Discon promised specific cuts after alleging city was overspending but never produced them, ultimately citing audit in lone no vote

MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville City Council adopted a structurally balanced operating budget for the coming fiscal year Thursday, ending weeks of hearings that began with Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon insisting the city was overspending and promising to identify specific areas where spending should be cut.

Those specific expenditure cuts never materialized.

Instead, as the hearings progressed, other council members generally praised the administration’s proposed budget during the series of five budget hearings, and Discon himself eventually acknowledged he could not identify any significant operating reductions.

By the final hearing Thursday, Discon only proposed broad reductions to categories of spending rather than specific expenditures, repeatedly looked to capital spending for savings that city officials explained could not offset recurring operating expenses, and ultimately supported an amendment increasing the employee cost-of-living adjustment from 1% to 2.8%.

It was Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman, who had defended the administration’s proposed budget against Discon’s overspending claims, who ultimately identified specific operating expenditures that could be reduced to help pay for the larger annual cost of living adjustment (COLA).

Then, immediately before the final vote, Discon cited a different objection to the operating budget: The city’s completed FY2025 audit had not yet been formally published.

The operating budget passed 4-1, with Discon casting the lone vote against it. He also cast the lone vote against the city’s FY2027 capital budget.

A structurally balanced proposal

Mayor Clay Madden’s proposed FY2027 operating budget entered the hearings with recurring revenues exceeding recurring operating expenses by approximately $200,000.

The administration had already identified approximately $530,000 in recurring personnel and discretionary General Fund reductions while developing the proposal.

Personnel savings included leaving a finance data entry clerk and one police officer position unfunded. Madden has said the police reduction is effectively offset by the addition of a sergeant to supervise school resource officers, with the St. Tammany Parish School Board paying 10 months of the position’s annual cost and the city responsible for the remaining two months.

Other reductions included nearly $80,000 in legal fees, $75,000 in planning and development, $50,000 in audit and accounting fees and reductions in spending for the Trailhead, Community Center, advertising, banquets, travel and memberships.

The reductions also addressed several areas that Civil Service representatives and others had earlier pointed to as places the city could trim spending to provide a larger employee COLA. During the hearings, suggestions included reducing travel and other discretionary spending and questioning spending on amenities and events.

But Madden and Finance Director Jessica Farno said many of those choices had already been made before the proposed budget ever reached the council. Madden said the administration had spent months working through different scenarios to bring recurring expenses below recurring revenues, including reducing travel and overtime and making what he described as difficult spending decisions.

The resulting proposal already reduced spending for the Trailhead, Community Center, advertising, banquets, travel and memberships, along with larger reductions in legal, planning, audit and accounting expenses.

The approximately $200,000 difference between recurring revenue and expenses was relatively small, but it represented a significant change from previous budgets.

“This is the first year in many years that we … are paying for recurring expenses with recurring revenue,” Zuckerman said during the first hearing.

Farno confirmed that assessment.

District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson described the $200,000 margin as a “squeaker,” noting that unexpected overtime or other expenses could quickly consume it.

Discon says city is still overspending

Despite the reductions and structurally balanced proposal, Discon said during the Aug. 13 hearing that he believed the city was still spending too much.

“And I still think- We’re s- we’re overspending. We should be saving some money somewhere,” Discon said. “I still think that there’s some overspending in this thing.”

Madden pressed Discon to identify it.

“I need from you, Councilman Discon, the areas that you feel like we’re overspending,” Madden said.

Discon said he would provide them.

“We don’t have the time right now for me to go into that, but I’m putting together a list of what I think we should be doing, and that will come to the next meeting,” Discon said.

He later noted that three hearings remained and said he still had time “to put all that together.”

Zuckerman questioned why the assertion had been made before the supporting details were available.

“If I was gonna come to a budget hearing and claim that we’re overspending and the budget is overspent, and this budget is overspending, and that the forecast is inaccurate, I would certainly have some details with me to do it,” Zuckerman said.

No ‘big change’ found in operating budget

The promised list did not emerge at the next hearing Aug. 19.

After reviewing the operating budget, Discon instead acknowledged he could not see where significant changes could be made.

“We went through the operational tonight,” Discon said. “I don’t see where we could make any big change. I guess we’d have to look at capital.”

Zuckerman reminded Discon of his earlier promise.

“In the last meeting, you had indicated that in this budget, you were going to come prepared with proposed cuts,” Zuckerman said.

Zuckerman said if Discon had reviewed the spending since the previous hearing and concluded the operating budget was sound, that was an acceptable answer, but he wanted to “close the loop” so the public would not be confused.

Discon responded that he could not remember all of the specifics surrounding the previous year’s budget debate and asked that his explanation be accepted so the council could move forward.

The exchange also highlighted a similar dispute during the previous year’s budget process.

Zuckerman noted that approximately $2.2 million in operating reductions had been proposed during the FY2026 process, but Discon voted against those proposed reductions before ultimately voting against the operating budget itself. Discon voted for the FY2026 capital budget.

Larger COLA raises question of recurring revenue

The spending question changed during the later hearings as council members considered increasing the administration’s proposed 1% employee COLA to 2.8%, matching the Social Security Administration’s 2026 adjustment and the recommendation of Mandeville’s Municipal Employees and Police Employees Civil Service Boards from Aug. 19.

The additional 1.8 percentage points would cost the General Fund approximately $200,000 annually — potentially consuming virtually all of the administration’s recurring operating cushion.

District III Councilwoman Jill Lane supported the full 2.8%, arguing the city should maintain the compensation gains made since an earlier salary study brought employee pay closer to comparable municipalities.

Lane also looked beyond the current budget for a longer-term way to pay for future COLAs, pointing to property tax millages the city has historically levied below their voter-authorized levels. Lane said the council would have an opportunity to adjust those millages next year and acknowledged that doing so would not be popular.

“I do feel it is our responsibility … to find the revenue,” Lane said, adding that the city needs to consider ways to increase recurring revenue rather than allowing employee compensation to again fall behind.

Zuckerman also supported the larger COLA but said he would not vote for it without finding recurring operating savings to offset at least part of the additional cost.

“If the COLA’s gonna cost us about $200,000 a year … we need to find $200,000 or I’m not gonna vote for it, and I’m not gonna do it by just saying, ‘Administration, go figure it out,’” Zuckerman said.

“That’s our job.”

Discon proposes categories, not expenditures

At Thursday’s final hearing, Discon returned to his contention that spending should be reduced but did not identify a specific operating expenditure he wanted the council to eliminate.

Instead, he proposed removing $300,000 generally from General Fund spending and leaving the administration to decide where the reductions would fall.

“What line item is it, Mr. Chairman?” Zuckerman asked.

“It’s just a general $300,000,” Discon responded. “It’s up to the administration to figure out how they wanna divvy that up amongst their line items… I don’t wanna be the one to make that decision.”

Discon said he did not want to be the person making those individual decisions.

---

I don’t wanna be the one to make that decision.

— Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon

---

“I don’t have to back it up with anything more than the fact that I think we’re still overspending,” Discon said.

Discon separately proposed reducing by half approximately $1.28 million in equipment purchases from the Special Sales Tax Fund, again suggesting that department officials determine which purchases to eliminate.

Zuckerman rejected the broader approach to the operating budget, saying deciding what to eliminate was the council’s responsibility.

“I’ve got four individual line items that I could propose right now rather than just say, ‘Go figure it out, Mr. Mayor,’” Zuckerman said.

Capital reductions can’t offset COLA

Discon also repeatedly looked to the capital budget as a potential source of savings to accommodate the larger employee COLA.

He had first suggested that approach Aug. 19 after saying he could not identify any “big change” in the operating budget, suggesting the city might delay a truck or another capital purchase.

At the final hearing, Discon again suggested reducing capital projects and equipment purchases.

But Farno explained that none of those capital purchases were included in recurring operating expenses.

“So that would have no impact on the $200,000 budget?” Zuckerman asked.

“Correct,” Farno responded.

The distinction surfaced again when Discon objected to reducing landscape maintenance and suggested instead taking $50,000 from the design of a park.

Public Works Director Keith LaGrange told Discon that cutting the capital project “does not help your recurring operating expenses.”

Planning Director Cara Bartholomew then reiterated the distinction.

“Jessica said over and over and over again that cutting something in the capital budget has no effect on the operating budget,” Bartholomew said.

---

You have to stay in the same piece of paper.

— Planning Director Cara Bartholomew

---

“If you want to increase the operating budget, then you need to decrease the operating budget if you wanna make that balance,” she said. “You have to stay in the same piece of paper.”

The distinction was critical because the COLA represents a recurring personnel expense. Eliminating a one-time capital purchase can reduce overall spending in a particular year, but it does not provide recurring savings to support the higher payroll in future years.

Zuckerman identifies specific cuts

Zuckerman was ultimately the only council member to propose specific operating expenditures for reduction as the council searched for money to offset the larger COLA.

His initial suggestions included planning and development, landscape maintenance, Trailhead concerts, decor and beautification and even eliminating the $72,000 budgeted for council members’ pay for one year.

Not all of the proposals survived scrutiny. City officials explained that some would reduce services or involved expenses with corresponding revenue.

The discussion nevertheless produced a package of specific operating changes.

The final amendment removed $43,670 from a comprehensive plan revision, $50,000 from planning and development, $35,000 from decor and beautification and $20,300 from building maintenance. It also added $20,000 for social services.

The net reduction was $128,970.

“So we’d be increasing the budget by about $200,000 for the 2.8% COLA, but then saving $129,000 back in that same amendment,” Zuckerman said as he assembled the changes into an amendment to Lane’s pending COLA amendment.

Strong-Thompson seconded the amendment.

The procedural discussion became confused at several points as the council worked through the amendments required before it could adopt the final ordinance.

Zuckerman, who served as council chairman before Discon, repeatedly clarified the sequence for incorporating the spending changes into Lane’s pending amendment and then voting on the amended budget ordinance. District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz also reminded Discon when public comment or a vote on a pending amendment was still required before the council could proceed.

Earlier in the final budget hearing, Discon had asked Zuckerman for help determining how the amendments should be handled, noting Zuckerman had chaired the council the previous year. Zuckerman explained that the council could discuss the proposals during the hearing but could not vote until the ordinances were formally before it during the regular meeting.

The amendment incorporating the specific reductions into Lane’s 2.8% COLA proposal ultimately passed 4-1.

Lane, Strong-Thompson, Zuckerman and Discon voted for it. Vogeltanz voted against it.

Audit objection overrides support for COLA

After weeks of hearings that began with Discon’s assertion that the city was overspending, excessive spending was not the reason he cited immediately before voting against the final operating budget.

Instead, Discon pointed to the city’s FY2025 audit.

The audit had been completed earlier that day following an exit conference with the city’s auditor and was scheduled to be submitted to the Louisiana Legislative Auditor and Federal Audit Clearinghouse the following day. Madden said the city could not publish the audit on its website until it cleared the Legislative Auditor process, although council members could review the completed document in Farno’s office in the interim.

“I’m still having an issue with we don’t have a true audit that’s been published,” Discon said before the final vote.

Although Discon had just voted for the amendment providing employees the 2.8% COLA, he then voted against the operating budget containing it. His no vote did not affect the outcome because the other four council members supported the final ordinance.

But the vote was not merely symbolic: Had opposition from other council members left Discon as the deciding vote, rejection of the operating budget would also have prevented the COLA amendment he said he supported from actually taking effect.

Discon said he supported the employee COLA and appreciated the work that had gone into finding money for it, but said he had “a principle” he wanted to stand behind for residents.

The completed audit had also improved the financial picture used to construct the budget. Madden said the audited General Fund balance was approximately $1 million higher than the conservative estimate used during budget preparation.

Farno explained that the additional fund balance strengthened the city’s reserves but did not increase recurring revenue or change the recurring operating balance.

The council adopted the operating budget 4-1.

Lane, Vogeltanz, Strong-Thompson and Zuckerman voted for it. Discon voted against it.

The vote produced an unusual split: Vogeltanz opposed the amendment increasing the COLA to 2.8% but supported the final budget once the council adopted the increase. Discon supported the COLA amendment but voted against the resulting budget.

Capital budget also passes 4-1

The council next considered the FY2027 capital budget.

Its reception from the other council members had been notably positive.

During the previous night’s hearing, Vogeltanz called it “a very good capital budget” and said he could not think of a reason to remove money from the city’s planned investments in infrastructure and amenities.

During Thursday’s adoption meeting, Strong-Thompson said the city was “investing in the future,” Vogeltanz again called the infrastructure and amenity investments “a good use,” Lane said she was ready to vote and Zuckerman said he had no remaining issues with the capital budget.

The council made several technical corrections, including carrying forward previously appropriated money for the Jackson Avenue bulkhead and North Causeway fencing, correcting a lift station appropriation and renaming another project.

Discon joined the other four council members in unanimously approving those amendments.

