The move to table the vote surprised at least one board member who wants C-TRAN to revert to previous language in its support for the Interstate Bridge Replacement program, saying C-TRAN will not pay for the operation and maintenance of light rail

Paul Valencia
ClarkCountyToday.com

A surprising, last-minute political maneuver at the C-TRAN Board of Directors meeting Tuesday (March 11) night led to no vote being taken on an action item regarding language on how Clark County will or will not support light rail transit via the new Interstate 5 Bridge.

The issue has been tabled until a future board meeting.

This came hours after more than 40 people asked to give public comments at the meeting in east Vancouver. There were passionate opponents and proponents of light rail, and public comment took about 90 minutes. 

C-TRAN Board Member Michelle Belkot, who proposed the action item, said she was shocked when one colleague asked to table the vote and another seconded. The board then voted 6-3 in favor of tabling the action item. 

This came immediately after discussion suggested that Belkot’s action item was, indeed, going to pass, that C-TRAN would revert to language that stated C-TRAN will not be responsible for costs and operations of light rail in Clark County.

“Clark County residents have voted no on light rail in 1995, 2012, 2013. I am the Clark County councilor that represents my constituents,” Belkot said after Tuesday’s meeting.

In July 2022, the C-TRAN Board of Directors approved the Modified Locally Preferred Alternative (MLPA) for the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) program, but with a list of conditions. 

One of those conditions was clear:

“C-TRAN will not be responsible for any costs for operations and maintenance of LRT in Vancouver or Clark County, including any new park-and-rides that may be constructed as part of the project.”

That language was amended in November 2024, with the board of directors now stating: “C-TRAN may participate in funding the operations and maintenance of the bi-state transit, including any new park-and-rides that may be constructed …”

Belkot does not believe Clark County should be funding Oregon’s (TriMet) light rail transit system. She wants the board of directors to revert to the previous language, to protect Clark County tax payers.

Before a vote was called, Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle, also a C-TRAN board member, asked other board members if they were instructed to vote one way or another and how that process worked.

There are nine C-TRAN board of directors with voting powers. Three are from the Vancouver City Council, two from the Clark County Council, and one each representing Washougal, Camas, Battle Ground, and another representing Ridgefield, La Center, and Yacolt. 

Tim Hein of the city of Camas noted that his city council voted unanimously to revert to the older language, to vote that Clark County will not pay for operations and maintenance of light rail.

Molly Coston of Washougal, Troy McCoy of Battle Ground, and Sean Boyle of Ridgefield/La Center/Yacolt also said through council votes or feedback from citizens that they, too, were going to vote to revert to the older language.

The city of Vancouver’s intentions were not discussed in the meeting, but Clark County Today learned earlier in the day that all three representatives were obligated to vote for the current language, as voted on by city council the previous week.

That led to Clark County Council members — Belkot and Sue Marshall — disagreeing on how the county was going to vote. Belkot said she was under no obligation to vote other than how she felt on the issue. 

“There is nothing in our bylaws,” Belkot said. “I consulted with our legal team … I can have my own individual vote.”

Marshall said the County Council voted 4-1 to maintain the present language, saying C-TRAN may help in funding light rail. 

McEnerny-Ogle then asked Belkot: “Is it your intent, then, to not go with the directive that was given to you by your colleagues in that 4-1 vote?”

“There was no direction for me individually or specifically,” Belkot responded.

Marshall said the direction was provided by the majority of the County Council, saying it was very clear.

Belkot mentioned again there is nothing in the bylaws that force her to vote against her beliefs. 

At that point, it appeared reverting to the older language would prevail 5-4 with Washougal, Camas, Battle Ground, Ridgefield/La Center/Yacolt and one Clark County vote (Belkot) to insist the county does not pay for operations and maintenance of light rail. 

The four others — three from Vancouver and one from Clark County (Marshall) — appeared to be prepared to vote to maintain the current language, allowing Clark County to help pay for light rail operations and maintenance. 

After seven seconds of silence, Marshall said: “Chair, I move to table this item.”

“I second the motion,” McEnerny-Ogle said.

Six voted to table the action item: Coston, Marshall, McCoy, McEnerny-Ogle, as well as Erik Paulsen and Bart Hansen of the city of Vancouver. 

Belkot, Boyle, and Hein voted against tabling the action item.

A few moments later, the meeting was adjourned.

“It was a surprise to me,” Belkot told Clark County Today after the meeting, noting she expected a vote Tuesday night.

Belkot did not appreciate Marshall implying that the County Council gave a clear mandate, and she did not care for McEnerny-Ogle saying that Belkot had a directive from her colleagues on county council.

“I have my own individual vote. There is nothing in the County Council bylaws that would preclude me from having my own individual vote,” Belkot said.

Belkot added that she is not even sure if the County Council had a vote on the issue. 

“We did have a robust conversation with the council but we were not making a decision for the collective council,” Belkot said, adding that regardless, she still has her vote. 

“It’s not even part of our conversation,” she said.

By the end of the evening, Belkot said she knows she is doing right by the people she represents. She has listened to them on this issue.

“That’s what my constituents in District 2 have said: They do not support the O&M costs. They don’t support TriMet,” Belkot said.