OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Marietta, Georgia/City Council Archive View
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Marietta City Council Committee Meetings and Special Called Work Session - October 27, 2026

City Council Archive View — Tuesday, October 27, 2026
BodyMarietta, Georgia
SessionCity Council Archive View
DateTuesday, October 27, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Original source
Transcript — Verbatim

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:00

that are in the district that would be approved today.

0:02

It's just a matter of forward looking upon redevelopment.

Speaker 2

0:05

Okay.

0:06

And again, have we looked at how many this would impact if we went from the current to the smaller.

Speaker 1

0:20

So how many are not currently within the eight feet and sixty square feet today?

0:24

Yes.

0:25

Um I don't believe we have pulled

Unassigned speaker

0:27

that

Speaker 1

0:27

number.

0:28

That's something we can survey and identify.

Speaker 2

0:32

I I think my concern here is that kind of like when we went to the tier A overlay district.

0:41

We said here's what we're gonna do and then we had people come back and go,

Unassigned speaker

0:47

I

Speaker 2

0:47

didn't pay my business license but I want to pay now and be grandfathered in and I don't want to have to change my sign or I did this and I don't want to have to change my sign or I don't want to do anything.

0:58

And we have gone from our tier A not really being enforced because we don't have

Unassigned speaker

1:06

you

Speaker 2

1:06

know we came up with a tier and other than a few things like the drafty dane and Atlanta cider and clickout a lot of those things have still just remained and they just go hand to hand and we're not really getting any of what we wanted in the the tier A because we can't.

1:28

Are we doing something that literally over years will be unenforceable or will continue in this same vein for years to come?

Speaker 3

1:41

No I think you pointed out what is happening currently and what would continue to happen uh as redevelopment occurs then it would obviously you know things would change like where the housing authority's going, getting rid of all those and then coming in with a smaller sign.

Unassigned speaker

1:55

But

Speaker 3

1:56

um would say there are ways to do it uh that legal would have to chime in on but I mean there have been situations where you've said you got X amount of time.

Speaker 4

2:07

Yeah yeah, you it sometimes can invite challenges but it it's not it's they've been validated in Georgia.

2:13

You so you know whenever signs are a little you're mixing in a little free speech thing so there's another sort of arrow in there holster

Unassigned speaker

2:22

to

Speaker 4

2:22

try to shoot if they come after it but uh I mean the the way the context they were approved in was for billboards so I mean you can you could you could have you could put in sort of sunsetting provisions and say after this date you

Unassigned speaker

2:37

know

Speaker 4

2:38

but again then you're then you're really up impacting a lot of people the example I think of is like this right aid sign that's they're put they're tearing down whatever like that's gonna be that's gonna have to that's the can't they can't just come put in a new panel on the right sign on wetlock they're gonna have to put that in but you know uh there's other businesses along there that if they want to redo their sign, yes they could just redo it but if you put in the sunset then you gotta really go in

Unassigned speaker

3:04

and

Speaker 4

3:05

stuff you have to show you enforcing that against everybody over time.

Speaker 5

3:10

Cheryl Cheryl can you hear me yes I

Unassigned speaker

3:12

can

Speaker 5

3:12

well I was just thinking you know Summit is coming summit HVAC is coming in there we have Presswick you guys had drafty dane a couple of years ago you have um fifth third bank cookout you've got a number of businesses that have turned over in the last five to seven years that is gonna get new signage.

3:31

And so I think the tier A is I would kind of push back a little to say it is working but it just takes a lot of time.

Speaker 2

3:40

And I do agree with that I think that was my comment on turning these signs over um is it's just gonna take a whole lot of time and I'll just leave it at

Speaker 6

3:54

that.

3:55

Okay.

3:56

Yes.

3:57

Uh I so I saw Jason said first I was crawl out.

Speaker 7

4:00

Yeah my question is around when one tenant moves out and another one moves in and they get to keep the same sign even though it doesn't fit with what our plan is for where that area is for example North Marita Parkway it seems to me that if

Unassigned speaker

4:14

if

Speaker 7

4:14

a new business comes in why do they automatically get to use a sign that would no longer be allowed just by changing panels.

4:23

Like I mean if we don't want a big sign or whatever like I I would want to keep picking on the dentist but

Speaker 2

4:30

yeah, but

Speaker 7

4:30

for example, um if we don't want that there and someone else comes in, seems to me they shouldn't automatically get the right to just put their sign on that sign that we don't want there anyway.

Speaker 6

4:43

I think I know.

4:44

I think I know the reason why it's Mr.

4:47

Attorney.