The final capital budget then passed 4-1, with Discon again casting the lone vote against it.

Discon did not separately explain during the capital-budget discussion why he opposed the final plan.

Mayor’s compensation increased

The council also amended Madden’s compensation during the budget process.

Madden received the same 2.8% COLA approved for employees along with a 4% merit increase. The council also doubled his annual vehicle allowance from $6,000 to $12,000.

The changes bring Madden’s salary to approximately $129,333, excluding the vehicle allowance.

The FY2027 budget takes effect Oct. 1.

-30-

---

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

Proposed additions could erase $200,000 cushion, push praised budget well into the red

MANDEVILLE — After weeks of debate over whether Mandeville is spending too much, City Council members emerged from their fourth budget hearing Wednesday without identifying a specific spending cut — but with several proposals to add expenses to Mayor Clay Madden’s proposed FY2027 budget.

Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon, who earlier this month said the city was overspending and told Madden he would identify areas to cut as the hearings continued, instead announced Wednesday that he plans to seek $15,000 for equipment to water city trees, despite Public Works Director Keith LaGrange telling him the city already has equipment for the job.

District III Councilwoman Jill Lane said she will propose increasing the city’s employee cost-of-living adjustment from the 1% included in Madden’s budget to 2.8%, an increase she and Finance Director Jessica Farno discussed as adding roughly $200,000 in General Fund expenses. Without corresponding cuts, the increase would consume essentially all of the roughly $200,000 operating cushion in the proposed budget.

And District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz said he plans to propose increasing the mayor’s salary and vehicle allowance, arguing Mandeville risks discouraging qualified candidates from seeking the city’s top elected position in future elections if its compensation continues to lag behind senior city employees. Madden did not include a pay raise for himself in the FY2027 budget he presented to the council.

Neither Councilmen-at-Large Jason Zuckerman nor District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson proposed additional spending Wednesday, instead praising the administration’s work on the proposed budget.

The proposals are expected to be formally considered Thursday during the council’s fifth and final budget hearing at 4 p.m., immediately before its regular 6 p.m. meeting.

The proposed additions came after Madden opened Wednesday’s hearing with a detailed accounting of reductions he and Farno said were already incorporated into the budget before it was presented to the council June 30.

Madden said the administration identified approximately $233,000 in personnel reductions and $297,000 in selected operating reductions, for about $530,000 in recurring personnel and discretionary General Fund reductions.

The personnel savings came from leaving a finance data entry clerk and one police officer position unfunded. Madden said the police reduction is effectively offset by the addition of a sergeant to supervise school resource officers, with the St. Tammany Parish School Board paying 10 months of the position’s annual cost and the city responsible for the remaining two months. Operating reductions included nearly $80,000 in legal fees, $75,000 in planning and development, $50,000 in audit and accounting fees and reductions in spending for the Trailhead, Community Center, advertising, banquets, travel and memberships.

Madden said he and Farno began working on the reductions in January as they sought to produce a structurally balanced operating budget.

“We don’t have the luxury of just sitting here in a council meeting and figuring out what we’re going to cut,” Madden said. “We’ve been working on this since January.”

The proposed budget currently projects recurring General Fund revenue exceeding recurring expenditures by approximately $200,000.

That margin could largely disappear under Lane’s proposed COLA amendment.

“I would like to propose an amendment to add 1.8%,” Lane said, bringing the proposed employee COLA from 1% to 2.8%.

Farno confirmed the proposal would increase General Fund expenses and said it would also affect the city’s Enterprise Fund.

Madden immediately asked Lane where she planned to find the money.

“We can talk about that tomorrow,” Lane responded.

Lane later identified several areas she was considering for possible reductions, including landscaping and planning expenditures.

Without offsetting reductions, however, the roughly $200,000 COLA increase would consume essentially all of the operating margin contained in Madden’s proposed budget. Discon’s additional $15,000 expenditure would then push recurring expenditures beyond recurring revenues, absent other changes.

Discon proposes spending after calling for cuts

Discon’s proposed addition came after several budget hearings in which he has questioned city spending.

During the council’s Aug. 13 hearing, Discon said, “I still think — we’re overspending,” prompting Madden to repeatedly ask him to identify what should be cut. Discon did not identify specific reductions at that meeting, saying the council had additional hearings remaining.

Wednesday, as council members began identifying amendments they planned to bring forward at the final hearing, Discon proposed adding $15,000 for equipment he said could be used to water city trees.

“I’m going to propose $15,000 in the budget for a water truck to water the trees that we’re spending thousands and thousands of dollars on,” Discon said.

LaGrange told Discon the city already has equipment capable of watering trees and said personnel, rather than equipment, is the limiting factor.

“We have equipment,” LaGrange said. “We need the person to do it. It has nothing to do with the equipment.”

“I think once we get it, we can figure that out,” Discon responded.

Discon also renewed an objection to what he believed was a $2 million FEMA reimbursement being counted in the FY2027 budget, saying he would “have an issue with the budget” if the money remained included.

Farno told him it was not.

“There is no FEMA revenue in the fiscal year ’27 budget,” Farno said.

Farno said the disputed $2 million reimbursement was never included as revenue in the FY2027 budget. The unresolved reimbursement remained among anticipated FY2026 revenue and is being removed through year-end adjustments because it was not received during the fiscal year.

Farno said the adjustment still leaves FY2026 with a projected $13.65 million ending General Fund balance — higher than the $13.18 million beginning balance she assumed when preparing the FY2027 budget.

“I still have not over-projected beginning fund balance for fiscal year ’27,” Farno said.

Lane seeks 2.8% COLA

Lane’s proposal would restore the employee COLA to 2.8%, matching the Social Security Administration’s 2026 cost-of-living adjustment.

The administration’s proposed FY2027 budget includes a 1% COLA.

Lane said her amendment would add the remaining 1.8 percentage points, which she and Farno discussed as costing approximately $200,000 in the General Fund.

Lane said she was considering possible reductions elsewhere in the budget to offset the increase, including landscaping and planning expenditures, but did not identify specific cuts Wednesday.

The COLA has been a recurring issue throughout the budget hearings, with Madden defending the administration’s broader compensation package and council members debating whether employees should receive the full 2.8% increase.

Zuckerman previously said he supports the 2.8% COLA but only if the council finds offsetting cuts. “I will absolutely support a 2.8% COLA if we can find budget cuts through the line items to pay for that,” he said during the Aug. 19 hearing.

Lane also questioned what had resulted from the Income Strategies Committee formed following last year’s budget discussions, asking whether the group had examined issues including employee benefits, investing restricted funds and the city’s five-year financial forecast.

Madden pointed to several issues considered by the committee, including a possible tax reallocation, and cited Zuckerman’s proposal establishing a 20% minimum General Fund reserve as one of its significant results. Strong-Thompson noted the committee also worked on improved quarterly financial reporting. Madden said some of the committee’s work was put on hold around April so the short-staffed Finance Department could focus on completing the audit and preparing the FY2027 budget, but said the committee is expected to resume meeting.

Vogeltanz proposes increasing mayoral compensation

Vogeltanz introduced a different spending discussion when he said the council should reconsider how much Mandeville pays its mayor.

He first proposed doubling the mayor’s monthly vehicle allowance from $500 to $1,000, increasing the annual allowance from $6,000 to $12,000.

Vogeltanz said Madden uses his personal vehicle extensively for city business without receiving mileage reimbursement and argued that increasing the allowance could remain less expensive than providing the mayor a city-owned vehicle.

He then said he intends to propose increasing the mayor’s salary, although he had not settled on an amount Wednesday.

The proposed budget would put the mayor’s salary at approximately $122,000 with the 1% COLA, according to Vogeltanz. He floated increasing it to approximately $130,000 while saying his longer-term goal is for the position to pay $150,000 when the next mayoral term begins in 2028.

“This has nothing to do with the mayor [Madden] because he holds the office at the moment,” Vogeltanz said.

Madden proposed no such increase in the mayor’s salary in the FY2027 budget which sits before the council now. In Madden’s budget, as proposed, he would only receive the same 1% COLA that all employees would receive.

Vogeltanz said his concern was the future of the office and ensuring Mandeville could attract qualified candidates in future elections.

“I would really like when we qualify a mayor in 2027 to start the new term in 2028, no matter who it is, I would like to see us at 150 for that position,” Vogeltanz said.

Police Chief Todd Schliem then came forward to support increasing compensation for the office, saying the mayor is approximately the ninth-highest-paid city employee despite bearing responsibility for the entire municipal government.

“This is not about Clay Madden,” Schliem said. “This is about the position of mayor.”

Schliem said he had not discussed the issue with Madden beforehand and argued that compensation should reflect the responsibilities of the position.

The council’s fifth and final FY2027 budget hearing is scheduled for 4 p.m. Thursday, immediately before its regular 6 p.m. meeting where the FY2027 is expected to be voted on.

---

Related Coverage:

Financial adviser urges City Council to examine employee benefit costs

MANDEVILLE — As the Mandeville City Council considers increasing employee raises in the proposed FY2027 budget, a local financial adviser who had already raised concerns directly with council members urged them Wednesday to look beyond salaries and examine what he described as the compounding…

Continue Reading…

---

-30-

---

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

Comments come as council considers increasing proposed employee COLA from 1% to 2.8%

Highlights ‘elephant in the room’ employee benefits package

Employees receive Visa card that could eliminate all out-of-pocket, including 100% of deductibles

MANDEVILLE — As the Mandeville City Council considers increasing employee raises in the proposed FY2027 budget, a local financial adviser who had already raised concerns directly with council members urged them Wednesday to look beyond salaries and examine what he described as the compounding cost of the city’s employee benefits package.

Vince Talazac made the comments during the fourth of five City Council budget hearings, telling council members he had emailed them earlier that day as a follow-up to concerns raised at a previous meeting.

His comments came as members prepared amendments expected to be considered during Thursday’s final hearing. Among them, District III Councilwoman Jill Lane said she plans to propose increasing the 1% employee cost-of-living adjustment included in Mayor Clay Madden’s proposed budget to 2.8%.

Talazac, who began by praising the council and administration for what he called a “phenomenal job” over the past six years, described employee pay and benefits as the “elephant in the room” and questioned whether the city’s current approach is sustainable.

“So any time we grant a COLA increase, it’s a compounding effect,” Talazac said.

Talazac said every additional dollar in employee pay costs the city approximately another 42 cents through retirement contributions and Social Security where applicable. He also questioned whether the council had sufficiently examined the cost of employee health benefits.

Mandeville’s health insurance plan carries annual deductibles of $7,050 for individual coverage and $14,100 for family coverage, but city employees generally do not have to pay those amounts themselves for eligible in-network care. The city provides employees a “Nonstop Health Visa card” that uses taxpayer money to pay eligible medical expenses and prescriptions.

The Visa card benefit provides up to $8,500 for individual coverage and $17,000 for employee-plus-dependent coverage, enough to cover not only the plan’s deductible but its entire annual out-of-pocket maximum for eligible in-network care.

In practical terms, the taxpayer-funded Visa card could mean an employee pays nothing out-of-pocket except their portion of the premium — $71.35 per month for individual coverage or $203.42 for families — as long as their expenses are covered and in-network.

For employee-only medical coverage, the city pays $1,026.34 of the $1,097.69 monthly premium, while the employee pays $71.35. For family coverage, the city pays $2,926.06 per month while the employee pays $203.42, according to the city’s 2026 benefits guide. That translates to 93.5% of health premiums being funded by the taxpayers.

Talazac also focused on retirement costs. He said Mandeville not only makes its required employer retirement contribution but also pays the contribution that otherwise would be deducted from employee paychecks.

He contrasted Mandeville’s benefits with those offered by neighboring municipalities and argued that the council should consider total compensation rather than evaluating salaries alone.

Talazac said total employee pay and benefits are approaching $18 million, which he calculated at roughly $145,000 in average total compensation across the city’s 125 budgeted positions.

“This is one of, I think, the hardest things I think we have to face,” Talazac said. “It’s unpopular. It’s not gonna be pretty. I don’t know what the answers are.”

Talazac urged the council to undertake a broader examination of employee compensation and benefits rather than continuing to address the issue incrementally.

For additional context, just eight of Mandeville’s 121 city employees live within the city limits, according to figures cited during an earlier budget hearing.

The council’s fifth and final FY2027 budget hearing is scheduled for 4 p.m. Thursday, immediately before its regular 6 p.m. meeting where the FY2027 is expected to be voted on.

-30-

---

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

Report details encounter at local eatery

Filing follows sign dispute and public political criticism

Anonymous mailers and websites later targeted Madden administration

MANDEVILLE — Mayor Clay Madden filed a report with the Mandeville Police Department this month documenting a series of interactions with local businessman Robert “Trey” Berning III that Madden said had “escalated to the point of concern.”

