Supporters say measure would establish a long-overdue minimum reserve requirement; critics question locking future councils into law
Debate exposed broad agreement on maintaining healthy reserves but sharp disagreement over whether reserve targets should be codified by ordinance
MANDEVILLE — A proposal to establish, for the first time, a legally mandated minimum reserve level for the City of Mandeville’s unrestricted general fund returns to the City Council agenda Thursday after members spent more than an hour debating the measure earlier this month before ultimately postponing it on a 4-1 vote. The ordinance, sponsored by Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman, would prohibit future councils from adopting budgets that reduce the city’s unassigned general fund balance below 20 percent of annual operating expenditures.
The June 11 debate revealed broad agreement among council members that Mandeville should maintain substantial financial reserves. The disagreement instead centered on whether those reserve requirements should be established through permanent city law or through council policy that can be adjusted from year to year.
The measure, Ordinance 26-16, was introduced after months of discussion about the city’s unrestricted general fund balance and what level of reserves should be maintained to protect against emergencies, economic downturns and other unforeseen costs. Under the proposal, the city could not adopt a budget projecting an unassigned general fund balance below 20 percent of annual operating expenses without first changing the ordinance.
Debate reveals deeper divide
Throughout the June 11 discussion, Zuckerman argued the city has spent years debating general fund balances without ever establishing a formal minimum reserve requirement.
He described the ordinance as a financial safeguard designed to create a floor that future councils could not cross without formally amending city law. The proposal was modeled on guidance from the Government Finance Officers Association, which recommends municipalities maintain unrestricted reserves equal to at least two months of operating expenditures. The ordinance’s 20 percent threshold exceeds that recommendation.
“The goal is simple: create a firm bottom threshold that any budget approved by the council must maintain,” Zuckerman later wrote in a public Facebook post urging residents to support the measure when it returns for consideration.
Finance Director Jessica Farno largely supported the concept, emphasizing during the meeting that the proposed 20 percent figure was intended as an absolute minimum rather than a target.
Farno told council members that while a 20 percent reserve exceeds national recommendations, a practical target for Mandeville would likely fall between 30 and 40 percent because of hurricane exposure, delayed FEMA reimbursements and other financial risks facing the city.
Not a dispute over reserve levels
One of the more unusual aspects of the debate was that several opponents argued the proposed reserve requirement was actually too low.
Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon repeatedly argued that a city with Mandeville’s hurricane exposure should maintain significantly larger reserves and questioned why the council needed to codify a minimum threshold at all.
District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson likewise said her concerns were less about the percentage itself and more about establishing the requirement through ordinance rather than resolution. She argued reserve targets could be adopted through council policy while preserving flexibility for future councils.
In response to criticism that 20 percent was insufficient, Zuckerman offered an amendment raising the minimum reserve requirement to 40 percent of annual operating expenses. The amendment failed on a 3-2 vote.
That vote has become a central part of Zuckerman’s argument heading into Thursday’s meeting.
In a Facebook post following the debate, he noted that some council members argued 20 percent was too low but then opposed his proposal to double the requirement to 40 percent. He questioned why council members who have previously expressed concerns about spending and reserve levels would oppose establishing a minimum reserve requirement in law.
Opponents, however, argued that the failed amendment did not address their primary concern — not the amount of money being reserved, but whether future councils should be legally bound by a fixed threshold.
Postponed, not defeated
The ordinance was ultimately postponed after District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz suggested additional discussion and legal review could be beneficial before taking a final vote. Although Vogeltanz said he generally supported the concept of establishing a reserve floor, he expressed concerns about how the ordinance could interact with future budget amendments and emergency spending decisions.
The council then voted 4-1 to postpone the ordinance until its next regular meeting, with Zuckerman casting the lone vote against postponement.
When the measure returns Thursday, council members will again confront the question that dominated the June 11 debate: whether reserve requirements should be enforced through municipal law or left to the discretion of future councils through annual budget policy decisions.
-30-
