Travis County Commssioners Court
March 4, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 10
10. Consider proposed policy concerning memorial markers in the right of way on county roads, and take appropriate action.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners.
>> speaker: fred dennick with t.n.r., With me is joe hall from the traffic engineering program. In response to a specific request, but they do come along from time to time with regard to the placement of memorial markers in county right-of-way, we have put together a proposal in terms of a policy to deal with that. This policy focuses on the purpose limitations, in other words, why -- what would -- what could have occurred to allow the placement of a marker, the size of these markers, and the issuance -- the issue of maintenance with regards to these markers as well as traffic safety. And basically we are just here to discuss this with you and find out if we've come to the right place and if we need to make any adjustments here, too.
>> so our policy to -- today has been to disallow?
>> well, sir, we haven't had a policy.
>> what's our practice been?
>> there are markers that have been place odd county right of -- placed on county right-of-way without benefit of any sort of a policy. And --
>> have we authorized them.
>> it's ad hoc.
>> what's the recommendation and why?
>> well, the recommendation, judge, is to permit the use -- permit these markers to be placed for certain important of purposes, traffic fatality related purposes, to -- to limit their size which of course is an issue basically related to traffic safety and their placement. As far off the edge of the road as possible, adjacent to the right-of-way, as well as who maintains these things and what -- what responsibility the county or -- does or does not have with regard to maintenance. For example, the policy deals with the issue of the maintenance being provided by the placer, the -- memorial markers, the idea is generally for them to be provided to us for the county to place them and then be main maintained by the individual who wants them placed. We have talked about some limitations in terms of what may be contained on them. There's some issues whether or not that's -- we have talked to john hilly about that, we may want to make some revisions to the fabrication of materials part of this. With regard to the limiting of content. But other recommendation basically is to allow the placement of these markers within the confinees of a policy. That the court approves of. What's the state policy on markers such as this?
>> it's very similar.
>> we have patterned ours after the take it's. After the state's.
>> yes, we have.
>> instead of revising it, why wouldn't we simply get it right the first time I guess is my question.
>> we wanted to have this discussed first to find out whether you want to proceed or not, then we will get with the county attorney to get it into final form.
>> did we find that a marker has been put in county right-of-way without our authorization, what do we do?
>> we have it taken down.
>> questions, comments?
>> yeah, I have a couple of questions. Joe, can you tell me whether or not if someone -- this is a [inaudible] type of deal, something we are starting, if someone here at the county does not actually follow the guidelines and procedures of the situation as far as the -- with the death, a whole bunch of other things, as far as this marker is concerned, how is it handled?
>> again, we try to make some contact with the family to get them to come into compliance with the policy. I don't expect them to -- it to be that difficult.
>> okay. Just a temporary -- in other words, the maximum amount of time on that -- on that marker would be what, five years?
>> that's what we said because -- because the materials would deteriorate over time.
>> over time.
>> so we would expect within five years the county would actually go out and remove them.
>> remove it after that time?
>> yes.
>> now, is that -- in other words, if a person wanted to consider, well, we would like to continue it another five years, would you have to do another replacement or just the one-time, one-shot five year period, it's over with?
>> one of our concerns was a -- a proliferation of markers in the right-of-way over 20 years. So what we were trying to do is just to say for a period of time, there would be a memorial to the -- but there's some term to that. Within five years -- we picked five years as basically we expect the wood that -- the product itself to deteriorate in that time. And there would be an issue of ongoing maintenance. So five years, was just an arbitrary time.
>> well, we would like to make sure, as far as right-of-way, stuff like that, to make sure that the right of way is an appropriate place in the right-of-way. We would like to do all of that, right?
>> the -- our first concern is public safety.
>> that's what I am saying, public safety.
>> > but if the markers is not a distraction to the motoring public --
>> okay.
>> this is just a personal opinion about something like this. It just shouldn't be in the right-of-way. I mean, I don't -- I mean no disrespect to someone's loved one. But this could become an issue if it were something that we had to deal with on an ongoing basis. I know that there aren't that many of them that go up. Quite frankly, it's one of those things that even if we don't have a policy or do have, you know, a strict policy, there are going to be people that do it anyway. And, you know, when we can pick them up, that probably needs to be our rule. I mean, I -- this is one of those things that, you know, you all have got a lot more to do than to deal with -- deal with things like this. I mean I think there are proper ways to -- for people to -- to mourn, whatever, you know, the correct terminology you know would be here. But I -- I think it's setting, you know, the wrong precedent for us to -- to do this. I mean, that's just a personal opinion that I have with regards to is this something that we need to take on and establish as here's how you can do it, after five years you have got to take care of it. We all know there are going to be those instances where none of those things are done. We are basically given -- giving somebody the right to say, no, here's the way that you go out and do it. I think it's a much simpler policy for the right-of-way standpoint that we just not allow it. If somebody can go out and get -- have private property, give an okay to do something like this that's close to the crir or whatever, then I think that that -- to the area or whatever, then I think that's what they should do, but I would be very leary about taking and instituting a policy like this.
>> tom thing is that the letter that the woman sent to mr. Denick refers to the state. Somebody with texdot. Or no with madd, work was texdot, that the woman has a cross and a marker ready to go. I guess this would be state's response to her request. If we come along and they are doing it, though, so they will be able to go to the state to get this done on state highways, then we are talking about what would happen with the county roads. Okay. So the state is doing it for them already. And actually I guess this is an old custom. It's a custom that people are continuing to carry out here in Texas. To commemorate loved ones losing their lives somewhere on the highway.
>> would y wouldn't [inaudible] our marker allowance to a very specific reason, purpose? Seems to me that it makes sense if there is a death on a certain highway, you would want to -- memorialize it. If I had a grand time of my life on that same highway, I would not -- you see what I'm saying? To me that really means dangerous road, be careful. I remember 2222, there were -- there were 20 or 30 of them.
>> these are all death markers.
>> is that in our policy?
>> yes, it is.
>> okay.
>> well, if it poses no safety for us, pattern ours after the state, I do think we ought to look at it and maybe -- in maybe 12 months and see what effect it's having on us as well as what benefit it's having. So I move that we direct staff to come back with an appropriate policy.
>> second.
>> we have here just kind of an outline of what the provisions would be.
>> correct.
>> try to narrow -- [multiple voices]
>> -- it as much as we can. I would say consistent with some catastrophe occurring on the road, the marker would not only memorialize that person for the family, but would also serve as a reminder for Travis County residents, trafficking on the road.
>> right.
>> so that would be the public purpose I guess.
>> uh-huh.
>> if we can tie that to it. What else? Was that it?
>> yeah? Any more discussion? Next week we would look at it and try to [papers shuffling - audio interference] they are just waiting on our answer. We can answer it next week.
>> yeah.
>> so --
>> I was going to say texdot is not exactly known for being out there in terms of these kinds of policies. But they think that it is appropriate, for me it's less about a memorial to a particular person at a very unfortunate place, than is a reminder, a very sobering reminder to people. I think 90% of those accidents that occurred on 2222 I was there within minutes of those accidents and it sticks with you. So I see these to be reminders that somebody's loved one has been lost and statistics are that our county roads are more dangerous now than the interstates. It used to be the other way around. So I think these reminders are appropriate and we need to figure out a way to do it and be consistent with what the state of Texas is already doing I think is the appropriate thing.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM