Discon says ‘no’ to talk of upcoming Monroe St. overlay ordinance

Does ruling set bad precedent for future meetings and free speech?

Precedent allows chair to put any topic off-limits moving forward

Government meetings need rules.

Without them, city councils could never finish an agenda. Time limits, maintaining decorum and keeping discussion orderly are all reasonable restrictions that allow public business to be conducted efficiently.

The City of Mandeville has long had those kinds of rules, and nobody seriously disputes them.

What deserves closer examination, however, is what happened during Thursday night’s City Council meeting.

Before public comment even began, Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon, who now serves as council chairman, announced that citizens could not use the general public comment period to discuss anything appearing anywhere on that evening’s agenda, including Ordinance 26-27, the proposed low-traffic overlay district affecting the Monroe Street corridor. Although the ordinance was only being introduced to satisfy legal notice requirements and would receive no debate or vote that evening, the chairman ruled it was nevertheless off limits because it appeared on the agenda.

District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz immediately questioned that interpretation because he knew that former City Councilman — and former political opponent of Mr. Discon in the 2024 At-Large race — Ernest Burguières intended to talk about the ordinance during the public comment period.

Mr. Vogeltanz’s understanding — and he was the council member who originally authored the rule — was that the restriction was never intended to prohibit discussion of ordinances that were merely being introduced. Rather, its purpose was much narrower.

For years, before the council moved general public comment to the beginning of meetings, that comment period occurred at the very end. There was an unwritten understanding that citizens should not use those final three-minute comments to rehash matters the council had already spent hours debating and voting upon earlier in the evening.

Imagine a controversial ordinance drawing 100 speakers before the vote. Once the council voted, the issue was procedurally finished. The intent of the unwritten practice, which was later codified in Resolution 24-44, was simply to avoid having those same 100 speakers line up again at adjournment and repeat the entire debate.

In other words, the rule wasn’t designed to limit what citizens could talk about. It was designed to limit how many opportunities they had to talk about the same issue during a single meeting. That’s a very different objective and an important distinction here.

From unwritten practice to written rule

When the council adopted its Rules of Procedure in 2024 as Resolution 24-44, that long-standing practice was reduced to writing by describing the final public comment period as applying to “non-agenda” items. That seems to have been a poor choice of words; perhaps “non-voting-agenda items” would have avoided ambiguity.

At the time, general public comment still occurred after the meeting’s business had concluded.

But circumstances have changed.

Today, Mandeville’s general public comment occurs before any council business is conducted. The same words now produce a very different result than they did when they were written.

When intent and interpretation diverge

Thursday’s dispute illustrates exactly why.

The ordinance in question was not scheduled for debate. It was not scheduled for a vote. Citizens would have no later opportunity during that meeting to address it. Yet because its title appeared on the printed agenda for introduction only, the chairman ruled the topic off limits. Mr. Vogeltanz challenged that ruling, but the council voted to uphold the chair on a 3-2 vote, with only Mr. Vogeltanz and Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman voting to overrule.

Ironically, the procedural fight itself consumed approximately eight and a half minutes.

Had Mr. Burguières simply been allowed to use his allotted three minutes to discuss the ordinance, the meeting almost certainly would have moved on more quickly.

If efficiency was the objective, the ruling accomplished precisely the opposite. If not, then the ruling very effectively shut down public feedback on a potentially important issue to the city.

Where does it end?

More importantly, the precedent now raises a larger question.

Time limits regulate how long someone may speak.

Decorum rules regulate how someone may speak.

But prohibiting someone from speaking because of the subject they wish to discuss regulates what someone may speak about.

That is an entirely different category of governmental action.

The principle cuts both ways. During the April 9, 2026, City Council meeting, then-Chairman Zuckerman permitted four citizens to discuss the controversial water and sewer billing issue during general public comment despite that matter also appearing on the meeting agenda. Mr. Zuckerman said he never questioned their right to speak that night because the water and sewer rates issue wasn’t a voting-item on the agenda.

If that interpretation was appropriate then, citizens are left to wonder why a different standard now applies to Mr. Burguières or Ordinance 26-27. The constitutional principle should not depend on which chairman is holding the gavel, which issue happens to be controversial, or who the speaker is going to be.

If Mr. Discon had the same rule interpretation in April when he was not chairman, why didn’t he raise a point of order and object to those four citizens speaking about water rates during public comment that night?

No one is arguing that the council lacks authority to establish orderly procedures. The City Charter expressly authorizes each newly elected council to adopt its own procedural rules for conducting meetings.

The question is whether those rules should be interpreted in a way that allows the chair to determine which topics are permissible during an otherwise open public comment period.

That is a precedent worth considering carefully.

After all, once government begins excluding one subject from public comment because it appears on an agenda, where is the limiting principle?

Consider the practical implications. Under this interpretation, a council chairman could effectively prevent discussion of almost any subject simply by ensuring it appears somewhere on the agenda. An ordinance need not be debated or voted upon. It could be listed under reports, announcements or another informational item. The chairman could simply say, “This ordinance won’t be discussed tonight. It will be debated at a future meeting.” Yet because the subject appeared on that evening’s agenda, citizens could still be barred from discussing it during general public comment.

That would effectively allow the chair to control not merely the order of the meeting, but the subjects citizens are permitted to discuss during an otherwise open public forum.

Courts often ask attorneys exactly this: Counsel, what’s your limiting principle?

Could another council chairman rule that criticism of the budget is off limits because debate on the budget will happen at some future meeting?

Could another prohibit discussion of a topic merely because he suspects the matter might come before the council later?

The rabbit hole is deep.

Each restriction might be defended as procedural. Yet each would also represent government deciding which viewpoints may — or may not — be heard during a public forum.

The First Amendment does not guarantee that government must agree with speakers.

Nor does it require government to provide unlimited speaking time.

But when government opens a microphone for general public comment, citizens reasonably expect that the government will regulate the clock — not the content.

Perhaps the simplest solution is also the one closest to the original intent.

Clarify the rule.

If the purpose is merely to prevent citizens from repeating testimony after the council has already voted on an item earlier that evening, then the rule should say exactly that.

Rules should reflect their purpose, not create new restrictions their authors never intended.

One final fact makes Thursday’s ruling even more curious.

Mr. Vogeltanz has confirmed that Ordinance 26-27 will not appear on the July 23 agenda in any form — not for introduction, discussion or a vote.

If Mr. Burguières returns on July 23 to discuss that ordinance during general public comment, will he now be allowed to speak?

If the answer is yes, then nothing about the substance of his comments changed.

Only their timing did.

And that is precisely why Thursday’s ruling deserves another look.

-30-

---

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

Resolution calls for second opinion on controversial billing methodology while leaving future rate decisions to the City Council

MANDEVILLE — The City Council unanimously voted Thursday to authorize Mayor Clay Madden to seek an independent consultant to conduct a comprehensive audit and review of the city’s recently adopted water and sewer billing system, reopening debate over a rate structure that has generated months of public criticism.

Resolution 26-28, sponsored by Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman, requests that the mayor retain a qualified consultant to examine the city’s current billing methodology, evaluate whether it accurately reflects actual water and sewer usage, and recommend revised rates or an alternative rate structure that will keep the utility enterprise fund financially self-sustaining while maintaining eligibility for state funding for future capital projects.

“This is just a resolution to encourage and authorize the mayor to bring in a firm to revisit our sewer and water rate structure,” Zuckerman told the council.

He said the city has already taken action to temporarily cap residential sewer charges — a measure co-sponsored by District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz and Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon last month — but questions remain about whether the overall strategy adopted by the council last year was the right one.

“It was clear since its implementation that … the anticipated revenue wasn’t being generated before we made the cap on sewer rates,” Zuckerman said. “This is kind of a chance to revisit all that.”

The resolution follows the council’s adoption of Ordinance 26-20 last month, which temporarily capped residential sewer charges after many residents experienced significantly higher bills under the city’s new billing methodology. While the cap reduced bills for many customers, it also lowered projected utility revenue from the plan originally adopted under Ordinance 24-40.

Under Resolution 26-28, the consultant would be asked to review the methodology, assumptions and data used to develop the current rate structure, determine whether customers are being charged for water that never enters the sewer system — such as lawn irrigation, pool filling and other outdoor uses — and evaluate whether similarly situated customers are being treated fairly and consistently. The consultant also would be asked to recommend alternative billing methods and rate structures, including winter averaging, seasonal averaging, irrigation adjustments, separate irrigation meters, tiered rates and other approaches that may more accurately reflect actual sewer usage while generating sufficient revenue for utility operations and capital needs.

District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson said she specifically wanted the city to retain a different consultant than the one previously used to develop the existing rate structure.

“I think we need to have a second set of eyes on it,” Strong-Thompson said.

Vogeltanz voiced support for the proposal but asked whether the resolution would allow the administration to hire a consultant without additional council approval.

Zuckerman responded that the resolution simply authorizes the mayor to begin the process of identifying a consultant and establishing the scope of work. Any contract requiring council approval would still have to return to the council for authorization.

Vogeltanz then successfully amended the resolution to direct the consultant to also evaluate whether the city should continue administering its own water and sewer billing or instead hire a third-party company to perform those services.

“I would like the auditor to analyze whether or not it’s beneficial, desirable, feasible, financially worth it, for the city to administer its own water and sewer collection versus hiring just a third-party vendor,” Vogeltanz said.

The amendment was approved unanimously before the council unanimously adopted the resolution as amended.

The resolution also states that any long-term review should be based on at least one full year of actual collection data under the city’s new billing system so the consultant can better evaluate whether any proposed rate structure would adequately support the utility enterprise fund.

Although the resolution authorizes the administration to seek an independent consultant, it does not change any water or sewer rates. The document specifically states that any future modifications to the city’s billing practices or utility rates would require separate action by the City Council.

The action marks the latest step in the city’s continuing effort to refine its water and sewer rate structure following widespread criticism of the methodology adopted last year. The issue has remained one of the council’s most closely watched policy debates as officials attempt to balance customer fairness with the financial requirements necessary to operate the city’s water and sewer enterprise fund and qualify for state infrastructure funding.

-30-

---

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

Could impact future developments on Sucette Harbor, Port Marigny properties

MANDEVILLE — A proposed zoning ordinance scheduled for introduction Thursday would create a new overlay district aimed at preventing future high-traffic development along the Monroe Street corridor, a move that could significantly affect the redevelopment potential of some of the city’s largest remaining undeveloped properties — including the former site of the controversial Sucette Harbor proposal.

