For the last half-decade, Butler residents listened and watched as city officials regularly bemoaned the critical state of their municipality's finances. Indeed, there was a real possibility that the city might have to apply for the state's fiscally distressed status.

But during the past year, as city finances took a substantial turn for the better, Butler's bettering financial condition got hardly any mention — at least at public city council meetings. And, when year's end approached and the council was finalizing a 2007 budget, the council passed a one-mill tax increase for debt service, signaling that city finances still were on shaky grounds.

Only now, one month into the new fiscal year, are city officials finally admitting what they knew — or should have known — by way of monthly financial reports during 2006: Things are looking up for the city.

Still, a reasonable question for city taxpayers to ask is why they were not told of the financial facts as those facts were evolving.

They should have been.

Although the 2006 end-of-year balance is expected to be somewhere between $500,000 and $757,000 — the actual figure won't be available until after the annual audit in mid-March — the amount still will be significantly less than the 15 percent of budget that usually is associated with the term "surplus."

The city's 2006 budget was about $7.3 million, with 15 percent of that being about $1.095 million. And the final end-of-year balance figure isn't expected to be anything close to that.

Nevertheless, seeing this level of fiscal "black ink" during 2006, especially during the latter six months of the year, was an important fact to make known to city taxpayers — and a fact that could generate some relief and even optimism.

But city leaders failed to do so, instead emphasizing the need for more money from property owners — the additional mill of taxation that subsequently was approved.

While that mill no doubt is valuable in terms of the city's fiscal recovery, taxpayers are nevertheless justified now in pondering whether their bigger 2007 tax bill really is necessary, even if it's only a one-mill increase.

The council merits praise for accumulating the fund balance. The council delayed projects and equipment purchases, reaped the benefits of a mild winter in early 2006 and virtually no burst of winter at year's end, and was frugal in terms of spending money collected by way of the Emergency and Municipal Serv-ices Tax, which the council for 2006 set at its maximum rate of $52 — $47 of which the city receives.

No doubt the stepped-up parking enforcement also benefited the city coffers to some extent.

It is therefore a combination of factors that have made the current more-positive situation possible, and that's good. But being accountable to the taxpayers in terms of their government leadership roles also means communicating with the people they represent.

The city's fiscal situation is brighter, but communication is suffering from an anemia that should be addressed.