[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6159587,"mediaKeyId","5453462-3d5ec7e02aa660e28e85d771112f3cf0","parentId",5453462,"title","Fort Thomas council and residents press for clarity on budget trajectory as first readings of 2025–26 budget ordinances proceed","audioSeconds",2099,"startMs",1065000,"endMs",3164000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5453462-3d5ec7e02aa660e28e85d771112f3cf0&start=1065&end=3164","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5453462-3d5ec7e02aa660e28e85d771112f3cf0/thumbnail_1065000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6159587/Fort-Thomas/Campbell-County/Kentucky/Fort-Thomas-council-and-residents-press-for-clarity-on-budget-trajectory-as-first-readings-of-202526-budget-ordinances-proceed","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6159587-efa51ab320ec0ec2137e35e29b4c6d7e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773078479&Signature=PRPftBbZDukGCOd4eXB3qkOiSntjgiu0BUa2Y4AaE5YH49T5gDtfKkf9h4PxlAxYpBnuPGA7TZJtT2itEYL2jsMBeyx0ZmVqKGbBtS6a2qy86-jk~1Ik1CCcTQ-BbRZhM9FASArf5hd61CvCGPKRyVsj2byvy7jebIG8t-F6FPQkOEfJbaVfdFdG2C6gt6n1AGLXSd7h8Y44bDalVArmnQsLQN9atxk1xjpeP-frg~DCHJprWFnh7GWGp4XyBsDac75CjCzBvPWmhGw4i2EMqCM0ugHOIOVR00XSC63ic7e5ZPL0RvzsfZSXmCdjzu9Fh619bXGoVpEzKUOK6bZ7zg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Fort Thomas, KY","date","2025-06-03T00:00:00Z","article","Resident Seth Jock asked the council to clarify the city’s budget narrative after a May 16 budget message referenced a $7,539,751 shortfall in operating expenditures versus revenues; he asked for a list of “large projects” referenced in the budget message. City staff said the projects are listed in budget materials and that an unsigned draft budget document was distributed before the meeting.

Residents and councilmembers questioned reserve levels. One resident noted the city’s reserves had been about $20 million two years ago and said recent spending has reduced the unrestricted general reserve; staff and council discussed that current unrestricted reserves are “just under $8 million” after recent allocations. Councilmembers debated whether to assume no tax-rate increase for budgeting purposes while still leaving open the option to discuss a tax-rate change.

Staff and council emphasized steps to address the budget trajectory: the finance committee will meet this summer to examine reserve policy (target levels such as three or six months of operating reserves were discussed), staff will provide corrected budget totals where needed, and council indicated it wants a balanced budget and to avoid using recurring tax increases as a quick fix for reserves.

Why it matters: budget choices affect the city’s long-term fiscal sustainability, services and capital projects. Several residents urged the council to be transparent about major projects and to avoid rapid depletion of reserves.

Ordinances presented: staff read the first readings of multiple ordinances including an ordinance amending the current fiscal-year general fund budget (Ordinance O0072025), an ordinance adopting the fiscal-year 2025–26 budgets for multiple funds (Ordinance O0082025), and an ordinance amending the personnel/pay classification plan to increase the official pay table by 4% (Ordinance O092025). These were presented for first reading; council did not take final votes on budget adoption during this session.

