The Common Council met 05/04/2022. They spent around 30 minutes of the hour-long meeting discussing the request from Lamers Bus Lines to amend their contract with Valley Transit to run the trolley service over the summer. This item was discussed by both the Transit Commission and the Finance Committee both of which ended up recommending the amendment for approval, though not without dissent.
Valley Transit and Lamers had a contract in place that had automatically renewed. Lamers asked for payment increase of over $5,000, $2,000 of which would fall to the City of Appleton to pay, after the 90-day period in which Lamers could have cancelled the contract or asked for changes. The trolley service started in the beginning of June and the short notice Lamers provided caused issues for the city to find other options. Eventually, although no one on the Common Council seemed to think Lamers had acted appropriately, they voted to amend the contract in order to maintain consistency of service and not overburden Valley Transit which is already short 9 drivers.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) was the one member of the Finance Committee who had voted against amending the contract. He opened up Council discussion on the matter by saying that the contract amendment Lamers had requested would increase the overall cost of the trolley service by a little over $5,000, around $2,000 of which would need to be covered by Appleton. He understood they were not talking about a lot of money, particularly as compared to the city’s entire budget, but he had a couple of concerns. Firstly, when looking at spending money, one of the things he considered was whether something was a need versus a want. He questioned whether the trolley was really a need given that Valley Transit already covered that route and would continue to do so even if the trolley service ended. Secondly, he was concerned that they had a contract with Lamers that was all spelled out and now suddenly Lamers said they couldn’t fulfill the contract until the fee was increased. But, Lamers had an obligation. Appleton didn’t have an obligation to meet Lamers’ need. Lamers had an obligation to meeting the contract.
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) concurred with Alderperson Siebers. He was really frustrated that Lamers had had an opportunity during the 90-day window laid out in the contract to address this issue with the city but, for whatever reason, did not do so, and now that deadline was passed. “I don’t want the city to do business this way and have the city’s hand forced on these types of issues. And I don’t want to set a precedent with doing things like this.”
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) supported approving the amendment and was concerned that, while the city had been put in a frustrating situation, the trolley was a valuable service and there would be a gap if the amendment wasn’t approved. Approving the amendment would allow for continuity so that the city could work out plans to make sure the service remained uninterrupted in the future. “While I do believe we should not do business with Lamers in the future because of how they have behaved like this, I think that we also need the continuity of the service right now. So, approving this right now will enable us to do the right thing going forward and have the opportunity to have some planning to make sure we bring this service in house so that we’re no longer reliant on this contract.”
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) echoed the sentiments of Alderpersons Siebers and Doran. “A company with a contractual agreement with this city acted disingenuously and inappropriately in a contractual relationship with us.” She believed the city should push back on Lamers and that, while it didn’t serve the city well to cancel this contract under short notice, it served the city even worse to continue to work with a company that did not serve the city well.
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) had several questions. First, she clarified with a staff member that Lamers owned the trolley.
Secondly, she wanted to know what the approximate ride count for the trolley was on any given season or weekend but the staff member did not have that information available.
Thirdly, she wanted to know how much the city would save if they terminated the contract with Lamers, but, again, the staff member did not have information on how much it would cost for the route to be run by Valley Transit versus Lamers. [I was a little annoyed that they didn’t have any ridership numbers or cost estimates, and, due to timing issues caused by when the amendment request was made, the city didn’t have time to hold the item for a future meeting to give staff more time to get those answers.]
Alderperson Alfheim next wanted to know what the city’s perspective was on the value of having the trolley as a resource downtown and what was the value to the community and economic development.
The staff member answered that she thought the trolley encouraged people to go to downtown businesses, activities, and special events. It moved people down to the riverfront to events taking place there, and it was a novelty that people enjoyed being able to ride. It also correlated with the nostalgia of Appleton being the first Midwest city to operate an electric trolley. [I think that last suggestion was a bit of a stretch. I’d need some numbers on how many people who ride the trolley are aware that Appleton used to have a trolley system.]
