Notes on the Houston City Council Meeting on December 17, 2025

Agenda

1. The Mayor’s Report
2. Consent Agenda (items that require a vote, like purchases, resolutions, ordinances, etc.)
3. Council Member Pop-Off*

*I will not cover pop-off in these notes, although I will note that it was CM Plummer’s last meeting. She made heartfelt remarks about her time on council and thanked her colleagues for their support. The Mayor and many CMs thanked her, praised her efforts, and wished her well.

The Mayor’s Report

Mayor Whitmire commented on the life and legacy of two recently deceased Houston public figures; Dr. Rod Paige and Dave Ward. He outlined several of their respective achievements, shared details about their memorial services, and offered condolences to their loved ones.

Agenda Items, Selected Works

• Item 2 approved the creation of a banner district in Houston’s Design District. CM Kamin said this has been a decade-long initiative which will provide beautification and boost economic development. They are pursuing a similar measure in Montrose.
• Item 11 approved $323K for a new radio system for HPD that “allows for better situational awareness and communication during critical incidents needing bomb squad response.”
• Item 16 would have approved $180M for the purchase of vehicles over three years, but was tagged by CM Kamin. The mayor and Chief Procurement Officer explained how many vehicles are in the city’s fleet, why so many need replacement so often, and that this a new purchasing system recommended from the Ernst & Young efficiency report that will save the city money, despite the large price tag on this item. This item is on hold until the new year.
• Item 18 approved a resolution opposing the proposed Scarborough Lane Development in Montgomery County. CM Flickinger explained flooding concerns due to developing in a flood plain and appreciated his colleagues’ support. CMs Huffman and Ramirez supported this item but pointed out it won’t prevent the development.
• Item 25 ordered a special election on April 4th for the District C council seat, as CM Kamin is resigning her seat to run for Harris County District Attorney.
• These items were not voted on for various reasons: Item 12 was tagged by CMs Kamin and Peck (see explanation further on). Item 16 was tagged by CM Kamin, see above. Item 20 was not received. Items 37 and 47 were pulled by the administration.

Item 12: The city wants to use a stormwater fund to pay for building demo

An iteration of today’s Item 12 first showed up on October 29 as Item 18, which proposed increasing a $600K contract by $50M for two companies called Honesty Environmental Services and Fern Environmental for “environmental services for Houston Public Works (HPW),” using the Storm Water Fund. According to a memo distributed to council ahead of today’s meeting, the Controller’s office “declined to certify the original proposal because it violated the law.” An iteration of this item was on every agenda since October 29, with the exception of December 2. The Controller did not certify any of them, which means the council could not vote on it.

Today’s Item 12 altered the original item. It proposed spending $30M through January 2027 for three companies (Brown & Root Industrial Services, HCG Management LLC/Honesty Construction Group, and Intercon Environmental Inc) to do “construction, asbestos abatement, and demolition services for … dangerous buildings throughout the city.” My eye was drawn to the similarity between “Honesty Construction Group” and “Honesty Environmental Services.” This contract would still use the Storm Water Fund.

CM Pollard referenced the Controller’s memo, which said, “This item misuses the Storm Water Fund and attempts to bypass the legally required oversight of the Controller’s Office.” The memo also drew parallels to the years-long and recently resolved Dedicated Drainage and Street Renewal Fund (DDSRF) lawsuit (link in resources).

• Pollard said, “I think we are overstepping our bounds on what the storm water fund’s intended purpose truly was. I don’t see where the nexus is between maintaining our drainage system and demolishing a building.”

Mayor Whitmire said demolishing dangerous buildings is a high priority. He said the item has been thoroughly vetted and has precedent, although he did not give an example.

CM Castex-Tatum remarked on the importance of demolishing dangerous buildings, of which there are many. She mentioned a budget amendment that allocated $25M of storm water funding for building demolition, expressed concern about using money inappropriately, and asked Houston Public Works Director Randy Macchi to explain.

• Director Macchi explained that abandoned buildings are magnets for illegal dumping, which sends debris into ditches and storm drains.
• Regarding funding, Macchi said the Building Inspection Fund usually manages demolition cases, but on a much smaller scale, which has caused a backlog. He assured council that HPW would find a “direct nexus into our storm water system.” He said, “The root cause of illegal dumping is that we have places where we invite people to put it there.”
• Pollard told Director Macchi, “You’re a trained lawyer, and you’re a really good lawyer, and I know you’re trying to make your case … But what you’re describing is illegal dumping.” He said the intended purpose of the Storm Water Fund is to maintain the drainage system infrastructure. Pollard pointed to the DDSRF lawsuit, where the city was “using dedicated money that was for a specific intended purpose and putting our own spin to it.” He called Macchi’s justification “a stretch.”

Mayor Whitmire praised Director Macchi and encouraged council to consider abandoned buildings a root cause of drainage problems. He said, “The public’s not going to question. They just want to get it done. We’ve used this fund for this purpose before. The people I visit with are not going to ask you about which fund. They’re going to ask you, did you demolish these dangerous buildings that are contributing to our drainage?”

CM Castex-Tatum asked how HPW will determine which buildings are eligible to use the stormwater fund.

• Director Macchi said “there’s a very thorough and rigorous inspection,” including photographic evidence. If nothing is impacting the drainage system, HPW will use the Building Inspection Fund instead.

