On Wednesday, the Lowndes County Board of Supervisors kicked around an idea that would break with precedent.

In 2013, then-board president Harry Sanders successfully lobbied the Legislature to relax the laws about how the county could invest the proceeds from the sale of its hospital, allowing for investments in stocks and bonds rather than being confined to T-bills.

That move has paid great dividends for the county. Since those first profits were withdrawn in 2014, the county has withdrawn roughly $6 million in profits from its original $30-million hospital trust fund while growing the principle by an equal amount. It has proven to be the most successful decision the supervisors have ever made.

Since its inception, there has always been an unwritten rule that withdrawn proceeds would go to capital projects, something tangible the supervisors could point to and taxpayers could see.

On Wednesday, the supervisors entertained — but did not take action on — the idea of using those funds for something else.

In recent years, the county has had to borrow funds — called Tax Anticipation Loans — to cover expenses in the last quarter of the calendar year, repaying those short-term, low-interest loans when the county tax collector disperses property taxes to the county.

That practice, in fact, has become the rule rather than the exception.

On Wednesday, three of the five supervisors showed support for covering those late-year expenses by dipping into its trust fund profits rather than securing a short-term loan.

We understand the reasoning. By covering these temporary shortfalls with its own money, the county doesn’t have to pay interest on the loan. It saves the county money, which is always a strong argument.

But in this case, we question whether it’s really a good idea to break with precedent, which always means establishing a new precedent, one that could become a slippery slope.

To date, the supervisors’ stewardship of the trust fund has been disciplined and well-thought-out, both of which are rare for public bodies.

While we applaud the board for considering alternatives to borrowing money, we fear “mission creep” with the fund.

The original intent of the supervisors — to confine trust fund profits to capital improvements — remains the best practice. Using proceeds to shore up budgets or to bridge cash flow problems may begin innocently enough, but can easily devolve into poor financial decisions.

Today, it’s a cash-flow issue. Next year, it might be something else.

We also encourage the current board to establish written policy to help guide future boards who may not be as fiscally disciplined.

Having the flexibility to do with the fund’s gains what they want is a luxury. It’s a luxury future boards could grow to rely on too much.

The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.