Residents and council debate Fort Thomas comprehensive plan update, call for broader public input

Several residents told the Fort Thomas City Council on the meeting record that revisions to the city’s 2018 comprehensive plan have proceeded without adequate public notice or meaningful community involvement, and they urged the council to pause or reframe the process.

Sharon, a Fort Thomas resident, told the council, "I want to bring it to council's attention now before it gets too far off course," and said planning-commission sessions on June 18 and July 16 lacked shared materials and public-facing agendas that would let residents follow proposed edits. "At those meetings, Kevin Barban presented goals and objectives language ... but the public couldn't follow along because materials weren't shared ahead of time or displayed during the meeting," Sharon said.

The concern was echoed by Tiffany Huber, who said residents want the council to go beyond legal minimums for public engagement. "More than the minimum is including more people in terms of understanding what they want," Huber said, and asked for an independent survey not run by the consultant working on the plan. Resident Peggy Nash similarly criticized draft language she said conflicts with prior surveys and called the plan "overstuffed" at 255 pages.

City staff and council members responded that the planning commission is reviewing goals and objectives first and that council-level review and public surveys are planned after that step. A staff speaker explained, "What planning commission and staff have talked about is once they have suggestions on goals and objectives, that's when we want to meet (with council)." The staff speaker and the mayor said the council expects to meet with the planning commission before any final approvals and discussed conducting another public survey.

Residents suggested several remedies: pause the revision process; rework the plan language to be shorter and clearer; involve outside survey experts (for example, university departments) to design quantifiable, closed-question surveys; and appoint additional citizen representatives to shape the update. Speakers repeatedly raised concern about the consulting firm CT Consultants — some said the same firm that authored the 2018 plan should not be the sole editor of its revision.

Council members acknowledged frustration with the process and said they will examine the planning commission's recommendations when they are ready. They also described plans for additional public input and said staff will circulate the planning commission's suggested goals and objectives to council and, later, to the public for broader comment.

The discussion during the public-comment period did not produce a formal motion or vote on the comprehensive plan revision itself; rather, council and staff described procedural next steps and agreed to bring more information back to the council for review.

Residents who spoke included Sharon (identified in public comment as living at 962 Mill Runway), Tiffany Huber (26 Hawthorne), Peggy Nash (30 Second South Shoreline) and other audience members who urged transparency and clearer agendas. Staff and council said they would meet with planning commission prior to any approval and that another public survey is planned.

The council did not adopt changes to the plan at the meeting; residents asked for an independent survey and for clearer timelines and agendas for planning commission meetings so the public can follow proposed edits.