Meetings.

Decisions, votes, and actions

• Agenda item: Adoption of the minutes of the December 9, 2025 meeting.
• Motion to adopt: by an speaker not named in the record; seconded by Councilmember McCarran.
• Vote: 3 ayes, 0 nays.
• Result: Minutes adopted.

Agenda item: Odyssey House Louisiana presentation (Low Barrier Shelter, LBS)

• Speakers: Lonnie Grenier (Policy and Advocacy Manager, Odyssey House Louisiana); Amy Bosworth (Chief Operating Officer, Odyssey House Louisiana); Robert Chandler (Odyssey House representative).
• Key content:
• LBS context: Operated since June 2024; part of a continuum of care including housing, health care, case management, and recovery services.
• Why LBS matters: Addresses public health concerns and provides a safe alternative to encampments with access to meals, hygiene, healthcare, and supportive services.
• 2025 outcomes (Jan–Dec 2025): 296 bed capacity (100% occupancy); 747 individuals served; 349 rehoused/transitioned; 421 primary health care visits (1,575+ total visits); 32 sobering center connections; 67 detox/short-term treatment entries; 100% of guests had individualized care plans.
• Operational improvements: More meals (three per day), safer environment, fewer overdoses; expanded prevention (Narcan distributions); on-site job fairs; improved data tracking via HMIS; better understanding of encampment closures and referrals; first Thanksgiving served to 500+ community members; November 2025 guest satisfaction positive on safety, cleanliness, food service, case management, and communication.
• Economic/social impact: 2025 commissioned economic impact study estimated $9.4M in annual cost savings and nearly $40M in total economic impact; findings suggest reduced strain on ERs, law enforcement, and other systems; supports investment in LBS.
• Current status/demand: Shelter remains at capacity with a waitlist; demand exceeds capacity; ongoing improvements and focus on reintegration and connections to housing/treatment.
• Q&A and discussion (Budget Committee Chair / Councillor Harris)
• Economic impact data shared with the state to illustrate ROI of the shelter and continuum of care.
• Origin data: HMIS captures origin data; officials can provide Orleans Parish vs. outer parishes percentage breakdown.
• Capacity/expansion: Current capacity 296; expansion potential discussed with caveats; ADA/accessibility concerns noted (nonfunctioning elevators; three-year issue); disability access barriers highlighted; discussion about ADA-compliant facility and potential new shelter; suggestion to engage the state for investment in ADA-compliant shelter/infrastructure.

Unresolved issues and follow-ups requested

• Elevator outage and ADA compliance remediation.
• Expansion feasibility for the current site and implications for ADA compliance.
• State engagement for investment in a new, ADA-compliant shelter and broader shelter infrastructure.
• Precise percentages of clients originating from Orleans Parish vs. outer parishes.
• Ongoing documentation of data sharing with the state and ROI updates.

What was discussed

• Agenda item: Discussion on shelter operations, capacity, and related policy.
• Facility conditions and investment: A speaker criticized shelter facilities (shower, kitchen, elevators) as not up to par and questioned whether further investment is the best use; the group largely agreed.
• Coordination and data access: HMIS access exists; weekly coordination meetings among Unity, OHSS, Traveler’s Aid, and the shelter are functioning well.
• Legislative/policy issue: Bill criminalizing sleeping on the street.
• Impact concerns: Shelter at capacity; insufficient funding for substance-use treatment due to Medicaid rollbacks/underinsurance; risk that criminalization would push people to jail rather than shelter/treatment, increasing costs.
• The chair/participants opposed the bill, arguing it would be inhumane and more expensive than shelter and supportive housing; data cited to support ROI of shelter beds and supportive housing.
• Budget/future planning: Working with the health department to identify FY26 budget figures that avoid reducing shelter or treatment beds and to explore efficiencies; consideration of Sobering Center use in the future.
• Capacity and demand details (clarifying questions):
• Low-barrier shelter capacity: 296 beds, always full; wait list exists.
• Short-term residential treatment capacity: 147 beds; typically about 70 occupied; many beds open due to funding gaps (underinsured/uninsured).
• Distinction: Shelter capacity (296 beds at LBS) vs. separate residential treatment capacity (147 beds).

Overall status

• Clarified capacity and funding gaps; emphasized need for policy and funding changes; ongoing collaboration with partners.
• No formal votes recorded in this excerpt; speakers signaled continued collaboration and future policy/budget discussions.

Actions requested/next steps

• No formal actions or votes noted; ongoing policy and budget dialogue anticipated.

What was discussed

• Context: Demolition contracting status, expansion for large commercial demolitions, district-equity in demolitions, training, and related follow-ups.
• Key participants: Chairman Hughes; Mr. Davis (Code Enforcement Director); Mr. Lee Mayu (DERC representative); Councilmembers Harris (District D) and King (District C); others discussing training and local workforce development.
• Main topics and points:
• Contracting/capacity: Proposal to add a second contractor for large commercial demolitions; would require a separate RFP. Currently using a single contractor (DERC); concerns about capacity and funding.
• Demolition distribution by district (2025): Asked whether demolitions were equitably distributed; District 8 fewer demolitions; districts B–E described as equitable last year; variations explained by emergency declarations, time in place, and administrative demolitions; two-year deadline for administrative demolitions possibly affecting district distribution. Action requested: provide data by week’s end on 2025 emergency vs. non-emergency demolitions by district.
• Training and hearing officer uniformity: Emphasis on training, but concerns about consistent adjudication outcomes; needs SOPs and standardization.
• DERC background and local impact: DERC headquartered in Harahan; about 100 employees; robust internal training; workforce development with schools; DBE target around 35% (Ovella Enterprises; not present); claim that all employees are local to the greater New Orleans area.
• District D concerns and follow-up (Councilmember Harris): Data request for blighted properties in District D on the IDC list slated for demolition (property addresses); concern about empty lots post-demolition attracting encampments and maintenance costs; discussion of possible follow-on contracts (boarding up, fencing, grass cutting) not currently contracted; cost-recovery efforts with Central Adjudication Bureau; request to provide amounts recovered.
• District C concerns and local contractors: Concern about Orleans Parish-based firms vs. Jefferson Parish firms (Ovella in Jefferson Parish); ongoing discussion about ensuring Orleans Parish opportunities; question about alternatives if current contract is not extended (not answered in excerpt).