The report recounts a dispute with the city over a sign at Berning’s business, political messages subsequently displayed on the building and an August 2025 restaurant encounter in which Madden told police Berning approached the table where he was meeting with a councilman, sat down uninvited and confronted the mayor over his unsuccessful effort to obtain approval for the sign.

Mandeville Daily learned of Madden’s complaint and subsequently obtained the police report through a public records request. The newspaper then contacted both Madden and Berning for comment.

Berning acknowledged receiving Mandeville Daily’s questions but did not provide responses before publication.

Madden told Mandeville Daily he filed the report after numerous residents and a campaign adviser urged him to create an official record of the events as a precaution should the situation escalate. The police report does not accuse Berning of a crime. The reporting officer specifically noted that Madden was seeking documentation and that the matter was not being reported as a criminal matter for MPD investigation.

Download police report here…

An encounter at Salad Station

According to the police report, Madden was meeting Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon at Salad Station on Aug. 28, 2025, when Berning approached their table and sat down.

Madden told police Berning discussed his difficulties obtaining approval for a sign at his business and blamed the mayor for the denial.

According to Madden’s account in the report, Berning told him that “if I don’t get my sign, I will keep you from being re-elected.”

Madden told Mandeville Daily that he prides himself on being accessible to the public, but said that accessibility “should never be mistaken for vulnerability.”

“This political consultant approached my table uninvited and essentially threatened me with political consequences unless I broke the rules for him,” Madden said. “I will not be pressured, intimidated, or coerced into compromising my responsibilities. And consider this: What if I had simply been sitting there having dinner with my family?”

---

What if I had simply been sitting there having dinner with my family?

— Mayor Clay Madden

---

Sign dispute begins with building renovation

The dispute traced back to Berning’s renovation of his commercial building at 633 N. Lotus Drive. City records show Berning received a permit in October 2024 to renovate the building’s front roof and facade, constructing a large raised structure across the front. Five days after the renovation permit was issued, Berning applied to install signage on the new structure.

Planning Director Cara Bartholomew denied the sign permit the same day, concluding that the proposed sign was a roof sign, a type of sign prohibited under the city’s land-use code. Berning disagreed, arguing that the renovation had created a new roof plane and that the proposed sign therefore qualified as a permissible wall sign.

Berning exercised his right to appeal Bartholomew’s administrative decision to the Mandeville Zoning Commission on Jan. 14, 2025. During the hearing, Berning and an architect supporting his appeal argued that the city was misinterpreting its sign code and pointed to signs on other commercial buildings they believed supported their interpretation. Commissioners were unpersuaded. One described the newly constructed facade as appearing “literally like somebody kinda put a billboard up there,” while another said it looked like “an extension of a permanent billboard sign.”

The commission voted 4-0 to deny Berning’s appeal, leaving Bartholomew’s decision in place. City officials told Berning that the decision was not appealable to the City Council and that his next avenue of appeal was directly to court.

Berning later challenged the decision in 22nd Judicial District Court, but his appeal was unsuccessful. The court dismissed Berning’s challenge with prejudice in May 2025, leaving the city’s decision in place.

The large facade Berning constructed for the proposed signage remains blank today.

Sign dispute turns publicly political

Public criticism of Madden followed the sign dispute. During the 2025 Mardi Gras season, the words “FIRE CLAY MADDEN” were projected across the same large, blank facade where Berning had sought permission to install his business signage. The display is also documented in Madden’s police report as having occurred along the Eve Parade route.

Berning subsequently shared criticism of the city’s handling of his sign appeal through social media, including professionally produced content published by his digital media company. Among the material was a video using selected portions of the Zoning Commission hearing that criticized commissioners by name and accused Bartholomew of being “vindictive and retaliatory.”

Madden says he could not override sign decision

Although Madden said Berning directed his frustration over the sign dispute toward him, the mayor had no authority to overturn Bartholomew’s decision, grant Berning’s appeal or otherwise approve the sign himself.

State law specifically authorizes municipal zoning regulation and provides for decisions by zoning commissions and other designated land-use authorities, subject ultimately to judicial review.

Mandeville’s own Comprehensive Land Use Regulations similarly place those responsibilities with the city’s Planning and Zoning commissions and planning staff. Commission members are appointed by the City Council — not the mayor — and the Zoning Commission exercises the powers assigned to it under Louisiana law.

Anonymous campaign follows

Months after the Salad Station encounter, an anonymous campaign targeting Madden and his administration began appearing around Mandeville. At least three mailers have been distributed to residents, while two websites — MandevilleWatergate.com and FireClayMadden.com — have criticized Madden over city spending, utility rates and other issues. The materials do not publicly identify their author or sponsor.

Madden said supporters began examining the websites and presented him with historical domain and IP-address records that he says contributed to his belief that Berning was behind the campaign.

The police report does not accuse Berning of producing the mailers or operating the websites. Madden’s identification of Berning as the person behind the campaign remains an allegation.

-30-

---

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

Discon, who said last week ‘we’re overspending,’ offers no operating cuts and says budget now ‘looks pretty sufficient’

Civil Service’s 2.8% COLA would consume roughly $200,000 budget cushion

MANDEVILLE — After weeks of warnings about city spending and a pointed challenge from Mayor Clay Madden to identify where Mandeville was overspending, Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon completed his review of the proposed fiscal year 2027 operating budget Wednesday night without identifying a specific expense he would cut.

Discon, who also serves as the council chairman, ultimately joined other council members in praising Madden’s proposed operating budget, saying he found little room for significant reductions.

“I’m looking at the budget right now, and I do agree with everybody that it looks pretty sufficient,” Discon said.

Later, after the council had worked through the operating budget, Discon acknowledged he saw little room for substantial reductions.

“We went through the operational tonight,” Discon said. “I don’t see where we could make any big change. I guess we’d have to look at capital.”

Discon then suggested capital had been the greater area of concern during last year’s budget deliberations — a characterization Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman immediately challenged based on Discon’s own voting record.

“If I remember correctly, last year, capital was where we had more concerns on budget cutting,” Discon said.

Discon questioned on last year’s vote

Zuckerman pointed out that approximately $2.2 million in proposed reductions last year had instead targeted the operating budget — the same budget Discon ultimately voted against — while Discon voted in favor of the capital budget.

“Again, you just mentioned that last year the concern was in the capital budget, but there was $2.2 million in cuts offered to the operating budget, and the operating budget is what you voted against,” Zuckerman said. “You voted for the capital budget.”

Discon did not dispute Zuckerman’s account, saying instead that he could not recall all of the details of the previous year’s deliberations.

“I can’t remember the specifics of everything that happened a year ago,” Discon said. “It’s been a big year of a lot of work on the council. So without getting into nit-picky, accept my explanation and let’s move forward.”

The exchange followed a notable shift from Discon’s comments during the council’s Aug. 13 budget hearing, when he accused the city of overspending under the proposed FY2027 budget and said expenses should be reduced.

“I still think — we’re overspending,” Discon said at that hearing. “We should be saving some money somewhere.”

Discon argued then that before city officials considered changing how restricted tax revenues could be used or asking voters for greater flexibility, the council should demonstrate that it was serious about “fine-tuning our expenses.”

When Madden pressed Discon to identify where the city was overspending, Discon said council members had not yet conducted their detailed review of the operating budget and he was not prepared to identify specific reductions.

Wednesday night was that review. With no significant operating cuts identified, the search for the savings Discon has advocated now moves to the capital budget, which the council is scheduled to examine at its next budget hearing, scheduled for Aug. 26 at 6 p.m.

Looking for ‘fat’ in ‘clean’ operating budget

And Discon was not alone in finding little to cut from operations.

District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz, who proposed approximately $2.2 million in operating-budget reductions last year, called the proposed FY2027 spending plan “a very good budget.”

“There’s not a lot of fat in this budget, at least from the operating side,” Vogeltanz said.

Vogeltanz explored whether an across-the-board 1% reduction could produce additional savings but questioned whether such an arbitrary cut would accomplish anything beyond forcing departments to return to the council later for budget amendments when legitimate expenses arose.

“I don’t know at the moment if I have any proposed cuts to make at all,” he said.

District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson similarly described the proposal as “a very good budget” and “a very clean budget,” saying she saw little reason to “nickel and dime” operating expenses.

Zuckerman called it “a very solid budget” and again emphasized what has become one of the administration’s central claims about the FY2027 proposal: recurring revenues are projected to exceed recurring operating expenses.

“This is the first time since I’ve been on the council we were able to put together a structurally balanced budget,” Zuckerman said. “We’re paying for recurring expenses with recurring revenues.”

Discon also credited the administration for reaching that benchmark.

“This year, yes, you created a balanced budget,” Discon said. “Bravo. I’m proud of you for doing that.”

2.8% COLA would consume operating cushion without cuts

The council’s favorable assessment of the operating budget came immediately after a nearly hourlong joint proceeding with Mandeville’s Civil Service Board over employee compensation.

The Civil Service Board unanimously recommended a 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment for police and non-police employees, compared with the 1% COLA already included in Madden’s proposed budget.

The 2.8% recommendation matches the Social Security Administration’s 2026 cost-of-living adjustment.

Upon taking office in 2020, Madden set out to address what he described as a pay and morale disparity between Mandeville and neighboring municipalities.

In February 2022, the council approved Madden’s sweeping pay-scale overhaul, bringing city employee salaries in line with or above those of comparable municipalities in the region. Since then, the council has granted the Civil Service Board’s requested COLA each year.

Finance Director Jessica Farno said each additional half percentage point costs the General Fund approximately $60,000, including associated personnel costs. Increasing the COLA from 1% to 2.8% would therefore add approximately $216,000 in recurring expenses.

That figure is significant because the proposed General Fund currently contains roughly $200,000 more in recurring revenues than recurring expenses. A 2.8% COLA would likely push the budget as proposed — without any cuts — just beyond the “structurally balanced” mark.

Vogeltanz framed the decision plainly.

“We found a way to save $200,000,” Vogeltanz said. “We’re gonna spend it immediately.”

He emphasized that the council could choose to do so, but said it should recognize the long-term implications of adding recurring personnel expenses.

Zuckerman said during the Civil Service discussion that he could support the 2.8% COLA if the council identified recurring savings elsewhere in the budget to fund the additional expense.

Strong-Thompson appeared more comfortable using the existing operating cushion, noting that recurring revenues would still cover recurring expenses at approximately the amount proposed.

The council did not decide the COLA Wednesday.

Near the end of the budget hearing, Strong-Thompson asked whether the council would settle on the Civil Service Board’s 2.8% recommendation or remain with Madden’s proposed 1%.

Discon deferred the decision.

“We can conclude the meeting and everybody can think about it,” he said.

---

Related Coverage:

Joint meeting devolves into confusion as members of competing bodies shout over one another

MANDEVILLE — An unusual joint proceeding between the Mandeville City Council and Civil Service Board descended at one point into members talking and shouting over one another Wednesday night, exposing the practical consequences of a meeting arrangement the city attorney had defended hours earlier under Louisiana’s…

Continue Reading…

---

Discon raises FEMA, sales-tax concerns already addressed in emails

Discon raised two remaining concerns with the operating budget: nearly $2 million in disputed FEMA reimbursement revenue and a projected increase in the amount transferred from a dedicated Special Sales Tax Fund to reimburse the General Fund for eligible Public Works expenses.

The questions were not new. An email exchange between Discon and Finance Director Jessica Farno obtained by Mandeville Daily shows the two had discussed both issues repeatedly before Wednesday’s hearing, with Farno providing detailed written explanations and Discon indicating a week earlier that he understood them.

The exchange was extensive. Between July 22 and the afternoon of Wednesday’s hearing, Discon and Farno exchanged at least nine substantive emails concerning the budget questions, including four written responses from Farno explaining the accounting and reimbursement issues in detail. Her final response Wednesday afternoon alone ran roughly 800 words and included supporting documentation.

On Aug. 12, Farno explained that the city was awaiting a decision on its appeal involving $1.998 million in disputed Hurricane Ida reimbursement revenue. She said the money had already been anticipated in FY2026 and, if a decision was not received before the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, the anticipated revenue would move into FY2027.

Discon responded: “And I understand the FEMA reimbursement.”

Six days later, however, Discon raised the issue again in an Aug. 18 email, this time questioning whether the city should anticipate receiving the money at all. Because FEMA had previously denied the amount and the matter was in arbitration, Discon wrote, “there is a high probability that we will not ever get this amount. Why count it if you don’t have it?”

Farno responded at 2:59 p.m. Wednesday, hours before the budget hearing, copying Madden and the remainder of the council. She disputed Discon’s assessment, saying she was unaware of any information about the city’s pending appeal supporting the conclusion that there was a high probability it would receive nothing.

“I do not believe it would be appropriate to remove the anticipated reimbursement from the forecast solely by assuming an unfavorable outcome before the appeal/arbitration process has been completed,” Farno wrote.

Discon nevertheless raised the concern again during Wednesday night’s hearing.

