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.
Attorneys for LSU Health Foundation and Woodward Harbor attribute the missed appellate filing deadline to “an isolated oversight based on internal miscommunications” in a motion asking the Fifth Circuit to reopen the appeal. (Mandeville Daily)
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.
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.
An excerpt from the dismissal dated August 4, 2026. (Mandeville Daily)
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 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.
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.
One of the older sign posts with a sign that reads ‘NO MOTOR VEHICLES’ along the Tammany Trace path, adjacent to the Mandeville Trailhead. (Mandeville Daily)
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 excerpt from Ordinance 26-23 shows the municipal code prohibiting the use of bicycles and electric bicycles on Mandeville Trailhead property. City officials say the ordinance — not the abbreviated wording on accompanying signs — establishes what is legally prohibited. (Mandeville Daily)
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.
Freshly updated existing signage within the Mandeville Trailhead facilities which added the words ‘No Bicycles or Electric Bicycles’ to the prohibited list. (Mandeville Daily)
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.” (Mandeville Daily)
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.
Originally, incorrect signage was posted in July, supposedly to reflect recently-adopted Ordinance 26-23. These signs have been replaced by ones that have the complete verbiage from the ordinance, albeit with a minor typographical error. (Mandeville Daily)
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.
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.
Mandeville Police officers speak with bicyclists Tuesday evening at the Mandeville Trailhead after parents called to report teenagers allegedly riding through the pavilion and splash pad area in a manner they believed endangered young children. (Mandeville Daily)
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.
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.
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.
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 wording relating to the general public comments session would be changed by Resolution 26-32. (Mandeville Daily)
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.
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.
Graphic: Knowing the differences and Helmet and age requirements: Bikes, e-bikes and electric mini-motorcycles. (Mandeville Daily)
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.
Police Chief Todd Schliem said that roughly 50 individuals were stopped Saturday. Mandeville Daily witnessed one such stop at the intersection of Marigny Avenue and the Tammany Trace bike path. (Mandeville Daily)
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.
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.
Graphic illustrating public comment at public meetings. (Mandeville Daily)
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?
While Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman served as Council Chairman, he allowed four members of the public to speak about the water and sewer rates issue during general public comment at the April 9, 2026, council meeting even though that issue was on the meeting agenda. (Mandeville Daily)
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.
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.
Graphic depicting Resolution 26-28, adopted unanimously at the July 9, 2026, City Council meeting. (Mandeville Daily)
“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.
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.
The City Council will take up an ordinance to create a Monroes St. low-traffic corridor possibly later this month. The measure is scheduled only for introduction Thursday, July 9. (Mandeville Daily)
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 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.
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.
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 City of Mandeville’s FY 2027 Five-Year Forecast document, as part of Mayor Clay Madden’s proposed FY 2027 budget which was distributed to City Council members last night.
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.
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.
For months, one of the loudest criticisms of Mandeville’s finances was that the city lacked a formal policy protecting its financial reserves. That criticism ended Thursday — or at least it should have ended.
With the adoption of Ordinance 26-16 and its companion Resolution 26-25, the City Council enacted Mandeville’s first written reserve policy. Ordinance 26-16 permanently prohibits the adoption of a city budget projecting the General Fund’s unassigned balance below 20 percent of annual operating expenditures. The companion resolution expresses the council’s policy preference that reserves remain between 30 and 40 percent during the upcoming budget cycle.
That phrase has a real meaning in municipal finance. A structurally balanced budget generally requires recurring operating expenses to be supported entirely by recurring revenues, rather than relying on reserves or other one-time resources.
There is nothing inherently unreasonable about that philosophy. Many governments strive toward it.
The question is whether it is the right approach for Mandeville, especially given the size of our current reserves. By most measures, Mandeville’s fiscal health is stronger than that of neighboring municipalities, with reserves several times higher than the national standard and well above the levels maintained by nearby cities like Covington and Slidell.
Bechac also asserted that Mandeville “has always had a standing policy” of maintaining reserves equal to six months of operating expenses. A review of the City Charter, the Code of Ordinances and council resolutions, however, found no formally adopted policy establishing such a requirement. If such a policy existed, it apparently was never codified in the city’s governing documents or adopted through the public legislative process in accordance with Louisiana’s Open Meetings Law.
So what is Bechac talking about?
Vogeltanz echoed that point, noting on social media that before the June 25 vote, “there was no reserve set by law whatsoever.” He acknowledged that some may believe the reserve target should be higher but argued that adopting a formal policy provides a framework that future councils can revise as circumstances change.
Debate over the recently adopted reserve fund ordinance and resolution has heated up on social media. (Facebook)
Considering that Resolution 26-25 set the target at 40% or about five months — and Bechac is advocating 50% or six months — doesn’t that mean that what the council adopted Thursday is within 10% of what Bechac wants and claims has been some unofficial policy for 25 years? Why wouldn’t Bechac simply congratulate the council and urge them to finish the job by taking it all the way to the 50% mark?
The ordinance the council adopted Thursday addresses the same underlying objective that these critics have long claimed to support: protecting taxpayers by ensuring the city maintains a healthy financial cushion. The difference lies in how that goal is achieved.
A reserve floor recognizes that taxpayers expect government to maintain adequate savings for emergencies while also recognizing that reserves exist for a purpose. They are not intended to become an ever-growing savings account that future elected officials are reluctant — or legally unable — to use when extraordinary circumstances arise.
A rigid structural-balance requirement could produce very different results or outright unintended consequences.
