Discon promised specific cuts after alleging city was overspending but never produced them, ultimately citing audit in lone no vote
MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville City Council adopted a structurally balanced operating budget for the coming fiscal year Thursday, ending weeks of hearings that began with Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon insisting the city was overspending and promising to identify specific areas where spending should be cut.
Those specific expenditure cuts never materialized.
Instead, as the hearings progressed, other council members generally praised the administration’s proposed budget during the series of five budget hearings, and Discon himself eventually acknowledged he could not identify any significant operating reductions.
By the final hearing Thursday, Discon only proposed broad reductions to categories of spending rather than specific expenditures, repeatedly looked to capital spending for savings that city officials explained could not offset recurring operating expenses, and ultimately supported an amendment increasing the employee cost-of-living adjustment from 1% to 2.8%.
It was Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman, who had defended the administration’s proposed budget against Discon’s overspending claims, who ultimately identified specific operating expenditures that could be reduced to help pay for the larger annual cost of living adjustment (COLA).
Then, immediately before the final vote, Discon cited a different objection to the operating budget: The city’s completed FY2025 audit had not yet been formally published.
The operating budget passed 4-1, with Discon casting the lone vote against it. He also cast the lone vote against the city’s FY2027 capital budget.
A structurally balanced proposal
Mayor Clay Madden’s proposed FY2027 operating budget entered the hearings with recurring revenues exceeding recurring operating expenses by approximately $200,000.
The administration had already identified approximately $530,000 in recurring personnel and discretionary General Fund reductions while developing the proposal.
Personnel savings included leaving a finance data entry clerk and one police officer position unfunded. Madden has said the police reduction is effectively offset by the addition of a sergeant to supervise school resource officers, with the St. Tammany Parish School Board paying 10 months of the position’s annual cost and the city responsible for the remaining two months.
Other reductions included nearly $80,000 in legal fees, $75,000 in planning and development, $50,000 in audit and accounting fees and reductions in spending for the Trailhead, Community Center, advertising, banquets, travel and memberships.
The reductions also addressed several areas that Civil Service representatives and others had earlier pointed to as places the city could trim spending to provide a larger employee COLA. During the hearings, suggestions included reducing travel and other discretionary spending and questioning spending on amenities and events.
But Madden and Finance Director Jessica Farno said many of those choices had already been made before the proposed budget ever reached the council. Madden said the administration had spent months working through different scenarios to bring recurring expenses below recurring revenues, including reducing travel and overtime and making what he described as difficult spending decisions.
The resulting proposal already reduced spending for the Trailhead, Community Center, advertising, banquets, travel and memberships, along with larger reductions in legal, planning, audit and accounting expenses.
The approximately $200,000 difference between recurring revenue and expenses was relatively small, but it represented a significant change from previous budgets.
“This is the first year in many years that we … are paying for recurring expenses with recurring revenue,” Zuckerman said during the first hearing.
Farno confirmed that assessment.
District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson described the $200,000 margin as a “squeaker,” noting that unexpected overtime or other expenses could quickly consume it.
Discon says city is still overspending
Despite the reductions and structurally balanced proposal, Discon said during the Aug. 13 hearing that he believed the city was still spending too much.
“And I still think- We’re s- we’re overspending. We should be saving some money somewhere,” Discon said. “I still think that there’s some overspending in this thing.”
Madden pressed Discon to identify it.
“I need from you, Councilman Discon, the areas that you feel like we’re overspending,” Madden said.
Discon said he would provide them.
“We don’t have the time right now for me to go into that, but I’m putting together a list of what I think we should be doing, and that will come to the next meeting,” Discon said.
He later noted that three hearings remained and said he still had time “to put all that together.”
Zuckerman questioned why the assertion had been made before the supporting details were available.
“If I was gonna come to a budget hearing and claim that we’re overspending and the budget is overspent, and this budget is overspending, and that the forecast is inaccurate, I would certainly have some details with me to do it,” Zuckerman said.
No ‘big change’ found in operating budget
The promised list did not emerge at the next hearing Aug. 19.
After reviewing the operating budget, Discon instead acknowledged he could not see where significant changes could be made.
“We went through the operational tonight,” Discon said. “I don’t see where we could make any big change. I guess we’d have to look at capital.”
Zuckerman reminded Discon of his earlier promise.
“In the last meeting, you had indicated that in this budget, you were going to come prepared with proposed cuts,” Zuckerman said.
