County officials continue to disagree on what expenses should be used to determine the total cost of the new-prison project.

It's incredible that so far into the project — the prison is well under construction — county leaders still can't agree on such a basic point.

Perhaps it's because they don't want to admit how much above initial estimates the final tab will be.

Less than three months from now will begin an election year in which all three county commissioner seats will be up for grabs, and it won't be a bragging point for the incumbent commissioners if they have to acknowledge that they were way off in the initial projections given to taxpayers.

As the situation now stands, the differing opinions seem to be gearing toward totals such as $34 million or $40 million, when the taxpayers were initially led to believe that the new prison would be built for $30 million. Some county officials have said privately that the prison's cost could be well in excess of $40 million, possibly over $50 million.

While it is impossible for county leaders to provide an exact cost figure for some aspects of the project, such as what furnishing the prison will cost, it seems reasonable at this juncture to believe county leaders could provide a figure very close to what the actual total cost will be.

Part of the total project cost should be property acquisition, movement of utilities, engineering and architectural fees, project supervision fees, legal fees, actual construction, the cost of change orders, and furnishing of the prison.

County taxpayers deserve a reasonable estimate of the total project cost with periodic updates either reinforcing that estimate or providing a new one.

Whatever it is, the total project cost will impact county residents' property tax bills.

Taxpayers have cause for concern when something so big is under way and the people in charge don't yet have a handle on what it is going to cost.

Most people don't budget their personal finances on the basis of such uncertainty.

Sometimes new people in an organization can help others see with new eyes. That new perspective was on display at a recent meeting of the Mars School Board in which bills, which had already been paid, were introduced for discussion and board approval.Newest board member Dan Ratterman did not appear to have a problem with the actual expenditures, but he did question the practice of having the board approve an expenditure after the bill has already been paid.The $10,000 expenditure involved replacing loudspeakers for the football stadium's sound system and wiring under the new artificial turf at Planet Stadium.Superintendent William Pettigrew and fellow board member Rebecca Brown explained that some emergency expenditures cannot wait a month until the next board meeting. The system of including such already-paid bills with the monthly treasurer's report at the next board meeting is how it's always been done at Mars.Ratterman's refreshing response to the explanation that this is how things always have been done was, "Ihate that answer."Ratterman went on to say that he thinks the board should be more proactive.Reacting to Ratterman's questions and challenge of long-standing procedures, board president Susan Madeja suggested the board try a trial program in which board members receive information about certain expenditures prior to the upcoming meeting.Perhaps more important than the detail of how this issue is resolved, it is refreshing to see people challenge old, established ways of doing things. Long-serving board members might accept the practice and not give it much thought, so it sometimes takes a new member with a new point of view to point out that there might be a better way.Ratterman's rejection of the that's-the-way-we've-always-done-it attitude should be echoed at other school boards and municipal boards across the county. In fact, it would be nice to hear some challenging of the status quo, or well-established ways of doing things, in Harrisburg and Washington, D.C.

The Seneca Valley School Board made a positive contribution toward promoting student health with approval of an intramural sports program for the middle school.With all of the concern being voiced these days about overweight children, the board's decision can be placed in the category of "just what the doctor ordered."The intramural program will begin with dodgeball, or agility ball, in November, followed by volleyball in January and whiffle ball in April."The intramural program will allow all students the opportunity to compete in a variety of sports during their two years at Seneca Valley Middle School," said Curt Johns, dean of students.According to Greg Caprara, district athletic director, middle school administrators decided to pursue the program because, up to now, after-school activities have been limited to the academic or the artistic. He said students seeking physical activity but not interscholastic team membership have up to now had nowhere to turn.Now they do, and hopefully most will take advantage of the opportunity.