Meetings.

Meeting summary

No formal votes or decisions are recorded in either excerpt.

Overall context

• Public comments focused on Department of Sanitation funding, staffing, and related operational issues amid budget planning.
• No formal decisions or votes are recorded in this excerpt.
• Recurring themes: opposition to an proposed $8 sanitation fee increase and potential layoffs; calls for accountability, more funding for workers, PPE, and enforcement; scrutiny of contracts/price allocations (notably private collection services); and better funding for Mardi Gras cleanup and related services.
• Noted a duplicate block: the first speaker’s remarks appear twice, suggesting a possible duplicate entry.
• End note: Magali Ortiz’s remarks cut off mid-sentence (“protect these essential…”), transcript incomplete at that point.

Speakers and key points — 1) Mr. Newman

• Opposed the proposed $8 sanitation fee increase and layoffs.
• Said sanitation workers are underpaid and under-recognized; urged affordable options for seniors.
• Called for scrutiny of private contract payments (contract services, IV4, other contractors) and transparency on what is being paid.
• Pointed out 13,000 unoccupied properties being charged for collection services; called for investigation.
• Advocated for a collective bargaining approach and coordination with sanitation; suggested taxing hotels more due to profits from events like Mardi Gras and the Essence Festival.

2) Derek Ridgely (sanitation department supervisor)

• Supported concerns about job cuts and layoffs.
• Highlighted Mardi Gras cleanup and the need to protect workers who would be on video during events and cleanup aftermath.
• Cited Ida (2011) experience to emphasize faster cleanup when staffing is available.
• Emphasized risk to ongoing operations and storm response with reduced staffing.

3) Michael Caulfield

• Concerned with preserving the custodial/sanitation workforce to prevent increased trash and rodent issues.
• Argued that weakening the department would create larger city-wide problems.

4) Jordan Bridges

• Spoke as an organizer with the Worker's Center; acknowledged Mardi Gras cleanup work.
• Highlighted systemic issues beyond cleanup, including workers not paid promptly (e.g., six weeks after Mardi Gras) and the need to enforce living wage laws.
• Called for better worker protections, PPE, signage, timely pay, and enforcement of wage standards and city processes affecting workers.

5) Tyreen Buck

• Mardi Gras cleanup worker who did not get paid for six weeks after cleanup.
• Sought fair compensation and working conditions enabling continued city event support and cleanliness.

6) Zarul Thomas

• Sanitation worker/ranger who emphasized broader duties (enforcement, investigations, adjudications beyond street cleaning).
• Argued that budget cuts or layoffs would threaten enforcement against illegal dumping and neighborhood safety.
• Requested protection of the sanitation workforce and reconsideration of cuts.

7) Morgan Clevenger

• Thanked sanitation workers and questioned the perceived severity of the proposed fee.
• Sought clarity on overpayments to ghost addresses and non-serviced recycling addresses.
• Highlighted Mardi Gras visitors and revenue; argued against overburdening taxpayers or frontline workers.
• Referenced budget line items like the strike force and equipment funding; urged close review of these expenses.

8) Magali Ortiz (New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice)

• Acknowledged Mardi Gras cleanup importance and hard work.
• Reported investigations into working conditions during cleanup; called for improvements to worker protections against hazards (dust, broken glass, etc.).

Unresolved issues / notable themes from the excerpt

• Funding/governance: The $8 sanitation fee increase and potential layoffs remain unresolved; no votes or decisions documented.
• Contract oversight: Calls to scrutinize private collection contracts (IV4 and others), potential overpayments to non-serviced or ghost addresses, and overall contract pricing.
• Revenue vs. burden: Debate over who should bear costs (hotels/event revenue vs. taxpayers) and how Mardi Gras/Essence Festival revenues factor into sanitation funding.
• Worker protections and wages: Emphasis on living-wage enforcement, CPI adjustments, timely pay, PPE, signage, onboarding, and payment throughput.
• Enforcement capacity: Concerns that staffing/funding reductions could weaken enforcement against illegal dumping and affect neighborhood health and safety.
• Operational impact: Worries about service quality during events, storms, and normal operations if staffing is reduced or funding constrained.

Notes

• End of Magali Ortiz’s remarks is incomplete in this excerpt.

Context

• Meeting excerpts focus on proposed budget cuts to Mardi Gras cleanup and sanitation staffing, with concerns about worker pay, living-wage compliance, and impacts on cleaning operations.
• The Office of the Workforce Development would oversee related workforce issues.
• Speakers stress Mardi Gras generates substantial waste (cited figure: 1,364 tons) and that cuts could reduce staffing, pay, or privatize work with unclear benefits.

Speakers and main points — Unnamed representative from the Workers’ Center (first speaker)

• Praised ongoing conversations with the Department of Sanitation, PPE improvements, and listening to concerns (citing Mr. Torrey).
• Accused underpayment and late payment to workers; claimed violations of city/state law; called for corrective actions via the Office of the Workforce Development.
• Supported not cutting Mardi Gras cleanup; if cuts are unavoidable, urged protection for workers and adoption of the center’s hiring/operational recommendations.
• Emphasized Mardi Gras cleanup scale: 1,364 tons of waste; urged planning for ongoing waste levels.

Y. Frank Southall (Jane Place, organizing communications manager)

• Expressed solidarity with workers; not part of a labor organization but focused on housing rights intersecting with labor rights.
• Noted seasonal workers must be paid on time to avoid eviction issues; on-time pay as a priority.
• Criticized policies shifting costs to second-line crews or “black cultural bearers,” suggesting some crew members can absorb higher costs, but majority concerns are about timely, fair pay.
• Urged on-time pay and addressing wage/payment issues; called for broader protections for workers beyond the budget discussion.

Alfred Taylor

• Sanitation worker sharing personal hardship (cannot afford to live in the city; needs a second job).
• Argued numbers don’t reflect on-the-ground realities; described a Sunday crew of six; questioned why funding would be cut given the small but essential team.
• Warned that cuts would lead to reduced cleanliness and “stinking” city; claimed workers currently exceed expectations (75% more vs. 150%); asked the Council to maintain funding to sustain service levels.

Jamal Otis (Local 2349, City of New Orleans Government Employees)

• Representing city employees; urged against adopting the proposed budget.
• Claimed union/workers were not involved in budgeting; department already short-staffed (e.g., six on a Sunday).
• Warned that a proposed 55% cut would hinder the department’s ability to respond and could cause urgent problems.
• Reported workers anticipated Mardi Gras overtime and warned of potential walkout if cuts proceed; called for reconsideration and to avoid placing the burden on workers.

Decisions, votes, and actions

• No decisions or votes recorded in the provided excerpts.

Actions requested by speakers

• Adopt the Workers’ Center recommendations if cuts cannot be avoided.
• Ensure on-time pay and address wage/living-wage concerns.
• Avoid privatization of cleanup or otherwise safeguard worker conditions.
• Reconsider proposed budget cuts and involve labor groups in budgeting processes.

Unresolved issues presented

• Whether the city will proceed with proposed budget cuts to Mardi Gras cleanup and sanitation staffing.
• How to address wage issues (late payments, living-wage compliance) and whether corrective actions have been or will be implemented.
• How to implement staffing plans that avoid reduced service quality, potential privatization, or unfair burdens on specific worker groups.
• What concrete steps the council will take to incorporate speakers’ recommendations and ensure worker protections while managing budget constraints.

Notable data points mentioned

• Mardi Gras cleanup produced 1,364 tons of waste in the cited cycle.
• References to small on-site staffing levels (e.g., six workers on a Sunday) to illustrate potential impacts of cuts.

Overall takeaways

• Across both excerpts, the central concerns are protecting sanitation workers, ensuring fair pay and timely wages, scrutinizing contractor costs, and funding sanitation operations to maintain city cleanliness during high-demand periods (notably Mardi Gras). No formal decisions or votes are documented in these excerpts; multiple speakers urge adopting workers’ center recommendations or preserving staffing and protections, while more details on how to reconcile revenue, costs, and budgets remain unresolved in the transcripts.

Opening segment: Eagle Scout recognition

• Event: Evan received Eagle Scout recognition; remarks highlighted leadership, service, and his bead-recycling project for St. Michael Special School.
• Speakers/roles: City officials praised Evan; family and Scout leaders acknowledged support; a proclamation and photo opportunity were planned.
• Outcome: Evan spoke about what Eagle Scout means to him; no votes or policy decisions occurred in this segment.

Transition to public business

• The meeting moved into the Board of Review for property tax appeals.
• The contracting firm Hammerman and Gaynor HGI (with team members) was introduced and described as handling the open rolls appeals.

Board of Review for property tax appeals – HGI presentation

• Presenters: Lou Ressweber (CEO, HGI), Dylan Truax (VP), Andrew Buechler (attorney), Arthur Laughlin (public official with real estate experience).
• Process overview: HGI manages the open appeals phase after the Assessor’s initial determinations; hearings are public; HGI reviews appraisals, comparables, photos, and owner documentation, then makes a recommendation to the Board of Review (City Council). The Board makes the final decision; there is a possible path to the Louisiana Tax Commission on appeal.
• Scope/metrics: This year, HGI reviewed 531 files (compared to 760 in 2026, 608 in 2023).

Outcomes/findings

• HGI hearing officers agreed with the Assessor on 238 of 531 cases (about 44.5%).
• 15 personal-property claims would see no change from the Assessor’s initial assessment.
• Valuation in HGI source files: $87.5 million; HGI recommended $70.5 million (≈$17 million differential). Year-to-year differential ~11.8%.
• 41 properties identified as “questioned” or problematic; HGI invited a meeting with the Assessor; Assessor Williams agreed to meet. 12 Assessor staff were present at Delgado hearings.
• One property drove roughly 25% of the differential due to a procedural error (owner not notified within 30 days of the open rolls period); remedy suggested: revert to prior assessment.
• Proposed Board action: Recommend approving the full 531 appeals, minus the ~41 with outstanding questions; indicate willingness to discuss the 41 with the Assessor; note possible recap to the Louisiana Tax Commission if needed.
• Public input: Tiffany Pounds (Housing NOLA) urged action on inequitable assessments affecting seniors and disabled homeowners; requested:
• 1) correction of 2027 assessments for overcharged seniors/disabled homeowners,
• 2) applying the lower of frozen assessment or current assessed value (freeze as a ceiling),
• 3) a special extended appeals process for those not properly informed,
• 4) a permanent legislative solution for protections.
• Staff/legal response: Ms. Becknell cited state law (Louisiana Revised Statutes 47-1992) as the framework; acknowledged concerns but stressed the framework is defined by statute and charter procedures.

