Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance C 36667 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane council delays action on ordinance C-36667 after heated debate over gender-related amendments
Summary
City council spent more than an hour debating competing amendments to ordinance C-36667 — addressing city-funded gender‑affirming care for minors, parental notification, bathroom access and school sports — then deferred first reading to April 21 with final consideration set for April 28.
Spokane City Council members on April 14 debated competing amendments to ordinance C-36667, which includes provisions touching on medical care for minors, parental notification, bathroom access and participation in school sports, then voted to defer the ordinance’s first reading to April 21 with final consideration scheduled for April 28.
The ordinance drew extensive comment from council members and produced sharply divergent views. Council member Bingle moved to adopt three amendments he introduced — which he described as measures to bar city funds from being used for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, to protect conscientious objection, and to require parental notification for psychological or physical treatment of minors — and to add provisions about bathroom access and school sports. “I think that…protecting kids and women” was at issue, Bingle said during debate.
Other council members pushed back. Council member Zappone said the amendments were “blatant attacks from the far right” and argued the city should focus on housing, public safety and climate. Council member Klitzke said medical decisions should be left to families and doctors, and Council member Dylan warned that gender-affirming care can be “life‑saving” for some youth and said those cases are “nuanced.”
Council members also discussed legal and precedent questions. One speaker referenced the Washington Administrative Code and earlier local ballot efforts, saying those matters were already settled in earlier processes. Council members cited a recent Grants Pass court ruling as part of the legal context for other public‑safety code updates earlier in the meeting.
While members disagreed about the substance of the Bingle amendments, the council did adopt a separate, technical amendment by Council member Dylan that updated outdated language in Title 18 of city code. That amendment was approved on a voice vote recorded by staff as five in favor.
After discussion, the council voted to defer first reading of ordinance C-36667 to April 21; the mayor’s office and legal staff will return the ordinance for first reading on that date, with final consideration set for April 28. Several council members said they preferred allowing more public input and time to reconcile competing amendments before a final vote.
The debate included repeated references to enforcement and practical effects — for example, whether bathroom- or sports-related language would be enforceable and whether the city had the authority or resources to implement the proposed changes — and several members said the council should focus on services and treatment capacity as well as ordinance language.
No final policy changes to the ordinance were adopted tonight beyond the technical code cleanup; the substantive proposals remain under consideration ahead of the April 21 meeting.
The council then moved to other business and later took executive session for potential and pending litigation.
