Special Council Meeting-2027 Executive Budget Address.

CAO

Given the fact that we had such a lean budget the Moreno administration ensured that close to 12,600 streetlight issues were resolved, 970 blocks of potholes were filled, 65 blocks of road repairs were done and then I think this 29 blocks of sidewalk repair might be slightly dated. I think there's some work actually at AL Davis going on right now so we want to make sure that that work continues. You all were present and I want to thank the council for their participation in the community input meetings. I don't think it comes as a great surprise to anybody that the themes we heard were about streets and I put here in the presentation both surface and subsurface. All that means is there's both people complaining about Department of Public Works streets and signs and then also sewage and water board which is the subsurface work generally, blight, grass cutting and expanded economic opportunity. The mayor also had us review the survey results and infrastructure and public works ranked the highest and essential service priorities followed by neighborhoods and quality of service. These are the pillars upon which we are basing the budget which is transformative streets and infrastructure, safer neighborhoods, more opportunities through NORD, building economic opportunity and clean functional neighborhoods. I will not be presenting all the slides that we showed the community meetings but I think the public and the council are familiar with that work. So as we've talked about now that the $21.5 million is added to the $99 million reduction that leaves direct budget reductions of roughly $77 million. We have broken those into four broad categories and I'll explain them some more in detail next but they are CAO reductions of roughly $19 million. A lot of that is contingency that was built into the CAO budget because we knew that there were going to be things that we did not know and didn't want to be in a spot of having to cut things randomly and so now rather than having to cut departments further, the CAO budget is first and foremost being offered up in order to reduce the reductions. In addition, we asked outside agencies to reduce their budgets or instructing them to reduce their budgets by $8 million. And then the personnel reductions are roughly $23 million and include not only potential reduction of 152 FTEs for anybody who wants to know that means full time equivalent or one whole person who works in the city but also includes personnel cost reductions as well. Overtime is included in that number. And then obviously reduction of other operating and contractual issues as well. The mayor stressed this but I think it bears saying again there are no furloughs built into the 2027 budget. The administration's position is that it will not offer furloughs for the 2027 budget. Every once in a while I still hear rumblings about it may be there. It's not. We haven't asked people to furlough. So let me just try to put that to rest. That is not what this budget is built upon. And I think the mayor discussed at length that there are no cuts to NORD whatsoever or to Council on Aging. And again trying to protect these essential services that are listed here and the mayor discussed. Primarily being front line police officers, EMS personnel, fire, curbside pickup, street and sidewalk maintenance and street repairs. One of the things that made this process even more difficult is because we had difficulty from last year as well. And I don't think we can ignore at all the things that we commonly ask people to sacrifice this year. We already had staffing reductions of about 200 positions. Just so everybody knows that that roughly rough sizes us where we were in 2019. In 2024 we are at a really high watermark after ARPA and after COVID. And that has now been right sized from where we were roughly about seven years ago. As I've said already overtime has been reduced by 18 million compared to 2025. personnel spending by $20 million. A number of these you've seen already. Furloughs and tighter controls on contracts have been in place. And as the mayor said, we've shifted infrastructure costs from general fund to capital. So now looking at some of the cuts and talking about the frontline public safety, you will see that we have a couple of different comparisons here. What we're mainly comparing is the 2027 budget is at this point, and I will continue to stress, it is at this point. Whatever phrase you want to use, it's not permanent. It is not etched in stone. We expect this to be a repetitive, iterative process over the next two months with the public, with the council and the administration. But for where we are right now, EMS will actually show a small increase in its budget as compared to 2026. The expected reason for that is because we're generating more revenue for EMS. And I want to thank the council and civil service commission for approving that. But it's to make sure that we are actually hitting our revenue number that we are projecting for EMS this year. Also in comparison, you'll see that between the expected 2026 budget and parenthetically, our goal, I know Council Member Harris and others have asked about this, is to submit the mid-year budget adjustments by the next council meeting, if not the one after that. So that way we can compare and get all the numbers apples to apples. I know Council Member Morrell has talked at length at seeing what everything is. And so now that the REC is in a position, we want to make sure the council has the revenues and the expenses match up as appropriate. But if you match up what we expect fire departments to spend this year versus what their proposed budget is for 2027, it is a 10% decrease. And for NOPD, it is roughly a 2% decrease.

