Blair County Commissioner Laura Burke voiced an interesting point the other day when commenting on the newly approved third phase of the courthouse roofing project.

It was a noteworthy point for any county resident who pays county property taxes — especially the longtime taxpayers who recall politicians’ claims, virtually year after year, of meeting their fiscal responsibilities and in particular, their talent for avoiding tax increases.

However, rather than being elated about such taxpayer-friendly claims, whether accurate or not-so-accurate, taxpayers need to focus on a fact too often overlooked when a project is about to begin, especially now, with the roofing project’s third phase. That is whether the cost of the work will be significantly higher than it would have been earlier, even just a few years earlier if the restoration work had started then.

All considered, that answer seems obvious, but by how much?

Thus, the accuracy and honesty of those many fiscal responsibility claims over the years are subject to re-evaluation, especially regarding the courthouse roof. And on a larger scale, it’s presumed that years of procrastination will factor into the cost of building a new county prison.

Meanwhile, a question worthy of being asked is when did the roof on the newer portion of the courthouse become a “problem child” in need of attention within the county government’s list of priorities. In other words, how long were the roof problems ignored?

Another question worthy of being asked is why county government moved so slowly over the years to tackle roofing problems with efforts that didn’t work well enough to prevent damage as the roof’s condition deteriorated.

“We’ve had computers that were damaged and other things, and you don’t see those costs,” Burke said. So it’s a big price tag, but it’s (project) worth it when you think about the disruption that the leaks have caused to work on the fourth floor.”

The way Burke describes it, county employees, during wet weather times, have experienced many issues stemming from leaks, some of which even affected furnishings inside the building by way of unwanted moisture penetration.

Just how big has the price tag been? Burke didn’t provide a figure.

However, more than a few taxpayers probably are interested and, as taxpayers, have a right to know an estimate, even if whatever tally available is incomplete.

The point here is not to criticize the current commissioners, who should be credited for finishing roofing work that has been needed for a long time. Rather, it is to put in print the observation that in many years past, county taxpayers listened to commissioners touting their skills at fiscal responsibility when, in fact, there was much fiscal irresponsibility guiding taxpaying property owners toward a bigger bill later — and that “later” is now.

According to an article in the Mirror’s Jan. 30 edition, the roof project’s coming work, which is expected to be completed by the end of this year, will include installation of a new rubberized undercoating, lightning protection, anti-slip pads and associated work.

The cost of the work has been listed as $345,000.

Previous work dealing with the courthouse roof cost $1.3 million — again, much more expensive than if the work had been pursued, say, 10 or 15 years ago. Yet, consider how much more expensive the project would be if the repairs were not undertaken now

It isn’t cheaper to intentionally overlook a problem that isn’t going away by itself.

In Blair County, that should be a clear, lasting message from the past 50 or 60 years.