Even if they have had good reasons for not yet letting it be known what they plan to do regarding a required update of their hazard mitgation plans, it's time for 11 municipalities in the county to quit procrastinating.

Those municipalities are the boroughs of Cherry Valley, East Butler, Eau Claire, Evans City, Karns City and Valencia and the townships of Brady, Forward, Jackson, Marion and Worth.

If they don't carry out the update, which is required every five years under Federal Emergency Management Agency guidelines, they could become ineligible for federal relief to deal with a federally declared disaster.

For that reason, inaction would be irresponsible and unconscionable.

These and other municipalities in the county have the option of adopting the county's plan, which was given preliminary approval Wednesday by the county commissioners. The commissioners are planning final action in February.

Regardless of whether the municipalities opt for the county plan or have a different plan in place, it is necessary that they let their intentions be known. They can do that by direct notification to the county or by getting in contact with Rachael Swaysland of Michael Baker Jr. Inc., a Moon Township company hired by the state to help counties and municipalities with the required process.

Perhaps the municipalities were waiting for the county's preliminary action, although others found no reason to wait.

The boroughs and townships in question should make the required updating a prominent item on their next meeting agenda.

Just a few years ago, the major issue in Butler was "Save Our Hospital." The focus was on keeping Butler Memorial Hospital at its current location and renovating it, rather than embarking on new construction elsewhere — a scenario that was feared would place the hospital in financial jeopardy.This year's Butler Health System annual board of trustees meeting provided positive assurances that the hospital is alive and well financially, despite the $152 million building project currently under way.The report given at the Dec. 3 trustees meeting testifies to the skill and competence of hospital officials in managing all aspects of its operation as well as the challenges new construction involves.Total revenue for 2009 was listed as $206 million while total expenses were reported as $196 million.In addition to the positive financial news, there was plenty of good news involving the seven-story surgical tower under construction. Ken DeFurio, health system president and chief executive officer, said the project remained on target for completion by July.The situation surrounding the hospital is reassuring to the community, a 180-degree turnabout from when it was feared that bad decisions involving the hospital's needs and location might force it to be sold to, for example, one of the large Pittsburgh hospitals.The Butler community relishes its community hospital and doesn't want that status to change.The Dec. 3 report was good news for the hospital employee family and the community in general.

Like other places that have resorted to similar action, Zelienople's decision to enact a false-alarm ordinance makes sense.Properly, it would punish only repeat offenders, not places where an isolated false alarm might occur. The ordinance's penalties would not apply to alarms tripped by bad weather or utility interruptions.Charles Underwood, president of the borough council, confirmed that the goal behind the proposed ordinance is not to make money. Rather, he said, "We're trying to monitor the repeat offender."That is as it should be.False alarms aren't just an inconvenience for the people who must respond to them; they also have the potential to result in injury or death, if responders are involved in an accident responding to or returning from such unnecessary calls.Meanwhile, other people sometimes are inconvenienced or placed in danger along the way.Requirements and fees tied to the proposed ordinance are reasonable. For a first false alarm, a written report would be sent to the emergency response agency involved and to the borough police chief indicating what steps could be taken to prevent future false alarms.A second false alarm in one calendar year would result in a written warning, a third would be subject to a $100 fee, a fourth would carry a $300 fee, and fifth and subsequent alarms would require payment of a $500 fee and include the possibility of prosecution.Action on the proposed ordinance could occur Monday. Passage of the ordinance, if and when that takes place, would be followed by a six-month grace period to enable the borough to educate those with alarms about all of the requirements and responsibilities that the new law would entail.The council shouldn't be questioned or criticized about its decision to pursue the ordinance. On the contrary, it would have been worthy of criticism if it had ignored this needed response.<B><I> — J.R.K.</B></I>