CAO

Now, why is that? A number of different things, again, as I've stated repeatedly to you, were unbudgeted, like retention pay, large terminal leave payments, enhanced police recruiting, and an improperly budgeted fire grant have all contributed to that. So I know we've discussed this at length, but we felt it very important to ensure that if we knew that there was a problem the way things have been budgeted in the past, that we addressed it in this budget. It isn't right to ignore them when you know that they're there. Additionally, we note that the proposed 2027 budget reflects a $16 million reduction from NOPD's original 2027 budget request. It was $183 million. I say that because the departments, of course, are always looking to do as much as they possibly can, but we also just need to be cognizant of the total need of all the departments that are in the city and how we best serve the city as a whole. And then, of course, NOPD's budget reflects the transfer of parking, booting, and towing that occurred as well. And we hope that that helps restore some of those practices by taking out a DPW. New recurring revenue that can mitigate but not eliminate the cuts are as follows. All of these, I would point out, are potentials. They are not done deals, but things that will reduce potentially the $77 million in cuts. Potential roll forward, the total general fund impact is about $20 million. The nightly STR fee crease, we're tabulating to be between $4 and $5 million. The adjustment of permit fees for inflation and upfront application fees, the council has requested repeatedly, is targeted to be between $1.5 and $2 million. And, of course, we've heard repeatedly from the public and from others about potential nonprofit fees. Now, let me say here that that is likely not to be as part of the 2027 budget because those measures would have to go on the ballot and have to be voter approved. But I think we'd be remiss if we didn't talk about how that needed to be part of the budget going forward. And certainly listening to people about the fact that we need everybody to be contributing to city services and not just residents. So, as the mayor said, we are balanced. The reserves have been restored. And instead of maybe gasping for air and treading water, this budget puts us back above it. You can see here her quote. I'll read it quickly. We have reduced the size and cost of government, rebuilt reserves, protected core services, and proposed a balanced 2027 budget. We are lean and the choices are difficult, but New Orleans is back above water and positioned to move forward. In talking about the budget proposal, I did think it was important to frame some things for the public and for the council. And I have to confess, as we went throughout the year and I listened to particularly Alyssa discuss the expenses that the city owes, I was struck by how much the city is spending on so many different public safety, but other ongoing obligations as well. So, again, at the risk of repeating myself, but I think the repetition is important. The recurring revenue is slightly north of $748 million and it rises to roughly $763 million with the one-time revenue from the grant reimbursements. Of that $763 million in general fund dollars, nearly $576 million is diverted as below. Let me say that one more time. Of the $763 million, nearly $576 million is diverted as below. Public health and safety agencies are $352 million. Now, I know a lot of people have the tendency to just limit that to police, fire, and EMS, but we also included NOSEM, public safety, which is the former real-time crime camera center, OPCD, mosquito control, health, and JJIC. So, tried to be a definitive public health and safety organizations, but those alone total $352 million. Outside agencies, we've discussed this at length in chambers. They are close to $100 million at $98 million. Healthcare costs at $60 million. The fire pension, $48 million, and the debt service on old revenue bonds is roughly $187 million. Given all of this, as it says in the slide, for all other city services, you're left with less than $190 million to spend. I will submit to you, and I know a number of council members, so I don't want to single any out, but I think pretty much all of you have spoken at length about how these are ongoing obligations for which the city has to spend money but does not have the sources to do so. In trying to fix the budget, in addition to the healthcare that I already discussed, here are three other places that what we are expecting and what was in the budget and in what we're proposing in the budget in 2026 and what we're proposing for 2027. As you will note for the 2026 budget, debt service for pension pay and terminal leave all have a zero there. I'll say that one more time. As you will see for debt service, retention pay, and terminal leave, they are all budgeted at zero. The Moreno 2027 budget rightfully includes those numbers, so debt service this year will be budgeted at roughly over $18 million. Retention pay, and this is now going to go down because the highest amounts to be paid were in 2023, 2024, and 2025, will go from actual spending, even though non-budgeted, $5 million to $2,380,920. And then terminal leave, which was heightened during the transition, but of course not budgeted, at $6 million, roughly pegged at $3,650,000. I'm going to go through some of these in more rapid order through the public agencies, and obviously we're happy to answer questions as you may have them. For Office of Emergency Coordination Management, NOSM, you see the reduction there. Most of that is operating side. On the public safety support, formerly known as Real-Time Crime Camera Center, that's reduction of ground patrol. On OPCD, they take a 2% reduction, I think primarily attributable to the fact that they got more money from the state this year. So again, we can rely less on general funding.

CAO

On Health and Human Services, the Health Department, the low barrier shelter is the largest reason for that, and that's in this reduction as well. Juvenile Justice Intervention Center, or as we say internally, JJIC, again trying to reconfigure their budget based on their contractual obligations. Economic Development Agencies, most of these stay fairly static. For Supplier Diversity, there's a study proposition that is taken out to reduce its overall budget. For Workforce Development, you'll see the reduction there is primarily Youthforce NOLA, and I've heard the Mayor say when she was on the Council, she championed this. I'm a fan of this, I know Councilman Morrell is, but these are one of the things that we have to look at going forward. Community Development, to preeminent any questions, the reduction is largely because of right to counsel. For City Services and Agencies, again, I'm not going to run through most of these except to point out, again, sanitation is curbside services are protected. For Safety and Permits, believe it or not, some of these are actually welcomed by Director Kirby in order to reorganize her office. And then Public Works, you see a reduction here, but that's primarily reflective of the fact that towing, booting, parking got moved over. Parenthetically, the hope is to have the parking RFP on the street either later this week or next week as well. So I want to keep the Council fully informed there. Property Management, 8% reduction, again, primarily on its operating side. I'll also say this, though, one of the things Austin is tasked with, and I know that he's working on hard right now, is making sure that we actually, A, know the value of all the city leases, and B, we're getting the value that we ought to be for there. So there may be an offset there by increased leases, but it's just too early to say that. These cuts, I think the council is pretty much aware of. Again, CAO core is primarily led by the $19 million cut that we've identified already. And the city council, nearly 30% cut is shifting of obligations back into the CAO and the mayor's budget in different spots as well. You'll also see, by the way, that for purposes of clarity, that finance increases. That is not because we're increasing more people. It's because the debt service number of $18 million is moved to the finances department. And then we have the reductions for the outside agencies as well, which are all there for your viewing. Because of time, I'm not gonna go through each of the reductions with the council. All of these are and will be publicly available. All we did here was put them in order of size. My suspicion is, given the fact the CAO budget cuts were really more of a contingency, that is something that more likely, and also will not affect current personnel operating, that we will probably agree to fairly readily. After that, what I will say is we look forward to working with the council together on deciding all of this. This is what we are proposing in order to have a balanced budget. But it's also a mutual relationship where we obviously look forward to working with you. And as we have budget hearings next week, expect that we will hear more from you at all. The only one I will point out to you with specificity is on slide 33. And I want to call this out because this is the one that I personally and professionally don't think you all should cut, nor will I recommend it, is that the mayor and I will continue to take a 10% pay cut next year. The way that we feel about it is that we've asked everybody else to take on these hard tasks and to make sure they're doing as much as they possibly can. We need to have, as she said yesterday, skin in the game as well. So we want to assure the public that we too are doing our part. So I'll say it one more time, but I want to make sure I'm saying it with clarity. No other city employees will be furloughed in 2027. We do not expect any other city employees who are unclassified to take a 10% pay reduction in 2027. The only two people who will be exempt from that are the mayor and the CAO. As I discussed earlier with you, we obviously know that nonprofit cost sharing is important. It's something that the council has been talking about for quite some time, and we look forward to working with you on how to deploy that. Cities have different ways of doing it. Some is parcel fees, others are cost sharing arrangements, called pilots, and again, the desire is here. We want to work with the council on doing this, and at the same time, again, to reiterate, to do much of this, it requires ballot initiatives, not simply council action. So you're looking more at 2028, but I want to say again, we've heard the council, the mayor, and the public in particular loud and clear as well about that. The mayor discussed the millage overview as well. The millages below are the city millages, not including the East and West Bank protection, but just so everybody knows, a lot of people ask, what is a mill? One mill equals a dollar of tax for every $1,000 of taxable assessed property value. So when I first got here, I think the value of a mill was roughly at or just below $4 million. In about 2018, the full value now is $5.5 million. $5.8 million of one mill. So in other words, when you think of a mill, one mill is worth $5.58 million. The other thing I will note is notwithstanding the fact that voters approved the capital bonds and the $510 million, the Board of Liquidation has consistently rolled down its millages since 2018, 2019 as well. Again, when I was first elected, those mills stood roughly at 22.5 mills. They now are at 14.5 mills. So again, multiplying the five times the eight is roughly $40 million that has not been borne by taxpayers. And so simply, when home values go up as a result of assessments without action by the taxing authority, these millages, which are voter approved, roll back.

