On September 24, 2025, the Sully District Council of Citizens Associations hosted the Sully District Council’s Eleventh Biennial State Legislative Candidates Night.
The in-person participants in the candidate forum included the Republican Candidate for Virginia’s 7th Delegate District, Cassandra Aucoin; the candidates for the 9th Delegate District, incumbent Delegate Karrie Delaney (Democrat) and Republican Candidate Nhan (“Win-Win-Win”) Huynh; the Republican Candidate for Virginia’s 10th Delegate District, David Guill, and the candidates for the 11th Delegate District, incumbent David Bulova (Democrat) and Adam Wise (Republican). The Democratic Party Candidate for Virginia’s 7th Delegate District (Karen Keys-Gamarra) was absent due to illness, while the Democratic Party Candidate for Virginia’s 10th Delegate District, Dan Helmer, submitted a video. The Democratic Candidate for the 8th Delegate District, Irene Shin, also submitted a video.
The candidate forum was moderated by Mr. Jeffrey Parnes, the President of the Sully District Council of Citizens Associations. After opening statements by the candidates, discussions were based on questions submitted to the moderator by the audience. The audience-sourced questions and panel discussions were civil and constructive. As the point was to hear from the candidates, the format of the forum did not allow for attendees to make presentations or ask direct questions.
The candidates opening statements and responses to questions touched on numerous topics important to Sully District residents (and beyond), ranging from regulation of solar panels and data centers to health insurance and local taxation. The purpose of the current post is not to provide a comprehensive overview of the discussions, nor to favor one candidate or party over the other.
Instead, this post aims to highlight four areas where the candidates’ discussions and remarks intersect with research and analysis produced and shared on the State of Fairfax, including (i) the performance of Fairfax County schools; (ii) state and local government spending and taxation; (iii) the higher cost of living in Northern Virginia; and (iv) fiscal redistribution in Virginia. In these areas, the post hopes to inform the policy debate based on evidence-based analysis.
The quality of Fairfax schools
- Concerns were raised by a number of (especially non-incumbent) candidates that Fairfax schools are underperforming, or that schools are failing Fairfax county students. Concern was also expressed about high administrative spending within FCPS (as well as within the county administration). Beyond limited anecdotal evidence provided, no evidence or examples were provided about Fairfax schools actually underperforming or being inefficient.
- Despite claims of over-spending and inefficiency, analysis of audited local government expenditure data suggests that when expressed in real terms, Fairfax County ranks 30th in the commonwealth in per capita (total) county spending. Public education typically represents about half of local government spending.
- Further analysis suggests that while Fairfax County appears to be a “high-performing, high-spending” school division in nominal terms, when considered in real terms (i.e., after adjusting for the high cost of living in Fairfax County), FCPS is revealed to be relatively high-performing and low-spending jurisdictions when expressed in real terms.
- Several candidates made the point that “spending more” doesn’t always translate into better outcomes, and that more effort needs to be placed on—and I am paraphrasing—“spending smarter, not spending more”.
- While assessing the (in)efficiency of public schools or the value for money of public services, few (if any) of the panelists noted the impact of the high cost-of-living on the cost of local public services. For instance, whereas Fairfax County is among the school divisions with the highest nominal teacher salaries—when teacher salaries are adjusted for the high cost of living—Fairfax County teachers rank 80th in terms of real average teacher salaries in the commonwealth.
Lower government spending and lower taxes
- A number of candidates raised the concern of broader government inefficiency and their desire to lower taxes. It was recognized, however, that state and local governments in Virginia must balance their books every year, so that tax cuts would have to be offset by expenditure cuts.
- Few if any concrete proposals were put forth were spending cuts should take place. Some of the candidates who favored tax cuts large indicated that inefficiencies in state and local spending should be identified by hiring consultants for this purpose.
- It should be noted that the candidates—who are running for state office—were primarily focused on cutting local taxing powers (local property taxes and the personal property tax on vehicles). Likewise, it seemed that the focus of the discussion was on perceived inefficient local government spending by Fairfax County, rather than on inefficient state-level spending.
- For those candidates who supported lower taxes, there seemed to be a tension between the desire to provide high-quality public services (for instance, safer neighborhoods) and the desire to reduce public spending beyond pointing to the ambitions to eliminate (yet to be identified) “inefficient programs”.
- When asked whether each candidate would support a reduction of 1 or 2 percentage points in the state income tax, in exchange for permitting localities to collect a local-options income tax of 1 or 2 percentage points, only one of the Republican candidates indicated support for this sweeping tax cut, which would have the potential to save Virginia taxpayers billions of dollars, and would allow Fairfax County to reduce its property taxes and eliminate the restaurant tax. None of the other Republican candidates spoke out in support of a broad-based income tax cut or expansion of local tax powers.
- The incumbent for the same District noted that the Commonwealth would have a hard time absorbing the resulting reduction in revenues (given the need to balance the budget), but recognized the need for local governments to have more broad-based revenue options.
Higher cost of living
- It was widely agreed among the candidates that the high cost of living in Fairfax County and rising prices across Virginia are major concerns. However, few concrete proposals were offered on how to lower costs for Fairfax County residents or Virginians.
- Rising housing costs were identified as an important driver in increasing costs. The primary discussion by candidates on this topic (in response to audience questions) was to consider the extent to which property tax exemptions could be provided for senior citizens on fixed incomes.
- The topic of higher cost of living was further touched on indirectly, for instance, by noting that legislation was adopted to expand state employees’ health coverage to include adult dependents with disabilities, and state programs to lower the cost of higher education tuition in the state for military survivors and dependents.
- None of the candidates noted that while local tax breaks may reduce the cost of living for senior citizens and enable them to continue to live in their Fairfax homes as empty-nesters, doing so would actually reduce the local housing supply and increase housing prices for young families in the county.
Fiscal redistribution (“Fairfax as the golden goose of Virginia”)
- All candidates seemed to agree that Fairfax County contributes more to the Commonwealth than it receives back.
- Delegate David Bulova noted the role that he played in overturning a recession-era cap on state funding for school support staff, which was part of Virginia’s Standards of Quality (SOQ) funding formula. The elimination of this cap resulted in a ‘significant’ increase in public education funding, including for Fairfax County schools.
- There was uncertainty among the candidates over the extent to which Fairfax taxpayers send money to Richmond, versus how much comes back to Fairfax, either in the form of intergovernmental transfers, or in terms of state government services.
- A recent analysis of the economic and fiscal geography of Virginia suggests that Fairfax County contributes nearly $4 billion to the state in income taxes, while receiving back only $1.5 billion in intergovernmental revenue. A more complete analysis would likely show that Fairfax county residents have a net fiscal balance of over $2 billion dollars, meaning that Fairfax taxpayers send over $2 billion dollars more to Richmond, versus how much comes back to Fairfax in terms of services or grants.