Actions and next steps requested

• Data requests: By end of week, provide 2025 emergency demolitions and 2025 non-emergency demolitions broken down by council district; District D blighted property addresses on the IDC list; cost-recovery figures to date.
• Liaison actions: Provide list of IDC property addresses for District D; compile cost-recovery data.
• Policy/operational actions: Develop SOPs to standardize adjudication/hearing officer decisions; consider follow-on contracts (boarding, fencing, grass) for post-demolition properties; evaluate whether to extend the current contractor or pursue alternatives; define evaluation criteria for future RFPs (2027).

Unresolved issues/open questions

• Equity distribution: Exact 2025 district-by-district distribution not yet provided.
• Contractor approach: Whether to keep a single-contractor model vs. multiple bidders; details of 2027 RFP evaluation criteria not yet defined.
• Orleans Parish DBE opportunities: Ongoing concern about local contracting vs. Jefferson Parish firms.
• Post-demolition lot maintenance: Gap in maintenance (boarding, fencing, grass) lacks current contracts.
• Data completeness: Specific district data and addresses to be delivered; debt recovery figures pending.

Speakers identified

• Chairman Hughes; Mr. Davis (Code Enforcement Director); Mr. Lee Mayu (DERC representative); Councilmember Harris (District D); Councilmember King (District C).

What was discussed

• Topic: Status of demolition contracts and related amendments (emergency demolition and non-emergency contract).
• Context: The current demolition contract expired March 29; an amendment was not approved in time, creating potential backlogs.
• Key numbers cited:
• 195 properties ordered for demolition in 2025 via administrative process.
• ~100 additional properties identified as “imminent danger.”
• About 47 properties currently going through sheriff sale.
• Alternatives/constraints:
• Sheriff sale could help but is slow (at least a year to relieve community backlog).
• Efforts to accelerate demolition via extensions with property owners; some owners delay actions.
• Efforts to speed relief by sheriff sales, writs on vacant lots, and moving properties toward commerce.
• RFP/contract improvements:
• New RFP will include lessons learned, fencing, boarding, and other measures.
• Emphasis on returning properties to compliance and managing vacant lots more proactively.

Speakers and notable points

• Council Member King: Asked what happens if the contract isn’t approved; emphasized concern for District E and local DBE opportunities; requested more conversations.
• Council Member Beehues: Supported considering a New Orleans-based DBE for city work.
• Council Member Harris: Supported measures in the amended RFP (fencing, boarding, etc.) and moved motions to advance items.
• Mr. Davis (DER): Responded that emergencies cannot be addressed without the amendment; described ongoing efforts (vacant lots, sheriff sale, writs, community outreach).
• Other notes: Lot Next Door program suspended since May of last year due to vendor issues; ongoing concern about rapid relief for communities.

Decisions and actions taken

• Motion to advance emergency demolition item (4A) to the full council: Initiated by Council Member Harris and seconded by Council Member King; item advanced (no exact vote tally provided).
• Motion to advance non-emergency contracting item (B) to the full council: Also moved by Harris and seconded by King; item advanced to the full council.
• Discussion of delaying: District E Council Member expressed intent to delay for at least one month to allow further conversations with DER and the administration (personal stance, not a formal delay vote).
• Next steps promised by staff:
• Provide the percentage of demolition debts recovered to date.
• Continue working on the amended contract and the new RFP, incorporating fencing, boarding, and other improvements.
• Continue sheriff sales and writs to move vacant lots toward redevelopment.

Unresolved issues and open questions

• Timing/approval risk: Whether the amendments will be approved in time to prevent backlog remains unresolved.
• Backlog relief: How quickly blighted properties will be addressed if amendments are delayed/denied.
• DBE/local contracting: Extent to which Orleans Parish DBEs will be used and how to ensure local opportunities.
• Sheriff sale/Lot Next Door: The status and timeline of sheriff sales, writs, and Lot Next Door (suspended) remain uncertain.
• Debt recovery stats: The exact percentage of demolition debts recovered is pending.

Overall posture

• The council moved two contract-related items toward the full council while acknowledging concerns about backlogs, rapid blight relief, local DBE opportunities, and the need for ongoing dialogue with administration and DER.
• Emphasis on targeted actions (local DBEs, addressing delays, and faster remedies for blighted properties) and finalizing amendments with clear funding/responsibility/timelines.

Public meeting material (Boards/commissions and related appointments) — Roll call and status

• Names listed: Morrell, McCarran, Harris, Greene, Hughes (five names).
• Chair states: “We have four members. We have a quorum.” No further attendance details provided.

Approval of minutes

• March 17 minutes: Approved unanimously.
• Vote on March 17 minutes: Four yeas, zero nays (motion by Councilmember Harris; second by Leslie Harris).

Boards and commissions appointments (nominees, positions, votes)