CAO

And then the taxing authorities can decide whether to move forward or not. As we say here on the slide, in 2023, the total city mills were roughly 134.53. As we sit today, they're 121.2. And what has been advertised would increase the total city mill roll forward, potentially, if approved, to 128.64. Here's the millage proposition broken down. Proposition does not include rolling millage forward for the Orleans Parish School Board, who already did so, for the Sheriff, or for Seuge and Water Board. And again, you can see here, it's pretty self-explanatory, but essentially, we've taken on this first slide what are the city millages and what the current millage rate is, what the potential roll forward would look like if it's rolled forward to its degree, and then the rate increase, and then, obviously, what the additional revenue would be. So in simple terms, if essentially the general fund money was fully rolled forward, it'd be a little bit more than $10 million in the city coffers to offset some of the cuts previously identified. Also, for these police and fire and parks and rec in Nord, that's about $11 million. And on the next slide, there are millages that go directly to police and fire pay, which is roughly $4.3 million. And then these are the related agencies that are part of the proposal between the library, early childhood education, Audubon Commission, and City Park Improvement. As Abby notes in the asterisk here, voters approved a unified parks millage split between Nord Park and Parkways and Audubon. So when you take the $16 million and the roughly $4 million and the $10 million and the $11 million, you get a total increase of potentially $42 million overall. So with that, I am happy to answer questions. I appreciate the council's work over the last nine months. And again, just repeat that this is the beginning of a process. It has been a marathon for this entire year, and it will get hard as we approach the finish line once again. But as the mayor said, we are above water. This is a structurally balanced budget, and we look forward to working with you and the public on its final adoption in either late November or early December. Thank you.

Councilmember Hughes

We know that that's a very unique community in my district that often feels forgotten Just curious why that reduction is on the table I mean councilmember we we just went through the budget and tried to find things that are part of what our city Obligations for that. We don't have recurring revenue sources So this this is an accumulation of many different things that are on there And like I said earlier, this is absolutely not edged in stone. We remain open to moving things around as necessary Absolutely, no, I understand. This is just a starting point and I want to say publicly on the record to Fort Pike I'm gonna fight with every fiber of my being to get that back in the budget They fought hard They've earned it that they deserve it. Slide 36, can you just give me some clarity when we talk about the parks and parkways millage? Because I noticed the asterisk, that's a sort of shared millage between parks and parkways, Audubon City Park and Nord, is that right? Yeah, so I hate to feel like I'm old, but you know, when you've been here, you've seen it. So when there were different millages that existed at different times for park and parkways, for Nord, I think Audubon separately went through a millage years ago which ultimately wasn't successful. And City Park, for years, had complained about not having any recurring revenue. And also, candidly, I think feeling like it was a citywide resource, and that other parks of its size, particularly in New York and other places, got it. So what was ultimately decided in the first term of the last administration was to combine those essentially into one millage ask. And so there is a portion of the millage, and I think that's in these slides, that was approved for parks and parkways of ultimately 1.807 mills, for the rec department being Nord, 1.944 mills, and then for Audubon, 1.944 mills, and for City Park, 0.614 mills. So all of those are taken together. All we've done on this slide is just try to differentiate, even though they're technically considered one, they are different, and then even further differentiate that clearly Nord and park and parkways are city agencies, whereas Audubon and City Park are outside ones. Gotcha, so just for clarity, in terms of like the general fund millages versus others, the proposal is, I guess, in terms of general fund would just be rolling forward the parks and parkways portion? Well, we have everything here for right now. And that's, again, to allow there to be this discussion about what's to be done. I think part of what ultimately the council will hear is from Audubon and from City Park about what they would propose to serve city purposes if they were to roll forward. But this is broken out, again, sort of four categories. Category one is what would be general fund money that you could spend unrestrictedly and how the council and administration decides together about roughly those cuts that are $77 million we could go for. Obviously, the police, fire, park and parkways, those are protected. So council member, those are restricted. If, for example, the council decided of these five to really only roll forward Nord, then that money only goes to Nord. Can't use it for other purposes. And then police, fire, and platoon, that goes similarly to their pay. And then on the outside, the library, early childhood, goes to those agencies. Great. Let me just ask in closing, do we know the median income for the city of New Orleans, the residents of the city of New Orleans? What's the median income here? I don't know the current one. A million years ago, it was about $37,000. But I don't know if that's still the case. If you could get that for our next hearing, and the reason that's relevant, and I think you know where I'm going, Mr. CAO, the median income in the city is probably not very high. And what was once considered the middle class years ago, probably really is no middle class anymore. It's really the haves and the have-nots. And I say that to say that I agree with the mayor. The mayor is right. We're gonna have to find a very careful balance. But I'll speak for the residents of District E. And I think you, I know you're familiar with the makeup of District E. Very hardworking people. Many of them drained everything they had to rebuild after Katrina. Not necessarily sitting on a windfall. I have senior citizens that worked their whole life, and now have pensions, fixed income. Don't necessarily qualify for an income freeze, but they're not wealthy. And so, I can tell you when you factor in the cost of homeowner's insurance, and flood insurance, and auto insurance, and energy bills, and let's not talk about grocery bills. Price of gas. Many of my residents have made it loud and clear. They're just stretched thin. You know, $70, $100 a year, $200 may not seem like a lot, but to the residents that I represent, it is. And so, and I think that median income should put a lot into perspective in terms of the city. Yeah, so Abby pulled the number for me, so it shows you, again, my number was outdated. It is roughly 56,631 based on the census data. So, 56,000 citywide, and I bet when you look at district E specifically, it's probably a lot less. So, I look forward to the spirit of collaboration, and I know that at the end of the day, we have to make some tough decisions, but I'm glad the council president made the point that our budget has grown exponentially. And I think it's time for us to rein back a bit, identify our priorities, and just like the residents of district E has to do, live within their means. It's time for our city to live within our means. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Harris. Thank you. First, just a point of clarification for the audience. I know we've gotten some questions about the motions that are on the agenda. Those will be deferred. They're not going to be voted on today. So, that's just a point of order.