Zuckerman said if Discon had reviewed the spending since the previous hearing and concluded the operating budget was sound, that was an acceptable answer, but he wanted to “close the loop” so the public would not be confused.
Discon responded that he could not remember all of the specifics surrounding the previous year’s budget debate and asked that his explanation be accepted so the council could move forward.
The exchange also highlighted a similar dispute during the previous year’s budget process.
Zuckerman noted that approximately $2.2 million in operating reductions had been proposed during the FY2026 process, but Discon voted against those proposed reductions before ultimately voting against the operating budget itself. Discon voted for the FY2026 capital budget.
Larger COLA raises question of recurring revenue
The spending question changed during the later hearings as council members considered increasing the administration’s proposed 1% employee COLA to 2.8%, matching the Social Security Administration’s 2026 adjustment and the recommendation of Mandeville’s Municipal Employees and Police Employees Civil Service Boards from Aug. 19.
The additional 1.8 percentage points would cost the General Fund approximately $200,000 annually — potentially consuming virtually all of the administration’s recurring operating cushion.
District III Councilwoman Jill Lane supported the full 2.8%, arguing the city should maintain the compensation gains made since an earlier salary study brought employee pay closer to comparable municipalities.
Lane also looked beyond the current budget for a longer-term way to pay for future COLAs, pointing to property tax millages the city has historically levied below their voter-authorized levels. Lane said the council would have an opportunity to adjust those millages next year and acknowledged that doing so would not be popular.
“I do feel it is our responsibility … to find the revenue,” Lane said, adding that the city needs to consider ways to increase recurring revenue rather than allowing employee compensation to again fall behind.
Zuckerman also supported the larger COLA but said he would not vote for it without finding recurring operating savings to offset at least part of the additional cost.
“If the COLA’s gonna cost us about $200,000 a year … we need to find $200,000 or I’m not gonna vote for it, and I’m not gonna do it by just saying, ‘Administration, go figure it out,’” Zuckerman said.
“That’s our job.”
Discon proposes categories, not expenditures
At Thursday’s final hearing, Discon returned to his contention that spending should be reduced but did not identify a specific operating expenditure he wanted the council to eliminate.
Instead, he proposed removing $300,000 generally from General Fund spending and leaving the administration to decide where the reductions would fall.
“What line item is it, Mr. Chairman?” Zuckerman asked.
“It’s just a general $300,000,” Discon responded. “It’s up to the administration to figure out how they wanna divvy that up amongst their line items… I don’t wanna be the one to make that decision.”
Discon said he did not want to be the person making those individual decisions.
I don’t wanna be the one to make that decision.
— Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon
“I don’t have to back it up with anything more than the fact that I think we’re still overspending,” Discon said.
Discon separately proposed reducing by half approximately $1.28 million in equipment purchases from the Special Sales Tax Fund, again suggesting that department officials determine which purchases to eliminate.
Zuckerman rejected the broader approach to the operating budget, saying deciding what to eliminate was the council’s responsibility.
“I’ve got four individual line items that I could propose right now rather than just say, ‘Go figure it out, Mr. Mayor,’” Zuckerman said.
Capital reductions can’t offset COLA
Discon also repeatedly looked to the capital budget as a potential source of savings to accommodate the larger employee COLA.
He had first suggested that approach Aug. 19 after saying he could not identify any “big change” in the operating budget, suggesting the city might delay a truck or another capital purchase.
At the final hearing, Discon again suggested reducing capital projects and equipment purchases.
But Farno explained that none of those capital purchases were included in recurring operating expenses.
“So that would have no impact on the $200,000 budget?” Zuckerman asked.
“Correct,” Farno responded.
The distinction surfaced again when Discon objected to reducing landscape maintenance and suggested instead taking $50,000 from the design of a park.
Public Works Director Keith LaGrange told Discon that cutting the capital project “does not help your recurring operating expenses.”
Planning Director Cara Bartholomew then reiterated the distinction.
“Jessica said over and over and over again that cutting something in the capital budget has no effect on the operating budget,” Bartholomew said.
You have to stay in the same piece of paper.
— Planning Director Cara Bartholomew
“If you want to increase the operating budget, then you need to decrease the operating budget if you wanna make that balance,” she said. “You have to stay in the same piece of paper.”
The distinction was critical because the COLA represents a recurring personnel expense. Eliminating a one-time capital purchase can reduce overall spending in a particular year, but it does not provide recurring savings to support the higher payroll in future years.
Zuckerman identifies specific cuts
Zuckerman was ultimately the only council member to propose specific operating expenditures for reduction as the council searched for money to offset the larger COLA.
