Harlingen residents press commission on waterworks staffing, grant deadlines and proposed AI data center

Residents used the public‑comment period at the Harlingen City Commission meeting to press officials on infrastructure and transparency concerns, focusing on the Waterworks leadership, a looming drainage grant deadline and a proposed AI data‑center project near the international airport.

The most directed critique came from Robert Lefkowitz (district two), who told commissioners the administration’s new procedures — including moving the public‑comment sign‑up to noon and adding security — discouraged participation. Lefkowitz also raised staffing and spending concerns at the Harlingen Waterworks, saying a temporary director “does not live in Harlingen” and criticizing recent facility remodeling while an estimated $80 million drainage project tied to a Texas Water Development Board grant (awarded in 2023, as cited by the speaker) remains unresolved.

Concerns about a proposed AI data center outside city limits were voiced by Isaac Amani Newman, co‑founder of the For the People Alliance. Newman said he has asked whether the city has sufficient electrical and water capacity to support a facility of the scale reportedly under discussion and cited a prior mayoral remark: “as you see it today … you do not see a direct benefit to our city,” asking whether that stance still held. The mayor declined to respond during the public‑comment period, saying staff and commissioners could discuss the matter offline.

Another commenter, Ron Lozano, alleged that a contract related to the data‑center proposal had been signed Sept. 22 with a middleman he described as a former city commissioner, and urged scrutiny of those relationships. Lozano presented those claims as citizen allegations; the record in the public comment did not include documentary evidence or a response from staff during the meeting.

What was stated and what was confirmed in the record: speakers referenced a Texas Water Development Board grant, cited an “$80 million” drainage effort and raised salary and residency concerns for a temporary director (a figure of roughly $480,000 was advanced by one speaker). Those are citizen claims recorded in the comments and were not verified on the meeting record during the session. City staff did not produce documentary confirmation of those specific numbers during the public‑comment period recorded here.

Why it matters: callers and commenters framed the issues as matters of public accountability that could affect the city’s ability to meet grant requirements and to manage large infrastructure projects. The commission did not take substantive action on the specific claims during the meeting; several speakers asked staff or the mayor for follow‑up.

The meeting record shows no formal response or corrective document introduced into the public record at this session. The commission proceeded with its agenda items, and attendees were told staff or the mayor could follow up outside the public forum. Any formal review or audit of the claims would require staff reports or an agenda item at a future meeting.