Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Grant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Thomas committee weighs rolling $60,000 and reorienting Grow Grant toward historic facades
Summary
Officials discussed adding last year’s $60,000 to create a potential $120,000 Grow Grant pool, narrowing eligible projects toward exterior façade and historic preservation work, and adjusting match rates (including a proposed 75/25 city/business split for historic restorations). The mayor and staff will refine eligibility language and reporting.
The Fort Thomas Law, Labor and License Committee discussed reopening and re-scoping the Grow Grant program, including a suggestion to roll last year’s paused $60,000 into this year’s allocation to create a potential $120,000 program allocation for the current budget cycle.
Staff described changes that would streamline the grant toward exterior and historic-preservation improvements: removing broad mechanical, electrical, plumbing, permanent flooring, lighting and fixture items from the general eligibility list while keeping priorities such as façade improvements and upgraded customer restrooms. Members argued the program should prioritize citywide visual improvements and preservation of historic building features over routine operational upgrades.
Committee members also reviewed eligibility mechanics raised in the draft: the grant currently operates on a 50/50 match, has a project cap of $20,000, and excludes organizations with annual payroll above $750,000 to focus on small businesses. Several members proposed variable match structures—keeping 50/50 for general façade projects but considering a 75/25 city contribution for documented historic restorations, or lowering the private match for interior items tied to an expansion or code-required relocation of building systems.
Staff explained the application vetting path: applicants submit to economic development staff; applications are reviewed by the building inspector and the design-review board (DRB) where relevant; economic development then recommends applications to staff and the mayor for final approval. The mayor is the final approver under current practice, though committee members discussed whether council should have more formal review.
Members suggested annual reporting or a brief public presentation summarizing Grow Grant activity (approved projects, amounts spent and reasons for denials) to maintain transparency and inform future ordinance refinements.
No final changes were adopted at the meeting; staff will add language prioritizing historic features, clarify the match schedule options in the draft, and return the item for formal consideration.