Imagine another recession, another pandemic, another hurricane, or another period of unusually high inflation. Suppose revenues temporarily but sharply decline while the city continues to hold reserves well above what most governments consider prudent.
What the council adopted Thursday also aligns with widely recognized municipal finance guidance. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that general-purpose governments maintain an unrestricted general fund balance of no less than two months of regular operating revenues or expenditures — approximately 16.7 percent of annual operating costs — as a minimum reserve. Mandeville’s newly adopted ordinance establishes a legal minimum of 20 percent, while the companion resolution sets a policy target of 30 to 40 percent, significantly exceeding the GFOA’s recommended minimum.
Under a strict structural-balance requirement, elected officials could find themselves facing immense pressure to reduce services, delay maintenance, or eliminate positions rather than temporarily using reserves that taxpayers have already funded for difficult times.
Few would argue that allowing employee compensation and public assets to fall behind indefinitely while reserves continue to grow represents sound fiscal stewardship.
Yet Bechac’s comments highlight the growing reserves leading up to 2020 as a commendable example of fiscal leadership: “Clay Madden inherited a healthy General Fund (GF) of $23 million from the former administration…”
The alternative interpretation is that those growing reserves came at the expense of needs that had simply been kicked down the road. If employee compensation lagged behind neighboring municipalities and routine maintenance was postponed, as Madden and Zuckerman have argued, those obligations did not disappear. They merely became the responsibility of the next administration.
Financial reserves are a tool — not the objective.
The ordinance adopted Thursday reflects that principle. It establishes a legal floor beneath which reserves may not fall during the budget-adoption process while preserving the ability of future councils to decide, based on the circumstances of their time, whether maintaining reserves above that floor best serves taxpayers.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the debate is not the disagreement itself but how quickly it changed.
For months, critics argued the city needed a written reserve policy. Now that the city has one, the debate has shifted almost overnight to an entirely different concept.
That leaves an obvious question.
If the primary concern truly was protecting reserves, why is the adoption of Mandeville’s first legally enforceable reserve policy not being recognized as a significant achievement?
Throughout the exchange, Zuckerman repeatedly asked what Bechac believes the appropriate reserve level should be if not the 30%-40% target adopted by resolution. That question largely went unanswered. Whether the target should be 30%, 40% or six months of operating expenses is a legitimate public debate. But any meaningful debate begins by identifying the proposed alternative.
Debate over the recently adopted reserve fund ordinance and resolution has heated up on social media. (Facebook)
The council has now answered one question by enacting Mandeville’s first written reserve policy. The remaining questions are different ones: Should the minimum be higher? Should the target be different? Should the city pursue structural balance instead of a reserve floor? Those are worthwhile debates, and such discussions are good for Mandeville.
So, shouldn’t we start by acknowledging what has already been achieved instead of pretending nothing has changed while making baseless accusations against those who, by any reasonable standard, did precisely what you claim, without any evidence, already exists and you were in favor of, except now for some inexplicable reason, you oppose it?
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.”
Supporters say measure would establish a long-overdue minimum reserve requirement; critics question locking future councils into law
Debate exposed broad agreement on maintaining healthy reserves but sharp disagreement over whether reserve targets should be codified by ordinance
MANDEVILLE — A proposal to establish, for the first time, a legally mandated minimum reserve level for the City of Mandeville’s unrestricted general fund returns to the City Council agenda Thursday after members spent more than an hour debating the measure earlier this month before ultimately postponing it on a 4-1 vote. The ordinance, sponsored by Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman, would prohibit future councils from adopting budgets that reduce the city’s unassigned general fund balance below 20 percent of annual operating expenditures.
The June 11 debate revealed broad agreement among council members that Mandeville should maintain substantial financial reserves. The disagreement instead centered on whether those reserve requirements should be established through permanent city law or through council policy that can be adjusted from year to year.
The measure, Ordinance 26-16, was introduced after months of discussion about the city’s unrestricted general fund balance and what level of reserves should be maintained to protect against emergencies, economic downturns and other unforeseen costs. Under the proposal, the city could not adopt a budget projecting an unassigned general fund balance below 20 percent of annual operating expenses without first changing the ordinance.
Debate reveals deeper divide
Throughout the June 11 discussion, Zuckerman argued the city has spent years debating general fund balances without ever establishing a formal minimum reserve requirement.
He described the ordinance as a financial safeguard designed to create a floor that future councils could not cross without formally amending city law. The proposal was modeled on guidance from the Government Finance Officers Association, which recommends municipalities maintain unrestricted reserves equal to at least two months of operating expenditures. The ordinance’s 20 percent threshold exceeds that recommendation.
“The goal is simple: create a firm bottom threshold that any budget approved by the council must maintain,” Zuckerman later wrote in a public Facebook post urging residents to support the measure when it returns for consideration.
Finance Director Jessica Farno largely supported the concept, emphasizing during the meeting that the proposed 20 percent figure was intended as an absolute minimum rather than a target.
Farno told council members that while a 20 percent reserve exceeds national recommendations, a practical target for Mandeville would likely fall between 30 and 40 percent because of hurricane exposure, delayed FEMA reimbursements and other financial risks facing the city.
Not a dispute over reserve levels
One of the more unusual aspects of the debate was that several opponents argued the proposed reserve requirement was actually too low.
Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon repeatedly argued that a city with Mandeville’s hurricane exposure should maintain significantly larger reserves and questioned why the council needed to codify a minimum threshold at all.
District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson likewise said her concerns were less about the percentage itself and more about establishing the requirement through ordinance rather than resolution. She argued reserve targets could be adopted through council policy while preserving flexibility for future councils.
