Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Utility Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Works committee backs 8% retention plan for Middleton water utility
Summary
The Public Works Committee recommended an 8% pay increase and a tiered incentive structure for hourly water utility employees, citing recent turnover, training costs and the time needed to certify operators. The recommendation goes to Finance & Personnel and the Common Council for final approval.
The Middleton Public Works Committee voted Wednesday to recommend that Finance & Personnel and the Common Council approve a Water Utilities employee retention plan that includes an 8% pay increase for hourly employees and a tiered incentive structure.
Mike, the water utility manager, told the committee the plan responds to several years of turnover and a loss of institutional experience. "We need to retain the employees that we have right now," he said, describing a period beginning about three years ago in which the long‑time manager retired and several supervisory posts changed hands.
Committee members pressed staff on the financial case for the proposal. A committee member cited a calculated training and replacement cost of $665,400 attributed to internal lateral transfers and turnover during the period reviewed; staff said those calculations informed the recommendation. Mike noted that operator certification and continuing education requirements are significant: staff must complete certification and roughly 18 CEU credits roughly every three years, and the hands‑on training timeline can take two to five years depending on responsibilities.
HR manager Casey Radke displayed compensation scenarios showing most utility crew would see increases between about 2.5% and 7.5% under a broader comp‑study grade change; staff said the retention plan is a more direct way to keep experienced operators in the utility instead of losing them to neighboring employers that may offer small hourly premiums — Mike said one trained recruit left for $5.86 an hour more elsewhere.
Supporters argued the increase is cheaper than repeated hiring and training. A committee member summarized the motion as a recommendation to forward the plan to the next level of review; the committee made the motion and, after a voice vote in which ayes were recorded, the motion carried.
The recommendation does not itself change pay; it asks Finance & Personnel and the Common Council to adopt the plan and any budgetary adjustments during the regular budget process or via amendment if considered later. The committee also discussed non‑pay retention measures including clearer career paths, regular one‑on‑one feedback, and better succession planning for when the current foreman retires in the coming years.
The matter now moves to Finance & Personnel and then to the Common Council for final action.
