May 8, 2026
Hello, everyone.
This coming Tuesday, May 12, at 6:00 PM, a regular board meeting will be held. You are invited to come to the conference room on the fourth floor or watch the live stream.
You can find the meeting agenda at the following link. Please review it, and if you have any comments or questions, please send them to me before the meeting so I can bring them up during the session.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XgkHWN0hxvkUH6McT11IYriOS52tsiNE/view?usp=sharing
This newsletter will continue to focus on the 2026 budget, an important topic that was also covered in the previous newsletter.
Summary:
- First topic: An overview of the budget over the years.
- Second topic: A topic close to my heart, so I looked into it thoroughly and found that the truth was not reported at the budget meeting. The Holocaust Survivors’ Club—if the budget remains the same, then how is it that on the ground, activities for them have been cut? And why on earth cut activities for 90-year-old survivors and force them to travel to another city?
- Third issue: Three recurring examples in the budget regulations that reveal a flexible—too flexible—approach to the budget book.
- First example: A transfer to another budget line item without it being noted in the budget, where line 0 suddenly appeared regarding an important activity.
- Second example: using a budget line item for a purpose other than the one specified in the item.
- Third example: significant flexibility in property tax collection. How is it possible that in this area, collection is projected to be 3.5 million NIS in 2025 (from those who didn’t pay property tax), and then in 2026, they return to optimism and, with a wave of the hand, add another 400,000 NIS in projected revenue to cover expenses?
- Fourth issue: Loans taken out by the council and the repayment rate. And why I can’t sleep well at night. Hint: a future deficit due to a massive construction project.
- Fifth topic: A post I uploaded featuring a radio interview conducted with me on Wednesday regarding the budget and its failure to be disclosed to residents.
First topic: An overview of the budget compared to previous years:
Between 2024 and 2026, the budget increased by 6.6%. Most of the increase stems from government transfers, and the remainder from additional property tax revenue. This is likely due to a reduction in property tax discounts granted in the past.
Second topic: Holocaust Survivors’ Club
The budget book contains about 1,000 items; as a member of the opposition, it is impossible to verify on the ground what is actually being done with each budget item. Will what is written in the budget book actually be implemented for the benefit of the residents? But on the issue closest to my heart, I decided to invest time and investigate: the budget allocated for Holocaust survivors versus what is actually being done. In the budget book, they are still referred to as Holocaust survivors.
It is very difficult to track this in the budget book because there are several sections dedicated to Holocaust survivors. In some, there was a budget cut (the Mofet Club for Holocaust survivors), and in others, there was an increase (a “warm home” for Holocaust survivors). Therefore, I pressed the issue and asked during the session: “What about the budget for Holocaust survivors?” Abutbul replied that this budget had not been touched and that they are receiving the same amount and have even been “upgraded” because they now have the option to join the club in Tirat Carmel, where there are also paramedical services. Sounds wonderful. So I went to check this out on the ground with families who have a Holocaust survivor registered with social services in Zichron Ya’acov. There are 15 such people.
What I heard was the exact opposite—the families said there have been cuts to services. And if the budget book shows otherwise, then it’s unclear where the funds are going, because the 15 Holocaust survivors at the club experienced a dramatic cut in the services they receive this year.
Last year, they received three days at the club in Zichron Ya’akov at no cost, including a free lunch.
This year, they receive two days at the club in Zichron at no cost, and they are required to pay for lunch (even if they didn’t show up that day). I heard that many of them who used to eat and enjoy themselves there are foregoing lunch this year because of the cost.
They were told that the third day cut from Zichron Ya’acov could be made up at the club in Tirat Carmel, and they were even taken there to see the facility. However, to get to the club in Tirat Carmel today, they have to use their National Insurance hours, and lunch there costs money as well, plus they have to travel there and back. This is a long trip for people in their 90s; there is transportation, but while the trip there is by taxi, the return trip is by minibus, and people their age have difficulty getting on the bus. So no one chose to go to Tirat Carmel. And this was presented to us at the meeting as an upgrade and a concern for Holocaust survivors, when the truth is the opposite. Why lie to the council members?
The Holocaust survivors were left with a cut of one day of activities and three lunches. Why?? Why on earth are they messing with 90-year-old Holocaust survivors and deciding to reduce their benefits?
The strength of a society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable. Judging by how it treats Holocaust survivors—the Zichron Ya’akov council and its budget are rotten to the core. There is no compassion and no concern for the vulnerable. And where does the money go that is listed in the budget for them, but apparently never reaches them?
Third issue: A flexible and problematic approach to the budget
In preparation for the meeting, I spent hours reviewing the budget book and sent 45 written questions to the treasurer; during the meeting, I raised another 10 questions. The answers to my questions revealed a very problematic pattern in the management of the council’s budget—a disregard for the budget. The council head and the treasury do not view it as a binding document but as a flexible one. Time and again, they told me it was merely an estimate. An example of this is exactly what I wrote above—if the budget for Holocaust survivors isn’t small but the activities are, then where does the money go? Perhaps again, “flexibility” when something listed in this section is diverted to another purpose.