Unresolved issues/next steps

• Final decision on the 531 appeals has not been made; plan is to approve 531 minus the 41 with questions and to continue discussions with the Assessor about those 41.
• A meeting with Assessor Williams is being pursued.
• Housing NOLA policy concerns point to potential legislative changes; not resolved within this meeting.
• Some issues are governed by state law; changes would require state statutes and city charter alignment.

Notes on speakers and roles

• Eagle Scout segment: Evan; remarks from city officials and family.
• Property tax appeals segment: Lou Ressweber, Dylan Truax, Andrew Buechler, Arthur Laughlin; Ms. McCarron was noted as an expected recognition; Tiffany Pounds spoke publicly; Ms. Becknell provided legal framework context.

Meeting purpose and process (concise restatement)

• Purpose: Explain the tax assessment appeal process, deadlines, Board of Review/City Council roles, eligibility for relief (including seniors on age freezes), and potential process improvements and related questions affecting homeowners and Housing NOLA.

Key legal framework and deadlines

• State-law-based appeals process; public hearings required.
• Hearing requests must be filed within three business days after assessor exposes lists; in this meeting, the deadline expired August 20, 2026.
• City Council cannot amend state-law processes.

Council role/limitations

• Council cannot file hearing requests on behalf of taxpayers (deadlines passed; Council not a taxpayer/representative).
• No authority to challenge entire assessments in a single case; relief can come only through proper appeals and final Board of Review recommendations.
• Council cannot grant retroactive refunds; relief applies going forward after appeals.
• If homeowners file timely appeals, relief can be granted going forward; absent appeals, Council cannot intervene.

What could help homeowners

• Better education and timely notification when rolls open.
• Housing NOLA and others could direct people to file appeals; Council cannot act as an appeals court for individual cases outside the established process.

Retroactive relief

• The Council cannot retroactively refund money; any promised refunds outside the appeals process would be outside Council authority.

Process/representation

• Board of Review represents the City Council in final decisions; Council reviews Board of Review recommendations.
• Homeowners must file appeals themselves or via authorized representatives.

Illustrative attendee questions

• Why some apartment complexes receive an appeal due to vacancies—the value drivers and how vacancies influence assessment are complex and sought clarification on.

Conflict-of-interest note

• A potential conflict related to a professional who previously worked for the assessor’s office/Louisiana Tax Commission was addressed; the individual did not participate in affected properties.

Legislative reform call

• Advocates urged legislative reform via state statute; changes at the local level are insufficient.

Scope/numbers (context)

• Tens of thousands of properties exist; around 500 filed appeals; many did not.
• Emphasis on homeowner education about the process and filing appeals.

HDI report discussion (concise restatement)

• Context: City Council discussion on the HDI report about property assessments and how income-producing properties (multifamily) are valued; concerns about information from owners/landlords and potential conflicts of interest.

Valuation approaches

• Sales approach for single-family and simple cases.
• Income approach emphasized for multifamily properties (5+ units): uses rent rolls, operating expenses, property taxes, and NOI.
• Cost approach noted as less relevant for income-producing multifamily valuations.

Process observations

• For income properties, income approach is most relevant; appellants provide rent rolls/expenses; assessor’s office documentation noted; conclusions based on inputs.
• Oath/verification concern raised about whether landlord data is verifiable; response: data treated at face value for hearing recommendations.

Integrity/accountability concerns

• Council Member Gannon questioned integrity, fairness, accountability, and potential conflicts of interest.
• Acknowledgment that not all properties on a list had the same representative; some residential properties listed without a single representative clearly connected.

Decisions and votes

• Primary motion: Councilmember Green moved to adopt a change to the exhibit (modification) after Councilmember Caron’s motion.
• Vote: 7 in favor, 0 against. Outcome: HDI report/exhibit modified to show no change for 41 unique properties mentioned in the report and Assessor Williams’ October 8, 2026 letter. Exhibit in Resolution 26-1 amended accordingly.
• Secondary motion: Councilmember Caron moved to certify the related resolution to the Louisiana Tax Commission (with Green as the seconder).
• Vote: 7 in favor, 0 against.

Process/communication commitments

• Emphasis on improved communication between the Assessor’s Office, the City, and advocates.
• Encouragement to participate in the 2027 assessment appeal window; expansion of online appeals and extended open dates.

Speakers

• Council Members: Gannon (integrity questions), Caron (motion to modify), Green (seconding motion and supporting amendment), Hughes (adjournment and R2 certification mention).
• Assessor’s Office noted as present; landlords/appellants discussed; advocates referenced.

Unresolved issues/open questions

• Verification remains an issue; no new verification mechanism established.
• List of properties and varying involvement raises questions about reconciliation in future proceedings.
• While commitments to better communication were made, no concrete timelines were given.
• Next steps include possible further appeals to the Tax Commission for unresolved items and continued advocacy for process improvements and broader reforms.

Overall takeaway

• The Eagle Scout segment produced no policy decisions.
• The property tax appeals discussion (HGI segment) led to a plan to approve the 531 appeals minus the 41 with outstanding questions, with further discussion with the Assessor; a meeting with the Assessor Williams was planned.
• The HDI/investment-valuation discussion produced two formal council votes approving adjustments to the exhibit and certifying a resolution to the Louisiana Tax Commission (both by 7-0). It also produced ongoing commitments to improve transparency, data integrity, and public guidance for the 2027 appeal window.
• Common unresolved themes across segments: final decisions on the 41 questioned properties; state-law constraints on local changes; need for improved homeowner education and outreach; and consideration of legislative reforms to address protections for seniors and disabled homeowners.

Meeting basics

• Title: Civil Service Commission Meeting
• Date: 2026-10-09
• Start: 11:22 AM; Duration: 49 minutes
• Executive session: Exited; no public action noted

Actions, votes, and decisions (with speakers when clear)

• Executive session exit: Motion to return from executive session carried.
• September 9 minutes: Approved; at least one commissioner abstained; abstention noted.
• PIB extension: Approved.

Item 3A – Classification and compensation (fire department, dual assignment special rate)

• Proposal: Lower minimum eligibility from 12 hours to 1 hour to allow partial shift eligibility for higher-level duties.
• Recusal: Commissioner Monteverdi recused.
• Public comment: John Gallagher (New Orleans Firefighters Association, Local 632) spoke in support and asked about earliest possible effective date (possible as of commission approval; could be today).
• Commission action: Motion to approve; second; all in favor (Monteverdi recused); amendment approved.

Item 3B – Classification and compensation (fire department, new acting pay for higher classifications)

• Proposal: Two new acting-pay rates:
• 5% for firefighters with driving responsibilities or acting as fire apparatus operator (not meeting all minimum qualifications)
• 7.5% for firefighters and apparatus operators acting as fire captains (not meeting all minimum qualifications)
• Effective date: Proposed as the day of commission approval; wording to be forwarded to City Council.
• Status: No final vote recorded; discussion continued.
• Key points raised:
• Staff (Rob) indicated language unchanged from last meeting.
• Local 632 urged deferral pending Rule 5.2 implications and potential court rulings on whether firefighters can be compelled to perform higher-class duties.
• Debate over whether this is a dual assignment (Rule 5.2) or a separate acting-pay mechanism; questions about liability and discipline if unqualified employees perform higher-class duties.
• Concerns about court rulings potentially overturning the underlying premise and the impact on pay and discipline.
• Unresolved issues (discussed): Whether to defer pending court determinations; proper characterization of the pay scheme; exact effective date and codification; budgetary and disciplinary implications; interaction with Civil Service Rules.
• Next steps: Union signaled intent to pursue deferral; staff indicated that, if approved, the item would go to City Council for appropriate wording. No final vote in provided material.

Item 4A – Recruitment and Selection (Examination Announcements 11631–11662)

• Action: Approved; all in favor; no abstentions.

Item 5 – Disciplinary Training for City Leadership

• Action: Informational update; no formal vote.
• Content: Training on discipline as a management tool, performance improvement plans (PIPs), progressive discipline, due process, documentation, and fairness; speakers included trainers and department representatives.

Speakers and participants noted (aggregate)

• John Gallagher (Local 632) – spoke on 3A; commented on 3B implications
• Rob/Robert (staff) – presented 3B details
• Commissioner Monteverdi – recused from 3A; engaged in discussion on Rule 5.2
• Commissioner Donna – referenced Rule 5.2 in discussion
• Amy / Amy’s staff – organized/trained for disciplinary training; participants noted
• William Gove (public speaker) and William Goforth (Law Department) – referenced in related disciplinary discussions
• Christy, Matt Torrey (Sanitation), and others referenced in training context
• Pierre case – referenced to illustrate past disciplinary actions and processes

Unresolved issues and key questions — For 3B

• Should the item be deferred pending court decisions on Rule 5.2 and whether firefighters can be compelled to act in higher classifications?
• Is the proposed pay correctly characterized as a special acting-pay (not a dual assignment), and how would it interact with Rule 5.2 if court rulings change interpretations?
• If approved, what is the exact effective date and how will it be codified in council wording and budget?
• What are the budgetary, disciplinary, and risk-management implications if unqualified personnel act in higher classifications?

Administrative items (4A, 5)

• Pay/out-of-class considerations referenced by the pay proposal and comparable rules remain a broader policy question; potential deferral pending employee input or policy analysis.
• Pierre case and related disciplinary practices continue to frame discussions about fairness and due process.

Training

• How to extend the training to all levels (investigators, disciplinary committees) and across departments with varying regulatory frameworks (police, fire).
• Whether to incorporate restorative disciplinary practices; how to tailor content for departments with more complex rules.

Next steps

• For 3B: Possible deferment pending court rulings; if moving forward, prepare City Council wording and address budgetary/disciplinary implications.
• For 4A and 5: Continue administrative follow-up; consider expanding training and tailoring content for different departments.
• Overall: The meeting concluded with adjournment after the disciplinary training session; ongoing policy questions regarding out-of-class pay and dual assignments remain unresolved.

Bottom line highlights

• Executive session exited; 9/9 minutes and PIB extension approved.
• 3A approved (Monteverdi recused); 3B discussed with deferral considerations and no final vote in this material.
• 4A approved; 5 informational.
• Training program on discipline received strong positive feedback; adjournment recorded with plans for possible broader rollout and enhancements.

Overall context — The material covers multiple related items across budget hearings and governance topics, including

• 2027 Proposed Budget Hearings – Day 4 (neighborhood engagement/IGR and related offices)
• Airport budget/status discussion (Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport)
• Blight, notices, contracting, property rights, and related governance issues
• Municipal/Judicial budget items, including community court and court technology (OC R)
• Votes: formal votes are sparse; one explicit adjournment vote (unanimous). Most sections note questions, discussions, and next steps rather than official decisions.

