Meetings.

Roll call, opening, and opening remarks

• Roll call and quorum noted: Council President Morrell, Vice President Willard, Council Members McCarran, Harris, King, Green, and Hughes present. Clerk states six members and a quorum.
• Invocation delivered by Pastor James Thomas of Epic Noah Church, emphasizing justice, mercy, love, unity, humility, serving the community, and listening to the powerless.
• Pledge of Allegiance recited.

Millage amendments and related ordinances (Ordinance Calendars 35582 and 35583)

• Item 11 — Ordinance Calendar 35582, amendment adopted: Morrell and Harris. Amendment clarifies that certain previously rolled-back millage rates constitute millage rates and adjusts the Gordon District Security District rate to 9.63 mil.
• Vote on amendment: six yays, zero nays.
• Discussion on the underlying ordinance 35582: CAO Jerusalem explains a significant budget gap and a two-vote process between the two ordinances; clarifies that 35582 represents the current adjusted millage rates and that the amendment reflects district-specific clarifications; 35582 (as amended) would be the measure adopting the current rates, while a separate measure would address the roll-forward.
• Vote on the ordinance as amended (35582): seven yays, zero nays. The ordinance is passed as amended.
• Item 12 — Ordinance Calendar 35583, amendment adopted: Morrell and Harris. Amendment clarifies the roll-forward of certain millages to correctly reflect the roll-forward rate in sections 5 and 6 (0.309 mils); removes references to millages not being rolled forward and confirms provisions of 35582 remain effective.
• Public speaker Ariane Santino (child care provider) testifies in support of the amendment, highlighting the early childhood millage, the need for state matching, and the impact on unserved children; she emphasizes support from Councilor Hughes and the importance of expanding ECE access.
• Vote on the amendment to 35583: seven yays, zero nays.
• Discussion on the ordinance as amended (35583): speakers address tax policy, equity, and the effects of budget changes on services and programs; discussion continues with multiple perspectives on roll-forward, equity, and funding priorities. The notes indicate ongoing discussion rather than a final action specific to the underlying ordinance at this point.
• Notable speakers during this discussion include Mr. Dunn, Ms. Mojula (Vera and the Big Easy Budget Coalition), and others focusing on equity, prevention programs, health department funding, and general budget impacts.
• Several subsequent statements frame the roll-forward as essential to protecting core services and addressing disparities, while others raise concerns about tax structure and affordability.

• Motion to vote on the millage bills was proposed, seconded, and the council proceeded with the amended framework. The official vote outcome on the underlying 35583, as amended, is not explicitly stated in the notes beyond the amendment passage; the amendment to 35583 passes, and the broader budget implications are discussed in the surrounding debate.

Budget discussion and public testimony (millage roll-forward context)

• A number of speakers frame the budget and roll-forward as central to the city’s fiscal strategy.
• An unidentified speaker emphasizes tough decisions to put the city on a path to prosperity, supports the millage roll-forward, and calls for urgent conversations with nonprofits and revenue ideas.
• Eugene commends past decisions to avoid tax increases by rolling forward millages, notes wage increases for city workers without tax raises, and argues for maintaining EMS and avoiding police layoffs while pursuing efficiency; expresses conditional support for increased resources to improve safety and services.
• Council Member Hughes notes the presence of students shadowing him and emphasizes his core budget responsibilities, the hardships of recent deficits, and the importance of preserving core services and public safety; thanks CAO and city staff.
• An additional speaker frames the budget as a moral document, prioritizing mothers and babies, mental health services, public defenders, public safety, and services for unhoused residents; asserts the roll-forward preserves these values.
• Council Member Willard (in his seventh year) explains how the roll-forward affects population growth, revenue projections, and potential funding gaps. He presents the 2026 budget figure (about 885 million with ~160 million in one-time funding), 2027 requests (about 847 million with 23 million in recurring one-time funding considerations and additional revenue possibilities), and a best-case deficit without roll-forward of about 68 million. He argues the roll-forward could provide about 23 million in new revenue, reducing required cuts, and outlines potential alternative revenue approaches (sales tax, local earnings tax, hotel/motel tax, STR tax, and non-contributing properties). He commits to evaluating the budget next year to ensure promised revenues deliver results and to pursuing reductions if necessary.
• Council Member McCarran frames the vote as tough and cites prior engagements and district outreach; supports the partial roll-forward to fund essential services (sanitation, trash pickup, street maintenance, etc.) and pledges ongoing accountability for spending.
• Council Member Harris thanks mayor, CAO staff, and deputy mayors for testimony; emphasizes that slashing Mardi Gras cleanup and the Low Barrier Shelter would be unacceptable; supports the roll-forward to sustain essential services and to move toward passing the budget on November 19; calls for broad collaboration.
• Council Member King argues that without rolling millages forward, basic services will suffer (streetlight maintenance, grass cutting, pothole repair, etc.); supports voting yes; references historical context post-Katrina and calls for ongoing transparency and accountability.
• Context: The discussion makes clear the council’s intention to vote on millage measures now, with the budget to be voted on in two weeks. The budget is described as a binding contract among the council, administration, and residents, with commitments to greater transparency and public hearings on REC-revenue spending next year.

Consent agenda, zoning and miscellaneous ordinances, and related actions

• Item 13 — Ordinance Calendar 35584: levy of fees on property located in special security and improvement taxing districts for 2027; fees collected via property tax bills and distributed to respective districts. Motion by Harris, second by Morel; vote: seven yays.
• Minutes: Approval of October 1, 2026 and October 15, 2026 minutes; vote: seven yays.
• Consent Agenda: Multiple communications may be received or referred; some items designated for hearing on 11-19-26; clerk notes no cards; consent agenda approved with six yays.
• Legislative Grouping — IZD Appeal of Ron Lazzo, Zach Smith, Consultant in Design (IZD 126): Motion M26474 by Harris approves the applicant’s request; CPC was not present to report; property history described and prior approvals noted. The motion passes. Vote: six yeas.
• Zoning Docket 8426 (JAGS Hold ing LLC): Conditional use for a commercial short-term rental in MU-2 within the Transient Lodging Interim Zoning District; CPC recommended denial. A public comment from Renee Celestine requests deferment for full review; the council denies the conditional use per motion M26473; Vote: five yeas.
• ORDINANCES — UNCF and United Way (items 19 and 20 on page 26):
• 35608 — UNCF Cooperative Endeavor Agreement extension through September 30, 2028; no city funding required; vote: six yeas.
• 35609 — United Way of Southeast Louisiana Cooperative Endeavor Agreement; term greater than one year; two-year term; no city funding; staff coordination and event space; vote: seven yeas.
• Item 15 (35,600) — Energy Innovation Incubator Cooperative Endeavor with Community Foundation Realty, Inc. to support entrepreneurs; vote: seven yeas.
• Item 17 (35,606) — Temporary special event clean zone for the 2027 College Football Playoff; vote: six yeas.
• Item 18 (35,607) — Repeal of the Edward Wisner Donation Advisory Committee; vote: seven yeas.
• Item 21 (35,610) — Increase the competitive selection threshold for contracts for professional services (administration request); vote: six yeas.
• Items 22, 23, 24, 26, 28–39 — various items deferred to 11-19; several motions deferred; some items later addressed in subsequent sessions.
• Item 25 (35,616) — Cabrini High School cooperative endeavor with New Orleans Recreation Development Commission for park-related activities; discussion on maintenance responsibilities and city funding; vote: six yeas.
• Item 50 (M26-462) — directing the Council Utilities Regulatory Office to issue and advertise an RFQ for a technical advisor; vote: five yeas.
• Item 49 — Deferred due to an outstanding Civil District Court TRO involving Scott Spivey; no action recorded in this portion.
• Items 53–58 — amendments adding the President of the Council as signatory to various amendments to contracts (Global Solutions Group, Looks Great Services, Southern Disaster Recovery, Supreme Developers, Thompson’s Consulting Services).
• 53 (M26-66), 54 (M26-67), 55 (M26-68), 56 (M26-69): awaiting vote.
• 57 (M26-70): approved (yeas reported).
• 58 (M26-471): approved (yeas reported).
• Item 59 (M26475) — directing City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to rename West Park Drive to Femfotel Way; amendment to correct the street name; six yeas; adoption of the amendment; renaming moved to vote; six yeas.
• Item 60 (M26478) — approve 2027 Housing Trust Fund budget and implementation plan (per consent agenda of Sept. 3, 2026); public testimony received expressing concerns about funding priorities (fortifying roofs, direct homeowner assistance) and the balance between large developers and homeowner needs; discussion of next steps and a need for targeted allocations; outcome of final vote not specified in the notes.
• Other items:
• Several ordinances on first read related to zoning and development (e.g., text amendments and conditional uses) were introduced or addressed; some approved on first reading, others deferred or moved to future dates (not all results explicitly provided in the notes).
• Additional ordinances introduced for first reading include: zoning and development items addressing historic districts, conditional uses, and other amendments (numbers such as 35,618 onward mentioned as part of the sequence) with several deferred to 11-19.

Special orders and recognition

• Special orders included a presentation recognizing Renette Hall (publisher, Louisiana Weekly) upon retirement. The agenda shows remarks by multiple council members praising her decades of involvement in publishing, fair coverage, and advocacy for the community; Christopher DeJua Hall introduced as successor; a proclamation and group photo were planned.
• Remarks were offered by Council members Morrell, Willett, King, McCarran, and Green, highlighting Hall’s impact, the role of the Louisiana Weekly, and wishes for continued community coverage and mentorship.
• Chris DeJua Hall spoke, acknowledging his history with the paper and affirming commitment to continuing its mission.

Adjournment

• A proclamation was presented, and attendees prepared for a group photograph.
• A motion to adjourn was requested and then stated as adjournment.

Notes on unresolved or ongoing items

• The underlying budget details tied to the millage amendments (35582 and 35583) continue to be discussed, with a two-week timeline before the budget vote. Public hearings on REC-revenue spending are anticipated in the coming year.
• Several contract amendments adding the President of the Council as signatory were moved, with several awaiting vote; a few amendments were approved.
• Numerous deferred zoning and related ordinances remain to be acted upon in future meetings (11-19 date referenced).
• The Housing Trust Fund discussion and its implementation plan were presented with public comment; the final budget allocation decisions were not fully resolved in the notes.

This meeting summarized decisions on millage amendments, related ordinances, consent agenda items, a number of zoning and development actions, a series of contract amendments, and a formal recognition/retirement event.

Attendance and hearing purpose

• Roll call noted; Council President Morrell, Vice President Willett, Council Members McCarran, Harris, King, Green, and Hughes present or noted; five members present, quorum established.
• Hearing conducted pursuant to Section 3-1075 of the Home Rule Charter to consider levying additional and increased millage rates without further voter approval, or adopting adjusted millage rates after reassessment and rolling forward rates not to exceed the prior year’s maximum authorized millage rates, and any other matter the Council may lawfully consider. Hearing to be cablecast live on government access channels and recast for future airings.

Public hearing items and agenda

• Hearing to consider and review adjusted millage rates and roll forward to millage rates not to exceed maximum authorized rates without further voter approval.
• Ordinance Calendar 35382, an amendment to Ordinance Calendar 35382.
• Ordinance Calendar 35582 by Council Members Morrell and Harris by request.
• An ordinance relative to the levy of ad valorem taxes upon the assessed value of all property, real, personal, and mixed subject to taxation in the City of New Orleans, and related to the levy of ad valorem taxes on property in special development and security districts for 2027, to levy millage rates for 2027, and to reallocate state millage receipts.
• An amendment to Ordinance Calendar 35582 by Council Members Morrell and Harris by request to clarify that certain previously rolled back millage rates constitute millage rates and to adjust the Garden District Security District rate to 9.63 mils.
• Hearing on proposed increased millage rates.
• Ordinance Calendar 35583, an amendment to Ordinance Calendar 35583 by Council Members Morrell and Harris by request.
• An amendment to Ordinance Calendar 35583 to add clarifying language regarding roll forward of certain millages to correctly reflect the roll forward rate in Section 5 and 6,309 mils, to remove references to millages not being rolled forward, and to clarify that the provisions of ordinance 35582 remain effective.

