My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#04 - PW Operational Assessment Recommendation
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020's
>
2025
>
05-13-25 W
>
#04 - PW Operational Assessment Recommendation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/4/2025 4:09:35 PM
Creation date
6/17/2025 6:18:36 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />18 CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MN <br />the Operators is likely to be compounded in the short and medium term. In the short term, the addition of new <br />Operators will reduce the frequency of the on-call rotation for each Operator if the current scheme of rotation <br />amongst all Operators continues. If the Department hires an additional three Operators, which it may do over the <br />next year or so, each Operator will be on call once every 12 weeks, or roughly once every three months. It will be <br />even harder to gain familiarity with the system with reduced exposure. In the medium term, the addition of new <br />PFAS treatment plants will further complicate the water system’s operation. Reportedly, these treatment plants <br />should not have a large impact on labor needs but will be a complicating factor in gaining mastery of the water system <br />operations for the Operators. Additionally, as existing equipment ages, it will require more know-how to keep it <br />running properly, further emphasizing the need for expertise in the system. <br /> <br />To address the issues noted above, Raftelis recommends that the Department designate approximately six Operators <br />as Utility Specialists. The primary differentiation of Utility Specialists from other Operators is that the on-call rotation <br />would be staffed only by the Utility Specialists. The on-call Operator would continue to have primary responsibility <br />for the daily rounds, as well. Specifically, Raftelis recommends that both Lead Operators be designated as Utility <br />Specialists. As to the other four positions, it would be preferable that they be staffed with four of the most senior <br />operators (e.g., Public Works Operator I’s). <br /> <br />There is a question as to the desirability of this role. Historically, in the water and wastewater industry, the <br />opportunity to earn compensation and overtime from being on call was considered a perk among Operators. <br />However, in recent years, Raftelis’ experience shows that overtime work is increasingly difficult to recruit for. It <br />appears that younger employees increasingly value their time. The Department has evidence of this trend as well. <br />Recent retirements/vacancies have opened two weekly on-call “slots,” and these slots have remained open for a <br />considerable time. (The on-call work is still being covered, but out of requirement rather than opportunity.) Further, <br />when given the choice of receiving overtime pay or comp time, the Operators have exhibited a strong preference for <br />comp time, indicating that their time is worth more than their wages. <br /> <br />It may be that the role of Utility Specialist requires incentives beyond the compensation received for being on-call. <br />There are several potential mechanisms that could be explored and could include things such as: <br /> <br /> A uniform increase in base wages for Operators designated as Utility Specialists <br /> An increase in step on the pay scale <br /> More generous terms of on-call compensation (e.g., instead of one hour of automatic pay when on call, an <br />increase to one and a half hours) <br /> Preferential scheduling for overtime requests when not on call (e.g., if desired, they could be last to be called <br />out for weekend plowing work if not on-call) <br />Should there be significant interest in the Utility Specialist role, preferential selection should be made of the most <br />experienced Operators (i.e., Operator I’s) before opening the role to less experienced positions. It should be noted <br />that any of the approaches mentioned above will likely require negotiation with the Operators’ union. <br /> <br />It should also be noted that the intention of this recommendation is not to segregate the Operators into utility and <br />non-utility skillsets. Currently, there is no need to divide the Operators such that one Lead Operator leads the Utility <br />Specialists and the other leads the non-Utility Specialists. All Operators should continue to be required to earn the <br />licenses appropriate for their level (III, II, or I) and encouraged to advance their licensure. Rather, the intention is to <br />ensure that those who respond to after-hours call outs are experienced, comfortable, and competent in working <br />independently to solve whatever issues have arisen with utility infrastructure. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.