Residents urge updated survey, clearer procedures and board training as Fort Thomas reviews comprehensive plan

Residents at the Fort Thomas City Council meeting pressed elected officials to update the city's comprehensive plan, provide clearer procedures for appointing volunteer board members and improve public communications.

Speakers at the meeting criticized reliance on older data and urged council action. "The survey conducted in 2016 was designed or approved by the city of Fort Thomas at the time. However, by the admission of many, that survey lacked veracity, held little credibility, and was not well distributed among the citizens," said Sam (Resident). Elizabeth Allegrini of 45 Lockwood Place told council members the comprehensive plan contains information she said contradicts the underlying survey and warned, "that is a document that is used in a court of law. So it needs to be factual."

The residents' comments focused on three areas: (1) the age and accuracy of the research behind the 2018 comprehensive plan, which participants said relies on 2016 survey data; (2) gaps in training and understanding among volunteer boards, particularly the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board; and (3) poor public outreach and inconsistent use of communication channels.

City officials and council members responded that they view the Planning Commission as the first reviewer of a draft plan and that a new survey or updated public outreach could be added to the process. A council member noted that a recent Planning Commission meeting produced discussion about whether the existing research remains relevant and recommended a joint meeting between council and the Planning Commission to review the current surveys before deciding whether to add a new one.

Several speakers asked for a clearly documented, published procedure for how board members are selected. "How the procedures begin and develop are still a bit of a mystery," Sam said, urging council to publish the process on the city website so potential volunteers can understand how appointments are made.

Speakers also asked council to improve email lists and website tools for targeted notifications. Multiple residents said social media posts do not reach enough residents and recommended a periodic newsletter or an opt-in email list. One resident suggested a part-time communications position to coordinate outreach.

Council members and staff did not adopt an immediate policy change during the meeting but agreed to continue discussions. Several council members supported reviewing the two surveys already on file and setting a date for a joint session with the Planning Commission to align expectations and, if appropriate, add a new survey to the update process. Staff said they will follow up with the Planning Commission and bring potential next steps back to council.

The public comment period also included concerns about process clarity and transparency: speakers asked why the 2024 audit had not been posted, questioned the timing of previous public engagement, and requested that the council more actively use its oversight role to ensure consistent board education.

Council members and staff said they would review the existing survey materials and work on scheduling a Planning Commission joint meeting; no formal council direction or binding vote on changing the comprehensive plan was taken at this session.

For context: The comprehensive plan referenced in public comment was developed in 2018 and, according to speakers, is based in part on a 2016 survey. Residents at the meeting urged that more recent, broadly distributed input be gathered before the plan is finalized for the current update cycle.

Community members and council members interested in follow-up should watch for the Planning Commission meeting materials and the city's calendar updates on the city website.