• 1) Sandra Lombana-Lingquist – Audubon Commission
• Intro: President/CEO, New Orleans Chamber of Commerce.
• Action: Motion to approve; second by Harris.
• Vote: Four yeas, zero nays.
• Status: Forward to Council for full approval.
• 2) Brittany Major – Audubon Commission
• Intro: President/CEO, Major Services.
• Action: Motion to approve; second by Harris.
• Vote: Four yeas, zero nays.
• Status: Approved at this stage; to be sent to Council for full approval.
• 3) Penny Francis – Audubon Commission
• Intro: Owner, Eclectic Home.
• Action: Motion to approve; second by Hughes.
• Vote: Five yeas, zero nays.
• Status: Approved; to be sent to Council for full approval (implied).
• 4) Tanya Boyd-Cannon – NORD (New Orleans Recreation and Development Commission)
• Intro: Educator, musician, Rise My Child Foundation founder/president.
• Council comment: Hughes suggests broadening NORD’s scope to all ages.
• Action: Motion to approve; second by Caron.
• Vote: Five yeas, zero nays.
• Status: Approved; to be sent to Council for full approval (implied).
• 5) Lamar Gardere – FANO (Finance Authority for New Orleans)
• Intro: Data Center Exec Director; data-driven housing/economic focus.
• Action: Motion to approve; second by Harris.
• Vote: Five yeas, zero nays.
• Status: Approved; to be sent to Council for full approval (implied).
• 6) Kevin Nguyen – New Orleans Loan Authority (recusal noted)
• Intro: Banking career and access to capital.
• Recusal: Nguyen (speaker’s relation) recuses from discussion and voting due to familial relation.
• Action: Board vote occurs after recusal; remains for full council confirmation.
• Vote: Four yeas, one recusal.
• Status: Approved for full council confirmation (subject to council vote).
• 7) John Malazzo – Finance New Orleans (returning member)
• Intro: Former term; background in credit unions/banking.
• Action: Motion to reappoint; second by Harris.
• Vote: Five yeas, zero nays.
• Status: Forwarded for full council confirmation.
• 8) Ethics Review Board
• Intro: Sian Quiet-Smith listed as candidate.
• Status: No further details, votes, or actions provided in this excerpt.

Notes and ancillary exchanges

• Brief exchange: Boyd-Cannon and Hughes discuss broad value of NORD (beyond youth services) to include other residents.

Unresolved issues or next steps

• Ethics Review Board item has no action or voting results documented here.
• Several nominees’ approvals are described as “forwarded to the Council for full approval,” indicating awaiting full council action.
• Roll-call discrepancy: five names listed vs. chair’s statement of four members; no clarification provided in the excerpt.

Speakers noted (clearly identified)

• Sandra Lombana-Lingquist
• Brittany Major
• Penny Francis
• Tanya Boyd-Cannon
• Lamar Gardere
• Kevin Nguyen (recused)
• John Malazzo
• Sian Quiet-Smith (introduction only)

Overall takeaway for the excerpt: Multiple nominees for Audubon, NORD, FANO, and related bodies were approved at the initial level and sent forward to the full council; one recusal occurred; Ethics Review Board item remains unresolved in this excerpt; a roll-call discrepancy is noted but not resolved.

Public meeting material (Ethics Review Board nominations) — Opening context (Ethics Review Board emphasis)

• Remarks framed ethics as central to integrity, accountability, transparency; candidate qualifications noted (operational/compliance experience).

Ethics Review Board nominations and votes

• 1) Unnamed candidate for Ethics Review Board
• Testimony: Candidate spoke about qualifications.
• Action: Motion to approve; second by Hughes.
• Vote: Five yeas, no nays.
• Outcome: Approved for recommendation to appointment.
• 2) Nick Harris (Ethics Review Board)
• Testimony: Described long tenure at Dillard University; experience with ethics in public/private sectors.
• Action: Motion to approve; second (unspecified).
• Vote: Five yeas, no nays.
• Outcome: Approved for recommendation to appointment.
• 3) Boris Vijay (Ethics Review Board)
• Testimony: CEO of Volunteers of America Southeast Louisiana; emphasized integrity, transparency, accountability.
• Action: Motion to approve; second.
• Vote: Five yeas, no nays.
• Outcome: Approved for recommendation to appointment.
• 4) Cheryl Sims-Taplin (Ethics Review Board)
• Testimony: Attorney, 24 years’ experience; stressed ethical standards.
• Action: Motion to approve; second.
• Vote: Four yeas, no nays (one vote missing at tally time).
• Outcome: Forwarded to confirmation (not final appointment yet).
• 5) Savitri Wilson-Taylor (Downtown Development District)
• Testimony: Downtown resident/business owner; former secretary of DDD; spoke on downtown growth.
• Action: Motion to approve; second.
• Vote: Five yeas, no nays.
• Outcome: Approved for recommendation to appointment/confirmation.
• 6) Ronald P. McClain (Sandy Kresnoff New Orleans Criminal Justice Council)
• Testimony: Exec Director, Institute of Mental Hygiene; focus on crime victims and prevention.
• Action: Motion to approve; second.
• Vote: Five yeas, no nays.
• Outcome: Approved for recommendation to appointment.
• 7) Bernadette Johnson (New Orleans Redevelopment Authority)
• Testimony: Former Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice; focus on blight and redevelopment; discussed tools to advance property improvement; legal background noted.
• Moderator/collaborators offered support; Johnson disclosed potential cousin relationship to a judge and stated she would not recuse herself.
• Action/Vote: No vote recorded in excerpt; process ongoing.
• Status: Unresolved at this point; awaiting vote/confirmation.

Unresolved issues and notable items

• Bernadette Johnson’s nomination: no final vote recorded yet; disclosure of a potential cousin relationship with a judge; Johnson stated she would not recuse herself.
• Cheryl Sims-Taplin: outcome forwarded to confirmation with four yeas and one vote missing.

Speakers and procedural notes

• Several candidates supplied testimony; councilmembers mentioned include Hughes, Morrell, and others in the session.
• Overall takeaway for the excerpt: A slate of Ethics Review Board candidates was advanced, with most approvals 5-0; two items require further action (Sims-Taplin forward to confirmation with partial tally; Johnson’s vote pending).

Public meeting material (Ethics/appointments session and temporary alcohol beverage permits, ABOs) — Context and opening remarks

• Focus on Ethics Review Board responsibilities and related integrity issues; discussions included remarks about housing/blight initiatives and related city work.

Speakers and remarks

• Justice Johnson: thanked for public service; highlighted affordable housing efforts and blight reduction via faster adjudication and property transfers.
• Councilmember Harris: thanked Justice Johnson; discussed housing, blight concerns, and the need to tighten blight rules; referenced working with city attorneys on resources/laws.
• Councilmember Jason Hughes: praised Justice Johnson; emphasized District E and Lower Ninth Ward needs (catalyst projects like grocery, healthcare); urged broader relocation/expansion efforts for the Sewage and Water Board to New Orleans East; reaffirmed focus on blight and redevelopment.
• Staff: Austin and Suzanne (Safety and Permits) noted; discussed process workflow and backlog at Safety and Permits.

