In January 2009, when the Butler School Board approved a three-year teachers contract extension granting significant raises but not requiring a significant increase in teachers’ meager contributions to health care coverage, the board esentially ignored the hit property owners are expected to take beginning in 2012 or thereafter. That will be the product of the state Legislature’s self-serving 2001 pensions-increase action involving legislators, teachers and other public employees.

Also at the time of that contract-extension action and then again in November 2009, when the board approved generous administrative contract extensions, the board didn’t emphasize to taxpayers that the district’s 2010-11 budget might have to tap the district’s fund balance in a big way to make ends meet. At that point there also was no indication that spending projections were forecasting the need for a 2010-11 property tax increase, despite what would be a $4.9 million withdrawal from the reserve funds.

If board members and the administration were keeping track of the financial situation — and surely they were — they had to have known that the district was heading in a higher-tax direction, which ended up being 3 additional mills. But the board was in a giving mood nonetheless on both contract fronts and taxpayers face a big, increasing obligation as a result — in addition to the pension-funding hit, whenever it occurs.

Unfortunately, there’s something board members apparently knew amid their generosity that they chose not to disclose to the taxpayers: that the district was facing costly roof repairs on a number of district buildings, replacement of the districtwide telephone system, and what probably will be costly parking lot and road repairs.

When the district carried out its commendable renovation and upgrade of schools districtwide in recent years, it was rightly viewed as a good investment — for the district and taxpayers.

However, it had to have come as a shock to taxpayers this month when the Butler Eagle learned and reported that early stage discussions had begun about the three upcoming costly ventures. Those who read closely the Dec. 12 article on the needed projects might have been puzzled as to why the district has yet to replace sections of the senior high school roof and sections of the Oakland and McQuistion elementary school roofs that a 2007 engineering study recommended be replaced between 2007 and 2010.

That study also targeted some other roofs for replacement between 2011 and 2014 and others between 2015 and 2017.

Perhaps the roofs identified for 2007-10 replacement fared better than expected, and the district is right to have avoided premature replacement.

But while the school board was being overly generous regarding employee contracts at a time when other workers in the local economy were being subjected to job losses, wage freezes and givebacks, the board wasn’t acknowledging the money needs that were ahead.

Money that could have been saved with more conservative contracts could have helped fund the new projects, decreasing the amount of borrowing.

The district’s facilities must be maintained and kept up to date; that is without question.

But that should have been the basis for district officials’ holding the line on other fronts — including pay raises and benefits packages.

In the total picture, the teachers’ and administrators’ overly generous contract extensions ignored that necessity.

District residents have good reason not to be happy.