Procedural actions

• Motion M26-472 by Council Member Morrell to suspend Rule One to start the November 5, 2026 regular council meeting after 10 a.m. and immediately after adjournment of the hearing; second by Council Member Harris. Vote: six yeas, zero nays. Motion approved.

Chief Administrative Officer remarks

• CAO Jerusale opened with brief remarks; introduced Deputy Mayors and staff; stated no PowerPoint and that he would be brief; acknowledged public hearings and council engagement; indicated readiness to answer questions and proceed to deliberation; noted many public cards to come for comment.

Public comment and testimony

• Patricia Walton-Bird: testified about a property tax freeze approved in October 2019; ongoing raw sewer backups since 2014; stated she has sought assistance from multiple officials and media; will continue to pursue resolution.
• Darnell Philipson (Ms. Philipson): spoke about migration of two Native New Orleanians from Louisiana; referenced a decade of documentation related to federal funding and concerns about misappropriation; argued council oversight may have allowed non-local entities to control funds; called for transparency and accountability.
• Nellie Katzen (Committee for a Better New Orleans): explained what is being considered and alternatives, including rolling forward all millages (about $42 million) versus rolling forward only general fund-related millages (about $21 million) including some external agencies (City Park and Audubon) and others (Park and Parkways, Nord); noted the online calculator request; confirmed that under consideration today is a roll forward for general fund-related millages: General Alimony (1.82 mils), Police and Fire (1.46 mils), Park millages (Audubon and City Park) and Parkways and Nord at 0.759 mils, totaling 4.039 mils, which would raise $23.27 million. Early childhood and library millages are not rolled forward.
• CBNO noted ongoing advocacy for transparency in how money is spent and how taxpayers are affected.
• Ms. Clevenger: expressed gratitude for the calculator tool; emphasized social programs should not be on the chopping block; urged careful consideration of roll forward implications for homeowners and small businesses.
• Council Member Woolley: asked Joe what the deficit would be with the roll forward.
• Joe (staff): replied that the total deficit is about $100 million between expenses and revenue; one-time money of $23 million reduces the gap to about $77 million; implementing the roll forward reduces the remaining deficit to about $50 million.
• Hamilton Simmons-Jones: reminded that in 2022 voters approved an early childhood education (ECE) millage (62% yes); the investment is matched dollar-for-dollar by the state and serves over 1,800 children now; more than 5,000 families need access; the ECE millage is not currently included in roll-forward plans; suggested including it; estimated cost about $0.89 per month for a $250,000 homestead-exemption property; with state match, rolling forward could fund hundreds more children.
• Dakota Shelton: urged rolling forward the ECE millage this year to the five full mills approved in 2022; described Power Coalition’s education efforts; argued access to quality education should not depend on income; noted listening sessions where families express need for more support; contended rolling forward the ECE millage would help more families and aligns with rolling forward other millages.
• Lonnie Granier (Odyssey House): expressed gratitude for support preserving the city’s low-barrier shelter program; emphasized shelter serves 296 residents and connects them to health care, addiction treatment, case management, employment resources, and pathways to housing; warned that insufficient funding could lead to closure, disruption of care, economic harm, and neighborhood strain; urged securing funding and sustainable support.
• Osoruo Mweseyadun: shared personal reflections on residents feeling underserved and distrustful; cited sanitation, Delta Utilities, Omni Hotel tax breaks, and large developer incentives; described the millage as regressive and urged a more progressive approach; questioned the budget for NOPD and cited civil rights concerns; suggested the health department drive reductions in violent crime; corrected a statement about regressive taxes, noting property taxes are not regressive (sales taxes are regressive); urged consideration of progressive tax options.
• Russell Kelly: offered critique on fund distribution and salaries; claimed increases in pay for certain city officials and staff; argued this is inequitable and called for accountability in budgeting and compensation decisions.
• Sophia Scarano: reiterated support for including the ECE millage in Roll Forward plans; referenced data on child care costs and economic impact; emphasized the question is whether to fund the need; noted the ECE millage would cost about $0.89 per month for a typical homeowner and would expand care to more than 250 additional children with state matching funds.
• Israel O’Day: name noted; no substantive remarks recorded in this portion.
• Ms. Cleveland: checked whether there is a second speaker card for 2B and noted uncertainty about the difference between 2A and 2B remarks.

• A speaker emphasized the importance of dialogue and asked all councilmembers how many constituents have contacted them in support of a roll forward; requested counts of those in support.
• Noted that 2027 is a quadrennial assessment year and that assessment years typically see property tax increases; described ongoing concerns about tax impact.
• Claimed that the board of review, representing the city council, approved multimillion-dollar reductions for properties on Audubon Boulevard, Newcomb Boulevard, Magazine Street, Baton Rouge, just before the roll forward of the proposed millage; stated reductions involve millions of dollars across about 500 properties on the list.
• Questioned where services are, noting lights out on North Broad and another block; argued that if taxes rise, basic services should improve.
• Expressed a personal stake: residents are fighting to stay in New Orleans, seeking economic stability, and asked whether next year the millage would be rolled forward again or rolled back.
• Stated there are no further speaker cards; there is no action item on the agenda other than the motion already made.

Millage roll-forward discussion and related items

• The discussion anticipated considering a roll forward for general fund-related millages (not for all millages). The proposed roll forward would include:
• General Alimony: 1.82 mils
• Police and Fire: 1.46 mils
• Park millages (Audubon and City Park) and Parkways and Nord: 0.759 mils
• Total: 4.039 mils
• Estimated revenue: approximately $23.27 million
• Early childhood and library millages would not be rolled forward
• A key point raised by speakers was whether the ECE millage should be included in the roll forward to leverage state matching funds and expand access; several speakers urged including ECE, noting potential community and economic benefits.

Adjournment of the hearing

• The hearing adjourned after a motion to adjourn was moved and seconded.
• Vote: seven yeas, zero nays.
• A five-minute recess was taken to reset the machines for the regularly scheduled council meeting.

Roll call and quorum

• Council President Morrell present; Vice President Willett present; Council Members McCarran, Harris, Green, and Hughes present. King not listed as present. Five members present and a quorum.

Hearing notice and scope

• The chair announced a City Council hearing for Thursday, November 5 at 10 a.m. to consider levying additional and increased millage rates without further voter approval, or adopting adjusted millage rates after reassessment and rolling forward rates not to exceed the prior year’s maximum authorized millage rates, plus any other lawful matters. Hearing to be cablecast live on government access channels with future recasts.

Public hearing items on millage

• Hearing to consider adjusted millage rates and roll forward to millage rates not exceeding maximum authorized rates without further voter approval.
• Ordinance Calendar 35382; amendments to Ordinance Calendar 35382.
• Ordinance Calendar 35582 by Morrell and Harris (tax levy on ad valorem taxes for 2027, including special development and security districts). Amendment to 35582 to clarify that certain rolled-back millage rates constitute millage rates and to adjust Garden District Security District to 9.63 mils.
• Hearing on proposed increased millage rates.
• Ordinance Calendar 35583 by Morrell and Harris; amendment to 35583 to levy ad valorem taxes for 2027 and reallocate state millage receipts, and related provisions. Amendment to 35583 to add clarifying language about roll forward of certain millages, to correctly reflect the roll-forward rate in Sections 5 and 6 (3.09 mils), to remove references to millages not being rolled forward, and to clarify that provisions of 35582 are not superseded by 35583.

Motion to begin the regular meeting after the hearing

• Motion M26-472 by Councilmember Morrell to suspend Rule One to begin the November 5, 2026 regular Council meeting after 10 a.m. and immediately after adjournment of the hearing. Seconded (Councilmember Harris).
• Vote: Six yeas, zero nays. Motion approved.

Opening remarks by the CAO and staff

• CAO Jerusale opened the hearing (no PowerPoint) and said he would be brief. He introduced staff: Deputy Mayor Harrison, Deputy Mayor Vagno, Assistant CAO Brandy DeLarge, Deputy CAO of City Services Ernest Leger, and Deputy CAO of Infrastructure Steve Nelson. He stated he would not rehash millage substance, thanked the Council for engagement and district outreach, and emphasized that the purpose of the hearing is to hear public comment and that staff would answer questions as needed. He noted several public cards and that two speakers had spoken so far.

Public comment (selected remarks)

• Patricia Walton-Bird: Spoke about having received a property tax freeze (2019) after applying (2015-2017) and ongoing raw sewer backups since 2014. Cited lack of coverage or assistance from city officials and paused with “That’s your time” after two minutes.
• Darnell Philipson (corrected to Mrs. Philipson): Cited concerns that two Native New Orleanians may move from the city; described decades of documentation related to federal funding and concerns about management and possible misappropriation; questioned who controls funds and the City Council’s role; called for transparency, accountability, and facts before drawing conclusions.
• Nellie Katzen (Committee for a Better New Orleans): Outlined proposals under consideration, including rolling forward all millages (about $42 million for the general fund and other funds) versus rolling forward only general fund-related millages (about $21 million, with smaller amounts for external agencies City Park and Audubon). Asked if there would be a discussion today. Joe Dunlap explained that early in the process there was discussion about rolling millages forward fully and an online calculator was provided for public review. The current mayoral request is to roll forward the general-aligned millages (general fund 1.82 mils, police and fire 1.46 mils, and park-related millages including Audubon, City Park, Park and Parkways, and Nord at 0.759 mils), totaling 4.039 mils and about $23.27 million. The early childhood and library millages are not being rolled forward. Katzen commended CBNO’s transparency efforts and the calculator tool.
• Ms. Clevenger: Acknowledged clarity of proposals; argued social programs that affect everyday people should not be on the chopping block; asserted taxes fund services and that ARPA-era vehicle spending could have aided homeowner recovery; urged consideration of rolling forward the millage.
• Council Member Woolley: Asked what the deficit would be with the roll forward.
• Joe (Staff): Estimated deficit around $100 million between expenses and revenue. One-time money of about $23 million reduces the gap to roughly $77 million; without a roll forward, about $77 million in cuts would be needed. Rolling forward could reduce the deficit by about a third, bringing it closer to $50 million.
• Hamilton Simmons-Jones: Recapped the 2022 early childhood education millage (62% yes), matched by the state, currently serving over 1,800 children; more than 5,000 families still need access. Stated the millage is not included in the roll forward and urged including it. Estimated cost is $0.89 per month for the average $250,000 homestead; state match would double that impact.
• Dakota Shelton (Power Coalition for Equity and Justice): Urged rolling forward the 2022 early childhood education millage to the five full mill; argued it funds access to quality education regardless of earnings; cited ongoing community listening sessions and ongoing need; stated the roll forward would cost about $0.89 per month per typical homeowner with state match and would enable care for more than 250 additional children; contended ECE deserves roll forward alongside police, fire, and city services.
• Lonnie Granier (Odyssey House): Emphasized the essential, low-barrier shelter serving 296 residents with links to healthcare, addiction treatment, case management, employment resources, and housing. Thanked the Council for preserving the shelter; warned that closing would push residents back onto the streets, disrupt care, hurt the local economy, burden neighborhoods and services; urged securing funding to maintain uninterrupted shelter operations and ongoing collaboration with partners.
• Osoruo Mweseyadun (Mr. Adun): Shared personal reflections on residents feeling underserved; referenced sanitation, Delta Utilities, Omni Hotel, and large developer/hotelier tax breaks as context; suggested the millage could be regressive and urged a more progressive budgeting approach; urged attention to NOPD funding and noted concerns raised by civil rights groups about rights violations; claimed health department is a driver in reducing violent crime; corrected a speaker by noting property taxes are not regressive and that sales taxes are regressive.
• Russell Kelly: Critiqued city pay and hires growth while asking for more funds from property taxpayers; pointed to pay increases for Steve Nelson, Judge Russo, Brandy DeLarge, Jeffrey Swartz, Kim DeLarge, CAO’s office hires, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars; argued wealth is concentrating at the top while the burden remains on property owners.
• Sophia Scarano: Reiterated request to include the early childhood education millage in the Roll Forward plans; cited educators’ readiness to provide high-quality care and the essential nature of access for families and the economy. Cited LPIC poll showing high parental burden for child care costs (nearly $870/month for one child) and noted small changes can cause families to lose childcare assistance; urged funding the millage as a real economic impact.
• Israel O’Day: Acknowledged prior remarks and moved on (no substantive content beyond procedural notes).
• Ms. Cleveland: Asked if there is a second card for 2B and noted confusion about the difference between 2A and 2B; indicated she would address it.
• Ms. Cleveland (second card on 2B): Indicated uncertainty about 2B’s difference but will address it.
• Unidentified speaker: Asked how many constituents have contacted them in support of a roll forward; noted 2027 is a quadrennial assessment year and assessments typically rise; mentioned Board of Review reducing taxes for properties on Audubon Boulevard, Newcomb Boulevard, Magazine Street, and Baton Rouge just before the roll forward, totaling millions for about 500 properties; questioned where increased tax revenue would translate into services, citing outages and lights-out conditions; urged that higher payments yield basic services and expressed concern about economic stability and whether millage would roll forward or roll back next year.

