Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Operations Consent Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Votes at a glance: Council approves vehicle purchases, outside counsel funding, contract extension and a library board appointment
Summary
At the March 17, 2025 meeting the Spokane City Council approved a set of consent items and individual votes including pre-purchase approval for 17 vehicles, an outside special counsel contract, a no-cost contract extension with Central Square Technologies, and a library board appointment.
The Spokane City Council approved several consent and single-item votes during its March 17, 2025 meeting. Key outcomes recorded on the floor:
- Library board appointment: Lehi Castilla (also referred to during the vote as “Alexi/Lexi” in the meeting record) was confirmed to the Spokane Public Library board by voice vote. Council members indicated approval by saying “aye.”
- Consent item 1 — vehicle pre‑purchase (OPR20250193): The council approved pre-purchase authorization for 17 vehicles across city departments, described in public comment as a planned acquisition with “a total expenditure not to exceed $1,800,000” (figure cited by a public commenter). Council discussion noted state EV mandates and application‑specific suitability (for example, hybrids preferred for some police uses); the item passed on the consent vote with no recorded opposing votes on the floor.
- Consent item 5 — outside special counsel (Keating, Buckland & McCormick, Inc.): Council approved an outside special counsel contract. A public commenter, Jim Leedy, urged the council to deny additional funding to the law firm and asked for itemized invoices and transparency; council members voting in favor said some details discussed in executive session could not be released but indicated support for the contract as part of legal risk management. The motion passed by voice vote.
- Consent item 13 — no‑cost contract extension with Central Square Technologies (false alarm program): The council approved a no‑cost extension. One councilmember said they had voted against similar extensions in earlier years and hoped for a revised program; the motion nevertheless passed by voice vote.
Council members also discussed transparency around payments and providers, with multiple public commenters and councilmembers calling for more itemized lists of expenditures and the possibility of an audit ordinance for certain providers. Several members reiterated the difference between approving contracts and taking positions on litigation merits.
Votes were taken by voice on the floor; the meeting record shows “ayes” and no recorded “no” votes for the listed items during the roll calls in the room.
