One week ago, at Butler City Council's July 22 meeting, former city clerk Bob Brehm made a presentation that was both clear and sobering. The City of Butler is, and has been for years, living beyond its means. The city has a structural deficit, meaning it routinely spends more than it takes in through taxes. It also has pushed past its legal taxing limits, and has few remaining options — certainly no painless or popular options.

In fact, Brehm's conclusion recognized that tough decisions, including filing for distressed- city status under the state's Act 47, would not be popular. But, he concluded, such action is necessary.

No one can dispute that the city's current financial path is unsustainable.

At the council meeting, Brehm made a well-organized and thoughtful presentation outlining the deficits of recent years and the nearly $4 million in accumulated debt that the city now carries.

He also noted that the few years when cash flow was positive were the result of nonrecurring events, like the permit fees related to the construction of the new county prison, which he correctly called "windfall" revenues.

Given this stark reality, Brehm asked the council, "How do you plan on replacing aging equipment and paving streets in the future? More debt and more taxes?"

Brehm's report noted that the city has increased taxes seven mills since 2003. He correctly characterized the city's financial strategy as "borrow-and-spend and tax-and-spend."

Considering that questionable strategy, he said, "I don't understand why anyone would think that it (the strategy) will motivate people to buy property and move into the city," which is needed to increase the city's tax base.

Barring new construction, real estate taxes remain the same except when new businesses open or when a project like Centre City becomes a reality. Otherwise, facing higher operating costs, the city must increase the burden on the existing tax base. And that makes the city less, not more, attractive to development.

Brehm, who noted that he made a similarly stark presentation to the council in January, said his opinion then, and now, is that the city should file for municipal-financial-distress status under Act 47. He also urged that such a filing should be done before the next round of collective bargaining negotiations begin in 2011.

Brehm's presentation was serious, honest and clear. He told council members that they must deal with a "structural deficit that is not going away without some action on your part to restore fiscal integrity to what is clearly an unsustainable financial condition."

Rather than discuss Brehm's presentation and recommendation at length, council members more or less said, "Thanks, now let's move on." Councilman Joe Bratkovich, city finance director, did make a few comments supporting Brehm's analysis, saying, "This is real world. These are real numbers."

Still, the presentation was not given the attention or response it deserved.

Maybe at the moment council members were not prepared for a detailed discussion of the city's financial condition. But it should not have taken the council by surprise — the grim analysis is not new.

City taxpayers deserve a thorough discussion of all options — on both the cost and revenue sides of the ledger.

City government cannot continue bouncing along on the edge of insolvency. Something has to change.

Brehm's presentation should serve as the beginning of a serious discussion of what course of action is best. City officials can no longer avoid making some tough decisions to help put city finances back on a sustainable path.

Butler's plight is not unlike that in many other cities across the state and nation. However, that does not mean the problems don't exist or can be brushed off year after year, as they have been here. Butler's elected officials can no longer ignore reality.

It is long past time for the city to face reality. Brehm has done city residents, and officials, a favor by providing a solid starting point.