Staff context and ongoing discussion

• There is no action item beyond the completed motion to begin the regular meeting after the hearing. The public heard explanations of the roll-forward framework and the specific millages included or excluded from rolling forward, along with the potential fiscal impact of rolling forward versus not rolling forward.

Unresolved issues and points of discussion

• Whether the roll forward should include the 2022 early childhood education millage (ECE) and, if so, how it should be incorporated alongside the general fund, police/fire, and park-related millages.
• Which millages should be rolled forward versus not, and how that translates into funding for social programs, housing, shelters, and public safety.
• The balance between revenue needs and potential regressive impacts, with particular focus on the ECE millage and other programs funded by property taxes.
• The public’s access to transparent tools (e.g., online calculators) and ongoing public discussion about what is decided today.

Adjournment of the hearing

• A speaker concluded with the note that there was no further action on the agenda beyond the motion already completed, and asked to adjourn the hearing. The motion to adjourn was seconded by Councilor Burr-Harris.
• Vote: Seven yeas, no nays.
• The hearing was adjourned. A five-minute recess was taken to reset the machines for the regularly scheduled council meeting.

Overall context

• The materials cover multiple HDLC agenda items (nomination studies for landmarks, and demolition/retention cases) from meetings around November 2026.
• Several items have clear votes or actions; others are described with staff recommendations or discussions but no final vote in the provided text.

Landmark nominations (study or study-as-landmark)

2315 Washington Avenue

• What: Nomination for landmark study (Contributing structure in Central City NRHD; owner is Nasira Randolph; advocate Dr. Vanita Hills spoke).
• Staff note: Staff recommended against landmark nomination initially, but allowed owner to join as second nominator to pursue nomination.
• Commission action: Motion to approve the nomination for study; Second; Vote: Unanimous.
• Outcome: Nomination approved for study; owner joined as second nominator.
• Public/Applicants: Public comments supported recognizing Cousin Joe’s legacy (Susan Johnson; Sandra Stokes spoke in support; owner spoke via nominator).

3809 Clematis Street

• What: Nomination for landmark study (Edgewood Park NRHD; non-contributing status noted in description; historic recording studio context mentioned in materials).
• Staff note: Staff recommended nominating for study.
• Commission action: Motion to approve the nomination for study; Second; Vote: Unanimous.
• Outcome: Nomination approved for study (per staff guidance that owner join as nominator if needed).

3100 Calhoun Street (Ted’s Frostop Diner)

• What: Nomination for landmark study.
• Staff note: Staff recommended nominating for study (building and sign; rear additions/exterior changes not to be included in the nomination unless scoped).
• Public/Applicant input: Developer presented extensive development discussions and asked for a deferral to finalize scope with HDLC.
• Commission action: No final vote documented in the provided material; owner requested deferral; status described as ongoing/deferral pending further clarity.
• Outcome: Unresolved in the provided text (deferral requested; no final decision recorded).

Notes on speakers for nominations

• Staff and proponents presented: Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley (PRC) and others.
• Advocates for preservation spoke in support (e.g., Susan Johnson; Sandra Stokes for 2315 Washington; others referenced in excerpt discussions).

Demolition / retention items (procedural outcomes, where documented)

1238-42 Magazine Street (ridge tiles vs. ridge vent)

• Issue: Removal of English V ridge tiles requested; fortification/venting options discussed under Fortified Roof guidelines.
• Staff position: Ridge tiles are a visually important feature; recommended against removal for a ridge vent; suggested alternative venting options (low-profile, edge vents, etc.).
• Public input: Support for improved venting; concerns to preserve exterior signage and historic fabric.
• Commission action: Motion to deny removal of ridge tiles for a ridge vent; Second; Vote: Unanimous.
• Outcome: Denied; ridge tiles to remain; staff to coordinate with Fortified Roof program on acceptable ridge tile types if replacements are needed.
• Appeals: 10-day City Council appeal window noted.

3622 Toulouse Street

• Issue: Demolition of a warehouse in Mid-City; exterior features largely missing; condition deteriorated.
• Staff position: Not object to demolition; recommended approval due to poor condition and loss of historic fabric.
• Public input: Public comment supported preservation arguments; some concerns about character, but staff recommendation cited impractical rehab.
• Commission action: (From the materials) Demolition approved.
• Outcome: Demolition approved.

4025 Bowdoin Street

• Status: Not resolved in the provided material.
• Action: No final vote recorded; item remains unresolved.

711-713 Montague Street (demolition / substantial alteration)

• Status: In the material, a detailed discussion is recorded, including safety/structural concerns and the potential for rehabilitation versus demolition. The provided excerpt ends without a definitive final vote.
• Outcome: Unresolved in the provided text; staff recommended evaluation and possible demolition with conditions in some portions of the discussion, but no final HDLC action is captured here.

935 Frenchman Street

• Issue: Retention of inappropriately detailed window units installed in deviation from C of A.
• Staff position: Inappropriate; replacement per original historic detail recommended.
• Public input: Public comments supportive of preservation were noted.
• Commission action: Motion to deny the retention remedy and require replacement per original detail; Vote: Unanimous.
• Outcome: Denied; replacement required; 10-day appeal window to City Council.

271? 1118 Thalia Street

• Status: Not heard or not present; unresolved in the material.

5818 Patton Street

• Status: After-the-fact partial demolition discussion; staff recommended after-the-fact partial demolition with revised drawings; final decision not included in the provided material.

1412 Fluid Street

• Item: Retention of wood grain siding
• Staff position: Recommendation to approve retention.
• Commission action: Motion to approve; Second; Final vote not recorded in the provided text.
• Outcome: Not definitively recorded in the excerpts.

2438 St. Claude Avenue and 1026 Music Street (Item E)

• Issue: Retention of exterior fans, oscillating fans, exposed conduits/junction boxes, and a roof-mounted mechanical unit.
• Staff position: Recommend denial of retention for fans; relocation or screening recommended for mechanical unit; if retained, screening and code compliance required.
• Public/Applicant input: Speakers described operational needs and retroactive permit context; proposed screening for visibility; consideration of moving the unit to a less visible location on the roof.
• Commission status: No final motion or vote recorded in the provided material; ongoing discussion and staff guidance requested.
• Unresolved issues: Whether to retain exterior fans; acceptable screening; potential relocation on roof; whether screening can address visibility without compromising function.

2833-35 General Pershing Street

• Item: Retention/mitigation related to updates to a Craftsman bungalow (e.g., mitigating modifications or additions).
• Staff notes and discussion: Various considerations about massing, scale, and fidelity to historic fabric; no final vote recorded in the provided material.

1118 Thalia Street (Retention / modification)

• Status: Not clearly resolved in the provided excerpts.

1118 Thalia Street (Retention of front porch modifications)

• Status: Not clearly resolved in the provided excerpts.

New business – ARCOM/Routine actions

• The excerpts reference ARCOM actions ratified and other housekeeping actions, but specific items and outcomes are not consistently detailed in the available excerpts.

Speakers and notable participants (across items with clear attribution)

• Public/preservation advocates: Susan Johnson, Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley (PRC), Sandra Stokes (Louisiana Landmark Society), Ruth Bilby, and others named in item discussions.
• Applicants/owners and representatives: Dr. Vanita Hills (advocate for 2315 Washington), Nasira Randolph (owner, 2315 Washington), Mary Nell Nolan-Wheatley (PRC on several items), Ali (various names in other items), Katherine Harmon (architect for St. Claude/ exterior components), Larry Morrow (owner for 2438 St. Claude/1026 Music), others in demolition/retention items.
• HDLC staff and commissioners: Multiple staff members provided scope and policy details (e.g., about substantial completion thresholds, 60% DS&P rule, Fortified Roof standards). Commissioners cited include Hackenberg, Lupin, Carson, Hardin, Lewis, and others depending on item.

Unresolved issues and next steps (as reflected in the materials)

• Several nomination items are clearly unresolved in the excerpts (e.g., Ted’s Frostop Diner scope/deferral; 4025 Bowdoin; 1118 Thalia; 2438 St. Claude/1026 Music outstanding).
• Demolition/retention items show a mix of outcomes; some denials (e.g., 935 Frenchman Street) with 10-day appeal windows; some approvals (e.g., 3622 Toulouse Street) with post-approval steps; several items remain pending formal votes in the provided text.
• For items with deferral requests or scope questions (e.g., Ted’s Frostop; 2438 St. Claude/1026 Music; 1118 Thalia), the next steps involve further staff guidance, potential deferral, and possible subsequent votes.

Speaker-action alignment

• In several items, the transcript notes specific motions, seconders, and unanimous votes; in other items, the transcripts describe discussions or deferrals but do not record a final action.

Meeting basics

• Body: Central Business District Historic District Landmarks Commission (CBD HDLC) / CLG reviews
• Date/time: November 4, 2026, start 10:00 AM, roughly 23 minutes
• Attendance: Present – Gregory Curtis, Seamus McGuire, Bradley Becknell, Daryl DeMestre, Tim Spratt. Absent – John Boyd; Witten Payne appeared to be absent per roll notes. Five members constitute the forum.

Actions approved earlier in the meeting

• Minutes from September 2, 2026, approved unanimously (Gregory Curtis motion; Tim Spratt second).
• 2027 meeting dates and deadlines approved unanimously (Bradley Becknell motion; Gregory Curtis second).