Ordinance 26-27 would establish a Monroe Street Corridor Low-Traffic Overlay District, applying to certain planned development and marina-zoned properties located south of Monroe Street between East Causeway Approach and Lamarque Street. Rather than changing the underlying zoning of those properties, the ordinance would impose new limits on the intensity of future development based on projected traffic generation.

The proposal is sponsored by District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz.

According to the ordinance, the purpose of the overlay is to protect public health and safety by limiting future developments that would worsen traffic congestion, reduce levels of service at intersections, slow emergency response times during peak traffic periods and further strain parking availability throughout Old Mandeville and along the city’s historic lakefront.

Unlike the city’s existing overlay districts, which generally regulate environmental protections, architectural design or historic preservation while leaving permitted land uses largely unchanged, the proposed Low-Traffic Overlay would directly restrict development intensity by establishing a traffic-generation threshold.

Specifically, the ordinance would prohibit any residential, commercial, marina or mixed-use development expected to generate more than 0.50 vehicle trips per acre during the morning or afternoon peak hour, as calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual. The ordinance creates an exception for one detached single-family home on a minimum one-acre lot, reflecting what the proposal describes as a preference for very low-density residential development.

Existing lawful developments would remain legal as nonconforming uses.

Based on city’s traffic study

The proposal relies heavily on findings from the city’s Monroe Street Corridor Traffic Study completed in April 2025 as part of the Mandeville Thrives 2045 Comprehensive Master Plan.

According to the ordinance, the study found one Monroe Street intersection already operates at the worst possible Level of Service rating of “F,” while another currently operates at Level of Service “E.” The ordinance also cites projections that seven intersections within the corridor are expected to experience failing traffic conditions by 2044 without improvements.

The ordinance specifically identifies the former Mariner’s Village property and the former pre-stressed concrete site as the two largest remaining undeveloped tracts south of Monroe Street.

Revisiting the Sucette Harbor debate

Although the ordinance never mentions Sucette Harbor by name, its practical effect could reshape the future of the property where the controversial mixed-use development was proposed several years ago.

The former Sucette Harbor proposal envisioned a large waterfront development on the Mariner’s Village site that included residential, commercial and marina components. The project generated years of public opposition before ultimately being rejected by the City Council, leading to extensive federal litigation between the developers and the city. That litigation was later dismissed in federal court, and related legal disputes have since largely concluded.

The new overlay would not rezone the property. However, by limiting future developments based on projected traffic generation, it could significantly narrow the range of projects that could be approved on the site under its existing planned development zoning.

Vogeltanz said the proposal is intended to preserve the character of Old Mandeville while ensuring future development reflects the capacity of the surrounding transportation network. “This ordinance is about protecting what makes Mandeville special,” he said. “Monroe Street isn’t an interstate or four-lane highway, and our residential lakefront isn’t a blank canvas for high-traffic, high-density developments.”

He emphasized that the ordinance would not rezone property or eliminate development rights for affected landowners. Instead, Vogeltanz said it establishes a standard that future planned district and marina developments south of the Monroe Street corridor must remain compatible with the area’s traffic capacity, public safety, parking availability and residential character.

The ordinance also states that developers could not evade the overlay’s restrictions through subdivision or rezoning of covered property. In addition, it would prohibit the city from issuing permits or variances that conflict with the overlay’s requirements.

Vogeltanz said the proposal is intended to protect residents as well as those who work, attend school or visit the lakefront. He said limiting high-traffic development would help reduce future congestion, improve emergency response times, lessen the risk of traffic accidents and preserve parking in Old Mandeville and along the historic lakefront.

Comprehensive plan cited — and criticized

The proposed ordinance also directly addresses one of the redevelopment concepts included in the recently adopted Mandeville Thrives 2045 Comprehensive Master Plan.

The ordinance criticizes the illustrative Appendix E concept for the approximately 15-acre Mariner’s Village property, which depicts a mixed-use development including single-family homes, apartments, a hotel, restaurant, retail space and mixed-use commercial buildings.

According to the ordinance, that illustrative concept would generate an estimated 96.88 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour — approximately a 5 percent increase in peak-hour traffic on Monroe Street — and therefore represents a level of development the council finds incompatible with preserving Mandeville’s low-density character.

The proposal states that encouraging lower-density residential neighborhoods within the Monroe Street corridor represents the best balance between protecting property rights and addressing traffic, emergency access and public safety concerns.

If ultimately adopted, the ordinance would add a new Section 7.6.5 to the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance establishing the Monroe Street Corridor Low-Traffic Overlay District.

Proposed ordinances are introduced as a legal formality to comply with the state’s Open Meetings Law, and they are not subject to debate or voting at the time of their introduction. However, the measure could potentially be debated and acted upon during the July 23 meeting.

-30-

---

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

Zuckerman told board council needs time to review FY 2027 budget before committing to COLA

MANDEVILLE — A routine annual discussion over employee cost-of-living adjustments ended Wednesday without a recommendation after members of the Municipal Employees Civil Service Board and Mandeville City Council agreed more time was needed to review the city’s proposed FY 2027 budget.

Brian Burke, chairman of the Municipal Employees’ Civil Service Board and Municipal Police Employees’ Civil Service Board, opened the meeting by making the board’s customary motion to recommend a 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment, matching this year’s increase announced by the Social Security Administration. Mayor Clay Madden’s proposed FY 2027 budget, released to council members the previous evening, instead includes funding for a 1% COLA.

Although Burke argued a larger increase could be accommodated by adjusting spending elsewhere in the proposed budget, the discussion gradually shifted away from the specific percentage and toward the timing of the decision.

Under the city’s civil service rules, the joint meeting must be held no later than 60 days before the start of the new fiscal year. The hearing provides the Civil Service Board and City Council an opportunity to discuss employee compensation, but it does not require the board to approve a COLA at that meeting.

This year’s meeting came less than 24 hours after Madden released his proposed budget, well before the City Council’s formal budget workshops are scheduled to begin.

Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman argued that the timing, required by the 60-day rule, makes it difficult for council members to responsibly commit to a recurring salary increase before they’ve had time to review the budget.

Under the City Charter, the mayor proposes the budget and the City Council can modify and adopt it into law for the next fiscal year.

“We really don’t know what the impact that’s gonna be on the general fund,” Zuckerman said. “… I think it’s irresponsible this evening for us to commit to a COLA.” He instead suggested reconvening after the council had an opportunity to review the proposed budget in detail.

Zuckerman emphasized that his comments should not be viewed as opposition to employee compensation. He noted he had supported the comprehensive salary overhaul adopted following Madden’s 2021 compensation study and later supported an additional cost-of-living increase during the following budget cycle, despite concerns at the time that the city might be pushing salaries beyond market rates.

A follow-up salary survey completed earlier this year found Mandeville’s pay scales generally remain competitive with neighboring municipalities.

Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon echoed Zuckerman’s concerns, saying every budget decision affects other spending priorities and cautioning against identifying cuts before the council has conducted its annual budget review.

“I agree with Councilman Zuckerman… It’s easy for everybody to sit up here and say, ‘Oh, we need this, we need that.’ Everybody wants everything,” Discon said. “Everything is connected to everything.”

District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz likewise expressed support for paying employees as much as the city can responsibly afford but said recurring expenditures should be evaluated within the context of the city’s long-term financial outlook and five-year forecast.

During the discussion, Vogeltanz floated the idea of whether employees might prefer a one-time payment equivalent to a COLA rather than permanently increasing base salaries. The suggestion prompted discussion over whether such payments would be permissible under Louisiana law, with Burke and Civil Service Board member Jack McGuire expressing doubts that municipal bonus payments are constitutionally allowed.

Vogeltanz also pointed to what he described as one of the city’s strongest recruiting advantages: Mandeville pays the employee’s required contribution to the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System, a cost paid by the employees themselves through payroll deductions in other municipalities. Combined with participation in Social Security and the city’s health insurance benefits, he argued Mandeville offers one of the strongest municipal employee benefit packages available.

District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson focused much of her remarks on the city’s total employment costs rather than wages alone. She said every additional dollar in salary results in approximately $1.51 in additional employer costs for retirement contributions, payroll taxes and benefits, and argued future salary surveys should compare total compensation packages rather than simply hourly pay. She also reiterated her preference for performance-based merit increases over across-the-board COLAs because merit raises reward employee performance while COLAs permanently increase the salary base.

District III Councilwoman Jill Lane described city employees as Mandeville’s greatest asset and joined the broader consensus that the compensation discussion should continue after council members have had an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposed budget.

Former Finance Director Kathleen Sides, who continues to work in the Finance Department, argued that inflation affects employee purchasing power just as it increases the city’s other operating costs. She also reminded officials that the 2022 compensation overhaul reduced annual step increases with the expectation that periodic COLAs would help employees keep pace with inflation.

Sides also highlighted the city’s longstanding decision to levy only about half of the property tax millage authorized by voters. She argued that even collecting the full authorized millage would represent a relatively modest increase for the average homeowner while providing additional revenue that could support employee compensation.

Zuckerman similarly noted that Mandeville’s municipal property taxes represent only a small portion of a typical resident’s overall property tax bill. He also noted his opposition last year to a Discon-sponsored amendment to reduce Mandeville’s millage from 8.86 down to 8.21 in an effort to offset expected increased property assessments by the parish. The amendment was adopted with Zuckerman voting against the measure.

As the discussion concluded, Burke acknowledged the council’s concerns about acting before the budget process had begun. Rather than asking the board to vote on the 2.8 percent recommendation, members agreed to table the motion and schedule another joint meeting after the City Council’s budget hearings are underway, when council members will have had an opportunity to fully evaluate Madden’s proposed FY 2027 budget and determine what level of recurring employee compensation the city can sustainably support.

-30-

---

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

Mayor’s spending plan forecasts 43.4% General Fund reserve while continuing major capital investments without relying on reserves for day-to-day operations

Updated 7/1/2026@1:37PM: Adds links to official budget documents.

MANDEVILLE — Mandeville’s proposed Fiscal Year 2027 budget would mark a significant shift in the city’s financial planning, projecting a structurally balanced General Fund for the first time under the city’s newly adopted reserve policy while maintaining reserve levels well above the thresholds recently established by the City Council, according to the proposed 2027 budget documents released to the City Council last night.