Segment A/B: Neighborhood Engagement and IGR staffing, budget questions, and airport overview (combined in several excerpts) — Presenters and speakers

• Neighborhood Engagement and IGR components discussed; speakers included councilmembers Harris, McCarran, Willard, Green; staff noted include Angel Wilson, Oliver Fletcher; Loretta at front desk; Sophia Landry; IGR staff (Chuck Toney praised for process improvements).
• Airport segment presented by airport leadership (see Airport section below).

Key issues and discussions

• Staffing and structure:
• Current: neighborhood engagement team described as needing more dedicated staff per district; desire to return to a district-level engagement model similar to prior administrations.
• IGR budget line described as having 8 FTEs, with a request to verify exactly who is included and how they’re coded; need for updated org chart showing IGR vs other areas.
• Budget and codes:
• Questions about the 2027 budget’s staffing totals (8 FTEs) and how items are coded; requests to publish a complete roster and updated org chart.
• Request to verify which roles (including front-desk/administrative staff) fall under IGR.
• Actions proposed:
• IGR/administration to verify the exact roster in the 2027 IGR budget (which people, their codes, district allocations).
• Publish an updated org chart showing positions by area and budget codes.
• Consider restoring or expanding district-level neighborhood engagement staff, as resources allow.

Unresolved items

• Whether and how many additional neighborhood engagement staff will be funded; exact district-level assignments; final IGR budget composition and codes.
• Clarification of 2026 budget total vs. the 2026 budget book figures; exact department codes for 2026.

Airport status (brief in this segment)

• 2026 accomplishments and 2027 budget direction were presented; questions about the exact 2027 budgeted positions and how they map to IGR/airport budgets; need for an updated org chart and a list of personnel in the 8 FTEs cited.

Airport budget presentation (Louis Armstrong International Airport) — key items — Presenters

• Kevin D’Olio (Director of Aviation)
• Erin Burns (Deputy Director for Communications and Customer Experience)
• Walter Krajewski (Deputy Director for Operations and Maintenance)
• Norman White (Deputy Director of Finance and Administration, CFO)
• Michelle Allenhart (Deputy Director for Legal Affairs and General Counsel)
• Philistine Ferrand (Deputy for Community Engagement and Compliance)

2026 accomplishments/status

• East Apron expansion: ~75% complete; more aircraft parking available.
• Express Shuttle Connector Road (Phase One, north): 100% complete; shuttle traffic moved off public roadway.
• Baggage handling system expansion and inspection station expansion: goals met.
• Overflow parking: ~50% complete; delays due to bid/re-bid; expected completion in Q2 2027.
• Runway project: on schedule; expected completion in November.
• Staffing costs: maintained at reasonable levels relative to airlines.

2027 budget and staffing (high level)

• Budgeted FTEs for 2027: ~27.5 FTEs, a reduction of 43 FTEs from the current year.
• Specific allocations and exact positions per office to be clarified; requests to confirm which positions are in the 27 and how many are in IGR/airport budget lines.
• Action requested: verify exact personnel in the 27 FTEs and ensure proper budget coding; update org chart accordingly.

2026–27 operations and market context

• Service mix and traffic impacts from Spirit Airlines’ exit discussed; Frontier, Breeze, and Avelo dynamics noted.
• SLDBE participation reported at ~58.29% against a 35% goal.

Notable questions/needs

• Clarify which positions are included in the 27 FTEs and their codes; provide an updated org chart.
• Address the Spirit exit’s ongoing impact on traffic and route planning.

Unresolved items

• Final 2027 budget composition and exact FTE allocation; how many positions fall under which department/office.

Notable speakers named (airport segment)

• Kevin D’Olio; Erin Burns; Walter Krajewski; Norman White; Michelle Allenhart; Philistine Ferrand.
• Council Member Murrell participated in questions.

Bottom-line from airport section

• Projects are progressing; SLDBE results strong; budget increase about 3.7% driven by salary/benefits, healthcare, and inflation-related costs.
• Governance and transparency issues about subcommittees were raised; no votes recorded in the material; emphasis on board meetings as the public discussion venue.
• Next steps include finalizing budget details, completing org-chart alignment, and addressing Spirit’s market impact.

Segment C: Blight, notices, contracting, property rights, and governance — Core issues discussed

• Committee structure and transparency:
• Arguments that committee discussions followed by votes do not constitute “full consideration”; advocates for restoring or strengthening a committee structure so the public can ask questions between committee discussion and board action.
• Concerns about DBE participation and ensuring broader public access to contracting discussions; preference for public questions and transparency.
• Old terminal project and airline-partner consultation:
• Questions about whether airline partners were consulted before announcements about the old terminal; plan to have senior deputy address and bring Latifa Harris for clarification.
• Property blight, notices, and enforcement:
• Emphasizes due process for property owners; two options for blight action: emergency demolition or demolition orders via hearings.
• Liens and notices can apply even if owners are not present; enforcement capacity seen as constrained (staffing shortages, resource limits).
• Broader redevelopment and affordable housing linkage via adjudicated properties and redevelopment planning.
• Succession and heirs:
• Difficulties when properties pass to heirs years after events (e.g., Katrina), highlighting need for proper notices and involvement of heirs to enable stewardship or remediation.
• Cross-department coordination:
• Ongoing work across Code Enforcement, Safety and Permits, City Attorney; need more resources for lien foreclosures, record-keeping, demolition actions.
• Abatement is not a sole solution; multiple tools and strategies needed.

Actions proposed or discussed

• Restore or strengthen a committee structure to allow public questions between committee discussions and board votes.
• Have the senior chief deputy address the old terminal issue and bring Latifa Harris for clarification.
• Increase resources for lien foreclosures, record-keeping, and demolition actions; budget implications noted.
• Explore state-law changes and cross-department coordination to leverage property for redevelopment and affordable housing.
• Improve notices to heirs and succession processes to enable engagement and redevelopment opportunities.

Unresolved issues

• Exact implementation details for re-establishing committees, schedules, and public access.
• Whether to proceed with old terminal plans; how airline-partner consultation occurred.
• Formal list of contracts older than six years and related procurement action.
• Specific budgetary steps and legislation needed to scale up lien foreclosures, adjudicated properties, and demolition capacity.

Notable names mentioned

• Mr. Williams (new airport board chairman)
• Latifa Harris (chief deputy)
• Gwyneth (speaker)
• Council Member Morrell (contextual references)

Segment D: Additional items from the later portion of the material (blight, municipal/traffic court, and public input) — Blight and public process (Segment A of the excerpt)

• Council Member Green discussed notice for foreclosures, the cost of blight, balancing private property rights with state collaboration, and the potential to internalize work currently done by CivicSource or outside contractors.
• Emphasis on strengthening city attorney capacity and considering in-house alternatives; noted progress in Public Works.
• Next steps implied: explore state collaboration, internal capacity enhancements, and continued blight remediation work.

Municipal/Traffic Court budget and community court (Segment B of the excerpt)

• Judges and council members discussed staffing pressures (loss of two positions due to state legislation; increasing filings; transfer of state misdemeanors to municipal court).
• OC R (court technology/processing) progress reported as near completion; beta testing underway; rollout planned early next year.
• Funding needs: vacancies to fill (several positions open for three years), an IT position pending Supreme Court guidance.
• Community Court: funded by a grant (~$300k) plus Judicial Expense Fund support; grant status uncertain and may not continue; risks to program continuity if grant ends; potential expansion to address new state laws concerning sleeping outdoors.
• Housing/health code adjudication noted; municipal court can adjudicate violations without seizing property; cases typically heard within ~60 days.

Actions proposed/ongoing

• Seek funding to fill vacancies, including IT; monitor OC R rollout; notify council on grant expiration and potential city funding if needed.
• Coordinate with blight initiatives to connect community court with blight efforts.

Unresolved issues

• Grant expiration timing for community court and whether city funds will be available if grant ends.
• Exact list and funding levels of the positions to be approved.
• Final role and funding mechanism for community court if the grant ends.
• Integration of OC R with operations (any remaining barriers, such as satellite office integration).

Segment E: Public comments and closing notes — Closing remarks and adjournment

• An unnamed speaker thanked judges for their work on community court, discussed blight accountability, and mentioned long-time staff retirement; adjournment motion made by the speaker, seconded by Council Member Green; unanimous Aye vote to adjourn.
• Mention of “day five” in the budget process, signaling another busy session to come.

Public comment (Lance Stewart case)

• Bob Maynard spoke on behalf of the Stewart family about Lance Stewart, who suffered a severe brain injury after a city vehicle struck him in a school zone; settlement details noted (final settlement in 2006: $4 million total; $3.6 million to Lance, $400k to mother for loss of consortium); city reportedly required relinquishment of eight years of interest and to pay within 30 days with interest thereafter.

Unresolved/ follow-up points

• Blight enforcement mechanisms and timelines for state collaboration.
• Budget process details and upcoming Day Five actions.
• General policy actions and concrete steps for accountability and blight remediation beyond what was discussed.

Notable names and roles cited across excerpts

• City leadership and staff: Mayor’s Office, IGR, Communications, Community and Neighborhood Engagement, Office of Population and Demographics (Chris Ard named for future presentation), Ava Hurst (ADA coordinator).
• Airport leadership: Kevin D’Olio, Erin Burns, Walter Krajewski, Norman White, Michelle Allenhart, Philistine Ferrand; Board leadership including Mr. Williams (new airport board chair) and Latifa Harris (chief deputy) referenced in governance discussion.
• Councilmembers and public: Harris, McCarran, Willard, Green, Morrell; public speakers including Lance Stewart’s representative; others offering support or concerns about staffing, transparency, and blight.

Bottom-line takeaways

• No broad, formal votes were documented in most sections; the material focuses on questions, budget direction, staffing plans, project progress, and governance issues.
• Key ongoing themes: restoring or expanding district-level neighborhood engagement staffing; clarifying IGR and airport budget codes and org charts; continuing progress on major airport capital projects; improving transparency and public access to contracting and governance discussions; ensuring continuity of critical programs (notably community court) amid grant uncertainties.
• Next steps repeatedly cited across sections include publishing updated rosters and org charts, confirming 2026/2027 budget codes and FTEs, presenting Office of Population and Demographics details on Oct 20, and monitoring grant status for community court.

1) Breast Cancer Awareness Day segment (public meeting portion focused on Breast Cancer Awareness Month) — Setting and purpose

• City Council meeting focused on the 13th annual Breast Cancer Awareness Day; special orders of business included the presentation and recognition related to Breast Cancer Awareness Day.