In response to criticism that 20 percent was insufficient, Zuckerman offered an amendment raising the minimum reserve requirement to 40 percent of annual operating expenses. The amendment failed on a 3-2 vote.
That vote has become a central part of Zuckerman’s argument heading into Thursday’s meeting.
In a Facebook post following the debate, he noted that some council members argued 20 percent was too low but then opposed his proposal to double the requirement to 40 percent. He questioned why council members who have previously expressed concerns about spending and reserve levels would oppose establishing a minimum reserve requirement in law.
Opponents, however, argued that the failed amendment did not address their primary concern — not the amount of money being reserved, but whether future councils should be legally bound by a fixed threshold.
Postponed, not defeated
The ordinance was ultimately postponed after District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz suggested additional discussion and legal review could be beneficial before taking a final vote. Although Vogeltanz said he generally supported the concept of establishing a reserve floor, he expressed concerns about how the ordinance could interact with future budget amendments and emergency spending decisions.
The council then voted 4-1 to postpone the ordinance until its next regular meeting, with Zuckerman casting the lone vote against postponement.
When the measure returns Thursday, council members will again confront the question that dominated the June 11 debate: whether reserve requirements should be enforced through municipal law or left to the discretion of future councils through annual budget policy decisions.
Unanimous votes add new restrictions on bicycles, electric bikes and other motorized devices in city recreational areas
Strong-Thompson, Lane lead effort to address bicycle, e-bike concerns
MANDEVILLE — The City Council unanimously approved two ordinances Thursday aimed at restricting bicycles, electric bicycles and other motorized vehicles in portions of the city’s recreational facilities, with council members describing the measures as a first step toward addressing broader concerns about the growing use of high-speed e-bikes throughout the city.
The council voted 5-0 to adopt Ordinance 26-22, which prohibits electric bicycles and other motorized vehicles in Neighborwoods Park, including scooters, mopeds, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and golf carts. Ordinance 26-22 does not prohibit traditional bicycles in Neighborwoods. The council also approved Ordinance 26-23, which adds all bicycles — both electric and traditional — to the existing list of prohibited activities, such as skating and rollerblading, within the Mandeville Trailhead facility. Both measures were approved without amendment following a joint discussion.
Riding bicycles — regardless if they’re traditional bikes or e-bikes — is no longer permitted at the Mandeville Trailhead facilities thanks to an ordinance unanimously adopted by the City Council. (Mandeville Daily)
The ordinances were among several high-profile measures that advanced to final adoption after being introduced last month. The changes generally prohibit bicycles, electric bicycles and other motorized recreational vehicles in areas intended primarily for pedestrians and traditional bicycle use, while also clarifying that mobility devices used by individuals with disabilities remain permitted.
Lane said members of the group complained that teens riding bicycles through the area were creating dangerous conditions and disrupting practices. She said the city later encountered enforcement difficulties when officials attempted to cite one rider, only to have a parent argue that no posted signs prohibited the activity.
“Everybody’s up in arms about this, including myself,” Lane said. “It’s very frightening. I think everyone’s main concern is that we’re gonna have some unnecessary tragedy with all of this.”
Teens caught on dash-cam video riding wheelies through the intersection at Girod and Monroe streets allegedly without stopping for the stop sign. (Mandeville Daily)
The Trailhead ordinance applies only to the city-owned Trailhead facility, including the pavilion, splash pad, amphitheater and surrounding event areas. It does not apply to the St. Tammany Trace, the parish-operated hike-and-bike trail that passes through the property and remains governed by its own separate rules and regulations. The ordinance also does not prohibit residents from riding to the Trailhead on the Trace and parking their bicycles in designated bicycle racks before entering the facility.
District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson, who sponsored Ordinance 26-22, described the Neighborwoods measure as a “stopgap” response while broader discussions continue regarding state regulation of electric bicycles.
Strong-Thompson noted that Louisiana currently recognizes three classes of electric bicycles but does not impose some restrictions found in other states, such as minimum age requirements or other regulations for higher-speed models.
Under Louisiana law, Class 1 e-bikes provide pedal assistance only and stop assisting at 20 mph. Class 2 e-bikes can be propelled by a throttle without pedaling but are also limited to 20 mph. Class 3 e-bikes provide pedal assistance up to 28 mph and are generally intended for higher-speed commuting and recreational riding.
Adding further confusion to the issue is the growing popularity of electric-powered two-wheel vehicles that many residents refer to as “e-bikes” but which do not fit within Louisiana’s three-class e-bike system. Often marketed under names such as electric mini-motorcycles or e-motos, some models lack functional pedals, exceed the 750-watt power limit that defines an e-bike, and are capable of speeds exceeding 40 mph. Depending on their specifications, such vehicles may be classified differently under state law than traditional electric bicycles.
Several of the vehicles that have generated complaints from Mandeville residents appear to be electric mini-motorcycles like the one seen here rather than traditional e-bikes. Unlike Louisiana’s three recognized classes of electric bicycles, these vehicles often lack pedals and are capable of substantially higher speeds. (Mandeville Daily)
Some of the juveniles who have drawn complaints in Mandeville have been observed riding these higher-powered electric mini-motorcycles that are not covered under the traditional Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 e-bikes, complicating efforts to regulate and enforce their use.
Strong-Thompson said the ordinance is intended to preserve Neighborwoods Park as a pedestrian-oriented nature area and to protect amenities such as the park’s elevated boardwalk. In addition to e-bikes, the ordinance addresses electric scooters, mopeds, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and golf carts.