Alderperson Alfheim asked if it would take more in $2,000 in time and manhours to investigate all those number. The staff member thought it could.
Alderperson Alfheim thought it made sense to investigate things for next year but $2,000 this year to continue the program was “decimal dust”.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) said she had taken the trolley during the summer, and the people who had ridden it with her were not necessarily people going downtown. Rather, they were people leaving from work near the Azco building on E. South River Street. If the city was to discontinue the trolley service would that affect the people who were typically using the trolley or would they have another option?
The staff member answered that they would not be affected. The trolley service runs along Route 9 that Valley Transit operates during the rest of the year. The only difference was that from the first Thursday in June through the Saturday of Octoberfest, the trolley ran that route on the evenings of Thursdays and Fridays and all-day Saturdays.
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) said, “I’m not at all happy with the situation that Lamers has put us in, and I would very much like to tell them to go hit the bricks about that.” At the same time, he felt they should support the amendment because Valley Transit was already short 9 bus drivers which was 25% of the total number of drivers they needed. Spending the extra money to have Lamers take over this route for another year would reduce the load on Valley Transit’s bus drivers who were already short staffed and working overtime. Yes, Appleton would be taking what he felt was an unfair hit, but he still thought it would be beneficial to alleviate the pressure on the drivers. [Honestly, I thought that was the most cogent argument made in favor of approving the amendment.]
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) thought they needed to approve the amendment so that people weren’t shocked by the disappearance of the trolley. If Valley Transit thought they could do it cheaper than Lamers, they could figure it out for next year.
Alderperson Siebers wanted to clarify what had already been stated earlier in the meeting, “There will not be a gap in service.” He also thought that, until they had the numbers, they couldn’t make the statement that the trolley encouraged people to go downtown. He did agree with Alderperson Firkus’ point that it would relieve pressure on drivers, but that was the only thing that he would agree with on this.
Alderperson Hartzheim asked why this had to be pushed through now without getting answers to various questions and without pushing back on Lamers as to why they cannot fulfill the service they contractually agreed to provide and why they didn’t make their request during the 90-day window allowed by the contract. She understood this was a relatively small dollar amount but, “It’s still something that the city of Appleton should not have to take the cuff on the chin in this regard.”
The staff woman said that right now Valley Transit was in a bidding period with their drivers. They post the bid for the summer schedules May 1st, although they actually held off until May 4th this year [my understanding was specifically because of this Lamers trolley issue]. Once drivers secure their bids, it affects their vacation and holidays. She also noted that one unintended consequence of cancelling the contract with Lamers would be that that route during the summer would become teamster work and it would be difficult in the future to subcontract it out again.
Alderperson Hartzheim said she wasn’t saying the city should not pursue completing the contract with Lamers but she wanted to know if there was any way they could push back at them to perform, without change, the service they were contractually obligated to.
The female staff member said that her understanding was that this situation had come about after Valley Transit checked in with Lamers to make sure they had enough labor to provide the service for the summer. At that time, Lamers came back and said that their costs had increased. Valley Transit General Manager Ron McDonald asked for a breakdown of the increased costs. Some of it was labor but more of it was associated with the cost of diesel, parts, and maintaining the trolley.
Timeline-wise, they were in a crunch right now. Normally, they would have printed brochure about the services and put it out on social media. Additionally, she reiterated that they were in the bidding period, and it could be difficult to secure the trolley schedule with drivers.
Alderperson Van Zeeland asked what the terms of the previous contract were.
The staff woman responded that the contract was originally a three-year contract for 2019-2021 and included two option years. 2022 was the first option year. The contracted rate for 2022 should have been $79.70 an hour, but Lamers wanted to increase it to $90.96. She said that they were just trying to get through 2022, and that at the end they could reevaluate where they were with their feelings regarding Lamers. She said Valley Transit was disappointed.
Alderperson Hartzheim asked if this was something that the city attorney and his staff might be able to push back on with Lamers Bus Lines.
