Roadside memorials – displays of flowers, signs or crosses that crop up along a road shortly after a fatal accident or death – may be limited in the future if an idea discussed Monday night advances.
While there was no vote on it at tonight’s Unified Government Public Works and Safety Committee meeting, UG officials said they felt there was a consensus to move forward with a proposal.
Jeff Fisher, UG public works director, said they would create some proposed rules for roadside memorials in the UG’s traffic management guide. He said he heard commissioners’ concerns tonight about having a process, permits and flexibility. They will come back to a future UG meeting with a proposal.
Brent Thompson, UG director of engineering, said while the roadside memorials mark a spot where a loved one died, mean a lot to those who erect them, and serve as reminders to drive safely, they also could be distracting to some, cause problems for municipalities and adjacent property owners, and sometimes draw crowds, putting people in jeopardy.
Currently there are about 24 roadside memorials in Kansas City, Kansas, with no ordinance or policy in place to regulate them, he said. Lenexa has a policy to remove anything after 30 days, he said. In Shawnee, which has a policy, the roadside memorials need approval from a transportation manager, must not be a safety hazard and can be removed if they become an eyesore.
One city in the state of Washington has an application process, a long-term and short-term process, and a $400 fee for long-term signs that can be placed at accident sites, he said. After 14 days the short-term memorials are taken down. The long-term signs have messages such as “please don’t drink and drive,” or “slow down,” with “in memory of” the victim.
The Kansas Department of Transportation has a driving under the influence-related only roadside memorial marker program for state and federal highways, with a $450 one-time fee. There is a 10-year time limit on it; no decorations are allowed on the signs, he said.
Commissioner Jane Philbrook said she understood that there may sometimes be issues with mowing around these roadside memorials, and that it is important that people treat them with respect, yet still get the mowing done. Another issue is sometimes the roadside memorials are ignored and deteriorate, and the question is when to take them down. She felt that it was important to be sensitive with those who were grieving, and not to cause issues around a cultural thing.
Commissioner Angela Markley said she didn’t know if she was in favor of charging for a sign, but she would like to see a policy that has guidelines. There should be a policy on how long the memorial can be up, particularly if it is not maintained, she said. But judgment should be exercised, she added; if it is out in a rural-type area, not in front of a someone else’s house, maybe there could be a different policy. In some cases, residents may not want to see roadside memorials along the road in front of their homes. The policy should be flexible, she believes.
According to Fisher, some factors the proposed policy may cover are a process, a permit, someone reviews it, it is in the right location, property owner’s permission may need to be obtained and the amount of time it is allowed to be up. If there is no fee required, then he would not recommend a sign program, he said, there would just be a roadside memorial for a period of time. If they want a sign, then there would be a fee, he added.
Commissioner Markley said it’s different when a roadside memorial is placed in a neighborhood, where people live, as opposed to a highway where no one lives next to it. The neighborhood aspect and the size of the road might be addressed by a policy, she said.
Commissioner Harold Johnson said there should be more options. He prefers a standardized process with a sign, but he also agreed that maybe the UG wouldn’t want to charge people. Maybe the UG could offer an option, a nominal fee for a sign, he added.
Commissioner Philbrook liked the idea of an option to memorialize a loved one for 10 years with a sign. It wouldn’t be an eyesore, she said, plus she liked the idea of a limit on the spontaneous roadside memorials.
A Turner area resident appeared at the meeting to talk about a roadside memorial in the Turner area. It’s fairly well maintained, and friends gather there every year, he said. The first year, there were about 200 persons there, he said, which caused a little problem. He added he sees some other markers on highways and roads that were not well kept.
“It’s something that needs to be addressed, and I think it’s a good idea,” he said.
In other action, the UG Public Works committee approved a one-year addendum to a 20-year-old agreement with Bonner Springs regarding maintenance and emergency services in Loring, an unincorporated area.
The UG and Bonner Springs will work on a new agreement, expected to be voted on in November, according to a UG attorney, Misty Brown.
Also, the UG needs the commission’s approval to apply for a $700,000 three-year grant for safe neighborhood policing, according to Gordon Criswell, assistant county administrator. The program, aimed at reducing violent crime, would use data-driven techniques. The committee voted to approve the grant application, and this item next is expected to go to the full UG Commission.