The proposal projects recurring General Fund revenues exceeding recurring operating expenditures by approximately $199,000, while ending the fiscal year with a projected General Fund balance of about $10.26 million — equal to approximately 43.4 percent of annual operating expenditures. That exceeds both the new ordinance requiring a minimum reserve equal to 20 percent of annual operating expenditures and the companion resolution establishing a preferred target range of 30% to 40%.

Although the budget projects a nearly $2.93 million reduction in the General Fund after capital spending, city financial documents show that the decline stems from planned one-time investments in infrastructure and capital improvements rather than an operating deficit. The proposed five-year forecast continues to project recurring revenues sufficient to fund recurring governmental operations without relying on reserves.

The proposed FY 2027 budget adopts a noticeably more conservative approach to measuring structural balance than the city’s previous financial plan. Most notably, the five-year forecast reduces the amount of intergovernmental revenue treated as recurring from approximately $4.69 million in the FY 2026 forecast to just $100,000 in the FY 2027 forecast, while also lowering projected personnel growth and adding a reserve compliance test tied to the council’s new financial policies.

For several years, political opponents speaking during public comment and writing on social media have argued that the city’s budgets were not structurally balanced because recurring operating expenditures exceeded recurring revenues once one-time funding sources were excluded. The proposed FY 2027 budget appears to address those concerns, projecting recurring revenues sufficient to fund recurring operations while continuing to use reserves only for one-time capital investments.

Key takeaways

Structurally balanced operations

The proposed FY 2027 budget projects recurring General Fund revenues of $23.82 million against recurring operating expenditures of $23.62 million, resulting in an operating surplus of approximately $199,000 before capital spending. In municipal finance, that is generally considered a structurally balanced budget because recurring governmental operations are funded with recurring revenue rather than one-time funding or reserve drawdowns.

Reserve policy begins with a substantial cushion

The proposal is the first budget prepared following adoption of Ordinance 26-16 and Resolution 26-25 establishing new reserve standards.

Under the ordinance, future budgets may not be adopted with an unassigned General Fund balance below 20 percent of annual operating expenditures. The companion resolution establishes a policy goal of maintaining reserves between 30% and 40% whenever practical.

The proposed FY 2027 budget projects reserves at approximately 43.4 percent, placing the city above the council’s preferred target range while more than doubling the ordinance’s minimum requirement. The five-year forecast projects reserves remaining above the 20 percent minimum throughout the planning period.

More conservative forecasting assumptions

Compared with the FY 2026 financial plan, the FY 2027 forecast adopts noticeably more conservative assumptions.

The five-year forecast sharply reduces the amount of intergovernmental revenue treated as recurring, lowers projected long-term personnel cost growth and incorporates a formal reserve compliance analysis tied to the city’s newly adopted reserve policy.

Slower growth in personnel costs

The city’s five-year planning assumptions reduce projected annual personnel cost growth from 4.5 percent in last year’s forecast to 2.5 percent beginning with FY 2027, reflecting a more restrained outlook for one of the city’s largest operating expenses.

Capital investment continues

The city also proposes an approximately $27 million capital program spanning parks, drainage, shoreline protection, streets, utilities and public safety facilities.

The five-year forecast projects a net General Fund impact of approximately $3.13 million for capital spending after anticipated grant funding, resulting in a projected $2.93 million reduction in the General Fund balance. Budget documents indicate the reserve drawdown reflects a deliberate investment in one-time capital improvements rather than using reserves to finance recurring operating costs.

The proposed budget will now move to the City Council for public review and workshop sessions before the beginning of the 2027 fiscal year adoption process.

FY 2027 Proposed Budget Exhibit A – Capital

FY 2027 Proposed Budget Exhibit B – Operating

FY 2027 Proposed Budget Exhibit C – Position-Salary

FY 2027 Proposed Budget Exhibit D – Mayor Pay

FY 2027 Proposed Budget Exhibit E – City Council Pay

FY 2027 Proposed Budget Exhibit F – Fund Summaries

FY 2027 Proposed Budget General Fund Report

-30-

---

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

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.

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-

Unanimous votes add new restrictions on bicycles, electric bikes and other motorized devices in city recreational areas

Strong-Thompson, Lane lead effort to address bicycle, e-bike concerns

MANDEVILLE — The City Council unanimously approved two ordinances Thursday aimed at restricting bicycles, electric bicycles and other motorized vehicles in portions of the city’s recreational facilities, with council members describing the measures as a first step toward addressing broader concerns about the growing use of high-speed e-bikes throughout the city.

The council voted 5-0 to adopt Ordinance 26-22, which prohibits electric bicycles and other motorized vehicles in Neighborwoods Park, including scooters, mopeds, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and golf carts. Ordinance 26-22 does not prohibit traditional bicycles in Neighborwoods. The council also approved Ordinance 26-23, which adds all bicycles — both electric and traditional — to the existing list of prohibited activities, such as skating and rollerblading, within the Mandeville Trailhead facility. Both measures were approved without amendment following a joint discussion.

The ordinances were among several high-profile measures that advanced to final adoption after being introduced last month. The changes generally prohibit bicycles, electric bicycles and other motorized recreational vehicles in areas intended primarily for pedestrians and traditional bicycle use, while also clarifying that mobility devices used by individuals with disabilities remain permitted.

District III Councilwoman Jill Lane, sponsor of Ordinance 26-23, said the issue was originally brought to her attention by the Mande Milkshakers, a local dance team that regularly rehearses beneath the Mandeville Trailhead pavilion.

Lane said members of the group complained that teens riding bicycles through the area were creating dangerous conditions and disrupting practices. She said the city later encountered enforcement difficulties when officials attempted to cite one rider, only to have a parent argue that no posted signs prohibited the activity.

“Everybody’s up in arms about this, including myself,” Lane said. “It’s very frightening. I think everyone’s main concern is that we’re gonna have some unnecessary tragedy with all of this.”

The Trailhead ordinance applies only to the city-owned Trailhead facility, including the pavilion, splash pad, amphitheater and surrounding event areas. It does not apply to the St. Tammany Trace, the parish-operated hike-and-bike trail that passes through the property and remains governed by its own separate rules and regulations. The ordinance also does not prohibit residents from riding to the Trailhead on the Trace and parking their bicycles in designated bicycle racks before entering the facility.

District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson, who sponsored Ordinance 26-22, described the Neighborwoods measure as a “stopgap” response while broader discussions continue regarding state regulation of electric bicycles.

Strong-Thompson noted that Louisiana currently recognizes three classes of electric bicycles but does not impose some restrictions found in other states, such as minimum age requirements or other regulations for higher-speed models.

Under Louisiana law, Class 1 e-bikes provide pedal assistance only and stop assisting at 20 mph. Class 2 e-bikes can be propelled by a throttle without pedaling but are also limited to 20 mph. Class 3 e-bikes provide pedal assistance up to 28 mph and are generally intended for higher-speed commuting and recreational riding.

Adding further confusion to the issue is the growing popularity of electric-powered two-wheel vehicles that many residents refer to as “e-bikes” but which do not fit within Louisiana’s three-class e-bike system. Often marketed under names such as electric mini-motorcycles or e-motos, some models lack functional pedals, exceed the 750-watt power limit that defines an e-bike, and are capable of speeds exceeding 40 mph. Depending on their specifications, such vehicles may be classified differently under state law than traditional electric bicycles.

Some of the juveniles who have drawn complaints in Mandeville have been observed riding these higher-powered electric mini-motorcycles that are not covered under the traditional Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 e-bikes, complicating efforts to regulate and enforce their use.

Strong-Thompson said the ordinance is intended to preserve Neighborwoods Park as a pedestrian-oriented nature area and to protect amenities such as the park’s elevated boardwalk. In addition to e-bikes, the ordinance addresses electric scooters, mopeds, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and golf carts.

During discussion, Lane noted that her Trailhead ordinance leaves in place prohibited behavior such as climbing on railings and restricts the use of rollerblades, roller skates and skateboards within the Trailhead facility. She emphasized that the Trailhead is not intended to function as a skate park.

Although both ordinances passed unanimously, council members indicated the measures are likely only the beginning of a larger policy conversation.

Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman said he has received numerous complaints from residents regarding both traditional bicycles and e-bikes and expressed concern about high-speed electric bicycles operating on city streets and other public areas:

“They go flying, these e-bikes go flying 30, 40 miles an hour down the Trace. They’re also on the city streets,” he said.

Zuckerman questioned why city regulations currently require golf carts to carry registration, insurance and inspections while some electric bicycles capable of speeds exceeding 30 mph are not subject to similar requirements.

“If we’re gonna require licensed drivers, registration, and insurance on a golf cart that goes 17 miles an hour, I don’t know why we wouldn’t require the same for e-bikes that do 30 miles an hour, like motorcycles,” Zuckerman said.

Notably, Louisiana’s three recognized classes of electric bicycles are limited to vehicles providing motor assistance up to 28 mph, meaning some of the faster electric-powered vehicles cited by residents and council members likely fall outside the state’s e-bike framework.

What Zuckerman described also appears to be electric mini-motorcycles rather than traditional e-bikes, a distinction that may become increasingly important as the city explores additional regulations.

Resident Paul Branch also addressed the council during public comment, citing concerns about e-bike activity near Neighborhoods Park and describing incidents involving riders cutting through private property and allegedly harassing residents. Branch urged the city to eventually strengthen enforcement provisions and penalties.

Strong-Thompson said additional proposals may be considered in the future but urged the council to move forward with the current ordinances as an initial step.

“This is the start,” she said. “Let’s get this underway, and we’ll work on some of the other issues.”

The council subsequently adopted Ordinance 26-22 and Ordinance 26-23 by separate 5-0 roll-call votes.

-30-

---

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

Attorney General’s investigation led to felony charge against sheriff and arrest of second suspect

MADISONVILLE — A physical altercation occurred between St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Randy Smith and local podcaster/blogger Bobby Couvillion on May 29, 2026, at Keith Young’s Steakhouse in Madisonville, according to the state Attorney General’s Office and the Louisiana Bureau of Investigation.

According to the LBI’s affidavit, multiple 911 callers reported that one man had placed another in a chokehold. Investigators say surveillance video, witness statements and medical records support the allegation that Smith approached Couvillion from behind without warning, placed him in a chokehold, pulled him from a bar stool, threw him to the floor and struck him while he was on the ground.

