May 1, 2026
Hello everyone,
This newsletter and next week’s will focus on the budget. There’s no summary because it’s all about one topic. The headline of the budget: 257 million NIS are slipping through the cracks.
The budget book we received includes details for the next three fiscal years: 2024, 2025, and 2026. So this is an opportunity to track what will be done in 2025 and to plan for 2026. The meeting on the long and detailed budget book, which includes over 1,000 revenue and expenditure items totaling 257 million NIS, lasted only an hour and a half. The general feeling was that it’s a great budget; we all trust the council head, and it’s a waste of our time to delve into the nitty-gritty of the budget book and try to figure out what’s going on and where the town is headed.
70% of the meeting time was devoted to answering my questions. If I hadn’t asked them, we probably would have broken a world record and approved the budget in 35 minutes—30 of which the council head and treasurer spent presenting the budget!! It could have been a grim world record, testifying to the council head’s immense power to push everything through. During the meeting, it became clear that the council head supposedly has a sense of humor; he consistently tried to make jokes and insult some of the questions I asked. This attempt was actually meant to insult you, the residents, and especially those who approached me with questions.
Everyone laughed, but I kept asking.
I had sent the treasurer 42 questions about the budget book in advance and asked to receive the answers during the meeting because it’s important to me that you, the residents, hear the answers to the questions. There’s a recording, and you can watch it whenever you want. And there’s a record in the minutes—together, this is the transparency that must exist. During the meeting, of course, I added more questions that I found as I continued my review of the budget, so I asked over 55 questions. I’m telling you this not to win a medal for being the hardest-working council member (though you have to admit I deserve it 😊). But so you know that I gave 120% of my commitment to the public. The budget passed with me as the only one who voted against it (I’ll explain why later). I hope my questions, and this and the next newsletter, will help shed light on the budget. And thank you to the many residents who sent me questions and to those who studied the budget and helped me.
At one point while I was asking my questions, the acting deputy mayor—whose annual salary is approximately 700,000 NIS—remarked aloud, “We’re here to set policy, not to nitpick every little detail in the budget” (her exact words).
I replied to her: The budget meeting is precisely intended for that—to address every little detail, to ask about every single part of each section. That is the purpose of the meeting. Perhaps she is trying to make us forget the meetings from the previous term, when the council head led lengthy discussions on the council budget and all plenary members were able to ask questions.
I wasn’t offended and continued asking questions, receiving answers to every one (though some were truly unsatisfactory). On my way home, I recalled the 2024 budget meeting when Tzila Reshef was still in the opposition and prepared for the meeting alongside us. At that meeting, she asked a lot of questions as a representative of the opposition, dwelling on every single item. How she demanded answers and, above all, demanded that everything be balanced. And today, now that she’s switched sides, she’s lecturing me!! She “forgot” that this is the role of council members. It’s convenient for her to forget. I remind you that at the meeting on the 2025 budget, it was announced that she and Meir Vanunu had become deputy mayors in exchange for joining the coalition. And since then, they have stopped asking questions and challenging the mayor.
Where does the council’s revenue come from:
Almost half of the revenue comes from funds that we, the residents, pay:
122 million NIS from property taxes (47% of revenue)
4.2 million NIS in security fees that we pay in addition to property taxes.
About half comes from government grants:
86.2 million NIS for education
23.4 million NIS for social services
And another 3.1 million NIS from traffic fines and payments for parking via mobile or parking meters.
Why I voted against the 2026 budget—a budget that shuns good news
A 257 million NIS budget for 2026 with no good news or engine for growth. I reviewed the budget book again and again, looking for good news, a new sector, a focus on special activities, or an increase in budget items that reflect a new vision. Unfortunately, to the dismay of all Zichron Ya’akov residents, I found none.
Deficit – a very troubling figure. According to the 2026 budget book, only a deficit of 840,000 NIS is presented, but in my view, the reality is completely different and even more troubling. It seems that only by chance did we not end the year with nearly 6 million NIS. (5,984,725 NIS) What saved us from a deficit were only two unexpected one-time revenues: the first, the government property tax fund. The 2025 budget book did not include a projected revenue from this fund (which was received in 2024). But in 2025 as well, a payment of 1,206,801 NIS was received from it, and in response to a question during the meeting, it was stated that this is classified as unexpected revenue and it is unknown whether it will be received next year (perhaps we will even need to set aside funds for the property tax fund). The second source of revenue is a dividend/share redemption from the Ma’ayanot Amakim Water Corporation, amounting to nearly 4 million NIS. This payment was also unexpected. And that’s fine. But without these two items, there would have been a significant deficit. This is especially true given the shortfall in property tax collection of 3.5 million NIS compared to the estimate expected to be collected in 2025.
The 2026 budget did not include any improvements in terms of residents’ daily lives. Most notably, it offers no assistance or new initiatives for young families. Families with young children receive very little compared to neighboring communities. The community is aging, and the budget does nothing to attract young families.
They renovated Gan Tiyul with great fanfare. Yet everyone who visits says the facilities are no match for nearby playgrounds or those built in recent years, such as the playground on HaZayit Street, the playground in the neighborhood across from the winery, and others. Many parents drive to the parks in Or Yam and Or Akiva, which are well-maintained and modern. In the Park HaYayin neighborhood and the Neve Sharett neighborhood, the playgrounds are very limited.