Agenda item: National Register nomination for 601 Loyola Avenue (Hyatt Regency)

• Context: CLG review; nomination prepared by Southkick Rolf Preservation Works; staff review presented; consultant nomination considered by the commission.
• Staff/consultant position (as presented by Eleanor): Hyatt Regency is a prominent postmodern hotel with notable design elements and post-Katrina changes. Staff agrees the building has significance in sports/hospitality history but does not believe it rises to NRHP listing, citing post-Katrina alterations and changes to its relationship with the Superdome that affect integrity. Conclusion: not recommended for NRHP listing.
• Commission discussion and motion: Gregory Curtis moved to approve the staff’s recommendation to list (i.e., to support the nomination to list); Tim Spratt seconded.
• Vote: 4 members present voted. Yes: Tim Spratt, Gregory Curtis. No: Bradley Becknell, Daryl DeMestre. Result: 2–2 tie; no action to forward a nomination to the State Historic Preservation Officer. The chair did not cast a deciding vote.
• Outcome: No-action decision on the CLG review for 601 Loyola Avenue; the commission did not forward a nomination recommendation to NRHP at this time.

Agenda item: Lower CBD period of significance adjustment for 935 Grabier Street (Chevron Place discussion)

• Purpose: Consider extending the Lower CBD historic district’s period of significance to include Chevron Place as a contributing resource, thereby making it eligible for tax credits.
• NRHP nomination context (as discussed): Chevron Place emphasizes oil/gas industry activity and offshore operations; significance suggested under Criterion A (Commerce/Industry). District context notes current period (1830–1964) and prior amendments reflecting mid-century resources.
• Staff position (as presented by Eleanor): While Chevron Place reflects the oil/gas era, extending the district’s period to include a building dating from 1981 is deemed inappropriate at this time. Staff suggests a thematic nomination covering oil and gas-related towers built during a broader period would be more appropriate than extending the district’s period for a single building. Caution that expanding the period could dilute NRHP criteria and blur what is technically significant.
• Commission posture: Staff presented a clear position not supporting the extension of the district’s period of significance for Chevron Place.
• Action status: Item open for discussion; no final vote or formal recommendation documented in the provided material. The summary notes the discussion ends with the staff’s conclusion, indicating an unresolved decision pending further action or a formal vote.
• Note on discrepancy: A second, separate summary presents a different outcome (see “Unresolved issues” below). The two sources conflict on whether a final vote occurred.

Speakers and notable contributions

• Eleanor (HDLC staff) served as presenter for CLG review items and cited nomination language and staff conclusions.
• Commission members contributing to Hyatt Regency discussion: Gregory Curtis, Tim Spratt, Bradley Becknell, Daryl DeMestre. Tim Spratt and Gregory Curtis expressed support for listing in the floor discussion, but the final vote was 2–2.
• For the Chevron Place discussion: staff presented; no named external speakers identified beyond staff in the provided material.
• No final action recorded for Chevron Place item in the primary narrative. A separate item attributes a final 4–0 vote denying the extension, which conflicts with the current narrative.

Unresolved issues and next steps

• 601 Loyola Avenue (Hyatt Regency): No-action result due to 2–2 tie; the commission did not forward a nomination to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Possible future reconsideration or alternative actions per agency procedures.

935 Grabier Street (Chevron Place)

• the excerpt (narrative): Item remains unresolved with no final vote documented; staff recommended against extending the period; discussion closed without action.
• the excerpt (concise summary): Reports a 4–0 vote denying the expansion, maintaining the current period (1830–1964).

The two sources conflict. Either way, the matter did not yield a forward recommendation in the primary narrative, but the excerpt presents a final action.

Other items

• Consent agenda: 814 Canal Street – approved unanimously.
• Ratification of ARC committee and staff actions since Sep 2, 2026 – approved unanimously.
• Budget update: Presented as information; no action taken at this meeting; potential staff reductions discussed by staff.
• Adjournment: Unanimous.

Notes

• The meeting emphasis is on CLG processes and NRHP considerations; staff recommendations guided but did not make final NRHP decisions in the Oxford narrative.
• The 2027 meeting dates were approved; minutes were approved.

Summary of clear, uncontested outcomes

• Minutes from Sept 2, 2026 approved unanimously.
• 2027 meeting dates and deadlines approved unanimously.
• 814 Canal Street approved on consent (unanimous).
• ARC actions ratified (unanimous).
• Budget update provided (informational; no action taken).
• Meeting adjourned unanimously.

Unresolved outcome — The Chevron Place item (935 Grabier Street) has conflicting reported outcomes between the two excerpts

• the excerpt: No final vote recorded; unresolved.
• the excerpt: A 4–0 vote denying the expansion (i.e., maintaining the current period).

Executive snapshot

• Day: Day 10 of the 2027 Proposed Budget Hearings (New Orleans).
• Focus: 2027 budget as it relates to Master Plan 2050, long-range/regulatory planning, historic preservation commissions (HDLC and VCC), urban agriculture/food access, and related regional coordination; plus park and recreation matters raised in accompanying excerpts.
• Status: Several decisions and actions planned or proposed; multiple issues remain open or pending budget deliberations. The session concluded with adjournment of Day 10 and a plan to coordinate listening sessions as the budget is finalized.

Key decisions and planned actions (by topic) — 1) Master Plan 2050 (three-year rewrite; first year funded in 2027) — Decision/Action

• 2027 funding includes a $500,000 line item for professional services to support external expertise and community engagement for the Master Plan.
• Start of three-year effort in 2027, with year-by-year milestones: 2027 outreach/education/partnerships; 2028 plan development; 2029 approval and alignment with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO).
• Governance/oversight: Potential Land Use Barrier Study changes and possible CZO amendments; staff may need to engage with the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) for partnerships and funding, especially on brownfields and regional issues.
• Staffing/resource plan: Redeploy existing staff to support Master Plan while maintaining CPC’s regular duties; aim to streamline regulatory processes to free capacity for long-range planning.

Open questions/risks

• Whether CPC can sustain Master Plan work alongside normal duties; exact staffing mix (internal vs. external) and task prioritization.
• Scope/timing of CZO changes and regulatory reforms; extent of RPC involvement and funding.

2) Urban Agriculture and Food Access — Decision/Action

• Grace Traffinger (Urban Agriculture Liaison) highlighted role in supporting urban agriculture growth and citywide food access.
• Food Access Master Plan will target underserved communities and food deserts (with District B examples cited).

Open issues

• Details on program milestones, funding allocations, and integration with other agencies.

3) Staffing and budget planning for Master Plan — Decision/Action

• Acknowledgement that 2027 Master Plan funding via professional services requires careful resource management; post-budget-approval staffing plans will be clarified to maintain regulatory duties.

Open issues

• Precise staffing composition and implementation path for Master Plan tasks (internal vs. external providers).

4) Regulatory updates and legal review — Decision/Action

• As regulatory processes are streamlined (e.g., Land Use Barrier Study recommendations, fewer conditional uses), staff will ensure proper review by boards/commissions and maintain legal oversight.

Open issues

• Timeline and process for implementing regulatory changes and CZO updates.

5) Regional Planning Commission (RPC) relationship — Decision/Action

• Council members pressed for stronger RPC collaboration; staff noted existing collaboration on transportation/brownfields and the potential for deeper regional funding partnerships.

Open issues

• Specific funding pathways and governance arrangements with RPC; ongoing coordination.

6) Historic District Landmarks Commission (HDLC) — 2027 budget context — Key figures

• 2026 HDLC budget: $1,043,447 total; 2027 proposed: $938,994 total.
• 2027 staffing: 11 FTEs currently; proposed 9 FTEs with elimination of one inspector.

Decisions/Notes

• 2027 budget proposal shows a net reduction of $104,453 (personnel and operating combined).
• 2026 highlights included HDLC Express Lane (fast-tracked permits), SOPs for plan review/inspection/enforcement, and an HB 368 update increasing demolition fines (up to $50,000 or 15% of assessed value, whichever greater) with local code not yet updated to reflect the change.
• 2027 initiatives emphasize updating design guidelines, rules/policies, Chapter 84, expanding social media reach, increasing administrative hearings with CAB, and IT-driven permitting software.

Open issues

• Whether eliminating one inspector and reducing personnel will affect district coverage across 18 historic districts.
• The exact collection vs. levied fines data (HDLC does not collect fines; CAB handles adjudication/collections) and a requested written cost-benefit analysis for inspector retention vs. revenue impact.
• City code updates to reflect HB 368 and the timeline for implementing those changes.
• IT systems timing for a new land use permitting software.

7) Historic District Landmarks Commission (HDLC) / Vieux Carre Commission (VCC) — 2027 budget interplay — VCC budget snapshot

• 2026 general fund: Personnel $603,804; Other $12,250; Total $616,054.
• 2027 general fund: Personnel $740,082; Other $8,827; Total $748,909.
• Net increase: $132,855; main driver is relocation of the HDLC deputy director position to VCC, plus fringe changes.
• Staffing: 7 FTEs; no funding for an office assistant in 2027.
• 2026 accomplishments for VCC cited (permits, fines/fees, hearings, outreach) and 2027 goals (maintain standards, improve cross-department coordination, climate resilience, infrastructure coordination).

Open issues

• Whether the office assistant position is permanently eliminated or could be restored; data on fines/fees collection vs. levied; establishing a clear framework for interdepartmental coordination.

8) Public comments and questions (recurring themes)

• Public speakers (e.g., Morgan Clevenger) advocated stronger enforcement, higher fines for illegal demolitions, and more inspectors; supported by the dais in principle but noting the need for data on collections and cost-benefit analyses.
• Council members questioned funding allocations, staffing implications, and timelines for implementing new policies or software.

Votes

• Generally no formal votes were reported for most items during Day 10 in the HDLC/VCC/related segments.
• A concluding note (Day 10 wrap): A motion to adjourn was made and approved; meeting adjourned. A follow-up plan includes emailing remaining questions and coordinating listening sessions as the budget is finalized.

Speakers noted (examples)

• Master Plan overview presenter (CPC staff, unnamed)
• Council Member Green
• Larry (RPC discussion contributor)
• Brian Block, Executive Director, HDLC
• Eleanor Burke, Deputy Director, HDLC
• Grace Traffinger, Urban Agriculture Liaison
• Morgan Clevenger (public commenter)
• Ashley (VCC chair/introducer for VCC segment)
• Dr. Renee Burgoyne, VCC Deputy Director
• Burt Lodrig (staff interaction)

Unresolved issues to monitor (high-priority follow-ups)

• Master Plan staffing composition and sustained workload capacity; final staffing plan and budget approvals after subsequent deliberations.
• Fines collection vs. levied data for 2024–2026 (HDLC/VCC data sharing via CAB) and a formal cost-benefit analysis on inspector staffing.
• City code updates to reflect HB 368 changes; timeline for implementing higher demolition fines.
• IT/permitting software timelines and implementation risk for HDLC/VCC workflows.
• 2027 funding balances and operational impacts for NORD, City Park, Audubon, and Parkways; cross-agency coordination and listening-session schedules.
• Formalization of RPC collaboration and funding pathways tied to the Master Plan and brownfields/regional planning.

Overall context — The meeting covered two main policy tracks plus public testimony

• 1) Zoning docket 095-26: a conditional-use request to convert part of an auto-service/tire shop area into a 936-square-foot minor repair shop in SB1 Suburban Business District.
• 2) Zoning docket 082-26 (and related transient lodging policy work): codifying findings from the Transient Lodging Study to regulate transient lodging uses (short-term rentals, hotels, B&Bs, etc.), including district-specific rules and proposed new definitions.
• Public testimony addressed enforcement, neighborhood quality of life, housing impacts, and the balance between tourism/economic activity and long-term housing stability.
• Several excerpts indicate that final votes or approvals were not recorded in the excerpts, while one later section documents a decisive package approval on STR-related changes (see below).

