Weeping moms, blind senior citizens, and a chorus of old folks...come on. It is time for the BOS to act responsibly and stop the runaway budgets that have plagued Loudoun for the past decade. $20,000 projection boards for each classroom is a good example. If folks want to hand over more of their income to the county I am sure the BOS can set up a donation system, if there isn't already one.

Do people really believe that a small cut in the school budget will plunge our kids into the depths of education despair? What will happen? Will teachers march out and refuse to teach? Will books be falling apart at the bindings? Will kids be faced with uncontrollable gang violence?

There has never been an instance where spending more on education has resulted in dramatic improvements in learning (check out Washington DC as an example).

Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on February 28, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dbc007: I agree!

How sad that these senior citizens have so little internal character and hope that they must rely on a Senior Center to uplift them. Truly, I understand the aging process, but these folks have to find ways to "truly live" without basing their emotional existence on whether or not the Senior Center is open for "X" number of hours.

And in terms of the school district -- I have been to some of the poorest districts in this nation and seen first-hand what some students have to deal with. Rotting buildings, ancient books and resources, poorly trained teachers. That is ridiculous. But equally ridiculous is the opposite end, which is the "educational gluttony" of items like $20,000 Smart Boards that you mention. Cutting the school budget is smart and prudent and necessary.

Posted by glastonbury27 (anonymous) on February 28, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Every single expense in my family budget is undergoing great scrutiny, and despite the cries of my children I am NOT buying ice cream and desserts and toys that we do not need at this time. Time for the BOS to act similarly.

Posted by glastonbury27 (anonymous) on February 28, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dbc007 and glastonbury27,

The projections boards you speak so vigorously against were not $20,000. Each cost around $4200 and many teachers don't use them. If they wanted us to have projectors so badly, they could have bought simple LCD projectors costing around $600 from any electronics retailer. I understand the gluttony you speak of as I see it firsthand all of the time. It also does not help that we have a powerful few in Loudoun County who keep underpopulated elementary schools open. We can consolidate bus routes more and we can build bigger high schools. 2,000-2,200 capacity high schools in this area would go a long way in cutting down on future costs. However, I believe when the economy turns around that the citizens of Loudoun County urge the Supervisors to set up some type of "rainy day" fund so when economic situations occur like the one we are experiencing now that there is not a drop off in public services. This would be better than allowing the school board to implement stupid programs like Mandarin Chinese just because times are good.

Posted by teachintom1122 (anonymous) on February 28, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

teachintom1122, great suggestions for improving the school spending budget. However, Mandarin Chinese is of strategic importance to our country. If anything, get rid of Spanish language classes. There are already plenty of bilingual Spanish speakers and Spanish is relatively easy to learn on one's own.

Posted by obamamama31 (anonymous) on February 28, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not Cantonese?

Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on February 28, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If folks want to hand over more of their income to the county I am sure the BOS can set up a donation system, if there isn't already one."
Amen... And why am I going to pay for Mandarin Chinese when your damned mommy and daddy are supposed to be paying your college to teach you that?

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on February 28, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I attended the BoS meeting on Wednesday evening. It was clear that the citizens of Loudoun are supportive of County Administrator Kirby M. Bowers' proposed tax rate of $1.29.
I was also clear that they value the excellent school system, whether they now have children attending school or not.

It will take political courage for the Board members to vote in favor of the proposed budget. It is a budget that will not harm homeowners. It is a budget that will not deepen the recession in Loudoun County by unnecessarily unemploying hundreds of county and school workers. It is a budget that protects the future of our children.

The proposed budget is rational and fiscally prudent. I urge the Board to vote in favor of this budget.

Posted by LoudounPatriot (anonymous) on February 28, 2009 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LoudounPatriot: I do not doubt your sincerity, but I disagree strongly. I could not go to the BOS meeting because I was working. My tax bill would go up almost $200 a year on top of my existing bill of over $5300 on a home that has lost over 60% of my equity. I am taxed every where I turn in this state. I am living on a tight budget with my family, and it is high time Loudoun County does too.

The budget proposed harms this homeowner. The proposed budget can be reworked so that the employees are not laid off. That is the Bowers ploy to make it unpalatable. The schools that have 80 to 120 school-children need to be closed and consolidated. The libraries can close for a day or two. Schools can get by with fewer computers per student for a couple of years. Our children are not at risk. No tax increase.

Cut the darn 1.5 BILLION dollar budget for crying out loud. We only have 300,000 people in the whole county for heavens sake.