Councilmember Hughes

CAO Girusso, I almost called you Council Member Girusso, but you do not have your budget beard on today. No, the budget beard is like my little protection until everything's about drafted. So, once I felt like we were in a better place, it is now retired for the time being. Also, my family hates it, so I capitulate. I totally get it. I want to thank the mayor and you and your team for putting this together. I know because of the charter amendment, we are starting earlier than we have in the past, and I know it was a mad dash to get this before us. We're getting our budget books today, and as you said, they are online for the public to look at. I also want to thank my fellow council members, their teams, and my team in advance for this process because it is going to be a month-long process of continuous meetings with various agencies, not only city agencies, but outside agencies to talk about their budgets and their priorities. So, thank you in advance for your patience, fellow council members and our teams. I do have specific questions about the budget. I have a lot of questions, but I want to hit the high points, and I'll go sort of page by page. The first one is on personnel. We are currently on furlough. When will the current furloughs end? I know that we are still waiting on additional revenue. I guess there's two answers to that. One is we haven't yet collected October yet, so we have to wait and see how that all comes in. And then two, we obviously want to see, are we able to raise additional revenue as well? I will continue to say what I say is I am highly sensitive to the fact that the holidays are not that far away. So, the question is, do we feel like collectively we're at a good enough point to suspend those before that happens? Yeah, I mean, we've talked about this before, about the holidays, and as Council Member Hughes poignantly said, you know, everything's more expensive now, and so our own city employees who are working oftentimes on their furlough day deserve not to be on furlough. So, as soon as we can end those, that would be better for everyone. Are we still looking at a hiring freeze in 2027? Yes. You know, obviously, the exception to that is we expect NOPD to have more recruits, and also, obviously, backfilling positions, Council Member. I mean, I'm sure there will be some attrition where somebody says, I don't really need this anymore, but, for example, if a Council Member lost a staff person, I lost a staff person that I need, we're not going to say, it's for, essentially, boning up across most departments. I did see that the law budget has increased, so I assume that is an increase in the hiring positions there. It's an increase there. It's an increase also for their overall personnel. I can't remember. I look at Brandy. Did they bake in any numbers for operating, or is it all personnel? It's all personnel. Okay. Thank you. On page 23, there is a 7.3 decrease in the health department's budget. What is the breakdown there? In health departments? Yes. Well, the primary one is the low-barrier shelter. There is also, I think, some other things, such as DVAIR and MICU that are also part of the budget reduction, but I can't remember. Okay. I can't remember. Okay. Okay. Okay. So I think that we have some other things, too, that are also part of the budget reductions as well, and again, I will note, again, I feel like I'm citing the mayor a lot today, but the mayor did end yesterday by saying like, these are things that she hates having to do, and yet, these are the things that are before us as we're trying to move forward, and these are the ones that, when you look at numbers, what we arrived at internally. Obviously, we are more than happy to have conversations because we know that there's services that people want to have, and, you know, tried to be thoughtful, also, to Council Member Hughes's point about potential loss of 152 FTEs is also a lot of people on top of the 200 who have already left, so, you know, what do we want to do to try and balance? I'll also just say this from a budgeting perspective. It is harder to get at budget reductions with loss of workforce than it is on operating costs. So, stated differently, you almost have to lay off or not renew or take employment action with 50, 75, 100 employees to kind of make the big chunks that you can on operating programs. That's just a reality. So, I'm glad you mentioned the low barrier shelter. I specifically have concerns about that given my advocacy for our unhoused people. Also, the fact that if we shut down the low barrier shelter, around 200 people will be on the streets and they will likely be in District B and District C, but they will impact the entire city. Given the state's cuts as well and to permanent supportive housing in favor of building this shelter in Baton Rouge, what are your thoughts? How are we going to turn these people on in the streets? Yeah, there's a couple of different things. The mayor has pointed out routinely that there's about 2.5 million in state funding that's hung up in litigation right now. So, you know, that's almost half of the total amount that's there from the apparent. I will also say that there's other outside groups that get quite a bit of federal funding that don't flow to the city. And we need to start asking collectively whether or not that should be their obligation based on the size of the total federal funding as opposed to a city one because we get relatively much less dollars. And, you know, are there, the mayor mentioned this as well, are there, you know, other groups who are interested in participating? I think some of that is going to look at, you know, DDD and FMC, particularly I think around issues with infrastructure and homelessness and others. Are there other groups that are similarly interested? So we are trying to look as many places as possible, Councilmember.

