Laserfiche WebLink
P9INUTES <br />City Council <br />June 8, 1988 <br />Tr~ain the whistles would be cover~ed by the City's insur~ance policy. <br />Whistles <br />(Cont.) Blesener pointed out that the City Attor•ney recommended against such <br />an ordinance because of the liability to the City. <br />Council discussed the types of signals at the tr•ain cr•ossings within <br />the City and was concer•ned because three cr•ossings had stop signs <br />only. <br />Fahey pointed out the limited liability to the City at crossings having <br />flashing red lights since the lights would war•n people of an appr~oaching <br />train and if the lights failed to wor~k, that would incr•ease the liability <br />of the r~ailr~oad. Also, the train would be r•equir~ed to sound its whistle <br />if ther~e was imminent danger•. <br />Dlesener• stated that he had no pr~oblem pr•ohibiting the sounding of whistles <br />at cr~ossings that have lights or• gates. However•, felt the whistles should <br />be sounded at cr•ossings with only stop signs. <br />Fahey r•epor•ted that the railr~oad repor•ted it was an all or• nothing situation. <br />The r•ailr•oad either does not sound the whistle at any cr~ossing, except in <br />the case of an emer•gency, or~ the whistle is sounded at all inter•sections. <br />Collova expressed concern about the whistles not being sounded at crossings <br />with stop signs only,noting the amount of pedestr~ians and biker•s that wear• <br />headphones. <br />Scalze, Blesener~ and Collova felt that tr•ain whistles should be sounded <br />at cr~ossings that ar~e contr•olled by stop signs only. <br />Mr. Fahey intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 88-6-236 - INSTRUCTING THE <br />CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT <br />TO PROHIBIT THE BLOWING OF TRAIN 41HISTLES <br />WITNIN THE CITY LIMITS,-~~=PER-~HE-REQHE~~ <br />n co~cTloN --0€-fiW~-RE~~BEfd~S-6~-~HE-9~IEM8N~-68NB8Fa~N~~M <br />~'S' ~8-8-37~ AND-DTflfR-E~~~'-RE&-~B~W~S; EXCEPT IN THE <br />CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, AS IS CONSISTENT WITH <br />SIMILAR ORDINANCES IN OTHER CITIES <br />The for•egoing r•esolution was <br />Ayes (2) Fahey, LaValle. <br />Nays (3) Collova, Blesener~, <br />Resolution denied. <br />duly seconded by P4r. Collova. <br />Scalze. <br />This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 240. <br />Fahey r•epor•ted that he would contact the r•ailr•oad to see if they would <br />be wi1ling to only blow their• whistles at non-contr•olled cr~ossings such <br />as the cr•ossings with only stop signs. Fahey r•epor•ted that he would <br />r•epor•t back to the Council. <br />Page -10- <br />