Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation Nonbargaining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grants Pass council orders consultant study of management pay after heated debate
Summary
After hours of debate over a consultant study and what peer cities to use as comparators, Grants Pass council voted to issue an RFP for a third‑party review of the nonbargaining (management) pay schedule and to include an analysis of whether the city manager’s pay should be outside the salary structure.
Grants Pass City Council voted to hire a third‑party consultant to review the city’s nonbargaining (management) salary schedule and recommend fixes for pay‑equity and recruitment issues, following a prolonged discussion that split the council.
The council approved a motion directing staff to issue an RFP for a consultant that will identify ‘‘pain points’’ in the current pay grid and suggest options to alleviate them, including reviewing incentive structures for specific roles. The motion passed 6–2. Councilor Seth moved the final motion and Councilor Rick seconded; those who voted yes were Seth, Rob, Rick, Joel, Eric and Kathleen; Victoria and Indra voted no.
Council debate centered on two questions: which peer jurisdictions should be used to set market targets, and whether the city should adopt the task force’s numbers, a reduced (90%) version of them, or a locally tailored Southern Oregon average. Councilor Rob argued the 90%‑of‑task‑force figure closely matches a Southern Oregon average and would keep Grants Pass competitive while avoiding what he called the consultant’s ‘‘out of line’’ numbers. He said the 10% reduction would position the city near the typical management pay in Roseburg, Medford, Ashland, Central Point and Klamath Falls.
‘‘The 10% less than the task force is almost exactly the average of what the five cities in Southern Oregon pay,’’ Councilor Rob said, urging the council to use that geographic comparator.
Staff and several council members pushed back, warning that simply applying a single percentage across the grid could create new compression and pay‑equity problems. Stephanie, the staff presenter on the issue, said the city’s pay study by Dr. McGrath (October 2024) used multiple comparator groups and that the underlying data are nearly two years old. She told the council the differences in pay bands and incentives across positions can produce legal pay‑equity risks that require careful analysis.
‘‘We have known pain points where we will have difficulty promoting, recruiting, or retaining and where there are pay equity issues that cannot be adjusted for under the current salary schedule,’’ Stephanie said during the presentation.
The council considered and rejected an earlier motion to immediately hire a consultant by a narrow margin, with opponents citing cost and a desire to extract more value from existing task‑force work. After additional discussion and a refined motion that directed the consultant to identify pain points and propose specific remedies (including incentive adjustments), the body approved the RFP direction.
Votes at a glance: - Motion to request staff gather additional Southern Oregon comparator data: Passed (majority). Mover: Rob; Second: Joel. Council instructed staff to return with more focused comparator analysis. - Motion to issue an RFP for a consultant (initial motion): Failed. Mover: Rob; Second: Joel. - Motion to issue an RFP for a consultant with directive to identify pain points and recommend alleviation measures (final motion): Passed 6–2. Mover: Seth; Second: Rick. - Motion to add a specific city manager compensation analysis to the consultant’s scope: Passed (see below).
The council also directed the consultant to evaluate incentive‑based tools as a potential alternative or supplement to across‑the‑board increases, and to return recommended pay structures and cost estimates for council consideration.
Why it matters: Grants Pass staff told council the city faces structural pay and equity issues; the consultant’s review will produce options that the council must weigh against fiscal constraints. Council members repeatedly noted the city’s current general fund projections and competing budget pressures while weighing the policy tradeoffs.
Next steps: Staff will draft an RFP and return with a procurement plan and cost estimate. The consultant will be asked to present a defensible, apples‑to‑apples market comparison, to identify legally risky pay‑equity situations, and to recommend fixes that minimize unintended compression effects.