“If you don’t have it, don’t count it,” Discon said, warning that the city could find itself “$2 million in the hole” if the reimbursement never materializes.

The email exchange shows a similar back-and-forth over Discon’s second concern, involving a projected increase in the transfer from the Special Sales Tax Fund to the General Fund for eligible Public Works expenses.

Discon had questioned the roughly 90% estimate as early as July 22. Farno explained Aug. 10 that the percentage was a budgetary estimate of eligible expenses, not a predetermined reimbursement rate. At year-end, she said, Finance reviews actual expenditures and transfers only those costs that qualify under the sales tax dedication.

Discon sought additional information Aug. 11, and Farno provided another detailed explanation the following day. Discon then summarized his understanding that the budget contained an estimate and that the transfer would ultimately be adjusted to actual eligible expenditures at the end of the fiscal year.

“That’s the gist of it!” Farno replied.

Discon returned to the issue Aug. 18, asking for the actual FY2025 expenditures and questioning whether the FY2027 estimate was too high because of its substantial increase over previous years.

Farno’s Wednesday afternoon response included a retrospective analysis of FY2025. Although the city transferred about $2.26 million that year — approximately 66.2% of total General Fund Public Works expenditures — Finance subsequently identified approximately $2.34 million in eligible expenses using what Farno described as a deliberately conservative review. The analysis did not examine every potentially eligible account because Finance had already identified more eligible expenses than the city actually transferred.

Farno said Finance has since refined its process to more completely identify expenses legally eligible for payment from dedicated funds. She said the higher FY2027 estimate partly reflects repeated council requests that the city make fuller use of restricted revenues for legally eligible expenses rather than unnecessarily relying on the General Fund.

“This change was not made in a vacuum,” Farno wrote to Discon. “You have raised that concern yourself on multiple occasions.”

When Discon raised both matters again during Wednesday night’s hearing, Farno made a point of putting their previous exchanges on the public record.

“Both of those items have been looked at and were explained in extensive detail in my email response to you, as well as in previous meetings with the council,” Farno said. She offered to read the email aloud if Discon still needed an explanation.

Discon asked her instead to paraphrase it.

Council considers additions instead

The few concrete changes discussed during the operating review were additions or reallocations rather than cuts.

Strong-Thompson proposed providing $10,000 each to the Children’s Advocacy Center/Hope House and Youth Service Bureau.

Planning Director Cara Bartholomew subsequently identified approximately $43,000 remaining in the Comprehensive Plan budget that she said was no longer needed because the work had been completed, potentially providing a source for the proposed $20,000 without increasing overall operating expenditures.

Madden also suggested considering $5,000 for the organization responsible for the city’s Veterans Day activities.

The council has not yet adopted the FY2027 budget.

-30-

---

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

City attorney said notice complied with Open Meetings Law ‘reasonable specificity’ clause

Zuckerman repeatedly questions what meeting is underway and who is presiding: ‘I’m not sure how the public was aware of that’

MANDEVILLE — An unusual joint proceeding between the Mandeville City Council and Civil Service Board descended at one point into members talking and shouting over one another Wednesday night, exposing the practical consequences of a meeting arrangement the city attorney had defended hours earlier under Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law.

The council’s notice made no mention of a joint Civil Service Board meeting or a cost-of-living adjustment for city employees, although the online version of the agenda had the words “Civil Service” inserted only into the title the day before the meeting.

The Civil Service Board separately advertised a COLA meeting for the same time and location, describing it as running “concurrently” with the council’s budget hearing. That notice was posted Aug. 14.

But what occurred Wednesday was not simply two public bodies conducting separate meetings at the same time.

The Municipal Police Employees’ Civil Service Board and Municipal Employees’ Civil Service Board, which meet as Mandeville’s combined Civil Service Board, were formally called to order during the council hearing. Members of both bodies then deliberated together for nearly an hour over employee compensation before the Civil Service Board voted unanimously to recommend a 2.8% COLA and adjourned, allowing the council to resume its budget hearing.

Civil Service Board Chairman Brian Burke described the unusual structure from the dais as “a civil service board meeting within a city council meeting.”

The arrangement prompted Zuckerman to twice interrupt the proceeding with points of order questioning which public body was actually meeting and who had authority to preside.

---

Related Coverage:

Council finds nothing to cut in FY2027 operating budget after earlier claim of overspending

MANDEVILLE — After weeks of warnings about city spending and a pointed challenge from Mayor Clay Madden to identify where Mandeville was overspending, Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon completed his review of the proposed fiscal year 2027 operating budget Wednesday night without identifying a specific expense…

Continue Reading…

---

“Are we in the council meeting right now? Are we turning this over to the civil service board to have their meeting? How is this working?” Zuckerman asked.

Later, after discussion had moved among members of both bodies, he raised the issue again.

“Who is — what meeting are we in, and who is chairing this meeting at the moment?” Zuckerman asked.

The distinction became more than procedural as the COLA debate grew contentious. Burke and Vogeltanz and District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson began talking over one another during an increasingly heated exchange, with multiple officials attempting to control the discussion.

As the discussion grew increasingly contentious, Burke and District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz repeatedly talked and at times shouted over one another, with District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson also attempting to interject. Council-at-Large Scott Discon, who also currently serves as council chairman, initially made no effort to restore order as the competing voices continued, intervening only after Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman raised another point of order questioning which meeting was underway and who was presiding.

Discon, who had previously told Zuckerman that he was chairing the meeting, eventually intervened.

“I’m gonna take over right now,” Discon said. “Sorry about that. I will take over now.”

City attorney had defended arrangement hours earlier

The confusion unfolded hours after City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert defended the arrangement under Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law, saying the council’s advertised agenda item — “Discussion of the FY 2026-2027 Budget” — was sufficiently specific to encompass a COLA discussion with the separately noticed Civil Service Board.

“The Open Meetings Law does not require that the Council notice separately label the meeting as a ‘joint meeting’ merely because the separately noticed Civil Service Boards will be present for, and participate in, the COLA discussion,” Sconzert wrote.

The Civil Service Board’s separate notice specifically identified the COLA and said its meeting would run concurrently with the council budget hearing. The council’s original Aug. 6 notice made no mention of the Civil Service Board, a joint meeting or the COLA.

For full context, the council’s online notice was modified Tuesday, Aug. 18, to add “CIVIL SERVICE” to its title. Its sole item of new business remained “Discussion of the FY 2026-2027 Budget,” however, and the document continued to display its original Aug. 6 notice date.

Wednesday’s proceeding ultimately placed both public bodies in session simultaneously, with their members deliberating together before the Civil Service Board voted on its COLA recommendation and adjourned. Zuckerman maintained during the meeting that the council’s notice did not adequately inform the public that such a joint proceeding would occur.

‘I’m not sure how the public was aware of that’

Zuckerman formally objected during the meeting, saying he did not believe it had been properly advertised.

“If I’m a six-year council member and I had no idea based on the agendas or the discussions or when we scheduled this meeting that this was gonna be a joint meeting tonight, I’m not sure how the public was aware of that,” Zuckerman said.

Zuckerman said his understanding when the budget hearings were originally scheduled was that officials knew the Civil Service Board also had a meeting Wednesday night and contemplated allowing it to use a conference room while the council conducted its budget hearing.

“My understanding was they were gonna be in the conference room,” he said.

The council and Civil Service Board had previously agreed to meet again to discuss the COLA after council members had an opportunity to review Mayor Clay Madden’s proposed budget. But the council had not yet reviewed the operating budget — where the COLA would be funded — before Wednesday night’s joint meeting, one reason Zuckerman said he was confused about why the two bodies were meeting together that night.

Wednesday’s meeting ultimately accomplished that purpose, but it was not identified as a joint meeting on the council agenda.

The Civil Service Board unanimously recommended a 2.8% COLA before adjourning its meeting. The council took no action on the recommendation and continued with its operating-budget review.

-30-

---

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

Zuckerman says he was not informed of joint meeting, has concern about Open Meetings law

City attorney responds after publication, says meeting arrangement complies with state law

MANDEVILLE — Mandeville’s Civil Service Board will meet with the City Council during Wednesday night’s budget hearing to discuss and vote on a cost-of-living adjustment for city employees, despite the City Council’s public meeting notice making no mention of the board, a joint meeting or the COLA.

The board — formally the Municipal Police Employees’ Civil Service Board and Municipal Employees’ Civil Service Board, which meet as a combined body — was separately advertised to meet at the same time and location as the council.

The unusual arrangement emerged Wednesday morning after Mandeville Daily sought clarification of separate public notices scheduling both bodies to meet at 6 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall.

The City Council’s notice, dated Aug. 6, advertises a budget hearing with a single item of new business: “Discussion of the FY 2026-2027 Budget.”

A Civil Service Board notice dated Aug. 14 schedules the board to meet at the identical time and location to consider a “Cost-of-living adjustment for the Police and Non-Police employees of the City of Mandeville for FY26-27.”

Rather than describing the proceeding as a joint meeting, however, the Civil Service Board notice says in its heading that the meeting will be “RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH THE CITY COUNCIL’S FY27 BUDGET HEARING.”

The council’s notice contains no corresponding reference to the Civil Service Board meeting.

Asked Wednesday morning whether the proceedings were a joint meeting and whether the bodies would meet in separate rooms, Council Clerk Alicia Watts confirmed that the Civil Service Board will instead join the council for a portion of its budget hearing.

“It is, the Civil Service Board will be present with the Council and available for discussion of the COLA, then they will be voting on the rate they will recommend to Council, then their portion of the meeting will adjourn and it will return to the Council,” Watts wrote.

Mandeville Daily followed up Wednesday morning asking why the proceeding was not advertised as a joint meeting, who called or arranged for the Civil Service Board to participate in the council’s previously advertised budget hearing and who informed Watts of the arrangement.

No response to those questions had been received as of publication.

---

UPDATE: City attorney says arrangement complies with Open Meetings Law

City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert responded after publication Wednesday, saying the arrangement complies with Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law and that the council was not required to advertise the proceeding as a joint meeting.

Sconzert said the council’s posted agenda item, “Discussion of the FY 2026-2027 Budget,” satisfies the law’s requirement that agenda items be described with reasonable specificity because the COLA and the Civil Service Board’s recommendation are components of the operating budget discussion.

“A COLA and the Civil Service Boards’ recommendations concerning it are components of the FY 2026–27 operating budget discussion,” Sconzert wrote. “The Open Meetings Law does not require that the Council notice separately label the meeting as a ‘joint meeting’ merely because the separately noticed Civil Service Boards will be present for, and participate in, the COLA discussion.”

Sconzert said the council will first call its budget hearing to order and begin its regular proceedings. When discussion reaches the COLA, the Civil Service Board will separately be called to order and participate in the discussion.

The board will then vote on the COLA rate or rates it will recommend to the council and adjourn its portion of the proceeding. The council will remain in session and continue discussing the remainder of the budget. The council is not scheduled to vote on the COLA or any other budget matter Wednesday.

Sconzert cited Maxwell v. Board of Elementary and Secondary Education in arguing that Louisiana courts evaluate agenda descriptions in context and do not require exhaustive detail when the public has reasonable notice of the subject to be discussed.

She also cited Rushing v. Southeastern Louisiana University in addressing the Open Meetings Law provision allowing actions taken in violation of the law to be voided. Because the council will take no final action Wednesday, Sconzert said there would be no council action from the hearing to set aside.

Sconzert did not identify who arranged for the Civil Service Board to join the previously scheduled council budget hearing or address why the arrangement was not disclosed more clearly on the council’s notice as a matter of public convenience, questions Mandeville Daily had also raised in its follow-up.

---

When reached for comment, Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman told Mandeville Daily he was not informed that Wednesday night’s budget hearing was intended to be a joint meeting with the Civil Service Board and raised concerns about whether the arrangement complies with Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law.

The arrangement closely resembles the follow-up joint meeting that the council and Civil Service Board agreed last month should occur after council members had an opportunity to review Mayor Clay Madden’s proposed fiscal year 2027 budget.

At a July 1 joint meeting, Civil Service Board Chairman Brian Burke made the board’s customary motion to recommend a COLA, proposing a 2.8% increase matching the increase announced by the Social Security Administration. Madden’s proposed budget, which had been released to council members less than 24 hours earlier, includes funding for a 1% COLA.

Council members declined to commit to a recurring salary increase before conducting their formal budget review.

Zuckerman suggested reconvening after the council had an opportunity to examine the proposed budget and determine the financial effect of a COLA. Other council members similarly expressed concerns about making a compensation decision before reviewing the city’s overall spending plan.

Rather than vote on Burke’s 2.8% recommendation, the Civil Service Board tabled the matter. Officials agreed to schedule another joint meeting after the council’s budget hearings were underway.

Although the council has since held two budget hearings, on Aug. 12 and 13, council members have not yet discussed what COLA, if any, they would support. Zuckerman said the operating budget — including the spending that would fund employee compensation — was expected to be discussed at Wednesday night’s hearing.

