Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fort Thomas council previews 2026–27 budget and debates $300,000 Safe Streets grant application

Fort Thomas City Council · May 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members reviewed a draft 2026–27 budget with operating revenues projected at $19.28 million and total expenditures around $22.8 million; they also discussed a $300,000 Safe Streets grant (80% grant, roughly $60,000 city match over two years) and deferred the application for timing and budget prioritization concerns.

Council members received an overview of the draft 2026–27 budget and discussed whether to pursue a $300,000 Safe Streets and Roads for All program grant.

A finance committee representative summarized draft figures: projected operating revenues of $19,283,000; a general fund total of about $31,000,000; operating expenditures near $17,700,000; capital spending $3,700,000 (about $3,000,000 committed to the Midway Street project); transfers of $11,400,000; and total projected expenditures of $22,800,000, leaving an estimated ending fund balance of approximately $8,104,600. The council set June 1 for the first reading of the budget and mid‑June for a second reading.

On the Safe Streets grant, staff described a $300,000 project that uses cameras to document near misses and provide data to prioritize pedestrian improvements. The grant would cover 80% of project costs; the city’s share would be about $60,000 spread over two years (roughly $30,000 per year). Staff said the grant application work would be done at no fee by the program provider. Several council members expressed caution about timing and competing budget priorities and agreed to delay pursuing the grant this year.

No final spending decision on the grant was made at the meeting; staff recommended revisiting the opportunity when the council has more capacity to consider the match and timing.