When embarking on a project, government officials should examine all options to ensure that they will be making the best use of taxpayers’ dollars now and for the longer term.

No doubt that is why a financial analysis of the proposed Butler County office building project looked at an additional $3 million of borrowing tied to that project.

Regardless of where the idea of borrowing more money originated, the proposal provides a window for seeing what more could be accomplished at not very much additional borrowing cost.

Having put the idea of a bigger bond issue on the table, the commissioners should determine whether the $3 million of additional work envisioned could be funded by any other means.

Anyone who has followed the county’s budget preparation process over the past two decades knows that the county’s end-of-year fund balance never has been as dire as the picture painted for taxpayers leading up to the start of the fiscal year.

For 2013, the commissioners approved a 1-mill real estate tax hike that indicates a couple of possibilities. First, the projected fund balance for the end of 2013 doesn’t stack up against prior years’ surpluses. The other possibility is that the tax increase is aimed at putting extra money into the county coffers that eventually could be used to finance some of the work for which the $3 million in extra borrowing otherwise would be geared.

One of the needs county leaders have identified is up to $1.2 million of renovations at Alameda Pool.

Commissioners Chairman William McCarrier said in an interview that he doesn’t want to pursue the $3 million of extra borrowing above the estimated $10 million needed for the new building. Commissioner Dale Pinkerton called the idea of the $3 million of extra borrowing “just to get an idea of where we are headed.”

Commissioner Jim Eckstein criticized the extra-money idea, calling it “outlandish.”

If the county has enough money somewhere in the budget to begin carrying out the work for which the $3 million would be allocated, the county should not pursue additional borrowing.

But reflecting on additional borrowing and examining all needs is not a bad exercise.

McCarrier and Pinkerton previously assured taxpayers that the building construction would not go forward if project bids were too high.

They should stick to that pledge.

That said, the $3 million option shouldn’t be removed from the table at this early stage, considering that current interest rates are so low and it might not be cost-effective over the long run to delay Alameda and other work.

But the commissioners should opt against additional borrowing if they can find the resources to do what’s needed without borrowing.

With a budget as large as Butler County’s, there ought to be some additional savings possible, if the commissioners look hard enough to find them.