Wednesday’s proceeding appears to serve as the contemplated follow-up joint meeting, but it was not advertised as such on the City Council’s notice. Council Chairman Scott Discon is responsible for setting the council’s agendas, yet the Aug. 6 notice makes no mention of the Civil Service Board, a joint meeting or the COLA. Discon was copied on Mandeville Daily’s correspondence with Watts seeking clarification Wednesday morning but had not responded as of publication. It remained unclear who arranged for the Civil Service Board to join the previously scheduled council budget hearing.

It remained unclear who arranged for the Civil Service Board to join the previously scheduled council budget hearing.

Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law requires public bodies to provide advance notice of their meetings, including the date, time, place and agenda. The law also requires agenda items to be separately listed and described with reasonable specificity.

The Civil Service Board’s notice identifies both the COLA and the council budget hearing. The City Council’s notice, however, tells members of the public only that the council will hold a hearing for “Discussion of the FY 2026-2027 Budget.” It does not state that the Civil Service Board will convene with the council during the hearing or that the two bodies will jointly discuss employee compensation.

Wednesday’s meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at Mandeville City Hall.

-30-

---

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

Resolution increases speaking time to four minutes, allows comments on ordinance introductions and leaves placement of general public comment to council chair

Lengthy discussion centers on what residents should be permitted to discuss before council takes no action

MANDEVILLE — A City Council effort to give residents more opportunities to speak turned into a roughly 45-minute debate Thursday over when they should speak, what they should be allowed to discuss and how long they should be permitted to continue.

The council ultimately adopted Resolution 26-32, replacing its 2024 meeting rules and expanding the standard public-comment period from three minutes to four. The new rules also expressly allow residents to comment on ordinance introductions during the council’s general public-comment period, reversing an interpretation the council upheld in July that prohibited such comments.

The resolution passed after a lengthy discussion that at times ranged well beyond its two principal changes, touching on presentations, questions versus debate, the location of public comment on the agenda, written comments, donated speaking time and even District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz’s high school debate career.

Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law requires public bodies such as the City Council to provide an opportunity for public comment before taking action on an agenda item that will be put to a vote. The law also allows governing bodies to adopt “reasonable rules and restrictions” governing that comment period.

The council’s general public-comment period goes further, providing residents an opportunity to raise matters on which the council is not scheduled to vote.

That distinction became a recurring point during Thursday’s debate.

Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman said the purpose of separating general public comment from comment on voting items was largely practical: Residents can raise other matters during general public comment and then speak on voting items when those items come before the council.

“It just keeps the meeting moving so that people aren’t coming up twice and saying the same thing and filibustering, that sort of thing,” Zuckerman said.

But Zuckerman said residents otherwise should have broad latitude during the general comment period.

“You can speak about anything you want,” he said. “You can talk about a recipe you like. It doesn’t matter to me.”

Resolution reverses July ruling

The rules rewrite grew out of a dispute at the council’s July 9 meeting, when Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon, the council’s current chairman, ruled that residents could not use general public comment to discuss an ordinance being introduced that evening because the ordinance appeared on the agenda.

Vogeltanz challenged the ruling, arguing that the existing restriction on discussing agenda items was intended to prevent residents from speaking twice on matters already receiving their own public-comment period — not to prohibit discussion of ordinance introductions, which receive no vote at the meeting where they are introduced.

The council upheld Discon’s ruling 3-2, with Vogeltanz and Zuckerman voting to overturn it.

Discon subsequently sponsored Resolution 26-32 to reverse that interpretation.

“I decided after the meeting that I felt like we should repeal that and fix it,” Discon said Thursday. “Because I do think the public has a right to speak.”

Discon said residents have told him they do not believe their voices are being heard and characterized the change as an effort toward greater transparency.

The resolution specifically adds ordinance introductions to the subjects residents may discuss during general public comment, meaning a resident may now publicly address a proposed ordinance when it first appears before the council rather than waiting until the meeting at which it comes up for a vote.

Residents will still receive another opportunity to comment before the council votes, as required by state law.

Council debates where to draw the line

District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson questioned whether allowing discussion of ordinance introductions blurred the distinction between general public comment and the separate comment periods attached to voting items.

Her understanding of general public comment, she said, was that it provided an opportunity to raise matters that otherwise would not come before the council that evening.

Strong-Thompson also noted that ordinances can change substantially between introduction and final consideration.

District III Councilwoman Jill Lane raised a similar concern, particularly for ordinances that subsequently go before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Comments made to the council when an ordinance is introduced, she said, might not necessarily follow the proposal through the rest of the review process.

At the same time, Lane said hearing those comments earlier could provide council members and planning commissioners useful information about public sentiment before they begin their deliberations.

Vogeltanz took the broadest view.

“I am what I like to describe myself as a public comment maximalist,” he said. “If I thought I had the votes, I would let people talk for 10 minutes at a time, because why not?”

Vogeltanz said relatively few residents attend council meetings or contact council members and argued that those who make the effort to appear personally can have a significant influence on elected officials.

“When you actually show up to these meetings and you take the time to come to the podium and talk, you have, like, amazing impact on how we think about everything, because so few people will do that,” he said.

Mayor Clay Madden, who previously served eight years on the council, including four as chairman, suggested drawing a distinction between residents asking questions and engaging in debate over matters that are not scheduled for action.

If a resident wants clarification about an ordinance being introduced or a presentation made to the council, Madden said, the chairman should allow the question. But if the council is not voting on the matter, Madden said a chairman could remind speakers that the debate will occur at a later meeting.

City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert agreed that questions can be appropriate but cautioned against allowing discussions to expand beyond what was advertised on the meeting agenda.

“The bigger concern about those debates and lengthier discussions is that you get outside of what was advertised on the agenda,” Sconzert said, adding that the council should avoid straying into territory that could create an Open Meetings Law problem.

Four minutes becomes the new standard

There was considerably less disagreement over increasing the normal speaking limit.

Discon proposed moving from three minutes to four, saying residents frequently need additional time and council chairmen routinely grant it anyway.

“What’s a minute?” Discon said. “I think a minute’s important, but it’s for the public.”

Zuckerman supported the increase but noted that his research showed three minutes is more common among other public bodies.

Strong-Thompson likewise supported four minutes, saying speakers frequently need nearly another minute under the existing rules.

The discussion became more complicated when council members turned to a provision allowing speakers to receive unused time from other residents.

The previous rules capped a person’s total speaking time at nine minutes. Vogeltanz proposed increasing that limit to 12 minutes to correspond with the new four-minute individual limit.

Strong-Thompson objected, warning that extended speaking periods can turn meetings into “circuses” featuring repetitive or circular arguments. Zuckerman agreed, saying eight minutes was already a substantial amount of time.

Vogeltanz’s 12-minute proposal failed.

The council instead approved an eight-minute maximum, effectively allowing a speaker to use one other person’s donated four-minute period.

The council also approved a Vogeltanz amendment removing language specifying that general public comment occur “at the beginning of the meeting.” The final language instead refers simply to comments made “during the public comment period,” preserving the chairman’s authority to determine where that period appears on an agenda.

Sconzert told council members that much of what they were discussing could already be handled through the chairman’s authority over the agenda.

“I don’t think you necessarily need a resolution for that,” she said.

After the amendments were settled, the council approved Resolution 26-32.

The result is a broader public-comment policy than the one in effect before Thursday: Residents receive four minutes instead of three, may use general public comment to address ordinance introductions even though no vote is scheduled, and can receive donated time from another speaker for a maximum of eight minutes.

The resolution also resolves the dispute that prompted the rewrite in the first place.

A resident who wants to speak about an ordinance when it is introduced can now do so.

After approximately 45 minutes spent determining how that should work, the council made it official.

-30-

---

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

Madden presses Discon to back up claim city is overspending in FY2027 budget; Discon balks

Zuckerman asks, ‘What should those fund balances be?’ as projections show restricted funds could grow to $45 million in five years despite regular spending

MANDEVILLE — What began Thursday evening as the second in a series of largely technical hearings on Mandeville’s proposed FY2027 budget ended in a heated confrontation over whether the city is spending too much — and opened a potentially much larger debate over whether taxpayers should continue pouring money into restricted funds that could accumulate an estimated $45 million over the next five years.

The Aug. 13 hearing — the second for FY2027 — produced two distinct financial debates that eventually collided: Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon’s assertion that the city is overspending despite the administration presenting its first structurally balanced budget in years, and Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman’s insistence that the city determine how much money it actually needs to retain in two rapidly growing restricted sales-tax funds.

---

Budget Hearing #1: FY2027 budget hearings open with first structurally balanced operating budget in years

---

Zuckerman asks, how much is enough in restricted funds?

The latter question, Zuckerman argued, is essentially the same one the council recently answered for the General Fund.

After months of debate, the council this summer established a 20% minimum General Fund reserve and separately adopted a 30% to 40% target range. Discon cast the lone dissenting vote on both measures.

Zuckerman said Thursday that the city now needs to ask the same fundamental question about its Street Construction Fund and Special Sales Tax Fund:

How much is enough?

The issue arose as Finance Director Jessica Farno reviewed how Mandeville’s 2.5% local sales tax is divided and presented historical growth in several city funds.

From 2020 to 2025, the Street Construction Fund increased by nearly $6 million despite almost $10 million in capital expenditures. The District 3 Special Sales Tax Fund grew by approximately $10.7 million despite $4.6 million in capital spending, while the Special Sales Tax Fund increased approximately $1.5 million despite $14.3 million in expenditures. Over the same period, the General Fund declined approximately $8.4 million while absorbing $13.2 million in capital outlay.

---

Now, I think we’re wasting everybody else’s time by y’all wanting to get into a one-on-one between me and the mayor, and now you got Zuckerman coming after me.

— Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon

---

Zuckerman pushed for those historical trends to be projected forward, arguing that the city cannot examine a five-year projection showing pressure on the General Fund without simultaneously examining how much money could accumulate elsewhere.

Based on the preliminary projection discussed Thursday, the Street Construction Fund and Special Sales Tax Fund could together reach approximately $45 million in five years.

Zuckerman repeatedly emphasized that he was excluding the District 3 Special Sales Tax Fund from that figure because Mandeville does not control the dedication of those parish-generated revenues.

“If we’re gonna talk about that, we also gotta be talking about over those next five years, we’re gonna grow those restricted funds,” Zuckerman said. “If we keep doing the same thing that we’ve been doing, simply, the same level of spending and the same revenue dedicated to those pockets, while we’re reducing the General Fund, we’re growing those restricted funds.”

The discussion is particularly timely because the authorization for a 1% sales tax approved in 1986 expires Dec. 31, 2029. Half of that tax may be used for any lawful governmental purpose, while the other half is dedicated to water, sewer, streets, drainage and flood protection.

A separate half-cent tax approved in 2001 and dedicated to streets, sidewalks, bike paths, existing bridges and roadside drainage was renewed by voters in 2021 and runs through July 1, 2031.

Zuckerman said the approaching 2029 expiration gives the city an opportunity to reconsider whether allocations established decades ago still reflect its needs.

“We can either, A, go back to the voters and say, ‘Let’s keep putting money in this fund. Let’s keep taxing you, and let’s watch these fund balances grow, and we can’t spend it,’ or we can put it on the ballot and we can say, ‘Let us spend it differently because things are different than they were 25 years ago,’” Zuckerman said.

There is another option, he added: Let the tax expire.

“That’s not the purpose of government, to keep collecting taxpayers’ money to grow a huge balance that you’re not gonna spend,” Zuckerman said. “I’d rather reduce taxes.”

District III Councilwoman Jill Lane responded by focusing largely on the District 3 Special Sales Tax Fund, despite Zuckerman having specifically excluded that fund from the balances he was questioning. She warned that emphasizing growing balances could make voters reluctant to renew taxes and noted that District 3 revenue is dedicated to costly road and drainage projects.

Discon had repeatedly pushed back at previous meetings on Zuckerman’s suggestion that the city consider asking voters to rededicate some restricted funds. Lane now appeared to add another skeptical voice to that discussion.

“And if as we continue to say stuff like, ‘We’re just, this fund is growing and growing and growing,’” Lane said. “Well, the voters could be like, ‘Well, then we don’t need it anymore.’”

Lane suggested the city instead look for additional eligible uses for District 3 money, including expenses currently paid from the General Fund. She asked, for example, whether some police salaries could potentially qualify based on where officers work.

Public Works Director Keith LaGrange added that future annexation of portions of the city’s growth management area could bring infrastructure with it that Mandeville would have to maintain. He cited an earlier examination of taking over a street that would have required several million dollars to bring to city standards.

“Maybe I didn’t make my point very clearly,” Zuckerman said later. “When I talked about the growth in those restricted funds, I specifically was not talking about the District 3 sales tax fund.”

