Developer asks for more time to make changes to proposal

Planning director denied that any buildings or structures were planned for Parcel U despite site plan showing otherwise

Update: Corrects rescheduled meeting date to ‘June 29th.’

MANDEVILLE — The City Council has rescheduled the June 29th Sucette Harbor special meeting after confusion over the site plan at the last meeting when it was announced that changes to that site plan had been made but were not yet available.

The meeting has been rescheduled to July 5th at 5:00 p.m. The announcement was made by Council Chairman Councilman at Large Rick Danielson at the beginning of tonight’s (June 22nd) regular City Council meeting.

The council was notified today (June 22nd) that the project developer asked for more time for revisions they had promised to deliver to council members by today.

At the previous meeting on June 20th, City of Mandeville Planning and Development Director Cara Bartholomew made a bombshell announcement at the beginning of the meeting that significant changes had been made to the site plan and other exhibits in response to original conditions or requests made by the Planning and Zoning Commission but those changes would not be available to the council at that meeting.

Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman asked Bartholomew if the city would require a conditional use permit for Parcel U, which is the marina parcel of property.

She responded, “So at this point, all the plans that we have seen are only showing the docks on Parcel U. I haven’t seen a plan or anything that shows anything else other than the slips on parcel U and the bulkheads.”

So at this point, all the plans that we have seen are only showing the docks on Parcel U. I haven’t seen a plan or anything that shows anything else other than the slips on parcel U and the bulkheads.

— Planning and Development Director Cara Bartholomew

This statement appears to be in contradiction to the most-current available site plan drawings. (See this previous report in for a detailed examination of those plans.)

Those drawings clearly show the restaurant building and outdoor patio seating well into Parcel U (see below):

Sucette Harbor attorney Paul Harrison had promised during questioning by Zuckerman to provide an updated site plan “tomorrow or the next day” after it was revealed that significant changes had been made that were not yet available to the council or public.

Now it appears, those updated plans and exhibits will not be delivered as promised.

It remains unclear if the coming changes from the developer will remove the above pictured buildings from Parcel U. Bartholomew described the coming changes as:

“There was [sic] two buildings located on the west side of the property along the marina, one of those buildings were [sic] removed. … The square footage of that southern building was added on about 2,000 square feet to accommodate just the marina service operations.”

The delay in updates drew harsh reactions from some on the council who during the meeting questioned Bartholomew and City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert concerning conflicts with a servitude of passage and buildings planned for a parcel that Bartholomew and Sconzert had previously asserted had no such plans.

A vote on Ordinance 23-16 is tentatively planned for July 12th. It is unknown if this vote will be postponed in light of the canceled June 29th special meeting.

This is a developing story.

-30-

Building and structures planned for Parcel U according to latest site plan

Parcel U not part of conditional use permit which is required for project approval

Site plans changed but city attorney, planning and development director, developer did not have details to present to public

Council members bristle at changing site plans not being available

MANDEVILLE — An extended and intense exchange between council members, developers and city officials raises questions about details in the Sucette Harbor project ordinance which will be up for a vote later this summer.

Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire had an often testy back and forth with City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert and Planning and Development Director Cara Bartholomew over why the ordinance does not contain a conditional use permit for a parcel where boat slips and parts of a building and outdoor seating are included.

An examination of the proposed Sucette Harbor site plan reveals potential issues with the project as it is currently submitted to the City Council.

Ordinance 23-16 includes a conditional use permit only for Parcel D, which contains most but not all of the building structures in the latest plan (see slides below). The other Parcel U is not part of the ordinance, but contains the now demolished marina and current site plans show part of the restaurant building and outside seating on it.

What’s more, at the beginning of the meeting Bartholomew informed the council that there are updates to the current site plan but those changes would not be made available at the meeting.

“There was [sic] two buildings located on the west side of the property along the marina, one of those buildings were [sic] removed. … The square footage of that southern building was added on about 2,000 square feet to accommodate just the marina service operations,” Bartholomew said.

Zuckerman pressed Bill Hoffman, President of Woodward Interests, the developer of the project, for the latest plan. Hoffman said they did not have the latest site plan changes at the special meeting. “Maybe tomorrow,” Hoffman added.

When a flood elevation map is overlaid on the Sucette Harbor site plan, the so-called “servitude of passage,” which is required to remain as drawn, is in clear conflict with those plans. What’s more, when the parcels or property map is added to the mix, it becomes evident that several structures are indeed planned to be partially built on Parcel U. This is a problem because Parcel U is not part of the conditional use permit in proposed Ordinance 23-16, which would green-light the Sucette Harbor project.

Only Parcel D is specified in Ordinance 23-16. At previous City Council meetings where the proposed Sucette Harbor project was discussed, both Bartholomew and Sconzert stated that Parcel U is not part of the proposal as it is an existing marina and its designated use hasn’t changed.

However, Parcel U was removed from commerce years ago when it was donated by Al Copeland Jr. to the LSU Health Foundation, after the bulkheads and slips were demolished. While Parcel U is mostly water, it does contain a significant amount of dry land.

The most recent Sucette Harbor site plans provided by Woodward Interests, the project developer and partner of the LSU Health Foundation, shows buildings and structures planned to be built on the land portion of Parcel U.

The slides below illustrate the issues. The servitude of passage is drawn in yellow and is overlaid in multiple slides at its precise location. Parcels U and D are shown in red and green, respectively. All slides are to the same scale, except the last one which is an inset or magnification of previous slides:

-30-

Proposed rate to stay at 8.86 mills

Same rate since 2020 when current council took office

Ordinance to be introduced and discussed June 22nd but not voted on yet

MANDEVILLE — The City Council will consider an ordinance that will keep the City of Mandeville’s property tax rate at 8.86 mills, unchanged from the previous three years, according to proposed Ordinance 23-22.

The rate was cut from 9.31 mills in 2020. The 8.86 millage is the lowest since 2002 when the rate was 20.25 mills.

Ordinance 23-22 will be introduced and discussed at the June 22nd regular City Council meeting. A vote will occur at a future meeting when it will be open for public comment again.

-30-

---

Related Links:
Mandeville City Council Agenda for June 22, 2023 Regular Meeting
Ordinance 23-22

---

Unusual but not against Open Meetings Law

Gives public more time on issue

Council still must have public comment on night of vote

MANDEVILLE – The Mandeville City Council has scheduled the “introduction and discussion” of the upcoming property tax Ordinance 23-22 for the June 22nd regular meeting, an unusual move considering that agenda items — including resolutions and ordinances — are typically introduced under “new business” but not discussed until they come up for a vote under “old business” at the following or a future meeting.

This has been done in the past for complex issues, such as tax millages, so that the public has extra time to hear from the council and administration and ask questions.

The Louisiana Open Meetings Law still requires the council to allow public comment before a vote at the meeting where adoption is to be considered. This means that Ordinance 23-22 will get two public comment sessions at two different meetings.

Ordinance 23-22 sets the property tax millages for the fiscal year.

-30-

---

Related Links:
Mandeville City Council Agenda for June 22, 2023 Regular Meeting
Ordinance 23-22

---

Property list expands from 19 to 45

New signatures from Cayman Cove Homes, Harbor Oaks Condo Association, Tops’l Condominiums

Original list included 19 properties of Mariner’s Island

Also calls into question selection of MVMA board of directors

MANDEVILLE — A group of property owners and residents from the Mariner’s Village Master Association disavowing a so-called unanimous endorsement from its board of directors has grown from 19 to 45.

The five-member Mariner’s Village Master Association’s (MVMA) board of directors released a letter on May 25th from its president Eric McVicker, who also serves as a consultant for District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller’s campaign. That letter was referenced at the May 25th Mandeville City Council meeting by Woodward Interests President William Hoffman when making his case for the Sucette Harbor project.

The 33 new signatures of disavowal come from properties in Cayman Cove Homes, Harbor Oaks Condo Association and Tops’l Condominiums, all a part of the MVMA, for a total of 26 properties (accounting for multiple signatures from the same address).

The original list was sent to the City Council by Larry Grundmann, claiming to represent Mariner’s Island Condominium Association (MICA) property owners, which is also a part of the MVMA.