Councilmember Hughes

Obviously, if half of that money gets resolved, that would be welcome, but also looking at other people who get sizable federal and who are contributing nothing to that portion. No, I get that and I get the theory, but these are people who are unhoused who have a place to lay their head right now in the Lowberry Shelter. And again, if that shelter shuts, then Councilmember King and I will be the ones getting the calls of please get these people off of my stoop, out of my business, et cetera, et cetera. And it's just really disheartening to think that this could be a reality. So I will work strenuously with you and the administration to try to find that money because we cannot have a non-operational Lowbarrier Shelter, especially given what the state is proposing with defunding permanent supportive housing. We look forward to working with the Council to find any and all solutions possible. I want to go to page 27. There's a miscellaneous category. What does that include? All right, so miscellaneous includes a number of different things. You can see at the bottom, Abby has included, it is partly service innovation, OPA. That's roughly six people who do the back office, I would say, both innovation work as well as cutting. So, for example, they're the team that monitors the overtime in the city, the overtime dashboard, the budget dashboard built by OPA and S&I. So they're small but mighty. Risk management is part of that. In addition to risk management being a part of that, as Brandy reminded me yesterday and she's right about, we also have in miscellaneous $7 million in health care costs for retirees that also sits in the miscellaneous category. The mayor's summer youth work program and NOLA youth works, I think she stressed this, that while there may be a reduction in youth force, NOLA, both her youth work program and the youth works are part of that. And then we have TIF tax increment financing that is paid out of miscellaneous as well. So it was always, when I was on the Council, it was always a source of what in the hell is in miscellaneous. So we wanted to make sure we identified as much as possible. Okay. Thank you for that. I want to turn to sanitation. I know that in the mayor's remarks, the remark was there's not going to be any cuts to sanitation services curbside, but there are indeed cuts here for Mardi Gras cleanup and post parade cleanup. Again, that impacts not only my district primarily, but also Council Member King's district and citywide, if we're looking at non-Mardi Gras parade cleanup, because there are second lines in all of our districts. Again, I think having those cuts will impact our communities. What do you say about that? I mean, look, I think the mayor said it well in summation at the end. If we had all the money or, you know, another $40 million or something, these would be a lot more palatable. But when you have a $99 million shortfall and only about another $21 million to make up, then you have to look at the things that you have and where you can make those cuts. And I will just tell you I've been through this list with Brandy, Abby, John many times. Like, the other ones are less palatable than this. And I know that may sound hard to believe, but when you get to things like not delivering core services, getting rid of certain things in the health department, otherwise getting rid of people who prevent West Nile, getting rid of police officers, getting rid of infrastructure, you just get bunched. And it's also why we included the slide about all the other obligations. Again, if we didn't have all those obligations, it would be a lot easier in order to take care of this. And again, this is all theory and we're going to dig into it, but I can't imagine having Mardi Gras, two weeks of parades, and then just living with all the trash and the beads and the fried chicken and the Popeyes out there on the route just not being cleaned up. Again, that calls to us, to Councilmember King, to me, to the other councilmembers, that something needs to happen. And I don't have a shovel and I don't have a sanitation team, so I think we need to take a hard look at really whether this is going to happen. And I understand, but I will continue to just reiterate, this is a reality that we have this budget deficit and that we don't have enough revenue in order to meet that deficit, and we will continue to work with the council. If there's other matters the council wants to cut and not raise revenue, then I am completely open. As I said, pretty much the only one in here that is untouchable for me is the mayor and my reduction next year. On the issue of raising revenue, you have your millage slides, and I think there's a lot of math in here. And you and I are lawyers, and we all know lawyers aren't great at math. That's why we have our teams around us to do the math for us. What does it mean if we roll all of these millages forward to someone who owns a $100,000 home? All right, hold on. So on the East Bank, if your home is $100,000, and this is with the Homestead Exempt Residential, the annual increase would be $29.55. So your monthly increase would be $2. And this is actually the blown-up version. It looks like it's either $246 or $248. So, you know, it is an increase but a relatively small relative to overall. So is that just for the city-side millage or all of the millages being rolled forward? That would be this assumption is with all of the millages rolled forward. The proposed millages, I should say, will be very clear. Sure. Because it doesn't include the police. I'm sorry. It doesn't include the sheriff. It doesn't include the school board. But of the proposed millages, and look, I will continue to say, no, this is what I say. This is a menu of options. So, you know, it is about sort of what the public and the council and the administration all kind of decide together.

Councilmember Hughes

Is it the millages are not rolled forward at all? Well, then, you know, we have to figure out what the reductions are based on $77 million. Is it that they are rolled forward to a degree? And then there's things that are at the top of the list. There's going to be a Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You know, we can all work together collectively to figure out what those are. And then if they're rolled forward, well, then, all the way, then what is the money that goes to outside agencies? What are the services they will perform for the city? And then what is the city's amount that it gets? And then as we work down the list, how do we structure it to be less lean? I do have the millage chart. I received this. I would hope that you all publish this somewhere so people can understand what the monthly amount would be, what the yearly amount would be if you have a $100,000 home, if you have a $250,000 home, if you have a commercial property, if you don't have a homestead exemption. I think that's where the confusion comes in with the millage roll forward, that people just don't understand practically what the numbers are. And we can tell our constituents, but I certainly hope the administration does too. Yeah, I mean, we're more than happy to publish this. And, again, Councilmember, the other thing too, I said it, but I'll say it again. This is not millage rates or numbers that the administration or the council said. These are millages that voters approved and put on themselves. So when we talk about the fairness or the unfairness of it, this is part of what a democracy is. The other piece too is trying to break down the math as easily as possible, and then also presentable. I think what we would do is try to see – I know that you have this, I have this, and other councilmembers have it. Obviously, we're happy to share it – is publication purpose, see if we can simplify it even more. That's always something that I know the mayor is interested in, as are we. But, yeah, there's – look, you're not going to slide this by people without talking about it. And so we understand that there has to be a lot of conversation around it, both in level setting about the fact that the millages haven't been completely rolled forward in almost 20 years now, since 2015. You also have to say, you know, these are sort of the expenses that we have. And then also, obviously, probably as much importantly to everybody as the point Councilmember Hughes and you're raising, how does it affect me? Yeah. I mean, again, I think that the conversation has been very scary to people. People are saying the millages are going to roll forward, but there's no math behind it showing that, OK, it's only going to be $29 or $2.45 a month. Yeah. And I think that's more palatable when people understand the impact on them. I thank you and your team for continuing to work on this and look forward to a month of budget hearings. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Harris.

