Staff presented Tipton City’s preliminary 18‑month budget in a workshop, saying the figures shown are the highest possible amounts the city could advertise and that the final approved 12‑month budget will be lower. “These are the highest numbers that the budget could possibly be,” a staff member said, and staff repeatedly described the current numbers as conservative estimates to preserve spending flexibility.

The presentation matters because the city faces falling revenue tied to a state change referred to in the meeting as S A 1 / SCA 1. Council members were told that the projected revenue loss is expected to rise over several years (quoted in the meeting as “140,” then “400,” then “630,” with units not specified in the transcript). That decline, staff said, requires the city to trim operating lines, rethink subsidies and press department heads to identify reductions ahead of first reading of the budget.

Staff reported several specific cost and funding items. Doug Heath provided employee health‑insurance enrollment detail that staff said will help refine benefit cost estimates. The city’s general‑liability insurer (Walker Hughes Insurance) provided notice of an estimated 12% increase in general liability premiums for the next year, a smaller rise than many municipalities have seen, staff said. Staff also said family health insurance plans are being modeled at roughly $20,000 of annual benefit per family plan in their spreadsheet.

On personnel, department heads were asked to trim budgets where possible. The presenter set targets for public safety budgets: the police department was asked to prepare a budget goal of $1,500,000 and the fire department to aim for $1,650,000. Several speakers emphasized recruiting and pay structure problems in the fire department, notably the city’s difficulty retaining paramedics and the wage gap between firefighter pay and civilian paramedics. Chief Bittner (identified in the meeting) and other staff were described as continuing work on incentives and staffing models; no formal pay decision was made at the workshop.

Staff proposed several one‑time funding moves to reduce 2026 general‑fund obligations. Tammy (city staff) identified reserve funds in the USDA fire‑truck loan fund that could be used to make an early final payment on “ladder 10”; staff said that paying off the loan now would remove a roughly $39,007.71 2026 obligation and a roughly $39,771 2025 obligation from the general fund. Staff also described pursuing payment of the final lease payment on the SRO vehicle using unrestricted opioid settlement funds, which staff described as a qualifying use, to avoid a 2026 general‑fund outlay.

The council reviewed an ordinance draft (handed out at the meeting) that would change the 2011 language governing the golf capital improvement fund. The draft language would broaden permitted uses so the fund could cover golf‑course lease payments after the final payment on the course’s irrigation/asset financing is made; staff said they will bring an amendment forward for consideration.

On enterprise and fund‑level numbers, the form submitted to the state (the enterprise Form 3) contains high, advertised amounts; staff said the working general‑fund advertised number is $10,072,692 while the city’s current working internal target is roughly $8.07 million (staff described the $8.06 million figure as the aggressive trimmed number). Staff also said the city has a practice of transferring $100,000 annually into the rainy‑day fund and discussed the mechanics of reduction resolutions to remove unneeded appropriations from the advertised 18‑month figures.

Public safety billing and ALS service were a central operational concern. Staff and council members discussed the city’s ambulance/ALS revenue and collections: year‑to‑date collections were described in the meeting as about $179,000 in revenue, much of which remains in collections. The city’s ALS contract with the county runs three years (the meeting described it as “3 years; already 2”), and speakers raised questions about whether townships or the county might be asked to contribute, and whether the city’s current run volume and billing yield make ALS financially sustainable. Nikki (staff/presenter) had been invited to brief the group previously and the presenter said this item needs close monitoring before the next contract renewal.

Planning and development changes were also announced. Staff said the city is standing up a planning department and working with consultant HWC to prepare a unified development ordinance (UDO); a draft UDO was promised next month along with explanatory videos and a January 1 target for implementation. The new planning approach is intended to simplify standards, reduce ambiguity that frustrates developers and potentially generate fee revenue to help make the department self‑sustaining; staff said a starting budget of about $160,000 has been carried forward for the new department, and that the department will start small with contract support.

Other budget notes included vehicle bond payments (the meeting documented an annual bond payment of about $150,000 for one bond), paid‑off notes for some assets (the meeting said the final payment on one note is next year), an “unsafe building” fund historically at about $10,000–$20,000 for demolition and title work, and caution about making long‑term road‑preservation commitments that would preclude applying for future state road grants (referred to as CCNG in the meeting).

The meeting closed with operational next steps: staff will continue working with department heads — police and fire remained the largest outstanding budgets — and the mayor’s office and finance staff plan another workshop before the council’s next scheduled meeting so the city can present a more finalized budget before first reading. No formal votes or ordinance adoptions occurred at the workshop.

Quotes in this article are drawn from the meeting transcript and attributed to individuals identified in the transcript or to a staff presenter where no name was given.