06/03/2026
Tim  Kreischer
Here is my suggestion to save 2.5 cents off the increase and put more money in your pocket
SURPLUS
I understand this may ultimately come down to a philosophical difference in budgeting priorities. However, as I have raised previously, I believe the City should use a greater percentage of the available surplus to reduce the tax increase imposed on residents, particularly in a year when taxpayers are facing an increase of more than six cents and a $75 dollar increase in water and sewer fees, a 10% increase.
Residents are already dealing with rising costs for food, gasoline, utilities, medical expenses, and other necessities. Many are under significant financial pressure and could benefit from additional relief. A substantial portion of this surplus exists because certain 2025 budget accounts were funded above actual expenditures. In many respects, this is taxpayer money that has already been collected.
I believe the current budget utilizes 50.8% of the available surplus. Increasing that figure to 56.8% would remain below the 59% utilized last year, while generating an additional $544,772 in revenue. That adjustment could reduce the tax increase by almost 2 and half cents, which would represent approximately a 40% reduction in the proposed increase.
Even with that additional use of surplus, the City would still maintain an estimated surplus balance of approximately $3.9 million, which remains well above the $3.1 million balance carried into the 2025 budget.
For comparison purposes, Margate reportedly utilized approximately 64% of its surplus while still maintaining a remaining balance of more than $3 million.
My recommendation would provide meaningful relief to taxpayers without jeopardizing the City’s financial stability, and I respectfully ask the governing body to consider it.
The Commissioners repeatedly stated that they were following the advice of their financial expert and auditor, and that using additional surplus to reduce the tax increase would somehow be fiscally irresponsible.
What was never explained is exactly why.
No one described what negative consequence would occur if more surplus were used to lessen the tax burden on residents during difficult economic times. No one identified a financial risk, a state requirement, or any looming problem that would result from doing so.
Even more puzzling, the City used a larger amount of surplus in the 2025 budget and was left with less surplus than would have remained under the proposal I suggested for 2026. Apparently, that was fiscally responsible then, but not now.
If using surplus at that level was sound financial management in 2025, what suddenly changed in 2026?
I am working on a theory that I will reveal later.
Perhaps the answer is that there is no real difference—other than residents being asked to pay more in taxes.
And then there is Margate. Their officials chose to use a greater percentage of surplus and leave behind less surplus than what I suggested for Ventnor. So now we wait.
Will financial catastrophe strike? Will bond markets collapse? Will the back bays of Margate dry up? Will they have to sell off Lucy to avoid financial ruin?
Or is it possible that reasonable use of surplus to ease the burden on taxpayers is not the fiscal recklessness it has been portrayed to be?
Those are questions taxpayers deserve to have answered.
