Notes on the Houston City Council Meeting on January 7, 2026

Agenda

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

*I will not cover the mayor’s report, public hearing, or pop-off in these notes. I would like to note that it was Alejandra Salinas’s first meeting and many CMs welcomed her during pop-off.

** I will not cover the monthly financial report itself, but will include comments made at it in the discussion on Item 35.

Agenda Items, Selected Works

• Item 8 accepted final work and approved the final payment of $10M for lift station improvements at water treatment facilities in District F. CM Thomas thanked her colleagues for their support and said, “This is our consent decree at work.” (see resources for consent decree info)
• Item 9 approved $4.1M for auto repair parts and services over three years.
• Item 10 approved $343K for radios for the police and fire departments.
• Item 16 approved $5.1M for upkeep of emergency power units, like generators, through November 2027.
• Item 17 approved a $948K grant to The Harris Center for Mental Health for a program to end homelessness.
• Item 18 approved a $125K grant to the Wesley Center for an education program for low-income families.
• Item 19 approved a $376K grant to SEARCH Homeless Services for a housing program.
• Item 20 approved a $2.3M grant for the AIDS Foundation for their housing program.
• Item 24 approved which meetings city council will take off or consolidate in 2026. CM Kamin proposed an amendment to consolidate the meetings on election week, which passed. She also proposed an amendment to consolidate the May 26 and May 27 meetings due to Eid-al Adha, but ended up withdrawing so as not to disturb the budget process schedule.
• Item 36 approved $180M over three years for the purchase of vehicles. CM Kamin tagged this last week. This week, she said the purchasing department has agreed to abide by the city’s climate plan and purchase hybrid and electric vehicles when possible.

Item 35: Using a Storm Water Fund to Pay for Building Demolition

An iteration of today’s Item 35 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 from the controller, he “declined to certify the original proposal because it violated the law.”

On December 17, the original item was altered and presented again: 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. There was much debate, much of which referenced the Controller’s memo criticizing the item. Ultimately, CMs Kamin and Peck tagged the item, delaying it for one more week.

During today’s monthly financial report, Controller Hollins agreed that blighted buildings and illegal dumping are a real problem. But, he said the Storm Water Fund is not meant to be used for demolition. “Crossing those boundaries is not flexibility, it is breaking the rules. Misusing restricted funds … undermines the trust Houstonians place in their leaders.” He said that if council authorizes this funding, “no dedicated fund is safe. Not drainage, not streets, not any fund built on a specific public promise.”

Hollins criticized four main points: the premise, the process, legality, and the lien plan.

• Hollins disagreed with the city’s premise that blighted buildings lead to illegal dumping, ultimately sending debris into drains and ditches. He said that illegal dumping takes place regardless of blight, “which means the building is not the cause of the illegal dumping. And if the building isn’t the cause, then demolishing it is not storm water maintenance.”
• Regarding process, Hollins said the controller’s office is responsible for independent oversight and can withhold approval on spending that is not lawful. In October, his office flagged the item and did not approve spending because there is no precedent and there is no “storm water related program within HPW that includes demolition as part of the program.” In December, the mayor’s administration repackaged the item as an extension of a preexisting contract, which does not require controller oversight. Hollins said this interpretation allows the administration to bypass fiscal oversight at any time, “no matter the dollar amount, no matter the risk, no matter the legality.”
• Hollins maintained that this item is not legal. “We’ve been here before as a city. Very recently, we lost a lawsuit related to misappropriation of drainage fund dollars. And it is nuts that we are even close to considering misappropriating the Storm Water Fund just a few months later.”
• Hollins criticized the lien mechanism the city plans to use, which he equated to a loan that will be repaid in the future if/when redevelopment in the area takes place. “Drainage failures do not wait for redevelopment cycles … That means storm water dollars are gone now and drainage needs continue to exist.”

As the conversation continued, Hollins maintained this item is unlawful. “Every dedicated fund represents a promise made to Houstonians. My role is to protect those promises even when it’s uncomfortable … We should be working together on these challenging problems, not working around each other, and certainly not attempting to work around the law.”

Director Dubowski referenced yesterday’s Budget and Fiscal Affairs (BFA) committee meeting, including an 8% limitation set by the master bond ordinance (please do not ask me to explain, IDK!!). She referenced a memo from City Attorney Arturo Michel regarding legality. These remarks were … fine. But not very illuminating.

CM Kamin asked Hollins to explain his process.