Attendance and formalities

• Five council members were present (quorum established). Invocation delivered by Pastor Jocelyn Washington. Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice President Cynthia Willard Lewis.

Panel and speakers

• Panelists named for the event include: Dr. Denise Rubion Johnson; Dr. Lacey L. Tillman; Dr. Michelle Marie Loesch; Dr. Sean McKenna; Melissa Bean Tanner.
• Additional honorees and panelists are referenced in the text but some names are garbled; the document notes that exact names beyond broad categories are not reliably restated.

Panel format

• Panelists were allotted approximately two minutes each to speak; a ten-minute clock was set by the clerk.

Opening remarks and themes

• Councilmember Harris delivered opening remarks, emphasizing the purpose of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (celebrating survivors, supporting those affected, honoring those lost), early detection, access to screening and treatment, reducing barriers to care, mobile screening initiatives, and cross-city collaboration on cancer care.

Panelist contributions (highlights)

• Dr. Johnson: Lead clinical associate for LSU Early Detection and Screening Program; provides no-cost mammograms for uninsured women; coordinates with UMC; uses patient navigators; emphasizes statewide education and early detection; anecdote about visiting a patient’s home to ensure an appointment.
• Dr. Tillman: Public health focus on risk reduction through lifestyle choices; notes risk factors like obesity; advocates healthy weight and ~150 minutes of moderate activity per week.
• Dr. Loesch and Dr. McKenna: Additional panelists listed, but the excerpt provides only partial details for their remarks.
• Melissa Bean Tanner: Nurse practitioner; notes on high-risk breast care and patient navigation (garbled biographical detail about marriage to a council member in the text).

Outcomes and next steps

• The material does not describe formal votes or policy decisions tied to this item. It documents the presentation format, the speakers, and the opening themes, plus a note that some honorees are garbled in the record.

Unresolved or notes

• Several honorees and some details are garbled; the exact honoree list and some speaker details cannot be reliably stated from the provided text.

2) Related public meeting content (broader breast-cancer/health-focused events)

• Overview notes describe broader education, survivorship, screening access, proclamations, and survivor recognitions.
• Several named individuals appear (e.g., Ms. Lena; survivors and city officials); however, the notes include inconsistent naming across excerpts, so precise identification of all speakers and honorees is limited.
• Key recurring themes: scheduling/encouraging mammograms, self-exams, community support, addressing barriers to access (transportation, insurance, childcare), and survivorship resources.

3) Zoning, budget, and policy items (documented across the excerpt) — Zoning docket 7326 (Francine Portclair, adaptive reuse)

• Proposal: Adaptive reuse of a monastery into multifamily dwellings in HURD2; design overlay considerations.
• CPC recommendation: Approval with three exemptions and one proviso.
• Council action: Substitute motion M-26-366 to grant the docket with one proviso, three CPC-recommended exemptions, and one article exemption; motion passed 6 yeas, 0 nays.
• Public input: At least one public comment in support (Ron Loisel) praising the project as a thoughtful redevelopment with neighbor outreach.

Zoning docket 7526; related items

• Status: Deferred to October 15 (no substantive decision at the meeting).

Other zoning and legislative items (as summarized in the excerpt)

• Several items related to short-term rentals, MIZ (mandatory inclusionary zoning), and other amendments were discussed with mixed outcomes.
• MIZ amendments:
• Amendment 13 to ordinance 35,530: reduce the in-lieu affordable housing fee from about 304,810 to 10,000.
• Public testimony noted concerns about deferring to CPC and guardrails; one speaker urged deferral for full vetting.
• Council action: Amendment 13 passed (six yeas, zero nays).
• Motion M-26-432: direct CPC to hold a public hearing to consider amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (HR&A/Studio Cairo recommendations, including MIZ changes such as higher affordable-set-aside, AMI adjustments, and incentives).
• Council action: Passed (seven yeas, zero nays).
• HDLC-related appeal decisions
• 1426-1428 Dauphine Street: HDLC denial on the front porch gate retained; Council motion M-26-424 to modify and approve the applicant’s request. Final vote reported as 7 yeas, 0 nays.
• 1505-1507 Esplanade Avenue: HDLC decision on windows/trim; Council modified approval. Vote reported as 7 yeas, 0 nays.
• Servitudes (public-right-of-way encroachments)
• 1122 Aretha Castle Hill Boulevard; 1060 Magazine Street; 1536 Webster Street: votes reported as 6 yeas, 0 nays (with the Webster item showing some publication-delay notes but a monetary figure per year noted).
• EMS/Clerk of Court budget actions
• EMS Medicaid IGT: Ordinance 17 adopted 7 yeas, 0 nays; funds and revenue details described.
• Clerk of Criminal District Court to Clerk of Court transfer: Adopted 7 yeas, 0 nays.
• Cooperative Endeavor Agreement amendments (NO Humane Society; NORC/St. Patrick Club)
• Adopted; some items deferred or with limited voting tallies in the transcript.
• Capital budget reallocation and related items
• Various line-item reallocations and program adjustments; several items adopted with 7 yeas, 0 nays; one item (Item 16) shows publication-delay language and an unclear tally.
• Other items
• Items involving energy storage program (resolutions), additional budget actions, and infrastructure designations were discussed; some items had no explicit tally in the transcript excerpt.

Special orders and adjournment-related actions

• Suspension of Rule 15 to confirm Julian Senior to the Sewer and Water Board (term ending 2030) – procedural note; tally not specified in the excerpt.
• Energy storage/DER program resolution (Resolution 37) – to receive and adopt; tally not specified in the excerpt.
• Taj Rudolph intersection designation (item 38)
• Councilmember Hughes presented; Taj Rudolph’s family participated; sponsor and attendees named.
• No final vote tally clearly recorded in the excerpt; the ceremonial remarks are documented.

First-reading ordinances (the excerpt; items 35,589–35,592 and related docket numbers)

• Eight ordinances listed for first reading, including topics such as conditional uses, hotel/child-care center regulations, and zoning updates.
• The material notes these are first readings with no vote tallies yet; sponsors named for several items, but not all.
• Next steps: These ordinances will require subsequent readings and votes.

Taj Rudolph and Frank Perez memorials (separate agenda items)

• Taj Rudolph: Unanimous adoption of the naming ordinance; ceremony planned with a photo at the intersection.
• Frank Perez memorial: A resolution saluting Frank Perez was adopted (reported as 6 yeas, 0 nays in the later excerpt); framed copy planned for the family; notes on his life, work, and contributions to New Orleans’ LGBTQ+ history and archives.

4) Key outcomes and clear votes

• Breast Cancer Awareness Day program: No formal council votes recorded in the provided text; actions were planning and recognition (panel, timing, and remarks).
• Zoning docket 7326: Substitute motion passed 6-0.
• MIZ amendments: Amendment 13 passed 6-0; MIZ item to direct CPC to hold a public hearing passed 7-0.
• HDLC-related appeals: Both 1426-1428 Dauphine and 1505-1507 Esplanade approved with modified/approved outcomes; votes 7-0.
• Servitudes: 1122 Aretha Castle Hill Blvd; 1060 Magazine; 1536 Webster: 6-0 (as stated, with Webster containing publication-delay notes).
• EMS IGT: 7-0 adopt.
• Clerk of Court transfer: 7-0 adopt.
• NORC/Humane Society CEAs: Adopted; some related counts not explicitly stated in the excerpts.
• Capital budget reallocation: 7-0 adopt.
• Taj Rudolph intersection: Unanimous passage (7-0).
• Frank Perez resolution: Adopted (vote tallies vary by excerpt; listed as 6-0 in one excerpt).

5) Speakers and individuals named (highlights)

• Breast Cancer Day panelists: Dr. Denise Rubion Johnson; Dr. Lacey L. Tillman; Dr. Michelle Marie Loesch; Dr. Sean McKenna; Melissa Bean Tanner.
• Health-focused remarks and advocates: Ms. Lena (organizer); survivors named in other excerpts (Florence Collier-Smith; Cynthia Willard Lewis; Thinh U.; Elaine Kimbrell; Reverend Linda Muriel Cooper Baker; Patriana Hart).
• Zoning/urban development: Ron Loisel (public comment in support of 7326); Jordan Rogers (on behalf of Andronica Morris; urged CPC vetting of MIZ item); Ron Laszlo (support for higher in-lieu fee).
• HDLC and staff: Ms. Burke (staff) on Esplanade Avenue; Steven (staff) on the transient lodging context; Kyle (Budget Director) on EMS IGT and capital budget.
• Taj Rudolph and Frank Perez tributes: Taj Rudolph family members (Jayla Martin, Tareem Rudolph) and various council members (Hughes, Green, King, Morrell, Willard) participating in the tributes and naming ceremony; Frank Perez tributes included Ambush Magazine staff and LGBTQ archival/community figures.

6) Unresolved issues and notable gaps

• Some honorees and speaker lines for the Breast Cancer Day segment are garbled in the text; exact honoree names are not reliably restated.
• Several items in the budget/ordinance stream show votes tallied for many items, but a few note only that votes occurred without explicit tallies in the transcript (e.g., some items in the excerpt).
• Some items (notably those around Items 32–33 and other deferred docket items) are deferred to November 19 or another date; outcomes are not yet determined in the excerpts provided.
• For the Frank Perez memorial, the transcript indicates a resolution was adopted, but the framing/placement of a physical framed copy was described as a next step rather than an immediate action.

Meeting summary

No formal votes were recorded in these excerpts.

Overall note

• Across the materials, most items are budget presentations and policy discussions with follow-up data requested. No votes are reported in these excerpts. Several items are tagged for follow-up (data, clarifications, reports, or further negotiations).

1) Orleans Parish Coroner – budget and operations — What was discussed

• Budget request: maintain current level (~$4.249M) with potential increase to ~$4.556M to reduce overtime.
• Staffing: 26.44 FTE; previously requested six additional FTEs to help reduce overtime.
• Self-generated revenues: coroner’s budget cites $31,000 (Liberty account and minor fees); mayor’s proposal shows $23,000.
• Overtime: current figure not on hand; year-to-date around $300k; previous year about $800k.
• Outsourcing/professional services: about $1.3M on professional services (outsourced functions, including contracted forensic psychiatrists for OPCs and related duties).
• Public-safety/drug context: ongoing overdose issues; fentanyl risks; Narcan education/access emphasized.
• Public engagement: coroner offered to speak publicly about addiction prevention and prevention education.

