Butler officials have important decisions to make about the city fire department. With the possibility of financially distressed status or bankruptcy looming in less than five years, barring the arrival of an unforeseen source of new revenue, the issue of reducing fire-protection costs cannot be kicked down the road much longer.

This city has been fortunate to have been able to postpone tough decisions for so long.

With the existing uncertainty over how contract binding arbitration is going to shake out — firefighters currently are working under terms of a pact that expired Dec. 31 — the city council must have a plan of action available if the new contract thrusts city finances much closer to the fiscal precipice that already is within sight.

Front-page articles in the Butler Eagle on Sunday and Monday presented the facts about fire department operations, not only regarding the department’s budget but also about the types of calls to which it responds. In addition, Fire Chief Nick Ban provided ideas on how money could be generated to relieve the city budget of some fire department-related pressure.

While none of Ban’s ideas seem unworkable, the chief didn’t go far enough in his suggestions. He didn’t delve into money-saving issues such as a wage freeze, firefighters contributing more toward health insurance costs, or cost-saving revisions dealing with overtime, staffing levels, holidays and vacations.

Until city officials and firefighters come to grips with all of those costs, the city’s financial health is going to remain more daunting than it needs to be.

With the city at its taxing limit, the key to financial survival doesn’t rest on the shoulders of property owners.

One of the money-raising ideas Ban described in Monday’s fire department article was starting a city ambulance service within the department.

But, as Mayor Maggie Stock correctly pointed out, the start-up costs for such a venture would be prohibitive.

Such a service could — but probably should not — operate with only one ambulance. Then there’s the issue of fire department staffing and overtime costs when a couple of firefighters are on an ambulance run and a fire call is received.

City structures should not be placed at greater risk because of the desire to wear two hats. The county 911 center in life-or-death situations should not be thrust into having to make a decision about which service to call — the city’s or Butler Ambulance Service — and shouldering the task of keeping track of whether the fire department’s service is available.

On the issue of rental property inspections and charging a fee for them, Ban makes reasonable points, although with the service provided to landlords on only a voluntary basis, it’s hard to image landlords rushing to use the service.

The city’s good landlords already ensure that their properties are safe and well maintained, without needing to be inspected.

Ban’s suggestion about a surcharge added to water bills to offset the department’s $70,000-per-year cost for using Pennsylvania American Water’s hydrants is a justifiable source of revenue. Still, that would address only a small part of the department’s cost of operation.

It must be acknowledged that Ban’s suggestions are preliminary, but they deserve the city council’s evaluation. However, the need for department cost cutting is not a preliminary matter.

A determined effort at cutting costs should have been undertaken years ago. That the issue wasn’t addressed before has made the current council’s task more difficult.

It would be best if the city could avoid a hybrid department made up of paid and volunteer personnel. It would be best if the city could avoid making the department all-volunteer except for a paid chief, or completely volunteer.

But that will involve sacrifice by the department as it currently exists, as well as new money-raising efforts that might not be popular.

Time will tell whether the courage and motivation exists to address the issues featured in the two articles.

The nagging point is that current city leaders don’t have the luxury of putting off the substantive action that their predecessors failed to address.