If works of literature could be reflected in a county budget document, we’d say the just-approved budget before us for FY11 has Charles Dickens written all over it.

In that context, and in the spirit of “A Tale of Two Cities,” we believe the proposed FY11 plan represents a tale of two budgets: It’s in some ways the best of budgets, and in others it’s the worst of budgets. Much of it is based on wisdom, yet much on financial foolishness. It has glimmers of hope, and it has areas of despair. It is a budget for our times, and also a budget that lacks fiscal courage.

Ultimately, despite some positive steps and tough choices, supervisors missed opportunities for real reform.

Last year’s deficit was pegged at $176 million, and it grew $15 million higher this year. Meanwhile, our overall county budget jumped from $1.4 billion in FY08 to $1.6 billion in FY09. It was harnessed back in FY10 to $1.4 billion—a number that held steady in FY11.

While our deficit grew, our property tax rate rose from $1.14 in FY09, to $1.245 in FY10. While initially proposed early in the budget process at $1.40, it has been arduously whittled back to $1.30 – a mere nickel more than the current rate. Not too shabby, considering how empty the piggy bank is right now.

A lot of heavy lifting went into bringing the tax rate down, and we applaud that effort.

Now for the Dickens-inspired dichotomy on the budget.

We’ve been impressed by the ability of supervisors to keep the pressure off taxpayers – for the most part – on the property tax rate. That will be a relief to many residents – still suffering from the shock of plummeting land values and foreclosures—who fully expected to pay the initially proposed $1.40 rate. In a tricky game of tax expectations, the supervisors won, hands down.

We are also pleased that supervisors added what we deem to be vital funds back to the budget – such as $1.1 million for libraries and $415,000 for public safety. Generally speaking, the county services side of the budget was managed decently.

While we were glad to see all the above, we remain disappointed that certain long-term, big-picture issues were not addressed.

The first of these is that 70 percent of the county’s total budget still goes toward schools, including operations and debt servicing, and the county’s other programs must fight for the remaining 30 percent of the budget. It’s a thankless scramble for a shrinking pool of dollars. It’s a point often raised by Supervisor Lori Waters during this process.

In addition, the county missed a golden opportunity to diversify our tax base. Supervisors could have taken steps to reduce our fiscally suffocating reliance on property tax receipts by looking at other possible sources of tax revenue such as the personal property tax, which hasn’t been raised since 1987. But they didn’t.

Further, supervisors largely brushed aside a list of spending reductions for county programs that was included in a larger $121 million of budget trims (including some for schools) from Eugene Delgaudio. While we don’t agree with many of them, the list showed purpose and zeal to force the county to try to live within its means more – just as Loudoun taxpayers have had to do often this past year. Every supervisor should have come to the table with such a plan. Not doing so indicated a disappointing tone-deafness.

Lastly, supervisors failed to fully fund Loudoun’s vital nonprofits. We strongly supported the timely and noble effort by Supervisor Andrea McGimsey to restore some funds, to the tune of $144,000. But our nonprofits deserved more. To us, it’s hard to believe that out of a $1.4 billion budget, supervisors at first allocated a mere $689,000 to an array of critical and suffering nonprofits that care for our most vulnerable (they asked for $1.3 million). With Loudoun holding the label “wealthiest county in the nation,” it makes this all the more incredulous. Surely, the Charles Dickens character Ebenezer Scrooge would be tickled pink.

In all, we could have done much better. Despite positive steps, this is a budget that leaves us wanting – not unlike Oliver Twist, who pleaded, “Please, sir. I want some more!” What we got instead was a dollop of “more spending, less reform.” Thanks, but we’ll take a pass.