Speaker 4

4:48

Well, yeah.

4:48

Well, part of it is that especially if you're signing to the business owner, it's the

Unassigned speaker

4:52

it's

Speaker 4

4:52

the landowner, you know.

4:54

Uh it's you know it's running with the land.

4:56

I mean and and then also you're again we're getting into a little bit of like treating uh classes differently based

Unassigned speaker

5:05

on

Speaker 4

5:06

uh, you know,

Unassigned speaker

5:07

you

Speaker 4

5:08

know if you if you're a like to say you own a shopping center and you're you just have one sign but and then it has two things and okay, they're all go vacant for a couple months and then they come back.

5:18

Do do we have to make that shop that shopping center come into, you know, compliance when it he still owns it, it's just his tenants have changed.

5:26

So then you're sort of tying it to you know, tendencies and things like that.

5:30

I mean, d uh I I have not looked into that specific issue and to see if other jurisdictions have done that, but um there are other and I'm sure Councilman Gulstein has some other considerations that that as soon as he says them I'll I may or may not r uh remember seeing some of those problems.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Sign Ordinance███████████████████████23%
Data Center Development██████████████14%
Transportation Safety█████████████13%
Public Safety██████████10%
Passport Office███████7%
Zoning and Land Use█████5%
Procedural█████5%
Public Works█████5%
Technology and Innovation████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Marietta City Council Committee Meetings and Special Called Work Session - October 27, 2026

The Marietta City Council convened on October 27, 2026, for the Judicial Legislative Committee, Public Works Committee, Public Safety Committee, and a Special Called Council Meeting Work Session. Discussions covered sign code amendments, data center regulations, a passport acceptance facility, public works projects, traffic safety studies, and funding for a co-responder program. The meetings included informational updates, tabling of items for further study, and votes on multiple actions.

Judicial Legislative Committee

Sign Ordinance Amendment (Discussion)

Councilmembers discussed proposed changes to sign regulations, including reducing allowable sign sizes, regulating blade and feather flags, clarifying veneer materials, and expanding the overlay zone. Concerns were raised about enforceability, grandfathering existing signs, and the impact on small businesses. Councilmembers Waters, Gaddis, and Kent expressed caution about the overlay zone boundaries and the restrictiveness of banning temporary flag signs. Staff clarified that they would bring back additional data on the number of affected signs and other details. The item was tabled to the next committee meeting.

Data Center Ordinance Update (Information)

Staff reported that Georgia Tech had decided not to submit a proposal for developing a model data center ordinance. Council discussed alternative resources, including the University of Georgia, Emory, and other jurisdictions. Mayor and Council directed staff to continue monitoring federal and state developments, seek out example ordinances (such as Irondale, Alabama), and bring back information as it becomes available. No formal action was taken.

Passport Office Feasibility Study (Discussion)

Tina Brown presented a feasibility study for establishing a passport acceptance facility at City Hall. The presentation outlined staffing requirements, initial costs ($34,500–$54,000 in the first year), and potential risks, including the federal government's push toward online renewals. Council expressed concerns about online services reducing demand and the lengthy approval process. The item was tabled to the January committee meeting for further review.

Public Works Committee

Meeting Minutes Approval (Consent)

The minutes from September 30, 2026, were approved unanimously (3-0).

SPLOST Project Updates (Information)

  • Rottenwood Creek Trail (2016 SPLOST): Work is ongoing with additional savings from field changes.
  • Whitlock Drive intersection improvement: Out for bid; expected start after the first of the year.
  • Franklin Gateway Bridge: Utility relocations underway.
  • New Hope and Wiley project: Contractor started work two weeks prior.
  • Herbert Drive drainage improvement: Removed from the project list as economically infeasible (costs would exceed available ward funds).

2026 Public Works Departmental Performance Report (Information)

Staff reported strong permit activity, primarily due to hospital work. Councilmember noted a decrease in curb miles swept in September due to weather.

Title VI Program Documents (Approved)

Council approved the annual Title VI policy statements required by GDOT to maintain grant eligibility. The documents were approved unanimously (3-0).

Hickory Drive South Speed Study (Approved)

Council approved a motion to conduct a speed study on Hickory Drive South from Chestnut Hill Road to Powder Spring Street. Upon completion, staff recommends posting a 25 mph speed limit. The item was moved to consent and approved unanimously.

Allgood Road / North Fairground Street Truck Route (Approved)

Council discussed limiting truck size on this route due to safety concerns at the intersection with Cobb Parkway (U.S. 41). After discussion, a motion was approved (3-0) to restrict the route to trucks no more than 18 tons or 30 feet in length, with signage to be installed. The item passed on consent.

