"THE MORALE IS REALLY LOW": HARLINGEN WORKERS GOT NO RAISE THIS YEAR, AND THE COMMISSION FOUGHT ABOUT WHOSE FAULT IT IS
HARLINGEN — Nearly four hours into a Harlingen City Commission meeting on 10-21-26 , the people who run the city turned on each other over the people who keep it running.
The question on the table was simple. Should roughly 400 city employees, the street crews, clerks and staff who are not police, firefighters or members of the city manager's office, get a 5% raise?
The answer, for now, is no. The fight over why was anything but simple.
THE ASK
Commissioner Frank Morales put the item on the agenda. He asked that City Manager Gabriel Gonzalez be directed to find money for a 5% raise for the rest of the city's workforce.
His number was $691,324.12. He pitched it as small: about three and a half days of city operating funds.
Then the city's finance director corrected the math. A raise also carries benefits, roughly $150,000 more, bringing the real cost to about $845,000 a year. And it would not be a one-time cost. It would come back every year after.
"So we're looking at less than five days," Morales said, revising his pitch on the spot.
THE RAISE AT THE TOP
Morales made clear what was driving him: the city manager's pay.
Gonzalez was hired as city manager in October 2021 at $225,000 a year, and later signed a three-year contract at $250,000, according to past reporting. Morales told the commission Gonzalez now makes $285,000, a $60,000 increase over five years. He said the latest raise came at the first commission meeting in June, and that he voted against it.
"If he and his staff can get monies in raises, I'm expecting the rest of the employees, with the exception of PD and fire, common sense that they get a little something," Morales said.
The $285,000 figure is Morales's statement from the dais. The 2026 contract terms have not been independently confirmed for this report.
THE LAW SAYS: NOT SO FAST
The city attorney raised three problems with the item as written.
First, a raise must serve a defined municipal purpose. The city cannot hand out money simply to be generous.
Second, the agenda said "all employees." That would include police and firefighters, whose raises are already set through collective bargaining contracts.
Third, and most important, the raise could not be retroactive. Paying someone more for work already performed violates the Texas Constitution, the attorney said. Any raise would have to start in the future, even a week after the vote, to be legal.
THE MAYOR: "YOU HAD THE SAME INFORMATION"
Mayor Norma Sepulveda did not let the timing go.
The commission adopted the budget on Sept. 23, after two budget workshops. Less than a month later, Morales was asking to reopen it.
Sepulveda noted that during budget season the city could have raised the tax rate up to the voter-approval rate of about 0.5683 per $100 valuation. She said doing that would have generated roughly $3 million more, enough to cover recurring raises. Instead, she said, Morales proposed only a half-cent increase worth about $250,000.
"We had our binders," the mayor said. "If you didn't read it, that's nobody's fault but yours."
She pressed him repeatedly on why he had not pushed for staff raises during the workshops, when it could have been built into the tax rate.
Morales gave a direct answer. "Mayor, unfortunately, that's where I messed up," he said. He added that he had not realized employees would get no raises, and said no one else on the commission had pushed for it either.
Sepulveda disputed that. She said Commissioner Daniel Lopez and others raised staff pay during the process, and called the claim that Morales was the only one who wanted to support staff "simply false."
The exchange turned personal.
"I know you're enjoying this," Morales told her.
"I take offense to that," Sepulveda replied. She said it bothered her when time is spent on things that "seem to be more for politics" and cannot get across the finish line.
THE WORKERS' SIDE
The sharpest description of life inside City Hall came from the commission's newest member, Commissioner Gomez Cavazos.
She said she talks with city workers in the field. She described stopping to hand out water and thank crews working in the sun.
"The morale is really low," she said.
She told the commission that employees learned they were not getting a raise by watching a city commission meeting. No one told them directly, she said. She also said some workers fear retaliation if they bring concerns to their own directors.
She acknowledged she was new to the budget process. But she said employee positions were discussed during the workshops, while employee raises were not.
THE RECORD: SOME RAISES, BUT NOT THIS YEAR
The mayor and staff laid out the city's recent pay history. It shows workers did get raises in recent years, just not this one:
October 2022: 3% for employees earning under $75,000, 1% for those above.
October 2023: a 2% market adjustment for employees under $75,000, based on the city's Evergreen pay study.
October 2024: a second Evergreen adjustment, again only for those under $75,000.
October 2025: 3% for employees under $75,000, 2% for those above, and 2% to 8% merit raises for department directors.
October 2026: nothing for general staff.
Sepulveda acknowledged the system is not perfect. She said some employees may have been left out because they were already considered at market rate, and asked staff to find anyone who was missed.
THE HARD MATH
Finance Director Robert, who was not identified by last name during the discussion, explained the rule the city budgets by: recurring revenue should equal recurring spending. A permanent raise paid out of reserves would have to be covered next year by raising revenue or cutting something else.
In plain terms: a raise now likely means a tax increase or cuts later.
Sepulveda said she would support that, but wanted it on the record. "I just want to remember this day," she said, looking ahead to the next budget season.
THE ENDING: NO ACTION, AND A PROMISE
Morales offered to table the item and rewrite it. In the end, the commission took no action.
Commissioner Lopez said he has a different plan. He described it as a "one-time shot in the arm" and said the city already has precedent for it. He said he has discussed it with the finance director and the city attorney, and expects to bring agenda items to the next meeting. His stated goal is pay at 105% of market value through the Evergreen study now underway.
That raises the question the mayor kept asking all night. A one-time payment is not a permanent raise. If the city wants workers to keep a 5% increase, someone will have to pay for it every year after.
For now, about 400 Harlingen employees are working without a raise. They are waiting to see whether the commission's next meeting brings a fix, or just another fight.
WHAT TO WATCH
The commission's next meeting agenda, for Commissioner Lopez's proposal.
Whether the proposal is a one-time stipend or a permanent raise.
The city manager's current contract and the June raise vote.
Comments