According to the vote allocations found in the Master Association articles of incorporation, the LSU Health Foundation controls 89 of the 186 votes, or about 48 percent.

Woodward Interests is the developer behind the controversial Sucette Harbor project, in partnership with the LSU Health Foundation.

The new signatures come from Mariner’s Village rental homes investor and MVMA member Ellen O’Connell in a June 8th letter to the City Council. O’Connell’s letter, similar to Grundmann’s, calls into question the circumstances by which the MVMA’s current board of directors was selected.

According to McVicker, the current board was elected in and has served since 2021, even through the MVMA articles of incorporation call for annual elections.

Both O’Connell and Grundmann are challenging the legitimacy of the current board whose members, according to McVicker, are: Jason Dahlberg, Alex Edliamati, Gene Norton, Alejandra Guzman, and himself.

Guzman is the Executive Director of Business Ventures for the LSU Health Foundation, which is in partnership with Woodward Interests and Hoffman for the Sucette Harbor project. But when asked by Councilman At Large Jason Zuckerman at the May 25th council meeting who the MVMA board members were, Hoffman responded, “That, I don’t know.”

Grundmann’s letter contained the signatures of 23 individuals claiming to be a “super majority” of property owners of MICA. O’Connell’s letter contains 33 signatures from 26 different properties.

-30-

---

Related:

Sucette Harbor letter of endorsement challenged by Mariner’s Village residents

Mariner’s Village Master Association Articles of Incorporation

Mariner’s Village Master Association Bylaws

---

Read prepared comment at council meeting denouncing ‘social media’ resolution as attempt to quell dissent

Defended local activist attacked for over-the-top social media posts

Cited Supreme Court case law supporting ‘rhetorical hyperbole’

MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville City Council deferred action on a resolution that would ask citizens to limit their free speech in accordance with a set of rules laid out in the document, authored by Councilman at Large Rick Danielson.

The proposed Resolution 23-22 was deferred by a unanimous vote of the City Council after it met strong resistance from other members of the council, including Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire.

Mandeville Daily editorialized against this perceived overreach and believe its intention was to have a “chilling effect” on dissent against the Sucette Harbor project.

Mandeville Daily believed it to be paramount to act against this attempted overreach by government in the long-standing tradition of other publications and media outlets that felt duty-bound to act when governments violated or attempted to violate or quell the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in general.

Danielson opened the discussion on the resolution by making an impassioned if not angry statement against social media posts that he described as being over-the-line and said his resolution offered a set of rules that it would be good if everyone abided.

Mandeville Daily’s editor and proprietor William Kropog read a statement during the public comment session. The statement was altered at the last minute to refute an argument that Danielson made moments earlier claiming that resolutions do not carry the weight of law. The reality is, resolutions are indeed binding. For example, the City Council’s rules for conducting its meetings are set by resolution. Mandeville Daily feared that this resolution would be used as an extension of those existing rules (including the three-minute time limit) to force people to apologize for social media transgressions before being allowed to participate at meetings.

The statement is as follows:

The three-minute speaking rule… that was set by resolution. The way the resolution reads, you could hold people inside (the council meetings) responsible for what they might say outside chambers.

It is my opinion that just the mere introduction of Resolution 23-22 is meant to intimidate the public from speaking or posting on social media in opposition to the Sucette Harbor project.

It’s one thing to have a rule governing public conduct inside Council Chambers, but to extend it to outside is unacceptable, even if it is just a so-called resolution.

This could have a chilling effect on dissent.

Remember, we already had a sitting councilman state on the record at the last City Council meeting (District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller) that he is investigating anyone connected to an activist who made offending social media posts, and a lawyer for Sucette Harbor threaten a lawsuit against anyone “insinuating” things about his integrity. Both of these threats — allowed to go unchecked by the council chair — were in my opinion beneath the decorum.

Regardless of what anyone wrote on social media, it does not justify broad threats against everyone else in the chamber nor does it justify this resolution.

I feel the council chairman had an obligation to reign in the threat by Mr. Harrison as soon as it occurred. Again, this was beneath the decorum.

Though I disagree with it, I believe the activist’s body of comments on social media and the email they sent to the City Council are legally protected speech.

The activist accused Mr. Harrison of making campaign contributions, which are perfectly legal. The fact that the activist believes a legal campaign contribution is the same as a “bride” does not make it so. She described the offense in detail, further supported by a social media post by Dr. Kreller’s own campaign at his own fundraiser.

Rhetorical hyperbole is a First Amendment-based doctrine that often provides protection to exaggerated, over-the-top speech in defamation cases.

The doctrine provides breathing space to freedom of speech by ensuring that even heated and emotional rhetoric deserves free-speech protection in a free society.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Greenbelt Cooperative Publication Association v. Bresler (1970) that the use of the term “blackmail” to refer to a developer’s negotiating style was rhetorical hyperbole more than an imputation of criminal conduct. The Court reasoned that “even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered the developer’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable.”

The anti-Sucette-Harbor activist in question, did an eerily similar thing, again and again, describing and providing photos of a perfectly legal thing — that no one involved disputes happened as she described — except she applied the rhetorical hyperbole “bribe” to the act.

Protected speech. Ugly, maybe. Incendiary, sure. But Constitutionally protected nonetheless.

I respectfully ask that the resolution not be adopted.

-30-

Mariner’s Island property owners submit disavowal notice to City Council, ask for investigation

MICA residents say they weren’t polled and there were no annual meetings

MVMA president says there weren’t quorums at previously scheduled meetings

Says many in MVMA support Sucette, afraid to speak up

MANDEVILLE — A group of property owners from the Mariner’s Village Master Association is disavowing any connection to a so-called unanimous endorsement of the Sucette Harbor project referenced at the last Mandeville City Council meeting by Woodward Interests President William Hoffman when making his case in favor of the project.

Woodward Interests is the developer behind the controversial Sucette Harbor project, in partnership with the LSU Health Foundation.

At the May 25th City Council meeting, Hoffman said he had a unanimous endorsement from the Mariner’s Village Master Association’s (MVMA) board of directors, which is a five-member body. Eric McVicker serves as president.

However, Larry Grundmann, claiming to represent Mariner’s Island Condominium Association (MICA) property owners, which is part of the MVMA, sent a letter on June 6th to the Mandeville City Council (see letter at end of story) disavowing the aforementioned endorsement, claiming his members were never polled on the issue. Grundmann is opposed to the Sucette Harbor project and is asking the Mandeville City Council to investigate the circumstances surrounding the MVMA endorsement and its presentation to the council and public May 25th.

Grundmann’s letter contains the signatures of 23 individuals claiming to be a “super majority” of property owners of MICA, each having endorsed a statement of disavowal which reads:

“To the Mandeville City Council: The undersigned is a property owner at and a member of the Mariners Island Condominium Association. No one from the so-called Mariners Village Master Association has contacted me about the Sucette Harbor development. Any representation that the development has unanimous approval or property owners in the area is false. I do not agree with the development as proposed for the many reasons given at the recent council meeting. Please vote against the zoning change required for this development to proceed. Best.”

His letter further states that it is unclear who the MVMA board members are, and the endorsement letter referenced at the last meeting could not be found among the Sucette Project materials.

Mandeville Daily received a copy of the endorsement letter from other sources (see letter at end of story). The letter does not name the members of the board of directors.

While the bold title of the letter reads, “Mariner’s Village Master Association Votes to Endorse Sucette Harbor Project,” the actual body of the endorsement letter only makes the claim that “the board of directors voted” and that “the vote was unanimous, 5-0.” The letter does not state that it represents a polling of the membership or residents of MVMA, but one could argue that the title implies it.

However, when contacted by Mandeville Daily, McVicker said “numerous conversations were had with many residents across Mariner’s Village before the vote. A lot of residents are in favor of the project but haven’t publicly spoken out of fear of retribution…”

He described the five board members as being: Jason Dahlberg, Alex Edliamati, Gene Norton, Alejandra Guzman, and himself. They were last elected in 2021, he said.

