The Chapel Hill Town Council last week approved a budget raising residents’ property taxes by 11 percent, and at the same meeting passed another measure by which the town — that is, the taxpayers — would pay 75 percent of participating council members’ health insurance premiums. Not just during the members’ terms in office, but for life.

Council members who serve two full terms are eligible. A mayoral term is two years, a council term is four. So, in return for four years of service by a mayor or eight by a council member, taxpayers will foot the bulk of the bill for the members’ health insurance for as long as they live.

These are smart, progressive, normally politically savvy people, but this was a blown play, and it’s hard to imagine how it could have been handled more poorly.

The timing for presenting a plan like this could not be worse. The economy stinks. Gas prices are through the roof. People are hurting, and the town has just imposed a double-digit tax hike. When times are this hard, you look to your local leaders to tighten their belts, too — not to give themselves new benefits at taxpayers’ expense.

Matt Czajkowski, the only council member who voted against the proposal, got it right: “Everyone’s feeling the financial stress. This is not the time for the council to spend money on itself.”

The way the proposal was managed last week only exacerbated the problem.

The insurance provision was an item on the consent agenda. For those who don’t make a habit of attending government meetings, the consent agenda typically is the list of items that are considered basically rubber-stampable —necessary but non-controversial items that require little or no discussion.

A proposal like this, at a time like this, sure ought to have called for discussion. Some residents showed up to voice their objections, and they were allowed to speak — but not until after the council had already voted on the measure.

That faux pas apparently was a procedural mistake pure and simple, and Mayor Kevin Foy immediately apologized for it. Still, it only added to the perception that the council had suddenly gone tone-deaf.

The argument that other municipalities offer similar packages is hardly persuasive; on many issues, we expect different standards from our officials than other places might.

Nor are we convinced by the argument that the demands of public office are so rigorous that they prevent some council members from keeping a full-time job that would offer benefits. Fine, offer council members benefits during their terms, and perhaps for a year or two afterward. But forever?

Foy said the measure was intended to ensure health coverage in case a council member develops a serious illness while in office and is thereby precluded, under “pre-existing condition” provisions, from getting insurance after leaving.

Agreed, that would be bad. But how often is that scenario likely to occur, compared to how many perfectly healthy council members will benefit, at public cost, for decades to come?

The council is concerned about the state of the health care industry. Join the club. The rest of us face similar worries every day. But we don’t have the luxury of granting ourselves lifetime health care coverage. The council has to realize that from out here this decision, however it was intended, looks awfully self-serving.