Posted by MikeL4 (anonymous) on February 28, 2009 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LoudounPatriot: So, increased spending year over year on education means "excellent" schools? Again, there is no proof of that anywhere (NYC, Washington DC, LA). In Loudoun increases don't improve things beyond a matter of imperceptible degrees (if they improve things at all). Lets try cutting spending and see what happens to the test scores. My bet; the scores don't go down one bit.

Also, if it takes "courage" to vote for more spending, our BOS is certainly among the most courageous group of officials in the country. Wow, what bravery.

Posted by dbc007 (anonymous) on February 28, 2009 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"This is a budget that will not harm homeowners"? Are you serious? Do you understand basic economics? Less money coming in + unnecessary spending and no cuts = greater debt! Then what? Raise the tax rate again? Unless of course you'd like to make a healthy donation to the Loudoun Legacy fund - how about $700 which should cover the cost of my tax bill increase this year under the proposed $1.29 rate?

Posted by thehardmans777 (anonymous) on March 1, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Never mind LoudounPatriot - he gave up thinking YEARS ago.
And I don't know which meeting old LP is talking about... I too could not attend, but from what I heard, there was NOT unanimous support for a tax rate increase like he claims.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's simple math people. Think and do some research before you object to the proposed budget. You all make our community look uneducated when you litter the message boards with inaccuracies.

"Bowers has proposed raising the property tax rate from $1.14 to $1.29 per $100 of assessed value, but has said that the average residential tax bill would drop because of lower home assessments."

“According to the county assessor's office, residential property values decreased by an average of nearly 15 percent. The deepest decline was for condominiums, whose value dipped by an average of 24 percent.
Sterling was hardest hit last year, where assessments dropped by 31 percent.
The average assessment dropped 14.1 percent in the Blue Ridge District, 14 percent in Broad Run and 14.9 percent in Sugarland Run.
An analysis by the office finds that the property tax rate would have to increase slightly for the average residential tax bill to remain unchanged. The rate would have to increase to $1.33 per $100 of assessed value from $1.14, the analysis finds.”
Source "http://www.wtop.com/?nid=732&sid=1584746"

7.6% increase in tax rate
15% decrease on assessments
=7.4% decrease on taxes paid

Easy math people! Approve the budget as proposed!

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bjstocks4, increasing the tax rate from $1.14 to $1.29 would be a 13.2% rate increase, not a 7.6% rate increase. When property assessments decrease, property taxes should decrease proportionately.

Posted by obamamama31 (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are correct.

It is a 13.157% increase which will still result in you paying less in taxes this year as it is still lower then the average 15% decrease in property assessment.

My point is to not just tie increased tax rate to higher taxes as that is not the case.

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bjstocks4 - a rate increase to 1.29 would increase some people's taxes in the county, no matter how much you don't want to believe that anyone has bought a house in the last twelve months. NO WAY should we approve this budget. "Obamamama" is right on - taxes should decrease proportionally with the assessments. The taxpayers need a break from this crapola. Keeping the tax rate at approximately the current level would provide a huge benefit to strapped homeowners. Mortgage payments would immediately drop, providing stimulus to people at all economic levels.
It is a slap in the face to have to even have a tax hike of this magnitude proposed when our home values are plummeting.

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with Hoqenishy. The economy needs to be stimulated at all levels. Raising taxes won't do this. Under a $1.29 rate many neighborhoods that have not seen as steep a decline in assessments are being given the job (again) of 'carrying' the rest of the County in order to make up the shortfall. But we're talking 'averages', not real people. My question is, who's going to do the 'carrying' next year when we have no tax base left? I wonder if people will flock in droves to ask for a tax rate increase then, when it's their pockets that are being hit and their house values have plunged even more?

Posted by thehardmans777 (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hoqenishy - Yes "some" people will pay more in taxes.
As true as that is don't you think that it's is worth it?
The majority will still pay out less in taxes. Those of us hit the hardest by the decreased in assessment value will benefit the most. And the local government will be able to provide the quality product that it is currently providing. Don't you think that is fair?

And thehardmans77, I’m not even going to debate with you as your probably one of the few that believe you should only pay for what you use.

each and every single one of us as individuals make up this community and have to take the responsibility for it. I would rather take responsibility for it by paying an increased tax rate. With the alternative being watching our community fall apart because the more fortunate are not willing to help the less fortunate. Cutting the budget will only result in fewer people being attracted to the county and thus our property value decreasing futher.

My property value has dropped significantly as I live in a condo. I am willing to pay the tax rate increase because I am in favor of the proposed budget. I will also be paying less in taxes this year even though the tax rate has increased. For my situation and I’m sure many others in Loudoun County it’s a win, win.