Councilmember Harris

And, you know, are there, the mayor mentioned this as well, are there, you know, other groups who are interested in participating? I think some of that is going to look at, you know, DDD and FMC, particularly I think around issues with infrastructure and homelessness and others. Are there other groups that are similarly interested? So we are trying to look as many places as possible, Councilmember. Obviously, if half of that money gets resolved, that would be welcome, but also looking at other people who get sizable federal and who are contributing nothing to that portion. No, I get that and I get the theory, but these are people who are unhoused who have a place to lay their head right now in the Lowbarrier Shelter. And again, if that shelter shuts, then Councilmember King and I will be the ones getting the calls of please get these people off of my stoop, out of my business, et cetera, et cetera. And it's just really disheartening to think that this could be a reality. So I will work strenuously with you and the administration to try to find that money because we cannot have a non-operational Lowbarrier Shelter, especially given what the state is proposing with defunding permanent supportive housing. We look forward to working with the Council to find any and all solutions possible. I want to go to page 27. There's a miscellaneous category. What does that include? All right, so miscellaneous includes a number of different things. You can see at the bottom, Abby has included, it is partly service innovation, OPA. That's roughly six people who do the back office, I would say, both innovation work as well as cutting. So, for example, they're the team that monitors the overtime in the city, the overtime dashboard, the budget dashboard built by OPA and S&I. So they're small but mighty. Risk management is part of that. In addition to risk management being a part of that, as Brandy reminded me yesterday and she's right about, we also have in miscellaneous $7 million in health care costs for retirees that also sits in the miscellaneous category. The mayor's summer youth work program and NOLA youth works, I think she stressed this, that while there may be a reduction in youth force, NOLA, both her youth work program and the youth works are part of that. And then we have TIF tax increment financing that is paid out of miscellaneous as well. So it was always, when I was on the Council, it was always a source of what in the hell is in miscellaneous. So we wanted to make sure we identified as much as possible. Okay. Thank you for that. I want to turn to sanitation. I know that in the mayor's remarks, the remark was there's not going to be any cuts to sanitation services curbside, but there are indeed cuts here for Mardi Gras cleanup and post parade cleanup. Again, that impacts not only my district primarily, but also Council Member King's district and citywide, if we're looking at non-Mardi Gras parade cleanup, because there are second lines in all of our districts. Again, I think having those cuts will impact our communities. What do you say about that? I mean, look, I think the mayor said it well in summation at the end. If we had all the money or, you know, another $40 million or something, these would be a lot more palatable. But when you have a $99 million shortfall and only about another $21 million to make up, then you have to look at the things that you have and where you can make those cuts. And I will just tell you I've been through this list with Brandy, Abby, John many times. Like, the other ones are less palatable than this. And I know that may sound hard to believe, but when you get to things like not delivering core services, getting rid of certain things in the health department, otherwise getting rid of people who prevent West Nile, getting rid of police officers, getting rid of infrastructure, you just get bunched. And it's also why we included the slide about all the other obligations. Again, if we didn't have all those obligations, it would be a lot easier in order to take care of this. And again, this is all theory and we're going to dig into it, but I can't imagine having Mardi Gras, two weeks of parades, and then just living with all the trash and the beads and the fried chicken and the Popeyes out there on the route just not being cleaned up. Again, that calls to us, to Councilmember King, to me, to the other councilmembers, that something needs to happen. And I don't have a shovel and I don't have a sanitation team, so I think we need to take a hard look at really whether this is going to happen. And I understand, but I will continue to just reiterate, this is a reality that we have this budget deficit and that we don't have enough revenue in order to meet that deficit, and we will continue to work with the council. If there's other matters the council wants to cut and not raise revenue, then I am completely open. As I said, pretty much the only one in here that is untouchable for me is the mayor and my reduction next year. On the issue of raising revenue, you have your millage slides, and I think there's a lot of math in here. And you and I are lawyers, and we all know lawyers aren't great at math. That's why we have our teams around us to do the math for us. What does it mean if we roll all of these millages forward to someone who owns a $100,000 home? All right, hold on. So on the East Bank, if your home is $100,000, and this is with the Homestead Exempt Residential, the annual increase would be $29.55. So your monthly increase would be $2. And this is actually the blown-up version. It looks like it's either $246 or $248. So, you know, it is an increase but a relatively small relative to overall. So is that just for the city-side millage or all of the millages being rolled forward? That would be this assumption is with all of the millages rolled forward. The proposed millages, I should say, will be very clear. Sure. Because it doesn't include the police. I'm sorry.

Councilmember Harris

It doesn't include the sheriff. It doesn't include the school board. But of the proposed millages, and look, I will continue to say, no, this is what I say. This is a menu of options. So, you know, it is about sort of what the public and the council and the administration all kind of decide together. Is it the millages are not rolled forward at all? Well, then, you know, we have to figure out what the reductions are based on $77 million. Is it that they are rolled forward to a degree? And then there's things that are at the top of the list. There's going to be a Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You know, we can all work together collectively to figure out what those are. And then if they're rolled forward, well, then, all the way, then what is the money that goes to outside agencies? What are the services they will perform for the city? And then what is the city's amount that it gets? And then as we work down the list, how do we structure it to be less lean? I do have the millage chart. I received this. I would hope that you all publish this somewhere so people can understand what the monthly amount would be, what the yearly amount would be if you have a $100,000 home, if you have a $250,000 home, if you have a commercial property, if you don't have a homestead exemption. I think that's where the confusion comes in with the millage roll forward, that people just don't understand practically what the numbers are. And we can tell our constituents, but I certainly hope the administration does too. Yeah, I mean, we're more than happy to publish this. And, again, Councilmember, the other thing too, I said it, but I'll say it again. This is not millage rates or numbers that the administration or the council said. These are millages that voters approved and put on themselves. So when we talk about the fairness or the unfairness of it, this is part of what a democracy is. The other piece too is trying to break down the math as easily as possible, and then also presentable. I think what we would do is try to see – I know that you have this, I have this, and other councilmembers have it. Obviously, we're happy to share it – is publication purpose, see if we can simplify it even more. That's always something that I know the mayor is interested in, as are we. But, yeah, there's – look, you're not going to slide this by people without talking about it. And so we understand that there has to be a lot of conversation around it, both in level setting about the fact that the millages haven't been completely rolled forward in almost 20 years now, since 2015. You also have to say, you know, these are sort of the expenses that we have. And then also, obviously, probably as much importantly to everybody as the point Councilmember Hughes and you're raising, how does it affect me? Yeah. I mean, again, I think that the conversation has been very scary to people. People are saying the millages are going to roll forward, but there's no math behind it showing that, OK, it's only going to be $29 or $2.45 a month. Yeah. And I think that's more palatable when people understand the impact on them. I thank you and your team for continuing to work on this and look forward to a month of budget hearings. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Harris.

