What’s wrong with some more talk about the county sharing some of its gas drilling impact fee money with municipalities?

The Butler County Commissioners considered a suggestion by commissioner Jim Eckstein at Monday’s agenda-setting meeting to set aside 15 percent of the county’s annual impact fee money to help smaller municipalities pay for projects.

While there might be solid reasons not to implement such a policy, majority commissioners Dale Pinkerton and Bill McCarrier shot down Eckstein’s idea with a few brief comments Monday. And they took it off the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting, meaning there would be no further discussion on the idea. Why not? What harm would there be in talking about why this idea does or does not make sense?

Its removal from the agenda forced Eckstein to address the subject during the period set aside for public comment.

Eckstein proposed setting aside 15 percent of the county’s Marcellus gas impact fee money for the coming year, which would amount to about $225,000, for projects in local municipalities.

McCarrier pointed out, correctly, that most local municipalities already get their own impact fee money, which is related to the amount of gas drilling in the municipality. He also said that municipalities can approach the county for financial support for local projects, so there is no need to have a new or special program.

Eckstein suggested pool repair projects in Zelienople and elswehere. But pool projects are often very expensive, with a price tag of $1 million or more, so $225,000 shared among several municipalities, would not have much impact.

Beyond the cost issue, it’s worth asking if impact fee money should be used for pools. As the name implies, impact fee money is supposed to be used for things impacted by gas drilling activities, mostly that means roads and bridges. While Act 13’s language does include parks and recreation as an approved spending category, the more logical projects would be those easily linked to natural gas drilling operations, such as emergency services, roads and bridges.

Still, it might be worth talking about the county setting aside some of its impact fee money to help small municipalities. If, as McCarrier says, the municiaplities already have the ability to ask for special project money, what’s wrong boosting county money for such projects with $225,000 from impact fee funds?

With some further discussion, Ecstein might decide that swimming pools are not the most appropriate use of impact fee money, but that other efforts would be appropriate. Maybe Eckstein would shift his support to smaller bridge or road projects.

In the past, some of Eckstein’s charged accusations against Pinkerton, McCarrier and others were inappropriate and a waste of meeting time. But his idea to set aside some of the county impact fee money for special projects in smaller municipalities deserves further discussion. So does Eckstein’s concern about growing county payroll expenses.

In general, more discussion is better than less. There would have been no harm in allowing further exploration of Ecstein’s impact fee idea to help municipalities, even if it’s ultimately not enacted.