The routine final approval of changes to Marysville’s Facade Improvement Grant Program turned into a discussion about preservation at Monday night’s city council meeting.
Council held the third reading of legislation to make changes to the city’s Facade Improvement Grant Program, a program designed to help property owners make improvements to buildings located in the Uptown Commercial or Uptown Transitional Zoning District.
The change allows for a grant of up to $70,000 for a project if there are “special circumstances.” The larger grant still requires a matching portion.
Council Member Donald Boerger told his fellow council members he was opposed to the legislation.
“Can we do better as a council? Can we think about ways to improve this?” Boerger asked.
Boerger said that before council spends more money on the program, he would like to see more parameters. He said the program focuses on aesthetic improvements, but does not specifically address preserving the buildings.
Boerger said many other communities have similar programs, but they have higher standards and focus on historic preservation.
He said he has, “just a little bit of hesitancy to add more money into it right now.”
Officials informed Boerger that the money was already approved last year as part of the city’s budget process. In fact, last year, council approved increasing the total amount from $150,000 to $175,000 for 2022.
City officials told Boerger that when the program was being created several years ago, they looked at how other communities support improvements to their downtown.
Boerger said he would like the city to take another look and focus on preservation rather than replacement.
He said he understands Marysville is not Dublin, Delaware or Canal Winchester, but it could be like them. He said they weren’t always strong into historic preservation, “but these communities had standards that they upheld.”
City Manager Terry Emery asked if Boerger had any examples of projects he didn’t like or thought should have been funded.
“It is not that anybody is doing anything wrong,” Boerger said.
He said the guidelines are “too vague” and allow participants to use options that do not preserve the character of the building.
“We need to say, ‘If we are giving you this much money, this is the type of architecture we would like to see,’” Boerger said.
He said city officials look at and judge projects in a silo, “rather than looking at them all together.”
“Slowly but surely you erode the character of the community, and slowly but surely your historic district gets chopped up,” Boerger said,
He said property owners always lean on the idea that a building or portion has deteriorated to the point that it is better, financially, to replace it than to restore it.
Emery said he understands the concern, but “part of the problem is, we are in the fourth quarter of the game.”
He said the city began accepting 2022 facade improvement grant applications Nov. 30 and will accept them through Jan. 31.
Boerger brought similar concerns about the legislation when it was first read in December. At that time, Boerger said he wanted to revisit the projects that receive funding.
Council President Mark Reams agreed an annual review of eligible project examples for the façade improvement and homeowner improvement grants is a good idea.
“I just think there is going to be a time when we have to do more, when we have to do better,” Boerger said.
The legislation passed, 5-1, with Boerger opposed.