During discussion, Lane noted that her Trailhead ordinance leaves in place prohibited behavior such as climbing on railings and restricts the use of rollerblades, roller skates and skateboards within the Trailhead facility. She emphasized that the Trailhead is not intended to function as a skate park.
Although both ordinances passed unanimously, council members indicated the measures are likely only the beginning of a larger policy conversation.
Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman said he has received numerous complaints from residents regarding both traditional bicycles and e-bikes and expressed concern about high-speed electric bicycles operating on city streets and other public areas:
“They go flying, these e-bikes go flying 30, 40 miles an hour down the Trace. They’re also on the city streets,” he said.
Zuckerman questioned why city regulations currently require golf carts to carry registration, insurance and inspections while some electric bicycles capable of speeds exceeding 30 mph are not subject to similar requirements.
“If we’re gonna require licensed drivers, registration, and insurance on a golf cart that goes 17 miles an hour, I don’t know why we wouldn’t require the same for e-bikes that do 30 miles an hour, like motorcycles,” Zuckerman said.
Notably, Louisiana’s three recognized classes of electric bicycles are limited to vehicles providing motor assistance up to 28 mph, meaning some of the faster electric-powered vehicles cited by residents and council members likely fall outside the state’s e-bike framework.
What Zuckerman described also appears to be electric mini-motorcycles rather than traditional e-bikes, a distinction that may become increasingly important as the city explores additional regulations.
Resident Paul Branch also addressed the council during public comment, citing concerns about e-bike activity near Neighborhoods Park and describing incidents involving riders cutting through private property and allegedly harassing residents. Branch urged the city to eventually strengthen enforcement provisions and penalties.
Strong-Thompson said additional proposals may be considered in the future but urged the council to move forward with the current ordinances as an initial step.
“This is the start,” she said. “Let’s get this underway, and we’ll work on some of the other issues.”
The council subsequently adopted Ordinance 26-22 and Ordinance 26-23 by separate 5-0 roll-call votes.
Investigators allege an unprovoked ambush aided by a second participant
Highest-ranking law enforcement official must be held to the highest standard
Editorial
The allegations against St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Randy Smith are troubling not merely because they involve a physical altercation, but because of who is accused.
Over the past week, many people have rushed to defend Smith by arguing that Bobby Couvillion had “crossed the line” in his criticism of the sheriff and his family. Others have responded with the familiar internet phrase: “FAFO.”
That argument misses the point entirely.
Photo posted on social media by Podcaster/Blogger Bobby Couvillion of him receiving treatment at a local hospital. (Mandeville Daily)
Mere words should never be met with violence from officials
Even if every criticism, accusation and personal attack ever directed at Smith were true, false, fair or unfair, none of it would justify an alleged physical assault. If the allegations contained in the arrest warrant are accurate, then what occurred at Keith Young’s Steakhouse was not a heated exchange of words. It was an alleged act of violence.
More importantly, the facts alleged by investigators do not describe two men exchanging heated words before tempers boiled over. According to the Louisiana Bureau of Investigation, surveillance video and witness statements indicate that Couvillion was seated at the bar when Smith allegedly approached him from behind, placed him in a chokehold and pulled him to the ground. Investigators further allege that another man, Gregory Saurage, identified Couvillion’s location and encouraged the confrontation moments before it occurred. Whether those allegations ultimately withstand scrutiny in court remains to be seen, but the conduct described by investigators is not a spontaneous argument that escalated into violence. It is an alleged ambush.
Civilized society cannot function if people are permitted to settle grievances with their fists.
Law enforcement booking photos of Sheriff Randy Smith and local Gregory Suarage provided by the Louisiana Bureau of Investigation. (Louisiana Bureau of Investigation)
Social media age makes public service less viable
There is, however, a larger issue worth acknowledging. The rise of social media has made public service more difficult than ever. Local officials routinely face insults, harassment, conspiracy theories and accusations that spread rapidly online. In many cases, false statements can circulate for years with little consequence. It is not unreasonable to believe this environment discourages good people from seeking public office.
That is a real problem.
But it is also precisely why law enforcement officers are expected to maintain composure and professionalism under pressure.
Every deputy on the street is expected to remain calm when confronted by an angry citizen, an intoxicated suspect or someone shouting insults. The public rightly expects officers to exercise restraint even when provoked. If that standard applies to a rookie deputy, it certainly applies to the sheriff.
In fact, the sheriff must be held to an even higher standard.
As the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in St. Tammany Parish, Smith is responsible for setting the example for every deputy under his command. Leadership is not demonstrated when circumstances are easy. Leadership is demonstrated when emotions run high and tempers flare. If a sheriff cannot maintain his composure in a public setting, what message does that send to the officers expected to follow his example?
Bystanders could have been injured
The damage extends beyond the individuals involved.
There is also a broader public-safety issue that should not be ignored. Keith Young’s Steakhouse was not a private residence. It was a crowded public restaurant. According to investigators, patrons ultimately became involved in attempting to separate the men. Physical violence in a crowded establishment creates risks far beyond the intended target. A bystander could have been knocked to the floor, struck by a falling chair or injured while attempting to intervene. The notion that this should be viewed merely as a private dispute between two men overlooks the reality that public acts of violence can endanger everyone nearby.
Embarrassment to parish when voters asked to approve taxes
St. Tammany Parish is currently engaged in important debates over taxes, budgets and the future direction of local government. Those discussions require public confidence in institutions and public officials.
Early voting for the June 27 Second Party Primary and Municipal General Election begins Friday, June 12, with St. Tammany Parish voters set to decide several races and propositions, including a renewal of a sheriff’s office property tax. The ballot includes a proposal to renew a 4.31-mill tax that the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office says helps fund approximately 140 deputy positions. Election Day is June 27.