Key decisions, votes, and actions (as stated in the material) — 1) Docket 095-26 — conditional-use for minor repair shop

• What was proposed: Allow a minor repair shop (936 sq ft, two service bays, four parking spaces) within the existing gas station/convenience-store site, keeping the gas station and convenience store and converting the tire shop portion.
• Staff position: Recommendation to approve the docket with two provisos.
• Procedural note: Meeting minutes for this docket were not adopted; docket had been postponed from prior meetings.
• Outcome in the material: No final vote or disposition recorded in the excerpt provided.

Notable speakers

• Applicant/proponent: Jimmy Brown (stated he addressed neighborhood concerns (security guard for after-hours loitering, exterior aesthetics) and that neighborhood associations would support if issues are addressed).
• Opposition (summarized concerns): Rowland Barth (Pines Village Association) questioned prior commitments to cleanup and warned of enforcement limitations and site conditions along Diamond Road; Madeline Trepanier (Diamond Road concerns about blight and unmanaged sites); Kenya Smith (ENONAC) urged careful consideration of community concerns and potential neighborly responsibilities; Brown offered rebuttal emphasis on neighborhood as a good citizen; additional community voices highlighted enforcement and quality-of-life concerns.
• Unresolved issues at this docket: Final CPC disposition; effectiveness/enforcement post-approval; status of current permits and past licensing (staff said they would verify).

2) Docket 082-26 — transient lodging study codification (overview and staff proposals)

• Topic: Codifying the Transient Lodging Study recommendations into the zoning ordinance (definitions, use permissions, standards) and clarifying interim zoning district interactions (e.g., TLIZD) and grandfathering for NSTRs.
• Key background points in the material: Interim zoning districts (CSDR and TLIZD) and differences between commercial short-term rentals (CSTRs), non-commercial STRs (NSTRs), and B&Bs; Canal Street considerations; the role of hostels, timeshares, and hotel classifications; and licensing terms (one year vs two years).
• Staff/commission action described: A Motion M26299 initiated to implement the study recommendations with modifications; staff recommendations included per-block density concepts, reclassification of CSTRs, and new definitions; Canal Street as a key exception; and a plan to move amendments through CPC and to City Council.
• Notable procedural point: The excerpt notes the absence of a final recorded vote in this portion; the material outlines proposed language and staff-commission questions for further discussion.

Notable items tied to the later packet (see below for the decision noted in the excerpt)

• A later section documents a package that was approved by the CPC, including removing VCE-1 from the CSDR (thus limiting CSTRs there), making HUB1 hotels a conditional use, and imposing a cap of one small hotel per square block (counting existing hotels toward that cap).
• This package move moved toward City Council review.

3) Public input on STRs citywide (themes reflected across multiple excerpts)

• General sentiment: Strong emphasis on opposing expansion of commercial STRs, especially in the French Quarter (VCE-1) and other sensitive corridors.

Common concerns raised

• Enforcement gaps and the difficulty of policing illegal/unpermitted STRs; perceived risk to neighborhood safety and livability.
• Housing affordability and long-term housing supply; fears that STR expansion displaces residents and raises rents.
• Preservation of historical districts and neighborhood character; fear that STRs and hotels erode the residential fabric.
• Calls for deferral to allow more data review or to avoid premature changes without complete information.
• Mixed views on Canal Street and other corridors, with some speakers supporting targeted relaxation in certain areas and others urging tighter restrictions or bans.

Notable voices (representative examples)

• Residents and neighborhood associations (French Quarter, Bywater, Garden District) stressing enforcement and preservation; advocates for B&Bs with limits and for limiting CSTRs and hotel expansions.
• Jane Place Coalition representatives emphasizing affordable housing preservation and criticizing broad STR expansion.
• Individual property owners/operators arguing for reasonable access to STRs as a tool for viability and investment, while acknowledging enforcement responsibilities.

Unresolved issues raised by public input (in these excerpts)

• Exact regulatory thresholds (per-building vs per-block caps for CSTRs; how many units per building count toward caps).
• District-by-district applicability (which districts will permit which STR forms and under what conditions).
• Whether to defer or proceed with votes; whether to remove or retain specific districts (notably VCE-1) in the study context.
• Data needs (economic impact metrics, occupancy data) to inform decisions.

4) Specific decision noted in later material — The CPC carried a package that

• Removed VCE1 from the CSDR (i.e., restricted CSTRs in VCE1).
• Made HUB1 hotels a conditional use (not permitted outright).
• Adopted a cap of one small hotel per square block, counting existing hotels toward the cap.
• Approved the overall staff package with these amendments; the decision moved toward City Council action.
• The vote details in that excerpt show multiple named commissioners voting in favor; the package was described as “carried.”
• Unresolved at the time of that excerpt: Final City Council action and possible further adjustments; public outreach and notification concerns tied to corridor-specific impacts (Magazine Street, Garden District, etc.).

Speakers highlighted by name (where clearly identifiable in the material)

• Docket 095-26: Jimmy Brown (applicant/proponent); Rowland Barth (Pines Village Association); Madeline Trepanier; Kenya Smith (ENONAC); Brown (rebuttal).
• STR policy discussions: Various residents and neighborhood representatives across districts (French Quarter/VCE-1, Bywater, Garden District, Marigny) plus Jane Place participants; specific named speakers include Diane/others in public-comment excerpts, garden district and affordable-housing advocates, and local association leaders.
• Final policy package names commissioners who voted in favor in that portion and the staff presenters; exact names vary slightly across excerpts, but the core point is that the package passed with a majority of commissioners.

Unresolved issues to watch (across all excerpts)

• Final voting outcomes for the initial docket 095-26 (no final disposition recorded here) and for any remaining aspects of docket 082-26 (transient lodging codification) in earlier excerpts.
• The precise language and mapping for per-block vs per-building limits, especially how many STR units can exist on a block and how many units in a building count toward caps.
• The treatment of specific districts (VCE-1, HUB1, MMU, SLM, HMC2, AQB1, etc.) and whether other corridors (Magazine Street, Garden District, Bywater, etc.) will be added or adjusted in future amendments.
• Enforcement mechanisms, licensing periods (one year vs two years), and on-site/operator requirements for B&Bs and CSTRs; how “on-site presence” triggers would be implemented and enforced.
• Public-notice and outreach effectiveness for corridor-specific proposals (noted concerns about notice coverage and stakeholder engagement).

Next steps suggested by the material

• CPC actions: Continue processing the STR-related amendments (and related zoning changes) through the CPC with final language, maps, and conditions, then forward to City Council for adoption.
• City Council: Consider adopting the CPC amendments or further refining them; address any Council-specific tweaks.
• Public engagement: Improve notice and outreach for affected corridors; address concerns about data, enforcement capacity, and grandfathering/vested rights.
• Monitoring and enforcement: Establish clear enforcement triggers and procedures for operator responsiveness and violations, especially for CSTRs and HUB1 hotels.

Context

• Quorum: Council Members Morrell, Willard, and McCarran were present.
• Meeting types: Joint Climate Change and Sustainability; Economic Development and Special Development Projects Committee.

Item 31: Omni Hotel and Pilot Terminal (procedural step)

• Speaker: Deputy Mayor George Schwartz.
• Purpose: Procedural step in the approval process. Under the state Revised Statutes, the Pilot Term Sheet negotiated in June must be referred to the City’s Office of Economic Development (OED), which will prepare a report and present it to the Council Economic Development Committee before moving to the full Council for approval.
• Context: Described the Omni Hotel project as transformative and beneficial; framed as a good opportunity for the OED and the city.
• Acknowledgments: Thanked Mayor Helena Moreno, the Convention Center leadership (Jim Cook), the Omni Hotel Group, and involved Council members.
• Public comments: None noted.
• Action and vote: Motion to approve; seconded by Council President Morrell; adopted unanimously (Ayes = 0 Nays = 0).
• Outcome: Resolution adopted; referred to proceed in the procedural approval pipeline.

Item 2: Community Solar – contract summary disclosure

• Speaker: Chairwoman McCann.
• Purpose: Adoption of a contract summary disclosure necessary to continue community solar projects.
• Docket/status: Reviewed; no opposition noted.
• Public comments: None noted.
• Action and vote: Motion to approve; seconded by Council President Morrell; adopted unanimously.
• Outcome: Approved; to be placed on consent for next week’s council meeting.

Adjournment and next steps

• Both items to be placed on consent for the upcoming council meeting.
• Meeting concluded with thanks to participants.

Unresolved issues

• None reported during the meeting. Both items are being moved to consent for the next full Council meeting.

Overview

• The session focused on promoting Young Artivist Clubs as a continuation of the City Council’s Youth Master Plan work. Trinity City Arts presented a plan to expand citywide in 2027 and sought commitments from Council members to engage with the clubs and partners.

Key speakers and points — Reginae Hodges (Trinity City intern; Southern University at New Orleans student)

• Made the case for Young Artivist Clubs, referencing the Youth Master Plan (adopted February 2021) and the goal of citywide expansion by 2027.
• Requested commitments from each Council member to meet with her group and partners before December 1 and to build partnerships between Council members and at least one Young Artivist Club chapter.
• Highlighted the value of art, activism, and youth voice; included two videos (of eight total statements) from young people.

Matt Schwarzman (co-director, Trinity City Arts)

• Reiterated goals and the meeting/commitment timeline, emphasizing partnerships with Council members and the 2027 citywide expansion.

Video content

• Shown two videos featuring statements from young people (part of an eight-statement collection); themes centered on youth perspectives, empowerment, and activism.

Supportive remarks from community leaders

• Dusky Waters (musician; founder, Black Americana Fest; artivist): Praised the work, urged recognition of the young presenters, and spoke to art as a tool for social change; called for paying and honoring young artists and investing in youth-led storytelling.
• Michelle Seymour (Re-Engagement Center, New Orleans Youth Alliance): Thanked the youth for their courage; connected the Artivism Club to the Youth Master Plan’s goals (self-expression, leadership, creativity, culture); emphasized low-barrier entry, healing-centered engagement, trust-building with youth, and narrative change; urged investment in youth as future changemakers.
• Earl Higgins (Volunteer organizer, Vote Boy City Experience): Expressed hope and support for youth leaders; thanked organizers for inclusion; framed the work as sustaining youth leadership.

Session closure

• Adjournment: “I move to adjourn,” seconded by Councilmember Willard, with no objection. The council adjourned.

Decisions, votes, and actions

• No formal policy decision or vote recorded in this material beyond adjournment.
• Primary action requested of Council members: commit to meet with Trinity City Arts and partners before December 1 and to establish (at minimum) one Council member partnership with a Young Artivist Club chapter.
• Planned next steps: progress toward citywide implementation in 2027, contingent on commitments and ongoing collaboration.

Unresolved issues / next steps

• Whether and how each Council member will commit to meeting before December 1.
• Which Council members will partner with which Young Artivist Club chapters, and how those partnerships will be structured.
• Details on funding, resources, and integration for the 2027 citywide expansion (not addressed in this material).
• Additional content from the eight-statement video that was not shown in this segment.

Notable participants and affiliations

• Reginae Hodges — Trinity City intern; Southern University at New Orleans student
• Matt Schwarzman — Co-director, Trinity City Arts
• Dusky Waters — Musician; founder, Black Americana Fest; artivist
• Michelle Seymour — Re-Engagement Center, New Orleans Youth Alliance
• Earl Higgins — Organizer, Vote Boy City Experience

Overall takeaway

• The meeting served as advocacy and outreach to secure City Council engagement and partnerships to propel a citywide expansion of the Young Artivist Club concept by 2027. No votes or policy approvals were recorded in the material; adjournment concluded the session.

