Butler County's initial 2009 general fund budget calculations are enough to make taxpayers cringe. Despite consistent end-of-year millions-of-dollars fund balances for more than a decade, budget preparation for the coming year estimates a $3.2 million general fund deficit.

Thus, at least for now, it appears property owners will be facing a 5 percent tax increase for 2009. That's the increase permitted in connection with the county commissioners' decision earlier this year to change the assessment ratio to 100 percent of 1969 values from 75 percent.

That change was to be a revenue-neutral adjustment for the coming year with the aim of providing more tax flexibility for 2010 and beyond. However, the change allows up to a 5 percent tax hike in the revenue-neutral year if the preliminary budget anticipates a deficit.

The prospect of a big deficit brought on by whatever reason or reasons apparently will erase any chance that property owners will see their tax bill remain unchanged.

The commissioners should try to hold down the tax increase to below 5 percent, if possible.

In reflecting on the county's budget situation, taxpayers should acknowledge the good thinking behind the 5-percent-maximum tax- increase rule. That limit will force the commissioners to make difficult decisions, not simply put a bigger burden on property owners.

Bill O'Donnell, county chief clerk, who prepared the initial 2009 spending package for the commissioners, acknowledged that the situation could force layoffs or reductions in contributions to agencies. But the reined-in spending need not be confined to just those areas. Voluntary salary reductions on the part of the commissioners, row officers and other department heads is another possibility that is not unheard of. Neither is a cutback in some services.

In Johnstown, city manager Curt Davis intends to take a voluntary $10,000 pay cut in 2009, reducing his salary to $65,000, because of budget difficulties. In Lebanon County, the plan for 2009 is to lay off about 20 workers, saving the county between $600,000 and $700,000.

In Cambria County, where the commissioners are considering whether to increase taxes by at least 1.4 mills, reduce the county government's workforce through attrition and/or layoffs, or cut services, Commissioner Bill Harris has been quoted as saying, "I think the public expects us to bleed a little bit before we raise taxes."

In regard to this county's 2009 budget situation, the commissioners owe taxpayers an explanation as to what item or items have caused a healthy fund balance to turn abruptly into a deficit scenario. Is it the $10-million-over-initial-estimate prison project or more than that?

If the prison is the main culprit, perhaps the commissioners should be weighing the prospect of another bond issue so as not to impose the full impact of the prison morass on the general fund at this time.

A bond issue presumably would free up some money for other needs.

Then there's the issue of insurance. In Cambria County, the commissioners faced the prospect of dealing with a $700,000 to $1 million increase for health insurance for the coming year. However, a switch in insurance carriers has brought down that increase to $535,000.

Butler County should revisit this county's insurance obligations with a possible eye to making them more friendly to next year's budget.

There's also the commissioners' option of demanding specific percentage cuts in the operation of the various county departments. And, are pension contributions being over-estimated in the proposed budget? Cambria County's pension contribution will be lower than what initially was feared.

It's not a surprise that proposing to reduce contributions to agencies, including Butler County Community College, is again being regarded as a possibility here. That controversial issue was addressed by the commissioners earlier this year in connection with the 2008 budget. But that in itself cannot resolve the county's anticipated budget crisis.

If the county really does face a $3.2 million deficit, the pain and bleeding will have to be felt on many fronts. County property owners continue to feel the pain of previous tax increases.

The current dilemma is rooted in the commissioners office, in big part due to the previous commissioners board. Regardless of who or what is at fault, though, a solution must emanate from the current board.

The goal must be to impact property owners to the smallest degree possible. Just because a 5 percent tax increase is permissible should not make it a given.