Community center classes are more expensive compared to neighboring towns. There are very few free afternoon activities for children. For children under the age of 3, there are no free activities at all. "Makom BaLev," a charming space for this age group, charges parents; according to the budget, the fees collected from parents amount to 60,000 NIS per year. That’s a lot of money for young parents, but not much for the council, which could have waived the fees and made it a free space.
What has improved in the budget? More staff—an increase of 10 positions compared to last year. The council head proudly announced at the start of the meeting that this year they opened three new departments within the council and appointed a department head for each: Tourism, Sports, and Youth (ages 18–30). The Education Administration also saw a budget increase of 1.5 million NIS this year, which means more positions (a director for all elementary schools, an after-school program coordinator, and a few others).
An increase in staff does not mean an increase in services for residents. An increase in staff means more money goes toward salaries and less toward activities for young families. And that is the problem. Based on 26,000 residents, administrative costs amount to 512 NIS per resident, compared to approximately 300–370 NIS in similar municipalities (such as Pardes Hanna-Karkur, Ness Ziona, and Givat Shmuel)—a gap of about 40%–60%.
Deputy mayors’ salaries have increased—there will be two full-time deputy mayors rather than the 1.6-FTE positions approved just a year ago. The increase is due to Deputy Mayor Meir Vanunu moving from a 60% position to a 100% position. The annual cost of the two unnecessary deputies is approximately 1.4 million NIS. Even under the previous position scope, it was unclear exactly what Deputy Vanunu does and what benefit he provides in exchange for his salary and official vehicle. In the council’s 2025 activity summary booklet, on a page he wrote, he described meetings he holds or organizes for the council head with ministers and government ministries. Did anything come of it? Did the town receive any funding from it? They never provided details. Yet they are increasing his workload. Deputy Reshef started with a full-time position, so thank God there’s nothing to increase for her, but in the areas she’s responsible for, they’ve appointed yet another new department head—Sports. Add to that existing managers handling what Tzila Reshef is supposed to handle—and you get duplication, a waste of public funds, and buying a coalition with money.
Another reason why I voted against it—a vote in favor of the budget also expresses confidence in the council administration and the council head, and I have no such confidence. Far from it. This lack of confidence stems from a long list of issues, all of which were presented to you in the newsletters, where information was withheld, proper administrative procedures were violated, and so on.
Decline in property tax collection:
Another reason I voted against it: The budget assumes a roughly 10% increase in property tax revenue, compared to only about 5% last year (compared to 2024)—this is an acceleration that is not fully supported by actual performance. And it is safe to assume that it will not be collected as stated, and this is an inflation of revenue. Just as they did for 2025.
At minute 51, I ask: “The 2025 budget states that property tax revenue for that year is expected to be approximately 97.8 million NIS; in reality, 94.1 million NIS was collected – What happened to the shortfall of 3.5 million NIS, and did the property tax collection already include the Gorodonia Hotel in the nature reserve and the apartments in the Founders’ Project across from the cemetery?”
They tell me this is an insulting question. Since when is a question about a 3.5 million NIS shortfall in property tax collection an insulting question? What is the purpose of the budget meeting if not to identify such discrepancies and get an explanation for them? This is our opportunity, Council members, to find out what is really happening with the residents’ money. Especially for me, because usually they don’t answer me and they hide things.
And now, finally, everything is laid out before me. I’m investing dozens of hours in this—checking questions and issues referred to me by dozens of residents among the thousands of newsletter readers—and asking about the anomalies I’ve identified. Is a 3.5 million NIS shortfall an insulting question? An explanation is required for this exceptional situation in the budget.
And what was the treasurer’s explanation for the shortfall in collections? “What we wrote in the 2025 budget was an estimate of what would be collected; it didn’t actually happen. Even though collection rates were high.”
I’m still left with a bad taste in my mouth—it’s not clear to me how there can be such gaps between what was projected and actual collection, especially regarding property tax where the total value of assets is known. I have a feeling this was an “inflation” of revenue in the 2025 budget—so there would be more money in the coffers for 2025 expenditures.
I see another problem with the 3.5 million NIS shortfall in property tax collection. The plenary session approved a cut in property tax discounts this year. All council members, including myself, voted in favor of the cut because, according to the information provided to us at that meeting by the treasurer, there was no way around this cut due to a budget shortfall.
Perhaps it would have been possible to collect 3.5 million NIS in property taxes without cutting residents’ discounts? It is possible that if they had collected what they expected to collect, there would have been no need to cut residents’ discounts, or at least to mitigate the impact. I and other council members are receiving personal appeals from people affected by the reduction in the discount, repeatedly asking us to reverse the decision. I have no chance of passing a new resolution because I am in the minority, but the council chair certainly can.
Reduction in spending on waste management contractors
I asked whether this reduction in expenses means a reduction in the service residents receive. Answer: No, this reduction is due to efficiency improvements. For example, sensors were installed in the underground trash bins so that they are emptied only when the bin is full, which saves money.
We are all in favor of streamlining while maintaining service to residents. If this is not the case in practice— monitor the situation and report back to me. It seems to me that the level of service has been reduced and there is less garbage collection. I say this based on two facts. First, complaints from residents about collection issues and litter. The second fact is the permanent trash pile at the operations center, a pile I’ve reported to you in the newsletter several times. If there were sufficient collection, trash wouldn’t be left there to accumulate. By the way, my inquiry to the hotline regarding this wasn’t answered, and the inquiry was deleted! They made it disappear instead of getting rid of the trash pile.