Actions and decisions

• Confirmations: Harris moved; Green seconded. Vote: 5-0 in favor.
• Temporary ABOs discussion and amendments to ABO ordinance:
• Purpose: streamline and clarify the permit process; reduce backlog; support new business operations.
• Proposed amendments (to be officially added at full council):
• Temporary permit duration: 90 days (from 60).
• Zoning review: 10 days after application.
• Finance to issue an occupational license: within 5 days (instead of 10).
• Entire permit process cap: 15 days.
• If Safety and Permits or Finance does not grant within 15 days, permit is automatically granted, but automatic grant requires council approval.
• Denied applications: written reasons within 5 days; 15-day window to appeal to the CAO or designee.
• Wording clarifications; drop-dead date of 2027.
• Purpose reiterated: create a predictable, safe process to reduce backlog while enabling new businesses to operate.
• Status of ABO amendments: to be introduced at the full council; not placed on the consent agenda at this meeting.
• Motion/result: 5-0 vote to advance ABO amendments to be considered by the full council.
• Adjournment: 5-0.

Unresolved issues or next steps

• The exact text of ABO amendments to be formalized at the full council; details pending.
• Implementation details to be clarified at the full council meeting, including how automatic grants interact with council oversight through 2027.

Overall takeaway for the excerpt

• The meeting advanced ethics-focused confirmations and moved forward a reform package for temporary alcohol permits, with all noted votes in this excerpt at 5-0. The ABO amendments are proceeding to the full council for final consideration, not the consent agenda, with implementation specifics to be finalized there.

1) DER Program / Neighborhood Power Plan (DER/NPP) – the excerpt — Attendance and actions

• Roll call established quorum; council members Greene, Morrell, Willard, McCarran, and King present.
• December 10, 2025 minutes approved by roll-call vote (motion by Council Member King; motion carries).

Agenda item: DER Program Docket (Neighborhood Power Plan)

• Purpose: Discuss proposed DER program, including battery storage incentives and a neighborhood VPP to improve grid resilience; target roughly 1,500 homes and 150 community institutions.
• Presenters: Cecile Mason (Deputy Chief, Council Utilities Regulatory Office) and Basil Udo (Denton’s Law Firm, utility advisor to the Council on Regulatory Matters).

Key background/context

• What DERs are: Localized solar/storage that can form a VPP to support grid reliability and resilience.
• Procedural schedule aim: Increase DER battery storage availability; evaluate policy/funding modifications for a vendor-neutral program.
• Historical context:
• Resolution 24624: 10-month process with broad participation (20+ intervenors, eight proposals, two technical conferences, three comment rounds).
• Resolution 25669: DER program approved as part of the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Phase 3 pilot; 10-year program with 3-year ramp-up; upfront incentives to kick participation; 40% LMI set-aside within the residential portion.
• Entergy implementation plan filed in March; advisors found it generally compliant (design, eligibility, incentives/clawbacks, deployment targets, upfront incentives).
• Financial structure (as directed by council)
• Overall incentive split: 50% residential, 50% commercial.
• LMI set-aside: 40% of the residential portion (i.e., within the 50% residential share).
• Upfront incentives: $400/kWh for non-LMI; $480/kWh for LMI within residential portion.
• Ongoing incentives (10-year program): Residential $125 per average kW delivered (annual cap $600); Commercial $250 per average kW delivered (annual cap $1,800).

Clarifications and questions

• Ongoing incentive levels mirror December 669 directions; upfront incentives may be insufficient to ensure broad LMI participation (LMI is 40% of residential, not 40% of total).

Current procedural actions and unresolved items (as of meeting)

• T&O (Entergy & utility-related filings) submitted new proposals/analyses with revisions to incentive levels and caps not in the record.
• Discovery extended to May 26, 2026 to address T&O proposals.
• Entergy to file a supplemental implementation plan addressing items identified by DER consultants; supplemental filing due by May 26, 2026.
• Comment deadline extended to June 22, 2026; advisor’s report and record certification by hearing officer on August 6, 2026.
• Next steps: All parties may submit comments on the 669 framework, the new T&O proposals, and Entergy’s supplemental plan; process aims for a final advisory report and authorization after the August 6, 2026 certification.

Council questions and clarifications

• Willard asked for a brief evaluation of incentive levels against program goals and alignment with Entergy’s revised plan. Basil responded:
• Ongoing incentives align with 669 directions.
• Upfront incentives may not be sufficient for strong LMI participation; LMI share remains within the residential portion (i.e., 40% of residential).
• On clawbacks and Entergy filings, Basil indicated review is underway; extension and supplemental filing are intended to refine details.

Public comment

• Planned for a five-minute limit per speaker; transcript does not include public comments.

Unresolved issues

• Whether upfront incentives adequately drive LMI participation; potential adjustments in light of T&O proposals.
• Specifics of the T&O proposals and how they would modify incentives, caps, and program mechanics.
• Content of Entergy’s supplemental plan and how it addresses required items.
• Final recommendations to be included in the advisor’s report and the August 6, 2026 record certification.

Speakers noted

• Bobbie Mason, Deputy Chief, Council Utilities Regulatory Office (opened DER background)
• Basil Udo, Dentons Law Firm (utility advisor to the Council)

Overall takeaway

• The meeting provided DER/NPP background, regulatory context, and an extended procedural schedule to refine incentives and address new T&O proposals, with a goal of a vendor-neutral implementation plan and an advisor’s final report by August 2026.

2) Clawbacks / 669 framework discussion – the excerpt — Context and focus

• Clawback provisions were a key topic, informed by DER consultant Mike Goldman; aim to design clawbacks that are fair and do not deter participation.
• The council’s Resolution 669 emphasizes ongoing reporting and the ability to adjust the program based on feedback.

