Mandeville adopts first-ever general fund reserve policy after weeks of debate

Council approves ordinance establishing 20% minimum reserve and companion policy targeting 30%-40%

Discon casts lone dissenting vote

MANDEVILLE — After weeks of debate over how much money the city should keep in reserve and whether those safeguards should be written into law, the Mandeville City Council voted Thursday night to establish the city’s first formal minimum general fund balance requirement.

The council approved Ordinance 26-16 on a 4-1 vote, followed immediately by approval of companion Resolution 26-25 by the same margin. Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman, who authored both measures, called the votes “a huge win” for fiscal responsibility. Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon cast the lone vote against both measures after also opposing a clarifying amendment adopted earlier in the evening.

Together, the ordinance and resolution establish a new framework for evaluating future city budgets. The ordinance permanently prohibits the council from adopting a budget projecting an unassigned general fund balance below 20% of annual operating expenditures, while the companion resolution establishes a policy goal of maintaining reserves between 30% and 40% during the upcoming fiscal year.

The measures return Mandeville’s budget discussions to a more structured framework after weeks of public debate that exposed broad agreement on the importance of maintaining healthy reserves but disagreement over whether reserve requirements should be codified in city law or remain council policy.

Ordinance and resolution work together

When introducing the measures Thursday, Zuckerman emphasized that the ordinance and resolution serve different purposes.

He described Ordinance 26-16 as establishing an “absolute minimum threshold” that future councils may not breach when adopting annual budgets. The companion resolution, he said, establishes policy guidance for the upcoming budget cycle by setting a target reserve range of 30% to 40% of annual operating expenditures.

“The ordinance creates a legal minimum,” Zuckerman said. “The resolution fills in a financial policy for fiscal year 2026-27 that the ordinance does not address.”

Finance Director Jessica Farno presented updated financial projections showing the city’s current unassigned general fund balance at approximately 45.3% of annual operating expenditures — above the proposed target range. Under current figures, the ordinance’s 20% minimum would equate to roughly $4.8 million, while the resolution’s target range would be approximately $7.2 million to $9.6 million.

Farno explained that the percentages are calculated using operating expenditures only, while the projected ending fund balance reflects both operating costs and capital spending. She said the framework would give future councils a clearer benchmark for evaluating whether proposed capital projects can be undertaken while maintaining prudent reserves.

Clarifying amendment adopted

One of the principal concerns raised during the ordinance’s first reading earlier this month was whether a minimum reserve requirement could interfere with emergency spending following hurricanes or other disasters.

To address those concerns, the council unanimously adopted — except for Discon’s dissent — a clarifying amendment stating that nothing in the ordinance limits emergency expenditures authorized under Louisiana law, budget amendments adopted in response to declared emergencies, natural disasters, grant reimbursement timing or other extraordinary circumstances. The amendment also provides that any such action should include a plan to restore the minimum fund balance within a reasonable period.

The amendment reflected legal guidance previously provided by City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert following questions raised during the ordinance’s initial consideration.

Discon revisits 40% question

Discon questioned why the ordinance still established a 20% minimum reserve despite his having voting against raising it to 40% at the previous meeting.

“I thought our discussion last week, we talked that the 20% was possibly too low, and we talked about 40%,” Discon said. “Now today we’re back to 20%, and it sounds like that’s where it’s gonna go. But I thought we were talking a higher number than that. That’s my question.”

Discon’s question revisited an issue the council had already resolved two weeks earlier. During the June 11 debate, Zuckerman responded to criticism that a 20% minimum was too low by proposing an amendment to increase the ordinance’s legal floor to 40% The council rejected that amendment on a 3-2 vote, with Discon voting against it. As a result, the ordinance returned for final adoption in its original form, establishing a 20% minimum while relying on the companion resolution to set a higher policy target of 30% to 40%.

Support grows after postponement

The ordinance returned to the council after being postponed at the June 11 meeting following more than an hour of debate.

Several council members who had previously expressed reservations said the addition of the companion resolution and further discussion helped clarify how the two measures would work together.

District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson, who had questioned whether reserve targets should be established through ordinance or resolution during the earlier debate, said she better understood the framework after having additional time to review both measures.

“I had a chance to really absorb this a little bit more,” Strong-Thompson said. “Putting the two together makes sense.” She also said the framework would help the council evaluate future capital projects against reserve requirements during the annual budget process.

District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz likewise said he had become comfortable with the proposal after additional study.

“I don’t want perfect to be the enemy of good,” Vogeltanz said. “I think it’s important to get something on the books now.” He said the resolution’s higher target range, combined with the ordinance’s legal minimum, created a practical framework that the council could refine over time if necessary.

Public support

Residents who spoke Thursday largely supported adoption of both measures.

Becky Rohrbough urged the council to adopt the policy, arguing that recurring operating expenses have consumed too much of the city’s available revenue in recent years and that establishing reserve parameters would provide needed fiscal discipline. She said creating a defined reserve floor would help ensure future councils maintain healthy financial reserves while evaluating spending priorities.

Resident Vince Talazac generally supported the concept but encouraged the council to continue refining how reserve targets relate to operating costs and long-term capital expenditures.

Zuckerman declares victory

Following the vote, Zuckerman said the council now has both a permanent legal safeguard and a policy framework to guide this summer’s budget deliberations.

“I think this will be good for the city,” he said. “Now when we take up our budget in fiscal year 2026-27, we at least have a policy and a target range that we will be working toward.”

Later Thursday evening, Zuckerman celebrated the outcome in a Facebook post, calling the votes “a HUGE WIN” for fiscal responsibility.

“Only one vote against my ordinance to set by law an absolute minimum threshold for our General Fund balance and my resolution to set our goal for this year at twice that,” he wrote. “A HUGE WIN for fiscal responsibility.”

-30-

---

© 2026 Mandeville Daily. All rights reserved. Republishing permitted with attribution and link to the original article.