City Attorney Christopher Behrens answered, “I need to be careful of what I say because I don’t want to talk about litigation strategy in an open session. A lot of what you’ve heard, our office has already been in extensive discussions with Director McDonald about. And it’s a challenging situation for a number of the reasons that have been raised already–timing, contractual implications that have to be taken into consideration, the fact that this is an option year so while it’s not a good situation it’s a temporary situation that can be reassessed after this period if necessary. So, best I can do is assure you that we have been involved and we’ve had extensive discussions, and the product of those discussions was Director McDonald’s recommendation to go ahead with it this term.”
Alderperson Israel Del Toro (District 4) said that, as the alderperson that represented at least half of this route, he was concerned about the constituents that lived along the route and potentially depended on the service. Like Alderpersons Siebers, Hartzheim and Doran, he was frustrated, “However, I’m hesitant to do that at the expense and the cost of my constituents, so I’m leaning towards voting in support of this.” [Again, it should be reiterated that the service itself was never in question. The only thing in question was whether Lamers would provide the service or Valley Transit would provide the service.] He also thought that more data was required to determine if they wanted to extend the service for a second year, and he thought they should put the onus of gathering data onto Lamers to demonstrate their value.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) said “I think I would agree with everyone in the chambers here that this situation sucks.” He thought that if the Council told Lamers to “pound sand” and the trolley disappeared that the public’s perception would be that an iconic service was no longer available. He didn’t think it was a good idea to pull an iconic service that was associated with the city brand at a time when they were trying to increase ridership on public transportation. Additionally, the trolley did hearken back to Appleton’s first electric trolley which was the beginnings of electric service in the city. “I worry about the public perception in us putting ourselves in a situation where this thing is no longer in service and [we] essentially kill this iconic service that has some tie to the city’s identity.”
Alderperson Maiyoua Thao (District 7) said she supported this. It was hard to find people to work and she assumed it must be hard for Lamers also. She understood they had an obligation to follow the contract, but at the same time she felt it was important to work together as a team with them to solve these issues so they could serve the community. A lot of things were going on, gas prices were increasing and businesses couldn’t find work. The number one issues in the community were transportation, childcare, and housing. She supported the contract amendment.
Alderperson Alfheim said they could ask questions all night long to get more information, but the work had already been done and staff had come to them saying the best math solution for the city was to amend the contract. The cost increase was annoying, but they could review their options next year and make sure they didn’t experience a time crush next year.
Alderperson Meltzer said that Lamers had basically told the city “Pay us more or we’ll walk away.” If they walked away now it would cause the city difficulties. Amending the contract was a temporary solution and reassessing how to provide the trolley service would be easier without interruption to the continuity of the route. They all agreed that Lamers has not treated them right. “After this temporary solution, it’s my understanding that the path forward will be to find a non Lamers way to move forward, but right now for this temporary time we need to avoid making our constituents who rely on this service pay the biggest burden.”
Alderperson Siebers reiterated that if they did not go with Lamers this year, the route would be covered by Valley Transit, although it would become something the union covered. In the Finance Committee meeting, he had heard General Manager McDonald raise the idea of Appleton purchasing its own trolley for next year and say that there was grant money available. If that was the case, Appleton would have to get into negotiation with the union about running the trolley anyway, so he didn’t think that the concerns about it becoming a union contract starting this year held up.
Alderperson Wolff said that the Council had approved an extra $2million to help counterbalance inflation for the public library. “We can spend an additional $2,000 on public transportation.”
There was no further discussion and the Council voted 11-4 to approve the contract amendment with Alderpersons Siebers, Hartzheim, Chris Croatt (District 14), and Doran voting nay.
I did reach out to Lamers to confirm with them whether they had asked to amend the contract outside to the time period allowed in the contract and whether they would have declined to provide the service if the city had not amended the contract. I have thus far not received a response, but I will provide an update if that changes.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=937640&GUID=F6AE9C58-538F-45F3-9611-FC274F269E1B
3 thoughts on “Common Council Vote To Approve Contract Amendment With Lamers Bus Lines For Trolley Service; Council Members Express Frustration With Situation Lamers Put City In”