Speakers and contributions

• Council Member Green: Thanked Together New Orleans; raised concerns about eligibility and customer protections; requested detailed eligibility/protections information by May 26 as Entergy provides more specifics.
• Natalie Jordy (Together New Orleans): Outlined Neighborhood Power Plan needs, vulnerabilities due to load pockets, and proposed three core elements (local, grid-tied, resilient power) with a microgrid focus to reduce distance and improve reliability.
• Broad Bagger (Together New Orleans): Focused on affordability and past community solar issues; introduced a calculator comparing Entergy vs. TNO proposals; urged adjustments to incentives to improve deployment feasibility (e.g., align residential/commercial incentives, remove caps, raise business incentive to $250/kW/year).
• Deborah Salvador (Community Church Unitarian Universalist): Highlighted resilience value through church solar adoption post-Katrina; demonstrated community resilience benefits.

Actions and next steps

• Discovery period to evaluate numbers and calculator results; after discovery, council will consider changes.
• Data-driven adjustments via ongoing reporting; eligibility protections refined with Entergy by May 26.
• Affordability and incentive design adjustments to address gaps identified by TNO and advisors.

Unresolved issues

• Whether the clawback design achieves fairness without discouraging participation.
• Final eligibility criteria and customer protections; precise impact of data-driven adjustments.
• Specifics of T&O proposals and how they alter incentives, caps, and program mechanics.

Speakers noted

• Council Member Green; Natalie Jordy (Together New Orleans); Broad Bagger (Together New Orleans); Deborah Salvador (Community Church Unitarian Universalist)

3) Public input on Neighborhood Power Plan and equity concerns – the excerpt — Context

• Focused on expanding safe havens during outages (emergency resilience) and equity considerations; no formal decisions or votes recorded in this excerpt.

Speakers and key points

• Unnamed community speaker: Emphasized value of safe havens with air conditioning, charging, refrigeration, and broad incentives to increase participation citywide.
• Brandon Dubose (homeowner): Has solar but no battery due to upfront cost; urged incentives for batteries to reduce cost barriers; cited benefits for emergencies and vulnerable residents.
• Jesse George (Alliance for Affordable Energy): Thanked for procedural clarity; promised formal comments to maximize resident benefits; stressed thoughtful process.
• Margaret Washington (New Orleans East resident): Advocated neighborhood power plants; highlighted affordability concerns and health needs (CPAP); emphasized need for local power during outages.
• Jeff Canton (Solar Alternatives / GREFI): Supported ordinance and expanding DER; cited Ida outages; stressed consumer protections and potential clawbacks.
• Chris Walker (Grid Alternatives): Emphasized equitable access; three design imperatives for low-income focus: (1) free battery systems for low-income residents, (2) upfront incentives to close cost gaps, (3) income eligibility at or below 80% AMI for low-income portion; willing to partner with city and groups.
• Douglas Melanson (New Orleans resident) and Becky Merriweather (next speaker) noted but full remarks not provided in the excerpt.

Unresolved issues and next steps

• Specific program design details remain to be determined: local/led structure, incentive levels, eligibility thresholds (e.g., 80% AMI suggested by Grid Alternatives), protections against predatory financing, and which sites can participate as safe havens.
• Next steps include data-informed design, ongoing community input, and potential formal actions at future meetings.

Overall impression

• Broad support for resilience via batteries and hubs, with strong emphasis on affordability, equity, community leadership, and accountability to residents.

4) Public meeting on solar+storage incentives and resilience hubs – the excerpt — Context

• Public speakers offered praise, concerns, and recommendations on incentives for solar+storage and resilience hubs; reference to December council action; calls for revisions and accountability.

Speakers and key points

• Becky Merriweather (Council District A): Supported December action; urged sufficient upfront incentives to enable participation; suggested differential upfront incentives for commercial/community hubs; called for ongoing incentives to be equalized between residential and commercial batteries; asserted administrator accountability to the council, not Entergy; emphasized life-saving value of batteries.
• Sean Moses (Angle, pastor; Together New Orleans): Described solar/battery costs (up to about $20,000); emphasized affordability barriers; urged data-driven decisions; shared resilience example (church supporting oxygen, food distribution after outages).
• Calvin Lawrence (IBEW): Supported expanding backups; called for local hiring, prevailing wages, apprenticeships.
• Larry Morgan: Noted support among residents; questioned battery costs and time for price declines; urged attention to resident needs.
• Morgan Clevenger (7th Ward): Critiqued distrust of Entergy; cited Ida outages and lack of local solar options; argued for affordable, actionable community solar.
• Chris Walker (Grid Alternatives): Highlighted equity focus; suggested three imperatives for low-income access (free batteries for eligible, close cost gap with incentives, 80% AMI threshold); expressed willingness to partner.
• Additional speakers (Douglas Melanson, Becky Merriweather) indicated but full remarks not included.

Unresolved issues and next steps

• Design specifics to ensure local-led, affordable access; whether to provide free batteries to eligible households; parity of upfront incentives across sectors; income thresholds; consumer protections; and how resilience hubs will be integrated.
• No formal votes recorded in this excerpt; next steps involve ongoing design and potential council actions.

5) Other docket items with votes and actions – the excerpt — Context

• The meeting covered energy/utility docket items, ex parte communications under a draft ordinance, and two arbitration appeals from the Sewerage and Water Board.

Notable actions and votes

• Community solar / energy equity discussions included comments from multiple speakers.
• Ex parte communications (Ordinance Calendar Number 35422): Vote to move forward 5 yays, 0 nays.
• Arbitration appeals: Chris Stephens and Juanita Mollier appeals upheld; votes 5 yays, 0 nays (unanimous in both cases); these will go to the full council with a recommendation for approval.
• Other agenda items included ex parte discussion and an item on ex parte interpretation; a speaker urged a collaborative interpretation with CURO, while maintaining the language as written.

Notable points and unresolved items

• Ex parte interpretation and how CURO engagement should occur; ensure adherence to the written rule while avoiding gatekeeping that hampers problem-solving.
• Some discussion elements (e.g., incentives levels discussed earlier, and a separate note on Jazz Fest geofencing) were deemed not germane to the current agenda and not resolved in this meeting.

