City ordinances must follow a set procedure: use the stated form, be introduced in writing, be read twice, have votes recorded, and be signed by the mayor or passed over veto.
*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. 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).