Council debates facade grant program; motion to end program dies for lack of second

The Weatherford City Council on Jan. 14 held extended discussion — including public comments from downtown stakeholders — about the city’s facade grant policy, which provides incentives for property owners to renovate building exteriors in the central business district.

Ashley Seiler, director of economic development, told council the program was created to revitalize the downtown central business district and has led to increased curb appeal and commercial activity. Seiler said that in fiscal year 2025 the city had allocated $199,280.69 to five facade grants and that additional applications pending before the Weatherford Economic Development Board amounted to roughly $301,713.50. Seiler also told council the department budgets about $1,000,000 annually for incentives citywide and that historically the facade program averaged roughly $200,000 per year.

Two downtown stakeholders spoke in favor of continuing the program. Contractor Jackie Fowler described long-term maintenance needs of historic buildings and urged the council to keep the program to preserve building safety and historic character. Karen Mitchell, speaking on behalf of building owner Dr. Robert Cooper, described a 203 North Main property that has had difficulty attracting a tenant because of the building’s condition and said facade grants would help make the property leasable and activate outdoor space along York Avenue.

Councilmember Matt Tiscus moved to cease the program immediately, citing aggregate amounts spent and the view that public investment should now be followed by private maintenance. Tiscus said taxpayers have invested roughly $411,066.61 in facade grants in the CBD to date and that outstanding applications totaled about $700,000; he said completed downtown infrastructure investments totaled about $8 million and argued the facade program had served its initial incubator purpose. The motion to cease the program did not receive a second and therefore died on the floor, according to the meeting record.

Other councilmembers urged caution and more data. Some members suggested tabling the issue to allow staff to present clearer annual allocation parameters and to avoid cancelling the program while applications were pending. Mayor Pro Tem and other councilmembers noted the program had been part of a broader downtown investment strategy and asked staff to return with options to limit annual spending, add parameters or otherwise manage demand.

Staff noted next steps: pending applications that meet Economic Development Board requirements will be considered by that board on Friday and then, if recommended, referred to the council for final approval. Councilmembers said applicants approved by the Economic Development Board will be brought back to council individually for vote; staff said that opportunity would allow councilmembers to review data and act on individual awards.

The meeting record shows robust civic engagement on the item and several requests from council for additional fiscal guardrails and clearer annual limits for the program. No immediate policy change was adopted at the Jan. 14 meeting.