Guzman is the Executive Director of Business Ventures for the LSU Health Foundation, which is in partnership with Woodward Interests and Hoffman for the Sucette Harbor project. But when asked by Councilman At Large Jason Zuckerman at the May 25th council meeting who the MVMA board members were, Hoffman responded, “That, I don’t know.”

Grundmann’s letter to the council makes a number of other assertions, mostly involving Hoffman and District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller’s display of unfamiliarity with McVicker’s relationship with the MVMA and its board of directors.

“And the Councilman in whose district the project is located (Kreller) certainly knows his campaign consultant’s association, but he did not say so either,” Grundmann wrote. McVicker serves as or has served as a consultant for Kreller’s campaign.

Grundmann also sent links to previous articles by the LSU Health Foundation and the Times-Picayune/Nola.com that quote McVicker, Kreller and even Councilman At Large Rick Danielson as being supportive of LSU Health Foundation’s proposed developments for the land.

As for Grundmann’s complaint concerning MVMA’s annual membership meetings not being held, McVicker said that meetings had been scheduled the last two years but quorums were not present.

Article II, Section 2 of the MVMA bylaws call for annual meetings of the membership and at those meetings “they shall elect by a plurality vote a board of directors, and officers and transact such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting.”

But according to McVicker, Guzman is empowered to proxy vote for the LSU Health Association’s 89-vote interest. That means that combined with the other four board members — if they are indeed property owners too — there would have been a quorum present for the May 23rd vote.

This raises two interesting points. If you have a quorum on May 23rd, why not have the annual meeting, and the vote by the five board members more accurately represents about 50 percent of the ownership. This seems to be Grundmann’s primary issue: The letter was painted as a ringing endorsement when it more accurately represents a 50-percent endorsement of the ownership in MVMA.

According to the vote allocations found in the Master Association articles of incorporation, the LSU Health Foundation controls 89 of the 186 votes, or 47.85 percent.

-30-

---

Related:

Mariner’s Village Master Association Articles of Incorporation

Mariner’s Village Master Association Bylaws

---

Would adopt rules for acceptable social media ‘discourse,’ asking citizens of Mandeville to abide

Seen as direct response to local activist comparing ‘campaign contributions’ to ‘bribes’ on social media

Backs Sucette lawyer who warned he’ll sue those making ‘insinuations’ about his integrity

Rule calls on citizens to ‘Apologize if Needed’

MANDEVILLE — The Mandeville City Council will consider a resolution that would ask citizens to limit their free speech in accordance with a set of rules laid out in the document, which was authored by Councilman at Large and current Council Chairman Rick Danielson.

This is an obvious pushback to a local activist who repeatedly compared campaign contributions to bribes during a firestorm of back and forth on the social media platform Nextdoor over the proposed Sucette Harbor project. Again and again, they used the phrasing “campaign contributions (bribes)” or “campaign donations (bribes)” and even sent an email to the entire City Council advocating a change to city code concerning contributions and complaining about Sucette Harbor attorney Paul Harrison appearing at a campaign event for District II Councilman Dr. Skelly Kreller.

Resolution 23-22 has been added to the June 8th City Council meeting agenda, published yesterday (June 1, 2023) on the City of Mandeville official website.

It would adopt a set of rules referred to as “Basic Simple Rules of Speak Your Peace Principles” for behavior by citizens of the “Greater Mandeville Area” to follow at “public meetings, small group discussions and through all social media outlets” in conjunction with debate on issues before the City Council.

These proposed rules are:

1. Show Respect to others
2. Be open minded but agreeable even when you don’t personally agree with someone else’s viewpoint or opinion
3. Listen to Understand
4. Do Not Gossip or Spread False Information either verbally, in writing or through social media outlets
5. Apologize if Needed
6. Pay Attention
7. Be Inclusive
8. Give constructive criticism if or when needed
9. Take responsibility

While resolutions do not carry the weight of law, they can be used to set procedural rules and acceptable behavior inside Council Chambers during meetings.

The current body of rules that governs how the City Council conducts its meetings was adopted via Resolution 20-14, shortly after this council took office in July 2020.

This new resolution could be interpreted as an extension of those rules, attempting to hold citizens accountable not just for what they say during meetings but also outside the Council Chambers as well, specifically on social media.

Opponents fear that if this rules resolution is adopted, their posts on social media platforms, such as Nextdoor, Facebook and Twitter, could place them under council scrutiny and even invite their neighbors to report them, potentially leading to them being asked to apologize before being allowed to speak out.

What’s more, because proposed Ordinance 23-16 (Sucette Harbor) is only listed as being up for “discussion” and not “adoption” on the June 8th agenda, the council technically could pick and choose who it allows to speak. Louisiana state law only requires that public comment be allowed before actual votes occur.

At the May 25th City Council meeting, the same activist’s posts were shown as part of a slide deck presentation made by the Sucette Harbor developers team.

In an earlier email sent to the City Council, that activist advocated for an ordinance that would make campaign contributions to a council member within a certain timeframe of a vote on a major issue illegal.

This email and the previous social media posts caused harsh reactions from Danielson and Kreller at the meeting, with Kreller saying he was taking legal action. The criticism directed at the activist was that they used the word “bribe” or “bribes” in their social media posts.

“I have retained counsel to fully investigate her claims and everyone connected to these, and that legal action against her and then if necessary against them,” Kreller said.

However, each reference that Mandeville Daily was able to find (the posts have been removed from Nextdoor) seemed to use the phrasing “campaign contributions (bribes)” consistently.

Mandeville Daily did find one reference, however, of the word “bribe” without the preceding “campaign contributions” qualifier, but that was a reply in a larger thread on the discussion where there was a lengthy and testy exchange between the activist and others on the platform.

Harrison appeared to become agitated at the meeting after the activist attempted to defend themself and justify their position.

Harrison warned: “If someone defames me… online, you write it down. You will be sued the next day by my firm. Let’s be very clear about that… But you make an insinuation about my integrity, you will get sued. That’s it.”

-30-

Provision that would have made council clerk more like executive assistant, equal in pay stripped from ordinance

Measure adds $744,172 to operating budget — 5.5% increase

Vast majority receive 10-40% bumps in pay

Officials cite recent salary survey, retention, recruitment concerns for system overhaul

City streamlines 30 pay steps down to 25

Mayor says last extensive pay increase was 2015

Raises to hit paychecks in late March

Police salary budget increases 10.26%

Sewer Dept. sees biggest percent change at 15.18% to address recruitment issues

Updated 2/13/2022 at 1:09 PM: Adds references to Kreller and Scherer in eighth and 10th paragraphs.

MANDEVILLE — The City Council adopted measures Thursday that will give police and civil service employees significant across-the-board raises as part of a broader effort to bring Mandeville in line with the surrounding market in attracting and keeping workers.

The changes stem from a comprehensive market salary survey contracted last year by Mayor Clay Madden and the City Council, which revealed that Mandeville was lagging behind nearby municipalities and area employers in its basic pay scales, which hadn’t been significantly updated since 2015.

One of the main takeaways from the report, conducted by SSA Consultants of Baton Rouge, is that by position, Mandeville’s entry-level pay — especially for police — is consistently below that of other municipalities and entities in the market region, including Covington, Slidell, Hammond, Tangipahoa Parish and the Louisiana State Police.

The raises will add $744,127, including benefits, to the city operating budget — a 5.5-percent increase — and streamlines Mandeville’s pay scales from 30 to 25.

Eighty-three of the roughly 100 employees — both police and civil service — will receive raises ranging from 10 to 40 percent, with only a handful above or below that range.

The overhaul was enacted via three ordinances — one to address the Mandeville Police Department, a second to address civil service employees, and a third to adjust the operating budget in order to pay for the raises.

The civil service pay change ordinance caused a minor dust-up during the meeting and the council had to scramble to amend the ordinance so that the civil service raises wouldn’t be held up.

Some on the council felt Ordinance 22-03 contained a so-called “poison pill” because it proposed a 38 percent pay raise for Council Clerk Kristine Scherer, who is not a civil service employee. The ordinance was introduced by Councilman at Large Rick Danielson, but sources say District II Councilman Skelly Kreller was involved in getting Scherer’s proposed raise included in the measure.