Context

• 2026-10-22 Budget/Audit/Board of Review Committee Meeting.

Speakers noted

• Unnamed presenter: revenue/expenditure overview and fund balance.
• Alyssa: post-presentation Q&A on building permits, sales tax audits, amnesty.
• Abby Vian: Chief Performance Officer/Chief of Staff to the CAO; millage roll-forward context.
• Andrew Tuzolo: Special Counsel; millage roll-forward discussion.
• Susanna: referenced in building permits reconciliation planning.
• Romy: referenced in sales tax audit discussion (media/outreach context).

Key decisions and votes

• No formal votes or final decisions documented; session is information-sharing with ongoing analyses and forthcoming actions.

Actions and follow-ups

• Building permits (Alyssa and Susanna)
• Investigate why building permits are ~47% of forecast.
• Conduct reconciliation of issuance timing and revenue realization; Susanna believes budget will be met/exceeded.
• Alyssa to report back after Susanna’s input.
• Sales tax audits/amnesty (Alyssa and team)
• Audits started Oct 1; ~$1M receipts so far; goal to reach $3–5M by year-end.
• Clarify outcomes (seats, liens, debt recovery) and speed of collections.
• Update on audit numbers and amnesty progress; assess if any budgeted amount was set for amnesty.
• Consider additional media outreach; confirm whether amnesty is included in budget.
• Millage roll forward (Abby Vian and Andrew Tuzolo)
• Present context as recurring-revenue response to 2027 budget gap.
• Define millage mechanics (what a mill is, relation to taxable value, maximum mills).
• Note: no final decision documented in this excerpt.

Discussion themes

• Financial performance through Aug 31, 2026: Revenues ~$558M, expenditures ~$483M, YTD net ~$75.5M.
• Revenues ahead of budget (~$48M); expenditures below benchmark (~$50.5M); caution that spending not evenly incurred; year-end projections require context.
• Revenue detail highlights (selected): Property taxes ~$174M; Sales tax ~$188M; Hotel/motel below 2025; building permits ~47% of forecast; licenses/permits ~$58.4M; miscellaneous ~ ~$72M (including transfers).
• Expenditure detail: Through Aug, ~$482.7M; personnel ~$292.1M; overtime ~$1.6M in Aug (YTD ~$18M vs ~$38.9M annual budget); staffing ~4,400 filled of ~4,781 budgeted (7% vacancy). Budget freezes and alternate funding noted.
• Fund balance context (as of Aug 31, 2026): 2025 starting balance $67.3M; consolidated surplus $179M; total $246.3M. Takeaway: positive YTD operating position, but reliance on misc receipts; emphasize recurring revenues, spending discipline, and fund-balance use by intended uses.

Unresolved issues

• Building permits timing/revenue realization; reconciliation ongoing; update pending.
• Audit/amnesty results and budget impact; final numbers and media plan pending.
• Millage roll-forward decisions; more analysis needed.
• Ongoing monitoring of recurring vs. one-time revenues; reconcile open POs in Q4.

Overall takeaway

• August 2026 results show favorable revenues and disciplined spending, but with risk tied to misc receipts and pending millage roll-forward decisions and revenue strategies.

Context and purpose

• Explain property assessments, millage rates, and Board of Liquidation interactions; show how rolling forward millages affects the budget and tax bills; public-calculator demonstration ahead of Nov 5 meeting.

Key points and figures

• Tax base and millages:
• 2023 total mills: 134.53
• 2026 total mills: 121.2 (below 2023)
• All millages rolled forward would yield 128.64 (still below 2023)
• Roll-forward influenced by reassessments and bond debt; bonds paid off reduce mills; reassessments reduce rate as AV grows.
• Roll-forward effects (general fund vs dedicated uses)
• Two general fund millages: general fund and unrestricted general fund
• Rolled forward: about $10M in additional revenue; ~ $84M total next year.
• Five millages with dedicated uses (but contributing to the general fund in budget context)
• Police/Fire, Parks/Parkways, Recreation (NORD) are primary examples.
• Even with roll-forward of dedicated millages, general fund would still be short of next year’s operating costs; about $21M affecting the general fund deficit.
• Parks/Parkways/City Park/Audubon share a combined millage; some funds could be shifted to cover general fund obligations if rolled forward.
• Other millages (revenue but not to general fund)
• Police/Fire platoon millage: ~ $4.3M extra to platoon operations.
• Library millage: revenue to library.
• Early Childhood Education millage: ~ $3.4M extra, up to ~200 new seats next year.
• Parks/Nord/Audubon/City Park elements provide agency-specific revenue; possible shifts to cover general fund needs in partnership with agencies.
• Riverfront security
• If parks millage rolls forward, some money could be dedicated to riverfront security/public safety (in discussions with Council members).
• Public-facing calculator
• nola.gov/millages calculator; shows total city revenue impact and personalized estimates.
• Example impacts (average home $315,700):
• All millages rolled forward: about +$190/year (~$16/month).
• $250,000 home: about +$141/year (~$11.76/month).
• Only roll-forward of general fund-related mills (excluding dedicated uses): about $80.31/year (~$6.69/month) for a $250k home.
• Calculator supports different property types and tax situations; Assessor’s parcel site linked for value verification.

Speakers and references

• Andrew: lead presenter; explained roll-forward concepts and budget impacts.
• Abby: assisted with slides and calculator demonstration.
• Chair: acknowledged.
• Council references: Council Members King and Harris noted in context of riverfront security and related topics.
• Board of Liquidation: discussed as the debt-service millage setter; bonds paid off reduce mills; not controlled by City Council.

Decisions, votes, actions

• No formal votes or resolutions recorded.
• Actions:
• Staff to demonstrate the public calculator.
• Public notice and details of Nov 5 meeting posted.
• Explore dedicating rolled-forward millage to riverfront security; consider shifting costs to partner agencies as appropriate.
• Emphasize the data distinctions between general fund deficits vs other services.

Unresolved issues and public interest

• Public misunderstanding about millages’ effect on general fund and services remains; need for clearer communication to press and public.
• What mix of millages to roll forward and resulting impact on the $21M general fund deficit vs other priorities.
• How much revenue will go to non-general fund priorities vs reducing the general fund shortfall.
• How rolling forward affects individual property tax bills; exact values via the calculator.

Bottom line

• Rolling millages forward would affect budget and property bills, but even full roll-forward would not cover all operating costs. A public calculator is provided to illustrate impacts; no votes recorded; Nov 5 hearing anticipated for potential action; ongoing allocations and public communication remain in question.

Overview

• Topic: Using millage roll forward as the city’s primary recurring-revenue strategy to restore 2027 services after heavy 2026 one-time revenues.
• Purpose: Highlight recurring nature of revenue and show how rolling millages could fund prioritized services.
• Context: Mayor and Council have gathered public input; millage roll-forward would be the final revenue piece after other funding options.

Priorities and rationale

• Seven community budget meetings, town halls, council conversations, and surveys shaped the priority list.
• Mayor’s list intends to restore infrastructure, neighborhoods, and essential services while staying fiscally responsible.

Priority items to restore if roll-forward occurs

• Low barrier shelter (eviction prevention, housing stability).
• Sanitation services (overall sanitation, Mardi Gras cleanup, street cleaning, vehicle maintenance).
• Parks and Parkways funding (avoid further maintenance delays).
• Neighborhood engagement (Neighborhood Engagement Office; mayor’s office staffing).
• Fire department funding (prevent reductions in firefighters/protection).
• Violence interruption and wraparound supports; civilianization to assist police response.
• Civilianization and police-support roles (non-emergency responses and certain incidents).
• Maternal health funding (expanded access and care for recent mothers).

Process and rationale

• Items reflect public input and council collaboration; aim to restore core services while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
• Constraint: City faces a $77M deficit; even with roll-forward, not all gaps can be closed; some items will be foregone or delayed.

Budget mechanics and related issues

• Recurring vs one-time revenues: 2026 relied on one-time revenues; roll-forward is a key recurring path.
• Next steps: Council and administration will continue to review, solicit public input, and refine allocations.
• Charter amendment note: If December charter amendment passes, budget process changes to require council-approved, transparent fund movements by the CAO’s office.

Crescent Park maintenance issue

• If millage rolls forward, Crescent Park maintenance could be absorbed by a private/partner entity, freeing city funds for other uses; clarification needed on how this affects the general fund.

Speakers and roles

• Adam Gordon credited for building the information presentation.
• Andrew to continue discussion; Council references to Harris, Willard, and McCarran noted (parks, Mardi Gras cleanup, etc.).
• Mayor Moreno presented the plan to restore services via millage roll-forward.

Actions and decisions

• Immediate action: Continue discussions; Adam Gordon available for questions.
• Next steps: Council/administration to refine priorities, incorporate public input, and finalize decisions in light of roll-forward and charter amendment timeline.
• Decision status: No formal vote on rolling forward; mayor’s prioritized list and rationale presented; ongoing discussions.

Unresolved issues and questions

• Exact revenue numbers per millage and precise allocation among priorities; math details not shown.
• Crescent Park arrangement terms and impact on general fund savings.
• How the December charter amendment would be implemented and its practical effects on budget flexibility.
• How much revenue can be directed to non-general fund priorities vs reducing the general fund shortfall.
• Clarity on phrasing like “Ottomans millage” and other unclear terms; staff clarification needed.

Key numbers cited

• 1.2 million for jail staff Phase 3 (mandatory expense mentioned by a council member) – note unclear if this is a current obligation.
• 27.4 million total millage impact discussed for roll-forward.
• ~21 million general fund impact if only certain millages roll forward.
• 80 million total unpaid judgments; 2 million set aside.
• Clerk’s office surplus estimates (20–25 million) and ~300 employees in the clerk’s office (comparison to ~170 in Baton Rouge).

Bottom line

• The discussion outlines a framework to restore services via millage roll-forward, acknowledges that full restoration cannot be achieved within current constraints, and presents a public process with ongoing questions about exact revenues, Crescent Park arrangements, and charter-amendment effects. No votes recorded; November/vote timeline and final allocations to be determined.

Overview

• Focus on budget, rolling forward millages, and how to handle obligations and external agencies; emphasis on transparency and a balanced approach to services.

