The Clark County Council voted 4-1 to back a Vancouver-authored resolution asking the IBR to extend light rail to Library Square. File Photo
🎧 Clark County Council Backs Vancouver’s Light Rail Push
In a 4-1 vote, the Clark County Council on Wednesday moved forward with a resolution asking the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program to change its plans again, to bring light rail to Library Square, acknowledging that a request came from the city of Vancouver to do so
Paul Valencia
Clark County Today
Most of the members of the Clark County Council continued their political battle against most of the people of Clark County on Wednesday, with yet another move in support of light rail.
The council voted 4-1 to move forward with a resolution in support of the city of Vancouver’s own resolution asking that light rail extend to Library Square.
They also acknowledged that they are following the city of Vancouver’s lead.
Councilor Glen Yung, who chaired Wednesday’s Council Time meeting, made a point of saying this was not a resolution for or against light rail. Instead, if light rail is coming across the Interstate Bridge replacement it should go all the way to Evergreen Boulevard at Library Square rather than stop at the bridge.
All this, despite the fact that the Clark County Council is already on record with a resolution to oppose any support for light rail unless it is first supported by a majority of voters in a county-wide advisory vote. To be fair, that resolution was made in 2022. Most of those councilors have left their positions, replaced with today’s members. Still, the resolution against light rail — the county’s position — remains on the county’s own page regarding the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. This current council has not voted to amend or remove that resolution.
Councilor Michelle Belkot on Wednesday not only reminded her colleagues of the 2022 resolution but also of the longstanding tradition from this council to side with the voters of Clark County — to fight against light rail and any funding regarding light rail.
On Wednesday, though, the current council showed support for Vancouver in its fight to get the IBR to redo its plan to bring light rail only to the bridge under the first phase of the project.
“My intention behind this is because light rail has been selected as the preferred alternative, we want to make sure that the county receives the best benefit out of this project and not a fragmented system,” Yung said. “It does not make sense at all for our community. This is the whole, entire county, not speaking for just Vancouver. It doesn’t make sense to have that end at the waterfront. It really needs to continue on to the library so we can have that real hub … for the entire transit system to function properly.”
Belkot was adamant in her response.
“The council has historically not supported light rail in any form or fashion,” Belkot said, adding that the council supports a new bridge but with no light rail element. “I don’t personally support this, and I won’t be signing it.”
Clark County voters have said no on multiple occasions during advisory votes. While there has not been an advisory vote in many years, even the biggest supporters of light rail doubt there would be support countywide for increased taxes to pay for light rail that extends just a few blocks into Vancouver.
It should be noted that the members who voted in favor of this latest resolution were the ones who removed Belkot from the C-TRAN Board of Directors in early 2025. Belkot, if you recall, was fired, essentially, from the board for trying to protect Clark County taxpayers for being on the hook for operations and maintenance costs associated with light rail coming to Vancouver.
Since Belkot’s removal from the C-TRAN board, there have been lawsuits, investigations, and debate. Directly and indirectly, it all led to a new composition of the C-TRAN board, which now has four representatives from the city of Vancouver, three from Clark County, and just two representing the smaller cities that make up the C-TRAN boundary.
How is this all connected? Well, in the very first C-TRAN meeting with the new composition, the four members of the city of Vancouver and the three members of Clark County — Yung, Sue Marshall, and Wil Fuentes — teamed up to vote 7-2 against protecting C-TRAN taxpayers. The small cities representatives asked for an amendment to C-TRAN’s own resolution asking the IBR to extend light rail to Library Square, requesting that any extra cost associated with that extension would not come from C-TRAN taxpayers.
One of the first votes from the new composition went exactly as some feared during the debate: The county leaders would just go along with whatever Vancouver wanted.
Two months later, at Wednesday’s Council Time, the Clark County Council went on record — 4-1 — in support of a Vancouver resolution, for a project that only serves a few blocks of Vancouver.
This is no secret conspiracy. The council on Wednesday discussed who was behind this current resolution.
“Who wrote this? Is this from Vancouver?” Councilor Matt Little asked.
Jordan Boege, senior policy analyst for Clark County, said this resolution came from the city of Vancouver’s resolution, edited to be from the county’s viewpoint. Boege estimated that it’s 95 percent the same resolution that the city of Vancouver wrote.
“Did they ask us to pass this?” Little asked.
Yung said: “The mayor sent me a request,” referring to Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle. “I thought it was an issue that was important.”
Little, Fuentes, and Marshall agreed with Yung, giving a thumb’s up to support the resolution that could be read as soon as July 21.
“If it’s going to be built, I would prefer it to extend to where there is a hub,” Little said.
Earlier, Marshall noted that the city of Vancouver, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, and C-TRAN had already passed similar resolutions.
“I think the desire is to be a united front in that message,” Marshall said.
To that end, Yung was hoping for a unanimous vote on this resolution from the county council.
“Councilor Belkot, I would ask you one question,” Yung said. “A united support for this would be beneficial. Is there any language in this that you would have any suggestions for change or removal to be able to get you to support it?”
“No,” Belkot said.
Also read:
wpDiscuz