District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire offered an amendment to strip out the raise for Scherer, which would have put her at almost equal pay to Mayor Clay Madden’s Executive Assistant Trilby Lenfant, taking Scherer from $60,139 to $83,139. Lenfant is paid $83,827 after she received about a $10,000 raise last year.

Sources told Mandeville Daily that Scherer is unhappy with her pay and believes that her current role is more akin to the executive assistant than a clerk.

Scherer handles all City Council day-to-day operations, including intra-council communications, scheduling, publishing agendas, ordinances, and resolutions, researching city code and the home rule charter, among other duties. She also acts as the recorder and parliamentarian at council meetings.

Council members expressed strong support for Scherer during Thursday’s meeting, but stopped short of voting against McGuire’s amendment to remove the council clerk’s raise. The amendment passed unanimously despite Danielson and Kreller expressing support for the raise remaining part of the ordinance.

Kreller argued that even though 38 percent is a large raise, a handful a civil service and police employees will receive raises greater than 40 percent, and it wouldn’t be fair to single Scherer out by not including her in this pay scale overhaul.

Danielson said of Scherer, “I don’t know the perfect way to do this because of the process that we’ve gone through. I can justify all day a raise to our clerk based off of experience, based off of years, based off of scale, based off of all those things.”

But McGuire said that she is not opposed to considering a raise for Scherer but that such a raise is a separate and different issue than the civil service pay raises and should not have been tied to them.

“There’s a lot of things that have come up… a lot of comparisons… There’s questions of should the council clerk be considered as an executive assistant. I feel that is a discussion that should be held at a different time,” McGuire said.

Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman agreed with McGuire, saying that a raise for Scherer was not a recommendation that came from the salary survey committee.

Madden formed a salary survey committee which met four times in December to hammer out details for the pay scale changes before making recommendations back to the mayor and the council as a whole. Zuckerman and Danielson both served on that committee along with others, including police and civil service representatives.

“I was on the salary survey committee… And we really didn’t discuss this (Scherer’s raise). This proposal … is not really coming to the council with a recommendation that came out of the salary survey committee,” Zuckerman said.

“I can support a raise all day long… Ms. Scherer has tremendous worth to the city and the City Council,” he added.

Former City Councilman Ernest Burguières made a brief presentation to the council during the public comment session that covered what he believed where a number of potential issues with the raises.

Burguières said he felt the salary survey was “a good starting point” but that it did contain some “flaws.” His main objection was that he believes the process largely bypassed public feedback and questioning of the survey’s author, SSA Consultants.

He also said that the pay raises were weighted heavily toward existing employees versus entry-level workers.

Burguières also cautioned that this increase to the budget could eventually burn through city surpluses.

After Scherer’s proposed raise was stripped from the measure, the civil service pay ordinance along with the police pay ordinance and the budget adjustment ordinance were adopted unanimously.

Finance Director Kathleen Sides told the council the raises should hit paychecks in the second half of March.

-30-

Meetings held in Spitzfaden Center for over a year due to COVID-19 Pandemic and renovations

MANDEVILLE — The City Council met in the Council Chamber at Mandeville City Hall tonight for the first time in over a year, marking the occasion with an uneventfully short meeting.

Council Chairman and Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman has pushed for the return to the Chamber since he was installed as council chairman last July.

The old bulky courtroom-style desk has been been replaced with tables, creating more room, and the carpeting has been upgraded.

“I was disappointed when the Council meetings were relocated out of City Hall in the first place and have been pushing to move back into Council Chamber for some time. It took some doing but we got it done and I’m really glad to have the Council meetings back in an appropriate setting,” Zuckerman said.

The City Council started meeting regularly in the Paul R. Spitzfaden Community Center across the street from City Hall in March 2021, once in-person meetings were deemed safe again after a number of video-conference meetings during the height of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Prior to tonight, the last time the City Council met in Chamber was November 19, 2020.

Zuckerman said a new, larger and more modern Council Chamber is being designed to replace the existing one.

In other business at tonight’s meeting:

OLD BUSINESS:

1. Adoption of Ordinance No. 22-01; AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MANDEVILLE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 21-20, THE OPERATING BUDGET OF THE CITY OF MANDEVILLE AND FOR OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (Councilman Zuckerman, At-Large) This is for additional expenses from Hurricane Ida
   
   Adopted, 5-0.
   

NEW BUSINESS

1. Approval of the special event application for the Mande-Gras Parade Tailgate party on Friday, February 18, 2022, starting at 6:30 pm located at The Shops at 1200 West Causeway. Tailgate will feature a musical performance by Jenna Hunt, free face painting, games to play & 2 food truck vendors. (Councilman Kreller, District II)
   
   Approved, 5-0.
   
   
   
2. Introduction of Ordinance 22-02; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MANDEVILLE TO AMEND THE PAY SCALE RELATIVE TO COMPENSATION PLAN OF THE MUNICIPAL POLICE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF MANDEVILLE AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (Councilman Danielson, At-Large)
   
   Introduced for Feb. 10, 2022 meeting.
   
   
   
3. Introduction of Ordinance 22-03; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MANDEVILLE TO AMEND THE PERSONNEL POLICIES RELATIVE TO THE PAY SCALE OF THE NON-POLICE MUNICIPAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF MANDEVILLE AND TO AMEND THE SALARY OF THE COUNCIL CLERK AND TO PROVIDE FOR OTHER RELATED MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (Councilman Danielson, At-Large)
   
   See related story: City Council to consider $23K raise for council clerk
   
   Introduced for Feb. 10, 2022 meeting.
   
   
   
4. Introduction of Ordinance 22-04; AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MANDEVILLE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 21-20 THE OPERATING BUDGET OF THE CITY OF MANDEVILLE AND FOR OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (Councilman Zuckerman, At-Large)
   
   Introduced for Feb. 10, 2022 meeting.
   
   

-30-

Matches pay of mayor’s executive assistant Lenfant

Would give council clerk 38% raise

Lenfant received $10K raise last year amid kerfuffle with council

Proposal to be introduced by council member who opposed Lenfant raise last year

Council meetings return to City Hall Thursday

UPDATED 1/26/2022 at 11:20AM: Corrects use of title for Trilby Lenfant to ‘executive assistant.’

MANDEVILLE — The City Council will consider an ordinance that would give Clerk of Council Kristine Scherer a $23,000 pay raise, putting her almost equal in pay to Mayor Clay Madden’s executive assistant Trilby Lenfant.

Lenfant received a controversial raise in June that was met with frustration by some on the council, so much so they requested an opinion from the State Attorney General’s office on the matter.

While the AG ultimately said the raise was legal and did not violate the city’s home rule charter, the office concluded the wording of the City Council’s 2021 budget ordinance was ambiguous and that future budgets should be better written to avoid such confusion.

Ordinance 22-03 is being introduced at the regular City Council meeting Thursday by Councilman at Large Rick Danielson who — along with District II Councilman Skelly Kreller and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire — was critical of Lenfant’s $10,000 raise at an August meeting last year, leading to the AG opinion request offered by Kreller.

The proposed pay raise for Scherer would be debated and voted on at the February 10, 2022, City Council meeting, provided it isn’t removed or pulled from the agenda Thursday. It is only slated to be introduced at Thursday’s meeting.

Scherer’s current pay of $60,139 is just above the market maximum $59,342 revealed by SSA Consultants’ recent salary survey “An Evaluation of the City of Mandeville’s Compensation and Benefit Plan” conducted for the city in November 2021.

Lenfant’s current pay of $83,827, which includes last year’s $10,000 raise, is well below the SSA Consultants market maximum of $102,440 for that type of position.

Proposed Ordinance 22-03 uses the title “executive secretary” to refer to Lenfant’s position, but according to the City of Mandeville’s official website, her title is “Executive Assistant.”

Thursday’s council meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Mandeville City Hall council chamber at 3101 E. Causeway Approach. The meetings have been held at the Paul R. Spitzfaden Community Center for over a year, first due to the COVID-19 pandemic and then because of renovations to the council chambers.