Notable speakers and points

• Unnamed council member on jail staffing and budget implications:
• Highlights 1.2 million for 27 jail staff (Phase 3) as a mandatory expense this budget season.
• Prefers avoiding costly litigation; stresses aligning with city priorities.
• Notes external agencies (~$100M impact to general fund) should move toward self-sufficiency; calls for reforms in criminal court judges, clerk’s office, and prior consolidations; seeks transparent accounting and cooperative resolution with JES to determine needs.
• Clerk’s office reforms/systems analysis (speaker):
• Compares clerk’s office to Sheriff’s consolidation; suggests a large potential surplus (20–25M) with ~300 employees; notes clerk’s office doesn’t manage juvenile/traffic court or pay for minute clerks for Baton Rouge judges.
• Proposes engaging CAO and auditors to obtain transparent books and determine needs after spending existing funds.
• Advocates minimal city supplementation; push for courts/clerks to operate with less city subsidies when surpluses exist.
• Suggests external agencies (clerk’s office, French Market) should become financially self-sufficient; surpluses should be accounted for and not automatically funded by the city.
• Council member Harris on agency cash positions:
• Encourages agencies to reassess cash reserves and spend more from their own funds before asking the city for funds.
• Calls for broader critique of agency funding requests and avoiding “writing checks” from the city to cash-rich agencies without demonstrating efficiency.
• Criminal court judges/state funding discussion:
• Notes deficits due to governor’s reduction of warrants and staffing impacts (homicide/sex crimes units).
• Argues for distributing resources to reduce crime and avoid deficits in any single agency.
• Emphasizes agencies/partners should not carry large, untreated surpluses conflicting with rating agencies’ expectations or city finances.
• Rating agencies and financing structure:
• Clerk’s office and French Market Commission are not rated by major rating agencies; explains differing funding pressures due to statutory revenue rules.
• Charter amendment discussion (conceptual):
• Morgan Clevenger explains ballot charter amendment: CAO would need to bring an ordinance to move money between budget components with transparent sources/destinations and council approval.
• Intent: prevent non-transparent reallocations and deficit spending; align with Joint Committee on the Budget practices.
• Unpaid judgments and litigation funding:
• Concerns about unpaid judgments (state-level deficits) with $2M set aside and ~$80M total; paying judgments (with interest) is necessary; prioritization of front-loaded payments with remaining funds allocated elsewhere.
• Public transparency and tax questions (Nellie Katzen / Coalition):
• Argues residents would better understand tax increases with clearer day-to-day spending transparency.
• Town hall and budget explanation (lay audience):
• Explains total millage impact (~$27.4M) and general fund effect about $21M if roll-forward applies to these millages.
• Indicates that roll-forward would barely cover basic services and many items would remain unfunded; additional revenues needed to prevent service gaps.

Actions proposed or requested

• Clerk’s office reforms:
• Schedule joint CAO/JES/judges meetings to audit and align books; present transparent needs after using existing funds.
• Seek cooperative resolutions to address surpluses and determine real funding needs for court operations.
• External agencies and efficiency:
• Require agencies to reassess cash positions, demonstrate efficiency, and spend more from their own funds.
• Push for external agencies to be financially self-sufficient; ensure surpluses are accounted for.
• Charter amendment process:
• Explain amendment to the public; if passed, would require an ordinance to move funds with explicit sources/destinations and council approval.
• Budget governance:
• Maintain budget-movement transparency; utilize Joint Committee on the Budget for oversight and public disclosure.
• Unpaid judgments:
• Continue to address unpaid judgments with attention to constraints and interest; ensure lawful payments where possible.

Unresolved issues and open questions

• Whether the 1.2M jail Phase 3 is mandatory or optional; how it will be funded if not.
• Exact roll-forward implications on other city services beyond the general-fund estimate; which items would be funded or foregone.
• How clerk’s office reforms would be implemented (staffing changes, cost savings, governance) and how to ensure transparent financials.
• Balance between paying judgments now and allocating funds to other needs given the large unpaid-judgment balance.
• Practical implementation of Charter amendment, potential bureaucratic friction, and public understanding.
• Extent to which new revenues can be identified and political feasibility.

Key numbers cited

• 1.2M jail Phase 3; 27.4M total millage roll-forward; ~21M general-fund impact; ~$80M unpaid judgments; $2M set aside; clerk’s office surplus 20–25M; ~300 clerk’s office employees; ~170 Baton Rouge clerk’s office employees; ~12M surplus attributed to clerk’s office.

Bottom line

• Provides a critical view of budget discipline, reallocation, and transparency. No votes recorded; outlines actions to improve financial clarity, push for reforms, and consider a charter amendment. Questions remain about exact numbers, Crescent Park arrangements, and implementation details.

Opening context

• Transparency concerns; a speaker urged better spending transparency to restore trust, including funding for Youth Force NOLA.

Youth Force NOLA presentation

• Presenters: Kate Swinburne and Sarah Bell (Story by Kate).
• Impact report provided to council members.

2026 Summer Internship Program data

• 224 interns; 35,000+ hours; stipends total nearly $500,000 from city and other sources.
• 76 employers across all city council districts; ~50% led by people of color; 61% are women or non-binary owned.
• Applications: 557 from rising seniors; 288 interns accepted (budget-constrained).
• Pre-work training focused on soft skills (professionalism, time management, teamwork, problem solving).
• Track record: since 2015, 250+ interns placed; alumni outcomes include higher earnings and higher likelihood of staying in the Greater New Orleans area.
• Partnerships: Ochsner, Entergy, Landis Construction, Capado, city departments, etc.

Budget and funding context

• 2026 city contract: $500k (about one-third of Youth Force NOLA’s total internship budget); program relies on private funders in addition to city funding.
• 2026 funding represented a 41% reduction from the prior year; expected enrollment reductions of 50–60 students (2025 to 2026).
• If city funding for 2027 is not secured, a funding gap of about $685k is projected, with potential significant reductions in enrollment and offerings.

Next steps and requests

• Reinstatement of city funding for 2027.
• Full funding of the Mayor’s Summer Youth Employment Program.
• Continued collaboration to scale and improve summer youth employment.
• If funded, begin recruitment January 1 with expanded models and partnerships.

Unresolved issues

• 2027 funding remains unresolved; a potential $685k gap could force reductions.
• Transparency improvements’ impact on funding decisions remains to be clarified.

Key takeaways

• Youth Force NOLA reported strong 2026 results but highlighted a looming funding gap without continued city support.
• They seek ongoing city investment and expansion of summer youth employment partnerships.
• No votes recorded; focus on funding decisions for 2027 and continued collaboration.

Meeting summary

No formal votes were recorded in the excerpts.

1) OIG (Office of Inspector General) briefing

• Speakers: Inspector General; Deputy IG Allie Burroughs; Chuck Williams (Chief of Investigations); Patrice Rose (Chief Evaluator); Council members and staff referenced (e.g., Willard; Brandi).

Key points

• OIG impact: $196 million identified in fraud/waste since inception; last year about $122 million in funds needing oversight; this year about $16 million in potential loss prevented; ROI ~369%.
• Goals and operations: Four overarching goals (Goals 1–3 detailed; Goal 4 not fully described). Four departments; 25 staff; emphasis on independence and standards.
• Projects/findings: Example—$500k in software purchased but not installed on ~60% of city vehicles (64% of uninstalled software in police vehicles). Background-check gaps identified (Nord report). OIG will continue fraud/waste detection and accountability.
• Budget/process: Budget described as fixed and shrinking by about $200k next year; several discrepancies between the budget book and slides (2026: $3.9m in book vs $4.4m in slides; 2027: $4.2m vs $4.4m). Explanations cited amendments and outside allocations; final numbers should come from Questacon budget book data.

Actions/decisions

• Plan to align with Questacon data; offline discussions to resolve discrepancies.
• Continue monitoring surpluses; past surpluses were returned; current hiring may reduce surplus return.
• Pursue expediting the 2027 recycling services report (timeline discussed but not finalized).

Unresolved/issues to watch

• Final budget number alignment (book vs. slides).
• Whether any surplus will be swept/returned given hiring needs.
• Exact timeline for the expedited recycling report and end date of budget season (two dates cited: Nov 9 vs Nov 19).

2) Recycling item and budgeting discussion

• Context: Council queried recycling-related item timing and budget alignment.
• Decision/Action: Consider expediting the recycling item via a letter, after coordinating with the evaluator and GAO-style requirements.
• Speaker/leader: Unidentified speaker referenced “Adam” (the evaluator); plan to discuss with him.
• Unresolved: Whether to issue an expedited letter remains undecided.

3) Office of the Independent Police Monitor (OIPM) briefing

• Speakers: Stella Cement (Independent Police Monitor); Chrishell Williams (Deputy Police Monitor); Renee Livius (Office & Budget Manager).
• 2026 actions: Expanded mediation; >40 referrals; budget delays postponed new mediator class to 2027; public archive/database launched; Monitors’ Mics show ended; podcast availability.
• 2027 goals: Prioritize 2026-started work (facial recognition tech, investigations, lawsuits); expand case reviews; recruit/train mediators; expand mediation to include NOPD staff; policy work on mediation expansion; continue community engagement; audit Public Integrity Bureau classifications; NOPE policy case handling review.
• Staffing/budget: 2027 staffing unlikely to include regular full-time hires; $100k wage reserve; OIPM at 0.16% of General Fund; exploring grants for 2027; contracts for general counsel; RFP live.
• Public engagement: Commitment to expanded community engagement.

Unresolved/issues to watch

• Budget-dependent initiatives (mediations, policy expansion) contingent on funding and approvals.
• Final adoption/launch plan for expanded mediation and its budget impact.
• Results/timing for 2027 work plan and potential grants.

4) French Market Corporation (French Market) briefing

• Speaker: Not named in excerpt; Casey later contributed on related topics (leasing/marketing).
• 2026 goals/actions: Building E reconstruction completed (~$7M) from French Market reserves; back in Building E; community meetings held; revenue/fee structure (rent or 20% of net revenue, greater) affected by building issues; aim to return to stronger city contributions; community-use potential to reduce other agency costs.
• Unresolved/issues: Next steps to stabilize finances and maximize city revenue contributions; leasing strategies ongoing.

5) Upper Pentalba project and leasing

• Context: City provided $8M in bonds for Upper Pentalba; total project cost ~ $12M; occupancy targeted mid-2027; appraisal-based rent baseline; RFP for market rents next week; board to approve rents after RFP.
• Key actions/operating details: 44 total staff (mostly labor/maintenance); hiring resuming after major construction; multiple tenants activated (e.g., Collective Shop, Only Coffee in Farmer’s Market, Soul Study, Pelican, etc.); revenues rising as occupancy increases.
• 2027 planning: Appraisal sets baseline rents; RFP for rents; 50-hour mediator-like training mentioned (for mediators) as part of occupancy strategy (Note: this is from Biodistrict excerpt—related but not the same project; keep separate).
• Budget/financial notes: 135k commissions budget; depreciation adjustment (~$1.1M) needing clarity; historic tax credits (~$2.5M) anticipated; revenue plans tied to market rents.

Unresolved/issues to watch

• Depreciation item clarity and accounting treatment.
• Results of the RFP for market rents and exact rent implementation timeline.
• How tax credits will flow and affect city contributions.
• Precise 2027 budget timing and grant funding.

6) Crescent Park relinquishment / Audubon arrangement

• Context: February 14, 2025 meeting on Crescent Park via a CEA with Audubon; city would take over Crescent Park; presenters not part of the deal; extension granted by CAO; process timing tied to legal work and other revenue exposures.
• Financial/contracting questions: No quantified city savings shown; outside counsel costs; various department cost items (audit, grounds patrol vs. OPSC, architecture, legal, etc.); city attorney status at French Market noted.
• 2027/2028 considerations: Historic tax credits discussed; potential early flow; possibility of higher city rents to maximize revenue.

Unresolved/issues

• Whether the Crescent Park deal yields quantified city savings.
• Cash reserves deployment and potential return to city; bond/financing implications.
• Details and timing on historic tax credits and their impact on bond repayment.
• Transparency concerns about leasing processes and local vendor protections.

7) Biodistrict New Orleans (BDNO) update

• Speakers: Emily Payton (Executive Director); Andy Copland (Board member); Charlotte Parent (Budget Committee Co-Chair); Council Members McCarran and Willard; audience members.

Key topics/actions

• NCI designation: Major objective; 80+ clinical trials; partnerships with LSU, LCMC Health, Tulane; job creation and regional impact.
• Programs: SBIR Phase II awards to local startups (Beacon Bio; Informata); Bio Challenge; placemaking and transit improvements; STEM NOLA (K-12) programs.
• Staffing/budget: Small board (3 volunteers) with contractors; 2027 hiring planned as funds flow; 2026 budget at $830k; 2027 city EDD funds around $1M; RFPs for personnel, communications, design, incubator strategy; state funds supplement; 2027 aims include NCI goals and partnerships.
• Major projects: Charity Hospital adaptive reuse; Xavier Osher College of Medicine (Benson Tower site; preliminary accreditation); Cancer Center expansion (opened Aug; $2M); pursuing NCI designation.

