Levelland committee reviews roughly 28 proposed charter amendments, including mayor voting, municipal judge election and city manager rules

Levelland officials on the charter-review committee examined a package of about 28 proposed amendments to the city charter in a public meeting; the group discussed changes ranging from the duties and residency of the city manager to whether the municipal judge should be elected or appointed.

“So in the packet in front of you, you have a copy of the chart,” Slater said as he opened the committee presentation, describing a redline version of the charter and a list of proposed changes. He told the council many of the items are technical updates but flagged several that change governance practice.

The proposals discussed would: align local notice and fine caps with state law; clarify the duties and appointment authority of the city manager; impose or clarify residency and bonding requirements for positions that handle city funds; revise rules for enactment and publication of ordinances; set timing for budget submission; and change how some elected or appointed officials are selected.

On the city manager, speakers discussed a proposed residency requirement and a transition period tied to appointment. A council member (unnamed) said, “I think the city manager should live in the city limits.” Slater said the charter text under consideration would make the city manager a resident requirement appears in a draft that references a 90‑day timing around appointment, but the transcript language on that point was not fully clear and needs drafting clarification.

Committee members discussed nepotism language that currently bans employment of anyone related to the city manager, mayor or council members. Slater said the current charter language is broader than typical practice in towns of Levelland’s size and recommended following state law’s nepotism standards instead of the charter’s more restrictive phrasing.

The group also debated whether the mayor should be a voting member of the council. Slater described the committee recommendation as allowing the mayor to make motions and vote — a change from the charter’s existing tie‑breaker voting model for the mayor. The presenter framed the change as increasing “voices” on the council, while one attendee warned that the move could be perceived as a “power grab.”

A separate, lengthier discussion focused on the municipal judge position: whether to keep the current appointment process or place the municipal judge on the ballot as an elected position. Supporters of election cited direct accountability to voters, while opponents noted practical complications if the judge becomes an elected official — such as the judge seeking a council budget and supervision questions for city employees who would work for an elected judge. Slater and several council members agreed this issue requires more public discussion and detailed drafting before being sent to voters.

Other technical changes proposed include reducing the city’s required lead time for submitting a budget to reflect state law and practical constraints imposed by appraisal districts, aligning ordinance publication with current state practice (caption publication for some ordinances rather than full text), and updating bond requirements so council can set bonding amounts by ordinance rather than by an outdated fixed figure.

Slater repeatedly emphasized the committee’s intent to bring the charter into alignment with state law and to provide practical flexibility for city operations: “This balances flexibility in managing the city with accountability to the people,” he said when explaining a two‑reading requirement that would require readings on separate posted meeting dates.

Committee members asked staff to clarify specifics on several points before final drafting — including precise residency language for the city manager (the draft’s mention of 90 days was unclear), the exact bonding amounts to be set by ordinance (the draft points to local control rather than a specific historic amount), and whether particular charter provisions should simply default to state law.

The committee did not take any formal votes on the proposals during the presentation. Members agreed to further refine language and to carry some items forward for additional public outreach and drafting before placing any amendment before voters.