-30-

Approval of scope of work comes before Planning and Zoning Commission

Top-to-bottom review of Article 10 of CLURO could open door to return of ‘electronic message centers,’ critics say

MANDEVILLE — The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a resolution defining the scope of work for a top-to-bottom review of the city’s sign code, or Article 10 of the Comprehensive Land Use Regulation Ordinance.

Mandeville’s sign code was a hot topic last year and electronic signs were killed by the council, which then later voted to authorize a review of the sign code. Tonight’s measure defines the scope of work for that review and opens the selection process for a contractor to perform the work.

The directive lays out eight areas of concern to be addressed by the would-be contractor:

• Creating regulations that provide a means of implementing the policies & goals of the City of Mandeville Comprehensive Plan and other related long-range planning policy documents;
• Creating regulations that address market trends, incorporate best practices and address contextual issues throughout the City;
• Removing or amending outdated or inappropriate standards;
• Removing redundancies and conflicts;
• Creating clear definitions and terminology;
• Ensuring all regulations and prohibitions are compliant with the Louisiana and United States Constitutions, including but not limited to content neutrality and other 1st Amendment considerations;
• Providing graphics and illustrations to supplement, replace and/or clarify written regulations; and
• Crafting regulations that provide for effective administrative enforcement;
  

The proposed scope of work reads in part:

“Mandeville’s focus is [to] establish clear, responsible sign regulations with appropriate design criteria that will provide opportunities for innovative and creative approaches to sign usage while maintaining its status as an economically viable and sustainable wooded coastal community that exists in harmony with its abundant environmental resources, preserves its rich cultural history and endeavors to enhance of the quality of life for future generations.”

The proposal also calls for participation from the community:

“The Sign Code review process should engage and encourage the involvement of community leaders, key stakeholders, business owners, economic development partners and interested citizens. Public engagement is expected from the consultant, though substantial base vision data already exists in the various adopted long-range plans.”

The city will accept sealed responses from consultants interested in performing the review, after which the city will make and negotiate its final selection.

Read the proposed resolution for the scope of work for the review of the sign code here.

Read the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting agenda here.

The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. tonight at the Spitzfaden Community Center.

-30-

Event kicks off the City of Mandeville’s resiliency plan

P&Z regular meeting to follow with proposal to start review of sign code, including so-called ‘electronic message centers’

MANDEVILLE — There will be a joint meeting of the Mandeville City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight at 5 p.m. to kick off the city’s “Resiliency Plan.” The regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will follow at 6 p.m.

The purpose of the joint meeting is for the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) to make a presentation to the City Council and the public. Both meetings are open to the public.

The P&Z will consider a resolution defining the scope of work to begin an official review of the city’s sign code.

Mandeville’s sign code was a hot topic last year and electronic signs were killed by the council, which then later voted to authorize a review of the sign code. Tonight’s measure defines the scope of work for that review.

Read the special joint meeting agenda here.

Read the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting agenda here.

-30-

Mandeville often exceeds market maximums in pay scales

Consultant recommends bringing ‘incumbents’ to market range

Report does not address average pay by position compared to market averages; focuses on pay ranges

City pays 9.5% employee share into retirement system while other municipalities do not

City health benefits exceed those in region

Mandeville Police entry-level pay lags well behind others

Updated November 19, 2021, at 8:25AM: Add critics’ and proponents’ positions on Mandeville’s arrangement for paying employee’s retirement system portion against the findings of the report.

MANDEVILLE — The long-awaited salary survey report, commissioned by the City of Mandeville in early 2021 was presented to the City Council tonight (November 18th) by representatives from SSA Consultants of Baton Rouge, the firm that conducted the survey.

One of the main takeaways from the report is that by position, Mandeville’s entry-level pay — especially for police — is consistently below that of other municipalities and entities in the market region, including Covington, Slidell, Hammond, Tangipahoa Parish and the Louisiana State Police, according to SSA Consultants representative Cody Saucier, who made the presentation to the council tonight.

However, the report also reveals that Mandeville has higher maximums in most of those same positions than the market maximums. The report does not compare average or current salaries by position in Mandeville to equivalent market averages by position.

Fifty-five of the 66 positions analyzed have hourly minimums below the market hourly minimums, but 33 of those have maximums that exceed the market maximums.

The report notes that the City of Mandeville does not necessary have current employees at either the minimum or maximum for each position, but 41 of the current 100 employees are paid below the market-based minimums for their positions.

While Mandeville has lower entry-level wages, the city’s pay ranges for a majority of these positions are broader or greater than the market values being compared.

Health benefits for Mandeville’s workers are significantly better than most in our market, with no premiums for individuals and only $60 per month for families. The city’s employees also enjoy a $0 annual in-network deductible while all other municipalities in the comparison — Covington, Slidell, Hammond and Tangipahoa Parish — have in-network deductibles ranging from $1,500 to $3,000.

The report also touched on retirement system contributions. Mandeville participates in the Municipal Employee Retirement System of Louisiana (MERS), Plan A, which is the more expensive of the two plans offered. The employee contribution is 9.5% tax deferred income. The city pays 27.75% based on employee earnings.

However, Mandeville pays the employee’s share in addition to the city’s share. The other municipalities in this report do not. Critics of such an arrangement argue that Mandeville’s employees in effect receive 9.5% more than their listed salaries. Proponents of the arrangement argue that this helps offset the low-end pay gap compared to the other municipalities.

Download the complete report here…

The report makes four recommendations:

1. Establish salary ranges with current market-based minimums and maximums for all job positions: These ranges should be market-based.
2. Conduct market-based compensation review every three to five years: The salary ranges should be updated regularly, every three-to-five years.
3. Institute a limit to total sick leave accumulation: Currently, Mandeville doesn’t cap how much sick time can be accrued.
4. Bring incumbents into the market range: The city should bring the 41 current employees who fall below these market minimums up to par.
   

The council didn’t allow public comment after the presentation despite a few attendees in the audience wanting to do so. Council Chairman Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman told those in attendance that the contents of the report will be addressed at future meetings where public comment will be allowed. The Louisiana Open Meetings Law requires public bodies to allow public comment before votes are taken on agenda items.

Developing…

-30-

Four firms to be on hand

Open-house format

MANDEVILLE — The long-awaited, much-talked-about Mandeville Flood Summit has been announced for November 2nd at the Spitzfaden Community Center from 5:30-7:00 p.m., Mayor Clay Madden announced.

Madden urges everyone interested in Mandeville’s long-term flood protection planning to attend.

See Related Story: Mayor moves on flood protection before ‘Flood Summit’

-30-

Mayor supported, moved to introduce, voted for 19-33 and 19-11

Former council members Sica, Pulaski co-sponsored ordinances

Updated October 25, 2021: Adds background on Ordinance 19-11 and Madden being council chairman.

MANDEVILLE — Mandeville Daily recently published a story where it incorrectly identified Mayor Clay Madden as the ‘author’ of a 2019 ordinance that reduced the pay of future mayors. According to available records, then-Councilwoman at Large Lauré Sica and then-District II Councilman Michael Pulaski co-sponsored, or co-introduced, Ordinance 19-33 for consideration by the full council in November 2019.

However, Ordinance 19-33 was “moved for introduction” by then Councilman at Large Madden at the November 21, 2019, council meeting where it was adopted 5-0, including Madden’s ‘yes’ vote, according to council records.

Madden supported and voted in favor of 19-33. But prior to that in April 2019, while serving as council chairman, Madden supported Ordinance 19-11 which was the council’s first attempt to lower a future mayor’s salary. But that ordinance resulted in a lawsuit from sitting mayor Donald Villere, which led the council to repeal 19-11 with Ordinance 19-27 after setting a public referendum to amend the charter.