---

• Read the Attorney General’s Official report on Randy Smith with affidavit and arrest warrant…
• Read the Attorney General’s Official report on Gregory Saurage with affidavit and arrest warrant…
• OPINION | Public office requires restraint, especially from a sheriff

---

Investigators concluded the attack appeared “unprovoked” and that Couvillion had little or no opportunity to defend himself before the physical confrontation began.

Why is this a major story?

Randy Smith is not merely a private citizen. He is the elected sheriff of Louisiana’s fourth-largest parish and the highest-ranking law enforcement official in St. Tammany Parish.

Because Smith was the sheriff, the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office turned the investigation over to Attorney General Liz Murrill’s Louisiana Bureau of Investigation to avoid any conflict of interest.

What injuries were reported?

According to investigators:

• Couvillion suffered a Level 2 concussion.
• Two front teeth were displaced.
• He suffered multiple cuts, bruises and abrasions.
• Investigators documented injuries through photographs and medical records.
  

The arrest affidavit argues those injuries meet Louisiana’s definition of “serious bodily injury,” which is required for the second-degree battery charge.

What are the charges against Sheriff Smith?

The Attorney General’s office charged Smith with:

• Second-degree battery (felony)
• Disturbing the peace by engaging in a fistic encounter (misdemeanor)
• Disturbing the peace while appearing in an intoxicated condition (misdemeanor)
  

The warrant lists a $10,000 bond and a condition prohibiting contact with the alleged victim.

Why was a second man arrested?

Investigators later arrested Gregory Jules Saurage.

LBI alleges surveillance video shows Saurage walking past Couvillion, identifying or indicating Couvillion’s location to Smith, and making an aggressive fist gesture shortly before the attack occurred. Investigators interpreted that gesture as encouraging or signaling Smith to confront Couvillion.

Saurage, who according to media reports is a bail bondsman and was with Smith at the time of the altercation, is charged with:

• Principal to second-degree battery (felony)
  

Under Louisiana law, a “principal” is someone who aids, encourages, assists or participates in the commission of a crime, even if that person does not personally commit the physical act.

Saurage reportedly told investigators that another man had warned Smith to “watch your back” because Couvillion was in the restaurant. He acknowledged motioning toward Couvillion but denied signaling Smith to attack him.

What role did alcohol allegedly play?

The arrest affidavit repeatedly references alcohol.

Investigators noted:

• Witnesses reported smelling alcohol on Smith’s breath.
• A restaurant receipt allegedly showed a tab of $346.21.
• The tab reportedly included multiple glasses of wine and numerous mixed drinks purchased over several hours.
  

The affidavit cites those facts as support for the disturbing-the-peace/intoxication charge. Smith has not publicly admitted being intoxicated.

What does Sheriff Smith say?

Smith’s public statement does not directly address the factual allegations in detail.

Instead, he:

• Issued a public apology to citizens, restaurant patrons and his family.
• Said public service brings heightened scrutiny.
• Referenced years of attacks and criticism directed at him.
• Claimed false statements had been made about his wife.
• Said he would address the matter through the legal process.
• Stated he remains committed to serving as sheriff.
  

Notably, Smith’s statement does not expressly deny that a physical altercation occurred.

What does Bobby Couvillion say?

Couvillion has portrayed himself as the victim of an unprovoked assault.

He argues:

• Smith’s apology was not sincere.
• The attack stemmed from Smith’s anger over criticism.
• Nobody should be physically attacked because of speech or criticism of public officials.
• He has confidence in the judicial process and intends to pursue the case through court.
  

The larger context

The political backdrop is difficult to ignore.

Couvillion has spent years criticizing local government and particularly Sheriff Smith through podcasts, social media and online commentary. Smith’s statement strongly suggests he believes some of that criticism crossed personal lines and affected his family.

The Attorney General’s investigation, however, appears focused on a much narrower question: whether Smith physically attacked Couvillion and whether Saurage encouraged or facilitated that attack.

At this stage, investigators say the answer is yes. The arrest warrants rely heavily on surveillance video, eyewitness accounts, photographs and medical records. Smith and Saurage, however, remain accused — not convicted — and will have the opportunity to challenge that evidence in court.

Early voting for the June 27 Second Party Primary and Municipal General Election begins Friday, June 12, with St. Tammany Parish voters set to decide several races and propositions, including a renewal of a sheriff’s office property tax. The ballot includes a proposal to renew a 4.31-mill tax that the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office says helps fund approximately 140 deputy positions. Election Day is June 27.

---

• Read the Attorney General’s Official report on Randy Smith with affidavit and arrest warrant…
• Read the Attorney General’s Official report on Gregory Saurage with affidavit and arrest warrant…
• OPINION | Public office requires restraint, especially from a sheriff

---

-30-

---

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

Agenda includes measures affecting city finances, utility bills, residential pools, development reviews and recreational facilities

MANDEVILLE — The City Council will consider six ordinances for final adoption Thursday, including measures that would require the city to maintain minimum General Fund reserves equal to at least 20 percent of annual operating expenditures and temporarily cap residential sewer charges for one year. The agenda also includes proposals affecting residential swimming pools, development traffic studies and the use of electric bicycles in city recreational areas.

Read the June 11 City Council meeting agenda here…

Traffic Impact Analysis Policy

Ordinance 26-13 — Traffic impact analyses for development projects

Summary: This ordinance would significantly revise CLURO Article 8.4 governing traffic impact analyses (TIAs) and clarify that when a TIA is required, the applicant must pay for it, but the city—not the developer—would select and procure the engineer who prepares it.

Key changes:

• Establishes and clarifies thresholds that trigger a TIA.
• Requires applicants to provide trip-generation data.
• Requires the city to hire the TIA consultant, with the applicant paying the cost.
• Requires TIA reports to be publicly available.
• Allows applicants to submit an additional TIA, but city-sponsored studies would receive greater weight during review.
  

Practical effect: Developers would lose direct control over selecting the traffic engineer performing a required study, while the public would gain greater access to traffic analysis information.

Minimum Unassigned Fund Balance Policy

Ordinance 26-16 — Unassigned fund balance policy

Summary: Establishes a formal city policy requiring Mandeville to maintain unassigned General Fund reserves equal to at least 20 percent of annual operating expenditures.

Key changes:

• Creates new Section 14-12.
• Defines “unassigned fund balance.”
• Prohibits adoption of a budget that would reduce unassigned reserves below 20 percent of operating expenditures.
• Excludes capital projects, transfers and certain carry-forwards from the calculation.
  

Practical effect: Places a floor under city reserves and makes it harder for future councils to budget reserves below the 20 percent threshold.

Water Rates and Swimming Pool Changes

Ordinance 26-20 — Temporary sewer bill cap

Summary: Would place a temporary one-year cap on residential sewer charges at $83.25 per month, regardless of water consumption above the cap threshold.

Key changes:

• Adds a new subsection to Section 17-15.
• Caps residential sewer bills from June 1, 2026, through May 31, 2027.
• Intended as a temporary measure while the city explores a winter-quarter averaging billing system.
  

Practical effect: High-volume residential water users would see their sewer bills capped, while lower-volume users would see no change.

Ordinance 26-21 — Residential swimming pool regulations

Summary: Creates a comprehensive new section of city code 9.9 regulating residential swimming pools, including fencing requirements, maintenance standards, inspections and enforcement provisions.

Key changes:

• Requires pools capable of holding 18 inches or more of water to be enclosed by a fence or wall meeting specific standards.
• Requires gates to be self-closing and self-latching.
• Requires pool maintenance standards aimed at preventing mosquito breeding and nuisance conditions.
• Authorizes inspections by police and code enforcement officers upon reasonable suspicion and notice.
• Gives existing pool owners 120 days to comply.
• Prohibits variances from the new standards.
  

Practical effect: Creates one of the more detailed residential pool regulations in city code and would affect virtually every residential pool owner in Mandeville.

Bicycle Behavior Regulations

Ordinance 26-22 — Neighborwoods Park e-bike and motorized vehicle restrictions

Summary: Revises Neighborwoods Park rules to expressly prohibit e-bikes, e-scooters and other motorized recreational vehicles on park trails while continuing to allow traditional bicycles.

Key changes:

• Allows hikers, pets, non-motorized bicycles and accessibility devices.
• Requires bicycles to yield to pedestrians.
• Prohibits e-bikes of all classes, e-scooters, ATVs, golf carts, motorcycles and similar motorized vehicles.
• Creates corresponding signage requirements.
• Exempts police, emergency and city maintenance vehicles.
  

Practical effect: Traditional bicycles remain allowed, but electric bicycles and other motorized recreational devices would be banned from Neighborwoods trails.

Ordinance 26-23 — Trailhead bicycle and e-bike ban

Summary: Amends Trailhead rules to prohibit bicycles and electric bicycles within the Trailhead facility itself.

Key changes:

• Adds bicycles and electric bicycles to the list of prohibited activities.
• Requires updated Trailhead signage stating “No Bicycles or Electric Bicycles.”
• Leaves existing prohibitions on skateboards, roller skates and roller blades in place.
  

Practical effect: Riding bicycles and e-bikes would no longer be permitted in the Trailhead event area, including the splash pad, pavilion area, stage and arena, and marketplace area. Rollerskating, rollerblading and skateboarding are already prohibited in these areas. This ordinance does not apply to the parish-operated Tammany Trace itself; it applies to the city-owned Trailhead facilities adjacent to the Tammany Trace.

-30-

Recommendation would postpone decision on nearly $277,000 in fee requests

NEW ORLEANS — A federal magistrate judge has recommended postponing decisions on attorney-fee requests filed by the City of Mandeville and Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman until the Sucette Harbor appeal is resolved.

In a report issued Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld recommended that the fee motions be denied without prejudice and allowed to be refiled within 14 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issues its final ruling in the case.

Download magistrate’s report here…

The City of Mandeville is seeking $231,844.38 in attorney fees, while Zuckerman is seeking $42,926.18 in fees and $2,321.87 in costs following the dismissal of the federal lawsuit challenging the proposed Sucette Harbor development.

Van Meerveld said judicial economy favors delaying consideration of the requests while the appeal is pending. She noted that if the Fifth Circuit reverses the dismissal, any analysis of whether the plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and whether fees should be awarded could prove unnecessary.

