Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves consolidated amendments to mayor’s homelessness package amid heated procedural fight
Summary
Spokane City Council voted to consolidate and adopt a package of late amendments to multiple homelessness and related ordinances after contentious debate about rule suspensions, minority representation and the scope of shelter siting and activation rules.
The Spokane City Council on Wednesday approved a consolidated set of late amendments to the mayor’s homelessness and housing package after several hours of debate that centered as much on procedure as on substance.
Council members approved a motion to suspend the rules and consider multiple amendments together, a step opponents said effectively prevented some proposed changes from being discussed on the floor.
The measures under consideration bundle changes to several ordinances: the mayor’s HOME initiative (document 36691), the weather-activation and shelter-siting ordinance (36692), an unlawful-camping replacement (36693 / related 36679), and a short ordinance addressing aggressive solicitation (36694). City staff explained the package as largely “clean up” language and technical revisions intended to align code with implementation practices and stakeholder feedback.
City staff member Wright told the council the weather-activation portion moves activation language into a different part of the municipal code (from Title 18 to Title 4) and updates trigger language to refer to standardized meteorological measures such as heat index and wind chill. Wright said the revised shelter-siting rules would explicitly cover “city-funded shelters” as well as city-owned facilities, and that shelters receiving $50,000 or more in city funds and housing more than 20 beds would be subject to siting procedures including an open house and a required good-neighbor agreement.
Council member Cathcart had proposed separate amendments that would have added specified remedies for breaches of good-neighbor agreements and broadened the agreements’ scope to include more support services. Those Cathcart amendments were inconsistent with the consolidated motion the council approved, meaning the council did not take them up separately.
Opponents of the suspension argued the maneuver curtailed minority members’ ability to have their amendments heard. Council member Bingle spoke at length about procedural fairness, saying the suspension “effectively eliminates certain perspectives from being brought forward.” Council members Zappone and others asked for appeals and points of order related to decorum and whether members were being accused of improper motives during the debate. The chair’s rulings on decorum were appealed and the council voted to uphold the chair.
On specific items, the council also indefinitely deferred the administration’s earlier unlawful-camping ordinance (36693) after staff said it conflicts with a recently amended council ordinance (36679). Council also approved changes to interfund-transfer rules (ordinance 36682) after staff, the finance director and council negotiators revised language intended to preserve council oversight while clarifying administrative processes.
Council President Wilkerson and members who supported the consolidated approach said the changes reflect stakeholder input and clarify how programs will be implemented. Opponents said that bundling late changes and suspending rules was an improper way to limit debate and that more public engagement should inform final language.
What’s next: councilors who sought to propose competing language said they will continue to use the amendment process at future readings and that some issues (notably remedies in good-neighbor agreements) could be reintroduced as amendments or policy actions before final ordinance adoption.
