Now that the Butler School District's extensive school-renovation program is history, district taxpayers might have envisioned property tax stability in coming years.

Apparently that's not going to happen, however. A school board meeting on May 15 seemingly put the brakes on any such notion, with the announcement of a 4.5-mill increase for the 2006-07 fiscal year, despite a decision to also tap the district's fund balance to the tune of $1.3 million.

At this point, school district officials must shoulder most of the responsibility for the challenging money situation, based on decisions they have made, including an "early bird" settlement of a teachers contract that provides pay hikes for five years that are well above what many other area workers are now receiving, or hope to receive. But the Pennsylvania General Assembly will become an increasingly bigger cause of the tax-paying hardships that lie ahead, particularly because of a decision in early 2001 that excessively sweetened pensions — by 25 percent — for members of the Public School Employees' Retirement System.

Thanks to the lawmakers' action, a real estate tax crisis could occur long before the full impact of that action is felt — in about seven years.

The General Assembly should already be thinking about ways to help Butler and other districts through the impending pension-obligations morass, since the problem was a result of legislative shortsightedness, not actions by school boards.

Meanwhile, even the optimistic projections coming out of Harrisburg regarding taxpayer benefits from future slot machine gambling profits won't offer the kind of relief Butler School District residents will need in the years ahead.

The proposed Butler tax increase would hike the district's millage rate to 111.5 mills from 107 mills. The proposed increase comes on the heels of a four-mill increase for the 2005-06 fiscal year, which ends June 30.

Diane Snyder, school board president, was content to observe that the proposed budget balances the board's responsibility to keep taxes low and provide a quality education.

"This is about as tight as it gets," she said, although taxpayers are justified in questioning whether a 4.59 percent budget increase over 2005-06 — the proposed budget totals $82.3 million — truly represents a full-fledged effort by the board and administration to control costs.

Snyder's perception of what constitutes low taxes also merits debate. Back in the 1994-95 fiscal year, when the tax rate was 75.3 mills, there were better grounds for arguing that point.

The "early bird" teacher contract alone will challenge the district's ability to avoid future tax increases. The pact, which goes into effect July 1, grants pay increases of between 3.7 percent and 4.1 percent each year for the next five years.

Five years from now, some teachers will be making approximately $15,000 a year more than they currently are being paid.

It would seem that the future pension-obligations issue was not adequately factored into the total district tax picture when the teachers contract was being negotiated. The burden on taxpayers resulting from an overly generous contract seemed to have taken a back seat in the negotiations — to the desire to achieve a quick settlement.

That settlement came in January, nearly six months before the expiration of the current pact.

Now, it is logical for taxpayers to ponder whether such generosity will be in play when the school board considers new contracts for administrators, sometime between now and June 30 of next year.

Those pacts will take effect in the 2007-08 fiscal year.

All considered, this is a good opportunity for district property owners — and the school board and administration — to reflect on the recent tax history of the Butler district:

1993-94, 75.3 mills; 1994-95, 75.3; 1995-96, 81.5; 1996-97, 81.5; 1997-98, 83.5; 1998-99, 83.5; 1999-2000, 85; 2000-01, 86.5; 2001-02, 88.5; 2002-03, 91.5; 2003-04, 97.5; 2004-05, 103; and 2005-06, 107.

Considering the financial pressures facing the district in coming years, even whether any administrative positions should be eliminated should not be off-limits for serious discussion.

No potential cut must be ignored. That is what district taxpayers will increasingly have to do to scrape together the money they will need to pay their school tax bills.

District officials must be reminded — and acknowledge — that district taxpayers, having shouldered the financial obligations stemming from the school construction-renovation program, now deserve better than what apparently awaits them.

The taxpayers do have the right to expect their tax bills to level off. They were patient about higher taxes resulting from the construction, but how long can that kind of patience be expected to continue?

The attitude projected during the May 15 meeting delivered the message that district officials don't anticipate taxpayer unrest anytime soon.