts, and for options that combine modest revenue measures with targeted spending efficiencies. Mayor Helman and multiple council members emphasized the staff request to hold questions until after presentations, but members also argued publicly about whether the meeting structure limited their ability to probe departments in real time.

What could change: If Measure J does not pass in June, the council discussed returning the measure to a later ballot (for example November) but also noted there would be an interval during which projected revenues would fall short. Staff modeled a 10% reduction across eligible departmental spending to illustrate possible outcomes, not as a council decision. The council asked staff for more specific operational detail—including which positions or programs would be cut and a clearer exhibit of legal and litigation costs—before any formal reduction decisions.

Next steps: staff said Budget A and Budget B will be revised with council input for April 15 and May 6 review and the council is scheduled to consider adoption of the final budget on June 3. Staff also committed to follow up with requested clarifications, including a detailed attorney/litigation exhibit and line‑item backup on revenue and event income.