Regardless of the eventual outcome of the criminal case, this incident has become a distraction that undermines that confidence.
Adds fuel to groups alleging brutality
It also arrives at a time when law enforcement agencies across the country continue to face intense scrutiny. For years, critics of policing have argued that officers are too quick to resort to force. Supporters of law enforcement have countered that such portrayals are unfair and fail to reflect the professionalism of the overwhelming majority of officers.
These allegations about the sheriff only make that defense more difficult.
Public trust must be restored
Whether the alleged victim is a journalist, a podcaster, a political activist or an ordinary citizen should not matter. No person should have to wonder whether criticism of a public official could lead to physical retaliation. The free exchange of ideas depends on the ability to criticize those in power without fear of violence.
That principle is bigger than Bobby Couvillion. It is bigger than Randy Smith. It is about public trust. And public trust, once lost, is extraordinarily difficult to regain.
Several current and former public officials have already called for Smith’s resignation. Based on the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence described by investigators and the unique responsibilities of the office he holds, we believe he should have stepped down immediately.
Resignation is not an admission of guilt. The criminal justice system will determine guilt or innocence.
But the office of sheriff is built on public confidence. If the allegations outlined by investigators are even substantially true, that confidence has been compromised in a way that makes continued service untenable.
The people of St. Tammany Parish deserve law enforcement leaders who not only enforce the law, but embody the restraint, professionalism and judgment the law requires.
Attorney General’s investigation led to felony charge against sheriff and arrest of second suspect
MADISONVILLE — A physical altercation occurred between St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Randy Smith and local podcaster/blogger Bobby Couvillion on May 29, 2026, at Keith Young’s Steakhouse in Madisonville, according to the state Attorney General’s Office and the Louisiana Bureau of Investigation.
According to the LBI’s affidavit, multiple 911 callers reported that one man had placed another in a chokehold. Investigators say surveillance video, witness statements and medical records support the allegation that Smith approached Couvillion from behind without warning, placed him in a chokehold, pulled him from a bar stool, threw him to the floor and struck him while he was on the ground.
Investigators concluded the attack appeared “unprovoked” and that Couvillion had little or no opportunity to defend himself before the physical confrontation began.
Law enforcement booking photos of Sheriff Randy Smith and local Gregory Suarage provided by the Louisiana Bureau of Investigation. (Louisiana Bureau of Investigation)
Why is this a major story?
Randy Smith is not merely a private citizen. He is the elected sheriff of Louisiana’s fourth-largest parish and the highest-ranking law enforcement official in St. Tammany Parish.
Because Smith was the sheriff, the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office turned the investigation over to Attorney General Liz Murrill’s Louisiana Bureau of Investigation to avoid any conflict of interest.
What injuries were reported?
According to investigators:
Couvillion suffered a Level 2 concussion.
Two front teeth were displaced.
He suffered multiple cuts, bruises and abrasions.
Investigators documented injuries through photographs and medical records.
Photo posted on social media by Podcaster/Blogger Bobby Couvillion of him receiving treatment at a local hospital. (Mandeville Daily)
The arrest affidavit argues those injuries meet Louisiana’s definition of “serious bodily injury,” which is required for the second-degree battery charge.
What are the charges against Sheriff Smith?
The Attorney General’s office charged Smith with:
Second-degree battery (felony)
Disturbing the peace by engaging in a fistic encounter (misdemeanor)
Disturbing the peace while appearing in an intoxicated condition (misdemeanor)
The warrant lists a $10,000 bond and a condition prohibiting contact with the alleged victim.
Why was a second man arrested?
Investigators later arrested Gregory Jules Saurage.
LBI alleges surveillance video shows Saurage walking past Couvillion, identifying or indicating Couvillion’s location to Smith, and making an aggressive fist gesture shortly before the attack occurred. Investigators interpreted that gesture as encouraging or signaling Smith to confront Couvillion.
Under Louisiana law, a “principal” is someone who aids, encourages, assists or participates in the commission of a crime, even if that person does not personally commit the physical act.
Saurage reportedly told investigators that another man had warned Smith to “watch your back” because Couvillion was in the restaurant. He acknowledged motioning toward Couvillion but denied signaling Smith to attack him.
What role did alcohol allegedly play?
The arrest affidavit repeatedly references alcohol.
Investigators noted:
Witnesses reported smelling alcohol on Smith’s breath.
A restaurant receipt allegedly showed a tab of $346.21.
The tab reportedly included multiple glasses of wine and numerous mixed drinks purchased over several hours.
The affidavit cites those facts as support for the disturbing-the-peace/intoxication charge. Smith has not publicly admitted being intoxicated.
What does Sheriff Smith say?
Smith’s public statement does not directly address the factual allegations in detail.
Instead, he:
Issued a public apology to citizens, restaurant patrons and his family.
Said public service brings heightened scrutiny.
Referenced years of attacks and criticism directed at him.
Claimed false statements had been made about his wife.
Said he would address the matter through the legal process.
Stated he remains committed to serving as sheriff.
Notably, Smith’s statement does not expressly deny that a physical altercation occurred.
What does Bobby Couvillion say?
Couvillion has portrayed himself as the victim of an unprovoked assault.
He argues:
Smith’s apology was not sincere.
The attack stemmed from Smith’s anger over criticism.
Nobody should be physically attacked because of speech or criticism of public officials.
He has confidence in the judicial process and intends to pursue the case through court.