Next steps: staff will circulate corrected figures, the finance committee will convene for further review (staff indicated a summer schedule), and the ordinances will return for subsequent readings and any required public hearings. Residents asked for audit results and continued council engagement as the process moves forward.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fort Thomas City Council - 06/02/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council members and residents discussed a reported operating shortfall and lower reserves, questioned whether to consider a tax-rate discussion, and heard first readings of budget and personnel ordinances; staff and council committed to further finance-committee work and public engagement.","taxTitle","Fort Thomas, Campbell County, Kentucky","taxId",54391,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6159593,"Residents urge council to intervene after planning commission votes on comp plan research; council and staff seek clarity",604,1860000,2464000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5453462-3d5ec7e02aa660e28e85d771112f3cf0&start=1860&end=2464","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5453462-3d5ec7e02aa660e28e85d771112f3cf0/thumbnail_1860000.jpg","/articles/6159593/Fort-Thomas/Campbell-County/Kentucky/Residents-urge-council-to-intervene-after-planning-commission-votes-on-comp-plan-research-council-and-staff-seek-clarity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6159593-518ac7aa1c3fb739d385bcb56c33fd07/orig.mp4?Expires=1773078479&Signature=e07LMU5M7xfEdfph8tgTGuH0jWMoWydLM17nO-Jg~ekKY2VX9h6YX29IAJFPtL2vkjG0orgB8jYS7s0nAUNQoCQzL-ArQ~w2JGcQ2W99mlWdWifUwjtA-gq7gW0yDurgOPer5IpQprq9RGDTI2DGgBBfyXcbqc5fnS-LV2Cr8zfr1ZoMg5tVhtjZE9t5mJZLKIWvYFT50oWx7xOrmFnEs6lc7HRTmqTIwE7HkU3q8S2n0jWdo3N8Y65wEh0AeMFVFDJxBOFFg4zBXjOgy5ZGbCBwPpbErLb-ylPc9NodTassrczgINSOpH8I0MkLb1ACa-jSM4ou-QMttv5eHbWFnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Resident Joan Ferris urged the City Council to view the full May 21 planning and zoning meeting video and said the commission “reduced to ashes” council-level discussion about commissioning a new public survey to inform an updated comprehensive plan by voting, she said, to accept existing research without broader review.

Ferris said the planning commission read a staff memo and approved a motion quickly, and she told council that the commission’s action appeared to short-circuit recent council conversations about a new survey and public outreach. The resident asked whether the commission’s vote would take effect if the council did not act within any statutory window.

City staff told council the commission voted that the existing research was still relevant but had not yet adopted new goals and objectives; staff said the next step was for council and the planning commission to meet to review proposed goal-and-objective changes before the commission adopted them. The staff member said the commission’s research vote did not, by itself, complete goal-and-objective decisions and emphasized that larger changes would return to council under the city’s process.

Why it matters: residents said the comprehensive plan guides zoning and land-use decisions and urged council oversight and public outreach before planning commission actions appear to change plan direction.

What was said: Ferris said the 2015 survey is now 10 years old and “was not valid when they used it five years ago,” arguing a new survey should inform any comprehensive-plan update. The staff member replied that the commission had voted on the research component only and that council planned to meet with the commission before any major changes were finalized.

Next steps: staff said they would forward the research materials and that council members should decide whether to meet with planning commission members before the commission votes on goals and objectives. No binding change to the comprehensive plan was adopted by council at the meeting; planning commission actions on research were reported as taken but further steps remain.","At a public comment session Fort Thomas residents said the planning commission acted quickly on research findings and bypassed broader council discussion about conducting a new public survey for the comprehensive plan; councilmembers asked for a meeting with the commission before major changes.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6159598,"Fort Thomas discusses sale of donated Carlisle Park parcel to regional grocery; residents raise preservation and geotechnical concerns",182,70000,252000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5453462-3d5ec7e02aa660e28e85d771112f3cf0&start=70&end=252","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5453462-3d5ec7e02aa660e28e85d771112f3cf0/thumbnail_70000.jpg","/articles/6159598/Fort-Thomas/Campbell-County/Kentucky/Fort-Thomas-discusses-sale-of-donated-Carlisle-Park-parcel-to-regional-grocery-residents-raise-preservation-and-geotechnical-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6159598-801accf971731f4a9beb76f309776bc8/orig.mp4?Expires=1773078479&Signature=OXUtetaYUQy-0EY-3OFyUj7bC0v58x82CGF2jvKdfUUI9a4R~eOSKQRiWjR-azhFI6yqTMaaCh1kHHfAR0ro84NEJQNtWwUG271R-DC9gg0jWsJjUh0lDEq44uL2s-j~Fb4LvKcMW6VkdX6Pkj8R3kx7BbWWTcQ99yrObULfv1JtdWMOD15Cijifa39o~7nwlOJlyeFIXWc-1-2yUwiISVFwO2M3Jyr6Y-x8bvVGJak7qSMYsnJbUJ8SagzF~tzmEgEn0QN11Vlo1VbcD~PsdlI9545Siu5ciBP4OWwBunMDIQ1ecEvgVslpdoi~RqF9W4cHtFoBDuqicYH-RdVagg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A City of Fort Thomas staff member told the council the city is discussing an offer from a regional, Fortune 500 grocery company to buy a parcel at Carlisle Park on Memorial Parkway for $650,000 and develop a multistory store and parking.