Here are a few more examples:
The first recurring example: a transfer to another budget without it being noted in the budget where a line 0 suddenly appeared regarding an important activity. For example, several sections dealing with summer school programs showed a budget of 0. I immediately asked why such an important activity was being canceled. They told me that everything remained and it had simply been moved to another budget item. Why didn’t they include a note in the budget explaining where it went, as is customary? And I still didn’t understand where this money was hidden in the budget. They’re asking me to trust the council head that there is funding for summer school programs. I don’t want to trust—I want a clear line item. And this came up in a few other places where a zero budget suddenly appeared for 2026, and in response at the meeting they said, “It was moved to another line item.”
Second example: using a line item for a purpose other than its stated one. There is a line item in the budget called “Support for Maccabi and Hapoel in soccer.” I have already submitted an inquiry regarding this in the past because support cannot be transferred to sports teams without going through a support committee that operates according to transparent criteria. And since both of these teams already receive support according to the criteria, it is not possible to add more through the budget; it can only be added by increasing general subsidies and defining an equitable distribution. The council head responded to my inquiry and stated that no money from the budget had been transferred to the teams, nor would it be.
I was relieved. But then, in the current budget book, I saw that in 2025 there was indeed an expenditure of 45,000 NIS—so I asked: How was it transferred after the council head declared it wouldn’t be? You’re invited to watch the segment that looks like a skit at the 1:21 mark.
The answer given at the meeting is truly astonishing: at first they said the money went to support outstanding athletes, and a minute later they said the money went to fund a fun run in memory of a local resident.
I insisted that the money could not be used under a specific budget line item for a purpose other than the one specified in that line item. They tried to argue—the line item was for sports, and the race was also for sports. I insisted—it says “support for two soccer teams”; you can’t take the money for a fun run. Change the line item so it says “race.” They agreed. I hope they actually follow through.
Third example: Significant flexibility in property tax collection.
In the previous newsletter, I wrote that in 2025 there was a shortfall of 3.5 million NIS in collections, and they didn’t explain why—they said it was an estimate. It’s not clear to me how there can be such gaps between what was set for collection and what was actually collected, especially regarding property tax where the total value of assets is known. I have a feeling this was an “inflation” of revenues in the 2025 budget book—so there would be more money in the coffers for 2025 expenditures. And here again, a so-called inflation—
At the end of the meeting, we were asked to approve an additional 1 million NIS in expenditures and amendments that did not appear in the 2026 budget book we received. The main expenditure added is another 600,000 NIS for Independence Day because, at the last minute, the Home Front Command permitted celebrations. But when increasing an expense, one must simultaneously identify revenue that will rise by the same amount or a cut in another line item. Then, an additional 400,000 NIS in property tax revenue was presented without any explanation, and this is serious because in 2025, 3.5 million NIS was under-collected without any satisfactory explanation. So where does the optimism come from that in 2026, an additional 400,000 NIS will be collected to close the deficit?
Fourth issue: Loans taken out by the council:
Following several questions I asked regarding the loans and repayments to which the council is obligated, it emerged that the council has a total of 30 million NIS in loans, with annual repayments amounting to 8.6 million NIS. The treasurer explained that the annual loan burden and, consequently, the annual repayments are at a reasonable level.
I disagree, given a specific situation that was not addressed: the authority’s fixed expenses:
An analysis of the budget, which stood at 257 million NIS, shows that approximately 210 to 220 million NIS consists of fixed expenses such as salaries, waste disposal fees, electricity, landscaping, and other payments to suppliers with whom the Council has binding multi-year contracts.
Thus, the budget available for operations stands at between 30 and 40 million NIS, of which an annual repayment of 8.6 million NIS must be made—so the burden on the budget due to the loans is not reasonable but rather heavy. And this is assuming we will not need to take out additional loans this year. And I fear that more loans lie ahead in light of the construction plans for the dirt lot adjacent to the Country Club, totaling 60 million NIS for a memorial hall, a 410-seat auditorium, and a multipurpose center for seniors.
At the time, I stated during the meeting where we allocated funds for planning this construction complex that: “I can’t sleep at night because of this massive construction project, as it’s clear to me we don’t have the money for such an undertaking. And once again, we’ll end up with a huge deficit, just as happened with the construction of Moshava Park during Abutbul’s previous term.”
At the current budget meeting, the council head took an interest and asked, “Am I still not sleeping at night because of this project? And that I have nothing to worry about because the money will come from donations. And he is already working on securing donations.” But anyone who understands the field of donations knows that the chances of Zichron Ya’akov raising donations in the tens of millions are extremely low, especially in recent years. Because we are a high-income community. And because donations are now going toward the reconstruction of communities on the front lines in the north and south, where entire communities have been destroyed. And that we will need donations in the tens of millions for this massive project. And that back when the Moshava Park was established, donations amounting to only a few million were secured (from the JNF and the Beit El community), and the rest was funded through the sale of assets and an addition to a massive deficit that stifled the town for years to come.
I hope that the coalition members are concerned and will ensure that history does not repeat itself. I can also sound the alarm and issue warnings, as I am doing here and in meetings.
Radio interview and post on the budget:
This week I was interviewed on the regional radio program. The reason for the interview: only the Zichron Yaakov Council failed to issue a notice to residents regarding the approved budget, what it includes, and more. It turned out that the accepted practice throughout the country is that immediately upon the budget’s passage, a formal notice is issued to all residents.
The only one who doesn’t think transparency and reporting to residents are essential is the current council head. I posted the interview on Open Forum and New Forum.
Go check it out and leave a comment. Only a large group of people has the power to effect change and demand transparency from the mayor.