Now that the county has an estimated price tag for a proposed office building that would accommodate human services, it’s time for taxpayers to start letting their feelings be known about the potential project.

While support for the project exists within the current county government leadership, the three-member board of commissioners will have two new members as of Jan. 2, and it’s already known that there is some opposition to moving forward.

Commissioner-elect Jim Eckstein has made it clear that his vote will be “no.” He said the county should not add new debt while it still has debt tied to construction of the new prison on South Washington Street and an emergency services building in the Sunnyview complex.

“Our community does not need, does not want, more debt,” he said.

County taxpayers need to weigh the facts and options and express their opinion, either by calling or writing to the commissioners or by expressing their views in person at commissioners meetings.

There are important points for the taxpayers to consider. Some of them are the pros and cons of renting rather than embarking on new construction.

Another major consideration must be cost. It is estimated that a new three-story structure erected on the site of the former prison would cost $10.2 million — $11.4 million if a four-story building were constructed.

Factored into discussion must be how much an identical building would be expected to cost five or 10 years from now, assuming that human services needs would continue to increase.

A similar consideration must come into play if there are enough votes to get the project under way. The county could be worse off financially in the long run if it puts off adding the fourth floor at the start.

Past history suggests that construction costs aren’t going down.

The current commissioners have said that they want to address the building issue without affecting property taxes. They believe that a sizable portion of the building debt could be paid with funds from the state, if that funding stream remains available.

But with the current economic uncertainty, Eckstein’s concerns are valid. Many county residents already are hard-pressed making financial ends meet and are wary of the impact of any non-mandatory new venture by government.

Those concerns must be respected.

All of that considered, the new-building project should be the focus of adequate discussion and thorough fact-finding.

Also deserving of proper evaluation is whether the size of county government has grown beyond what’s necessary. While human services needs have continued to expand, is there justification for cutting back some of the growth that has occurred over the past decade or so?

Mike Corb of the Butler division of Stantec, formerly known as architectural firm Burt Hill, told the commissioners that accessibility to some human services is lacking now.

“The current space does not support the human component of public service,” he said.

But at a time of governmental and household financial pressures — indeed, pressures that are increasing the need for human services — there are good arguments on both sides of the new-building debate.

It’s a good issue for which a citizens advisory committee could be formed to weigh public sentiment.

Butler County government commendably tries to be compassionate and thorough in the services it provides. But compassion also must extend to the taxpayers, who help pay county government’s bills.

There cannot be a guarantee that the new-building debt would not contribute to a future tax hike.

The project price tag is a good springboard from which to launch the thorough discussion that’s necessary.