Madden — who was often a political foe of then Mayor Donald Villere — was a supporter of Ordinance 19-33 as well as Ordinance 19-11, making various statements to that effect, as reported in the media at the time:

Times-Picayune: Mandeville City Council cuts future mayor’s pay

Times-Picayune: Mandeville voters won’t choose mayor until 2020, but they’ll decide next month on new mayor’s paycheck

This inaccuracy affected two other previously published stories by Mandeville Daily, which have been corrected and noted:

UPDATE: Council restores mayor retirement pay, 3-2

OPINION: Previous City Council created ‘nuclear option’ to use against sitting mayor

Finding a record of the Mandeville City Council meeting minutes or passed ordinances and resolutions is hampered by the fact that these documents are no longer accessible online via the city’s website as they have been in the past.

On the webpage for the minutes from recent meetings, the minutes from the meeting in question — November 21, 2019 — are missing, while links to previous meetings are still available. Furthermore, some of the previous minutes have links, but they are crossed out and not working. See below:

Additionally, the document archive website the city uses is no longer available. Its link has been crossed out and not working:

The only resource still available is the CLURO and Home Rule Charter, furnished by “municode.com,” but unfortunately it does not contain all adopted ordinances, meeting agendas, resolutions or minutes from past meetings.

Mandeville Daily strives for accuracy and values the record being correct. We regret any confusion this error may have caused.

-30-

Says City Council’s wording created ‘ambiguity’ of intent

Mayor did not violate Home Rule Charter or state law

MANDEVILLE — Mayor Clay Madden did not violate the Home Rule Charter when he gave his executive secretary Trilby Lenfant a $10,000 raise earlier this year, according to an opinion by the State Attorney General’s office.

At the August 12th City Council meeting, it was revealed that Madden had awarded his executive assistant Lenfant the raise, which brought Lenfant to almost $82,000 a year. District II Councilman Skelly Kreller offered a resolution to seek an opinion on the legality of the raise from the AG’s office. The resolution was adopted 4-1, with only District 1 Councilwoman Rebecca Bush voting against.

In the opinion obtained today but dated October 14th, the AG said in a three-plus-page document that the City Council’s wording in its September 2020 budget ordinance created an “ambiguity” with two of its exhibits, or attachments.

Exhibit B, the “Job Class Detail,” contained a list of specific salaries for various employees. Exhibit D on the other hand, “Next Year/Current Year Budget Analysis,” has a line item for $1,318,049 in “Salaries.”

Exhibit B appears to be a detail record for the Exhibit D salaries line item. The 2021 budget ordinance reads, “There shall be no transfer of funds in an amount of $10,000 or more made between line items as shown on Exhibit D, the budget analyses of this budget. No transfers may be made that would increase a line item appropriation by $10,000 or more than the amount originally appropriated.”

The $10,000 raise for Lenfant came from money within the salaries line item in Exhibit D, but by including Exhibit B with a salary breakdown, the AG says the council made it unclear which exhibit — B or D — it intended to be the actual “appropriation.”

“The answer to which exhibit, ‘B’ or ‘D’ is considered the appropriation is ultimately a question as to what the Council believed it was doing when it adopted the budget ordinance,” the opinion read in part.

The AG said they could not answer that question based on the wording of the ordinance. The AG also seemed to advise the City Council to do a better job of wording its budget ordinances moving forward.

“Whether the Council meant to ‘appropriate’ each line item in Exhibit ‘B’ for each job classification or whether it meant to ‘appropriate’ one lump sum for salaries in Exhibit ‘D’ (subject to the transfer between line items of up to $10,000), is a question that the Council should consider when adopting its fiscal year 2022 budget ordinance,” the opinion continued.

The AG concluded, “In light of the ambiguity, it is the opinion of this office that the Council should clarify the actual appropriation of funds and the specific budgetary authority of the Mayor in future budgets.”

Read the full AG opinion here.

-30-

Zuckerman links 2019 mayor pay cut to positioning for then-upcoming mayor’s race

Read transcript from council debate

Other results from tonight’s meeting

Editor’s Note: A correction was made to this story on October 23rd. Mandeville Daily had incorrectly attributed authorship of Ordinance 19-33 to then-Councilman at Large Clay Madden. He supported the ordinance and voted in favor, but did not officially author it. Read the full correction here. Additionally, Councilman Skelly Kreller was factually incorrect when he stated Clay Madden was the Council Chairman when Ordinance 19-33 was introduced and adopted. Madden supported and voted in favor of 19-33. However, Madden was in fact the council chairman when Ordinance 19-11 was introduced and adopted. Ordinance 19-11 was the council’s first attempt to lower future mayors’ salary, which resulted in a lawsuit from sitting mayor Donald Villere, to which the council repealed 19-11 with Ordinance 19-27 after setting a public referendum to amend the charter.

Updated October 17, 2021, at 9:22AM – Adds quotes, context and transcript.

MANDEVILLE — The City Council voted (October 14th) to have the taxpayers fund the mayor’s contribution to the state retirement system as it does all other full-time employees, fixing a technical error in a 2019 ordinance which lowered the mayor’s salary and cut benefits.

Again, debate focused on whether the city should be paying retirement for the mayor and other employees, but this time, questions were raised about the motivation behind the 2019 ordinance which slashed the chief executive’s pay and benefits.

So I don’t think the decision they originally made with regard to that was appropriate. I don’t think the timing of it was appropriate… Look… the mayor voted for it… and as much as I’d like to make somebody live with the decisions and a position they took on something, I’m separating the person from the issue and I just feel strongly it needs to be changed. That’s why I have the position I do.

— Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman

Ordinance 21-39 had been deferred from the September 23rd meeting after debate dragged out almost an hour and the council seemed deadlocked. While discussion tonight was cantankerous at times, the council disposed of the issue in half the time it spent at the last meeting.

The ordinance corrects wording in city code and puts the mayor in the same category as all other full-time city employees with the taxpayers paying their contributions to the state retirement system.

According to state law, the office of mayor is a full-time employee and hence is required to participate in the Municipal Employee Retirement System (MERS). Some cities pay their employees’ contributions, other cities do not. Mandeville is a city that does.

But on November 21, 2019, the previous council voted to cut the mayor’s salary from $114,475 to $94,500, not including benefits.

This came on the heals of the passage of a November 16, 2019, public referendum to change the City Charter, allowing the city council to cut a mayor’s pay. Before the referendum, the council could only vote to raise the salary of a mayor.

The problem was, Ordinance 19-33 used flawed legal language, saying the “Mayor may participate” in MERS, which needs to be corrected to read the “Mayor shall participate,” putting it inline with state law.

Mayor Clay Madden served as a council member on the 2019 City Council and he went on record at the September 23rd council meeting to say that the 2019 council did not make a mistake because they were unaware at the time that the mayor is legally considered a full-time employee.

Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman, District I Councilwoman Rebecca Bush, and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire voted in favor. They generally agreed that one full-time employee shouldn’t be singled out and not have their benefits paid while all other full-time employees are.

“I don’t see the distinction between the mayor and other full-time employees. By the city charter the mayor is defined as a full-time employee. By state law, which the city attorney’s provided, he’s designated as a full-time employee,” Zuckerman said.

Zuckerman made it clear that he felt the 2019 City Council made a mistake with Ordinance 19-33 and it is the duty of the current council to fix it.

“There’s a lot of discussion that’s gone on about the interpretation of the previous council and what they intended. This council’s here now and this council has the ability to go back and look and see if what they did makes sense or not and use our best judgment and not necessarily just rely on the fact that everything that they did was ‘all-wise’ and ‘all-knowing,’” he added.

---

RELATED EDITORIAL: OPINION: Previous City Council created ‘nuclear option’ to use against sitting mayor

---

The 2019 council included two candidates for the 2020 mayor’s race, Lauré Sica and current mayor Madden. Sica and Madden both held at-large seats and were the driving force behind cutting the mayor’s pay and benefits and the public referendum that made it possible. Sica was serving as the council chairperson when 19-33 was adopted, but Madden supported and voted in favor of it.

Zuckerman questioned the motivation behind Ordinance 19-33 and how it related to the approaching 2020 mayor’s race at the time.

“I have a lot of questions about the original ordinance (Ordinance 19-33) itself that was passed and the timeline of its passage, and the fact that it affected people that were running for office (of mayor) at the time, people on the council were running (for mayor). There’s a lot that went around that original ordinance that, you know, I think it’s this council’s duty to look at it and make our best judgment and our best decision.”