Councilmember Green

So now the fact that we can all discuss how it happened, whether it should happen, that's not my job. I'm not on the political end of operations anymore. But on the economic standpoint, the other clerks pay this and at least in the greater New Orleans area where we studied this, New Orleans would then be the outlier by continuing to pay costs for criminal clerk employees. Okay. Thank you for that explanation. And finally, the sheriff's office, a $58 million expenditure incurred by the citizens of the city of New Orleans to maintain and to operate a facility in which all of those who are incarcerated are incarcerated on state charges. The city of New Orleans also spent $100 plus million on a third phase, despite the fact that at the end of the day, it was kind of mandated for us to do. Can you talk for a second about options that might be available relative to funding of the sheriff's office and what we can do to facilitate the taxpayers of New Orleans having to pay less for the operation and maintenance of a facility that once again houses those who have been charged with state offenses? Yeah. So let me start with this. I believe very strongly that when federal judges have ruled on things, that it would be foolish, I'm going to use the word foolish, to usurp their authority. And so we did not touch the sheriff's budget as a result of the fact that we are under a consent decree and obligated to pay for those expenses. Again, council member, I have deep and abiding respect for the sheriff, both personally and professionally, but that is part of what we're talking about with the outside agencies of roughly $100 million that the city is obligated to pay. And again, not to beat a dead horse, but if the city was not bearing just those obligations, let's just say the $98 million, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I can't put it any simpler than that. The gap is $99 million and the payments to outside agencies is $98 million. But the reality is because of laws, because of ongoing contests, is that so, you know, I know the sheriff. I'll let her speak, obviously, when she comes before the council. I think it's in mid to late October, but, you know, having to decide other revenue sources that are potentially available to OPSO in order to raise those funds. Yes, and I also respect the role of the sheriff's office. I understand it. It's frustrating that we have $99 million in expenditures that we are required because of state law to assume. The sheriff's office, Sheriff Woodfolk is elected and she does the work that she has to do. But we can't ignore the annual obligation of $60 million to local taxpayers paid strictly by local taxpayers because there is a per diem paid by the state, for example, to the sheriff's office. But these are expenditures that include health coverage and other expenditures. And look, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. There is a law, but I think that it needs to be discussed because people ask me and they have a legitimate reason to ask me what role we play as a parish in a facility that houses persons who are charged with state charges. Do we have any influence in that area? And unfortunately, in many respects, we do not. Yeah, and look, Councilmember, again, I'm certainly not trying to rub salt in the wound, but the costs that we pay for personnel and operating is one expense. There's also the additional expense of the health care contract, which is over $20 million. So you have to add that on as part of the extra as well. Look, the other piece, too, is I know both Sheriff Hudson and Sheriff Woodford have more inmates than what the bed cap is. The bed cap is $1,250, and not because it's their fault, but because of delays in the system, they have more people than they should. I've recently asked Abby and her team to start looking at if we start reducing and get closer to that bed cap or below that bed cap, what does that look like? Because I have to imagine having fewer people in the jail would mean fewer people who are needed to guard them, less operational needs, all the things we're supposed to do. But that requires our other partners in the criminal justice system to help out with that, too. But let's make one thing clear, Mr. CAO, before someone misinterprets what you said. You've not said that you would like to see a widespread release of those who are incarcerated. Oh, no. I'm not saying that. No, I want to make that clear, because then the social media is going to go crazy. But at the end of the day, you're saying that we need to look at the savings that could result if, for example, the state took on its obligation as it should and transferred to the Department of Corrections in a timely manner those who have been convicted of crimes. Yeah. Well, that's right. There's just like, there's a couple different parts to it. First of all, obviously, people who are waiting to go to hearing, who are serious threats, that's the reason that there's a jail. With that said, if there are people who are DOC, that is, Department of Correction prisoners who ought to be in other state facilities and not in the jail, they should be moved out. Similarly, if there's somebody who's been in the jail, I'm just going to pick a random number and again, I don't want to misrepresent, but you've been there for six months and really had your case gone as a wait-and-see. and you should have been there only 30 days, then you've shaved off five months for them not being there.

Councilmember Green

I think that's really what I'm talking about, is making sure that all parts of the criminal justice system, let's be clear here, the police, the DA, the public defender, the judges, are making sure that things move appropriately, and not getting to an arbitrary number, but getting to a point where we look at things, sort of the point Councilmember Hughes was making about how we need greater coordination, how do we coordinate between all of those agencies in order to potentially save money by having people who shouldn't be in jail be there. The other thing, too, is obviously for those other prisoners, we pay their healthcare costs, you're paying for their sources. Again, having fewer people who don't need to be there, all right, let me say that, who don't need to be there, to your point, that also reduces the city's cost overall. Okay, I thank you, and I look forward to working with you over the next month. My concerns will continue to be the $100 million that we spend on outside agencies, some of which I think should fall under the state of Louisiana, but it doesn't have to be an adversarial process. I think that we can work with legislators, work with the governor to reduce some of those expenditures, understanding that New Orleans is in a special situation relative to a variety of factors, and at the end of the day, we can work, I think, together to recognize the reality of the situation that we're in now. So thank you again to you and to the mayor and for your teams for putting forth this challenging balanced budget, and I look forward to working with you. Thank you, Councilman.