Key speakers

• Orleans Parish Coroner Eugene Green.
• Council Member Green; Council Member Willer.
• Brandy (city staff).
• Public comment: Mr. Morgan (noted as off-topic for coroner item).

Actions requested (and not yet resolved)

• Overtime figure to be provided by Brandy; confirmation of how six FTEs would affect overtime.
• Clarify adopted vs revised budget distinctions; reconcile mayor’s $23k vs presentation’s $31k self-generated revenue.
• Detailed breakdown of the $1.3M in professional services; specifics on contracted psychiatrists and court-related costs; assess if some could be internalized with more staff.
• Provide overdose data year-to-date; provide ongoing strategies (Narcan outreach, education).

Unresolved/next steps

• No final decision or vote yet; committee requested concrete numbers and breakdowns before proceeding.

2) New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) – budget, staffing, and efficiencies — What was discussed (scope)

• 2027 budget plan: total ~$167M; 2026 projected spend ~-$170M; personnel ~ $150M; operating ~ $16.2M; net reduction of about $3.2M; ARPA funding ends in 2026; ~ $8.5M in expected grants for 2027 (non-general fund).
• Staffing: 975 commissioned officers; 293 civilians; reductions of 62 FTEs planned.
• Specific operating reductions: overtime cut by ~$2M; civilian staffing cut by ~$4.3M (62 FTEs); Axon camera program reduced from $5.5M to $3.0M; traffic investigation outsourcing cut by $1.3M; other operating reductions (phones) ~ $452k.
• Non-general fund: 2026 ~$22.5M (17.8M personnel, 4.7M operating) vs 2027 ~$20.9M (17.0M personnel, 3.4M operating); offset by grant funding and ARPA expiration.
• Non-general fund grants/allocations (highlights): state supplemental pay; French Quarter Patrol; DOJ COPS grant (potential reimbursement for up to 50 sworn officers); asset seizure funding; DoJ Bureau Assistance Grant; other smaller grants referenced in the budget book.
• Overtime history/context: past spikes connected to major events (2022 COVID year; 2023 transition; 2024 spike from Bourbon Street/Big Events; 2025 budget; mid-year adjustment reducing overtime to $15M). Department asserts progress in controlling overtime.
• Recruiting progress: applicant pool up 65% year-over-year; 28% more taking tests; improvements in recruitment pipeline.
• Efficiency measures: vendor contract reviews; comptroller appointed to improve budgeting; focus on maintaining crime reductions while pursuing budget efficiencies.

Notable outcomes highlighted

• Crime reductions since 2022: murders down 65%; fatal shootings down 67%; nonfatal shootings down 62%; armed robberies down 56%; carjackings down 66%.
• Emphasis that budget-driven efficiencies are being pursued to sustain crime reductions with fewer officers.

Speakers

• Opening: Ann Kirkpatrick (NOPD) with framing as partner to close the structural budget gap.
• Comptroller: Charlene Rollins (budget numbers and reductions).
• Brandi (budget/finance staff): clarified terms; provided that some data (actuals) would be provided; discussed funding sources.
• Deputy Mayor / Mayor’s office representative: addressed crime-lab/DNA-related questions and funding contexts; Chief Garnon (Crime Lab) discussed CODIS, backlog, and DNA testing; representatives referenced potential state funding and in-house testing opportunities.

Actions requested / follow-ups

• Provide 2024, 2025, and year-to-date 2026 actuals (all funds and general fund) for apples-to-apples comparison with 2027.
• Clarify parking/towing transfers and active staffing; provide exact active parking enforcement/towing headcount; explain how transfers for non-active personnel were handled in the budget.
• Clarify background checks/onboarding delays for towing staff; provide plan to address delays.
• Clarify whether State Police will respond to highway crashes; determine potential changes or agreements.
• Examine Axon reduction impact on operations; specify which units may lose camera coverage.
• Decide funding/ownership for Crime Lab retrofit (estimated $9M); determine funding source (capital vs operating) and timeline; report on DNA backlog and CODIS status; discuss potential in-house DNA testing revenue/offsets.
• Clarify DOJ COPS grant funding status (50-officer reimbursement) and net staffing impact.
• Provide plan and timeline for achieving the 1,200-officer goal, including recruitment, training, attrition, and funding.
• Document how the above items will be reported in council reports and monitored.

Unresolved/next steps

• No votes recorded yet; these items are preparatory and data-driven, with follow-ups requested before any formal decisions.

3) Public safety agencies – in-depth budget/OSS/Police Services — Focus points

• On-scene services (OSS) in discussion; potential in-house PST program (Police Service Technician) as a cost/efficiency measure.
• Estimated startup for PST: ~3 months; ~10 people; costs ~ $650k (personnel) excluding supplies/equipment.
• Interim plan if contract ends: existing sworn officers absorb OSS tasks; cost-benefit analysis requested; formal packaged report to the council.
• Civilian staff reductions (non-sworn) and mandated positions protected; outline which civilian duties would be eliminated and which sworn officers would absorb workloads.
• Crime Lab budget movement: clarify whether the reduction shown (53 to 2 FTEs) is a reallocation rather than elimination; cross-training of DNA analysts discussed (not recommended due to specialized needs); training academy move to new building; progress updates requested.
• OSS/towing procurement: discussion of two budget transfers totaling ~ $8.6M for towing/parking enforcement; NCIC background-check challenges; nighttime CBD towing importance; potential re-bid to reduce costs; aim to avoid longer response times.

Notable items to resolve

• Formal PST cost-benefit packaged report; governance/implementation plan for in-house OSS; exact list of mandated positions protected.
• Clarity on Crime Lab budget reallocation and DNA/Education implications; timeline for training academy occupancy.
• Decision on competitive bidding for OSS/towing and pricing targets.

Actions

• Administrative follow-up to prepare formal reports and data packages; plan for midyear budget implications if OSS changes proceed.
• Ongoing dialogue on efficiency, cost savings, and service levels.

4) Fire Department and pension — Fire Department 2027 budget and pension plan

• General fund budget proposed at $127.07M; personnel $125.9M; operating $1.17M; total general fund reduction vs 2026 ~$5.47M.
• Non-general fund change vs 2026: about -$6.93M, driven by end of FEMA SAFER grant.
• Reductions focus on attrition (not backfilling 29 firefighter positions), pension cost reductions, elimination of professional memberships, discontinuation of a Ready Rebound cooperative agreement, postponement of turnout gear replacement cycle.
• Overtime: continue reducing overtime for EMS support; minimize non-critical overtime.
• Recruitment vs attrition: pipeline of ~90 applicants cleared to background; hiring freeze complicates filling positions.
• Crime Lab/forensic context: CODIS backlog; DNA testing; need for in-house testing or state funding; possible use of state funds to address backlog.

Fire pension (4th quarter discussion)

• Plan to reduce near-term city contributions by about $8.5M through 2040; commit to move costs between old closed fund and a new fund; plan to keep total city contributions relatively level through 2040.
• Proposed near-term action: allocate about $39.9M to the new fund to sustain payments through roughly October while negotiations proceed; board has not yet approved.
• Governance/approval: Fire Pension Board skeptical; auditors (LLA) involvement recommended for transparency; potential memorialization via city council amendment for enforceability.
• Timeline: 2040 full funding target; December 1 budget deadline emphasized; ongoing actuarial review with LLA.

Unresolved items

• Whether Fire Pension Board will accept the $8.5M near-term reduction; final structure/timing of future payments.
• How the plan aligns with actuarial guidance and the 2040 funding target; what formal legal instrument will memorialize any agreement.
• Implications for city services if pension plan adjustments affect funding levels.

Public comments

• Noted but not detailed in these excerpts; focus remains on pension structure and funding.

5) Office of Coordination and Emergency Management (NOSM) – 2027 budget and changes — Core themes

• NOSM budget and expanded role under new administration; focus on emergency coordination and planned events.
• 2027 general fund budget: about $2.74M, down from $3.32M in 2026.
• Staffing reductions: eliminate three general fund positions (Hazard Mitigation Program Manager, Hazard Mitigation Coordinator, Principal Emergency Management Coordinator).
• Operational reductions: scaled back RAVE emergency alerting; phased out certain items (parade trackers, City Hall panic button), postpone EOC technology upgrades to 2028, repurpose or reduce some parades/tracking; push interagency planning and grant reliance.
• 5108 (Special Fund) funding: advocate to preserve Access/Functional Needs Disaster Accessibility Coordinator and Mass Care Coordinator positions via 5108 funding rather than general fund.
• Grants reliance: increases in non-general fund due to grants (hazard mitigation grants, Homeland Security grants, UASI, etc.); grant-funded staff not counted as general fund staff.

Notable actions and next steps

• NOSM will pursue grant-based and interagency planning to compensate for general fund reductions.
• Consideration of funding the two 5108 roles from that fund going forward.
• Emphasis on preparedness culture, cross-agency collaboration, and stronger emergency management posture.

Unresolved items

• Final decision on funding/classification for the two 5108 roles; long-term sustainability of grant-based staff.
• Details on the impact of staffing reductions on actual emergency response capacity; quantified mitigations beyond the pilot interagency planner program.
• Decision timelines for postponed EOC upgrades and 3-1-1 system evolution.

6) Juvenile Justice Intervention Center (JJIC) – budget and programs — Key budget changes

• Reductions in personnel and operating budgets, but no planned reductions in frontline staff; ongoing hiring to fill vacancies.
• Mid-management positions discussed as needed but not funded; JJIC leadership focuses on maintaining care quality.
• Previously planned expansion to New Orleans East scaled back; JJIC will maintain current program levels.
• Medical services contract reduced (~$1.4M, about one-third of total budget).

Overtime and efficiency

• Overtime reductions achieved in 2026; 2027 budget continues efficiency efforts.

Programs and reforms

• JJIC will emphasize in-house programming, youth development, and reentry efforts; explore grant funding to expand programs (IIHS, college pathways with SUNO, Ubuntu Village collaboration).
• New youth programming initiatives with partners; more in-house barbering to reduce costs; increased structured programming (art, therapy, sports).

Staffing and population

• Staff-to-child ratio ~1:8; daily population in the 40s (improved from 76+ previously).

Unresolved items

• Specific actions on middle management hires; final impact of budget cuts on frontline care; details on grant writer support and school lunch reimbursement expansion.

Public comment

• Catherine Stoma spoke on on-site medical and mental health care; stressed continuous, integrated care and successful reentry.

7) OPCD – Communications District (911/311) – budget hearing — Key issues

• 911 call-answer performance below target (national standard: 90% within 15 seconds); current status around 70–80% due to 10 unfunded call-taking positions.
• FY27 plan to restore staffing to meet standards; next class of recruits; ongoing vacancies (14 ECS/call-taking; 11 graduated but not yet fully functional; 8 of 32 support positions unfilled).