The larger context
The political backdrop is difficult to ignore.
Couvillion has spent years criticizing local government and particularly Sheriff Smith through podcasts, social media and online commentary. Smith’s statement strongly suggests he believes some of that criticism crossed personal lines and affected his family.
The Attorney General’s investigation, however, appears focused on a much narrower question: whether Smith physically attacked Couvillion and whether Saurage encouraged or facilitated that attack.
At this stage, investigators say the answer is yes. The arrest warrants rely heavily on surveillance video, eyewitness accounts, photographs and medical records. Smith and Saurage, however, remain accused — not convicted — and will have the opportunity to challenge that evidence in court.
Early voting for the June 27 Second Party Primary and Municipal General Election begins Friday, June 12, with St. Tammany Parish voters set to decide several races and propositions, including a renewal of a sheriff’s office property tax. The ballot includes a proposal to renew a 4.31-mill tax that the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office says helps fund approximately 140 deputy positions. Election Day is June 27.
Agenda includes measures affecting city finances, utility bills, residential pools, development reviews and recreational facilities
MANDEVILLE — The City Council will consider six ordinances for final adoption Thursday, including measures that would require the city to maintain minimum General Fund reserves equal to at least 20 percent of annual operating expenditures and temporarily cap residential sewer charges for one year. The agenda also includes proposals affecting residential swimming pools, development traffic studies and the use of electric bicycles in city recreational areas.
Summary: This ordinance would significantly revise CLURO Article 8.4 governing traffic impact analyses (TIAs) and clarify that when a TIA is required, the applicant must pay for it, but the city—not the developer—would select and procure the engineer who prepares it.
Key changes:
Establishes and clarifies thresholds that trigger a TIA.
Requires applicants to provide trip-generation data.
Requires the city to hire the TIA consultant, with the applicant paying the cost.
Requires TIA reports to be publicly available.
Allows applicants to submit an additional TIA, but city-sponsored studies would receive greater weight during review.
Practical effect: Developers would lose direct control over selecting the traffic engineer performing a required study, while the public would gain greater access to traffic analysis information.
Summary: Establishes a formal city policy requiring Mandeville to maintain unassigned General Fund reserves equal to at least 20 percent of annual operating expenditures.
Key changes:
Creates new Section 14-12.
Defines “unassigned fund balance.”
Prohibits adoption of a budget that would reduce unassigned reserves below 20 percent of operating expenditures.
Excludes capital projects, transfers and certain carry-forwards from the calculation.
Practical effect: Places a floor under city reserves and makes it harder for future councils to budget reserves below the 20 percent threshold.
Summary: Would place a temporary one-year cap on residential sewer charges at $83.25 per month, regardless of water consumption above the cap threshold.
Summary: Creates a comprehensive new section of city code 9.9 regulating residential swimming pools, including fencing requirements, maintenance standards, inspections and enforcement provisions.
Key changes:
Requires pools capable of holding 18 inches or more of water to be enclosed by a fence or wall meeting specific standards.
Requires gates to be self-closing and self-latching.
Requires pool maintenance standards aimed at preventing mosquito breeding and nuisance conditions.
Authorizes inspections by police and code enforcement officers upon reasonable suspicion and notice.
Gives existing pool owners 120 days to comply.
Prohibits variances from the new standards.
Practical effect: Creates one of the more detailed residential pool regulations in city code and would affect virtually every residential pool owner in Mandeville.
Summary: Revises Neighborwoods Park rules to expressly prohibit e-bikes, e-scooters and other motorized recreational vehicles on park trails while continuing to allow traditional bicycles.
Key changes:
Allows hikers, pets, non-motorized bicycles and accessibility devices.
Requires bicycles to yield to pedestrians.
Prohibits e-bikes of all classes, e-scooters, ATVs, golf carts, motorcycles and similar motorized vehicles.
Creates corresponding signage requirements.
Exempts police, emergency and city maintenance vehicles.
Practical effect: Traditional bicycles remain allowed, but electric bicycles and other motorized recreational devices would be banned from Neighborwoods trails.
Adds bicycles and electric bicycles to the list of prohibited activities.
Requires updated Trailhead signage stating “No Bicycles or Electric Bicycles.”
Leaves existing prohibitions on skateboards, roller skates and roller blades in place.
Practical effect: Riding bicycles and e-bikes would no longer be permitted in the Trailhead event area, including the splash pad, pavilion area, stage and arena, and marketplace area. Rollerskating, rollerblading and skateboarding are already prohibited in these areas. This ordinance does not apply to the parish-operated Tammany Trace itself; it applies to the city-owned Trailhead facilities adjacent to the Tammany Trace.
In a report issued Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld recommended that the fee motions be denied without prejudice and allowed to be refiled within 14 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issues its final ruling in the case.
Van Meerveld said judicial economy favors delaying consideration of the requests while the appeal is pending. She noted that if the Fifth Circuit reverses the dismissal, any analysis of whether the plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous and whether fees should be awarded could prove unnecessary.
The recommendation does not address whether the city or Zuckerman are entitled to attorney fees. Instead, it postpones consideration of the issue until after the appellate court resolves the case.
The recommendation will now be reviewed by U.S. District Judge Brandon S. Long, who will decide whether to adopt, modify or reject it.
Current city code already prohibits sitting or climbing on railings, roller blades or roller skates, skateboards and violations of other laws or ordinances.
A proposed ordinance would add bicycles and electric bicycles to prohibited activities at the Mandeville Trailhead. (Mandeville Daily)
The proposal would also require updated signage at the Trailhead stating “No Bicycles or Electric Bicycles.”
