Butler officials should have arranged for an evaluation of the city fire department’s operation prior to the start of contract negotiations last year, rather than now, when the municipality is facing binding arbitration.

Municipal Fire Consulting of New Castle has been hired to analyze all aspects of the fire department’s operation at a cost of $6,100. The study is to be completed by Feb. 28.

Had the study been conducted prior to the start of talks, the city’s chief negotiator, from the beginning, could have presented the likely ramifications if firefighters chose not to accept a package that the city can afford. Firefighters then would have had the opportunity to tailor their demands more in line with the city’s fiscal realities.

Rather than being adequately prepared, the city entered the talks without having done all of its homework. Thus, it finds itself at a disadvantage greater than what it otherwise might have faced.

The lack of adequate preparation was shortsighted and, in fact, unconscionable, considering the municipality’s well-known budget problems and the city’s already high tax rate.

Now the talks, having not achieved enough progress, are giving way to arbitration.

What’s important and troubling is that, in the city’s past experiences with arbitration, that process has not been very sympathetic to the city’s money plight — not only for firefight-ers’ contracts but regarding police department pacts.

That’s not to say that the city’s highly skilled firefighters are not worth much more than what they receive in pay and benefits. Like the police, they risk their lives for the benefit of others and, thus, deserve compensation that adequately reflects that.

However, the city’s financial realities require restraint. Unfortunately, the stage has not been set for what’s needed.

If the arbitration award does end up putting the city in serious financial jeopardy, the road to bankruptcy or state fiscally distressed status, already a possibility in several years, might be hastened.

The only other option would be major cost-cutting changes in the department that neither the firefighters nor city residents want.

Entering the negotiations with the proposed evaluation in hand, the city could have placed its financial cards on the table and outlined the likely necessary actions if the talks ended up significantly beyond the city’s ability to pay. Instead, the city put itself at a bargaining disadvantage that could eventually end up causing serious difficulties.

The lack of preparedness was shortsighted and irresponsible.

The fire department contract expired Dec. 31, and the firefighters currently are working under the terms of their previous pact. The upcoming evaluation should have been started four or five months ago, not a month following expiration of the previous contract.

City leaders should have known that, without proper preparations, the city’s bargaining position would be more difficult. Too bad they didn’t know — or chose to ignore that fact.