New Orleans City Council Meeting – July 7, 2026: Lot Abatement, Maternal Health Task Force, Mercy Hospital Lease
New Orleans City Council Meeting – July 7, 2026
The New Orleans City Council convened at approximately 4:00 PM on July 7, 2026, initially lacking a quorum but later establishing one to discuss and vote on three major items: a lot abatement contract with HO Investments, a motion to create a task force addressing climate impacts on mothers and young children, and a technical cleanup of a lease agreement for the Mercy Hospital (Lindy Boggs) redevelopment. Public comments were heard on all items.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Meredith Green (7576 Briar Heath Drive) expressed concern about the lot abatement contract, asking whether it includes the adjudicated property task force initiative and requesting a list of properties. He also urged education on Senate Bill 505 (Act 774) as an alternative avenue for the city to reclaim properties.
- Morgan Clevinger (1653 North Broad, Senior Homeowners of Greater New Orleans) spoke twice. On the lot abatement item, she opposed using taxpayer money to maintain private property and described a personal injury while cutting a neighbor's overgrowth. On the maternal task force, she urged inclusion of seniors, noting that many seniors care for young children and are vulnerable after Tropical Storm Arthur.
- Garrick Rhodes (Painter Street) supported Councilmember Green’s point that state-level changes are needed for quick title transfer and title insurance to return blighted properties to commerce, suggesting the task force consider legislative recommendations.
Discussion Items
1. Lot Abatement Contract with HO Investments
Director Davis of Code Enforcement reported a $100,000 state CEA (originally expiring July 31) extended to August 31, 2026, requiring lot abatement (grass cutting and debris removal) to be completed and invoiced to the state. The contract with HO Investments was being backdated to October 1, 2025, and runs through September 30, 2026, but services were not performed during the gap. Councilmember Willard noted the urgency to spend the $100,000 or lose it. Councilmember Green asked about costs: abatement ranges from $400 to $2,000 per lot depending on overgrowth. He highlighted that the city spent $2 million last year on lot abatement but collected only $800 due to challenges with multiple owners, succession issues, and state laws. Director Davis explained that the city bills owners and adds liens but faces difficulties recovering costs, and is working with the law department and council on solutions.
2. Motion to Establish Task Force on Climate and Maternal/Child Health (M26270)
Councilmember Willard introduced the motion, developed with the Health Department. Jeannie Donovan (Director of Public Health Policy) and Sarah Baker presented the task force’s goal: to ensure climate planning (extreme heat, storms, power outages) considers the unique needs of pregnant women, infants, and children under three. The task force will include city departments, community organizations, and families, and will review existing plans to propose amendments. Councilmember Green requested details on public input; Donovan stated there will be nine members (three from council recommendations), public meetings, and efforts to include families with lived experience. Morgan Clevinger urged including seniors in the task force.
3. Mercy Hospital / Lindy Boggs Lease Agreement Cleanup
Deputy Mayor Jeff Schwartz presented a technical correction to an April ordinance authorizing a CEA, lease, and act of sale for the redevelopment of the former Mercy Hospital site (Lindy Boggs). The cleanup adds the council president as a signatory to the lease. The project involves demolition and construction of a 4-million-gallon stormwater retention facility on private property, integrated into the city’s drainage system. City contribution: $11.5 million from infrastructure and drainage bonds (voter-approved in November 2024). Total project cost is about $16 million. Demolition is expected to begin in July 2026. Councilmember Green praised the stormwater retention concept and its cost-effectiveness (six times more impactful per dollar than a neutral ground project). Public commenter Morgan Clevinger objected to using taxpayer money for private property cleanup, but Councilmember Green noted bankruptcy and state law limitations.
Key Outcomes
- Lot Abatement Contract (HO Investments): Adopted with three ayes (Councilmembers Willard, King, Green), zero nays.
- Lease Agreement (Mercy Partners LLC): Adopted with three ayes, zero nays.
- Motion to Establish Task Force (M26270): Adopted with three ayes, zero nays.
- Minutes from Previous Meeting: Approved with three ayes.
- Meeting Adjourned after all votes.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning. Roll call. Councilmember Wellard. Here. Councilmember Morrell. Councilmember Harris. Council Member King. Councilmember Green. We have two members. We do not have a quorum. And if you want to get started on presentation from the health department for number three four, well, let's do this. Let's take um Director Davis to hear about HO investments in the light abatement contract. Everybody who showed up today. And so we've identified a lot of lots that need to be abated for public safety, but more importantly, the reason we need this is because we have a state CEA that's been approved for us for lot abatement for $100,000. Uh it was originally up until July 31st, but I went back to the state and was able to secure an extension for an additional 30 days. And so we have until 31 August to essentially have a hundred thousand dollars in lots cut and and have those invoices sent back to the state. So that's our priority number one is to make sure that we can execute the CEA with the state and expend the one hundred thousand dollars that they've given us for lot abatement. And in order to do that, we need a contract with the vendor to do that. And that hundred thousand that came from the 2025 legislative session. Yes, sir. That was the the money that I secured. Yes, that's the money we secured, yes, sir. Well, I I'm happy that you're talking about, you know, and that you got the extension. Um when I was up there in Baton Rouge, we had a few incidents where um we had to secure extensions because the city couldn't spend the money fast enough. So um this is obviously a critical issue because we're sitting on a hundred thousand dollars, and if we don't spend it, we lose the money. Um and we certainly can't be losing out on money. So you said the contract was for grass cutting. Does it also include debris removal? Includes the debris removal, yes, sir. All of that, all of the above. Okay. Uh and the contract is being backdated. Yes, sir. So it the easiest thing was to do because we've only had one amendment to the lot abatement contract. We started the second amendment late last year for uh for amendment number two, but again, everything got halted across the city. And so the easiest thing for us to do was was to pick up a second amendment from that date, which takes us to uh honestly to the end of uh September of this year. So that's we'll have about three months to maximize use of this contract, uh, which kind of will fold into what's happening next within the administration, which they are trying to consolidate all of the grass cutting for all of the city departments instead of having you know various departments having their own grass contract. So up until 30 September should work fine for us, and then we'll roll right into whatever the CAO decides for consolidating grass going forward. Okay, I got my concern would be so we're going back to October 1st of last year. Is that correct? But we weren't we didn't have any grass being cut, any mode loans during that period. Oh sorry, I shouldn't say that we've been abating to the maximum extent possible with our strike team, but they are limited about you know going on to private property, uh uh abating full lots because we don't have the resources or manpower manpower to do that. Right. And so what we've been doing is just abating right-aways for public safety since one October last year up until present. But so is this contract for the cost of a full year, or is it just for it is? It is I'm just confused as to to whether the contract is for you know just this extent this period from you know July through September, or if it's for a full year of service. It's for the full year, but it will go back still until 30 uh uh 30 September of 2025, and it'll run one year from that date. That's why it's only good up until 30 September 2026. So it is the contract is actually good for that whole year, but the time remaining will be limited to the three or three months that we have left in the remainder of the what I'm asking about is I I get the the contract runs through September. Yes, sir.
openpublica.com