According to the ordinance’s “whereas” clauses, the city has received reports of unsafe conditions involving bicycles and e-bikes in areas used by pedestrians, patrons, vendors and the public. The ordinance states the change is intended to promote public safety, preserve public property and support shared use of the facility.
The affected area is the Trailhead facility itself — including the pavilion area, splash pad-style mini water park, stage and music venue, and areas used for Trailhead market events.
The ordinance would not apply to the actual Tammany Trace, the parish-wide biking, walking and jogging trail that passes through the Trailhead property. The Trace operates under its own separate rules and speed regulations.
Teens caught on dash-cam video riding wheelies through the intersection at Girod and Monroe streets. (Mandeville Daily)
The proposal comes several months after repeated complaints and observations involving groups of teenagers riding bicycles and electric bicycles through the Trailhead and surrounding Old Mandeville area.
In a January article by Mandeville Daily, residents and event organizers described groups of teenagers riding e-bikes and bicycles through crowded public spaces near the Trailhead while performing wheelies and weaving through traffic.
That report documented incidents involving riders traveling through vendor areas during Trailhead marketplace events and riding beneath the covered pavilion and across grassy areas near the stage. An event organizer interviewed at the time said teenagers repeatedly rode electric bicycles between vendor booths and used electrical outlets in the vendor area to recharge e-bikes during a holiday market event.
Mandeville Chief of Police Todd Schliem previously issued a statement to Mandeville Daily stating in part, “We have received several complaints regarding this issue and are taking it very seriously. Hopefully, we can get parents to talk to their kids about being more responsible. In the meantime, I would encourage anyone witnessing this type of behavior to immediately call the Mandeville Police Department.”
As written, the ordinance broadly prohibits the “use” of bicycles and electric bicycles and does not distinguish between riding and walking a bicycle or between different classes of e-bikes.
If adopted, the ordinance would authorize the city and police department to install and maintain updated signage reflecting the new prohibition.
The proposed ordinance is listed on the council’s May 28 agenda for introduction only. No debate or vote is scheduled at that meeting, with public discussion and final consideration possible as early as the council’s June 11 regular meeting.
Zuckerman-backed ordinance would require Mandeville to maintain unrestricted General Fund reserves equal to at least 20% of annual operating expenditures
Mandeville projected to end fiscal year with reserves at roughly 67% of operating expenses
MANDEVILLE — The City Council is set to consider an ordinance that would formally require the city to maintain minimum unrestricted reserves in its General Fund, codifying a fiscal policy championed in recent months by Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman.
Proposed Ordinance 26-16 — slated to be introduced at the May 14 meeting — would establish a new “Unassigned Fund Balance Policy” in the city code requiring Mandeville to maintain unassigned General Fund reserves equal to at least 20% of annual operating expenditures.
Using the city’s 2025 figures, that would equal roughly $4.4 million. However, the city’s projected ending fund balance is about $14.8 million, or roughly 67% of annual operating expenses. 
Under the proposal, the city could not adopt a budget that would reduce unrestricted General Fund reserves below the 20% threshold.
The ordinance defines “unassigned fund balance” using standards established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, commonly known as GASB. The policy excludes restricted funds, capital project money, encumbrances and other designated balances from the calculation, focusing only on reserves that are fully available for general governmental operations.
The measure also excludes several nonrecurring expenditures from the formula used to calculate the 20% requirement, including capital outlay, transfers to project funds, prior-year encumbrances and carry-forward appropriations.
The ordinance states that the policy is intended to preserve “financial stability and long-term fiscal health” while ensuring the city maintains sufficient liquidity to respond to emergencies, economic downturns and revenue fluctuations.
The proposal cites guidance from the Government Finance Officers Association recommending that governments maintain unrestricted General Fund reserves equal to no less than two months of operating expenditures.
The ordinance follows months of discussion within the council’s Income Strategies Committee concerning Mandeville’s long-term budget structure, employee costs and reserve practices.
During those meetings, Zuckerman repeatedly argued that the city should formally establish reserve targets and guardrails as part of broader fiscal planning discussions.
Debates over reserves became increasingly prominent during recent budget discussions as officials examined the distinction between the city’s total cash position and the amount of money that is legally unrestricted and available for routine governmental operations.
Supporters of the ordinance have argued the policy would create a long-term safeguard against depletion of operating reserves and provide clearer financial benchmarks for future councils.
The ordinance does not authorize new spending, reduce spending or raise taxes. Instead, it would establish a binding budgetary policy governing the minimum level of unrestricted reserves the city must maintain.
The proposed ordinance is listed on the council’s May 14 agenda for introduction only. No debate or vote is scheduled at that meeting, with public discussion and final consideration possible as early as the council’s May 28 regular meeting.
Fortunately, several Councilpersons did the Section’s specified 12-point analysis in its final review meeting for the record, because no such review, if done, was to be found in the Application’s written record available to the public until that final Council Meeting. The mandate is for the 12-point analysis to be done at each stage: Planning Director, Planning Committee, and City Council. The analysis of each stage should be in writing and available at the time for public scrutiny.
This is where the rubber meets the road: The intent and letter of Section 4.3.3.8 is to give the same protection by the CLURO to the neighbors of a PD Application that it gives to neighbors of any other adjacent property application for special use, zoning change or variances. Otherwise, the PD neighbors would be treated differently and disadvantageously so.
Previously scheduled salary study presentation remains as the only substantive public item before executive session
MANDEVILLE — With no new ordinances, unfinished business or new business scheduled, the Mandeville City Council’s April 23 agenda has been largely cleared of legislative matters — leaving a previously scheduled presentation and a closed-door Sucette Harbor discussion as the meeting’s primary focus.
