C-TRAN votes for Board Composition Review Committee to reconvene

The C-TRAN Board of Directors voted to send the issue of board representation back to the Board Composition Review Committee as disputes continue over compliance with state law and potential grant funding losses.

The BCRC had already come up with a recommendation for the C-TRAN Board of Directors, but the board has taken no action on that recommendation and now has asked the committee to try again

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

The Board Composition Review Committee (BCRC) came up with a compromise for the C-TRAN Board of Directors in the fall of 2025.

That compromise has not been accepted.

On Tuesday, the board asked the BCRC to get together again.

It looks like the battle between the smaller cities against the governments of Vancouver and Clark County will continue, and consequences of this stand-off will affect the future of C-TRAN one way or another.
Last year, the Washington State Department of Transportation gave notice to the C-TRAN board that it was out of compliance with state law in terms of representation on the board.

Currently, there are three members of the board from the City of Vancouver, two from the Clark County Council, and four shared by the smaller cities.

Some say a 3-3-3 format — three from Vancouver, three from the county, and three from the smaller cities — would work. Others claim only a 4-3-2 would satisfy the state’s request, giving four seats to Vancouver, three to Clark County, and two seats to be shared by the smaller cities.

At stake is grant money from the state. WSDOT has threatened to withhold millions of dollars of grants to C-TRAN if the board is not in compliance.

In November, the BCRC came up with a compromise, voting for the 4-3-2 format, but with two conditions: No small city would have to pay for operations and maintenance involving light rail on the new Interstate Bridge unless OK’d by a vote of the people or its city council, and that the three members of Clark County must come from districts that do not also represent parts of the city of Vancouver.

Those conditions could be met with legal challenges.

With that in mind, the C-TRAN board did not take action on that recommendation in December, and in Tuesday’s meeting — the first C-TRAN board meeting to be held in 2026 — the board asked the BCRC to try again to come up with a solution.

It should be noted that in December, the City of Vancouver voted 6-1 to only accept a 4-3-2 format, but with no conditions. Bart Hansen was the no vote. He argued that the BCRC should be able to try to work out the differences instead of the city accepting only part of the BCRC’s recommendation.

Board composition came up again at Tuesday’s C-TRAN meeting while the board was discussing “submitted verbiage” that, among other things, would seek voter approval if C-TRAN wanted future sales tax revenues to go toward O&M for light rail.

That never came up to a vote. After discussion, Hansen, the chair for the C-TRAN board, had a suggestion.

“The 4-3-2 direction with the two conditions that come along with it is really problematic,” Hansen said.

Some have questioned if the BCRC has the authority to add conditions to its composition recommendations. Hansen said he would prefer the BCRC get another bite at the apple, so to speak, to potentially come up with another plan.

“I believe the idea of a motion going back to the BCRC and reconvene … would be something that would help clear up some of this ambiguity,” Hansen said Tuesday night.

Sue Marshall of Clark County agreed and made a motion to send it back to the BCRC. Wil Fuentes of Clark County seconded. The motion passed 6-3.

Interestingly, Hansen was one of the no votes because he was obligated to vote along with the City of Vancouver.

Erik Paulsen of Vancouver gave his city council’s point of view.

“Previous guidance from Vancouver City Council was that we were to adopt a clean motion only and would not … consider sending it back to the BCRC so the city of Vancouver will be voting not to support this motion,” Paulsen said.

While Hansen voted no on Tuesday, it is clear he personally wanted the BCRC to have an opportunity to provide another solution instead of being told what to do by the city of Vancouver. Hansen has heard the grumblings of some of the smaller cities throughout 2025, wondering if they should continue their partnership with C-TRAN, with less representation and the potential of paying O&M for light rail.

“To override the wishes of some of these folks … I think we’re pushing them further into that realm,” Hansen said in the Vancouver City Council meeting on Dec. 1. “To lose a Battle Ground, or a Camas, or a La Center, or any of them, is painful to us.”

He went on the record that night that he believed the best option would be for the BCRC to reconvene and try again.

He was outvoted 6-1 by the city in early December.

This week, the C-TRAN Board of Directors, in a 6-3 vote, agreed to send the issue back to the BCRC.

While the BCRC meeting date and time has not been officially finalized, it is expected to occur before the next C-TRAN board meeting, Feb. 10.

Under the Grok Lens

Analysis created with Grok

This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.

Quick summary

The C‑TRAN Board of Directors voted 6–3 on Jan. 13, 2026, to reconvene the Board Composition Review Committee (BCRC) to revisit its earlier 4‑3‑2 recommendation for board seats. The vote follows the board’s decision not to adopt the compromise in 2025 and comes amid continued disagreement over representation and concerns about potential financial obligations tied to future light‑rail decisions.

What Grok notices

Breaks down the 6–3 vote and describes individual member positions, including Chair Bart Hansen’s stated personal support for reconvening even though he voted no due to direction from the City of Vancouver.
Recounts the BCRC’s fall 2025 compromise recommendation (a 4‑3‑2 structure with conditions) and explains how the board’s earlier decision not to act left the issue unresolved.
Notes the backdrop of state compliance expectations and the risk that continued governance disputes could complicate grant eligibility or state relations, adding pressure to revisit board structure.
Uses direct quotes from board members—including Hansen and Erik Paulsen—to show the small cities’ concerns about representation and Vancouver’s position on board makeup.
Points readers to next steps, including tracking when the BCRC will meet and what agenda items or revised proposals may be considered.

Questions worth asking

If the BCRC is reconvened, how might any new recommendation shift voting power among Vancouver, Clark County, and the smaller cities on the C‑TRAN board?
What specific conditions or governance safeguards could make a 4‑3‑2 structure acceptable across all parties, and who would be responsible for enforcing those conditions?
Could continued disagreement over board composition affect C‑TRAN’s ability to secure or retain state transit grants, and what deadlines or compliance benchmarks apply?
How might requirements for voter approval of light‑rail funding influence future board decisions and the priorities members bring to composition talks?
If the BCRC cannot reach consensus, what alternatives exist—legislative changes, mediation, interim governance adjustments, or maintaining the current structure?