The effort by some Seneca Valley School Board members to avoid a tax increase for the 2008-09 fiscal year is a commendable goal that district administrators should vigorously seek to accommodate.

Success at keeping the real estate tax at its current rate of 127.65 mills would provide a measure of relief to thousands of taxpayers who had feared the worst based on the teachers contract dispute that was a distraction and disruptive force for most of this school year.

Dean Berkebile, board president, was correct in observing that "the community . . . needs a breather" in a year that has been difficult and stressful.

He then instructed Superintendent Donald Tylinski to come back with a budget that does not include a tax increase. Tylinski said he would present a trend analysis to the board on Monday measuring 2-mill, 1-mill and zero tax increases and their effects on long-term finances.

While the board should not open the door for a future financial crisis because of a desire to hold the line on taxes now, it is difficult to fathom that the Seneca Valley district, with an $89.6 million preliminary 2008-09 budget on the table, cannot find opportunities for savings anywhere in that big spending package.

It has been estimated that the 2-mill increase that district administrators are proposing would generate an additional $842,725.

For this fiscal year, it's estimated that the district will have spent about $85.7 million by June 30, the end of the fiscal year. That means $3.9 million in additional spending is anticipated for the coming fiscal year, which doesn't indicate a determination by the administration to keep new costs to a minimum.

The board should demand a hard-nosed exercise in cost control be applied to all categories of spending.

Administrators are correct in reminding the board of cost pressures, such as the skyrocketing price of diesel fuel. But at the same time, those administrators should acknowledge the financial pressures on taxpayers — the people who pay the district's bills, including the generous salaries and benefits received by administrators and teachers.

The taxpayers deserve a break and, based on current economic conditions, it's a good year for them to get one, even if it is a small one.

District residents will be interested in learning what the administration will present on Monday, and the administration and board should give detailed justification for any tax hike, if, in fact, one is pursued.

Seneca Valley isn't the only Butler County school district where taxpayers need a real estate tax breather. What's uncertain now is how many of the other districts' boards will, like Seneca Valley, direct administrators to present a leaner spending plan than what they initially proposed.

The teachers contract dispute showed the Seneca Valley board's determination to fight excessive demands that posed serious financial dangers for the district. The board now is right in opposing a significant budget increase — an increase that also could portend difficulties for the short and long terms.