Grants Pass City Council on Tuesday instructed staff to prepare detailed cost scenarios for overhauling the city's nonbargaining salary schedule, after a presentation that flagged internal compression, market underpayment in several job classes and potential exposure under Oregon's pay‑equity rules.

Stephanie (presenting counsel) told the council the issue is structural: the market study completed in 2024 recommended a new salary grid but did not assess individual employee pay equity. "We are not going to be discussing actual costs today," she said, explaining staff instead sought policy direction on eight questions so the city can return with financial calculations.

Why it matters: staff and the consultant identified several "pain points" where the city's current bands create promotion and retention problems — notably police sergeant detectives who may earn as much as lieutenants once overtime and bargaining incentives are considered, and fire battalion chiefs versus deputy chiefs. Those compressions, the presenter said, create both operational strains on promotion and recruitment and legal risk under Oregon pay‑equity law.

Councilors pressed for specifics on legal exposure and costs. Stephanie answered that potential liabilities could include two years of back pay, fines and attorney fees, but that the statute provides a safe‑harbor if the employer can show substantial progress toward fixing pay‑equity issues. She told the council the market data in the consultant report dated from mid‑2024 and that staff could apply a current COLA to proposed schedules when returning with numbers.

Operational leaders told the council the issue affects morale and the department’s ability to promote. "You've got sergeants making more than their bosses," Police Chief Hensman said, adding that the compression had a "huge" morale effect and could dissuade internal candidates from accepting promotions.

Council direction and next steps: after extended discussion, the council agreed to continue the process and asked staff to return with comprehensive numbers using the task‑force salary schedule as the primary scenario (council also asked for consultant schedule comparisons). The council asked that staff show costs for alternate implementation dates — including retroactive 07/01/2025, 01/01/2026 and 07/01/2026 — and to model phased implementation options. On the issue of applying the recent 3.2% COLA to a new schedule before placements, members asked to see the "worst‑case" numbers with that COLA applied.

Council decisions recorded as direction (not final policy): the council provided staff direction to proceed with analysis using the task‑force grid, to model the consultant alternative for comparison, to model pre‑placement COLA vs no pre‑placement COLA, and to show multiple effective dates and phased implementation scenarios. Councilors also voted (thumbs‑down) not to include a proposed longevity incentive in the initial cost scenarios and to exclude vacation‑accrual changes from the package staff returns with.

What staff will bring back: detailed annual and cumulative salary and benefit costs by scenario, a breakdown by fund (general vs enterprise), position lists tied to known pay‑equity mismatches, and potential legal exposure estimates. Stephanie said staff will return at a future workshop with those numbers and with 2–3 alternatives for council consideration.

The council's choices now are policy direction; no final salary placements or salary payments were approved Tuesday. Staff emphasized that many corrective options exist and that the council would choose among tradeoffs between fiscal impact and the speed of achieving pay‑equity compliance.