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please stop saying “if assessments go down so should the tax rate.” That’s ridiculous!!
The tax rates should be adjusted based on the assessments. This is done to provide for the community that it is supporting.
If lower assessments = lower tax rates our local government would not have the funds to provide the correct standard of service that has been established.
“In the final analysis, how much you pay in real estate taxes is the result of: (1) the assessed value of your property; and (2) the real estate tax rate set by the governing body of the local government. The real estate market activities during the period of time studied by the assessor in establishing your assessment will affect the assessed value. The cost of providing services and the desired level or required level of services voiced by the citizens in the community will determine the real estate tax rate. If the assessed value of your property declines in 2009 the real estate tax rate (typically a rate per $100 or $1,000 of assessed value) could go down, stay the same, or increase. If the real estate tax increases you may not paid more that taxes than the previous year if the rate of increase is less than the assessment decrease. Here is an example:
2008 Real Estate Tax
$200,000 assessed value x $1.24 per $100 of assessed value = $2,480
2009 Real Estate Tax
$180,000 assessed value (reflecting a 10% decline from 2007) x $1.35 per $100 of assessed value = $2,430 or $50 less than in 2007
In this example, even though the real estate tax rate increased, the amount of taxes paid in 2009 is expected to be less than in 2008.”
Source http://yourpropertytax.typepad.com/my_we...

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, but didn't really need the math lesson! Bottom line - when money is in tight supply - the level of spending should be examined (just as it would in any household) and in some cases curtailed! Simple economics. Obviously it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what services are essential to a community and which could be adjusted down while the economy recovers. Bleeding the tax base white - to the point of collapse (have you noticed how many businesses have disappeared lately) isn't going to help. Interesting that you have this 'continue to spend' mentality whilst admitting your tax bill will still be lower anyway! And yes - I'm proud to admit I don't believe in letting other people fund my lifestyle and wouldn't dream of ordering something off a menu that's more than I can currently afford and let someone else pick up the tab! But I guess we're all different.

Posted by thehardmans777 (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You’re missing the point. I’m not talking about ordering up things I can't afford so someone else can pay for them. I'm talking about spending my tax money to support activities, facilities, and in theory budgets that fund community services because it makes our community as a whole better. If you’re in a situation where you’re paying more in taxes this year then good for you, your property did not depreciate as much as the average or the majority of the county. I would love to be in that situation and am confident that I would not object to the proposed budget as I would feel proud that I am doing my part as a citizen of a community that I support.

For example just because I don't go to the public library I’m not requesting that they all be closed. That would be selfish of me and a good community resource would be eliminated thus having no good outcome other then me having a couple more dollars in my pocket. I'm a team player, if you don't like the county and its history of spending then move. I happen to like the quality of life the local government has provided us and will continue to support it. Thanks.

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I assume you're joking - but in case you're serious - this has nothing to do with being a 'team player' it's about having to pay an ever increasing tax bill against a property that like yours, has fallen in value too? Everyone is in the same boat and the $$ value of a property is irrelevent unless it's being sold. Everyone needs to do their part to economize. Closing libraries is not going to solve this - but there are plenty of other programs/services that could be re-evaluated. And with respect, it doesn't sound like you're completely supporting the quality of life you've become so accustomed to, since you've already happily stated that your bill will be less than last year? I'll say it again - Loudoun Legacy Fund? Checks accepted. In the meantime, while they await your donation - I guess I'll just keep paying my ever increasing tax bill. Although, as you state, I could of course sell up, move to another county and take my tax dollar with me. Hope you enjoy next year's tax bill without my subsidy.

Posted by thehardmans777 (anonymous) on March 2, 2009 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bjstocks4 - NO, I do NOT think it's worth it. I do not use the Loudoun school system at all, and beyond that, I don't really utilize any county services (no library card for Loudoun, even). So when you say that "The majority will still pay out less in taxes" and that "I am willing to pay the tax rate increase because I am in favor of the proposed budget", but then go on to admit that you won't see an increase in your tax bill, that sounds pretty trite and is a load of baloney.
I will see an increase in my bill - and even if I didn't, I still wouldn't support a tax rate increase of this magnitude. For you to sit there and talk about what's "fair" and our "responsibility", but then assert that it is the duty of new residents to handle a tax increase in an incredibly bad recession market is moronic.
Lastly, you said "your probably one of the few that believe you should only pay for what you use." Wow, gee whiz, you mean FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY?!? Say it ain't so! What an outdated idea! Yes, it's been proven time and time again that we should force people to pay for things they don't use, right?