Next steps

• Approved resolutions and ordinance to move to the full council for final action; further alignment on ex parte interpretation and incentive discussions is anticipated.

Overall takeaway across all excerpts

• There is strong ongoing focus on expanding distributed energy resources, battery storage incentives, and resilience hubs to improve equity and resilience in New Orleans.
• A central issue across excerpts is ensuring affordability, particularly for low- to moderate-income residents, and balancing upfront vs. ongoing incentives, with ongoing data-driven adjustments under the 669 framework.
• An extended discovery/comment timeline is in place (through mid-2026), with a target to produce a final advisor’s report and record certification in August 2026; public input remains active, with a particular emphasis on eligibility protections, clawbacks, and local/community-led implementation.
• Several formal votes occurred in the excerpt (unrelated to DER specifics) and a minutes approval in the excerpt; most DER/NPP-related items in the earlier excerpts did not show final votes but rather procedural actions and anticipated future decisions.

Overall context (what the meetings covered)

• Topics ranged from the Omni New Orleans Convention Center Hotel project (overlay zoning, massing/height, and related design review) to several smaller zoning/subdivision items, plus studies and proposed text amendments on tobacco/nicotine/cannabis-related uses and their zoning. In many cases, final votes were not recorded in the material, or multiple materials describe different action points for the same docket.

Docket-by-docket summary — 1) Zoning Docket 024-26: Convention Center Hotel Overlay District (text amendment to Article 18)

• What was requested/subject: Establish a new overlay district (Convention Center Hotel Overlay District) with land-use and massing standards (height, FAR, design, parking, signage, lighting, etc.) and boundaries roughly along Convention Center Blvd, Andrew Higgins Dr., South Peter St., and the Mississippi River Heritage Park.
• Actions and status: Hearing proceeded to consider the overlay; no final vote in the provided material. Procedural note that the City Planning Commission is updating hearings rules; potential mid-year rule changes could affect speaking order and time limits.

Positions/speakers

• Jay Serrero (Greater New Orleans Sports Foundation): In support; argued a Convention Center Hotel Overlay District is needed to attract large events and keep New Orleans competitive.
• Jim Koch (Ernest N. Morial Convention Center): In support; framed overlay as land-use tool to enable the Omni project and regulate height, FAR, signage, lighting, etc.; emphasized keeping parking and protecting the Mississippi River Heritage Park.
• Height issue (unresolved): Staff recommended a height range of 200–250 feet to align with master plan and historic context; Omni/Applicant favored an FAR-based approach that could allow greater massing. The material notes this height question remained unresolved at the hearing.
• Unresolved items: Final decision on the overlay; exact height/FAR treatment; how the design review process will crystallize setbacks and massing if the overlay is approved.
• Notable procedural notes: Public hearing rules update in mid-year; some attendees expected to speak but only two named speakers are detailed.

2) Docket 030-26: Cafe Bonneau (historic district-related restaurant change)

• Action: The Commission voted to defer the docket to May 12.
• Votes: Five commissioners voted in favor of deferral (names reported in the material).
• Speakers/inputs: Several speakers described a neighborhood meeting and asked for deferral (including local residents). The docket concerns a historic district context and converting or permitting a restaurant use.
• Unresolved: The outcome awaits the May 12 meeting; no final decision recorded in the excerpt.

3) Docket 039-26: Broad Theater (Indoor theater expansion) – Planned Development (PD) to expand an indoor amusement facility

• Actions and status: In the excerpt this docket shows an approval, with some design/land-use conditioning (two exceptions and five provisos). The panel’s vote is reported as positive (5–6 votes depending on excerpt; multiple citations exist in the excerpts).
• Key points: PD would expand the Broad Theater (existing ~10,788 sq ft) by about 6,500 sq ft; aims to preserve historic/adaptive reuse value while expanding gathering space. Staff notes include that the PD can authorize exceptions to use/size to support reuse and that provisos relate to bike spaces, permeable space, and two parcels involved (Broad Theater and another owner’s parcel).
• Speakers: Flora Barth (Broad Theater) spoke on bike spaces and permeability; others (staff/commissioners) discussed ownership and the PD's ability to grant exceptions for public benefit.
• Unresolved/provisos: Two exceptions and five provisos to be resolved; bike-space provision (adding 3 spaces) and permeable-space sharing on two parcels; exact governance of the two-ownership site in a single PD.
• Next steps: Finalizing provisos; design review and HDLC/DAC participation as part of the standard PD process.

4) Docket 040-26: Zoning Document – Short-term rental (SDR) in MME/HUMU context

• Staff position: Staff recommended denial.
• Commission action: The Commission approved the zoning document despite staff’s recommendation to deny.
• Votes: Listed as a unanimous or near-unanimous affirmation (names in the excerpt show multiple affirmative votes; the exact tally varies by excerpt).
• Public testimony: Debbie Eastley testified on behalf of 2613 Merage LLC (Airbnb-like use); she described the property, ownership history, and license status.
• Outcome: Approved with two provisos (per the reporting in one excerpt); staff offered to assist post-hearing with SDR Bureau matters.
• Unresolved: Details of the two provisos are not fully provided in the excerpt; ongoing coordination with SDR Bureau to resolve licensing/long-term conformity.

5) Docket 041-26: Zoning Docket – Planned rezoning to SMU (Strickland Park corridor area)

• Issue: Rezoning undeveloped Strickland Park corridor from SRS to SMU to encourage mixed-use development and align with master-plan direction.
• Staff position: Recommends approval to SMU; this allows residential/commercial mix and right-of-way incorporation.
• Public input: No speakers documented.
• Decision: Approved per staff recommendation to SMU.
• Votes: At least three affirmative votes reported (names vary by excerpt); the exact tally isn’t uniformly stated across excerpts.
• Next steps: Implementation under SMU; further design/review steps as part of future development.