The recommendation does not address whether the city or Zuckerman are entitled to attorney fees. Instead, it postpones consideration of the issue until after the appellate court resolves the case.

The recommendation will now be reviewed by U.S. District Judge Brandon S. Long, who will decide whether to adopt, modify or reject it.

-30-

---

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

Follows months of complaints involving ‘wheelie’ teenagers riding bikes and e-bikes through crowded public event spaces

Adds bikes, e-bikes to existing list of prohibited activities

MANDEVILLE — Teenagers riding wheelies through the Mandeville Trailhead might soon be a thing of the past.

The City Council will consider an ordinance that would prohibit operating bicycles and electric bicycles within the Mandeville Trailhead facility area, months after complaints about unsafe riding behavior involving teenagers on bikes and e-bikes in Old Mandeville.

Proposed Ordinance 26-23 would amend Section 13-15 of the city code governing rules and hours of public use at the Mandeville Trailhead. The ordinance would add a new prohibition making it unlawful to “use bicycles and electric bicycles” on Trailhead property.

Current city code already prohibits sitting or climbing on railings, roller blades or roller skates, skateboards and violations of other laws or ordinances.

The proposal would also require updated signage at the Trailhead stating “No Bicycles or Electric Bicycles.”

According to the ordinance’s “whereas” clauses, the city has received reports of unsafe conditions involving bicycles and e-bikes in areas used by pedestrians, patrons, vendors and the public. The ordinance states the change is intended to promote public safety, preserve public property and support shared use of the facility.

The affected area is the Trailhead facility itself — including the pavilion area, splash pad-style mini water park, stage and music venue, and areas used for Trailhead market events.

The ordinance would not apply to the actual Tammany Trace, the parish-wide biking, walking and jogging trail that passes through the Trailhead property. The Trace operates under its own separate rules and speed regulations.

The proposal comes several months after repeated complaints and observations involving groups of teenagers riding bicycles and electric bicycles through the Trailhead and surrounding Old Mandeville area.

In a January article by Mandeville Daily, residents and event organizers described groups of teenagers riding e-bikes and bicycles through crowded public spaces near the Trailhead while performing wheelies and weaving through traffic.

That report documented incidents involving riders traveling through vendor areas during Trailhead marketplace events and riding beneath the covered pavilion and across grassy areas near the stage. An event organizer interviewed at the time said teenagers repeatedly rode electric bicycles between vendor booths and used electrical outlets in the vendor area to recharge e-bikes during a holiday market event.

Mandeville Chief of Police Todd Schliem previously issued a statement to Mandeville Daily stating in part, “We have received several complaints regarding this issue and are taking it very seriously. Hopefully, we can get parents to talk to their kids about being more responsible. In the meantime, I would encourage anyone witnessing this type of behavior to immediately call the Mandeville Police Department.”

As written, the ordinance broadly prohibits the “use” of bicycles and electric bicycles and does not distinguish between riding and walking a bicycle or between different classes of e-bikes.

If adopted, the ordinance would authorize the city and police department to install and maintain updated signage reflecting the new prohibition.

The proposed ordinance is listed on the council’s May 28 agenda for introduction only. No debate or vote is scheduled at that meeting, with public discussion and final consideration possible as early as the council’s June 11 regular meeting.

-30-

---

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

Zuckerman-backed ordinance would require Mandeville to maintain unrestricted General Fund reserves equal to at least 20% of annual operating expenditures

Mandeville projected to end fiscal year with reserves at roughly 67% of operating expenses

MANDEVILLE — The City Council is set to consider an ordinance that would formally require the city to maintain minimum unrestricted reserves in its General Fund, codifying a fiscal policy championed in recent months by Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman.

Proposed Ordinance 26-16 — slated to be introduced at the May 14 meeting — would establish a new “Unassigned Fund Balance Policy” in the city code requiring Mandeville to maintain unassigned General Fund reserves equal to at least 20% of annual operating expenditures.

Using the city’s 2025 figures, that would equal roughly $4.4 million. However, the city’s projected ending fund balance is about $14.8 million, or roughly 67% of annual operating expenses. 

Under the proposal, the city could not adopt a budget that would reduce unrestricted General Fund reserves below the 20% threshold.

The ordinance defines “unassigned fund balance” using standards established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, commonly known as GASB. The policy excludes restricted funds, capital project money, encumbrances and other designated balances from the calculation, focusing only on reserves that are fully available for general governmental operations.

The measure also excludes several nonrecurring expenditures from the formula used to calculate the 20% requirement, including capital outlay, transfers to project funds, prior-year encumbrances and carry-forward appropriations.

The ordinance states that the policy is intended to preserve “financial stability and long-term fiscal health” while ensuring the city maintains sufficient liquidity to respond to emergencies, economic downturns and revenue fluctuations.

The proposal cites guidance from the Government Finance Officers Association recommending that governments maintain unrestricted General Fund reserves equal to no less than two months of operating expenditures.

The ordinance follows months of discussion within the council’s Income Strategies Committee concerning Mandeville’s long-term budget structure, employee costs and reserve practices.

During those meetings, Zuckerman repeatedly argued that the city should formally establish reserve targets and guardrails as part of broader fiscal planning discussions.

Debates over reserves became increasingly prominent during recent budget discussions as officials examined the distinction between the city’s total cash position and the amount of money that is legally unrestricted and available for routine governmental operations.

Supporters of the ordinance have argued the policy would create a long-term safeguard against depletion of operating reserves and provide clearer financial benchmarks for future councils.

The ordinance does not authorize new spending, reduce spending or raise taxes. Instead, it would establish a binding budgetary policy governing the minimum level of unrestricted reserves the city must maintain.

The proposed ordinance is listed on the council’s May 14 agenda for introduction only. No debate or vote is scheduled at that meeting, with public discussion and final consideration possible as early as the council’s May 28 regular meeting.

-30-

Previously scheduled salary study presentation remains as the only substantive public item before executive session

MANDEVILLE — With no new ordinances, unfinished business or new business scheduled, the Mandeville City Council’s April 23 agenda has been largely cleared of legislative matters — leaving a previously scheduled presentation and a closed-door Sucette Harbor discussion as the meeting’s primary focus.

The agenda contains no items under introduction of ordinances, unfinished business or new business, a departure from typical council meetings that often include multiple action items. 

The only substantive item remaining on the public agenda — a salary study presentation by consultant Codey Saucier — had been scheduled in advance and is unrelated to the ongoing litigation.

Council members are then scheduled to enter executive session under Louisiana law to discuss Woodward Harbor, LLC v. City of Mandeville, a federal case tied to the long-running Sucette Harbor dispute. 

Focus shifts behind closed doors

The pared-down agenda signals a shift from public-facing policymaking to legal strategy, as the city continues navigating the aftermath of the now-dismissed Sucette Harbor lawsuits and related proceedings.

In recent weeks, the legal battle has expanded beyond the original claims. As previously reported by Mandeville Daily, the LSU Health Foundation — which had sued the city and Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman — has since filed suit against its former attorneys, alleging mishandling of their case.

That lawsuit followed a federal judge’s dismissal with prejudice of the original Sucette Harbor claims, as well as ongoing proceedings tied to potential sanctions and recovery of attorneys’ fees.

The City of Mandeville has sought to recover more than $230,000 in legal costs associated with defending the lawsuits.

Limited public discussion expected

Under Louisiana’s open meetings law, public bodies may enter executive session to discuss pending litigation. However, any formal action must still be taken in open session.

Because the discussion will occur behind closed doors, the public is unlikely to hear details of the council’s legal strategy or the options under consideration.

The streamlined agenda also means there will be little opportunity for broader policy debate during the meeting.

What remains on the agenda

Outside the executive session, the meeting includes:

• Approval of minutes from the April 8 budget meeting and April 9 council meeting
• A salary study presentation
• A routine finance report
  

With no additional business scheduled, the meeting’s primary focus is expected to be the closed-door legal discussion.

Bigger picture

The Sucette Harbor litigation has evolved from a local development dispute into a broader legal saga involving dismissed claims, potential sanctions and a separate lawsuit between the original plaintiff and its former attorneys.

Thursday’s executive session marks the latest step as city officials weigh their next move — largely out of public view.

-30-

---

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

Would have altered Sucette Harbor application

MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville City Council unanimously adopted Ordinance 26-03 in a 5-0 vote on April 9, clarifying how density and site development standards are calculated within the city’s Planned District zoning.

Authored by Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman and co-sponsored by District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz, the ordinance amends the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance (CLURO) to ensure that density calculations for mixed-use developments are based only on the portion of a site designated for each specific use.

Read the meeting transcript here.

Clarifying longstanding interpretations

During the meeting, Zuckerman described the ordinance as a clarification of what he believes the CLURO already required but had been subject to differing interpretations.

“This ordinance… clarifies and reinforces what I strongly believe the CLURO already requires,” Zuckerman said, explaining that allowable residential units and building areas must be calculated using only the land allocated to each use within a mixed-use development. 

He emphasized that the measure is intended to prevent scenarios in which developers use the total acreage of a property — much of which may be dedicated to other uses — to increase residential density beyond what would otherwise be permitted. 

Background

Ordinance 26-03 was previously reported alongside Ordinance 26-02 as part of a broader set of proposed CLURO amendments affecting rezoning, conditional uses and planned district reviews. While Ordinance 26-02 addressed separate procedural aspects, Ordinance 26-03 focuses specifically on density and site development calculations within mixed-use Planned Districts.

Ordinance 26-03 dramatically reshapes how certain development applications are evaluated, a shift that — had it been in place in 2023 — would likely have altered the timing, structure and public visibility of the Sucette Harbor application path.

Ordinance 26-02, adopted 5-0 by the City Council on March 26, requires that these applications start with a proposed ordinance when being reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. An ordinance wasn’t added to the Sucette Harbor application until after it was approved by Planning & Zoning, which drew criticism at the time by certain council members.

Excluding water areas from density calculations

A key provision of Ordinance 26-03 specifies that land extending into or beneath Lake Pontchartrain or other water bodies cannot be included in density or site development calculations.

Zuckerman noted that in at least one previous development proposal, acreage under the lake had been used to determine the allowable number of residential units, a practice the ordinance now explicitly prohibits. 