Public Safety Committee

Meeting Minutes Approval (Consent)

The minutes from September 30, 2026, were approved unanimously (3-0).

Co-Responder Program Funding (Approved)

Chief presented a request to continue the co-responder program, which pairs a Highland Rivers clinician with a police officer to respond to mental health crises. The program had been funded via ARPA and then opioid settlement funds. Council approved $100,000 from the opioid settlement fund to extend the program through the end of the year. The motion carried 3-0, with Councilmember noting the need to identify a permanent funding source for future years.

Special Called Council Meeting Work Session

Meeting Minutes Approval (Approved)

The minutes from September 30, 2026, were approved unanimously (7-0).

Motion for Executive Session (Approved)

Council voted unanimously (7-0) to enter executive session for legal advice on a pending issue.

Key Outcomes

  • Sign ordinance amendment: Tabled to next committee meeting with staff to provide additional data.
  • Data center ordinance: No action; staff to continue research and monitor developments.
  • Passport office feasibility: Tabled to January committee meeting.
  • Title VI documents: Approved (3-0).
  • Hickory Drive South speed study: Approved (consent).
  • Allgood Road/North Fairground Street truck route: Approved restriction to 18 tons/30 ft length (consent).
  • Co-responder program: Approved $100,000 from opioid funds (3-0).
  • Executive session: Approved (7-0).

Meeting Transcript

that are in the district that would be approved today. It's just a matter of forward looking upon redevelopment. Okay. And again, have we looked at how many this would impact if we went from the current to the smaller. So how many are not currently within the eight feet and sixty square feet today? Yes. Um I don't believe we have pulled that number. That's something we can survey and identify. I I think my concern here is that kind of like when we went to the tier A overlay district. We said here's what we're gonna do and then we had people come back and go, I didn't pay my business license but I want to pay now and be grandfathered in and I don't want to have to change my sign or I did this and I don't want to have to change my sign or I don't want to do anything. And we have gone from our tier A not really being enforced because we don't have you know we came up with a tier and other than a few things like the drafty dane and Atlanta cider and clickout a lot of those things have still just remained and they just go hand to hand and we're not really getting any of what we wanted in the the tier A because we can't. Are we doing something that literally over years will be unenforceable or will continue in this same vein for years to come? No I think you pointed out what is happening currently and what would continue to happen uh as redevelopment occurs then it would obviously you know things would change like where the housing authority's going, getting rid of all those and then coming in with a smaller sign. But um would say there are ways to do it uh that legal would have to chime in on but I mean there have been situations where you've said you got X amount of time. Yeah yeah, you it sometimes can invite challenges but it it's not it's they've been validated in Georgia. You so you know whenever signs are a little you're mixing in a little free speech thing so there's another sort of arrow in there holster to try to shoot if they come after it but uh I mean the the way the context they were approved in was for billboards so I mean you can you could you could have you could put in sort of sunsetting provisions and say after this date you know but again then you're then you're really up impacting a lot of people the example I think of is like this right aid sign that's they're put they're tearing down whatever like that's gonna be that's gonna have to that's the can't they can't just come put in a new panel on the right sign on wetlock they're gonna have to put that in but you know uh there's other businesses along there that if they want to redo their sign, yes they could just redo it but if you put in the sunset then you gotta really go in and stuff you have to show you enforcing that against everybody over time. Cheryl Cheryl can you hear me yes I can well I was just thinking you know Summit is coming summit HVAC is coming in there we have Presswick you guys had drafty dane a couple of years ago you have um fifth third bank cookout you've got a number of businesses that have turned over in the last five to seven years that is gonna get new signage. And so I think the tier A is I would kind of push back a little to say it is working but it just takes a lot of time. And I do agree with that I think that was my comment on turning these signs over um is it's just gonna take a whole lot of time and I'll just leave it at that. Okay. Yes. Uh I so I saw Jason said first I was crawl out. Yeah my question is around when one tenant moves out and another one moves in and they get to keep the same sign even though it doesn't fit with what our plan is for where that area is for example North Marita Parkway it seems to me that if if a new business comes in why do they automatically get to use a sign that would no longer be allowed just by changing panels. Like I mean if we don't want a big sign or whatever like I I would want to keep picking on the dentist but yeah, but for example, um if we don't want that there and someone else comes in, seems to me they shouldn't automatically get the right to just put their sign on that sign that we don't want there anyway. I think I know. I think I know the reason why it's Mr. Attorney. Well, yeah. Well, part of it is that especially if you're signing to the business owner, it's the it's

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com