Sign Crackdown Ruffles Feathers

[Erik Sine]

TRIBUNE PHOTO BY ROBIN LOZNAK

Karen Jensen, the treasurer for the village of Loma, stands next to a sign that reads "Welcome to Historic Loma, Mont." on Tuesday. A Montana Department of Transportation notice states that the sign may be unlawful and subject to removal.

To a weary driver, Montana's rural road signs are like old friends.

There's "Welcome To Historic Loma, Mont." And"Welcome to Fairfield,"a courtesy of the local Lions Club. Or most famously: "Rudyard: 596 Nice People — 1 Old Sorehead."

They're the threshold of home after a long drive, a satisfying halfway marker or sometimes, as in Rudyard's case, an expression of a town's personality.

So folks took it personally when a state worker, embracing a push to enforce roadside signage laws, slapped neon green violation notices on community highway signs across the region late last month. The owners of at least two dozen signs — including the aforementioned for Loma, Fairfield and Rudyard — were given 45 days to move 'em or lose 'em. The signs either didn't have a state permit or weren't marked with one. The placement of some violates state code.

"There are signs that get hit and kill people. We have to go by the rules," said Mick Johnson, administrator for the MDT's Great Falls district. "If we've missed it in the past — for 10 years it's been allowed to stay there — sorry." But some of the signs have indeed been there for decades, without causing a wreck or drawing a complaint, and locals don't see why they're a problem now.

"I don't have a clue how long that sign's been sitting there, and all of a sudden it's illegal?" said Karen Jensen, treasurer of the Village of Loma, which is responsible for its welcome sign. The sign is a humble, white rectangle with slightly faded black letters. The Rudyard sign, which marks the town's turnoff from the Old Havre Highway, was erected in the mid-'60s. It drew national media attention in 2002, when the town held an election for a new "sorehead," to replace the late Tommy Wilson. They elected his grandson Bobby Toner, a farmer and owner of "Toner's Tire-Rama."

"If it was taken down, there would be some very upset people," said Martin "Mac" Wendland, president of the Rudyard Commercial Club, which owns t

It all started when a state Department of Transportation worker drove Highway 87 from Great Falls to Havre on July 22 and tagged 17 signs. The worker also marked a number of signs near Fairfield on Highway 89, although he is on vacation and has not yet submitted those reports, said Pat Hurley, administrative officer for Outdoor Advertising Control with the Montana Department of Transportation. Other tagged signs include Forget-Me-Not Floral in Fairfield, the Fort Benton Farmers' Market and, mistakenly, the new "Welcome to Great Falls" sign at the intersection of Highway 87 and the Old Havre Highway.

The Great Falls sign, which cost roughly $100,000, was allowed in the right of way because most of the funds to build it came from the federal Community Transportation Enhancement Program. That notice was revoked. But a green notice remains on the sign for the Uptown Optimist Club of Great Falls which, the worker determined, looks too run-down. The worker was recently added to the MDT's Great Falls office.

"For some time, we've been pretty lenient on signage," Hurley said. "But the feds came in in 2000 and said, 'Listen, you need to regulate your signs. If you don't, your highway funds could be sanctioned.'" The Federal Highway Administration could dock 10 percent of the state's annual federal highway funds, which would amount to $15 million to $20 million annually. "We just have to do it," Hurley said. "It's not something that we like to do."

The MDT has issued 150 to 200 sign violations statewide so far this year, Hurley said. Thanks to stepped-up enforcement efforts, that's down from 2003, when it issued roughly 600. Any sign within 660 feet of the highway requires a state permit, regardless of whether it's on private property. Workers from the MDT's district offices can help community leaders or business owners find the proper location for signs, which are allowed in the right of way only under certain circumstances.

And the right of way varies. In Loma, for example, the right of way ranges from 60 feet to 120 feet off the roadway. The rules also vary with the type of sign. In the eyes of state regulators, signs, like wildflowers, bloom by the roadside in abundant variety; there are church signs, cultural signs, ranch signs, welcome signs, rural directional signs and public service signs, all governed by a variety of regulations.

At the request of the Chamber of Commerce, state officials have agreed to hold a sign-permitting workshop in Fairfield on Aug. 18 to explain the rules. Citizens can get help determining proper sign locations by calling their MDT district office. "We ask people, if you think about putting up a sign, please check with the Montana Department of Transportation first," Hurley said. "It's going to save you a lot of time and money."

One Loma businessman says he asked for help from the MDT but was frustrated with his experience. Greg Bouchard said he sought permits for two signs last year, one on each side of town, when he bought Ma's Loma Café. A state employee advised him on where to locate them, he said. Bouchard had the signs installed and thought they were OK until the green violation notices appeared. Frustrated, he told the MDT's Great Falls office that he would move the signs if they would come to Loma and tell him exactly where to place them. Bouchard says he didn't hear another word until he received a notice in the mail this month that his permits were canceled. Hurley, who's based in Helena, says he was the employee who earlier advised Bouchard on the signs.

He said he told Bouchard where he could place the signs along the road, but that on the south sign, Bouchard would have to check with the MDT's Great Falls District office to get the proper distance from the roadside. Both signs were installed illegally in the right of way, Hurley said. He visited Loma again Wednesday and showed Bouchard the proper locations for the signs. Bouchard said Tuesday that he appreciates Hurley's efforts. But he said he got conflicting information when he initially contacted MDT about his signs and is frustrated with the hassle and expense. "Thinking of all the problems of Montana, what in the world is this guy worried about Loma for? We're happy out here," Bouchard said. "We just want to be left alone and do some business." Trying to make a living in eastern Montana is tough, he added: "The last thing we need is this kind of thing from the state, especially if it's going to cost us some money."

Wendland, with the Rudyard Commercial Club, said he understands the need for sign regulations to protect the beauty and safety of highways. But he said he doubts the Rudyard sign is endangering anyone. Wendland said he'll call the MDT, but "if it's going to cost a lot of money, our commercial club doesn't make any." A permit costs $100, although the expense could be considerably higher if the sign has to be moved. Hurley said the MDT will work with businesses and communities to find solutions, including Rudyard.

"I remember when I was a kid seeing that sign," he said. "But it is illegal."

-Tribune Regional Editor Karen Ogden