An Act to renumber and amend 61.32; to amend 62.03 (1); to repeal and recreate 62.11 (3) (e); to create 59.11 (4m), 60.20 (4) and 61.32 (6) of the statutes; Relating to: local government rules of proceedings and consideration of ordinances or resolutions for which enactment or adoption previously failed. (FE)
Summary
SB290 would limit local governing bodies’ ability to use their internal rules to block reconsideration of measures that previously failed. The bill applies to county boards, town boards, village boards, and city common councils, and provides that their rules of procedure may not prohibit taking up an ordinance or resolution that is substantially similar or identical to one that was previously brought to a vote but not enacted or adopted, so long as the new measure is considered at least two years after the earlier vote.
The bill makes corresponding changes across several statutes governing local government procedure. It creates new provisions for county boards, towns, and villages, and amends the city statute governing common council procedure, while also making a technical amendment to the statute governing first-class cities under special charter. In practical terms, it preserves local bodies’ general authority to set their own rules, but adds a statewide floor preventing procedural rules from permanently barring renewed consideration of failed ordinances or resolutions after the two-year period.
Impact
SB290 would alter the statutes governing procedural rules for local legislative bodies by restricting how counties, towns, villages, and certain city councils can structure their agendas and reconsideration rules. It would not require adoption of any ordinance or resolution, but it would prevent local rules from imposing a procedural ban on reintroducing substantially similar measures after two years, thereby affecting local clerks, boards, councils, and the public process for ordinance and resolution consideration.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was framed as a procedural fairness or access measure rather than a major policy change, with no committee transcript or recorded vote information showing detailed debate. Its introduction and referral indicate it was treated as a local government governance bill, but it ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The lack of recorded votes or discussion makes it difficult to identify broad support or opposition, though the failure to advance suggests it did not secure enough legislative backing.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between local control and statewide limits on local procedure. Supporters would view the bill as preventing local governing bodies from using procedural rules to indefinitely block reconsideration of measures that have already failed, while opponents may see it as an intrusion into home-rule-style authority and the ability of local boards and councils to manage their own agendas. The bill preserves local discretion generally, but the mandatory two-year reconsideration rule is the key restriction that could draw resistance from municipalities and counties concerned about repeated reintroduction of controversial measures.
Crossfiled
An Act to renumber and amend 61.32; to amend 62.03 (1); to repeal and recreate 62.11 (3) (e); to create 59.11 (4m), 60.20 (4) and 61.32 (6) of the statutes; Relating to: local government rules of proceedings and consideration of ordinances or resolutions for which enactment or adoption previously failed. (FE)