Wichita Falls boards approve financing steps for Sykes Center redevelopment amid public concern for small businesses

Wichita Falls city and sales‑tax boards on April 14 approved a performance agreement and took initial financing steps to acquire and redevelop the Sykes Center Mall property at 3111 Midwestern Parkway.

The Wichita Falls 4B Sales Tax Corporation voted to approve a $3,500,000 performance agreement with the Wichita Falls Economic Development Corporation. The Wichita Falls Economic Development Corporation then adopted a resolution authorizing purchase of 3111 Midwestern Parkway from Sykes Center Mall Realty Holding LLC “for up to $28,000,000” and the execution of financing documents totaling “up to $19,000,000,” language read into the record during the meeting. A later reading of the same item at the meeting included a different purchase figure, $21,280,000; the transcript records both numbers. All motions reported in the meeting were approved by voice vote.

Why it matters: officials and presenters described the project as a multi‑phase redevelopment intended to repopulate retail, add a destination sports and events facility, and improve the city’s appeal to students and military personnel. Supporters said the project could recapture sales lost to out‑migration and support Midwestern State University and Shepherd Air Force Base, which local advocates said generate a large share of the local economy.

What the boards did - Wichita Falls 4B Sales Tax Corporation: approved a $3,500,000 performance agreement with the Wichita Falls Economic Development Corporation (motion seconded by Michael Gross; voice vote). The board then adjourned. - Wichita Falls Economic Development Corporation / City Council joint action: adopted a resolution authorizing purchase of 3111 Midwestern Parkway “for up to $28,000,000” and authorizing financing up to $19,000,000 to support the acquisition and redevelopment; the motion carried by voice vote. Later in the meeting a related resolution was read that referenced a purchase amount of $21,280,000 and the same financing total of $19,000,000; that motion also carried by voice vote.

Public comments and concerns More than two dozen residents and local business owners spoke during the public comment period. Many supported redevelopment as a chance to revive the city’s retail core and to create amenities for MSU Texas students and military families. Retail consultants who presented in an earlier portion of the hearing argued redevelopment would reverse retail “leakage” and expand the retail trade area.

At the same time, multiple small business owners and employees urged protections and relocation assistance. Catherine Smith, president emeritus of Smith’s Garden Town, cautioned the city to “please consider the locally owned, the entrepreneurs in Wichita Falls” when planning redevelopment. Jason Chapman, owner of Nexus Game Lounge, described fears that forced relocation would “destroy a small business that’s just getting up on its feet.” Madison Gerber, who operates a mall business, said the mall’s 35 tenants represent roughly 200 jobs and asked how the city will help those workers and businesses.

Other commenters flagged social uses of the mall: several speakers described the mall as a climate‑controlled space used by “mall walkers,” older residents and families with young children, and asked that replacement facilities accommodate those uses. Speakers representing military‑support groups and the Shepherd Military Affairs Committee said the redevelopment could affect the base’s attractiveness to service members and argued that a stronger local retail and amenity mix helps retain military missions.

Officials’ response and next steps Officials said the change is already under way and argued the city must act to avoid further decline. During a Q&A, a project presenter (identified in the meeting as Ron) told a questioner that city staff and economic development representatives are working to identify relocation options and downtown repopulation strategies, and that the city has approved additional funding to pursue downtown repopulation and building reuse.

Record submissions and procedural notes A city attorney or staff member (recorded in the meeting) accepted multiple documents into the meeting record, including PowerPoint slides and a packet of articles and questions related to the project. The public hearing was closed at 4:36 p.m.; the boards then conducted the motions and votes summarized above.

Ending note Board members and presenters said the project would be phased over several years; supporters framed it as a long‑term investment in tax base, student and military quality of life, and regional retail capture. Opponents and affected small business owners requested detailed relocation plans, rent and leasing information, and explicit protections for local entrepreneurs and community uses before demolition or displacement occurs.