Ellettsville denies Rural Transit funding, airs frustrations with Monroe County leadership
At its regular meeting on Monday, Ellettsville’s town council voted down a proposal that would have continued in 2025 the stop-gap funding it has provided this year, to support Rural Transit rides for Ellettsville residents.
Rural Transit is a program of the Area 10 Agency on Aging.
The proposal for this year would have required the town council to come up with $70,645 as Ellettsville’s share of the door-to-door service that would have a total of $156,989. The remaining amount was to have been paid by Monroe County government.
The pitch for the council’s support came from board of county commissioners president Julie Thomas. Area 10 executive director Chris Myers was there to answer questions.
The proposal was a simple motion of support made by Dan Swafford, which got yes votes from just Swafford and Pamela Samples. Voting against the motion were Scott Oldham, Trevor Sager, and William Ellis. So the motion failed 2–3.
The fact that a vote was taken that night was somewhat unexpected, but the outcome was not a surprise.
As town council president Scott Oldham put it: “I wish we had the money to do that, but we simply don’t, and we warned everyone of that, during the last time we had this discussion.”
It’s not clear at this point how the service gap that Rural Transit is looking to fill, will be funded in 2025.
Councilors who did not support the proposal pointed to the $70,000 that was being requested in the context of the budget challenges already faced by the town. In order to balance the 2025 budget, that same night, the council had approved the submission of an excess levy appeal, which will bring Ellettsville an additional $318,000, if it’s approved by the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF).
An excess levy appeal allows a local unit to request additional property tax revenue beyond the state-imposed limit in the MLGQ (maximum levy growth quotient).
Oldham still recognized the benefit of the transportation service: “I would love to see this funded, but we do not run a transit system. We never have run a transit system.”
Speaking in support was Swafford, who said, “I think everyone knows my feeling on this—that it is a necessity for our residents, to provide some kind of transportation to people that are in need.” Swafford continued saying, “That’s what we’re put in office to do, to watch over our tax dollars and to help our citizens with any needs that come up.”
Also in support, Samples said, “I think…for this small community or growing community, I really think that we should do it.” Samples added, “That’s what usually communities do.”
Background on the funding request
The reason Ellettsville was asked last year for the first time to contribute money to support Rural Transit rides stemmed from INDOT’s (Indiana Department of Transportation’s) decision to start enforcing an existing policy that says Rural Transit cannot use money received through the Section 5311 rural transit grant program, to pay for trips that both start and end inside Monroe County’s urbanized area (UA).
The UA does not coincide exactly with municipal boundaries. Most, but not all of Bloomington is part of Monroe County’s UA. There’s lots of UA outside of Bloomington, including most of Ellettsville.
When the start and end points of a trip are both inside the city of Bloomington, the prohibition against Rural Transit providing a trip, by using its 5311 formula funds, does not have a negative impact on riders—because Bloomington Transit provides service between those two points.
Up until last year, if either the origin or the destination was outside of Bloomington city limits, Rural Transit could and would provide the trip connecting those points, using 5311 funds.
But starting last year, Rural Transit could not use its 5311 funds to pay for trips, if both the origin and designation are inside the UA. An example of such a trip that Rural Transit can no longer make using 5311 money is from Ellettsville to Walmart on Bloomington’s west side.
At Monday’s meeting, a half dozen people spoke from the public mic in favor of Ellettsville funding the Rural Transit trips, citing basic transportation needs like medical appointments and buying groceries.
The basic idea behind the funding request from Ellettsville is for Rural Transit to continue to provide the service, but without using 5311 funds. Ellettsville and Monroe County government would effectively continue next year, like they’ve done this year, to replace the support that the federal 5311 funds previously provided.
Bloomington Transit’s role
Why hasn’t Monroe County looked to Bloomington Transit to fill the service gap left by the new enforcement of the 5311 rules?
Last year the Monroe County government did look to Bloomington Transit to fill the service gap—for at least a couple of reasons.
First, since the fall of 2023, Bloomington Transit has been able to operate outside of city limits, based on the enabling ordinance that the Bloomington city council enacted that year. Second, Bloomington Transit (BT) receives grant funding a federal grant program—the Section 5307 formula program, which is generated in part by people who live in Monroe County’s UA, but outside the city limits.
The amount of money awarded to BT through the 5307 program is based on population—of the UA, not the city of Bloomington. The idea is that the federal government wants the recipients of 5307 funding, like BT, to serve the transit needs of residents in the UA.
Historically Bloomington Transit didn’t provide any UA-to-UA trips outside the city of Bloomington—despite the fact that BT has received funding, based on the federal government’s idea that it should provide that service. But until the city council’s passage of the August 2023 ordinance, BT could not legally provide such service.
Last year, BT put forward a demand-response proposal that would have cost far more than what Rural Transit proposed to do, by using replacement funds from Ellettsville and Monroe County government.
This year, BT put forward three fixed-route proposals, one of them a route that would connect Bloomington and Ellettsville. Within three-quarters of a mile of a route, BT has to provide paratransit service—which would account for a significant portion of the service gap due to lack of 5311 funding.
But Monroe County commissioners seem like they’ve settled on BT’s fixed-route proposal that serves a loop on the western outskirts of Bloomington. That leaves Ellettsville out of the mix.
At Monday’s meeting, both Mike Farmer and town councilor William Ellis said that Monroe County had not reached out to them about Bloomington Transit’s proposal this year.
