Battle Ground Council narrowly approves resolution opposing I‑5 light‑rail extension; directs C‑TRAN rep to seek prior language

The Battle Ground City Council on March 3 voted 4‑3 to approve Resolution 25‑02, opposing any extension of light rail across the Columbia River as part of the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project.

The vote followed a lengthy citizen‑communications period and council debate in which residents and several council members raised concerns about projected construction and operating costs, tolling, ridership levels, freight capacity on I‑5 and potential effects on local public safety and services. Resolution 25‑02 was introduced to express the city’s opposition to including light rail in the IBR project; council members also discussed parallel efforts at C‑TRAN and county levels about funding language.

Council Member Davis said he brought the resolution forward to make clear the city is opposed to light rail and to emphasize concerns that costs could fall to Battleground taxpayers. Robert Ferrier of the city manager’s office reminded council that a prior study session had included an IBR update and that staff attached a draft resolution for discussion.

During the public comment portion, speakers representing Battle Ground and Clark County repeated several themes: TriMet has not run a system that covers its operating costs and long‑term ridership trends across the bridge have declined, opponents argued; local residents urged the city to protect freight and vehicular capacity on I‑5; others raised public‑safety, park‑and‑ride security and fiscal concerns. Speakers who addressed costs cited build estimates of $1 billion to $2 billion and annual operation and maintenance estimates in the tens of millions of dollars; others described vehicle purchase costs reported for the project.

After extended debate about strategy and regional negotiations, the council voted on the resolution. Roll call recorded votes in the transcript as: Council Member Kuipers — yes; Council Member Ferrer — yes; Council Member DeRozier — no; Council Member Overholzer — yes; Deputy Mayor Bowman — no; Mayor McCoy — no. The motion passed 4‑3. The resolution is numbered 25‑02.

Following the vote, council members turned to agency‑level language being considered by C‑TRAN for its board vote on the modified local preferred alternative (MLPA). Council members expressed differing views about the best way to influence the regional process while maintaining cooperative relations with Vancouver and county partners. The council directed its C‑TRAN representative to advocate for reverting to the prior language and to seek protections for local taxpayers; members specifically discussed removing a clause that would automatically rescind C‑TRAN’s approval of the MLPA (a phrase several members described as a “poison pill” that could force the project back to initial planning).

The council’s action is a formal local statement of opposition; it does not by itself change the IBR project or C‑TRAN’s vote. Council members and staff noted that federal, state and regional bodies retain primary control over the bridge design, funding and final decisions.