Amendments narrow the ordinance’s scope

Before final adoption, the council approved two amendments. The first incorporated recommended modifications from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The second, proposed by Zuckerman, removed references to the PM-1 and PM-2 marina zoning districts, thereby limiting the ordinance’s application solely to Planned District (PD) zoning. 

District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson sought clarification on whether narrowing the scope could be perceived as targeting a specific property. City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert responded that the ordinance applies to an entire zoning district rather than a single parcel, alleviating such concerns. 

Balancing flexibility with regulatory clarity

Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon raised concerns that the ordinance might reduce the flexibility traditionally associated with Planned District zoning, which is designed to encourage creative and efficient land use. Zuckerman and Sconzert clarified that the ordinance does not limit the range of allowable uses but instead standardizes how density is calculated for each designated portion of a site. 

District III Councilwoman Jill Lane added that the change ensures each component of a mixed-use development — such as residential, retail or marina uses — is evaluated independently for compliance with applicable site development regulations. 

Council support and final passage

The ordinance received unanimous support from the council. Vogeltanz expressed strong backing for the measure, remarking that “the only problem with this bill is it wasn’t passed two years ago,” a possible reference to the rejected Sucette Harbor application of 2023. 

Following the vote, Zuckerman reiterated in a public statement that the ordinance aims to prevent overdevelopment and eliminate “loose interpretation” of the CLURO. He emphasized that future density calculations in Planned Districts will now be tied strictly to the land area designated for each use.

Key provisions of Ordinance 26-03

• Use-specific density calculations: Residential and commercial density must be calculated based only on the acreage designated for each use.
• Exclusion of water areas: Land extending into or beneath water bodies, including Lake Pontchartrain, cannot be counted toward density calculations.
• Limited scope: Amendments removed references to PM-1 and PM-2 marina districts, confining the ordinance to Planned District zoning.
• Planning and Zoning input: Recommended modifications from the Planning and Zoning Commission were incorporated prior to final adoption.
  

-30-

---

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

Differing recollections emerge over Mandeville utility rate changes

Council revisits origins of Mandeville water, sewer rate overhaul

MANDEVILLE — A consultant’s testimony at the April 9 City Council meeting directly contradicted a council member’s assertion that officials were unaware of longstanding wastewater billing problems prior to adopting the city’s new utility rates last year.

Grady Reed of HDR Engineering, a subcontractor for Manchac Consulting Group, told the council that concerns about the city’s wastewater billing practices had been clearly communicated during a September 2024 presentation. His remarks came after Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon stated during the meeting that the council had not been informed that the city was not billing wastewater in accordance with its ordinance predating the approval of the revised rate structure in January 2025.

Discon said the wastewater rate system that Reed proposed and the council adopted wasn’t fair to high-volume users, like the ones who appeared in initial news reports which revealed extreme spikes in their water bills during the initial 6-week transition period last July.

In the days leading up to the April 9 meeting, a citywide anonymous bulk mailer was circulated among Mandeville residents, sharply criticizing the city’s water and sewer rate changes and urging public attention ahead of the scheduled presentation.

“Half the residents are complaining because you’ve shifted everything. You’ve taken and you’re not really creating a whole bunch of wastewater revenue, but you shifted it to the people that are using more water … We [on the City Council] weren’t privy to that before and it is very complicated,” Discon told Reed.

But Reed said the council was fully briefed in 2024: “The primary driver for changing the wastewater billing structure was that the city was not following its own ordinance. It was not billing wastewater in a way that it was supposed to, according to how the city had decided to do that [in a 2016 ordinance].”

Discon insisted the council didn’t know about the wastewater billing problem before they adopted the new rates.

“Excuse me, we didn’t know about that as council members until after we approved the ordinance. If I’m not mistaken, that wasn’t made known to us that we were not collecting the ordinances [rates] that we had in place,” Discon told Reed.

Reed reiterated that the council was fully briefed at the September 2024 meeting: “It was discussed as part of the 2024 presentation, because that was the driver for changing the rates, the rate structure for wastewater.”

Reviewing September 2024 statements

A review of council discussions held on Sept. 26, 2024, and Jan. 9, 2025, indicates that the rationale behind Mandeville’s water and wastewater rate overhaul has remained largely unchanged since 2024. However, the exchange during the April 9 meeting revealed a differing recollection by Discon, raising questions about how the policy was understood when it was adopted and contributing to ongoing debate about its impact on residents.

---

Download the transcripts here:

– Sept. 26, 2024 – Water Rates Presentation

– Jan. 9, 2025 – Water Rates Adoption and Discussion

– April 9, 2026 – Water Rates Update Presentation

---

Discon was present at the Sept. 26, 2024, meeting and presided as the council chairman, but asked no questions of Reed at that meeting.

At that 2024 meeting, Reed told Discon and the council that the proposed rate structure was designed to redistribute costs based on system demand, stating, “We’re just trying to shift a larger cost burden to those customers that are placing a larger burden on the utility system.”

Reed’s remarks during that same presentation also directly contradict Discon’s April 9 assertion that the council had not been informed the previous ordinance was not being followed. Addressing the city’s wastewater billing practices in 2024, Reed stated, “That in practice does not appear to be occurring, at least on a consistent basis amongst your customers.”

Consistency in consultant’s message

Reed’s April 2026 presentation largely reaffirmed the findings he previously shared with the council, according to video and transcripts from his previous appearances before the council.

He reiterated that the restructuring of wastewater rates was intended to correct billing practices that likely deviated from the city’s ordinance, rather than to generate significant new revenue. The updated rate model also sought to ensure that the utility enterprise fund remained financially sustainable and compliant with state requirements tied to federally supported infrastructure funding.

The consultant explained that while water revenues were designed to increase to meet operational needs, the wastewater component of the new structure was intended to be largely revenue neutral, redistributing costs more equitably among customers rather than substantially increasing total collections.

The new system, approved by the City Council in January 2025, increased costs for some high-volume users, prompting public concern and ongoing scrutiny of the policy’s development and implementation.

State-commissioned 2023 study provided foundation

Reed also addressed the 2023 water and sewer rate study commissioned through the State of Louisiana’s Water Sector Program. He explained that the analysis was primarily intended to evaluate the city’s financial sustainability and assumed that the existing rate ordinance was being implemented as written.

Based on those assumptions, the study recommended gradual increases in water-rate revenues of roughly 7% annually while indicating that no immediate changes to sewer rates were necessary. Reed said the study’s limited scope did not authorize a comprehensive restructuring of the rate system.

A subsequent city-commissioned analysis in 2024 expanded the review and identified inconsistencies in how wastewater charges were being applied. That broader evaluation led to the adoption of a tiered water rate structure and revised sewer billing methodology aimed at ensuring compliance and distributing costs more equitably among customers.

Wastewater options explored

During the April 9 discussion, council members explored potential modifications to the city’s sewer billing methodology, focusing on options such as implementing usage caps or adopting a winter water averaging model. Zuckerman and Vogeltanz both asked Reed to evaluate the feasibility and policy implications of these approaches.

Reed indicated that while a cap on sewer charges could provide relief to high-volume users, it would function as an intermediate solution rather than a comprehensive fix. He explained that limiting charges for large consumers would likely require some degree of rate increases for lower-volume users to maintain overall revenue stability within the utility enterprise fund. Such a shift, he noted, would redistribute costs rather than eliminate them.

The consultant also addressed the concept of winter water averaging, a billing method commonly used by utilities to estimate wastewater volumes based on water consumption during months when outdoor irrigation is minimal. Reed described the approach as an industry standard that can more accurately reflect actual sewer usage. However, when asked whether the city’s current billing software could automatically calculate winter averages for each household, Reed indicated that it could not.

According to Reed, the lack of automated capability in the city’s billing system likely contributed to the inconsistent application of the methodology in prior administrations, as manual calculations would have placed a significant administrative burden on city staff. This operational limitation, he suggested, was one of the reasons the city historically relied on alternative billing practices, including the one adopted in January 2025 and rolled out last July.

Council members weigh in

Council members used the April 9 meeting to seek clarification on the financial and policy implications of the rate changes.

Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman focused on potential policy options moving forward, including whether alternative billing methodologies—such as a winter water average or caps on sewer charges—might better balance revenue stability with affordability for residents.

District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz questioned revenue projections associated with the new structure and emphasized the importance of ensuring the city’s continued eligibility for state infrastructure funding. He too raised the possibility of implementing wastewater billing caps to ease pain among high-volume users.

District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson expressed concern about the equity of sewer billing, particularly in cases where sewer charges may exceed water costs for residents with significant outdoor water use.

District III Councilwoman Jill Lane sought clarification on how different billing approaches would affect customers across varying usage levels and emphasized the need for continued monitoring of actual revenues compared with projections.

Looking ahead

No immediate policy changes were proposed following Reed’s presentation. Instead, council members indicated that the city should continue monitoring revenue trends over the coming fiscal year before considering potential adjustments to the rate structure.

The discussion reflects the city’s ongoing effort to balance financial sustainability, regulatory compliance and affordability for residents. As additional data becomes available, the council is expected to revisit the issue to determine whether refinements to the current system are warranted.

-30-

---

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

Anonymous campaign-style mailer aims to stir interest

MANDEVILLE — A long-anticipated presentation on Mandeville’s water and sewer rate overhaul is scheduled for the City Council’s April 9 meeting, as city officials continue to face questions from residents about the impact and structure of the new system.

The agenda lists a presentation by Grady Reed of Manchac Consulting Group on “Water and Sewer Rate Changes,” marking the first formal opportunity in months for a detailed public explanation of how the current rates were developed and what they are intended to achieve.

The presentation comes after a series of meetings and public discussions in which the revised rate structure — particularly its tiered pricing model — has drawn scrutiny from residents, especially those with higher water usage.

From gradual increases to tiered pricing

The city’s water-rate planning has evolved over the past several years.

Earlier analyses contemplated a more gradual approach to rate adjustments, while more recent presentations introduced a tiered structure that increases the per-gallon cost as usage rises. The current model also incorporates changes to sewer billing, which had previously remained largely unchanged.

City officials have said the adjustments — based on recommendations from Manchac Consulting Group — were necessary to address revenue needs within the utility enterprise fund and to maintain eligibility for state funding tied to federally supported infrastructure programs.

At the same time, the shift to tiered pricing has resulted in significantly higher bills for high-volume customers, particularly during the initial 6-week transition to the new system in August 2025.

