The Battle Ground City Council signaled support Monday, March 2, for exploring a potential C-Tran taxing subdistrict that could fund operations and maintenance for light rail as part of the Interstate-5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) project while potentially shielding smaller cities from paying the tax. Any subdistrict tax proposal would ultimately require voter approval within the defined boundary.
Battle Ground Mayor Eric Overholser asked the council for direction ahead of an upcoming C-Tran Board of Directors meeting, where the idea could surface as a discussion item. The proposed high-capacity transit subdistrict would establish a geographic boundary for taxation tied to light rail operations.
In March last year, the previous City Council voted 4-3 to approve a resolution formally opposing the inclusion of light rail in the IBR project, citing cost concerns while noting a lack of benefits for Battle Ground taxpayers.
Under current policy language, C-Tran “may participate in the funding of operations and maintenance of the bi-state transit,” including light rail and related facilities, as part of the bridge replacement project. Battle Ground councilmember Troy McCoy, who previously represented the city on the C-Tran board, has proposed alternate language:
“Any potential C-TRAN funding to support operations and maintenance for IBR Light Rail Transit shall not come from current sales tax revenue, excluding any sales tax generated from the construction of the IBR project. Should C-TRAN seek additional revenue through a future sales tax for light rail transit operations and maintenance funding, it shall seek voter approval of the proposed taxed jurisdiction(s).”
C-Tran currently collects a 0.7% tax in its transportation district and could raise the cap by an additional 0.9% to fund light rail operations and maintenance. Under the subdistrict concept, only voters within a designated area would vote on whether to approve taxes to fund operations and maintenance for the light rail component of the project.
Councilmember Jeanie Kuypers asked what potential risks the city might face if it were excluded from the subdistrict or if the proposal ultimately failed. Overholser replied that the proposal could cause politically motivated heartache to other C-Tran directors of a potential taxing jurisdiction.
“As far as the small cities and Battle Ground, as a council previously (we’ve) been fairly outspoken that we are okay with light rail on the bridge, we're not okay with our taxpayers in Battle Ground paying for light rail on the bridge,” Overholser added. “If the IBR project is to move forward with light rail, as they have the choice to do at this moment… As far as our representation on C-Tran, this is a way to isolate us potentially from the implications from tax on the operations and maintenance of that light rail.”
Some councilmembers also questioned whether a subdistrict could ultimately be expanded to include the entire C-Tran service area. Councilmember Shane Bowman raised concerns that voters in larger cities could potentially outvote smaller communities like Battle Ground.
“So, what keeps C-Tran from saying ‘we're going to make the entire C-Tran service area the subdist to fund light rail and we're going to go out to a vote in that area anyways’ and they outvote us in Battle Ground?” Bowman asked. “What keeps them from just saying, ‘Well, the subdist's going to be the C-Tran service area.’ I mean, we've said, ‘Yeah, we want our own subdist and carve it out.’ But what (if) we say, ‘We don't want to be involved.’ And they say, ‘Well, you don't have a choice because we're going to throw it in and we're going to outvote you anyway.’”
Councilmember McCoy acknowledged that the scenario could theoretically happen, but said he believes the risk is low.
“Practically speaking, you're correct. They could do this. However, I see this vote as giving our delegate on the C-Tran board, if this comes to the C-Tran board, how to vote. And I don't think C-Tran will do that because there's a lot of no votes up here for that proposal. So while it's theoretically possible, I don't think it's probably on the deck because they're worried enough about getting the votes in the subdistrict,” McCoy said.
Councilmember Victoria Ferrer said she supports the concept because it prioritizes protecting Battle Ground residents from a tax tied to a service that would not directly benefit the city.
“At this point, I'm in favor of doing what's best for Battle Ground… And I know we did do a resolution here against the light rail, but this has nothing to do with the light rail at this point, either. It's about the IBR and it's making sure that our people don't get taxed for something that doesn't bring any benefits here to the city of Battle Ground,” Ferrer said.
By the end of the discussion, councilmembers generally indicated support for the subdistrict concept, giving Overholser direction to bring that position back to the C-Tran board in a future meeting.