Zuckerman also told Mandeville Daily that he believes the concern over future street liabilities overstates the city’s circumstances.

Annexations into Mandeville are relatively rare, he said, while many of the city’s major thoroughfares are maintained or funded at the state or parish level. That leaves the city primarily responsible for neighborhood streets, where Mandeville already has an ongoing program of maintenance and capital improvements.

His larger point, Zuckerman said, is that the projection already assumes the city continues spending on streets at approximately the rate it has historically — yet the restricted balances still grow to approximately $45 million.

And if some council members are not willing to consider changing the dedications, Zuckerman said, he at least wants them to confront what the projections are showing.

During Thursday’s hearing, Zuckerman said he was not arguing that the city necessarily has too much money in either fund today. Rather, he wants the council to establish what an appropriate reserve actually is instead of allowing the balance to grow indefinitely simply because the tax dedication already exists.

“What should those fund balances be moving forward?” Zuckerman asked. “I’m not comfortable with we made a decision 25 years ago or 20 years ago to put this much every year into a fund, and 20 years later we just say we can never, ever, ever, ever adjust that or relook at it.”

---

I’m just asking what should those balances be in five years? And I don’t understand why we can’t talk about that.

— Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman

---

Lane’s warning that the council calling attention to the growing restricted-fund balances could jeopardize the chances of voter renewal drew a pointed response from Zuckerman, who questioned why publicly discussing how large those funds are becoming was considered off limits by some on the council.

“I’m just asking what should those balances be in five years? And I don’t understand why we can’t talk about that,” Zuckerman said.

“Because we’re collecting tax money, and we’re projecting right there [on presentation screens in the council chambers] that we’re gonna be sitting on that tax money and not spending it.”

Spending accusation sparks heated exchange

The philosophical debate over restricted funds soon gave way to a considerably more contentious exchange over the budget immediately before the council.

Discon said some residents believe the city is overspending and argued that before officials discuss reallocating dedicated tax revenue, the city should demonstrate that it is serious about controlling expenses.

“We’re overspending,” Discon said. “We should be saving some money somewhere.”

Discon also expressed disbelief in the administration’s five-year General Fund forecast.

“I looked at it last night when I got in bed. I was like, ‘God, this is the most beautiful five-year forecast,’” Discon said. “It just looks too unbelievable to be real.”

Mayor Clay Madden challenged him directly.

Madden noted that the administration has presented a structurally balanced FY2027 operating budget, with recurring revenues exceeding recurring expenses by approximately $200,000. He said he, Farno and department directors had gone through the spending plan “with a fine-tooth comb” to reduce expenses before it reached the council.

If Discon believed the city was still overspending, Madden said, he wanted him to identify where.

“I need from you, Councilman Discon, the areas that you feel like we’re overspending. … Not from a text message, not from the people you’re gonna go talk to between the meetings.”

Discon initially characterized his assertion as a general statement and pointed to his opposition to the previous year’s budget.

Madden continued pressing.

“I’m not talking about the projections,” Madden said. “I’m talking about the budget that we have before us right now. If you think that we’re overspending, then I need you to state in a meeting where you think we’re overspending and where we need to dial it back.”

Discon acknowledged that he did not yet have specific cuts to identify, saying Thursday was only the second hearing and that three remained.

“You’ll get it within the next, I guess we have three meetings, so I still have time to put all that together,” Discon said.

He maintained that his concern stems partly from the five-year forecast and his belief that the General Fund will decline more quickly than projected.

“This year’s forecast is completely different than last year’s forecast, but four of the years are still in it that were there last year,” Discon said. “So I’m wondering why all of a sudden is this forecast looking so bright? Is it just because we’re adding a Trader Joe’s every year?”

Zuckerman then joined Madden in challenging Discon’s assertion.

“If I was gonna come to a budget hearing and claim that we’re overspending and the budget is overspent, and this budget is overspending, and that the forecast is inaccurate, I would certainly have some details with me to do it,” Zuckerman said.

Discon objected to the increasingly pointed criticism, saying Madden and Zuckerman were “coming after” him. He continued to push back.

“I still think that there’s some overspending in this thing,” Discon said. “We don’t have the time right now for me to go into that, but I’m putting together a list of what I think we should be doing, and that will come to the next meeting.”

The exchange echoed Discon’s position during last year’s budget process. Discon cast the lone vote against the FY2026 operating budget, but when the council considered specific spending reductions, those amendments were offered by District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz. Discon instead sought to postpone the final vote and have the administration return with proposed cuts, a motion that died for lack of a second.

Under Mandeville’s form of government, the mayor proposes the annual budget, but the City Council holds the legislative authority to amend and ultimately adopt it — leaving council members to decide which expenditures, if any, should be removed before passage.

District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson then moved to adjourn, bringing the increasingly acrimonious exchange to an end.

The council has three budget hearings remaining, with the next scheduled Wednesday.

Moving forward

Discon has now committed publicly to identify the spending he believes should be reduced.

At the same time, Zuckerman has made clear that he intends to continue asking a different question throughout the budget process — not simply whether Mandeville has enough money, but whether taxpayers are being asked to provide more than the city can reasonably use when tens of millions of dollars may accumulate in restricted accounts.

The council will continue its review during three additional FY2027 budget hearings this month, with the next scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 19.

-30-

---

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

Opening discussion reveals audit delay tied to city effort to correct fixed-asset records dating to the 1960s

Recurring revenues exceed recurring expenses by about $200,000

General Fund reserves remain above city’s newly adopted targets

MANDEVILLE — Mandeville’s proposed FY2027 budget would pay for recurring city operations entirely with recurring revenues for the first time in years, Finance Director Jessica Farno confirmed Wednesday during the first of five City Council budget hearings.

After removing grants, capital projects and other one-time revenues and expenditures, the proposed budget projects approximately $23.8 million in recurring revenues and transfers, with revenues exceeding recurring expenditures by about $200,000, a first in “many years.”

Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman asked Farno to establish the distinction early in the council’s review of the budget.

“What I’m trying to get at … in this year’s proposed budget, are we covering our recurring expenditures with our recurring revenues?” Zuckerman asked.

“Yes,” Farno replied.

Zuckerman later noted that during his six budget cycles on the council, he had repeatedly heard that Mandeville was not covering recurring expenses entirely with recurring revenues.

“This is the first year in many years that we … are paying for recurring expenses with recurring revenue,” Zuckerman said.

“Correct,” Farno replied.

The approximately $200,000 margin is narrow. District I Councilwomen Cynthia Strong-Thompson and District III Councilwoman Jill Lane described it as providing little room for unexpected operating costs, with Strong-Thompson calling the structurally balanced proposal a “squeaker.”

But the recurring operating balance represents only one measure of the city’s overall financial position.

When grants, capital activity and other nonrecurring items are included, Farno said the FY2027 budget projects a net General Fund increase of approximately $8.7 million, although much of that amount results from the timing of multi-year capital appropriations and reimbursements rather than ordinary operating income.

Farno’s five-year projection also estimates an FY2027 ending General Fund balance of approximately $10.26 million, above the upper end of the 30% to 40% reserve target recently adopted by the council.

Even under the more conservative governmental fund calculation, which assumes outstanding capital appropriations remain committed, the city projects approximately $6.44 million in unappropriated General Fund balance — still above the 20% minimum reserve established by ordinance.

Audit discussion opens hearing

The council did not initially begin Wednesday’s hearing with those budget figures.

Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon instead opened the first FY2027 budget hearing by reading a prepared statement focused on the city’s delayed FY2025 audit, despite acknowledging in the statement that the unfinished audit does not prevent the council from legally proceeding with the budget process.

Discon’s emphasis on the delayed audit also echoed broader questions about the Madden administration’s financial management — including concerns over late audits — raised in recent anonymous mailers and websites targeting the mayor, although his statement did not reference the campaign.

Discon said a completed audit would provide a “certified look at our past financial health” and that future spending estimates are most effective when based upon “verified historical baselines.”

He said he had met with the city’s auditors the previous day and had been told the audit would be completed and submitted within approximately two weeks.

Discon said it was his “professional expectation” that the “official certified audit” be delivered before the council takes its final vote on the FY2027 budget later this month.

The discussion that followed, however, established that council members had already received repeated explanations of both the reason for the delay and the relationship between the unfinished audit and the FY2027 budget, possibly by email or other internal communications.

Zuckerman specifically asked that those explanations be placed on the public record rather than allowing the discussion to end with the fact that the audit had not yet been issued.

“I know there’s been a lot of correspondence [by email] and a lot of information that our director of finance has provided regarding that,” Zuckerman said. “I think that it was worthwhile rather than just throwing out there that … we don’t have the audit yet.”

Zuckerman said the public deserved to understand why the audit had been delayed and asked Farno and Mayor Clay Madden to explain what remained unfinished.

Madden also referenced the previous communications, saying council members had been kept informed about the audit and had received explanations through email, individual discussions and previous public comments.

The delay, officials explained, stems from a reconstruction of the city’s historical fixed-asset records after the current auditing firm identified deficiencies in beginning asset balances that had carried through previous audits.

The work has required researching city property and other assets dating back decades, including records from the 1960s.

Madden said auditors presented the city with the option of completing the audit earlier with the fixed-asset problem noted or delaying it while the underlying records were corrected.

“I said, ‘Let’s do this thing right,’” Madden said.

The problem predates both Madden’s administration and his previous service on the City Council, he said.

Farno then explained why the outstanding work does not undermine the figures being used in the FY2027 budget.

Fixed assets appear in the city’s government-wide financial statements, while the annual governmental budget is prepared at the fund level using revenues, expenditures and fund balances.

“The fund financial statements are essentially complete,” Farno said.

The draft audit remains the property of the auditors and is not yet a public document, she said, but those fund-level figures are substantially complete and agree with the figures she used to construct the proposed FY2027 budget.

“There’s really no support for the suggestion that the numbers that were used to develop this budget are inaccurate,” Farno said.

Zuckerman said the explanation was consistent with information he had received directly from the city’s auditors.

“After thorough discussions with the auditors myself, I feel very confident in the figures that Ms. Farno’s been working off of, and I have no issue whatsoever moving forward with the budget process this year,” he said.

District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz similarly said that while future audits should be completed on time, the outstanding fixed-asset work does not prevent the council from evaluating the FY2027 budget.

Farno also clarified that Discon’s stated expectation of receiving an “official certified audit” before the budget vote is unlikely to occur on that timetable. The auditors expect to submit the audit by the end of August, after which the Louisiana Legislative Auditor must review it before certification.

Lane asked directly whether that certification would occur before the council is expected to vote on the budget.

Farno said it would not.

Water and sewer presents different picture

While the proposed General Fund is structurally balanced and maintains substantial reserves, Wednesday’s review identified a considerably different financial problem in the city’s water and sewer enterprise fund.

The projected loss comes as the city is already preparing for an independent review of its water and sewer billing system following months of controversy over the rate structure adopted last year. In July, the council unanimously authorized the administration to seek a new consultant to review the current methodology and recommend changes aimed at balancing customer fairness with the requirement that the utility enterprise fund be financially self-sustaining. The review is also expected to examine alternative billing methods and whether the city should continue handling utility billing in-house.

The FY2027 proposal projects an approximately $2.44 million operating loss for the combined utility operation.

Zuckerman noted that last year’s budget projected an approximately $2 million operating loss, meaning the projected deficit has actually increased despite implementation of new water and sewer rates.

Farno confirmed that assessment.

The discussion also showed that the enterprise fund has depended on loans from the city’s other funds to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay its bills.

Draft FY2025 figures discussed Wednesday show approximately $7.7 million in enterprise-fund cash and investments while the fund owes approximately $8.6 million to other city funds.

“The only reason that it’s been able to support this is because of the liquidity in the other funds,” Farno said, adding that without those inter-fund loans, “we wouldn’t have been paying bills.”

That means eventually reaching operational break-even would stop the enterprise fund from accumulating additional losses but would not address the millions of dollars already owed to other city funds.

Farno also noted that money loaned to the enterprise fund could otherwise be invested by those funds and generating interest revenue.

The council previously authorized an outside review of the city’s water and sewer rate structure.

Other issues ahead

Sales-tax collections are currently running approximately 5% above the FY2026 budget, Farno said, while the FY2027 proposal assumes approximately 3.25% additional growth.

The administration’s proposed budget includes a 1% cost-of-living adjustment for employees in addition to budgeted merit increases. Council members requested calculations showing the full cost of the COLA and the effect that increasing it would have on the approximately $200,000 recurring operating surplus.

Farno said she and Madden had already modeled larger increases while constructing the budget.

“It didn’t work,” she said.

Zuckerman also requested a five-year projection of the city’s restricted funds, saying it will become increasingly important to understand the relationship between growing restricted balances and General Fund expenses as major city sales taxes approach renewal during the next five years.

The council will continue its review during four additional FY2027 budget hearings this month, with the next scheduled for 5 p.m. Aug. 13, one hour before the council’s regular meeting.