Anonymous mailer stokes public pressure aimed at meeting

In the days leading up to the April 9 meeting, a citywide anonymous bulk mailer has circulated among Mandeville residents, sharply criticizing the city’s water and sewer rate changes and urging public attention ahead of the scheduled presentation.

The mailer, branded “Watergate Mandeville,” features six-month-old headlines referencing prior local media coverage of high water bills and claims that some residents saw bills reach into the thousands of dollars.

However, the media reports cited in the mailer appear limited to early coverage of the issue and do not reflect subsequent reporting, including more recent indications that bills for high-usage customers have stabilized closer to the levels projected in earlier rate studies following the initial transition period.

The piece directs recipients to a website and encourages them to attend the April 9 council meeting, framing the issue as one requiring immediate public scrutiny.

Notably, the mailer does not include any disclosure identifying who paid for or distributed it. No political committee, organization or individual is named on the material, and it does not appear tied to any declared campaign.

The anonymous nature of the mailer, combined with its wide distribution, suggests a coordinated effort to stoke public unrest ahead of future elections or potential ballot initiatives, rather than a purely grassroots effort.

What the presentation may address

The April 9 presentation is expected to outline the methodology behind the current rates, including how projected revenues, operating costs and long-term infrastructure needs were incorporated into the model.

Key areas likely to be addressed include:

• How the tiered rate structure was developed and its intended purpose
• How sewer charges are calculated under the current system
• How Mandeville’s rates compare to other municipalities in the region
• Whether the current structure is designed as a long-term solution or subject to future adjustment
  

The presentation may also provide updated examples of monthly bills across different usage levels, offering a clearer picture of how the rates affect typical and high-volume customers.

-30-

---

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

Dismissal of Sucette Harbor case triggers malpractice claims, fee disputes

NEW ORLEANS — LSU Health Foundation New Orleans has filed a malpractice lawsuit against its former attorneys, alleging their handling of the failed Sucette Harbor litigation — including the use of artificial intelligence in court filings — led to the case’s dismissal and potential financial liability.

Download the LSU Health Foundation petition here.

LSU Health Foundation owns the former Al Copeland property at the western end of the Mandeville lakefront, the proposed site of the rejected Sucette Harbor development at the center of the now-dismissed lawsuit.

The lawsuit names both the attorneys individually and their law firms — Jones Fussel LLP and Riess Lemieux LLC — along with attorneys Michael Riess, Johanna Lambert and John Walker.

The lawsuit, filed in Orleans Parish Civil District Court, names multiple attorneys and two law firms that represented the foundation in the federal case tied to the proposed Mandeville waterfront development.

In its petition, LSU alleges the attorneys failed to meet professional standards in prosecuting the case, citing errors in legal filings, missed procedural opportunities and the submission of a key brief containing fabricated case citations generated by artificial intelligence.

According to the filing, a June 2025 opposition brief included nonexistent legal authorities — sometimes referred to as “hallucinated” citations — which the court later disregarded. LSU claims the attorneys failed to verify those citations before filing and did not take adequate steps to correct the issue after it was raised.

The foundation further alleges that some attorneys billed for reviewing filings they did not fully examine and failed to properly respond to arguments raised by opposing counsel.

U.S. District Judge Brandon S. Long ultimately dismissed the Sucette Harbor lawsuit with prejudice, ending the case. The ruling has since led to additional litigation over attorney’s fees, with the City of Mandeville and Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman seeking to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs.

In the new state court lawsuit, LSU argues the outcome of the federal case was directly caused by its attorneys’ conduct, including the flawed briefing and broader handling of the litigation. The foundation is seeking damages for the loss of its claims and any financial exposure resulting from the dismissal.

The filing marks a significant escalation in the ongoing legal fallout surrounding the Sucette Harbor project, which has spawned multiple disputes across federal and state courts, including an appeal of the dismissal now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The attorneys named in the lawsuit have not yet publicly responded to the allegations in the new filing.

-30-

---

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

Zuckerman again casts lone ‘no’ vote on permit

Event slated for May 30 parade up Girod to Trailhead

MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville City Council on Thursday approved Queer Northshore’s Pride Northshore parade in a 4-1 vote following an extended and, at times, tense discussion that underscored both community controversy surrounding the event and lingering questions about the city’s new special events ordinance.

Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman cast the lone vote against the permit, while the remaining four council members voted in favor.

The decision comes amid heightened public attention on the Pride parade following issues raised during previous events, including complaints from members of local faith-based groups and the local Jewish community over pro-Palestine messaging, banners and attire that some said introduced political and potentially antisemitic elements into what they argued should remain an LGBTQ-focused celebration.

Additional scrutiny followed recent statements by Queer Northshore indicating broader advocacy themes tied to this year’s event, further fueling debate over the scope and tone of the parade.

Messaging on the Queer Northshore website in the lead-up to the 2025 event included a list of the flags they would fly during the parade with the text: “The Palestinian flag represents our solidarity with those suffering in Gaza and the West Bank where over 50,000 Palestinians, including more than 15,000 children, have lost their lives in recent years as a result of ethnic cleansing, funded in part by our taxes. We oppose all forms of genocide and oppression, regardless of geography.”

Against that backdrop, Thursday’s meeting became a focal point not only for the permit decision itself, but also for how the city will apply and refine its newly adopted parade and special event rules, which became law with the adoption of Ordinance 25-34 on Jan. 8.

The Pride parade and the Old Mandeville Business Association’s Girod Street Stroll — approved unanimously earlier in the meeting — are among the first major events to come before the council under the new ordinance and are being closely watched as early test cases for how the rules will function in practice.

While the OMBA event drew little opposition, the Pride parade prompted a lengthy review of the application, cost estimates and supporting documentation.

Council members said the Mandeville Police Department estimated attendance at 4,000 people based on prior years, despite the application listing 1,500 attendees and Queer Northshore claiming on their website they had over 3,000 attendees. Based on the police estimate for this year, police projected $12,420 in costs tied to traffic control, security, parking enforcement, barricades and no-parking sign deployment.

During the discussion, Zuckerman, who also serves as the current council chairman, questioned whether the application materials fully documented required elements under Ordinance 25-34, including fire services, sanitation, portable restrooms and payment procedures for officers working the event.

“I just like a clean confirmation that all that’s been reviewed,” Zuckerman said, emphasizing that his concerns centered on the process and completeness of the application rather than opposition to events generally.

Other council members acknowledged similar gaps, and said the issues could be addressed as the city refines its process under the new ordinance.

At one point, a brief exchange highlighted tension among council members as Zuckerman pressed questions about hypothetical payment issues and procedural details.

While Police Chief Todd Schliem addressed the council, explaining that police officers working at events are typically paid directly by check from the event organizers on the day of the events, Zuckerman inquired about the consequences should an organizer fail to do so.

Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon interjected, noting that some of the concerns being raised by Zuckerman were not directly tied to the application under consideration and urging the council to remain focused on the Queer Northshore event.

“[T]hese hypotheticals you’re coming up with, that’s not relevant to the application that’s at stake. So the application’s here, she’s, they’ve applied, looks like they’ve … done everything,” he said.

But Zuckerman fired back: “Please don’t interrupt me. I’ll give you the floor as soon as I’m finished. I think it is relevant because we’re taking the time to discuss the ordinance itself and I think Mr. Vogeltanz [District II] brought up some good points. He brought up some good points about how the officers are paid and I’m simply asking the question about how that’s addressed.”

City officials and event organizers provided clarifications throughout the discussion.

Queer Northshore Executive Director Layla Hekmatdoost told the council the organization would provide eight portable restrooms, coordinate with public safety agencies and handle cleanup with volunteers. Officials also confirmed that Fire District No. 4 would not charge the group for its participation.

Schliem said the police estimate was driven primarily by operational needs along the parade route rather than the applicant’s stated attendance figure.

“The driving cost is the amount of personnel we need to close that parade route and enforce no parking,” Schliem said.

District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz used the discussion to outline how applications move through the city’s review process and how the ordinance’s attendance-based matrix determines required staffing levels for parades.

Questions also arose about how police working the event are paid, with officials confirming that while some fees are paid in advance to the city, individual officers are typically paid directly by organizers on the day of the event — a longstanding practice that some council members said could warrant further review.

Despite the concerns raised, the council ultimately approved the parade permit.

The Pride Northshore parade was approved in a 4-1 vote, with Zuckerman casting the lone dissenting vote — as he did last year.

Earlier in the meeting, the council unanimously approved the OMBA Girod Street Stroll set for April 18, though that item also prompted discussion about improving how future applications present information on cleanup, public safety coordination and other logistical requirements.

Thursday’s meeting signaled that while the city’s new special events framework is now in place, both council members and staff expect continued adjustments as additional large and closely watched events come before the council.

-30-

---

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

Had been removed from March 12 agenda at request of events committee

Application lists 1,500 attendees despite group reporting 3,000 last year

City police estimate $12,420 in staffing costs for parade of 1,500

Queer Northshore say they paid only $5,500 last year

MANDEVILLE — The Queer Northshore Pride Northshore parade and the Old Mandeville Business Association’s Girod Street Stroll are scheduled to come before the Mandeville City Council for approval at its March 26 meeting, after both items were removed from the March 12 agenda for further review.

The two event permits were pulled from the earlier agenda at the request of the city administration because the city’s events committee had not yet completed its review of the applications, according to Council Chairman Jason Zuckerman. At the time, officials indicated the items would likely return on a future agenda once that review was complete.

Unlike the March 12 agenda, where both permits were initially placed on the consent agenda, the events now appear as separate items under new business — meaning they are expected to be discussed and voted on individually rather than approved as part of a single, routine vote.

The 2026 Pride Northshore parade is among the first major non-Mardi Gras parade events to come before the Mandeville City Council under new rules adopted in January through Ordinance 25-34.

Organizers have requested the longer of two routes permitted under the new rules, starting at the south end of Marigny Avenue, heading west on Lakeshore Drive, then turning north onto Girod Street and ending at the Mandeville Trailhead.

The organization’s application lists an expected attendance of 1,500 people, according to the agenda packet for Thursday’s meeting. However, Queer Northshore previously stated on its website that the 2025 Pride Northshore event attracted more than 3,000 attendees, and other media coverage similarly reported turnout in that range.

Documents included with the council agenda show a police cost estimate of $12,420 associated with the parade if 1,500 is the approved attendance estimate.

