Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident scrutinizes Fort Thomas amended budget figures, warns of tight reserves
Summary
A resident raised questions about discrepancies between two ordinances showing different ending and starting balances, asked for clearer reserve definitions and pushed for a two-year fiscal plan and transparency on projected capital spending.
A Fort Thomas resident raised detailed questions about the city's amended budget during public comment, highlighting apparent inconsistencies in reported balances and urging the council to adopt a short-term fiscal plan and clearer reserve accounting.
The commenter, identified in public comment as Stepchalk, reviewed two draft ordinances and said Ordinance O7-20-25 showed an amended budget ending balance "of 15,495,000 and change" as of June 30, while Ordinance O8-20-25 showed a starting balance "of 15,217,000" as of July 1. "So somewhere between 5PM and 8AM, we lost 277,000," Stepchalk said, asking staff to explain the discrepancy and requesting a footnote or explanation in the budget materials.
Stepchalk also asked whether "estimated carryover" and "surplus" on the ordinances refer to reserves and whether those figures should be finalized only after the audit. Staff replied that year-end balances are "estimates" until the audit is complete and that actuals will be reported afterward. Stepchalk pressed for clearer terminology and accounting practice so residents can understand whether the city has true reserves set aside for specific purposes.
He reviewed projected capital spending in the city—s budget message, saying the plan included roughly $8.1 million in capital projects and that ongoing obligations (he cited Midway Streetscape debt of about $673,000 and other potential projects) leave a tighter post-capital picture than some might expect. "So I would just say ... we need a strong 2 year financial plan with a healthy dose of fiscal responsibility," he said.
Staff acknowledged the questions and said the city will provide clarification, including footnotes on the ordinances and further detail after the audit. No formal motions or votes resulted from the public comment; finance committee and staff follow-up were discussed.
