Council authorized mayor to negotiate purchase agreement at November meeting 5-0
Two council members proposed delay that would have forced City to default
$710K for property in question already budgeted
Unrelated $1.4M budget increase passed without debate
MANDEVILLE — The purchase of a Carroll Street property the City Council had authorized unanimously at the November 16th meeting was thrown into doubt at the January 11th meeting when two council members attempted to delay action on the item, which would have had the effect of causing the City to default on a purchase agreement the night before the scheduled closing.
The property, located in Old Mandeville at 407 and 411 Carroll Street — behind Maison Lafitte — had been identified as fitting into the City’s longterm green space property purchase program, which is funded in the current fiscal-year budget.
Purchasing property for the City of Mandeville is a two-step process, according to the Home Rule Charter.
First, the City Council adopts a resolution allowing the mayor to negotiate a purchase agreement for the property. The $710,000 price was based on a professional appraisal and was included in Resolution 23-46 when it was adopted unanimously at the November 16th regular council meeting. Closing was set for January 12th.
The council then makes the purchase official via ordinance, allowing the mayor to go through with the scheduled closing, which in this case was Ordinance 23-37 as advertised on the January 11th agenda.
But what usually ends up being a perfunctory step in the purchase process suddenly hit a snag when District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller questioned whether or not the city should go through with the sale.
District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire asked City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert what would happen if the council failed to adopt Ordinance 23-37 that night.
Sconzert replied, “We would be in default of the purchase agreement.”
Kreller asked the council, “How can we justify $710,000 to purchase two lots?”
Councilman at Large Rick Danielson also voiced his opposition to completing the purchase, saying, “I just have financial concerns in the process… Do we need to be spending $710,000 at this time?”
Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman took issue with the City potentially backing out of the agreement at this juncture: “The council voted unanimously to spend $710,000 on this property… If there is in fact a discussion about not authorizing the mayor to go to closing tomorrow… that’s what we’re talking about… Reversing what we had authorized him to do and the decision we made unanimously 60 days ago.”
Sconzert reminded the council that the $710,000 was already appropriated in the 2023-2024 fiscal year budget.
Kreller said he was worried about the financial stability of the City and said, “I must have gotten from 50 to a hundred either emails or text messages against this.”
Mayor Clay Madden reiterated what he described as his vision for purchasing green space as part of the Mandeville Flood Resilience Strategy: “I laid out my vision at the November 16th meeting that I’d like to purchase this property because of its proximity to Ravine Aux Coquilles and looked to do our first storm water park at this location because of its proximity.”
He added, “It’s something I believe is supported. Nobody has called me and said ‘don’t do this.’”
After a brief discussion and public comment, Danielson offered a motion to “defer” Ordinance 23-37 until the second meeting in February, which would mean the closing would have to be cancelled. (“Postpone” would have been the correct Robert’s Rules of Order motion. See Editor’s note.)
Danielson’s motion failed 3-2, with only Danielson and Kreller voting in favor.
Ordinance 23-37 was then adopted 3-2, allowing Madden to complete the act of sale January 12th. Danielson and Kreller voted against.
The next item on the agenda that night — Ordinance 23-38, a $1.4 million capital budget increase to pay for a water line replacement project in the Golden Glen Subdivision in Kreller’s District II — was adopted unanimously, without debate nor motions to postpone.
-30-
Editor’s Note: There is no “motion to defer” under Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 12th Edition. According to RROO, the correct motion would have been “Postpone to a Certain Time.”
Back to Previous
Mandeville Daily 