Projects and achievements

• 3-1-1 improvements and new Carbine APEX system; 3-1-1 training and deployment; integration plans with city order management/inventory.
• APCO accreditation and leadership training; 311 system upgrades; enhancements to telephony and network resilience (moving away from copper lines; hardened systems).
• NICE system issues; ongoing needs for capital funding for IT upgrades (video wall, AV distribution) and CapEx vs OpEx considerations.

Finances

• FY27 budget: $26M (vs $24M in FY26); general fund down ~2%; overall change ~ -7% when considering overtime funding.
• Revenue: 911 fee increases from $1.25 to $2 per line; net ~$2M; offset by $1M to cover defrayed needs; remainder allocated to prior deferred needs.
• Capital items: video wall/AV, NICE system, Cisco UCM; funding gaps beyond 2028; reliance on operating funds if capital funds aren’t available.
• 311 transformation: license and ongoing costs; ongoing budgetary considerations for the new system; Quick Base costs; brass transition timeline over several years.

Unresolved items

• Complete IT/funding plan for major capital projects (NICE, Cisco UCM, video walls) beyond 2028.
• Final timeline for 3-1-1 Carbine APEX implementation and its integration with city systems.
• Clarification on public records performance and data access related to the NICE system.

Public comments

• Included community/member feedback; no votes recorded in these excerpts.

8) 311/311-311 – supporting notes — Maintenance and IT costs

• Regular maintenance: ~$650k–$700k/year; total maintenance (including 311 integration) ~ $1.75M/year.
• UPS incident: 1.5 years ago, partial capacity loss; components replaced; one cabinet remained; system operated with reduced capacity for a couple of months.
• Subscriptions: Carbine and Quick Base; Quick Base costs will persist next year; transition away from Quick Base as a “brass” system will take years.
• Other line items: building mechanicals, PBX, UPS; three maintenance lines listed (172k, 6k, 512k) with one line item’s scope unclear (staff commits to provide breakdown).

Projects and systems

• Quick Base use for 311 tracking and procurement; cost implications of new system not immediate; the brass transition will be slow.
• 3-1-1 and Carbine APEX upgrades referenced in other excerpts; integration costs and licensing impacts discussed.

Actions

• Staff to provide breakdown of the 512k line item; confirm what exactly the 3 maintenance/replacements cover.
• Budget to include funding for the new system; Quick Base costs to be carried for another year.

Unresolved items

• Clarification on the 512k maintenance line item.
• Finalization of funding for the new 311 system and the timeline for cost reductions as the brass transition progresses.

Unresolved issues and cross-cutting themes to monitor

• Data and clarity gaps: multiple items require concrete data packs (overtime totals, active staffing counts, detailed grant lists, exact line-item breakdowns, and reconciliation between budget books and slide decks).
• Governance and approvals: several items hinge on decisions by boards, councils, or administration (Fire Pension Board; 5108 funding for NOSM roles; outsourcing vs. in-house OSS; capital vs operating funding for IT systems; EMS/DNA backlog funding).
• Public communication: given many items involve public safety and community services, expect ongoing need for transparent, public-facing data (overtime, staffing, program outcomes, and funding sources).
• Timeline pressures: several sections mention deadlines (e.g., December 1 budget deadline for pension planning; mid-year changes for OSS; 2027 IT/311 upgrades; grant timelines).

Summary of the Criminal Justice Committee meeting (September 28, 2026) — Meeting context

• Title: Criminal Justice Committee
• Date: 2026-09-28
• Start time: 10:00 AM
• Duration: 1 hour 26 minutes
• Transcript scope: Opening remarks, roll call, presentations, youth testimonies, discussions, contract item, closing

Attendance and procedural note

• Roll call: Two council members present; no quorum.
• Implication: Because of no quorum, formal actions may have been limited; no vote outcome documented for items discussed.

Key speakers and items — Miss Shell Williams, Executive Director of Juvenile Justice Intervention Center (JJIC)

• Presented ground rules for listening to the Voices Behind the Walls.

Five youth speakers (Voice 1–Voice 5)

• Shared personal stories focusing on trauma, parental loss, homelessness, abuse, poverty, and gaps in the system; discussed schooling, family challenges, and hopes for better support.

Councilmembers

• Responded with empathy; acknowledged failures of adults and the system; discussed need for resources, mentorship, and community partnerships.

Community leaders and health officials

• Discussed Ubuntu Village NOLA contract extension through 2027 to support violence prevention and outreach.
• Emphasized that the extension would occur without increasing 2026 funds.

Actions and decisions — Ubuntu Village NOLA contract extension

• Item: Contract extension through 2027 to support violence prevention and outreach; no increase to 2026 funds.
• Action: A motion to approve the contract amendment and adjournment was made.
• Vote/outcome: Not specified in the transcript; due to no quorum, the outcome is unresolved in the provided material.

Unresolved issues and notes

• No quorum raises questions about the validity of actions or votes.
• It is unclear whether the contract amendment motion was acted on or approved, given the absent explicit vote result.
• Next steps or follow-up actions are not specified beyond the motion to approve and adjournment.

Closing and context

• Closing remarks emphasized ongoing support for youth and highlighted roles of philanthropy and mentoring programs.

Overall meeting context

• Topics covered include: Zoning Docket 098-26 (text amendment related to cannabis/tobacco/nicotine uses), Zoning Docket 002-26 (street-name change), Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) study, and several subdivision proposals (dockets 098-26 and 099-26) with related ratifications.
• Public hearing rules, roll call, and minutes were addressed; minutes from Aug 25 and Sep 8 were adopted unanimously.

1) Zoning Docket 098-26 (cannabis/tobacco/nicotine text amendment)

• What it is: A CZO text amendment to implement CPC cannabis/tobacco/nicotine recommendations (and related City Council refinements). Creates new land-use categories and redefines Retail Goods Establishment to regulate cannabis/tobacco/nicotine uses.

Proposed uses and framework (core points)

• New categories: marijuana retailer, smoke shop, and retail sale of tobacco nicotine and hemp (ancillary uses possible).
• Permitted by right in districts where alcohol is allowed, subject to distance rules.
• Distance/buffer framework:
• 500 feet from residential zones and from child-friendly uses.
• 1,000 feet between smoke shops (to avoid clustering).
• Discussion of a 750-foot option; staff favored 500 feet as more consistent with peers.
• Alignment with Smoke-Free Air Act and licensing/land-use standards.
• Health department input: Daisy Ellis, NOHHS, supported buffers to reduce youth exposure and improve health outcomes.

Public comment (as recorded in this set)

• Daisy Ellis (NOHHS) – supportive.
• Susan Johnson (address provided in material) – opposed; argued for stricter distancing/hours and that marijuana retailers should not be allowed in mixed-use zoning; said she would submit a comment letter.
• Staff recommendation: Modified approval.

Decision status at time of excerpt

• A staff-proposed path to modified approval was presented; no final vote on the docket was recorded in the excerpt.

Speakers noted

• Daisy Ellis (NOHHS) – supporter.
• Susan Johnson – opponent.

Unresolved/issues to watch

• Whether to adopt 500- vs 750-foot buffers and the associated hours/distances.
• Potential disparate impacts and enforcement considerations.
• How these rules interact with state licensing and future changes.
• Whether final Commission action will be taken on a future agenda.

2) Zoning Docket 002-26 (Street-name change)

• Proposal: Rename a segment of Piety Street (between Florida Ave and Johnny Jackson Blvd) to Robert H. Tucker Street.
• Affected: ~3,686 feet; ~117 lots; ~149 addresses; ~11 street signs (cost ~$1,681 total).

Policy rationale and context

• Staff recommended approval with a waiver of criterion #1 (allowing naming for a person not deceased for five years); notes the five-year/deceased rule and ongoing policy questions.
• Segment context: partially separated from rest of Piety Street by train tracks; historical precedent for naming in the area.
• Tucker family and Desire community push noted; Robert H. Tucker described as civil rights leader/businessman.

Public testimony

• Eugene Green (City Council member) – supported; highlighted Tucker’s contributions.
• I. M. Christian Tucker (on behalf of Tucker family) – supported.
• One public comment card in opposition noted (no name provided).

Motion and outcome

• Motion to approve 002-26 with one waiver moved by Commissioner Jackson? (per the excerpt: “Motion: Approval with one waiver. Second: Commissioner Jackson.”)
• Vote: All listed commissioners voted Yes: Steeg, Jordan, Cady, Whitry, Flick, Hebert, Poche, Jackson.
• Outcome: Approval with one waiver.

Unresolved/issues

• The broader street-name policy framework remains in flux (staff noted intent to delete the “positive impact” criterion and the five-year-deceased requirement; council action may revise).
• Public opposition noted but details not provided.
• Ongoing implications for how such waivers are applied in future street-name actions.

3) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Study

• Context: A long-running item linked to the Canal Street study (M-19-195, 2019). resumed in 2024; aim to preserve historic structures via a market-based TDR mechanism.

What the study proposes (highlights)

• Sending sites: significant/contributing/landmark historic structures.
• Receiving sites: non-designated CBD sites outside historic districts.
• Mechanism: sending sites relinquish rights; receiving sites gain rights (with a cap, deed restrictions, and strict review).
• Administrative framework: two-phase codification; height/FAR cap concept (~20% over base HEIDR FAR); restrictions on parking credits; funding and governance provisions for preservation.
• Related preservation tools: facade grants, preservation easements, historic tax credits, and the Landmark Transfer Program.

Staff/commission discussion points (Q&A highlights)

• Market context (MIZ): CBD market feasibility is weak for CBD housing; this informs incentive design.
• Text amendment process: final text details to be refined; metrics translation (height/FAR to square feet) and scope (which sites qualify) to be settled in the text amendment phase.
• Parking credits: ban on using credits for parking as a principal use.
• Interaction with existing preservation tools and governance review.

Decision status

• Adopted the TDR study (staff and chair acknowledged; motion/approval steps described; final roster of votes not provided in the excerpt).

Speakers

• Noted staff discussion and Q&A; specific named outside the staff in the excerpt are not listed as public speakers. The excerpt includes general commentary on preservation and market contexts.

Unresolved/issues

• Final regulatory text: specific definitions, eligibility criteria, and operation of credits to be refined in the text amendment.
• Metrics and translation of height/FAR, feasibility and scope of sending/receiving site boundaries.
• How sale proceeds are allocated and oversight mechanisms.
• Market conditions and whether additional incentives are needed beyond proposed FAR cap.
• Parking credit prohibition and potential project implications.
• Coordination with existing preservation tools and potential expansion beyond the CBD.

