In “Mom and Dad are arguing over finances again” news, the Houston controller and mayor are once again at odds, this time over a $2.6 million car wash contract that the city council approved last week despite claims that it’s being funded by “unlawful sources.”
Controller Chris Hollins says the city can’t spend dollars dedicated for flood mitigation and drainage to wash vehicles. Mayor John Whitmire says he doesn’t need Hollins’ approval because the controller already signed off on the budget in June, and the expenditure was included as a “continuing appropriation.”
Since Hollins and Whitmire were elected to their respective positions in late 2023, they have grappled over the budget. Hollins oversees city finances but Whitmire maintains that the controller doesn’t get to dictate policy.
Hollins acknowledged to the Houston Press on Monday that he certified the budget earlier this year but maintains that the Mister Car Wash contract is a newly crafted document and can’t be funded with money specifically designated for other purposes. If the mayor would change how the contract is funded, he’ll be happy to review it, he said. Until then, Hollins says the contract is null and void.
“All you need to do is identify a lawful funding source that’s not using stormwater funds for car washes, and we’ll do our job and move it forward,” Hollins said.
The car wash debate first came up last month when Whitmire proposed the payment structure, which includes about 37 percent of the funds coming from flood mitigation and drainage maintenance. Hollins sent a memo saying he wouldn’t certify the expenditure, but Whitmire put it on last week’s agenda anyway, and it passed in a 12-3 vote.
Whitmire says that a competitive bid with preset terms and prices does not require separate controller certification because the motion establishes spending authority against funds already appropriated through the city’s budget process. He also noted that the contract covers car washes for the Public Works vehicles that operate in the drainage department, “so it’s very related” to drainage.
“The controller’s job is to certify that the funds are available, not to set policy,” Whitmire said during an October 7 meeting. “While I appreciate his comments, this is a proper use of funding, certainly out of the drainage. This is a maintenance issue. We have a duty to protect and maintain city assets. I’m not going to debate it because it’s a critical need for the City of Houston. The funds are there. The drainage department needs it.”
Council members Edward Pollard, Alejandra Salinas and Joe Panzarella voted against it.
“I think we are going down a very slippery slope and setting a bad precedent if the controller’s office deems items not certifiable and then we as a council still bring these items forward and vote on them,” said Pollard, an attorney. “I think it leaves the city open to liability when it comes to funding and paying out on vendors and contracts if the controller’s office did not certify and they’re responsible for payment.”
Pollard questioned why the contract couldn’t be paid for with general funds rather than stormwater dollars. As written, it pulls about $1.4 million from the general fund, $150,000 from the stormwater fund and $298,895 from the dedicated drainage and street renewal fund, with the remainder coming from fleet management, building inspection, the Houston Airport System revenue fund, and the water and sewer system operating fund.
Hollins said questions about an appropriate funding source should be directed to the mayor, but noted, “You would think that the fleet department that’s responsible for city vehicles would wash them, change their oil, make sure they have gas, and that sort of thing. My job is to say where the funding should not come from. Is this related to stormwater? Does this meet the provisions within the law that governs how stormwater funds should be spent? That’s where we draw the line.”
Hollins says he sent a letter to the mayor and council last month asking that the funding sources be re-evaluated. “The administration brought back the same contract on October 7 — same vendor, same amount, and same funding — still without the required certification,” Hollins told the Press.
“We’ve been very attentive to uses of the stormwater fund, in particular, because it’s a highly limited fund in terms of what you can spend the money on,” he said. We all know that, pick a neighborhood in Houston, and it floods when there’s a storm. There are millions if not billions of dollars of need for flood infrastructure in Houston. Spending the money on demolishing buildings, which the mayor did earlier this year, or car washes are not proper uses of those funds.”
“The way this mayor operates is that if you disagree with him, he tries to run you over. That’s what they’re attempting to do now,” Hollins added. “The problem is that the city charter determines how contracts are created. The contract requires the controller’s certification and the controller’s countersignature, and they have neither.”
During last week’s council meeting, City Attorney Arturo Michel reiterated Whitmire’s assertion that the controller’s duty is to “certify that there are available sufficient funds in a fund that’s being used.”
“Should any legal challenge be brought, I’m very comfortable with the position of the administration,” he said. “I’m certain that a court would agree with the city’s position on this.”
Whitmire’s office maintains that the contract is valid and Mister Car Wash can perform the services. Hollins has a different opinion.
There is no contract,” he said. “We reached out to the vendor, Mister Car Wash, and made sure they were aware that there is no contract. We told them to not bother sending us any invoices related to this. We told them if they did send an invoice that it wouldn’t be honored. They’re on notice about that. How they handle that is up to them.”
A representative from Mister Car Wash could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.
