Houston's controller says the $2.6 million car wash contract is void. Nearly 40 percent of the money comes from flood and drainage funds.

Houston City Controller Chris Hollins says the council’s October 7 vote on a $2.6 million car wash contract is null and void because his office never certified it. His stated reason for refusing: nearly 40 percent of the money comes from funds dedicated to flood mitigation and drainage maintenance.

Why it matters

Drainage money is collected from Houston property owners for drainage. If it can wash the city’s cars, the dedication is a label rather than a limit. The controller has also told the vendor its bills will not be paid, which leaves the city with a council-approved obligation and no certified funding source behind it.

By the numbers

$2.6 million to wash city-owned vehicles.
Nearly 40 percent of the funding drawn from flood mitigation and drainage maintenance funds, per the controller’s statement.
13-3, the council vote, per ABC13.
October 7, the date of that vote. It comes from the controller’s own statement. ABC13 reported the vote as happening “last week” without giving a date.
Article II, Section 19a of the city charter, which the controller says requires his certification before council approves spending, and Section 19, which he says requires his countersignature before a contract binds the city. Both citations are his.
September, when his office received the proposed contract and sent it back to the mayor’s office.
The item was changed from an ordinance to a motion before it returned to council, per ABC13.

What the coverage buried

ABC13 did the work that matters most here. It got City Attorney Arturo Michel on the record explaining why the item changed form, and his answer is the most useful sentence published on this story: “The decision was made so it could move forward and be approved.” He added, “We have done this before.”

What the story leaves out is the date of the vote and the two charter sections the controller cites. Both are in the public statement his office put out October 12. A charter claim a reader cannot check is just a quarrel between two officials. With the section numbers, a resident can open Article II and read whether certification is required, which is the only way to tell which of these two men is describing the rule and which is describing a practice.

The other side

The mayor’s case is better than it sounds. John Whitmire says fleet upkeep is part of fighting flooding, and crews that clear inlets and ditches do drive the trucks. The city’s position is that it does not need the controller’s certification at all. And Hollins concedes the point that cuts hardest against him: the previous car wash contract used the same flood funding, and his predecessor approved it. By that account nothing about the city’s practice changed. What changed is the controller.

Two things answer it. A practice is not a charter provision, and if the city believes a motion can carry spending without certification, it should name the provision that says so rather than cite precedent. And conceding that the last contract was wrong is a reason to stop, not a reason to continue. Hollins says he will consider the contract if it comes back with a lawful funding source, which is a narrow and testable offer.

What to watch

Whether the city resubmits the contract with a different funding source.
Whether the vendor gets paid, and who authorizes the payment over the controller’s refusal.
Whether the city identifies the charter provision that lets a motion carry spending without certification.
Whether anyone publishes how much drainage and flood money has gone to fleet services in prior years. Nobody has.

Bottom line

This is a small contract carrying a large question. If nearly 40 percent of a car wash bill can be paid from flood and drainage funds because the trucks being washed sometimes work on drainage, there is no spending the dedication excludes. The city has not said which charter provision lets it skip certification, and until it does, the controller’s reading is the only one with a section number attached.

Sources

Editorial