6) Docket 022-26: Subdivision (Lots 55–62; 16750 Shepparton Toll Highway)

• Issue: Subdivide into Lots 56A, 59A, 61A, 62A to facilitate future commercial development.
• Staff stance: Recommends approval with one standard provisor.
• Public input: Applicant not present; no public speakers recorded.
• Decision/Votes: Approved per staff recommendation (names reported: Poche, Witry, Jackson).
• Next steps: Subdivision recorded; standard provisor applied.

7) Docket 025-26: Subdivision (4200 Stephen Gerard Avenue)

• Status: The transcript ends mid-discussion; no final decision or vote recorded in the provided material.
• Public input: Not documented in the excerpt.
• Next steps: Not specified in the excerpt.

8) Other docket notes (recurrent themes across excerpts)

• Several dockets include standard planning/HDLC/DAC processes, required provisos, and the need for future design review to finalize setbacks and massing (especially for the Omni-related overlay and the Broad Theater PD).

There are recurring unresolved issues around

• Height vs. FAR approaches and how massing interacts with the urban fabric.
• Setbacks and pedestrian-scale experience at street level.
• Parking, traffic, and infrastructure impacts (staff and community concerns).
• Public subsidies, incentives, and transparency in project economics (especially in the Omni-related docket).
• How state licensing (for cannabis, tobacco, consumables) interacts with local zoning and enforcement, and whether to create city licensing for these uses.

Additional materials touching related topics (summaries from later excerpts) — Cannabis/Tobacco/Nicotine Zoning Study and proposed CZO amendments

• Staff proposed three new uses: smoke shops (tobacco/nicotine), marijuana retailers (medical), and retail sale of tobacco/nicotine/consumable hemp as an accessory use.
• Distance requirements discussed: initial 300-foot buffer, with consideration of expanding to 500 feet (or more) to align with city health objectives; debate on 500 vs 1,000 feet and how to apply buffers across districts.
• Enforcement/licensing: suggested city licensing coordination with state agencies (ATC, LDH) and potential local oversight to tighten controls.
• Next steps: City Planning Commission hearing to decide whether to transmit the study to City Council; if transmitted, Council would consider text amendments to the CZO and related ordinances.
• Unresolved items: exact buffer distances (300 vs 500 vs 1,000 feet), whether to create a sunset/non-conforming-use mechanism for grandfathered shops, how to handle satellites and state licensing rules, and signage standards.

Other cannabis zoning discussion (separate excerpt focused on neighbor concerns and process)

• Public testimony from residents opposing or seeking tighter controls on cannabis retailers near residences; calls to restrict to commercial zones, tighten hours, rethink grandfathering; concerns about enforcement, traffic, parking, and neighborhood impact.
• The materials discuss balancing a limited number of cannabis retailers (state cap with satellites) against neighborhood impacts, and emphasize transparency in the regulatory process.

What’s unresolved across the materials (highlights)

• Omni/HQ Hotel overlay: final height/massing decision remains unresolved in the early materials; subsequent design reviews and HDLC/DAC steps will finalize form.
• Cafe Bonneau and some subdivision dockets: deferrals or mid-stream decisions; several items awaiting future meetings.
• Cannabis/Tobacco/Nicotine zoning: a major policy study with potential text amendments; key issues include buffer distances (300 vs 500 vs 1,000 feet), grandfathering, district eligibility, signage, and licensing. The materials show proponents seeking broader regulatory authority and health advocates seeking stronger protections; some excerpts indicate a planned transmission of study results to City Council, with a final council decision pending.
• General process: multiple dockets indicate a pattern of moving from staff analysis to planning/HDLC/DAC review and then to City Council decisions; several items require further hearings, deferrals, or design reviews.

Overall context

• Date/Committee: Tuesday, April 14; Public Works, Sanitation, and the Environment.
• Meeting scope included SWBNO updates, lead service line program, Dwyer Canal/sewer issues, district street projects, CIP/procurement items, and public comment on service interruptions and sanitation contracts.
• Several items involve procurement/extension discussions (IV Waste Area 5; Mott MacDonald for Contour Street) and numerous operational updates.

Decisions, votes, and formal actions (as documented) — Adoption of minutes (Agenda item 2)

• Decision: Adopted
• Vote: Four yeas, zero nays
• Motion: Made by Vice President Willard; seconded by Council Member McCarran
• Quorum note: The record shows five names called for roll call but the chair stated four members in attendance; a quorum discrepancy is noted.

Amendment 6 to Mott MacDonald contract for Contour Street (Agenda item 4B)

• Purpose: Extend the Mott MacDonald agreement for roadway design/construction administration by one year (total extension to December 22, 2027).
• Vote: Adopted
• Vote tally: Four yes, zero no
• Quorum: Four members present (Hughes, Willard, McCarran, King) for this item

• Amendment 1 to IV Waste LLC contract (Sewage & Water Board sanitation in Service Area 5: French Quarter & DDD) (Agenda item 4A)
• Status: Discussion and presentation occurred; final adoption vote not clearly documented in the provided transcript segments
• Note: Several excerpts describe the amendment’s intent and public discussion but do not consistently record a final vote for 4A
• Action status: No explicit final vote recorded in the excerpts; staff indicated an adoption motion occurred in some sections, but the transcript does not uniformly confirm the outcome

Other items with explicit decisions or votes (per excerpts)

• IV Waste Area 5 contract extension details (public discussion across the excerpt): The materials discuss an 18-month extension and CPI adjustments, plus public comments. Some excerpts show a motion to adopt (and a vote) for related amendments, but the exact final action on 4A is inconsistently documented across the provided sections.
• No other formal votes clearly documented in the excerpts beyond 4B (and minutes adoption).

