The issue of whether county taxpayers should continue to foot the bill for health care benefits for part-time row office solicitors remains in the spotlight. It's good that the county commissioners have been willing to listen to all arguments pro and con before rendering a decision.

Chairman Commissioner Dale Pinkerton has said that a decision will be made within 45 days, which provides ample time for additional ideas to be aired.

But, unless another arrangement surfaces that removes the burden from taxpayers while allowing the solicitors to retain their health coverage under the county plan, the opinion expressed in a Jan. 29 Butler Eagle editorial remains firm:

The county should end free medical coverage for part-time solicitors.

As that editorial stated, "part-time solicitors, who have the financial wherewithal to pay for their own medical, dental and eye-care coverage through their regular law practices, shouldn't be at the courthouse financial trough for a freebie benefit at the taxpayers' expense."

Meanwhile, another point made in that editorial also remains relevant. That is that this new board of commissioners should consider eliminating row office solicitors altogether, if state law permits. Full-time county solicitor Julie Graham is capable of handling routine issues involving those offices.

Even now, the $650 annual retainer currently being paid to row office solicitors doesn't guarantee unlimited services.

The county could put to better use the estimated $84,000 that the county expends for the part-time solicitors' health coverage.

Factored into the debate about whether the coverage should continue should be the acknowledgment that many of the taxpayers funding this solicitors' benefit don't have health coverage nearly as comprehensive as what the county plan provides.

Indeed, even if the solicitors end up paying in full to maintain their county coverage, the benefits they access under the plan will impact the overall cost of the plan for the county in the future — so, in that scenario, the taxpayers would not be fully off the hook either.

All this is not to say that county Treasurer Diane Marburger merits criticism for proposing a compromise that would involve the part-time solicitors paying 50 percent of the cost of their coverage. All ideas should be weighed in conjunction with the amount of time the solicitors' service actually is used, combined with the solicitors' $650 annual retainer.

At the same time, the commissioners should study lawyer Tom King's statements in a letter to the commissioners dated Jan. 28. King, who represents the Sheriff's Department, said the row office solicitors have saved the county a significant amount of money.

The commissioners should be looking at all aspects of the solicitors' county agreements, including what services the retainers buy and the retainers themselves, which King noted have been in place unchanged in terms of basic solicitor pay for more than three decades.

But the county shouldn't be willing to part with the $84,000 in question — even if it's a small amount factored in to the county's $185.3 million budget — unless there is full justification for the expenditure.

It's doubtful that the expenditure can be justified to that degree, and $84,000 can be put to good use for many other things.

This new board of commissioners campaigned on the premise of being willing to make tough decisions necessary on the taxpayers' behalf. Unless the board ends the free health care coverage for the row office solicitors, it will have reneged on that campaign promise.

County taxpayers are shouldering a tax increase this year, and the ongoing prison morass signals the possibility of more increases in future years.

That means the county government should be trying to save every dollar that it can while tightening its belt wherever it can.

It can be argued that Marburger's proposal ignores that necessity.