Facade grant committee narrows landscaping allowance to 15% and finalizes January start for 2026 cycle

The Facade Grant Advisory Committee met to finalize eligibility and process changes for the 2026 grant cycle, settling several policy questions ahead of a January application launch.

Miles, the staff lead on the program, said the grant’s goal remains to help business owners, nonprofit organizations and commercial property owners improve building facades and encourage revitalization, with priority for downtown and Cambria areas. "The facade grant program aims to help business owners, nonprofit organizations, and mixed use and commercial property owners to improve their building facades and encourage investment in our business areas," he said.

Committee members agreed to a narrower allowance for landscaping after extended discussion about maintenance and program intent. The group set landscaping at a cap of 15% of an awarded project amount while removing a fixed limit on hardscaping. "I think going along with this is just the conversation of the facade and should landscaping be included at all," a staff member said during debate; another member urged keeping the program focused on permanent, visible improvements. The committee recorded the change as an adjustment to the rubric for next year.

On reimbursement timing, Miles proposed allowing reimbursement for any eligible $10,000 of work completed inside the grant window even if the project started earlier or continued past the deadline; the committee did not reject the change. The staff lead also recommended requiring itemized budgets and timelines so selection can remove clearly ineligible line items and proceed with eligible portions rather than discarding entire applications where part of a project is ineligible.

Members also discussed standalone paint projects and decorative work. Miles proposed limiting paint as a standalone element and suggested routing murals or other decorative elements through the Public Arts Advisory Board. The committee agreed to keep a 50% guideline for paint portions of a project and to send mural-type work to the arts board for separate review.

On application review, staff outlined three options for initial scoring and feedback: (1) staff (led by Miles) would do an initial scoring and provide notes before the selection committee performed final scoring; (2) an internal staff panel would do initial scoring; or (3) the selection committee would perform both initial and final scoring. Members expressed concern that allowing the selection committee to both coach applicants and then score them could introduce bias. "We found in the case of the last go round that even among committee members, the interpretation of the rubric differed vastly," a committee member said, urging clearer guidance. The group supported a staff-led initial review that provides consistent, non-binding feedback while leaving final scoring to the selection committee.

The committee also discussed award distribution. Staff proposed awarding the maximum requested amounts for the highest-scoring eligible projects and prorating or assigning leftover funds to the next-highest scoring applicants as needed. Members signaled openness to withholding awards if most applications score poorly rather than simply distributing funds by rank.

Other procedural choices the committee adopted or will implement: requiring applicants to itemize budgets and timelines; removing the 'town artist' option from the packet after nobody used it in the prior cycle; and keeping outreach and marketing ready for a January start so applications can be open in the spring with selections and awards targeted by July.

As the meeting closed, staff said they would update the packet and rubric language to reflect the committee’s guidance and begin marketing in January. The committee did not record a formal vote on these items during the meeting; the changes were recorded as committee direction to staff for implementation and inclusion in the 2026 application materials.