The vote by Butler County Commissioners James Kennedy and Glenn Anderson to build the new county prison downtown rather than on county-owned land near Sunnyview Home ensured that the project would cost taxpayers more, in part due to land-acquisition costs and relocation of existing utilities.

Estimates have pegged that higher outlay at about $2.5 million, but some officials have termed that figure conservative.

The news last Friday that the county has been sued by the new prison's general contractor for alleged breach of contract, breach of warranty and tortious interference with contract means that taxpayers will be burdened with any expenses tied to defending the lawsuit.

That financial outlay could be significant or not-so-significant, depending on county officials' ability to defuse the situation. Also, there is the question of whether the lawsuit will further delay the project, which already is six months behind schedule.

The logical question for the taxpayers to be asking is how Kennedy, Anderson and the third commissioner, Scott Lowe, could have allowed the prison-construction situation to deteriorate to such an extent. The disclosure in a Butler Eagle article Friday that the commissioners had not yet responded to an April 4 letter from the general contractor's lawyer requesting a meeting cannot be reassuring in terms of the county's interest in a quick resolution.

Lowe's explanation that it would be impossible to reply to every letter sent to the county by the contractor — he said there have been many — doesn't excuse the county from replying to a communication involving $1.5 million, the amount that the contractor, A.G. Cullen of Pittsburgh, is seeking from the county by way of the lawsuit.

Cullen's contract for the prison work totals nearly $22 million, but Cullen is alleging that the county is responsible for additional costs, as well as the delays, associated with the project. Cullen says it has spent $1.5 million for changes to the scope of the work that were made or caused by the county, but which the county has not reimbursed.

But probably the most serious complaint contained in the lawsuit is that county mismanagement of the project is at the heart of all of the problems, and that doesn't speak well about top county officials' performance.

An issue that has lingered since it first was disclosed that the project could not be completed by the October 2007 deadline was whether Cullen would in fact be penalized — as its contract stipulates — for costs the county would incur stemming from the delay. Among those costs would be the outlays necessary for housing overflow Butler County prisoners at other counties' lockups.

Cullen's contract stipulates that the penalty will be $1,000 a day or the actual additional costs that the county is required to pay.

The commissioners have said they would invoke that provision if the project is not completed on time, but the allegations in the lawsuit raise questions about whether the county will actually be able to collect any of that money — or, if so, when, since Cullen's lawyer contends "this is probably a two-year litigation" if there is not a pre-trial settlement.

The Cullen lawyer, Richard Kalson of Pittsburgh, said, "This isn't in the best interest of Butler County taxpayers." That's not hard to see.

Meanwhile, the county's prepared statement that "this case has no merit and no basis in fact whatsoever" can be construed as only partially reassuring, considering all of the problems that the project has encountered, including a problem from Day One. And that is whether a 615-day construction schedule ever was realistic for a three-story structure being built in this confined, urban setting.

Cullen has termed that schedule unrealistic, although it can be argued that the company freely chose to accept the terms of the contract initially.

A one-story prison would have been built near Sunnyview, a configuration that might have allowed construction to progress without getting so far behind schedule.

But such points of argument became dead issues when Kennedy and Anderson chose the downtown site, voting against the opinions of consultants who suggested one-story construction outside the limitations that the downtown site posed.

The consultants also suggested that a one-story facility would be easier to operate and supervise.

It is necessary for Kennedy, Anderson and Lowe to do what is necessary — and in the best interests of the taxpayers — to resolve the issues surrounding the lawsuit and, in doing so, also work to put to rest the numerous points of friction among the various entities involved.

Despite the second-guessing that is likely to haunt the project for years to come, everything possible at this point must be done to avoid the project becoming labeled a boondoggle.

The taxpayers will be doling out plenty of money for the project, and they deserve their money's worth.

But it must continue to be emphasized that they shouldn't be required to pay more than necessary because of elected officials' failings.