Ellis said he recalled Zoom calls last year with county councilor Trent Deckard, county commissioner Julie Thomas and Rural Transit’s Chris Myers, but had not been contacted this year.
About the Bloomington Transit proposals that Thomas mentioned at Monday’s meeting, Ellis said, “I’ve not seen it.” Farmer said, “I haven’t heard from [Monroe County officials] about the buses.”
The communication from BT general manager about this year’s proposals was emailed as an attachment in a message with a salutation to county commissioner Julie Thomas and county councilor Trent Deckard.
Others who were apparently listed as recipients to Connell’s email message—on the CC line—included Farmer and Ellis.
Communication failures, past grievances
The lack of successful communication between Ellettsville leaders and county government was a theme of the town council’s discussion at the end of their meeting.
Oldman put it like this: “Lack of communication seems to be the theme this evening. I’m sure we’re just as guilty as other people sometimes, but it doesn’t seem that way this evening.”
In addition to not achieving good communication on transportation, Ellis and Farmer pointed to other policy areas where they think Ellettsville has been left out of the conversation.
Referring to county commissioners, Farmer said, “They didn’t contact me about the fire district. They haven’t talked to me about the jail, which is going to be right at the gateway to Ellettsville.”
Farmer’s reference to the fire district was to a current proposal for Bean Blossom Township to join the Monroe Fire Protection District (MFPD). Ellettsville’s fire department has a competing proposal to provide fire protection for Bean Blossom. According to Monroe County, in order for the township to become a member, at least 500 landowners would have to return a postcard to the township trustee indicating support for joining the district.
Responding to an emailed B Square question about how many postcards he’d received so far in support of the MFPD proposal, Bean Blossom township trustee Ron Hutson wrote on Thursday: “I am unable to give any information at this time, until they have been sent to the auditor and certified.” Hutson added, “There is no set deadline as yet to stop receiving them.”
In contrast to the postcards, remonstrance petitions have to be submitted directly to the county auditor’s office, which will accept them only until Friday, Sept. 27. If 50 remonstrance petitions are received, that triggers a public hearing by the county commissioners.
On Thursday, chief deputy auditor Christopher Muench told The B Square he had received one remonstrance petition with 12 signatures, but several other petition sheets are being circulated.
Farmer’s reference to the proposed new jail location as the “gateway to Ellettsville” was to a pending purchase of land in North Park, off SR46 along Hunter Valley Road.
Monroe County commissioners voted this Wednesday, to put off that purchase in order to given full consideration to a different piece of land, on Vernal Pike. At public meetings, on the topic, Ellettsville residents have come out in strong opposition to the North Park location. Despite the delay, commissioners still say they prefer the North Park location as a new jail site.
Another sore point brought up on Monday night was the food and beverage tax, which gets divided between Bloomington and Monroe County government based on the location of the establishment that collects the 1-percent tax. If it’s inside Bloomington city limits, the money goes to the city of Bloomington—which is planning to use the tax proceeds to build a convention center expansion.
Outside Bloomington city limits, the proceeds of the food and beverage tax go to the county government. None of the food and beverage tax proceeds are allocated to Ellettsville—that’s the way the state law was written.
At Monday’s town council meeting, Ellis used $140,000 as an estimate of the annual food and beverage tax proceeds that are collected by Ellettsville establishments. Since the tax started getting collected in 2018, that amounts to about $650,000, Ellis indicated.
Oldham pointed to money paid by Ellettsville to Monroe County for animal control, and CATS for recording of public meetings as a source of funding that could be put towards transit—if Monroe County government wants to absorb what Ellettsville is currently paying for animal control and for CATS.
Ellettsville, Monroe County, and Bloomington currently share costs for Bloomington’s animal shelter under an interlocal agreement, based on the jurisdiction of origin for the animal.
General negative sentiment towards Monroe County government
By the end of Monday’s meeting, the general sentiment in the room was a sense of disrespect that Ellettsville leaders perceive from Monroe County government.
Farmer conveyed that perception like this: “I know this is going to be a surprise for a lot of people, that Ellettsville is actually in Monroe County.”
Farmer added, “I’d just like them to know that I’m a Monroe County resident. I accuse the county commissioners of marginalizing all of us county residents.”
Ellis said that Monroe County officials treated Ellettsville like “the redheaded stepchild of Monroe County,” adding, “It just infuriates me, because we could get so much more accomplished, if we work together.”
Towards the end of the meeting Oldham reprised some of the same points he’d made earlier, but this time acknowledging the many criticisms that had earlier been heaped on county officials by Farmer and Ellis: “I don’t want it to be jump-on-the-county night—but it’s my turn. So here we go.”
Oldham said, “I desperately want to see some type of transit system here. We don’t run a transit system. We told you that last year—we don’t have the money to run a transit system.”
Somewhat of a counterpoint, at the very end of Monday’s meeting, came from Swafford, who said that town councilors should not act “like an upset child.” Swafford said, “You can be mad and point fingers all night, but it’s the people out there that need our service are the ones that’s going to suffer on this, not our egos. And that’s all I’m saying.”
Oldham reacted to Swafford’s comment by saying, “Well, we could go down this road and argue, but we’re not going to go this evening.” Seeing no other business on the agenda, Oldham adjourned the meeting.
