Legislation Details

File #: REF-108-26    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Referral Status: Answered Referral
File created: 6/17/2026 In control: Clerk's Office
On agenda: 6/16/2026 Final action:
Title: From: Council Member Komives Response Requested: ASAP Since the legislation failed last week and given that Council President Williams mentioned "this is an amendment to the failed legislation, is this ordinance legal? Doesn't it require a 1 year waiting period?
Sponsors: Nick Komives
Related files: O-270-26
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsAgenda SummaryAudio
No records to display.

Label

Council Member Komives

Agenda Review

6/16/2026

Flock Camera Legislation

 

Title

From:   Council Member Komives                      Response Requested:                      ASAP

 

Since the legislation failed last week and given that Council President Williams mentioned “this is an amendment to the failed legislation, is this ordinance legal? Doesn’t it require a 1 year waiting period?

 

Body

Referral Response:

                     Neither the Charter or the TMC, nor Council’s Rules, impose a 1-year waiting period before re-presentation of failed legislation

o                     No case law addressed this question directly.  As a home-rule municipality, any analysis of this question would turn on the language of the Charter.  Our Charter is silent as to the issue, except to permit Council to establish its own rules (Charter, Sec. 35).

o                     Council’s Rules at IV.M defer any point not addressed to the process established in Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules does not prohibit the renewal of a defeated motion (or ordinance in our case) at a future meeting. (RR Sec. 38:1). Thus, the failure on 6/9, would not preclude it being voted on again on 6/23.   

§                     To prevent abuse of the renewal process (ex. to manage time efficiently and/or respect the voting process),  Robert’s Rules allows the body to enact special rules of order (RR Sec. 38)

                     For example, the special rule could restrict the ability of members to renew failed legislation for a 1-year period, unless otherwise approved by majority consent of council

                     Council President Williams terming this legislation as an “amendment” will not affect Council’s ability to consider and vote on the ordinance at its next meeting

o                     The ordinance title does not indicate it is an amendment to the previous ordinance.  While it addresses the same subject matter, it proposes a different material term (contract length of 2 yrs. v. 1 yr).

§                     If we consider the ordinance as either new (because it has substantively different material terms) or renewed, as discussed above, it would be a proper topic for consideration at the next meeting.

o                     Amended ordinances are permitted by Charter, Sec. 42 and Council Rule IV.J

§                     Pursuant to Council’s Rules: “Amendments to legislation shall be in writing…An amendment once rejected may not be moved again in the same form.”

                     If this new legislation (286-26) is termed an amendment to the failed legislation (240-26); it is has not been voted on yet and thus, would still be a proper topic for consideration.

                     If this new, amended legislation fails again, it would not be permitted to be brought in the “in the same form.”

It is our conclusion that 1) the ability to renew failed legislation at a later meeting is permissible under our current Charter and Rules of Council; and 2) even if this is an amendment, neither the Charter nor Council’s Rules prohibit its consideration; only once the amendment has been rejected by vote, is it unable to be revived.