Unresolved/issues

• Timelines/governance for achieving NCI designation; funding mix and fundraising specifics; operation of Biodistrict Investment Fund (governance and use).
• Transit improvements and bus-stop upgrades timing; detailed execution plan for entrepreneurship strategy.

8) New Orleans Public Library segment

• Speakers: Emily Payton (Executive Director); Tamika Miles (Deputy Director); Michelle Thompson (Fiscal Administrator); Heather Riley (Director of Public Services); Sam LeBlanc (Facilities Administrator); Shannon Citanovich (Library Foundation Exec Director) providing public comment.

2026 progress/actions

• Mobile pop-ups expanded; outdoor programming; CRC (Children’s Resource Center) refreshed; 5,000 free books distributed via Library Foundation; expanded early-literacy staffing; capital projects for roofs/HVAC; 8M for main library elevator/HVAC; bids ~$2M over budget; ongoing coordination with Capital Projects.

Staffing/budget

• 8 new hires in 2026; net loss of 12 staff; recruitment challenges due to residency requirements and cost of living; staff qualifications highlighted (librarians often with master’s degrees).
• Funding: Library funded by two dedicated tax villages; no General Fund support; reserves stressed; 2027 budget ~ $32.2M total; millage revenue ~$22M; ~$10M drawn from reserves for facilities work.

Facilities and capital

• Roof/HVAC upgrades completed at several branches; main library project facing bid overrun; planned upgrades to meeting room HVACs; future 2027 facilities assessment and a long-range archives/storage feasibility study.
• Elevator/HVAC replacement and main library refurbishment remain ongoing; potential closures in 2027 due to HVAC work; ongoing planning to minimize impact.

Archives storage

• City Archives currently in basement below sea level; proposal for modern, climate-controlled storage behind the main library with public-facing components; feasibility study not yet started; land ownership and bonding capacity considerations noted.

Public comment

• Library Foundation emphasized long-term, 15-year funding planning; cautioned against reactive maintenance; called for proactive capital planning.

Unresolved/issues

• Funding gaps for major library projects (elevator/HVAC; archives facility); feasibility study timing and cost; potential library closures in 2027; long-term capital plan beyond 2027.

9) Alley May Center / City Archives

• Speakers: Emily Payton; Sam LeBlanc (Facilities Manager); Shannon Citanovich (Library Foundation).

Key notes

• Alley May Center reported as operating; no major outages noted, but historical outages acknowledged.
• City Archives storage needs and possibilities for a new storage facility behind the main library; feasibility study not started; bonding and land ownership considerations.
• Public input from Library Foundation urging long-range capital planning (15-year horizon) and proactive funding.

Unresolved/issues

• Feasibility study start date, scope, and cost; potential site selection; financing approach; coordination with parking and public access.

Overall takeaways

• The meeting covered a wide set of New Orleans public projects across OIG, OIPM, French Market, Upper Pentalba, Crescent Park, Biodistrict, and New Orleans Public Library, plus related topics (Algiers/Federal City; Algae Development District; and BDNO/Biodistrict updates).
• Common themes: budgeting clarity and alignment; progress on major capital projects; use of outside consultants or contractors to achieve savings; ongoing leasing/revenue enhancements; and the pursuit of major long-term objectives (e.g., NCI designation, rehabilitating key facilities, expanding public access and community engagement).
• Votes: No formal votes were recorded in the provided excerpts; decisions were generally framed as budget alignments, expedited actions, or planned follow-ups, with several items pending final data or approvals.

Meeting summary

No formal votes were recorded in the excerpts.

Topline context

• The materials cover multiple interrelated budget discussions in New Orleans: Criminal District Court funding and deficits, the Joint Judicial Expense Fund (JEF) and its viability, the Orleans Parish Clerk consolidation and its impact on civil/criminal funding, OPSO (Sheriff) budgeting and Phase 3 jail planning, the Orleans Public Defender’s Office (OPD) and the Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights (LCCR) funding for juvenile defense, and cross-agency efforts to reduce jail populations and address the federal consent decree.
• Across topics, the core tension is sustaining mandated public-safety and defense functions with constrained or uncertain funding. No votes were documented; the material centers on presenting shortfalls, outlining risks, and proposing next steps.

Key topics, speakers, and core points — 1) Criminal District Court budget shortfall and Joint Judicial Expense Fund (JEF)

• Primary speakers/roles: Chief Judge Juana Lombard (opening), Chair of the Finance Committee (Tracy Flemings-Daverly), Accountant LaKenya Collins, Judicial Administrator Rob Kasich, Deputy Judicial Administrator Shannon Sims; Deputy Chief Kimya Holmes and Judge Camille Burris (co-chair with Judge Reese) referenced for JEF context.

What was said

• City did not cut the court’s budget this year; the budget remains the same as last year.
• Projected deficit of about $4.289 million (exact figure cited: $4,289,978).
• Causes: prior year city budget cuts (30%) worsened deficits; depleted cash on hand; state funding cuts with funding through June 30 cited as a gap; ongoing questions about funding beyond that date.
• JEF context: created after clerk consolidation; two Supreme Court appointees on the committee; currently “up and running” but with no money in the account; uncertainty about long-term funding beyond provisional periods.
• Impacts of underfunding: possible cuts to statutorily required items, jail costs, staffing and operation reductions (voir dire, grand juries, pretrial services, Sanity Commission, indigent services), and potential legal liability.

Actions proposed/next steps

• Restore last year’s city funding to cover the deficit.
• Pursue outside funding and work with the JEF and clerk’s office; continue to keep the JEF running with a joint checking account.
• Obtain clearer funding commitments for beyond June 30; develop a longer-term funding plan.

Unresolved issues

• Will the city restore approximately $4.289 million?
• How will JEF be funded long-term, especially beyond June 30?
• What exact prioritization or reductions would occur if funding isn’t restored?
• Note: No formal vote or decision captured in this segment.

2) Clerk consolidation funding and broader clerk/court funding (City Council context)

• Speakers: City Council Members (notably Morrell and Willard), Clerk’s Office representative, DA, Public Defender; references to civil/criminal funding split.

Core points

• Structural funding problem from consolidation: clerk is now like “everybody else” but lacks explicit obligation to fund all court operations.
• Civil surpluses exist; criminal court funding relies on operating deficits.
• 60% of filing-fee revenues go to the JEF; civil surpluses and net vs gross accounting create confusion about available funds.
• Civil funding decisions are not fully within civil judges’ control (need higher-level decisions).

Actions/next steps

• Schedule a follow-up meeting with the clerk for a clear accounting of expenditures before courts are paid; CAO discussions with the legislature to address funding gaps and potentially modify the clerk bill.
• Develop a revised budget submission with clearer line-item detail for civil vs criminal allocations.

Unresolved issues

• Whether the clerk will be mandated to fund all courts; what legislative changes would be required.
• How to treat civil surpluses vs criminal needs and whether civil filing-fee increases are feasible.
• Timing and clarity of the clerk’s accounting before payments proceed.

3) OPSO, Phase 3 facility, jail population, and consent decree (Sheriff-led discussion)

• Speakers: OPSO official(s), Council Members (notably Willard and King in related excerpts); Judge(s) referenced; Deputy Mayor/partners named (e.g., Harrison, Williams) in related notes.

Core points

• Phase 3 (new facility) as central to exiting the federal consent decree; population management and healthcare commitments are critical.
• Staffing needs: proposal to add 27 deputies to staff Phase 3, moving staff from the temporary detention center (TDC) and TMH; cost estimate around $1.2 million for that appropriation.
• Budget pressures: a large portion of a proposed 12% increase is tied to a medical vendor; questions about costs without the medical contract; RFI/RFP planned for medical services; food service and other major contracts (in-house vs contracted) under review.
• Population/beds: OPSO has been above capacity (target around 1,000–1,250 range discussed); transfers to DOC constrained by bed availability and cost differences (DOC much cheaper per day than federal housing in some cases); Phase 3 readiness tied to population reductions and timely transfers.
• Juvenile transfer: plan to move juveniles to JJIC (by January 1) with attention to medical care and schooling; cost impacts to OJC/JJIC budgets.
• Technology/security investments: cameras, real-time crime center (RTCC), data dashboards; ongoing procurement reforms (RFI/RFPs); security upgrades and building improvements.

Actions proposed/next steps

• Issue an RFI for medical contracts, followed by an RFP; explore in-house food service vs vendors; continue to bid major contracts for cost savings.
• Use restricted funds (opioid-related, capital projects) for designated infrastructure and security purposes; continue to work on Phase 3 staffing and jail population reductions.
• January 1 juvenile transfer to JJIC to be reviewed, with medical care and schooling arrangements resolved.
• Explore FEMA-related options for the temporary detention center and potential repurposing with risk analysis.

Unresolved issues

• Exact minimum funding necessary for 2027 to maintain critical functions; whether $4 million is realistic; how to allocate the $1.1 million savings from eliminated sections.
• Detailed DV/sanity line-item breakdowns, and the precise totals for Youth Empowerment/HiSET funding.
• Funding viability of the Phase 3 plan, timeline for staff hires beyond 27, and interagency coordination to reduce jail population.
• The precise terms and timing of the DOC transfer pipeline and its impact on Phase 3.
• Note: No formal votes recorded; multiple actions and data requests outlined for follow-up.

4) Public Defender and juvenile-rights wraparound services (OPD/LCCR focus)

• Speakers: District Attorney’s Office (DA) representative; OPD leadership; LCCR leadership; City Council members; community advocates.

Core points

• Funding cuts threaten essential public-defense services and wraparound supports for youth; LCCR reported substantial prior cuts (around 31%), with risks of further reductions (e.g., 8% cut) leading to staffing losses and reduced services.
• LCCR argued for maintaining or restoring prior funding levels; highlighted ROI of wraparound services (social work support, reduced recidivism).
• OPD stressed constitutional duties, right-to-counsel concerns, and the need for stable, adequately funded defense to avoid longer-term costs and jail impacts.

Actions proposed/next steps

• Requests to restore funding levels for OPD and LCCR to preserve services; consideration of an 11.44–12.38 million funding level as a target to stabilize jail costs and services; follow-up budget bid to include detailed line items and potential restorations.
• Continued collaboration with DA, courts, and juvenile services to protect rights and reduce jail populations through better representation and early intervention.

Unresolved issues

• Final budget levels for OPD and LCCR; timeline for funding decisions; exact allocations to juvenile defense and wraparound services; impact of potential funding restores on jail population targets.

Overall conclusions and next steps

• Across excerpts, the central issue is funding stability for critical public-safety and defense functions while pursuing aggressive jail-population reductions and Phase 3 readiness. No formal votes were recorded in the excerpts; instead, action items involve data requests, follow-up meetings (with clerks and procurement), planned RFIs/RFPs for contracts, and budget negotiations aimed at restoring prior funding levels or identifying viable long-term funding paths (including JEF, grants, and capital allocations).
• Open questions that recur across topics include: the exact minimum operating funding needed for 2027; whether and how much of the $4+ million deficit can be covered by restored city funding; long-term JEF viability; precise line-item breakouts (DV, sanity, HiSET, Youth Empowerment funding); and the pace/timeline for population-reduction measures and Phase 3 implementation.