Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Transit Board Membership topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge reinstatement of Councilor Michelle Belcott to C TRAN board and oppose light rail during public comment
Summary
Dozens of residents used the public-comment period to demand reinstatement of Councilor Michelle Belcott to the C TRAN board, to oppose light rail on the I‑5 replacement bridge, and to allege Open Public Meetings Act and ethics concerns about council actions.
During the March 26 public-comment period, more than a dozen residents addressed the Clark County Council to urge reinstatement of Councilor Michelle Belcott to the C TRAN board, to oppose light rail on the proposed I‑5 replacement bridge, and to raise procedural and legal complaints about the council’s recent actions.
Several callers said they were speaking for constituents who oppose bringing light rail to a new bridge across the Columbia River and argued Belcott’s vote reflected that public sentiment. Gerald Zenyuk said he polled constituents and found them “without exception” in favor of Belcott’s stance opposing light rail and tolling on a proposed third bridge. Melissa Parmeter told the council, “Michelle's position on TriMet operations and maintenance represents the majority of cities in Clark County,” and urged the council to reinstate her.
Other commenters raised legal and procedural objections. Rob Anderson said he filed a civil complaint in Skamania County alleging Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) violations by the council related to March decisions and said he also filed an ethics complaint and sent a letter to the sheriff’s office and prosecuting attorney asking for a criminal investigation. Anderson said the council “took final actions on March 12 without legal authority” and called for accountability.
Public commenters also criticized council procedures and attendance records. Teresa Hardy presented counts she said showed low attendance by the District 2 councilor at C TRAN and regional transportation meetings and asked staff to “fact check this count” and consider action or rule changes about attendance. Other speakers questioned ridership and cost estimates from transit planning documents and urged the council to demand updated data before supporting light rail.
Council staff and the chair noted that although agenda item 4.2 (boards and commissions) had been removed from the printed packet, the council allowed public comment on that item because it had been posted online; the chair said, “They showed up,” and allowed comments.
What this means: The public-comment period produced a concentrated expression of opposition to light rail and to recent council actions related to C TRAN representation. Commenters announced legal filings and ethics complaints; those filings are matters outside council deliberations and will follow their own procedural paths.
Ending: The public-comment record will be part of the administrative record for any board/commission actions and for future council consideration of related agenda items.
