Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Bridge Light Rail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council splits on light‑rail funding; directs C‑Tran rep to restore 'no O&M' language
Summary
The Washougal City Council voted 5–2 on Feb. 24 to direct its C‑Tran board representative to seek restoration of language that C‑Tran would not pay operations and maintenance costs for light rail on the Interstate Bridge replacement project.
The Washougal City Council spent a large portion of its Feb. 24 meeting discussing the Interstate Bridge replacement project and whether light rail should be part of the plan or funded locally.
City staff provided background on past ballot measures, regional polling and recent C‑Tran board actions. Staff noted that the modified locally preferred alternative adopted by regional partners in recent years included light rail, and that C‑Tran had originally conditioned its support by saying the agency would not be responsible for significant O&M costs. Late last year C‑Tran’s board voted to allow C‑Tran to consider participating in O&M funding, prompting renewed local concern.
Multiple residents addressed the council during public comment. William Carter, a Washougal resident, urged regional planning and said, "We are part of the Portland Metropolitan Area and whether we want to admit it or not we are economically dependent on Portland." By contrast, Margaret Tweed, a caller on Zoom, urged caution on the bridge's light‑rail scope and argued traffic modeling and ridership forecasts needed revision.
Council members debated three broad options: take no action and continue to monitor the process; adopt a formal written resolution (like Camas did) opposing light rail; or adopt a narrower position urging the regional partners to find O&M funding sources other than C‑Tran sales tax. After discussion the council considered a motion to instruct its C‑Tran representative to ask the C‑Tran board to restore the previous language that C‑Tran would not assume light‑rail O&M costs.
Council member Michelle Wagoner moved the direction; a second was made. The council voted by roll call. The recorded votes were: Michelle Wagoner — yes; Molly Koesten — no; Ernie Russell — no; Council member Suggs — yes; Mayor Stevie — yes; Council member Fritz — yes; Council member Robertson — yes. The motion passed 5–2. Council members said the action was intended to restore the prior C‑Tran position limiting C‑Tran’s exposure to light‑rail O&M costs while continuing to support a bridge replacement.
Council members and the mayor emphasized they did not want to delay the bridge project altogether but expressed concern about long‑term O&M obligations being shifted onto local transit revenue streams. Several council members asked staff to explore a statistically valid local survey and to monitor C‑Tran, RTC and IVR project milestones. One council member said she would prefer a formal resolution opposing light rail, but others cautioned that changing the locally preferred alternative at this late stage could jeopardize federal and state grant applications.
The council did not adopt a city resolution tonight that outright excludes light rail; instead it provided direction to its regional representative and flagged an upcoming C‑Tran board agenda (March 11) where that language will be considered. Staff said they will return with options for local outreach and any recommended formal statements after C‑Tran’s March meeting.
