Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press regulators on proposed battery site; one speaker alleges 'no-go zone' claim
Summary
Public commenters raised concerns about a proposed battery storage project and regulatory filings, reported water-quality and traffic problems, and a speaker made unverified allegations about a land purchase and alleged extremist links.
At the May 11 Katy City Council meeting, several residents addressed the council during public comment. Michael Payne said he has tracked filings in late 2025 and early 2026 related to a proposed battery storage facility by Ocea Energy and urged continued scrutiny by ERCOT and the Texas Public Utility Commission after the PUC denied a request for summary decision on May 8, allowing a full proceeding to continue. "Keep the pressure up on ERCOT and Texas PUC officials to ensure that the final decision ends up being the right one," Payne said.
Other speakers raised neighborhood concerns. Don Roch of Pine Forest described persistent water-quality problems in his home, saying his household uses multiple-stage filters and urging increased attention from city utilities. Roch also asked for extra traffic enforcement in his neighborhood because of repeated speeding.
Maggie McClurkin and Julia Bancroft spoke in support of Foster Village Houston, a local nonprofit serving children in foster care; McClurkin described services the group provides and a pending move to a new Avenue C location.
A separate public-comment statement by Jackson Netlingham made a series of unverified allegations about a recent land purchase near Katy. Netlingham named an individual and alleged the buyer was a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood who intended to create a "Sharia no-go zone" and an affiliated institution; he urged officials to report the purchase to state and federal authorities. The transcript shows no corroborating evidence or official response during the meeting. The council did not respond to public commenters during the comment period, per its stated rules.
The council's public-comment period also included a request for a street sign to mark a Juneteenth event and other community updates. Council and staff did not take official action on the issues raised during public comment at the meeting; follow-up would occur through the appropriate city departments.
The council's stated rules require each speaker to state name and address for the record and note that council cannot respond during the comment period.