4) Subdivision dockets (as described in the excerpt) — Subdivision docket 098-26 (HURD1 area)

• Proposal: Resubdivide a property containing a church and a duplex to create two parcels.
• Staff position: Tentative approval with one proviso.
• Public input: None recorded.
• Motion: Commissioner Flick; Second: Commissioner Poche.
• Vote: Steeke, Jordan, Witry, Flick, Hebert, Poche yes; Jackson absent.
• Outcome: Tentative approval with one proviso.

Subdivision docket 099-26

• Proposal: Major subdivision to create two lots (main commercial building and a detached fast-food building to be on separate lots).
• Staff position: Approval recommended.
• Public input: None recorded.
• Motion: Commissioner Flick; Second: Commissioner Hebert.
• Vote: Steeke, Jordan, Witry, Flick, Hebert, Poche yes; Jackson absent.
• Outcome: Approval with one proviso.

Subdivision ratifications (five total)

• Motion: Commissioner Flick; Second: Commissioner Jordan.
• Vote: Poche, Hebert, Flick, Witry, Jordan, Steeke yes.
• Outcome: Ratifications approved.
• Public input: None recorded for these items.

Unresolved issues

• Each subdivision approval includes a proviso (specifics not provided in the excerpt).
• The CBD/FLUM discussion noted potential future action; no immediate changes beyond the study/adoptions.

5) Other notes and procedural items

• Some items had no public speakers; staff summarized and announced ratifications or subdivision actions.
• Adjournment followed after the listed actions.

Key speakers named in the materials

• Daisy Ellis, NOHHS (supportive of cannabis/tobacco buffers)
• Susan Johnson (opponent to ZD 098-26; public comment)
• Ryan Boehm (neighbor, testified in the excerpt about a Carrollton dispensary’s neighborhood impacts)
• Eugene Green (City Council member; spoke in support of the Tucker street-name change)
• I. M. Christian Tucker (representing Tucker family; spoke in support)
• Mr. Perl (staff) referenced in the excerpt during subdivision ratifications

Unresolved issues and open questions (recap)

• ZD 098-26: 500 ft vs 750 ft buffers; hours and proximity rules; potential disparate impacts and enforcement; final Commission action pending.
• ZD 002-26: Street-name policy criteria and potential future changes to deceased/five-year rule; ongoing policy evolution; public opposition noted but not detailed.
• TDR study: Final regulatory text details, site scope, measurement metrics, funding/oversight, and parking-credit policy to be finalized in the text amendment stage; market realities and whether incentives suffice remain points for discussion.
• Subdivisions: Proviso details and how they will be implemented; ongoing CBD/FLUM policy considerations.

Overall context

• Purpose: Public discussion around the proposed 2027 Executive Budget for New Orleans, including revenue gaps, potential one-time funding usage, proposed reductions, millage considerations, and ongoing public/Council engagement.
• Status: The material reflects information-sharing, questions, and iterative planning. No final votes or binding decisions are recorded in these excerpts; the process is described as ongoing with mid-year adjustments anticipated.

Decisions and votes

• No formal votes or final policy decisions are recorded in the material provided.
• Several motions or decisions are described as deferred or not final, with an emphasis on iterative review and additional Council input in upcoming hearings.

Actions requested or taken (key items) — Budget reductions (net of one-time funds): About $77 million total, distributed across

• CAO reductions: about $19 million (with contingency built into the CAO budget).
• Outside agencies: about $8 million reduction.
• Personnel: about $23 million, including potential reductions of up to 152 FTEs (in addition to prior staffing reductions).
• Other operating and contractual reductions: not specified beyond these categories.
• Frontline protections: No furloughs; no reductions to NORD (New Orleans Recreation Development) or Council on Aging; frontline public safety and essential services prioritized (police, EMS, fire, curbside services, street/sidewalk maintenance, etc.).
• Staffing posture: Past actions reduced roughly 200 positions; the 2027 plan contemplates a further reduction of about 152 FTEs while aiming to preserve core services.

Revenue and reserves posture

• Recurring revenue around $748 million.
• One-time funding about $21.55 million; after accounting for one-time funds, the bottom-line discussion notes a total around $763 million when counting recurring revenue plus one-time reimbursements (details vary slightly by slide).
• RAN (Revenue Anticipation Note) repayment: repaid timely; total obligations about $975 million; year drawdown around $45 million; RAN is not recorded as revenue or expense.
• Combined reserves (unassigned fund balance + rainy-day fund) around $138 million; GOF OA guidance suggests ~16% target reserve; current posture cited as around 18% (depending on whether recurring revenue is used).

Departmental and program movements (highlights)

• EMS: 2027 budget shows a small increase versus 2026, linked to higher EMS revenue and Civil Service Commission approval.
• Fire: 2027 spending down about 10% vs. 2026, with prior-year unbudgeted items (retention pay, terminal leave, enhanced recruiting costs, and an unbudgeted grant) cited as contributing factors.
• NOPD: 2027 spending down about 2% vs. 2026, with similar prior-year cost pressures cited.
• Parks/Recreation/related entities: discussions around shifting parking-related functions (booting, towing) from DPW into NOPD as part of a broader realignment intended to restore certain practices.

Millage and revenue policy (high-level)

• Millage roll-forward versus non-roll-forward is a central policy question; there are proposed components tied to parks and related agencies (Nord Park & Parkway, Nord, Audubon, City Park) and potential overall increases in city revenue if roll-forward occurs.
• A simplified, public-friendly presentation of millage impacts is to be published; the process is described as a “menu of options” to be chosen in collaboration with the public and Council.
• Potential revenue options discussed (not guaranteed): night-time short-term rental (STR) fee increases, permit fee adjustments for inflation and upfront application fees, and nonprofit fees (contingent on ballot approvals).

Infrastructure/private-public funding context

• Parks millage components and distribution (Nord Park & Parkway, Nord, Audubon, City Park) discussed; a unified parks millage framework is described, with total potential impact estimated around $42 million across components.
• Parking revenue and related RFPs discussed as part of revenue enhancements; park-related and other capital/infrastructure funding shifts from the general fund to capital funding are referenced.

Homelessness and shelter funding

• Low-barrier shelter funding is a central open question, given state funding deferrals and related litigation; there is emphasis on seeking alternative funding sources and partnerships (including potential federal funding or involvement of groups like DDD/FMC).

Public process and transparency

• The City plans a month-long series of budget hearings with city and outside agencies, online access to budget books, and public questions (District-focused meetings referenced).

District-facing outreach

• District town halls ( District A targeted planning mentioned) to solicit resident input ahead of/through the millage discussions.

Speakers and roles (clearly identified in some materials)

• Mayor: Central figure presenting policy direction, framing the budget as lean but necessary; cited in multiple materials as guiding the process and supporting frontline protections.
• Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and budget staff: Provided detailed numbers, discussed reductions, reserves, and structural issues; described process and data needs.

Council Members referenced by name in several excerpts

• Council Member Harris: Active in questions about furlough timing, hiring freezes, health department spending, Low Barrier Shelter funding, and overall process; urged for clear, apples-to-apples comparisons and detailed data.
• Council Member Morrell: Mentioned in the context of support for Youthforce NOLA and budget discussions.
• Council Members Morrell, Harris, Hughes, King, and others appear across excerpts with concerns about furloughs, staffing, sanitation, millage, and shelter funding.
• Civil Service Commission: In relation to EMS revenue approval.
• Sheriff/Clerk discussions (in separate excerpts): Notable in later materials for jail costs, clerk cost alignment with state policy, and ongoing budget interactions with the Sheriff’s office.

Unresolved issues and next steps to watch

• Final 2027 revenue allocations: Exact distribution across the general fund, parks/millage-based allocations, and outside agency funding remains undetermined.
• Millage roll-forward specifics: Whether to roll forward millages at all, and if so, which components (police, fire, parks, Audubon, City Park) and to what extent; clear, public-facing calculations needed.
• Low-barrier shelter funding: Ongoing concern about funding given deferrals in state funds and litigation; exploration of alternative funding sources and partners; impact on homelessness services and public safety.
• Personnel reductions: Detailed lists of proposed FTE reductions by department, justification, and mitigation plans (including the status of police cadet positions and backfilling).
• Civics contract and CDM Smith items: Status of contracts, project management costs, and whether items are in litigation or otherwise; transparency on these costs and allocations.
• DPW/parking reallocation: Operational details and timelines for moving parking-related functions to NOPD; impact on service delivery and staffing.
• Budget transparency: Demand for simplified, public-facing millage charts with scenarios for various home values and property types; publication plans confirmed.
• District-specific concerns: Town halls and ongoing district-by-district budget input, including clarity on DPW items and other service impacts.
• Clerk and jail cost questions: Whether clerk costs should align with a single-clerk model, the financial impact of any shift, outside-agency cost savings, and jail-borne cost reductions under consent decrees.

Overall context across the material

• The materials cover New Orleans civil-service/HR proceedings and related public-safety/utility workforce discussions. Topics center on proposed changes to leave benefits (bonus leave, annual leave, sick leave, terminal/final leave, and retirement-credit conversions), fiscal pressures, and how changes would affect recruitment, retention, and operations (notably EMS and the Sewerage & Water Board). Multiple sessions feature strong public input (spanning unions, frontline workers, and city staff), with no consistent final policy decisions recorded in the excerpts. Several items require further study, legal review, or stakeholder dialogue before any final action.

1) City Civil Service Commission public meeting (September 9, 2026) – key actions and decisions — Procedural decisions

• Quorum confirmed (three commissioners) and the commission voted to come out of executive session.
• Items 1–3 were moved to be addressed after the rule-amendment discussion (housekeeping items postponed until after the rule amendments).

Furlough discussion (context for budgeting and staffing)

• CAO Joe Jerusalem and John Whisby presented furlough data; Abby contributed the precise year-to-date figures.
• Data: about 10% of total city employees on furlough (~4,500 employees, about 450 on furlough).
• Furloughs largely affected unclassified employees; exemptions exist for certain criteria.
• Savings to date: $2,612,920; projected end-of-year savings: ~ $3,928,939, plus ~ $1,316,019 anticipated.
• Financial context: the mayor does not intend furloughs in 2027; budget is being tuned continually, with furloughs for 2027 not planned.
• Revenue enhancements discussed: sanitation fee (~$1.1 million per month), potential permit/short-term rental fees, roll-forward adjustments by the Legislative Auditor.
• Administrative note: administration is exploring lifting furloughs before year-end if revenue comes in as planned.

