Metro’s Million-Dollar Mile

Within a span of nine days, a Houston METRO agreement for service grew from $216,000 when presented in committee to $1.05 million by the time it reach the full board, all due to an “opportunity to do more," according to METRO officials. But in the course of pursuing that opportunity, METRO officials ignored their own ethics policies, disregarded disclosure requirements, and even cast aside warnings from their own internal auditors. They are now hoping the Attorney General will allow them to conceal some of the records related to the program while charging the public more than $600 to access the rest.

 
The lucky vendor was Evolve Houston, a microtransit public-private partnership co-founded by the City of Houston under late Mayor Sylvester Turner, Shell, NRG, the University of Houston, and CenterPoint Energy, each of which claims a board seat. METRO Board Chair Elizabeth Brock, often listed, including in her METRO biography, as a founder of Evolve, serves as Vice President of Utility Infrastructure Planning for CenterPoint and became a founding member when the organization launched, she later when on to serve as board presidenty as well. As she angled for the METRO leadership spot, she resigned from Evolve and her boss, Jason Wells, President and COO of CenterPoint serves on Evolve’s board. 

Two prior leadership positions with the vendor, Brock's boss serving on the vendor's board, and being employed by a founding entity of the vendor, any one of these would seem to most as just cause for abstaining from voting on an agreement benefitting Evolve or filing a conflict of interest disclosure.

In fact METRO’s Code of Ethics for its board members is pretty clear in saying,

“…A board member should err on the side of disclosure and/or abstention when his or her participation in a matter could reasonably create the impression that any Person or group can improperly influence the Board Member or unduly enjoy his or her favor in the performance of official acts or actions, or that he or she is affected unduly by the kinship, rank, position, or association with any Person or group.” 

Brock did neither. No disclosure, no abstention, the only board member to abstain was Holly Vilaseca.

The Audit, September 3, 2024 

Months after the contract’s approval METRO's internal audit team performed a work audit and delivered a damning assessment calling Evolve’s rate “unsupportable.” According to the audit, the bulk of Evolve's costs were driven by $758,000 in legal and professional service fees that were “excessive and unsubstantiated.” 77% consisted of three line items: $108,000 in legal fees, $400,000 to one professional services firm, and $250,000 to another. 

Evolve Houston's hourly rate of $89.13 was found to be 47% higher than METRO’s own $60.60 internal opersting cost and 65% higher than an existing METRO contractor performing similar services at $53.78 per hour. The audit concluded the rate was "outside of the competitive range" by 10%. 

The service is structured through an interlocal agreement between METRO and the City of Houston. The City is contracted with Evolve and pays the associated costs, then METRO reimburses the city for all expenses. Despite the city’s direct involvement and liability no council member or staff I have spoken with was aware of the audit’s existence or its findings.

Beyond financial concerns, the audit revealed a fundamental operational failure, Evolve's vehicles don't meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. As of October 2025, Evolve's website acknowledges their vehicles cannot accommodate larger wheelchairs. Federal Transit Administration regulations are unambiguous: publicly funded transit services must provide accessible transportation. If METRO's funding of non-compliant services doesn’t violate federal law it certainly violates the public trust of disabled residents who depend on accessible transit options.

When public information requests sought documentation about this contract, METRO's response was instructive. The agency claimed attorney-client privilege over vendor communications. It asserted "deliberative process" protections for business negotiations with external parties and demanded $630 in processing fees for email records that should be readily available in any well-managed public agency. Further when I asked for the sole-source justification that should have been on file to justify METRO not using a competitive bid process for the contract it took them weeks to ultimately say they had no responsive documentation. 

Evolve Houston went further, claiming exemption from disclosure requirements because it's "not a governmental body,” despite receiving over $1 million in public funds for public services, being the creation of multiple public entities, and existing only because of public support. These aren't the actions of organizations confident in their decisions or actions. 

The Broader Implications: Trust in Public Transit

Public transit depends on public trust. When board chairs skirt boad rules, or million-dollar contracts escape competitive bidding, or even when disabled residents are excluded from taxpayer-funded services, that trust erodes. The documents, METRO's own audits, board minutes, and public records, paint a troubling picture of an agency where relationships matter more than rates, where transparency is treated as a threat, and asking questions costs $630.

Outstanding public information requests may reveal additional factors, the relationship between METRO leadership and Evolve's management, and the full extent of professional service fees flowing to private firms.Texas Attorney General opinions are pending on METRO's claims of privilege and rumors of federal law enforcement authorities taking an interest are credible. The questions raised by these documents demand answers from whoever pursues them. And every METRO board meeting that passes without addressing these governance failures deepens the distrust.