-30-

---

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

Three unsigned mailers and two anonymous websites share overlapping themes and technical similarities, potentially same or coordinated sources.

Campaign frequently portrays City Council actions as decisions made solely by the mayor.

2014 sales tax rededication played major role in $23M ‘surplus.’

MANDEVILLE — With Mandeville’s next municipal election still nearly two years away, three anonymous political mailers and two anonymously operated websites have mounted a sustained campaign criticizing Mayor Clay Madden’s administration on issues ranging from city finances to water and sewer rates.

The campaign frequently portrays Mayor Clay Madden as solely responsible for decisions that were, in fact, debated and approved by the City Council.

While the identities of those responsible remain unknown, Mandeville Daily found the websites share numerous technical and design characteristics with one another, that one closely mirrors the messaging found in the mailers, and that many of the campaign’s claims omit significant legislative and financial context.

Anonymous mailers target Madden administration with sensationalized claims

Rather than focusing on a single issue, the anonymous mailers collectively present a sustained political narrative about Mayor Clay Madden’s administration. Over the past several months, residents have received a series of professionally produced mailers criticizing the mayor’s handling of city finances, annual audits and water and sewer rates. While each mailing centers on a different topic, they follow a similar pattern: begin with a real event, public document or government statistic, then expand that fact into broader conclusions about Madden’s leadership while assigning responsibility almost exclusively to him.

That approach oversimplifies how municipal government actually functions. Under Louisiana law and Mandeville’s charter, many of the decisions highlighted in the mailers were not actions the mayor could take unilaterally. Annual budgets are adopted by ordinance or resolution of the City Council. Water and sewer rates are established by council ordinance. Financial reserve policies are enacted by council legislation. Long-range financial forecasts are planning documents prepared for elected officials to consider, not executive orders issued by the mayor. Whether one agrees or disagrees with those policies, they were ultimately adopted through votes of the City Council rather than by mayoral decree.

The mailers also largely ignore the legislative process behind those decisions. Many of the financial policies criticized were debated publicly during council meetings before being approved by council vote. In several instances, the actions cited in the mailers received unanimous or overwhelming support from council members. Presenting those decisions solely as actions of the mayor leaves readers without the broader governmental context in which they were made.

Some of the mailers likewise rely on long-range projections or isolated examples without acknowledging subsequent developments. For example, criticism of projected General Fund deficits does not mention that Mayor Clay Madden has since introduced a structurally balanced proposed FY2027 budget, which is currently under review by the City Council and may be amended before its anticipated adoption later this month. Nor do the mailers acknowledge that the City Council recently adopted a formal financial policy establishing a minimum unrestricted General Fund balance along with a target reserve range of 30% to 40% of annual operating expenditures.

That target substantially exceeds the Government Finance Officers Association’s widely recognized best-practice recommendation that general-purpose governments maintain unrestricted fund balances of at least two months of regular operating revenues or expenditures, or roughly 16.7%. Likewise, issues surrounding the city’s utility-rate structure have not been left unaddressed. The City Council has already authorized an independent review of the water and sewer rate methodology, signaling that elected officials are continuing to evaluate the system rather than treating it as settled policy.

[View Full-Size Chart ↗]

As for the oft-cited $23 million General Fund balance, the Madden administration and several members of the City Council have offered a markedly different interpretation. They contend the reserve grew substantially after voters approved a 2014 reallocation of one-half cent of the city’s existing one-cent sales tax from infrastructure funds to the General Fund, creating a recurring revenue stream of approximately $2.3 million annually at the time, with collections increasing in subsequent years as taxable sales grew.

According to that view, the resulting revenue shift — not necessarily annual operating surpluses — accounted for a significant portion of the balance over the following decade. They further argue that major infrastructure maintenance and expansion projects often failed to move forward amid repeated disagreements between the former mayor and successive City Councils over proposed spending, while employee compensation remained largely stagnant during the previous administration’s 12-year tenure. Those circumstances, they contend, produced both a sizable General Fund balance and a backlog of infrastructure needs, and explain why a portion of the reserve has since been intentionally used to address deferred capital projects and long-delayed employee compensation rather than being depleted through unplanned spending.

The mailers overstate the city’s audit history. Although Mandeville did submit annual audits after statutory deadlines during Madden’s administration, the claim that the city has been delinquent on every annual financial audit since he became mayor is not supported by the public record.

The handful of unusually high water bills that generated headlines — and were later featured prominently in the anonymous mailer and website — also proved to be extreme outliers rather than evidence of a widespread billing spike. Only a small number of residents appeared at council meetings with the most dramatic increases, which occurred during an unusually long, roughly six-week transition billing period. Subsequent review found the meters were functioning properly and that the water reflected on the bills had actually been consumed. While the new rate structure intentionally shifted more of the cost to high-volume users, city officials reported that most customers saw relatively little change or even decreases in their bills. The council has since hired an independent consultant to reassess the rate structure itself. Meanwhile, city officials said the unusually high bills that drew the initial publicity returned to expected levels during subsequent billing cycles, leaving the cases highlighted in news reports and the anonymous campaign as notable but unrepresentative extremes.

None of this necessarily means every criticism contained in the mailers is without merit. Questions about audit timeliness, long-term financial planning and utility-rate policy are legitimate subjects of public debate. The issue is not whether citizens should criticize their local government; it is whether those criticisms fairly portray how municipal decisions are actually made and who is legally responsible for them.

Anonymous websites reveal common technical fingerprints, overlapping content

The mailers are not the only anonymous political material targeting Madden. Two websites — FireClayMadden.com and MandevilleWatergate.com — also criticize the administration without readily identifying who created or operates them. A review of the sites found numerous similarities and direct connections between them, including the same WordPress Pro/Cornerstone framework, related design elements and imagery, and links from Fire Clay Madden to Mandeville Watergate content.

Neither site identifies its designer or operator, and both appear to have been assembled from commercially available WordPress tools rather than through a professional custom-built web platform.

The similarities extend beyond the software used to build them. Both sites use closely related graphics of Madden, including versions of the same photograph of him giving a thumbs-up, while Fire Clay Madden incorporates the water-bill controversy prominently into its broader criticism of the mayor. Technical checks also found the two domains hosted on consecutive IP addresses within the same hosting environment. None of those details alone establishes common ownership, but taken together they indicate the sites are closely related.

The connection is notable in examining the anonymous mail campaign because at least one of the mailers substantially mirrors themes and content appearing on one of the websites. There is no evidence presently establishing who produced the three mailers or who operates the two websites, nor that the same person or organization is responsible for all five. However, the overlapping content and the connections between the two websites raise the question of whether the anonymous political materials are part of a coordinated effort rather than unrelated campaigns.

-30-

---

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

Plaintiffs cite attorney oversight in bid to reopen Fifth Circuit appeal

UPDATE: Appeal reinstated by court

---

Update (Aug. 7): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has granted LSU Health Foundation New Orleans and Woodward Harbor’s motion to reinstate the appeal, restoring the case to the court’s active docket. The appeal had been dismissed three days earlier after the appellants failed to timely file required record excerpts. Attorneys for the plaintiffs acknowledged the omission in a subsequent motion, describing it as “an isolated oversight based on internal miscommunications.” The Fifth Circuit granted the request without further explanation, allowing the appeal of U.S. District Judge Brandon S. Long’s dismissal to proceed.

---

MANDEVILLE — Just one day after the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed their appeal for failure to prosecute, LSU Health Foundation New Orleans and Woodward Harbor LLC have asked the court to reinstate the case, acknowledging the dismissal resulted from an internal oversight by their attorneys.

In a motion filed Wednesday, the plaintiffs ask the appellate court to reopen the appeal after it was dismissed Aug. 4 because required record excerpts were not timely filed. Their attorneys state the omission was “an isolated oversight based on internal miscommunications” and argue the deficiency has now been corrected by filing the required documents.

The motion notes that the plaintiffs had timely filed their principal appellate brief on July 10 and contends reopening the appeal would not prejudice the City of Mandeville because the city has already received an unopposed extension until Sept. 9 to file its response brief.

To satisfy the Fifth Circuit’s reinstatement procedures, the plaintiffs attached the missing record excerpts, including the district court docket, notice of appeal, final judgment and the orders entered by U.S. District Judge Brandon S. Long dismissing the claims at issue.

The motion also states that counsel for the City of Mandeville was contacted on Aug. 4 and again on Aug. 5 regarding the request but had not indicated whether the city would oppose reinstatement of the appeal.

The appeal seeks review of Judge Long’s February ruling dismissing with prejudice the remaining claims brought by LSU Health Foundation and Woodward Harbor against the City of Mandeville. As before, the appeal does not include claims against Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman, whose dismissal is not being challenged.

If granted, the motion would simply restore the appeal to the court’s active docket. The Fifth Circuit has not yet ruled on whether it will reinstate the case.

-30-

---

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

Fifth Circuit court throws out appeal in latest setback for Sucette Harbor plaintiffs

---

UPDATE: LSU Health Foundation, Woodward Harbor seek to revive dismissed Sucette Harbor appeal

---

MANDEVILLE — A federal appeals court has dismissed LSU Health Foundation New Orleans’ appeal challenging the dismissal of its lawsuit against the City of Mandeville, leaving the lower court’s ruling in favor of the city in place unless the appeal is later reinstated.

LSU Health Foundation had already abandoned their appeal of the dismissal of their claims against Zuckerman individually.

The dismissal, issued Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, was not based on the merits of the case. Instead, the court dismissed the appeal “for want of prosecution” after finding the appellants failed to timely file required record excerpts.

The underlying federal lawsuit stems from the long-running legal battle surrounding the proposed Sucette Harbor development, in which LSU Health Foundation New Orleans and Woodward Harbor, LLC, sued the City of Mandeville and Zuckerman after the city rejected a development proposal for the lakefront property.

The Fifth Circuit’s order states that the appeal was dismissed under Rule 42.3 after the appellants failed to comply with appellate filing requirements.

The dismissal leaves intact U.S. District Judge Brandon S. Long’s decision dismissing the claims against the City and Zuckerman, representing another significant procedural victory for the defendants in a series of lawsuits arising from the failed development proposal.

Although the appeal has been dismissed, the Fifth Circuit’s rules allow certain appeals dismissed for want of prosecution to be reinstated under limited circumstances if the appellant corrects the procedural deficiency and successfully petitions the court for reinstatement.

The latest ruling comes as related litigation continues in federal court. The City of Mandeville and Zuckerman are pursuing claims seeking recovery of attorney’s fees and sanctions against LSU Health Foundation and its former attorneys following the dismissal of the underlying lawsuit.

The appeal was being handled by different counsel than the attorneys who originally represented LSU Health Foundation in the litigation. The foundation retained new appellate counsel after its previous legal team withdrew from the case following widely publicized sanctions proceedings involving court filings that included nonexistent legal citations generated by artificial intelligence.

The Fifth Circuit’s dismissal issued Tuesday was based on a separate procedural issue, stating that the appellants failed to timely file required record excerpts.

If the appeal is not reinstated, the district court’s judgment in favor of the City and Zuckerman will remain the final disposition of that portion of the federal litigation.

-30-

---

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

Clarification aims to address public confusion over electric mobility devices

Reader spots typo on replacement signs

Ordinance doesn’t ban having bikes at Trailhead

MANDEVILLE — A Tammany Trace official says street-legal electric mobility devices remain permitted on the Tammany Trace, despite confusion stemming from two different sets of signs that govern two separate areas.

David Williams, a park ranger with the Tammany Trace, told Mandeville Daily that Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles, along with street-legal electric scooters, electric skateboards and electric inline skates, are all permitted on the Tammany Trace.

Williams said much of the confusion centers on longstanding Tammany Trace signs that simply read “No Motor Vehicles.” Those signs have been posted along the Trace for years and, according to Williams, were intended to prohibit internal combustion engine vehicles — not modern street-legal electric mobility devices.

Williams indicated he has heard from locals who are confused with four new signs recently installed by the City of Mandeville at the four corners of the Mandeville Trailhead. Those city signs — two of which were erected along the Tammany Trace bike path — govern activity within the Trailhead facilities and do not apply to the Tammany Trace itself, even though the recreational trail passes through the area.

Earlier this week, the city revised those new Trailhead signs after an initial version incorrectly stated that only electric bicycles were prohibited. The updated signs now reflect Ordinance 26-23, adopted by the Mandeville City Council in early June, by stating that all bicycles are prohibited within the Trailhead facilities. Officials also updated the older, existing signage within the Trailhead facilities as well.

While some social media commenters have questioned whether the new signs mean bicycles cannot even be present at the Trailhead, city officials have consistently emphasized that the ordinance — not the signage — determines what is legal or illegal. Signs are intended to summarize the rules in limited space and cannot reproduce the full text of the municipal code. As shown in Ordinance 26-23, the prohibition is against the use of bicycles and electric bicycles on Trailhead property, not merely their presence. The ordinance itself remains the controlling legal authority.