The agenda contains no items under introduction of ordinances, unfinished business or new business, a departure from typical council meetings that often include multiple action items. 
The only substantive item remaining on the public agenda — a salary study presentation by consultant Codey Saucier — had been scheduled in advance and is unrelated to the ongoing litigation.
Promote your business on Mandeville Daily and connect with engaged local readers following Mandeville’s most important news and issues. Learn More…
Council members are then scheduled to enter executive session under Louisiana law to discuss Woodward Harbor, LLC v. City of Mandeville, a federal case tied to the long-running Sucette Harbor dispute. 
Focus shifts behind closed doors
The pared-down agenda signals a shift from public-facing policymaking to legal strategy, as the city continues navigating the aftermath of the now-dismissed Sucette Harbor lawsuits and related proceedings.
The City of Mandeville has sought to recover more than $230,000 in legal costs associated with defending the lawsuits.
Limited public discussion expected
Under Louisiana’s open meetings law, public bodies may enter executive session to discuss pending litigation. However, any formal action must still be taken in open session.
Because the discussion will occur behind closed doors, the public is unlikely to hear details of the council’s legal strategy or the options under consideration.
The streamlined agenda also means there will be little opportunity for broader policy debate during the meeting.
What remains on the agenda
Outside the executive session, the meeting includes:
Approval of minutes from the April 8 budget meeting and April 9 council meeting
A salary study presentation
A routine finance report
With no additional business scheduled, the meeting’s primary focus is expected to be the closed-door legal discussion.
Bigger picture
The Sucette Harbor litigation has evolved from a local development dispute into a broader legal saga involving dismissed claims, potential sanctions and a separate lawsuit between the original plaintiff and its former attorneys.
Thursday’s executive session marks the latest step as city officials weigh their next move — largely out of public view.
MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville City Council unanimously adopted Ordinance 26-03 in a 5-0 vote on April 9, clarifying how density and site development standards are calculated within the city’s Planned District zoning.
Authored by Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman and co-sponsored by District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz, the ordinance amends the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance (CLURO) to ensure that density calculations for mixed-use developments are based only on the portion of a site designated for each specific use.
During the meeting, Zuckerman described the ordinance as a clarification of what he believes the CLURO already required but had been subject to differing interpretations.
“This ordinance… clarifies and reinforces what I strongly believe the CLURO already requires,” Zuckerman said, explaining that allowable residential units and building areas must be calculated using only the land allocated to each use within a mixed-use development. 
He emphasized that the measure is intended to prevent scenarios in which developers use the total acreage of a property — much of which may be dedicated to other uses — to increase residential density beyond what would otherwise be permitted. 
Ordinance 26-03 dramatically reshapes how certain development applications are evaluated, a shift that — had it been in place in 2023 — would likely have altered the timing, structure and public visibility of the Sucette Harbor application path.
Ordinance 26-02, adopted 5-0 by the City Council on March 26, requires that these applications start with a proposed ordinance when being reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. An ordinance wasn’t added to the Sucette Harbor application until after it was approved by Planning & Zoning, which drew criticism at the time by certain council members.
Excluding water areas from density calculations
A key provision of Ordinance 26-03 specifies that land extending into or beneath Lake Pontchartrain or other water bodies cannot be included in density or site development calculations.
Zuckerman noted that in at least one previous development proposal, acreage under the lake had been used to determine the allowable number of residential units, a practice the ordinance now explicitly prohibits. 
Amendments narrow the ordinance’s scope
Before final adoption, the council approved two amendments. The first incorporated recommended modifications from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The second, proposed by Zuckerman, removed references to the PM-1 and PM-2 marina zoning districts, thereby limiting the ordinance’s application solely to Planned District (PD) zoning. 
District I Councilwoman Cynthia Strong-Thompson sought clarification on whether narrowing the scope could be perceived as targeting a specific property. City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert responded that the ordinance applies to an entire zoning district rather than a single parcel, alleviating such concerns. 
Balancing flexibility with regulatory clarity
Councilman-at-Large Scott Discon raised concerns that the ordinance might reduce the flexibility traditionally associated with Planned District zoning, which is designed to encourage creative and efficient land use. Zuckerman and Sconzert clarified that the ordinance does not limit the range of allowable uses but instead standardizes how density is calculated for each designated portion of a site. 
District III Councilwoman Jill Lane added that the change ensures each component of a mixed-use development — such as residential, retail or marina uses — is evaluated independently for compliance with applicable site development regulations. 
Council support and final passage
The ordinance received unanimous support from the council. Vogeltanz expressed strong backing for the measure, remarking that “the only problem with this bill is it wasn’t passed two years ago,” a possible reference to the rejected Sucette Harbor application of 2023. 
Following the vote, Zuckerman reiterated in a public statement that the ordinance aims to prevent overdevelopment and eliminate “loose interpretation” of the CLURO. He emphasized that future density calculations in Planned Districts will now be tied strictly to the land area designated for each use.
Key provisions of Ordinance 26-03
Use-specific density calculations: Residential and commercial density must be calculated based only on the acreage designated for each use.
Exclusion of water areas: Land extending into or beneath water bodies, including Lake Pontchartrain, cannot be counted toward density calculations.
Limited scope: Amendments removed references to PM-1 and PM-2 marina districts, confining the ordinance to Planned District zoning.
Planning and Zoning input: Recommended modifications from the Planning and Zoning Commission were incorporated prior to final adoption.
