Effective 28 Aug 2014, see footnote
*79.130. Ordinances — procedure to enact — inapplicable, when. — 1. The style of the ordinances of the city shall be: "Be it ordained by the board of aldermen of the city of ______, as follows:" No ordinance shall be passed except by bill, and no bill shall become an ordinance unless on its final passage a majority of the members elected to the board of aldermen shall vote for it, and the ayes and nays be entered on the journal. Every proposed ordinance shall be introduced to the board of aldermen in writing and shall be read by title or in full two times prior to passage, both readings may occur at a single meeting of the board of aldermen. If the proposed ordinance is read by title only, copies of the proposed ordinance shall be made available for public inspection prior to the time the bill is under consideration by the board of aldermen. No bill shall become an ordinance until it shall have been signed by the mayor or person exercising the duties of the mayor's office, or shall have been passed over the mayor's veto, as herein provided.
2. The provisions of this section shall not apply to ordinances proposed or passed under section 79.135.
--------
(RSMo 1939 § 7166, A.L. 1988 H.B. 1435, A.L. 2014 S.B. 672)
Prior revisions: 1929 § 7016; 1919 § 8467; 1909 § 9369
*Revisor's Note: This section was declared unconstitutional in Calzone v. Koster, et al., see 2016 annotation below.
CROSS REFERENCE:
Ordinances, codification and revision procedure, 71.940 to 71.948
(1954) In action involving validity of tax bills for street improvements issued under ordinances where yeas and nays were not entered on journal as required by this section, but minutes showed presence of all or quorum of aldermen and mayor and that all voted for ordinances, court could order correction of record to show yeas and nays. Frago v. City of Irondale, 364 Mo. 500, 263 S.W.2d 356.
(2016) Provisions of S.B. 672 from 2014 declared unconstitutional as violating the single subject rule of Article III, § 23; under the facts presented, those provisions cannot be severed and the bill is unconstitutional in its entirety. Calzone v. Koster, et al., Case No. 15AC-CC00247 (Cole County Cir. Ct., Feb. 9, 2016).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.