• Hollins tagged the original item due to “abnormal and unrecognized use of this fund.” He met with HPW Director Macchi, city legal, and multiple former mayors, controllers, and unaffiliated attorneys. Hollins said the experts he consulted “literally laughed out loud.” He reiterated that there is no precedent to use the Storm Water Fund in this way, nor is there an established, evidence-based program to justify this use.
• Then the administration repackaged the item as an expansion of an existing contract, purposefully evading controller oversight.
• Director Dubowski said the Controller certified the funding for this item when he certified the budget.
• Hollins said, “If that logic held up, then literally nothing outside of budget season would ever come to the controller’s office for certification.” During budget season, he certifies the city’s ability to pay for what is included in the budget. Then individual items come throughout the year for an additional look. “Looking at the legality is part of the certification process … And this is clearly an effort to go around that oversight.” He called this a loophole so large “you can drive a $30M truck right through it.”

CM Flickinger said that “blighted structures absolutely encourage more of the illegal dumping. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that that dumped material ends up into the storm water systems.”

CM Pollard emphasized how oversight from the controller is our system of checks and balances.

During a discussion on how the Storm Water Fund actually has more money in it than is legally required, Hollins said there are plenty of engineers and constructions firms ready and willing to do this type of infrastructure work. He said the city is not doing enough to spend the money.

Okay, all of that talk was during the Monthly Financial Report. Once they decided to actually take up Item 35, Mayor Whitmire made some remarks.

• Whitmire said Hollins abused his generosity and that Mayor Turner would never have let Chris Brown (former controller) opine in such a way. He accused Hollins of being a lobbyist, playing politics, creating clickbait, and spreading misinformation. “I’m offended. I’m offended for this body. If it was illegal, it would not be on this agenda.”
• Whitmire defended Attorney Michel’s reputation, experience, and integrity. “We’re the policy makers, not the controller. Whether it’s legal or not is the judgment and advice of the city attorney.”
• Whitmire complained that critics have not offered an alternative solution. He said it’s mostly minority communities that are affected and that “people are pleading with us to demolish dangerous buildings.” Whitmire also criticized the controller and some CMs for not attending the BFA meeting yesterday.

Attorney Michel said, “I’m confident that this matter would be considered legal by a court.” Michel said the controller’s role is to determine “sufficient money to pay what’s being requested,” and “he does not have an independent role to make legal determinations.”

CM Castex-Tatum said the city can document how abandoned buildings lead to debris in ditches and drains. She said that removing buildings and impervious ground cover (concrete) helps the ground absorb rainwater. She agrees with city legal’s opinion and has faith in council’s ability to provide oversight on what gets demolished.

CMs Ramirez and Kamin both said HPW’s standards for which buildings qualify are too broad. For instance, any building that is located in a floodplain or near an open ditch will qualify.

CM Pollard defended Hollins, saying his insight is valuable and his remarks today were relevant because they pertain to an item on today’s agenda. Pollard said, “We have a wonderful city attorney. What he gives is his legal opinion. That’s it … And he’s such a good attorney that in different administrations he’s made different arguments on the same issues on both sides.”

CM Alcorn said people’s #1 priority is infrastructure spending. “I want every bit of money in the Storm Water Fund set on clear infrastructure maintenance and improvements. ​​And to me it’s just too much of a stretch to use that money for building demolition.”

CM Evans-Shabazz said, “My constituents are living around blighted houses that serve as crack houses … I have to look at what’s practical for my constituents … By any means necessary, I want those houses removed.” She also hopes the county will step up with drainage funding.

CM Kamin is concerned “that we’re kicking the can down the road when it comes to flooding and drainage when we are all already on borrowed time.” Blight needs to be addressed and is compounded by illegal dumping, “but where the money comes from does matter,” because waiting to spend money on drainage will mean more homes will flood, leading to more abandoned properties and blight. She called HPW’s standards for qualification a “massive catchall.” She criticized the item for not taking into account the administrative costs of managing a lien.

• Mayor Whitmire said there will be $500M more in the city’s drainage funds due to the Jones and Watson lawsuit, so they are not kicking the can down the road. He also said that contractors are unable to fulfill the city’s infrastructure construction needs, so they aren’t even able to spend the money they have.

CM Peck said the city doesn’t have the capacity to spend the money they do have on drainage, so she’s okay with spending that money on tearing down buildings instead. She is comfortable with Attorney Michel’s legal opinion. She advocated for making sure the city recoups the cost via the lien process.

CM Thomas gave examples of blighted buildings in District F, but said that constituents consistently ask for more drainage infrastructure. She also said the plan outlined by HPW does not include any properties in District F. She does not support transferring $30M out of the Storm Water Fund. She said blight needs to be taken care of, but not in this way.

Item 35 passed with 9 yes votes versus 7 no votes. CMs who voted to approve Item 35: Whitmire, Peck, Evans-Shabazz, Castex-Tatum, Flickinger, Huffman, Martinez, Davis, Carter. CMs who voted not to approve Item 35: Kamin, Thomas, Castillo, Pollard, Ramirez, Salinas, Alcorn.

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://www.epa.gov/enforcement/city-houston-clean-water-settlement

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.