Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Design And Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates digital vs. monument signage for Sports & Events Center; staff to return with designs and costs
Summary
Council debated whether to keep the planned static monument sign or pursue an electronic digital reader board for the new Sports & Events Center, weighing aesthetics, a budget allowance ($350,000) and an estimated additional $150,000–$200,000 for a full digital solution; staff will bring conceptual designs and costings back to council, and a UDO amendment would be required to permit digital signs on the corridor.
City staff and councilors spent a substantial portion of the meeting debating whether the Sports & Events Center’s gateway sign should be a static monument or a digital reader board. Staff explained the project’s signage allowance and two benchmarking figures: a full interior/exterior signage package previously priced at roughly $475,000, a budget allowance included in the GMP of $350,000, and a sampled digital‑sign cost in the $165,000–$200,000 range (with an additional $150,000–$200,000 noted if the council opts for a higher‑end digital implementation).
City project staff said the monument sign was chosen originally as a one‑time, lower‑maintenance gateway feature that would fit the project’s budget allowance. Council members voiced competing priorities: some favored a permanent monument that requires little ongoing maintenance and avoids setting a precedent; others argued a digital sign would enable real‑time event notices, increase visibility for tournaments and community events, and “bring it up a notch.” One councilor warned that allowing a digital sign in that corridor would require a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendment and could enable similar signs for other properties along Highway 14.
Concerns raised included: ongoing maintenance and staff time to manage a digital reader board; the potential slippery slope of opening the corridor to similar advertising signs; visual aesthetics and how a 20‑foot digital sign would fit with Greer’s gateway intent; and the technical and cost implications of procurement and vendor selection. Staff said they can return with conceptual designs, vendor quotes and a cost estimate, but noted that if the council favors a digital sign it would need a UDO modification before installation and the change could allow other property owners to request similar signs.
Outcome: Council asked staff to produce conceptual designs and updated cost estimates; no formal vote was taken. Staff emphasized that required signage will be provided under the existing allowance and that the monument option remains the default if council does not direct otherwise.
Sources: City administrator and project staff briefing; council discussion and questions recorded in the meeting transcript.