Key speakers and their roles (clear from the record) — SWBNO and related staff

• SWBNO Executive Director (opening remarks)
• SWBNO General Superintendent (water, sewer, and system updates)
• Kaitlin Timmerick (delivered much of the water/sewer update)
• Randy (lead service line update; funding and program management)
• SWBNO CFO (Gray Lewis) and Communications head (Sierra Labatt) were introduced
• CDM Smith (program manager for LSL) identified as chosen by consensus

Council/Board members

• Chair: Hughes
• Willard
• McCarran
• King
• Greene (listed in roll call, some sections show Greene not voting on a later item)

Public comment and community voices

• Liz Shepard and public commenters mentioned in excerpts related to 4A/4B discussions and IV Waste messaging
• Residents and business representatives provided feedback on French Quarter sanitation, canal testing, and district projects

Other presenters noted in the IV Waste/Area 5 discussions

• Tory, Director of Sanitation (presented 4A background)
• Mohannad Abdel-Fattah (DPW) and Nguyen Phan (Chief Engineer) for 4B-related design/engineering matters
• Public comments included residents, a journalist, and representatives from local associations

Major topics and notable actions (condensed by theme) — Water system and transmission mains

• High-priority 48-inch lines identified: South Claiborne & 3rd; Florida Ave; Fillmore & Cartier; Dowman & Dwyer (leaking valve noted)
• Scheduling intended to sequence: Claiborne/Third first, with Fillmore/Cartier next; Florida potentially in coordination
• Immediate actions include urgent transmission mains work and ongoing condition assessments; quotes for in-line inspection tech planned; RFI for technologies issued with responses expected mid-April to April 17
• Near-term priorities identified: Magnolia 30-inch main; additional transmission mains; 48-inch line
• Hydraulic modeling: RFP issued; contract awarded; negotiations/proceeding ongoing
• Funding: Funding details to be provided at the next meeting

Lead service line replacement (LSL)

• Financing: Additional $66 million loan closing from LSLF brings Orleans Parish total to $154 million
• Legal framework: Bills sponsored to enable public funding on private property for LSL work
• Program management: CDM Smith selected; program intended to begin construction in 2026; larger program on optimized rebid schedule
• Next steps: Award contracts; negotiate; proceed with design; small contracts to continue; bid another inspection/replacement contract in Q2 2026
• Public education: One-page consumer guidance; outreach to districts; practical actions for residents (drinking water precautions, filtration, testing, private line replacement)

Dwyer Canal/sewer issues

• Context: Odor/quality concerns; third-party contractor involved; dye testing and smoke testing planned
• Findings: Dye testing identified cross-connections between sewer and storm lines (notably at Galahad Street; seven defects require correction)
• Actions: Dye/smoke tests ongoing; CCTV-driven targeted repairs; signage posted at canal locations
• Status: Fresh context notes Cerise pump station returned to service; issues ongoing but progress made
• Public health: No single regulatory canal limit; EPA/DEQ coordination; emphasis on clarifying safe vs unsafe thresholds and transparent communication

Canals, maintenance, and operations (broader)

• Drainage/open canal network size and maintenance requirements; 66 miles of open canal; 850 acres affected; 50/50 mix of in-house and contractor work
• Vegetation management and pumping station maintenance; exploring mechanical removal; funding needs
• Public engagement: Emphasized reporting issues via 504-52-WATER, swpno.org, and 311
• Technology/finance upgrades: New CIO; cloud-based financial system live; six of seven core modules active; budgeting module due in June; supplier portal live
• Public communications: Emphasis on timely notices for outages and discharges; need for clearer plain-language reporting of canal testing results and health risk thresholds

Public communications around service interruptions (public comment focus)

• Concerns about how notices reach residents (door-to-door, flyers, online portals, Nextdoor)
• Requests for proof of notice delivery; staff indicated some proof exists for portal deliveries; real-time proof for door-knocking harder to provide
• Acknowledgement of outreach to districts; commitment to improving written notice delivery, especially for older residents

French Quarter street projects (status updates)

• Key blocks: St. Peter’s, Chartres, Toulouse, Wilkinson, Decatur blocks
• Pedestrian-only modifications; temporary closures and re-openings to ease congestion; gated barriers planned in some areas
• Priority is completing underground utilities before surface work; late-2024 to year-end timelines cited

Budget, transparency, and procurement notes (public/Council discussion)

• CPI adjustments: Applied broadly to sanitation contracts since 2022; questions addressed that CPI affects more than just IV Waste
• Public scrutiny of contract amendments and procurement processes; staff provided summaries of underlying RFPs and budget implications
• Litigation context for Area 5 contract with Rich’s Disposal Team referenced by some speakers; ongoing legal processes described; implications for procurement ongoing

Public comments in favor of IV Waste (IV Waste/Area 5)

• A range of residents, business representatives, and public safety voices praised IV Waste’s performance, street cleanliness, odor improvements, and event support
• Sidney Torres announced the Ivy Relief Fund 2025 (funerals for Bourbon Street tragedy victims) with ongoing support
• Themes: continuity of service, economic impact of the Quarter, and broad community support for continuing the contractor

Unresolved issues and open questions (prominent examples) — IV Waste – Area 5 extension ( Amendment 1 ) status

• Several excerpts discuss an 18-month extension and CPI components; inconsistent final vote documentation in the excerpts
• Public comments emphasize transparency and cost/performance scrutiny

Dwyer Canal findings

• Need for a plain-English findings document; formal board/City Council submission; enhanced proactive communication (press releases/social media)

Fillmore/Cartier scheduling

• Map extents did not show Fillmore/Cartier; exact scheduling and coordination with Claiborne/Third and Florida to be finalized

Catch basins and outage notifications

• Year-to-date catch-basin cleanings (663) reported; detailed year-end plan and in-house vs contractor roles to be finalized and communicated

Long-range procurement path after extensions

• Post-extension paths (renegotiation, new procurement) pending; details not fully settled in the material

Public budget transparency

• Requests for more explicit line-item detail for enhanced sanitation services; underlying RFP terms available but not all details in the public transcripts

Notable speakers and roles (recap)

• Key SWBNO participants: Executive Director; General Superintendent; CFO; Communications lead; Kaitlin Timmerick; Randy; CDM Smith (program manager)
• City Council/Committee members: Hughes (Chair), Willard, McCarran, King, Greene (present in various segments; voting status noted for 4B)
• Public: Residents, business leaders, community liaisons, journalists, and representatives from local associations provided supportive, critical, and questions-oriented input about IV Waste, Dwyer Canal, French Quarter projects, and notices