MnDOT removes green ‘destination’ signs on Hwy 75; residents, commissioners raise safety and access concerns

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) District 8 traffic engineer Cody Brand told the Pipestone County Board that recent sign replacements removed some green destination signs because those signs are intended to direct motorists to business areas with multiple amenities such as gas, food and lodging.

"Those types of signs, the green signs with city names or, community names on them, those are referred to as destination signs," Brand said, explaining MnDOT’s interpretation of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Minnesota practice. He said the department is using cities (which generally provide the set of driver amenities) as the threshold for replacing destination signs and treating smaller towns differently.

Brand said the district removed destination signs for two communities it classified as towns — Ward and Casanova — and reviewed Trotsky (a city) for possible reinstatement. He described an alternative for single businesses: blue specific-service wayfinding signs, which a business must request and pay for. “Those blue signs would be a another option for businesses…they do purchase those signs, for 15 years,” Brand said.

Residents and county officials pushed back during a subsequent public comment period. Renee Roskamp, who identified herself for the record as living in "Adjutant, Minnesota," said the small towns still need route clarity for deliveries and drivers unfamiliar with the area. "Where do you turn? There's no sign," Roskamp said, adding that she favors the small arrow signs on gravel roads because "in the night when it's dark, it's easier to see where to turn."

Commissioners and attendees raised safety and economic concerns: truck drivers rely on the green signs, visibility in fog and whiteout conditions is reduced with smaller route markers, and towns that receive deliveries or school visitors could be harder to find. One commissioner asked whether county funding could replace the green signs; Brand said business-funded blue signs are available but MnDOT does not have a mechanism to accept county payments to restore destination signs. "I would say cost and maintenance are secondary issues… the main issue at play is, you know, what information are we providing to drivers," he said.

Brand also provided district-scale context: replacing green destination signs for all communities in the district would cost an estimated $260,000 on a 15-year replacement cycle. He said the district removed destination signs on a 15-year sign-replacement schedule and that other Minnesota districts were using similar judgment about where to place destination signs.

Board members and residents asked MnDOT to revisit specific cases. Brand said the agency would continue discussions with management and that no policy is irrevocable: "I would never say anything is final… if we have compelling reasons to, take a a different practice, we certainly can."

Where it stood after the meeting: MnDOT staff said Trotsky (identified as a city by MnDOT) would be re-reviewed; Ward and Casanova (classified as towns) were left as town-level decisions tied to the district’s adopted guidance. MnDOT advised businesses that want signage to contact the district office for the blue specific-service sign program.

Community members asked the county to remain engaged with MnDOT and to pass along complaints so MnDOT continues to reassess its implementation.