Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atchison County commissioners move to press property owners to clear intrusions from road rights‑of‑way
Summary
Commissioners discussed right‑of‑way intrusions, enforcement options and liability; county attorney advised liability questions are governed by the Kansas Tort Claims Act and that enforcement can be civil or criminal depending on circumstances.
Atchison County commissioners spent part of their Feb. 11 meeting debating how to handle property intrusions into county road rights‑of‑way and agreed to pursue outreach and stepped enforcement for recurring problems.
Commissioners said many encroachments — equipment, structures and stored materials — create safety hazards for snowplows, mowing operations and motorists. Commissioners described an approach that begins with personal outreach from the district commissioner, followed by written notice and escalation to county enforcement if owners do not remediate the problem.
County legal counsel explained liability considerations under the Kansas Tort Claims Act. Counsel said the Act provides defenses for the county for discretionary enforcement decisions, but the county could still be named as a defendant in an accident lawsuit and courts would determine liability based on facts. Counsel also explained there are both civil remedies and criminal enforcement options (the sheriff or county attorney could pursue criminal citations) and that removal of items from rights‑of‑way may be appropriate in some instances.
Commissioners asked staff to document their outreach — phone calls followed by written notices — so there is a paper trail if a recurring intrusion becomes a safety issue. Commissioners emphasized they do not intend to “pick on” individual property owners and prefer voluntary cooperation; but when an intrusion creates a public‑safety hazard or hinders road maintenance, they said the county has authority to require removal and may proceed with removal after notice.
The meeting included a legal citation cited by meeting participants (transcript: “TSA 68‑5‑75”), which participants used to note there is statutory prohibition against obstructing a public highway including the right‑of‑way. Commissioners directed staff to continue outreach and follow written‑notice procedures, and to return with recommended enforcement steps for persistent intrusions.
