The Spokane City Council on July 14 suspended the rules and adopted an amendment to ordinance 36679 after members debated whether the public had adequate time to review new language.

The amendment — described in the meeting as the Dylan–Zapone–Navarrete amendment — was approved after the council voted to suspend the rules to allow consideration of multiple late amendments. Council member Bingo urged deferral, saying the public had not had time to digest rapid revisions: "I don't think it's how we should be governing. I don't think it allows the public to give proper input or really to be able to digest and understand the effects of this policy considering how, serious this issue is." Council member Dylan spoke in favor of adopting the amendment, noting a "90 day, data evaluation piece and then adding on, any obstruction of public right of way and public property." Council member Cathcart said the version before the council removed a previous reference to a public rule and warned that the change could allow enforcement rules to change without timely public notice: "This version doesn't have that, which means literally every second the policy could change. Every minute the policy could change. There is no requirement to update counsel, no requirement frankly to to communicate to the public what the enforcement rules are gonna be."

Council members raised two procedural questions before the vote: whether to suspend the rules to allow late amendments and then whether to adopt the Dylan–Zapone–Navarrete amendment itself. The motion to suspend the rules was approved by voice vote; opposition and abstentions were recorded but specific tallies were not entered in the public briefing transcript. After suspension passed, the council moved and seconded the motion to adopt the amendment, and members voted in favor; the chair announced the amendment passed.

Supporters said the amendment creates a path to implement the ordinance and builds in a time-limited evaluation period intended to allow staff to gather data and community feedback after enforcement begins. Opponents said the package had regressed compared with an earlier draft that explicitly tied enforcement procedures to a public rule and required council notification or approval of changes.

The council president said the multiple, recently circulated amendments made it difficult for members and the public to review the language; one amendment had been circulated the same afternoon at about 3:15 p.m., according to the meeting record. Several council members said implementation and enforcement details would require additional work even after the amendment's adoption.

The briefing proceeded to other items; the council later entered an executive session on potential and pending litigation and recessed until the evening meeting. No final ordinance text or final implementation schedule was read into the briefing transcript provided.

Ending: The council adopted the amendment at the briefing level and instructed staff and councilmembers to continue work on implementation and the planned 90-day evaluation, while several members signaled they expect further revisions and public outreach before final enforcement details are settled.