Commission questions/comments

• Emphasis on ensuring staff who postponed pay receive some relief when possible, particularly around holiday periods.

Rule amendments (items 4A–4G) – summary of proposals

• 4A: Eliminate bonus annual leave days awarded for tenure.
• 4B: Eliminate bonus sick leave days awarded for tenure (with 4C–4G detailing related changes).
• Commissioner Monteverdi announced he will recuse from 4B due to potential economic interest (per LA Revised Statute 4211.12a).
• 4C–4G: Proposals include reducing carry-forward of annual leave for new hires after 12/31/2026; capping sick-leave carryover; capping terminal sick-leave payout; modifying retirement-credit conversions; and related definitions/changes.
• Opening approach: presenters acknowledged strong public/employee interest, sought candid dialogue, and signaled openness to feedback and continued conversations after the budget discussions (including a Sept 23 “Ask Me” meeting and October meeting). The current package is a starting point, not etched in stone.

Speakers noted as clear

• Joe Jerusalem (CAO) – furlough data and budgeting context.
• John Whisby – furlough discussion participation.
• Abby – precise year-to-date furlough savings.
• Commissioner Monteverdi – recused from 4B (potential economic interest).

Unresolved issues and upcoming actions

• Core unresolved items: whether to eliminate/alter bonus annual leave days and bonus sick leave days (items 4A and 4B) and the broader implications of related 4C–4G changes.
• Public feedback and stakeholder input will continue; schedule includes Sept 23 (Ask Me) and an October meeting for ongoing discussions.
• Questions remain about the retroactivity of changes, transition rules, and timing relative to the 2027 budget and furlough framework.

Agenda flow note

• The meeting opened with executive-session items, then addressed furlough data, then proceeded to rule-change discussions with an emphasis on dialogue and stakeholder input.

2) Public testimony summaries (various excerpts) – what was said and by whom — Core reform package discussed (as summarized across excerpts)

• 4A: End bonus annual leave days tied to tenure.
• 4B: End bonus sick leave tied to tenure (recusal noted for 4B due to potential economic interest).
• 4C–4G: Various related changes (annual leave carryover cap for new hires; sick leave carryover cap; terminal sick-leave payout cap; leave-to-retirement conversions; emergency leave definitions).

Rationale offered

• Terminal leave liability exists (example figures cited in excerpts: examples include large and variable payouts; the intent is to reduce volatility and align with practices in other jurisdictions).
• Changes aim to improve budgeting predictability and long-term fiscal health while balancing workforce realities.

Key issues raised by stakeholders

• Retroactivity: debate about whether changes should apply to current employees or only future hires; some speakers argued for retroactivity or for grandfathering; others argued for prospective application only.
• Pension implications: questions about whether unused or carryover leave becomes pensionable or affects pension calculations; several speakers urged legal guidance (including potential Attorney General opinions) before proceeding.
• Impact on morale, recruitment, and retention: unions (AFSCME, FOP, PANO) and frontline staff argued changes could harm recruitment/retention, especially in EMS and public-safety-aligned departments.
• Operational concerns: leave management during holidays, Mardi Gras, and blackout periods; staffing constraints in critical departments.

Notable speakers and positions (high-level)

• City employees, EMS personnel, S&WB staff, and union representatives generally opposed the proposed changes as presented in these excerpts.
• Several speakers framed benefits (including bonus sick/annual leave) as critical for morale, recruitment, and operational viability.
• Some callers urged continued dialogue, more data, and consideration of alternatives (revenue measures, negotiations with unions, etc.).

Decisions, votes, and actions (as recorded in these testimony-focused excerpts)

• No final policy decisions or votes were reported in these testimony-only excerpts.
• The meetings were framed as listening sessions to collect input, with plans for further discussion and possible legal review and stakeholder engagement.

Unresolved issues highlighted in these excerpts

• Exact treatment for current employees vs. new hires; retroactivity and transition rules.
• Pensionability and vested-right questions; need for legal opinions (AG) before finalization.
• Whether to broaden comparables beyond Louisiana jurisdictions and how to balance state/national best practices with local needs.
• Timeline and mechanism for final decisions, including potential follow-up meetings and formal rulemaking.

Additional notes from the public-testimony focus

• Public safety and frontline workers repeatedly emphasized that large or abrupt changes to leave benefits could erode morale and staffing stability, with EMS and S&WB figures cited as particularly sensitive to these changes.

3) Other Civil Service Commission agenda items (as seen in some excerpts) — Chair/vice-chair and general governance

• A chair/vice-chair process observed in one excerpt; chair nominations and votes occurred with some items carrying and others deferred due to recusals or lack of quorum.

Classification and compensation items (example items from one set of excerpts)

• Librarian I pay-grade adjustment approved.
• Title-change from Police Accounting Section Manager to Contract Section approved.
• Special rate of pay for Networks Master Maintenance Technicians (Sewer/WB) approved.
• Fire Department dual-assignment pay item deferred due to a commissioner’s recusal (economic interest).
• New special rate of pay for work at a higher classification discussed but not finalized in the excerpt.
• Some items involved recusals and deferrals; others were approved on votes with all-in-favor outcomes noted in the excerpts.

Administrative actions

• July 21, 2026 minutes approved; July 10, 2026 minutes postponed.
• Several items (e.g., 5d) were deferred due to recusals; others (5a–5c, 5e) moved toward decision but not fully concluded in the excerpts.

Unresolved items common to these excerpts

• The precise language and fiscal impact of some compensation adjustments.
• The effect of recusals on vote outcomes and final decisions.
• The need for more public comment or final language before final adoption.

4) SWBNO/public-comment-focused set (SWBNO and related agency voices)

• The tenor across SWBNO comments: opposition to amendments that would cut sick/annual leave or carryover; emphasis on benefits as recruitment/retention tools; concerns about impact on operations and infrastructure staffing during emergencies and peak events.

Key concerns voiced

• Benefit reductions could hurt recruitment/retention and morale.
• Operational capacity and continuity of services (e.g., flood-mitigation, maintenance) rely on experienced staff.
• Calls for budgeting alternatives (revenue measures, reallocation of higher-level budgets) rather than cutting frontline benefits.
• No formal decisions recorded; the session functioned as a public comment phase to inform future policy decisions.

Unresolved issues and next steps across the material

• The central unresolved thread is how and when the city will implement changes to leave benefits (4A–4G) and how to handle retroactivity versus prospective application. Specific questions include:
• Should changes apply to current employees, new hires after a date (e.g., December 31, 2026), or both? Should grandfathering be allowed?
• Are any portions of leave (e.g., a subset of days or portions of a 200-day sick-leave accrual) pensionable or vested rights? What do state law and local ordinances say?
• What is the true budgetary impact (short-term and long-term) of eliminating/altering bonus leave and other carryover/payout rules? How does this interact with furloughs, revenue measures, and 2027 budgeting?
• What legal opinions or external reviews (e.g., Attorney General opinion) are required before final adoption?
• How should stakeholder input be collected and weighed (unions, frontline staff, S&WB, public safety) and how will concerns about morale and service levels be addressed?

Next steps and process signals

• Ongoing dialogue with affected groups and stakeholder input (including a Sept 23 session and an October meeting noted in the materials).
• Possible additional data collection and analyses (costs, payout patterns, retroactivity implications) before any final vote or policy adoption.
• Public and employee input will continue to shape the final form and implementation timeline of any rule changes.

Context

• Focus: City budget and revenue forecasts for 2026 and 2027, including adjustments to the forecast and exploration of potential new revenue sources.
• Noted themes: Reducing reliance on one-time revenue, aiming for a more structural balance, and considering how macro factors (inflation, tourism, interest rates) affect revenues.
• Notable participants mentioned: Tony Weiss (economist), CAO Jeruso, and Professor Weister (thanked at the end).

Key decisions, actions, and votes — 1) Adoption of the amended official 2026 revenue forecast

• Motion: Adopt the amended official 2026 revenue forecast.
• Moved by: Mayor Moreno; seconded by Alyssa Rambo.
• Vote: Five ayes (unanimous).

2) Suspension of the rules to add the 2027 forecast to the agenda

• Motion: Suspend the rules to add the 2027 forecast to the agenda.
• Moved by: Mayor Moreno; seconded by Alyssa Rambo.
• Vote: All in favor; all voting yes.

3) Addition of the 2027 forecast to the agenda

• Motion: Add the 2027 forecast to the agenda.
• Moved by: Mayor Moreno; seconded by Alyssa Rambo.
• Vote: All in favor; all voting yes.

4) Preliminary adoption of the 2027 forecast

• Forecast presented: $768,249,094 (approx. $40 million higher than the prior year’s projection).
• Motion: Preliminary adoption of the 2027 forecast.
• Moved by: Mayor Moreno; seconded by Council Member Harris.
• Vote: Five affirmative votes.

Speakers and remarks

• Mayor Moreno: Spoke about the budget process, grant reimbursements, and the importance of avoiding over-reliance on one-time revenue; thanked CAO Jeruso, the finance team, the Council, and others.
• CAO Jeruso: Acknowledged for presenting the budget and for collaboration with the Council and administration.
• Tony Weiss: Provided forecast context and considerations (forecasted 2027 figure and related factors).
• Professor Weister: Mentioned and thanked at the end.

Key numbers and near-term budget items discussed — One-time revenue exposure

• 2026: ~20% of the budget from one-time revenue.
• 2027: One-time revenue projected down to ~1.5%.

Millage roll-forward components (general fund budgeting)

• Direct general fund revenues: about $10.16 million.
• Police and fire millage: about $4.36 million.
• Other revenue: about $28 million (includes items for police/fire, early childhood education, library, Nord, Parkways, Audubon, City Park, etc.).
• Note: Sewage and Water Board and other outside agencies are excluded from these figures.

Additional revenue opportunities (not yet finalized/ripe)

• Permit fee increase: estimated to add about $1.8 million (near $2 million) in addition to the general fund if approved.
• Short-term nightly fee: under development; potential impact roughly $3–$5 million.
• Combined potential additional revenue if all items pass: around $6 million (midpoint), in addition to the millage roll-forward amounts.

Unresolved issues and next steps

• Permit fee increase: Not yet voted on; lies over for 21 days. Final impact depends on approval.
• Short-term nightly fee: Still under development; final revenue impact unclear and may change.
• Overall final budget impact: The ultimate revenue number depends on which items pass and how the forecast is updated.
• Ongoing shaping of the budget for the year and use of one-time payments.

Adjournment

• The meeting adjourned after votes and remarks; participants were thanked, including Professor Weister, for their collaborative effort.