Because of the mistake made by Madden and the 2019 City Council, the argument could be made that the mayor ended up making 10% less than he thought he would when he ran for the office.

Councilman at Large Rick Danielson and District II Councilman Skelly Kreller voted against Ordinance 21-39. Kreller said he believed that Madden knew exactly what he was voting for as a council member back in 2019 and intended to limit the total compensation of the mayor moving forward to $94,500. Danielson and Kreller view this ordinance as a 10% pay increase to the mayor.

Kreller — after insisting the mayor is not a full-time employee at previous meetings — acknowledged at the October 14th meeting that the chief executive is actually a full-time employee but that there is nothing wrong with making the mayor pay their retirement contributions.

“The mayor is a full-time employee of Mandeville, but he also is an elected official, so we’re not singling out an employee… We’re not singling him out… and he can be treated differently,” he said.

Kreller cited nearby cities and towns such as New Orleans, Kenner, Covington, Abita Springs and others, comparing their compensation packages and populations against Mandeville in an effort to illustrate that Mandeville is paying is over-compensating its mayor.

At one point, Kreller repeatedly referred to Madden as the council chairman in 2019 during the passage of Ordinance 19-33. However, Madden was not the council chairperson; Sica was.

Danielson said his opposition to 21-39 had nothing to do with the current mayor. He said the previous council was specific that the mayor would be responsible for paying their share if they opted to participate.

“This has nothing to do with the current mayor whatsoever… the job he’s doing or not doing… I think he’s doing a fantastic job… I think the entire city administration, the 98 employees that work for this city, and the five city council members are doing a fantastic job,” Danielson said.

---

In their own words

Because Mandeville Daily wishes to accurately relate each council member’s exact position on the issue, we have included most of the transcript from the discussion relating to Ordinance 21-39 during the October 14th meeting below:

33:17

McGuire:

“Well since I was the one that deferred it… I should probably… We discussed this during the budget process and during that time I did my — well I thought I did my homework — and I spoke with the former councilmen and spoke with the … finance director and confirmed that … he does have to participate (MERS)… When they, the former council, was doing this they looked, they compared salaries and benefit packages to other municipalities and there was a lot of information that was brought up at the last meeting. A lot of very good points were made. I believe it sparks, I feel, a need to discuss lots of things regarding the employees’ retirement — should the city pay their share.

“So there’s lots of things I believe we need to discuss and address soon, however, I don’t feel this is the time for it. I feel that there’s lots of things, right? We can discuss intent, we discuss what they were thinking (2019 City Council). We can clean it up, what have you. I think it’s… I went around the world and I came back to where I was in the beginning, and it is, the mayor is a legal — according to the legal definition — a full-time employee as well as it also states that in the charter, and the city pays for — whether we agree with it or not, and we can discuss that later — we pay for every other employee’s share of retirement so therefore I’m in support of the mayor receiving that same benefit as well.”

35:50

Kreller:

“The mayor is a full-time employee of Mandeville… But he also is an elected official, so we’re not singling out an employee… We’re not singling him out… and he can be treated differently…

“The only thing that really needs to be changed is that word in the first sentence. But the second sentence is very specify… it says that he will pay his percentage of the retirement.

“Businesses do not pay 100% of retirement for their employees. I have mentioned that I was in business for 38 years. I paid my portion and the employees paid their portion. Yes there are exceptions, but not many.

“And this has nothing to do with this council trying to change the police or anything like this in civil service. This has only to do with the mayor. And it doesn’t have anything to do with the salary of the mayor.

“I have not changed my position on this. He is a special case… He is not an ‘employee’ that has to be linked and lumped together with all the other employees of the city.

“I have not changed my position.”

Zuckerman:

“I don’t see the distinction between the mayor and other full time employees. By the city charter the mayor is defined as a full-time employee. By state law, which the city attorney’s provided, he’s designated as a full-time employee.

“There’s a lot of discussion that’s gone on about the interpretation of the previous council and what they intended. This council’s here now and this council has the ability to go back and look and see if what they did makes sense or not and use our best judgment and not necessarily just rely on the fact that everything that they did was ‘all-wise’ and ‘all-knowing.’

“I have a lot of questions about the original ordinance (Ordinance 19-33) itself that was passed and the timeline of its passage, and the fact that it affected people that were running for office (of mayor) at the time, people on the council were running (for mayor). There’s a lot that went around that original ordinance that, you know, I think it’s this council’s duty to look at it and make our best judgment and our best decision.

“I think that all of those things. That Mrs. McGuire brought up and even Dr. Kreller brought up… whether the city ought to be paying 100% of employees’ portions of retirement… all valid questions, and I know he’s got strong opinions about that…

“I look forward to any proposals, Dr. Kreller, that you bring to change that for the city. I think there are some practical issues in implementing it that we’d have to address. I don’t think it has anything to do with this ordinance and I haven’t changed my position on it, so that’s where I stand.”

40:50

Bush:

“I’ve been pretty consistent… I think I’ve been very consistent on this issue. … I like the idea of the city providing a benefit like that to all employees as I want to attract top talent. To work for the city. I think that’s incredibly important for any business and I think it’s incredibly important for the City of Mandeville.”

Zuckerman: “That’s an excellent point. I agree with Mrs. Bush.”

Kreller:

“To follow that up, how many cities, municipalities, around here pay 100% for retirement for the mayor?”

(Asks council clerk, who said she hadn’t researched it except back in 2019 when no other municipalities paid 100%.)

“And I don’t think anything has really changed since then.”

41:57

Danielson:

“This has nothing to do with the current mayor whatsoever… the job he’s doing or not doing… I think he’s doing a fantastic job… i think the entire city administration, the 98 employees that work for this city, and the five city council members are doing a fantastic job. What this has to do with (for) me is Ordinance No. 19-33, which stated two things:

“The mayor’s salary will be set for the full term at $94,500, and the mayor will make the employees’ portion of the contribution. That’s what it is.

“So what I’ve offered in the past, which failed, so I’m not going to offer an amendment tonight, but I want to make it clear for everybody is that that council said the mayor will make that contribution.”

42:44

“What I looked at I said okay, I get it. Year number one, the mayor made the full contribution, 10%. Year two, the city would pay a third, the mayor would pay two thirds. Year three, mayor one third, city two thirds. And at the end, at the fourth year, it’s back to 100%.

“Because what that really goes to is a 10% pay raise, by going from what the mayor was contributing this past year to paying in full is a 10% pay raise. And he is a full-time employee. Totally agree. The rest of our employees that are eligible are getting a 2.5% pay raise. That’s what I looked at.

“That’s why I had offered a third, a third, a third as what I felt to be a fair and equitable correction to an ordinance the previous council made. So I stand by that. I’m not going to make the amendment for it because I know where it’s going to go. But I want to make it very clear on all those points of why I brought up why I did and where I still stand tonight.”

Zuckerman:

“My position on this really has nothing to do … with the current mayor either.

“For me, I’m looking at the original ordinance. I don’t think it’s inappropriate at all for a current council to go in and look at what a previous council did and pass judgment on whether that needs to be changed or not. I think that’s why we’re elected.

“So I don’t think the decision they originally made with regard to that was appropriate. I don’t think the timing of it was appropriate… Look… the mayor voted for it… and as much as I’d like to make somebody live with the decisions and a position they took on something, I’m separating the person from the issue and I just feel strongly it needs to be changed. That’s why I have the position I do.”

44:48

Kreller:

“Also the mayor was the chair of that council and he has mentioned in the past that there might have been a little misunderstanding that maybe he didn’t understand completely and things like this… As the chair and who put up this ordinance 19-33, he should have went (sic) to the city attorneys and talked to them and … got perfectly clear what he was presenting to the council and what the vote was. And remember, the vote was 5-0. But he was the chair, and there’s no excuse.

“I can’t see any excuse that anybody could make… That’s shame on him or shame on whoever was the mayor. It doesn’t make a difference, okay?