The parkland was donated to the city in 2021 and the staff member said the parcel has extensive engineered fill and drainage problems that will require remediation: borings completed in February 2024 showed filled materials to depths ranging from about 20 feet to 71.7 feet, unexplained groundwater in two borings at roughly 30 feet, and a thin layer of slag near the bottom of one boring. The staff member said a previous drainage analysis estimated stormwater/stabilization work at between $415,000 and $845,000 and that geotechnical recommendations included removing about 6 feet of surface soil and recompacting in lifts to limit future settling.

The staff member described the developer’s preliminary plan as a roughly 47,000-square-foot, two-story retail building with a hidden parking structure, an estimated 251 parking spaces, and a 3,200-square-foot liquor store; the company expects about 2,000 visitors per day, 15–20 tractor-trailer deliveries per week and about 50 smaller deliveries per week. The developer has submitted a letter of intent (LOI) and, if the council authorizes it, the mayor would be empowered to sign an agreement allowing the company to perform due diligence. The city staff member said the developer is not requesting financial incentives and would pay $650,000 for the property.

Why it matters: the parcel was donated to Fort Thomas to be used as parkland, and the proposed sale would transfer public green space into private commercial use. Residents who registered to speak said selling Carlisle Park would run counter to the city’s “city in a park” vision and urged the council to solicit broader public input before moving forward.

Details and approvals: the staff member said sale and development would require multiple approvals: due diligence by the buyer (including additional geotechnical and survey work at the buyer’s expense), a zone change (the staff member noted the parcel is currently residential and the likely target zoning would be Neighborhood Commercial Office, or NCO), planning commission review and potential board of adjustment action, design review board (DRB) review and tree commission approvals, and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) sign-off where needed. City staff noted that Campbell County issues commercial building permits in Fort Thomas once local approvals are complete. If the purchase and approvals proceed, staff estimated occupancy could be two to three years away.

Public comment and council questions: residents at the meeting raised several concerns. Joan Ferris, a Fort Thomas resident, urged council members to watch an earlier planning-and-zoning meeting recording and said she believed the commission had not reflected council discussion about conducting a new public survey to inform a comprehensive plan update. Lori Lambert, a resident, described regional experience with clay/shale instability and said she was concerned about the feasibility and safety of building on the parcel. Holly Hollister, a resident, said Fort Thomas has limited green space and opposed converting donated parkland into commercial use for roughly $650,000.

City funding context: the staff member said the city currently has $300,000 budgeted this year to address drainage at the site but that the city would defer that work if the parcel is sold and the buyer elects to perform remediation. Staff emphasized the buyer would conduct its own geotechnical testing as part of due diligence.

Next steps: the staff member said the item will appear on the council agenda in two weeks as an initial order authorizing the mayor to enter the LOI; council action would be required to allow the developer to proceed with due diligence. No sale or transfer would occur until planning commission, DRB and council zoning approvals (and any other required permits) are complete, and staff said the land would not transfer and the city would not be paid until the development plan and sale process concluded.

The meeting record shows the council did not vote to sell the property at this session; rather, it discussed authorizing the LOI and scheduling future actions for public agendas.","Council reviewed a proposal to sell roughly 6–7 acres of Carlisle Park on Memorial Parkway to a regional grocery developer that offered $650,000; city staff and residents debated geotechnical risks, drainage costs and the approvals process required before any sale could close.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Fort Thomas council and residents press for clarity on budget trajectory as first readings of 2025–26 budget ordinances proceed

Residents urge council to intervene after planning commission votes on comp plan research; council and staff seek clarity

Fort Thomas discusses sale of donated Carlisle Park parcel to regional grocery; residents raise preservation and geotechnical concerns