Castex-Tatum asked about parallels to the DDSRF lawsuit. Macchi said the DDSRF and the Storm Water Fund are “like apples and oranges.” He deferred to City Attorney Arturo Michel.

• Attorney Michel said, “I’m fully confident that this is legal.” He encouraged CMs to let “intent or the perceived intent” guide their vote, and went into some legalese that is above my pay grade. He said the controller’s caution of a DDSRF-style lawsuit is a “red herring.” He said, “Council is given considerable deference in terms of what its ordinances mean. In fact, the Attorney General, except in rare circumstances that don’t apply here, will not opine on the legality of a city ordinance because of the deference given to council.”

CM Alcorn said the city heeded legal advice regarding the DDSRF that later turned out to be wrong. She agrees that illegal dumping at abandoned buildings contributes to drainage problems, but it’s a “flimsy argument” to use the Storm Water Fund for demolition. She advocated for separating demolition from the item, and said she would support it then.

• Mayor Whitmire encouraged her to trust “the person we put in charge (Macchi).” He said “What would be a better use for the Storm Water Fund than to eliminate what is causing the drainage problem?”

CM Kamin empathized with the problem of blighted and dangerous buildings, but said they still need to follow their own laws. “We have gotten legal advice in the past, and then we’ve been sued as a city, and we’ve lost because of that misinterpretation.”

• She read from the Storm Water Fund ordinance, which is specific about what it can be spent on and does not include building demolition. She argued that blight will continue to get worse because the city is not spending money on the root cause of flooding, which will lead to more buildings destroyed and ultimately abandoned.
• She expressed concern about the process of this item; “It was submitted to the Controller’s office, the Controller’s office raised issues, and then we circumvented and just found a way to put this on the agenda.”
• Mayor Whitmire defended the item and its legality. He said the demolition of unsafe buildings is “one of Houstonians #1 concerns.” He added that council voted to include this funding in the budget, and Kamin replied, “Just because something was in the budget does not mean it’s a rubber stamp to circumvent the rule.”

CM Plummer argued that abandoned buildings are a public safety issue, not just a drainage one. She said people do want to know the city is spending money the right way, “especially when we just experienced that lawsuit.”

CM Thomas questioned HPW’s capacity to pursue code enforcement, which would guide which buildings qualify. Director Macchi denied capacity problems and said they are actually aggressively hiring.

• CM Thomas said “the public is watching” and “this is a hard ask.” She recalled people coming to council during budget cycles to demand investment in neighborhoods and complaining of flooding. She said she would appreciate more time for discussion.

CM Ramirez said that a large portion of the population thinks the city misuses funds. CMs Ramirez and Castillo asked if there is written criteria for what buildings qualify.

• Macchi explained the inspection process, but the short answer was “no.” It’s a judgement call and there is no written criteria. Macchi said they are careful because they don’t want to expose the city to risk.

CM Davis referenced the Controller’s memo and was concerned about the administration circumventing the process and misusing funds. He asked Macchi about other ideas that wouldn’t use the Storm Water Fund.

• Macchi claimed that doing things any other way would drive up costs and slow things down. He said the Building Inspection Fund is stretched thin and suggested if the city uses it for more, inspection fees will need to go up.

CMs who supported: Carter (demolition of buildings that contribute to drainage problems is the cost of doing business), Evans-Shabazz (important to take down dangerous buildings and reduce impervious ground material), Jackson (her constituents want buildings to come down. “Sometimes you have to take the money for the light bill to pay the gas bill.”), Flickinger.

CM Castex-Tatum asked about the budget amendment again. (I reviewed my notes from this past budget cycle and didn’t find mention of it. Let me know if you monitored this past budget season and have documentation I could review.)

• Director Macchi said the DDSRF is not available because of narrow wording and the Building Inspection Fund is tapped, which leaves the Storm Water Fund. He said it’s difficult to be clear about the cost of demolition because some buildings need expensive abatement and remediation. He offered to put together a rubric of how Storm Water Fund money would be spent on demolition. He committed to only using Storm Water Funds for buildings that are actively affecting drainage. “I want us to move forward and stop talking about the problems and start solving them.”

CM Kamin complained that the lien process HPW plans to fund demolition takes years to refund money back to the city, which delays infrastructure improvements that prevent flooding. She planned to tag the item.

When questioned again, Attorney Michel said, “I’m confident this meets legal muster.”

There was some discussion of sending this to the Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee, but ultimately CMs Kamin and Peck tagged the item so it is on hold until the new year.

Who took these notes? And what resources did they use?

My name is Emily Hynds. I am a writer, small business owner, producer of the monthly storytelling series Grown-up Storytime, and lifelong Houstonian. I am not a journalist or government official. I am a local government enthusiast who believes meaningful change starts at home. These notes are presented from my point of view and with my framing and are not comprehensive. Your notes will certainly be different and I would love to read them if you attend.

I watched this City Council meeting via HTV: https://www.houstontx.gov/htv/

While compiling these notes I used the following sources:
https://houston.novusagenda.com/agendapublic
https://houwatch.com
https://thdd.org/
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/stormwater-funds-drainage-lawsuit-21248024.php
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/drainage-appeal-denied-20103689.php

You can find your City Council Member and their contact info at: https://www.houstontx.gov/council/whoismycm.html

Thank you to the volunteers who proofread these notes.
My Patreon is patreon.com/emilytakesnotes.