Not one shovelful of dirt has been turned for the new Butler County Prison, but already the project has ballooned in cost to an estimated $39.5 million from about $30 million. County taxpayers are justified in wondering how much more the cost of the project will increase if there are unanticipated problems, construction change orders - or if bids submitted for general, electrical, plumbing, heating and ventiliation, and other construction contracts are higher than anticipated.

There also are other costly issues about which county taxpayers ought to be pondering and expressing concern. And, they reflect seriously and negatively on county officials' grasp of the full prison-construction issue.

Separation of church and state aside, it would seem that the county commissioners should already be praying for bids to come in well below preliminary estimates, even though bidding has not yet begun.

The surprise, blockbuster disclosure about the project's cost increase came at a commissioners meeting Friday. Scott Lowe, commissioners chairman, who apparently was frustrated regarding Commissioner Glenn Anderson's questioning of county funding of various programs and purchases, asked Anderson where he intended to get the extra $10 million needed for the prison project.

Anderson and Commissioner James Kennedy were the officials who voted to build the new prison in downtown Butler.

While Kennedy said the county has unused bond money that could help defray the extra cost, and county chief clerk William O'Donnell said money from another project - specifically, $3 million allocated for construction of a human services building at the Pullman Center - could be redirected to the prison project, they didn't say how the use of that money for the prison would impact originally intended uses of the money in the long run, or taxpayers' wallets and pocketbooks. The same holds true for $1 million from interest earnings that were said to be available, and which would have been spent on something else.

And, it was pointed out that expected grant money would allow $1 million budgeted for renovations at Sunnview Nursing Home to be freed up for the prison construction. However, the question becomes, what if the expected grant money doesn't materialize?

If the spiraling of the prison's estimated cost isn't enough to frazzle county taxpayers, the county's investment experience regarding funds borrowed for the prison - $31.2 million of an approximately $50 million bond issue was designated for prison construction - has the potential to bump taxpayers into the frazzle mode.

Here's the scenario:

When counties, municipalities and school districts borrow money that is not needed to be spent immediately, they invest that money with the goal of earning more in investment interest than they are paying for the borrowed money. "Positive arbitrage" is when they earn more; "negative arbitrage" is when they fail to break even on their borrowing and investments.

Unfortunately, the prison project is deep in negative arbitrage. The county is paying much more in interest for the money it borrowed than it has been earning. In fact, since the original bond issue was approved by the commissioners in July 2003 - a refinance was approved in April 2004 that didn't rescue the county from the negative ledger - the total negative-arbitrage figure is in the range of $1.2 million, according to Jack McMillin, county controller.

Last month, the county earned $54,793 in interest on its prison funds investments - an average interest rate of 2.22 percent. In the same month, the county paid $109,250 in interest at a rate of 4.2 percent for the borrowed money, for a negative arbitrage of $54,457.

That isn't comforting, by any stretch of the imagination.

Meanwhile, Diane R. Marburger, county treasurer, said the county is paying about $2,000 a month to Sky Bank to manage the prison funds.

Marburger said Tuesday that the extent of the negative arbitrage isn't a reflection on Sky Bank's performance but instead is the product of the county's decisions surrounding the borrowing.

She and McMillin said investment of the borrowed money wasn't "laddered" to meet the needs of when construction actually would take place. The county could have earned more money if some of the funds had been invested for longer time periods to take advantage of more favorable interest rates.

Marburger said the county borrowed the money too early from the standpoint that officials didn't know at that time where the prison would be built and when it would be built. The main intent of the borrowing at that time was to take advantage of historically low interest rates, but borrowing so early is now exacting a toll.

It is the board of commissioners that must shoulder the blame for the borrowing decisions, including the shoddy investment planning.

Amid all this is the requirement that the county comply with Internal Revenue Service timetables connected with such borrowing. Hopefully the commissioners factored that into their borrowing decision.

Not one shovelful of dirt has been turned for the new prison and taxpayers have to be wondering whether they will be buried under an avalanche of additional tax millage before the final chapter of the prison project is written.

The commissioners need to reassess their performance regarding this project. Indeed, they need to reassess their decision to assume the additional land-acqusition and other extra costs associated with building the prison downtown - whether that decision threatens to saddle county residents with a much more burdensome tax obligation than they already shoulder.

The commissioners' conscience should dictate no other recourse.