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on March 3, 2009 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First thehardmans777 doesn’t realize that sometimes to compensate for the lost income due to lower assessed value taxes must be raised. It closes the gap created by less tax collected due to lower assessed value and if assessed correctly keeps the tax payment similar to previous years.

And Hoqenishy – you’re either just an antagonist who likes to argue on blogs or your anti government all together. Your feelings about only paying for what you use are hilarious! Sure I don’t condone frivolous spending but do you not realize that the public schools, public libraries, and other services provided by the county are what made Loudoun the place it is today. For a number of years we were one of the fastest growing counties in the Country. Do you think that’s because we have average schools and no public service to offer new citizens? I seriously doubt it. You move to a community because of many things. If you’re willing to move in you should be willing to pay the taxes, increase and all.

Hoqenishy’s theory is to not have local governments at all and just live on your own land “pay for what you use” I guess!?!?!?! That’s the problem with some people today, no feeling of responsibility to the community. And that is self-centered!

One more question, if the budget is not passed and the tax rate were to stay the same, what do you think would happen? How could anything be funded? The assessed value has dropped by an avg. of 15% and with no tax increase that would be 15% less revenue generated for use within the county. Believe it or not the county is still growing. The school system has proposed a budget that is 11.9 million less in local taxes then last year yet they are going to be serving 2500 more students. Without an increased tax rate this will not be possible. Just one example

We are only one tax paying family within Loudoun County and my wife and I are in support of the budget as proposed! And no I do not have children yet so I am not using the Public Schools however I do support the Schools budget as proposed by Kirby Bowers to the Board! I strongly believe that a good quality public schools system reflects directly on the community. Thanks for listening and I’m done.

Posted by bjstocks4 (anonymous) on March 3, 2009 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The school budget as submitted this year is $11.9 million less than last year. Approximately 2,500 more students will be enrolled than last year. We may disagree about a lot of things, but please realize that the school budget is not an increase. It is a substantial decrease. LCPS will be serving many more students with much less money.

Posted by octamatilda (anonymous) on March 3, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bjstocks4, Loudoun grew because of its proximity to DC and the surrounding businesses, and as a result of this proximity, has been a huge beneficiary of tax revenue. Schools are an attraction, but don't you even delude yourself for a moment to think the reason why Loudoun was prosperous was because of the school system.
My "responsibility" to the community should not be mandated by you - it should be my own personal choice. You do not have the right to assert what you feel my obligations are to this county above and beyond being a law-abiding citizen. When you say that it's my "responsibility" to pay more taxes, you're asking me to pay more money for things I already don't use because YOU feel they're worthwhile - and that's self-centered!
You cannot assert that I am anti-government; rather, I think a fiscally conservative and well-planned government is very important. What CAN be asserted is that you do not believe that you should have to bear the full fiscal burden of what services you want in the county. How much more selfish can you get than demanding that someone else pay your way?

Posted by Hoqenishy (anonymous) on March 3, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excuse me, Hoqenishy! I don't believe we should have been in a war with Iraq, but I have continued to pay my taxes. I don't like giving money to faith-based agencies, but my taxes have gone to that end for eight years without any protest from me. You don't get to pick and choose what to pay for. We are all in this together, agree or disagree. You can and should vote for people with whom you agree, but you can't choose, after the votes have been cast, what you will support with your money and what you won't. We speak at the ballot box, but after that, it is our duty as citizens to support what the majority has ruled. That's what a representative democracy is all about. Anything else devolves into anarchy.

Posted by octamatilda (anonymous) on March 3, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually bjstocks4 I do realize the need to compensate for lost income due to lower assessed value - very well - I've been helping with the 'compensation' process for a couple of years now! However, methinks you and I are not 'compensating' to the same degree. In order for us to share this burden your tax bill will need to increase by 11% (my reality for 2 straight years now) and then we can have a conversation about your sense of entitlement to all that Loudoun County offers and whether you'd also like a say in how our money is being spent.

Posted by thehardmans777 (anonymous) on March 3, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here we are, talking about taxes and the tax burden when the BOS has kept tax paying business out of the county (like Broadlands) and is offering a hand to the new Green Energy Plant. I can tell you that the Green Energy Plant will have some sort of special exception to paying tax due to the fact that it is "green". How long can Loudon residents sustain these kinds of decisions while carrying the economic collapse literally on their backs (60% of homeowners are under water)......The citizens need to vote in a board that thinks progressively and is protecting the interest of the average taxpayer in the county!

Posted by shilohgirl (anonymous) on March 4, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)