Councilmember Willard

And, you know, are there, the mayor mentioned this as well, are there, you know, other groups who are interested in participating? I think some of that is going to look at, you know, DDD and FMC, particularly I think around issues with infrastructure and homelessness and others. Are there other groups that are similarly interested? So we are trying to look as many places as possible, Councilmember. Obviously, if half of that money gets resolved, that would be welcome, but also looking at other people who get sizable federal and who are contributing nothing to that portion. No, I get that and I get the theory, but these are people who are unhoused who have a place to lay their head right now in the Lowbarrier Shelter. And again, if that shelter shuts, then Councilmember King and I will be the ones getting the calls of please get these people off of my stoop, out of my business, et cetera, et cetera. And it's just really disheartening to think that this could be a reality. So I will work strenuously with you and the administration to try to find that money because we cannot have a non-operational Lowbarrier Shelter, especially given what the state is proposing with defunding permanent supportive housing. We look forward to working with the Council to find any and all solutions possible. I want to go to page 27. There's a miscellaneous category. What does that include? All right, so miscellaneous includes a number of different things. You can see at the bottom, Abby has included, it is partly service innovation, OPA. That's roughly six people who do the back office, I would say, both innovation work as well as cutting. So, for example, they're the team that monitors the overtime in the city, the overtime dashboard, the budget dashboard built by OPA and S&I. So they're small but mighty. Risk management is part of that. In addition to risk management being a part of that, as Brandy reminded me yesterday and she's right about, we also have in miscellaneous $7 million in health care costs for retirees that also sits in the miscellaneous category. The mayor's summer youth work program and NOLA youth works, I think she stressed this, that while there may be a reduction in youth force, NOLA, both her youth work program and the youth works are part of that. And then we have TIF tax increment financing that is paid out of miscellaneous as well. So it was always, when I was on the Council, it was always a source of what in the hell is in miscellaneous. So we wanted to make sure we identified as much as possible. Okay. Thank you for that. I want to turn to sanitation. I know that in the mayor's remarks, the remark was there's not going to be any cuts to sanitation services curbside, but there are indeed cuts here for Mardi Gras cleanup and post parade cleanup. Again, that impacts not only my district primarily, but also Council Member King's district and citywide, if we're looking at non-Mardi Gras parade cleanup, because there are second lines in all of our districts. Again, I think having those cuts will impact our communities. What do you say about that? I mean, look, I think the mayor said it well in summation at the end. If we had all the money or, you know, another $40 million or something, these would be a lot more palatable. But when you have a $99 million shortfall and only about another $21 million to make up, then you have to look at the things that you have and where you can make those cuts. And I will just tell you I've been through this list with Brandy, Abby, John many times. Like, the other ones are less palatable than this. And I know that may sound hard to believe, but when you get to things like not delivering core services, getting rid of certain things in the health department, otherwise getting rid of people who prevent West Nile, getting rid of police officers, getting rid of infrastructure, you just get bunched. And it's also why we included the slide about all the other obligations. Again, if we didn't have all those obligations, it would be a lot easier in order to take care of this. And again, this is all theory and we're going to dig into it, but I can't imagine having Mardi Gras, two weeks of parades, and then just living with all the trash and the beads and the fried chicken and the Popeyes out there on the route just not being cleaned up. Again, that calls to us, to Councilmember King, to me, to the other councilmembers, that something needs to happen. And I don't have a shovel and I don't have a sanitation team, so I think we need to take a hard look at really whether this is going to happen. And I understand, but I will continue to just reiterate, this is a reality that we have this budget deficit and that we don't have enough revenue in order to meet that deficit, and we will continue to work with the council. If there's other matters the council wants to cut and not raise revenue, then I am completely open. As I said, pretty much the only one in here that is untouchable for me is the mayor and my reduction next year. On the issue of raising revenue, you have your millage slides, and I think there's a lot of math in here. And you and I are lawyers, and we all know lawyers aren't great at math. That's why we have our teams around us to do the math for us. What does it mean if we roll all of these millages forward to someone who owns a $100,000 home? All right, hold on. So on the East Bank, if your home is $100,000, and this is with the Homestead Exempt Residential, the annual increase would be $29.55. So your monthly increase would be $2. And this is actually the blown-up version. It looks like it's either $246 or $248. So, you know, it is an increase but a relatively small relative to overall. So is that just for the city-side millage or all of the millages being rolled forward? That would be this assumption is with all of the millages rolled forward. The proposed millages, I should say, will be very clear. Sure. Because it doesn't include the police. I'm sorry.

Councilmember Willard

It doesn't include the sheriff. It doesn't include the school board. But of the proposed millages, and look, I will continue to say, no, this is what I say. This is a menu of options. So, you know, it is about sort of what the public and the council and the administration all kind of decide together. Is it the millages are not rolled forward at all? Well, then, you know, we have to figure out what the reductions are based on $77 million. Is it that they are rolled forward to a degree? And then there's things that are at the top of the list. There's going to be a Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You know, we can all work together collectively to figure out what those are. And then if they're rolled forward, well, then, all the way, then what is the money that goes to outside agencies? What are the services they will perform for the city? And then what is the city's amount that it gets? And then as we work down the list, how do we structure it to be less lean? I do have the millage chart. I received this. I would hope that you all publish this somewhere so people can understand what the monthly amount would be, what the yearly amount would be if you have a $100,000 home, if you have a $250,000 home, if you have a commercial property, if you don't have a homestead exemption. I think that's where the confusion comes in with the millage roll forward, that people just don't understand practically what the numbers are. And we can tell our constituents, but I certainly hope the administration does too. Yeah, I mean, we're more than happy to publish this. And, again, Councilmember, the other thing too, I said it, but I'll say it again. This is not millage rates or numbers that the administration or the council said. These are millages that voters approved and put on themselves. So when we talk about the fairness or the unfairness of it, this is part of what a democracy is. The other piece too is trying to break down the math as easily as possible, and then also presentable. I think what we would do is try to see – I know that you have this, I have this, and other councilmembers have it. Obviously, we're happy to share it – is publication purpose, see if we can simplify it even more. That's always something that I know the mayor is interested in, as are we. But, yeah, there's – look, you're not going to slide this by people without talking about it. And so we understand that there has to be a lot of conversation around it, both in level setting about the fact that the millages haven't been completely rolled forward in almost 20 years now, since 2015. You also have to say, you know, these are sort of the expenses that we have. And then also, obviously, probably as much importantly to everybody as the point Councilmember Hughes and you're raising, how does it affect me? Yeah. I mean, again, I think that the conversation has been very scary to people. People are saying the millages are going to roll forward, but there's no math behind it showing that, OK, it's only going to be $29 or $2.45 a month. Yeah. And I think that's more palatable when people understand the impact on them. I thank you and your team for continuing to work on this and look forward to a month of budget hearings. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Green.