Trafford officials deactivated the civil-defense siren on the soon-to-be-demolished former fire station until they determine how to replace it.
The siren was malfunctioning when it last was triggered on March 26, officials said.
Borough Manager Jeff McLaughlin has been getting price quotes for dismantling the siren from the old station on Duquesne Avenue. He estimated the cost would be between $700 and $1,000 for someone with a crane to remove the alarm.
McLaughlin also is collecting estimates on how much it would cost the borough to refurbish the existing system, which dates back at least a half-century, or buy a new one.
Even if the borough keeps the old siren, a new control panel likely is necessary, McLaughlin said. Officials haven't decided whether to mount a siren to the new public-safety building on Brinton Avenue or to a free-standing pole, he said.
Council likely will discuss the siren at its meeting Tuesday.
“We're trying to weigh what direction is best to do,” McLaughlin said.
Though firefighters can be notified by cellphone, radio or pager, emergency personnel prefer to keep a siren in town.
“I'd rather have it if I was asked, but the fire department is not in a position to pay for it,” fire Chief Brian Lindbloom said. “We have other things we have to pay for.”
Emergency-management coordinator Brian Ellicker told council he thinks a siren is important for notifying residents of serious weather conditions.
“I would hate for something to hit here and for citizens to say, ‘Why weren't we informed?'”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.