Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Freebee rideshare pilot fails to pass as commissioners weigh ridership vs. road repairs
Summary
A proposed one‑year Freebee on‑demand rideshare pilot tied in a split commission vote after commissioners raised concerns about declining ridership, budget tradeoffs and whether the village''s limited funds should instead be redirected toward road repairs.
A one‑year on‑demand rideshare agreement with Freebee did not pass the commission on June 9 after a tie vote prompted by split views over the service''s local utility and budget priorities.
What staff proposed: Staff presented the contract and said the program had been budgeted for $120,000 annually (an existing line item), with county/ grant offsets anticipated. The vendor would operate an on‑demand vehicle within a multi‑mile radius; staff recommended a phased three‑mile start with a possible five‑mile expansion if response times remained acceptable.
Points raised in debate: Commissioner Huntington and others opposed extending or renewing the pilot because ridership trended downward over the last year (example: 483 riders in Jan 2024 vs. 224 after a route change in 2025) and because the village had significant road maintenance needs. Opponents argued that the portion of funds that could be spent on roads (staff estimated roughly 80% of the monthly allocation could be applied to roadway repairs under the grant rules) would have bought multiple small road repairs each year.
Supporters'' view: Proponents noted Freebee provides mobility for residents without cars, complements county transit and could be scaled to a three‑mile pilot to test demand; staff also said program terms allowed evaluation and cancellation provisions.
Outcome: The Freebee resolution failed on a tie vote. Commissioners directed staff to quantify the road‑repair tradeoffs (how much road work could be done with the funds) and return with options (including budgetary and grant implications) for future consideration.
Attributions: Staff and the village manager presented details about the contract and implementation plan; Issa (parks/transportation staff) described outreach and the phased radius approach; Commissioner Huntington cited ridership statistics from the vendor reports.
Ending: Staff will return with a comparative analysis of the options (continue rideshare vs. reallocate funds to road repairs) and the commission will revisit the matter at a future meeting.
