LEGISLATION
2026 HAS BEEN A HUGE YEAR FOR LEGISLATION I HAVE AUTHORED!!!!
Ordinance 26-02 now requires any proposed property rezoning, conditional use permits, and requests for development of Planned Districts to first be presented to the City Council for introduction as an Ordinance before the application (and Ordinance) is referred to Planning & Zoning for hearings and their recommendation back to the Council. This directly addresses and remedies the issue of Ordinances for proposed property rezoning, conditional use permits, and requests for development of Planned Districts not being consistent with or containing additional details not considered before the Planning & Zoning Commission when it arrives at the Council for consideration.
Ordinance 26-03 clarifies and reinforces what I strongly believe the CLURO already requires with regard to the application of site development regulations for individual uses within mixed use developments. That is that when calculating allowable building areas, number of units allowed, maximum impervious areas, etc., only the area of the site designated for each use within the mixed-use site can be used in those calculations. Additionally, areas of sites extending into and under Lake Pontchartrain or other water bodies cannot be used in those calculations. These clarifications will prevent loose interpretations of existing provisions in the future and prevent overdevelopment when multiple uses are proposed on a single piece of property by using the entire property size, which may be taken up with other uses, to increase density beyond what would be allowed by the CLURO if a single use was proposed for the entire site.
Ordinance 26-09 now requires that any Traffic Impact Analysis required by the CLURO for rezoning, conditional use permits, etc. will be contracted directly by the City, with costs paid by the applicants. The Planning Department, Public Works, and the City Engineer will now have the opportunity to develop a complete and proper scope for Traffic Impact Analyses when required for the Commission and City Council to rely upon instead of applicants finding their own consultants and presenting an incomplete traffic study that omits important criteria that may be necessary to properly evaluate impacts.
These three ordinances all passes the City Council UNANIMOUSLY with 5-0 votes.
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL!!!!
Two key pieces of fiscal legislation authored by me passed by a 4-1 vote of the City Council establishing formal fiscal policies for the City of Mandeville. This has never been done before in our city's history.
Ordinance 26-16 establishes by law an absolute minimum projected General Fund balance. With the passage of this ordinance, no Council can approve budgets projecting an end-of-year General Fund balance of less than 20% of the City's annual operating expenses unless they first change the law. That minimum is actually higher than the level recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association for municipalities like ours.
Resolution 26-25, also passed by a 4-1 vote establishes, for the upcoming Fiscal Year 26-27 budget, a target year-end General Fund balance of between 30% and 40% of the City's annual recurring expenditures. That target is double the minimum now required by law and more than double the level recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association.
For years, we've all sat through annual budget hearings where the Council and citizens expressed concerns about the City's unrestricted General Fund balance—both current and projected—and for good reason.
For the first time ever we have established by law an absolute minimum projected General Fund balance for all future budgets. And, through my Resolution, we have also established what that projected ending balance should be for this coming fiscal year—twice that minimum threshold.
Again, both measures were approved by four of the five members of the Council with only Council Member Discon voting against.
We simply could not continue passing annual budgets or making decisions about spending, spending cuts, staffing, personnel, capital projects, millages, and other financial priorities without a formalized fiscal policy. These measures will now require both the Administration and the Council to make the difficult financial decisions that will inevitably be necessary in the years ahead.
Additionally, by establishing this year's target General Fund balance prior to budget hearings, the Council has been able to focus its attention on the actual budget line items instead of debating what the General Fund balance should be.
My hope is that future Councils will continue this practice by adopting a General Fund balance policy through resolution before each annual budget process begins.
I believe this is a major step forward in maintaining Mandeville's fiscal strength, and I sincerely thank the Council Members who supported these measures with their votes.