Both the city and the Butler School District face serious financial questions.

City officials, who are trying to find ways to fund an $8.7 million budget for 2016, said in July that they expect to run out of money by mid-November unless they find ways to cut expenses and/or generate new revenue.

School board members, facing an estimated $4.2 million budget deficit for the school year, are embroiled in a debate over how to — or if they even can — meet students’ demand for more Latin classes this fall. The decision is a microcosm of larger fiscal questions facing the district. Again, the board is tossing around two possibilities: raise revenue or cut expenses.

These conversations are, by their very nature, uncomfortable — even painful — for everyone involved. They raise questions about whether elected officials have been spending money wisely; whether institutions have been planning for the future or operating day-to-day; and whether the community is vibrant enough to support the services and amenities residents have come to expect will be at their disposal.

These questions require answers — and that’s not going to happen if the public debate over costs and spending starts and stops with warnings and broad pronouncements from city and school district officials.

It’s easy to speak generally about the challenging fiscal situations facing the city and the school district. It’s also necessary: the public needs to be given a broad view of what both institutions are facing.

But that was accomplished months ago. It is now time for city and school district officials to present and vote upon specific proposals that make short and long-term sense and work to bring their costs in-line with their revenues.

They shouldn’t be afraid to think big, present daring or unconventional proposals, and invite members of the community to participate in a debate over the best course of action.

That might run counter to the inclinations of some, who believe it’s better to develop a course-of-action behind closed doors and present the public with a polished plan endorsed by a unified board.

We believe the opposite. Cutting costs is, by nature, messy and painful. The process and the plan will not — cannot — be perfect. Some ideas will be rejected; some, if not many, will be unpopular. The resulting plan will not please everyone.

None of that should surprise officials, whose goal should be transparency about both the specific challenges they face and the opportunities they see to bring spending in line with revenues.

If councilors and board members truly want to lead and fulfill the duties they were elected to uphold, there is no other process that makes sense.