His initial suggestions included planning and development, landscape maintenance, Trailhead concerts, decor and beautification and even eliminating the $72,000 budgeted for council members’ pay for one year.
Not all of the proposals survived scrutiny. City officials explained that some would reduce services or involved expenses with corresponding revenue.
The discussion nevertheless produced a package of specific operating changes.
The final amendment removed $43,670 from a comprehensive plan revision, $50,000 from planning and development, $35,000 from decor and beautification and $20,300 from building maintenance. It also added $20,000 for social services.
The net reduction was $128,970.
“So we’d be increasing the budget by about $200,000 for the 2.8% COLA, but then saving $129,000 back in that same amendment,” Zuckerman said as he assembled the changes into an amendment to Lane’s pending COLA amendment.
Strong-Thompson seconded the amendment.
The procedural discussion became confused at several points as the council worked through the amendments required before it could adopt the final ordinance.
Zuckerman, who served as council chairman before Discon, repeatedly clarified the sequence for incorporating the spending changes into Lane’s pending amendment and then voting on the amended budget ordinance. District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz also reminded Discon when public comment or a vote on a pending amendment was still required before the council could proceed.
Earlier in the final budget hearing, Discon had asked Zuckerman for help determining how the amendments should be handled, noting Zuckerman had chaired the council the previous year. Zuckerman explained that the council could discuss the proposals during the hearing but could not vote until the ordinances were formally before it during the regular meeting.
The amendment incorporating the specific reductions into Lane’s 2.8% COLA proposal ultimately passed 4-1.
Lane, Strong-Thompson, Zuckerman and Discon voted for it. Vogeltanz voted against it.
Audit becomes final objection
After weeks of hearings that began with Discon’s assertion that the city was overspending, excessive spending was not the reason he cited immediately before voting against the final operating budget.
Instead, Discon pointed to the city’s FY2025 audit.
The audit had been completed earlier that day following an exit conference with the city’s auditor and was scheduled to be submitted to the Louisiana Legislative Auditor and Federal Audit Clearinghouse the following day. Madden said the city could not publish the audit on its website until it cleared the Legislative Auditor process, although council members could review the completed document in Farno’s office in the interim.
“I’m still having an issue with we don’t have a true audit that’s been published,” Discon said before the final vote.
Discon said he supported the employee COLA and appreciated the work that had gone into finding money for it, but said he had “a principle” he wanted to stand behind for residents.
The completed audit had also improved the financial picture used to construct the budget. Madden said the audited General Fund balance was approximately $1 million higher than the conservative estimate used during budget preparation.
Farno explained that the additional fund balance strengthened the city’s reserves but did not increase recurring revenue or change the recurring operating balance.
The council adopted the operating budget 4-1.
Lane, Vogeltanz, Strong-Thompson and Zuckerman voted for it. Discon voted against it.
The vote produced an unusual split: Vogeltanz opposed the amendment increasing the COLA to 2.8% but supported the final budget once the council adopted the increase. Discon supported the COLA amendment but voted against the resulting budget.
Capital budget also passes 4-1
The council next considered the FY2027 capital budget.
Its reception from the other council members had been notably positive.
During the previous night’s hearing, Vogeltanz called it “a very good capital budget” and said he could not think of a reason to remove money from the city’s planned investments in infrastructure and amenities.
During Thursday’s adoption meeting, Strong-Thompson said the city was “investing in the future,” Vogeltanz again called the infrastructure and amenity investments “a good use,” Lane said she was ready to vote and Zuckerman said he had no remaining issues with the capital budget.
The council made several technical corrections, including carrying forward previously appropriated money for the Jackson Avenue bulkhead and North Causeway fencing, correcting a lift station appropriation and renaming another project.
Discon joined the other four council members in unanimously approving those amendments.
The final capital budget then passed 4-1, with Discon again casting the lone vote against it.
Discon did not separately explain during the capital-budget discussion why he opposed the final plan.
Mayor’s compensation increased
The council also amended Madden’s compensation during the budget process.
Madden received the same 2.8% COLA approved for employees along with a 4% merit increase. The council also doubled his annual vehicle allowance from $6,000 to $12,000.
The changes bring Madden’s salary to approximately $129,333, excluding the vehicle allowance.
The FY2027 budget takes effect Oct. 1.
-30-
© 2026 Mandeville Daily. All rights reserved. Republishing permitted with attribution and link to the original article.