An observant Mandeville Daily reader also noticed that the replacement signs contain a minor typographical error, instructing visitors to “follow and follow the rules listed below.” The wording appears to be an oversight and does not affect the posted regulations. If corrected, the revised signs would become the city’s second replacement of the four Trailhead signs since they were first installed.

The Trailhead facilities include areas such as the pavilion, splash pad area, stage and surrounding pedestrian spaces. The ordinance applies only within those facilities and does not regulate use of the Tammany Trace.

Williams said riders may continue using the Tammany Trace with street-legal Class 1, 2 and 3 e-bikes, as well as other street-legal electric mobility devices such as electric scooters, electric skateboards and electric inline skates.

The distinction between the Trailhead facilities and the Tammany Trace has led to questions from residents because the two areas intersect but are governed by different rules. The City of Mandeville regulates activities within the Trailhead facilities, while the Tammany Trace continues to permit street-legal electric mobility devices under its existing policies.

Within the City of Mandeville, the Mandeville Police Department retains authority to enforce Louisiana laws governing whether a vehicle is street-legal and whether its operator is legally permitted to use it on public roadways.

-30-

---

Editor’s Note: This story was updated to reflect the discovery of a typographical error in signage at the Trailhead, as well as clarifying what Ordinance 26-23 specified for signage changes.

---

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

Call follows launch of ongoing police enforcement operation, new city restrictions aimed at improving bicycle safety

MANDEVILLE — Mandeville Police responded Tuesday evening after parents hosting a birthday party for a young child with autism at the Mandeville Trailhead reported that a group of teenagers on bicycles were riding through a party being held under the pavilion and splash pad area in a manner they believed endangered young children.

The incident occurred around 5:30 to 6 p.m. under the Mandeville Trailhead pavilion where several families had gathered for the party while children played on the adjacent splash pad.

According to multiple parents, who spoke with Mandeville Daily on the condition that they not be identified, a group of approximately 10 teenagers — most riding traditional bicycles and one possibly riding an electric bicycle — began riding rapidly through the pavilion area and performing wheelies close to young children and adults.

Two parents said they asked the teenagers to stop multiple times, but the riders allegedly refused. Concerned that someone could be injured, the parents said they felt compelled to call the Mandeville Police Department.

Two MPD officers responded to the scene. One of the responding officers told Mandeville Daily that Tuesday’s response would focus on education and warnings, but said stronger enforcement would follow if the behavior continued.

The encounter also comes amid a broader city effort to address unsafe bicycle riding. In recent weeks, Mandeville has adopted Ordinance 26-23 prohibiting bicycles within Trailhead facilities and launched a police education and enforcement campaign focused on illegal electric mini-motorcycles as well as traffic law violations involving traditional bicycles and legal e-bikes. Police have repeatedly said the initiative is intended to address dangerous behavior regardless of the type of bicycle involved.

One parent also told Mandeville Daily that at least one of the teenagers’ parents arrived while officers were on scene and was observed speaking with police.

No injuries were reported, and no citations were issued Tuesday evening, according to one responding officer. Police indicated the encounter was handled as an educational warning.

-30-

---

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

Three-member council approves special events, engineering amendments and Public Works personnel changes during largely routine meeting

Finance Report: Sales tax revenue up 5.7% above last year – city could finish $700K-$800K above sales tax projections

MANDEVILLE — The City Council postponed votes Thursday on proposed changes to its meeting procedures and a short-term rental permit, allowing the full council to consider the two matters when they return next month.

Only three of the council’s five members attended the July 23 meeting. Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman and District III Councilwoman Jill Lane were absent.

Resolution 26-32, which would repeal and replace the council’s existing rules of procedure, was postponed until Aug. 13. The proposal would increase the public speaking limit from three minutes to four minutes, formally establish the council’s general public comment period at the beginning of meetings and revise language governing which subjects may be discussed during that period.

The proposed rewrite follows a recent controversy over whether residents may use general public comment to discuss matters appearing elsewhere on the meeting agenda, including ordinances being introduced but not voted on that night.

The council also postponed a vote on Ordinance 26-24, which would grant conditional-use approval for a short-term rental at 526 Girod St.

Because the ordinance requires approval from four of the council’s five members, it could not be adopted with only three members present. The matter was also rescheduled for Aug. 13.

The remainder of the meeting was largely routine, with the council approving a slate of fall special events, two engineering contract amendments and changes to two Public Works positions.

Among the approved events were the Mandeville High School Homecoming Parade, Heroes at the Harbor, the Northshore Half Marathon and 10-Miler, the Veterans Day Parade, Festival of the Lake, Cruising for a Cause, the Wide Water Music Festival, Hola Lago Festival and Northshore Beer Fest.

The council also approved substantial completion of the Antibes West Drainage project.

Resolution 26-30, an amendment to the city’s agreement with Fairway Consulting and Engineering for lift station-related work, was adopted. Resolution 26-31, amending an agreement with Richard C. Lambert Consultants for water line engineering services, was also adopted.

Two Public Works personnel ordinances received final approval.

Ordinance 26-25 revised the job description for the Public Works Clerk II position. Ordinance 26-26 changed the title and job description of an administrative support supervisory position within the department.

The council introduced two additional ordinances that will return for later consideration. Ordinance 26-30 proposes rezoning property on Livingston Street, while Ordinance 26-31 would amend the city’s previously adopted property tax millage ordinance to authorize a 2026 roll forward to the maximum allowable rate. Introductions are procedural and do not constitute final approval.

During the finance report, city officials said sales tax collections were approximately $578,000 above budget and about 5.7% higher than during the same period a year earlier. Property tax revenue had also exceeded budget projections.

Officials estimated the city could finish the fiscal year approximately $700,000 to $800,000 ahead of its sales tax budget.

The council also recognized Mandeville Police Officer Steven Tarzia as the department’s Officer of the Year.

Mayor Clay Madden announced that Sunset Point Park would be closed during construction of improvements to the park’s fishing pier.

During public comment, resident Tracy Elsensohn, Friends of the Mandeville Cemetery, asked the city to provide additional funding for Mandeville Cemetery. She also apologized for her conduct during a previous council meeting.

Jeff Duhé, representing the U.S. Small Business Administration, informed residents and businesses about federal disaster loan assistance made available following Tropical Storm Arthur.

Representatives of the Veterans Day Parade also requested approximately $8,000 in city support. The request was referred for consideration during upcoming budget discussions.

Meeting Summary:

Item	Summary	Outcome
Minutes	July 9 meeting minutes	Adopted
Ord. 26-30	Introduced rezoning on Livingston Street	Introduced
Ord. 26-31	Introduced amendment to Ordinance 26-19	Introduced
Captain Liberto Jamb. Cook-off	Nov. 1 event permit	Approved
MHS Homecoming Parade	Oct. 8 event permit	Approved
Heroes at the Harbor	Oct. 3 event permit	Approved
Half Marathon	Oct. 11 event permit	Approved
Veterans Day Parade	Nov. 7 event permit	Approved
Festival of the Lake	Oct. 9-11 event permit	Approved
Candlelight Blessing	Nov. 2 event permit	Approved
Cruising for a Cause	Oct. 18 event permit	Approved
Wide Water Music Festival	Oct. 31 event permit	Approved
Hola Lago Festival	Sept. 20 event permit	Approved
Beer Fest	Oct. 11 event permit	Approved
Antibes Drainage	Substantial completion accepted	Approved
Resolution 26-30	Lift station engineering amendment	Adopted
Resolution 26-31	Water line engineering amendment	Adopted
Resolution 26-32	Council rules rewrite	Postponed
Ordinance 26-24	STR at 526 Girod	Postponed
Ordinance 26-25	Public Works Clerk II duties updated	Adopted
Ordinance 26-26	Public Works supervisor title change	Adopted

-30-

---

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

Proposed resolution would allow comments on ordinance introductions, increase speaking time and largely preserve the council’s existing meeting procedures

Discon-sponsored resolution would reverse his ruling on public comments from 2 weeks earlier

MANDEVILLE — The City Council is scheduled Thursday to consider replacing its current rules of procedure with a new resolution that would reverse a controversial interpretation of the council’s public comment rules adopted just two weeks ago.

Resolution 26-32, sponsored by Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon, would repeal and replace Resolution 24-44, the rules governing City Council meetings adopted in 2024. While most of the proposal simply carries forward the council’s existing procedures, it would expressly allow residents to discuss ordinance introductions during the general public comment period, reversing a Discon interpretation the council backed by a 3-2 vote at its July 9 meeting. The proposal also increases public comment time from three minutes to four minutes and formally incorporates the council’s current practice of holding general public comment at the beginning of meetings.

The change follows a dispute during the council’s July 9 meeting over whether residents could use the general public comment period to discuss an ordinance appearing on the agenda for introduction but not for debate or final action.

Before public comment began that evening, Discon, serving as council chairman, ruled that citizens could not comment on the proposed Monroe Street low-traffic overlay ordinance because it appeared on the meeting agenda under ordinance introductions.

Because ordinance introductions are not voted on, Louisiana law does not require a public hearing before they are presented. That makes the council’s general public comment period the only opportunity for citizens to publicly address an ordinance at the meeting where it is introduced.

District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz challenged that interpretation, arguing the rule had never been intended to prohibit discussion of ordinance introductions. Instead, he said the provision was intended only to prevent citizens from receiving additional speaking time by commenting both during an item’s required public hearing and again during the general public comment period.

The council ultimately voted 3-2 to uphold the chair’s ruling. Only Vogeltanz and Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman voted to overrule Discon’s interpretation.

The proposed resolution now changes the language at the center of that dispute.

Under Resolution 24-44, residents could use the general public comment period to speak on “any non-agenda item.” Resolution 26-32 instead provides that, time permitting, members of the public may speak “on any non-agenda item, or Ordinance introduction.”

The revised wording appears to supersede the interpretation adopted July 9 by expressly identifying ordinance introductions as a permissible topic during general public comment. Notably, the proposal to make that change was sponsored by Discon, the same council chairman whose earlier ruling would effectively be replaced if the resolution is adopted.

Aside from the public comment revisions, the proposal would make relatively few substantive changes to the council’s procedures.

The resolution increases the standard speaking time from three minutes to four minutes for both general public comment and comments made before votes on agenda items.

It also formally incorporates the council’s current practice of holding general public comment near the beginning of meetings. Although Resolution 24-44 contemplated general public comment later in the meeting, the council has been following the revised order in practice for some time.

Otherwise, the proposal leaves the council’s procedural framework largely intact. Robert’s Rules of Order would remain the governing parliamentary authority, the council chair would continue to set meeting agendas, written public comment procedures would remain unchanged, and existing provisions governing meeting decorum, disruptive conduct and annual election of the council chair would all remain in place.

If adopted, Resolution 26-32 would repeal Resolution 24-44 in its entirety and become the governing rules of procedure for future Mandeville City Council meetings.

-30-

---

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

Warnings issued Saturday as officers tell parents future violations could result in citations

More than 50 riders contacted Saturday as department emphasizes education before citations

MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville Police Department made contact with more than 50 individuals Saturday during a targeted enforcement effort focused on illegal electric mini-motorcycles operating in Old Mandeville, Police Chief Todd Schliem said.

The operation, which included officers making stops at multiple locations throughout Old Mandeville, is part of an ongoing initiative designed to educate riders and parents about the law before issuing citations when necessary.

While Saturday’s operation focused in part on illegal electric mini-motorcycles, Schliem said officers also will be enforcing traffic laws applicable to traditional bicycles and legal e-bikes. Riders who disregard stop signs, ride against traffic or commit other traffic violations also may be stopped as part of the department’s ongoing education and enforcement effort.

Schliem said juveniles stopped during Saturday’s operation were released to their parents after officers explained the applicable laws.

“This is a two-pronged approach,” Schliem said. “We’re educating first, and if necessary we’ll move to citations.”

The chief said Saturday’s operation is not a one-time effort. Instead, similar enforcement details will continue at random times and locations throughout Old Mandeville.

“I want people to know it’s not over,” Schliem said. “We’re going to continue these operations.”

Mandeville Daily witnessed one of the enforcement stops Saturday afternoon near the intersection of Marigny Avenue and the Tammany Trace, where officers had stopped a group of juveniles riding electric mini-motorcycles. The brief encounter was captured on video as this reporter passed the scene while riding through the area. An officer involved in the operation said parents were contacted and asked to pick up both the juveniles and their electric mini-motorcycles after officers explained why the vehicles could not be operated there.

Although many residents refer to the vehicles as “e-bikes,” many of those drawing complaints are more accurately described as electric mini-motorcycles or electric pit bikes. Unlike Louisiana’s Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles, these vehicles generally are not authorized for operation on public streets unless they meet the applicable registration, licensing and equipment requirements.

-30-

---

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

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.