“What makes a difference here is, one, he possibly didn’t know he’d be running for mayor then… two, he might have thought he wouldn’t win, but he knew what he was voting on then.

“And as the chair… he should do the research, and I assume he did the research, and hopefully he talked to the attorneys. I mean, we sure talk to the attorneys.”

Editor’s Note: Councilman Skelly Kreller was factually incorrect when he stated Clay Madden was the Council Chairman when Ordinance 19-33 was introduced and adopted. However, Madden supported and voted in favor of 19-33. Madden was in fact the council chairman when Ordinance 19-11 was introduced and adopted. Ordinance 19-11 was the council’s first attempt to lower future mayors’ salary, which resulted in a lawsuit from sitting mayor Donald Villere, to which the council repealed 19-11 with Ordinance 19-27 and set public referendum to amend the charter.

Zuckerman:

“I actually agree with a lot of that, but the point I was trying to make is that I think the mayor was wrong for voting for it, so I’m here to correct it.

“He did vote for it… but I think it was a bad vote. I think he made a mistake, and I’m voting to change it.”

47:04

Danielson:

“I agree with Mr. Zuckerman on the fact that we have a right to change previous ordinance whatever it might be, and that’s very important and it’s good government that we go and we do some of those things. That’s why I kind of felt that mine was a compromise… that kind of met in the middle on both sides of that thing.

“But I also find it interesting from a financial aspect is that the benefit to the mayor’s compensation on the retirement contribution is about $37,000 a year for a cit of 12,500 people, and when you compare that to the city of New Orleans, if I’m not mistaken, the contribution for the mayor of New Orleans which is almost 250,000, is $35,000… it’s just interesting to me… Is there a bigger question here on what we need to possibly be looking at down the road.”

McGuire:

“Yes.”

47:57

Zuckerman:

“I hear the comparison about size of the city in terms of population all the time and we compare Mandeville to other cities by population and I just got to question whether or not that’s the most appropriate comparison to make.

“I mean, do you take everything that we do in direct proportion to the city of New Orleans? Are there other metrics that we ought to look at cities that we should compare to? Is it quality of life? Should we be looking at cities with a similar quality of life?

“Certainly New Orleans or Hammond or Slidell may not necessarily have the quality the City of Mandeville does. But we’re going to benchmark what we do against those because of population. That doesn’t make sense to me. Should it be the average tax base, what the average citizen pays in revenue, the average number of employees that a municipality has that the mayor has to manage? So … I personally don’t buy into we need to compare to another municipality just based off population. That correlation… I haven’t been able to make that connection yet.”

48:56

Kreller:

“What about not just comparing to New Orleans but let’s compare to Kenner, Slidell, Hammond, Covington and Abita. He (mayor) ranks the highest on all of those cities and municipalities. And so, some of those are definitely compared (sic) to us. “

---

Other business from meeting

In other business at tonight’s meeting:

MINUTES:

1. Adoption of the September 23, 2021, Regular Meeting Minutes
   

REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:

To consider and take action with respect to adopting a resolution confirming an election date change pursuant to Executive Order of the Governor; establishing a new date to canvass the returns of the election; and providing for other matters in connection therewith.

PRESENTATION:

Ms. Suzanne Krieger, chairperson of the St. Tammany Levee Drainage and Conservation District, will discuss the proposed Constitutional Amendment # 3 – funding for the Levee District.

OLD BUSINESS:

1. Adoption of Ordinance No. 21-23: An ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City of Mandeville to rezone the south one half of square seventy-four (74) of the City of Mandeville, st. Tammany parish, state of Louisiana, from pm-2 marina district – non-waterfront lots, to o, open space/recreation; and providing for further matters in connection therewith (COUNCILWOMAN MCGUIRE, DISTRICT III)
   

Adopted 5-0: Danielson: Yes; McGuire: Yes; Bush: Yes; Kreller: Yes; Zuckerman: Yes

2. Adoption of Ordinance No. 21-24: An ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City of Mandeville to rezone double square 33, lot 2 of the City of Mandeville, st. Tammany parish, state of Louisiana, from R-3 multi-family residential district, to O, open space/recreation; and providing for further matters in connection therewith (Councilwoman McGuire, District III)
   

Adopted 5-0: Danielson: Yes; McGuire: Yes; Bush: Yes; Kreller: Yes; Zuckerman: Yes

3. Adoption of Ordinance No. 21-39: An ordinance of the council of the City of Mandeville amending Section 2-8 of chapter 2 of the City of Mandeville Code of Ordinances and providing for other matters in connection therewith. (Councilman Zuckerman, At-Large)
   

Adopted 3-2: Danielson: No; McGuire: Yes; Bush: Yes; Kreller: No; Zuckerman: Yes

NEW BUSINESS:

1. Establish Council meeting dates for the months of November and December
   
   November 18, 2021 and December 16, 2021 (only one meeting each month due to holidays)
   

All in favor.

2. Approval of the special event and liquor application for the Walk a Mile Mandeville 2021 on Saturday, October 30, 2021 from 4-8pm, no rain date. Event location will be from the Mandeville harbor to the Mandeville Trailhead. (Councilwoman McGuire, District III)
   

All in favor.

3. Approval of Change Order #1, Trailhead Splash Park Rehabilitation A/E Project No. 2101A06; formerly No. 2001A02 for an increase in contract time by 30 days for a total contract time of 150 days. No Change in dollar amount. (Councilwoman McGuire, District III)
   

All in favor.

4. Approval of NTE amount for Hurricane Ida debris removal project pursuant to the Emergency Debris Removal Contract from $1 million to a NTE $5 million (Councilman Zuckerman, At-Large).
   

All in favor.

5. Approval of NTE amount for Hurricane Ida debris monitoring project pursuant to the Emergency Debris Monitoring Contract from $250,000 to $850,000 (Councilman Zuckerman, At-Large).
   

All in favor.

6. Adoption of Resolution No. 21-44: A Resolution confirming an election date change pursuant to Executive Order of the Governor; establishing a new date to canvass the returns of the election; and providing for other matters in connection therewith. (Councilman Zuckerman, At-Large)
   

All in favor.

7. Adoption of Resolution No. 21-45: A resolution of the Mandeville city council endorsing the application of Susan Danielson (551 Carroll Street, Mandeville, Louisiana) for participation in the restoration tax abatement program project no. 2016-1452-RTA(Councilman Zuckerman, At-Large)
   

All in favor.

8. Adoption of Resolution No. 21-46: A resolution of the city council of the City of Mandeville accepting the bids for the Monroe at East Causeway intersection & traffic signal improvements project A/E Project No. 20-1956 and authorizing the mayor to execute a contract with the lowest apparent bid Kort’s Construction Services Inc. And providing for other matters in connection therewith (Councilman Kreller, District II)
   

Amended to add wording about properly moving and relocating trees.

All in favor.

9. Adoption of Resolution No. 21-47: A resolution of the city council of the City of Mandeville accepting the recommendation of the audit committee to contract with Postlethwaite & Netterville, for the purpose of conducting a financial audit for the City of Mandeville as of and for the year ending august 31, 2021 and authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement and providing for other matters in connection therewith (Councilman Danielson, At-Large)
   

All in favor.

10. Introduction of Ordinance No. 21-28: An ordinance of the city council of the City of Mandeville amending the Code of Ordinances, chapter 11, Section 11-64 urinating in public places prohibited; definition; penalty; and providing for other matters in connection therewith: (Councilman Kreller, District II)
    

To be voted on October 28, 2021.

All in favor.

11. Introduction of Ordinance No. 21-29: An ordinance of the city council of the City of Mandeville approving a conditional use permit for accessory outdoor seating within the Jefferson Street right of way (Councilwoman McGuire, District III)
    

To be voted on October 28, 2021.

All in favor.

12. Introduction of Ordinance No. 21-30: An ordinance of the city council of the City of Mandeville amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 10, to include Section 10-73 as a prohibition of parking or traversing on median strip; definition; penalty; and providing for other matters in connection therewith (Councilman Kreller, District II)
    

To be voted on October 28, 2021.

All in favor.

The next City Council meeting is scheduled for October 28th at 6 p.m.

-30-