A long-running dispute over light rail funding, board authority and regional control will remain unresolved after the C-Tran Board voted to delay action on a proposal tied to the Interstate Bridge Replacement project.
The C-Tran Board voted Tuesday, Jan. 13, to send Battle Ground Councilor Troy McCoy’s proposed changes to C-Tran’s light rail funding language back to the Board Composition Review Committee (BCRC), pushing any decision on the issue to a later date.
The proposal is tied to broader questions about how, or whether, C-Tran could help fund future operations and maintenance costs for light rail tied to the planned I-5 bridge replacement connecting downtown Vancouver and Portland. Those costs remain a significant unknown as the overall project continues to evolve.
The Bi-state Legislative Committee met on Monday, Dec. 15, where Interstate Bridge Replacement Program staff presented an update on the project. Lawmakers had expected an updated cost estimate, which staff previously said would be ready by December, but none was provided. The most recent estimate, ranging from $5 billion to $7.5 billion, is roughly three years old and does not account for inflation or rising labor and material costs, according to IBR staff.
Operations and maintenance costs for the project, which would be shared between Washington and Oregon, have also not been finalized. The latest estimates place those annual costs at approximately $10.3 million, though officials have cautioned that figure could change.
McCoy, who no longer represents Battle Ground on the C-Tran board, had recommended tightening language related to how C-Tran could fund operations and maintenance for light rail tied to the Interstate Bridge Replacement project during a Dec. 9 meeting. His proposal would bar the use of existing sales tax revenue for light rail operations and maintenance, and require voter approval for any future sales tax tied to those costs, except for tax revenue generated by the project's construction.
Under current policy language, C-Tran “may participate in the funding of operations and maintenance of the bi-state transit,” including light rail and related facilities, as part of the bridge replacement project. Battle Ground’s proposal would replace that language with the following:
“Any potential C-TRAN funding to support operations and maintenance for IBR Light Rail Transit shall not come from current sales tax revenue, excluding any sales tax generated from the construction of the IBR project. Should C-TRAN seek additional revenue through a future sales tax for light rail transit operations and maintenance funding, it shall seek voter approval of the proposed taxed jurisdiction(s).”
Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle said some of the proposed language appeared unnecessary because state law already requires voter approval before any new sales tax for transportation improvements can be enacted, calling the language a moot point.
Battle Ground Mayor Eric Overholser, now representing his city on the board, said the proposal came from direction given by the Battle Ground City Council, noting the language could be made clearer.
“The idea was to have any other posted funds be a subdistrict created that was more of a smaller body representing, still a large amount of citizens within Clark County, but to allow the smaller cities to be out of a subdistrict,” Overholser said. “That’s something I think we could look at for adding that as the language of the verbiage, as a request from the City of Battle Ground,” he added.
Clark County Council Chair Sue Marshall said the ambiguity surrounding the proposal, combined with ongoing disputes over C-Tran board composition, necessitated further review.
“I believe that … the idea of a motion going back to the BCRC to reconvene and delegate … would be something that would help clear up some of this ambiguity,” Marshall said.
Following the discussion, the board voted to send McCoy’s recommendation back to the Board Composition Review Committee for further consideration. Vancouver’s three representatives, McEnerny-Ogle and councilors Erik Paulsen and Bart Hansen, voted no. The motion passed, delaying any action on the proposed language until the committee reconvenes and reports back to the board.
Following Tuesday’s meeting, City Councilor and former seat on C-Tran’s board representing Battle Ground said the purpose of the proposed language was “to keep C-Tran together and to codify what it looks like to the voters for light rail funding from a sales tax perspective.”
“Some small cities have already talked about leaving C-Tran, and I do think the economies of scale are better for all of us if we stay together,” McCoy added.