Total costs likely higher when other services included

During the Jan. 8 meeting when Ordinance 25-34 was adopted, Layla Hekmatdoost told the Mandeville City Council that the organization had previously paid about $5,500 in city-related costs for the Pride Northshore event.

If the Mandeville Police Department cost estimate cited in the agenda holds, the total municipal cost for a 1,500-attendee event could range from $15,000 to $17,000, depending on whether the organizer is required to provide EMS, first aid, sanitation and cleanup, or instead pay the city to provide those services. Those details are expected to be addressed during Thursday’s council meeting.

That would represent more than triple the amount Queer Northshore said it previously paid for the event, though the city has not yet publicly itemized the full breakdown of non-police service costs for this year’s parade.

Some council members could also question whether the 1,500-person attendance estimate is too low, a concern that could potentially jeopardize approval of the permit.

The police estimate included in the agenda packet presumably accounts only for law enforcement staffing.

According to documents typically included with special event applications, approval by the Mandeville City Council requires the event organizer to pay the estimated cost of city services no later than 30 days before the event — which, for a May 30 event, would be April 30. That form is included in the Old Mandeville Business Association’s Girod Street Stroll application packet for the March 26 meeting but is not included in the Pride Northshore parade packet. However, council meeting packets are informational only and may contain omissions or inaccuracies that are later corrected before or during the meeting.

Even if approved Thursday, questions remain about the full cost of city services required for the event, particularly non-police expenses that have not yet been publicly disclosed in the agenda materials.

Those figures could ultimately determine how closely the new ordinance aligns with the council’s stated goal of ensuring that large public events cover the municipal costs they generate.

New ordinance reshaped event approvals

Under Ordinance 25-34 adopted earlier this year, the city implemented a new cost-estimation process tied to expected attendance levels. The policy was adopted following public pressure from residents who raised concerns about the city subsidizing large lakefront events without clear accounting of municipal costs.

City officials said the changes were intended to create a more transparent and consistent system for estimating the public-safety and operational expenses associated with parades and festivals.

The March 26 City Council meeting will be held at City Hall at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers.

-30-

---

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

Council adopts employee social media policy

Brief confusion over revised agenda

MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville City Council on Thursday postponed a proposed zoning ordinance affecting mixed-use density calculations while approving several other measures, including a new employee social media policy and a resolution establishing a formal process for appointments to city boards and commissions.

The council also introduced two budget amendments and approved a series of routine items on its consent agenda during the March 12 meeting at City Hall. 

Density calculation zoning ordinance delayed

The most significant action of the evening involved Ordinance 26-03, which proposes amendments to definitions and regulations affecting the city’s PM-1 and PM-2 marina districts and planned districts.

After discussion, the council voted to postpone the ordinance until April 9 to allow additional feedback from residents and stakeholders.

Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman, who authored the ordinance, encouraged members of the public to contact him with comments before the item returns for consideration.

The ordinance would amend provisions of the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance (CLURO) related to marina districts and planned developments.

Appointment process for boards and commissions approved

Earlier in the meeting, the council unanimously adopted Resolution 26-08, establishing a formal, multi-stage process for appointments and reappointments to city boards and commissions.

The measure, introduced by District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson, is intended to create a clearer and more transparent process for reviewing applicants before the council votes on appointments.

Strong-Thompson said the proposal grew out of long-running discussions among council members about how appointments are handled and whether all applicants receive equal consideration.

“A lot of where this comes from is that this has been kind of a sticking point for the city council — trying to figure out how to appoint people in a fair process,” Strong-Thompson said during the meeting.

Under the resolution, applications would first be reviewed at a council meeting or work session where resumes and qualifications could be discussed. The council would then wait until the next regularly scheduled meeting to vote on appointments, giving members additional time to review applicants.

Strong-Thompson said the approach was modeled in part after the process used by the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission, where items are first discussed before a later vote.

“By creating one meeting where all resumes that have applied are discussed and then waiting until the next meeting to vote, I think it gives all applicants a fair chance to be heard,” she said, adding that the process could be revised if issues arise.

The other council members voiced support for the proposal.

Zuckerman thanked Strong-Thompson for bringing the measure forward, saying the council has struggled for years with how to handle appointments.

“I’m really appreciative that you took the initiative to put this together,” Zuckerman said. “We have struggled with this for a long time, and I’m excited that we actually have something in place now.”

Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon and District III Councilwoman Jill Lane also expressed support, with Lane saying the process would be an improvement over past practices.

District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz also said he supported the measure but first proposed postponing the vote, saying he wanted additional time to consider possible amendments that could improve it.

The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Employee social media policy adopted

The council also approved Ordinance 26-07, establishing a social media policy for municipal employees within the city’s civil service system.

City officials said the policy is designed to clarify expectations for employees’ use of social media, including guidance on confidentiality, representing the city publicly and complying with public-records retention rules.

Human Resources Director Joanna Anderson said the policy is similar to those used by other municipalities and parishes and aims to set clear boundaries as social media becomes increasingly common in government operations.

The employee policy is separate from Ordinance 26-08, a similar proposal that would have created a social media policy for elected and appointed officials but included broader language. The council voted to table that ordinance during its Feb. 26 meeting after several members raised concerns about its expanded scope and potential First Amendment implications.

Under Robert’s Rules of Order, a motion to table effectively halts consideration of the measure unless the council later votes to take it back up — something that has not occurred. As a result, the proposal is widely expected to remain inactive. See previous coverage: Council tables proposed social media policy for elected, appointed officials.

Budget amendments introduced

The council introduced two ordinances that would amend the city’s operating and capital budgets to address roadway and drainage maintenance projects:

• Ordinance 26-10, amending the operating budget
• Ordinance 26-11, amending the capital budget

Both measures were introduced for future consideration and will return for adoption at a later meeting. 

Presentation and project updates

During the meeting, Curtis Environmental Services Inc. delivered an audit presentation related to the city’s Municipal Water Pollution Prevention program.

Public Works Director Keith LaGrange also provided updates on several ongoing infrastructure projects, including:

• Seawall repairs
• The Harbor gazebo project
• Drainage improvements along Louisiana Highway 22
• Replacement of Old Mandeville waterlines
• Multiple roadway, striping and maintenance contracts
  

Consent agenda items approved

The council approved most items on its 12-item consent agenda without discussion.

Two items were broken out from the consent agenda to be considered individually at the request of Strong-Thompson, who sought clarification from the administration before voting.

After city staff answered questions related to those items, the council voted to approve them as well.

The remaining consent agenda items — which included special event permits for several community events, certificates of substantial completion and change orders for public works projects, and Resolution 26-06 authorizing an amendment to the city’s professional services agreement with CSRS LLC — were approved unanimously.

The two items removed for discussion were also approved unanimously once questions were addressed.

Agenda revision caused brief confusion at meeting

There was a brief moment of confusion early in the meeting over which version of the March 12 agenda was being considered.

The agenda was revised after it was originally published. A revised version posted by the city on March 9 removed several special event permits — including the application from Queer Northshore for the Pride Northshore parade — from the consent agenda.

Some attendees, however, still had copies of the earlier agenda that had been posted March 6 and were available in the lobby at City Hall, which still listed those items.

When a resident asked about the permits during the meeting, Zuckerman clarified that none of the items had been approved and that several event applications had been removed from the agenda for further review.

Zuckerman had told Mandeville Daily earlier in the week that the items were pulled at the request of the city administration because the city’s events committee had not yet completed its review of the applications.

As a result, permits for both the Pride Northshore parade and the Old Mandeville Business Association’s Girod Street Stroll were not considered at Thursday’s meeting and are expected to return on a future agenda once that review is completed.

-30-

Proposal would clarify how developers calculate density in planned and marina districts

Planning commission voted to recommend ordinance

MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville City Council is scheduled to vote Thursday, March 12, on a proposed amendment to the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance that supporters say would clarify how development density is calculated on mixed-use sites.

Ordinance 26-03, sponsored by Councilmen-at-Large Jason Zuckerman and District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz, would amend several sections of the CLURO related to lot area definitions and site-development regulations in Planned District and marina zoning districts.

The measure received a favorable recommendation from the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission with minor technical revisions before advancing to the council for final consideration.

Clarifying density calculations

The ordinance focuses on how density, building area and other site-development standards are calculated when multiple uses are proposed on a single property.

Under the proposal, only the portion of a site designated for a particular use could be counted when calculating allowable building area, the number of residential units and other development criteria. Areas dedicated to other uses on the same property could not be used to increase density for a separate portion of the site. 

The ordinance also specifies that portions of property that extend into Lake Pontchartrain or other water bodies — as well as wetlands or areas subject to periodic inundation — cannot be included in those calculations. 

City officials said the changes are intended to reinforce existing regulations governing mixed-use developments in the Planned Marina (PM-1 and PM-2) districts and Planned District zoning category.

Sponsor says measure prevents “overdevelopment”

In a public statement posted ahead of the vote, Zuckerman said the ordinance clarifies what he believes the CLURO already requires regarding mixed-use developments.

“When calculating allowable building areas for new developments, the number of residential units allowed, and other site development criteria, only the area of the site designated for each use within the mixed-use site can be used in those calculations,” he wrote.

Zuckerman said the measure is intended to prevent situations in which developers might attempt to increase density for one part of a project by using the total acreage of a mixed-use property — even when much of the site is devoted to other uses.

“This ordinance is aimed to prevent overdevelopment when multiple uses are proposed on a single piece of property by using the entire property size … to increase density beyond what would be allowed by the CLURO if a single use was proposed for the entire site,” he said.

No change to existing marinas

Zuckerman also emphasized that the proposal does not alter the operation of existing marinas within the PM-1 zoning district.

According to the sponsor, the amendment would apply only when new mixed-use developments are proposed in marina or planned districts and would simply clarify how site-development calculations must be performed.

The measure follows the adoption of the city’s Mandeville Thrives 2045 Comprehensive Plan in December, which identified challenges related to mixed-use developments, including land-use compatibility, density and traffic concerns. 

Part of broader CLURO update

Ordinance 26-03 is one of several proposed updates to the city’s land-use regulations discussed in recent months as officials review how the CLURO applies to complex mixed-use projects.

If adopted Thursday, the ordinance would formally amend definitions and site-development provisions within multiple sections of the CLURO governing marina districts and planned developments.

The council meeting is scheduled for Thursday evening at Mandeville City Hall.

-30-