Barring some new development, the Butler County commissioners have missed a chance to acquire the remaining parking spaces needed for the new prison to comply with city zoning requirements.

The county needs 92 parking slots under a variance the city granted for the new lockup, but the project remains a few slots short, thanks to the commissioners' questionable decision to stop bidding on land that could have provided those spaces — that decision coming $9,900 below the eventual selling price of $110,000.

That $9,900 would seem to be money in the taxpayers' best interests until it is factored in that the project already is exceeding its initial cost estimate by more than $10 million.

In that context, putting the parking issue to rest for what would have amounted to a pittance more raises additional questions about the less-than-stellar judgment the county govenment has employed throughout the debacle that the project has become.

This latest decision could appear much worse if the county eventually spends more than $110,000 to finalize its parking compliance.

It's important to recall that the county would be facing an even more significant parking challenge if the city zoning board in August hadn't approved a variance allowing spaces in a proposed lot at the current site of District Judge Pete Shaffer's office to be a foot narrower — nine feet rather than 10 — than otherwise would have been required.

Meanwhile, if the city hadn't granted the initial variance reducing the number of required parking spaces to the current number from more than 190, the county would be facing a much more serious and tougher-to-resolve dilemma, even with the 39 spaces that the county has at the former Craftsmen-Ziegler Printing site on West Cunningham Street.

The Shaffer site has room for 45 or 46 spaces.

Outbidding the county for three parcels of land in the vicinity of the South Washington Street prison construction site was S & T Bank. The parcels in question, which were being sold by way of a sheriff's sale, were the addresses 128 S. Bluff St., 234 W. Cunningham St. and 301 W. Jefferson St., all of which were owned formerly by Carmen Piperato.

The bank held the mortgages for the properties.

Commissioner Dale Pinkerton said the commissioners picked a bid cap based on an estimate of what the bank needed to recoup its money and had no idea what the bank wanted. But where the county erred was in not trying to ascertain from S & T legal representatives at least a ballpark figure that would cause the bank to allow the county to be the highest bidder, if there were no other bidders.

The bank is not a non-profit entity. It could not have been hoped that the bank necessarily would agree with what the county wanted to pay, based on the county's own calculations — if that amount wasn't in the bank's best interests.

There's no evidence that the county went into the bidding with such an attitude, but the county can be faulted for lacking flexibility during the bidding.

The whole parking issue has been mismanaged from the start. Parking needs should have been resolved during the initial project planning, rather than being handled as a virtual afterthought well into the project.

Unfortunately, a similarly troubling approach has been — and is — being used in regard to a proposed vehicle sallyport leading to the underground walkway in the Government Center that connects to the courthouse.

The sallyport is essential in the process of moving prisoners, but the county still hasn't finalized details of that important component, even though prison construction completion now seems to be in sight following a general construction work stoppage.

It would not be fair to place the blame for the parking and sallyport situations on the current board of commissioners, except for the one holdover from the previous board, James Kennedy. When deciding to build the prison in the city, the former board should have had in place the decisions involving associated needs, including parking and the sallyport.

Unfortunately, parking and the sallyport are now eating up time that could be put to better use, and there's no sign those decisions will be forthcoming anytime soon.

Pinketon said the county now will review alternatives to solving the parking issue.

But the bottom line is that the county knows the requirements and has to act based on those requirements.

Adding to the irony of the parking bidding is the fact that the county could have exonerated some of the back taxes owed on the properties and, in the end, would have been required to pay only about $50,000 for the three parcels.

With that fact in play, the county's bidding tactic appears all the more puzzling.