It was back in 2024 when the City of Grants Pass launched a consultant study examining all non-union city staff positions to ensure job titles and pay schedules were structured appropriately and remained competitive with peer municipalities across Oregon. A formal review of this kind had not been conducted in nearly 18 years, and a draft of the study and its recommendations was completed in October 2024.
Now, nearly a year and a half later, the report has still not been adopted by the Grants Pass City Council. Instead, city leaders appear prepared to go back to the drawing board and effectively scrap the expensive and time-consuming study altogether.
The decision carries significant implications, as the study affects most supervisors and department directors throughout city operations.
Credit is due to Grants Pass Daily Courier reporter Vickie Aldous, who almost exactly one year ago alerted both the City Council and the public to the results of the study before it was quietly scheduled for possible adoption in March 2025 without a full public discussion. When the details became public, both residents and council members were surprised by the magnitude of the proposed pay increases. During last week’s council workshop meeting, one council member described the first study simply as a “disaster.”
I have been somewhat hesitant to cover this story for several reasons. Conducting a full compensation study of this nature is complex, especially given the number of laws involved, the four city employee unions that must be considered, and perhaps because I still carry a minor case of PTSD from my own time dealing with compensation issues in government.
Changing employee pay schedules is almost always controversial. At the end of the day, it is nearly impossible to satisfy both public expectations and employee interests simultaneously.
It can also be a frustrating process for city managers and department directors. Unlike the private sector, the public sector offers fewer tools for rewarding top-performing employees. That reality makes salary structures and benefits packages critical for recruiting and retaining key personnel.
Allow me to explain the PTSD comment before taking a brief walk down memory lane.
Few topics in government service generate more controversy than changes to salary schedules. Roughly 12 or 13 years ago, during my time serving as the City’s Finance Director, the non-union management group was recommended to receive a slightly higher cost-of-living adjustment than most union employees.
I sent an email to my fellow managers suggesting that the management group voluntarily accept a slightly smaller COLA, closer to the adjustments negotiated for many of the union employees we supervised.
Shortly afterward, I was literally yelled at for making that suggestion. Yes, that actually happened. I was criticized for recommending that department heads accept a slightly lower raise that year. That moment is long past and firmly water under the bridge, so there is no need to name names.
During my tenure, the city’s Finance Director was also regularly involved in union bargaining meetings. Police and fire negotiations can be especially complicated because those unions cannot strike and several union-friendly state laws apply.
Despite being a strong advocate for public safety, I once found myself involved in a lawsuit against the city’s firefighter union regarding the proper legal method for calculating firefighter overtime. Both state and federal laws complicate those calculations in Oregon. Under the interpretation advocated by the union, a firefighter could theoretically be on vacation while simultaneously accumulating overtime pay.
The lawsuit ultimately settled in the city’s favor after legal briefs were submitted from fire agencies across the state. Still, that year I noticed I was not invited to the firefighter union Christmas party.
And now, by writing this column, I may once again invite a bit of criticism.
Last week the City Council decided to seek a new consultant proposal to redo the compensation study for the city’s non-union management group. If we are essentially returning to the starting line, this may be the best moment to examine the issue carefully.
Again, Aldous has done strong reporting over the past year documenting how large many of the proposed salary increases were compared with similar positions in comparable cities. Her reporting has also covered issues surrounding the City Manager’s annual evaluation process, which in my view has become controversial largely due to disagreements among some of the council’s newest members.
However, one complication related to the study has received little attention.
It appears that some of the newly proposed job titles generated by the first consultant study may contain flaws similar to those found in the proposed pay scales. The Finance Director position provides a good example, since I held that role from 2010 through 2020.
When I voluntarily stepped down in 2020 after 12 years with the city to return to the private sector, I was already at the top step of the salary schedule for the position.
Government pay structures typically operate on a step system. Employees who meet or exceed expectations advance annually until they reach the top step, usually within four to seven years. Cost-of-living adjustments are applied across the schedule over time to keep wages aligned with inflation.
At the time I left, the top salary step for Finance Director was in the mid-$120,000 range, approximately $126,000 per year if memory serves. When accounting for the value of public employee benefits such as health insurance and PERS retirement contributions, the total compensation package was fair and comparable to finance leadership roles in similarly sized private-sector organizations.
The consultant study presented to the Council in March 2025 proposed retitling the position to “Chief Financial Officer” and raising the top salary step to $215,178 per year.
That represents an increase approaching 70 percent in just five years.
When I first saw the proposal last year, I joked that perhaps it was time to return to the public sector.
Some of that increase may have been tied to the title change itself. Historically, most cities of Grants Pass’ size have employed Finance Directors rather than Chief Financial Officers, although larger cities and counties sometimes use the CFO designation.
What I can say with greater confidence is that the current Finance Director likely does not carry significantly more responsibilities than the role involved when I held the position six years ago. In fact, the department now outsources investment management to an outside firm, work that was previously handled internally when I served in the position.
For that reason, I do not believe the position should necessarily be retitled to Chief Financial Officer. I also question whether the Finance Director should share the same salary schedule as the City Attorney, which was one of the proposals included in the original study.
Similar concerns appear to exist with several other positions, including the City Manager.
As the city prepares to commission a new compensation analysis, it may not only require a revised financial comparison but also a reconsideration of some of the title changes proposed in the original study.
In short, the process may need to start from the beginning, despite the significant work already completed by both the original consultant and the internal task force that helped review the findings.
Based on comments made by City Council President Rob Pell during the council workshop on March 2, 2026, that appears to be the direction the city is heading. Grants Pass will soon release a new request for proposals seeking a consultant to conduct a fresh study.
The goal outlined by council members is straightforward: ensure that the city pays competitive wages to its non-union supervisors and management staff while remaining aligned with compensation levels offered by similar municipalities in Southern Oregon.
That approach appears to be a practical and common-sense objective.
The previous study may now represent a sunk cost, but there is little realistic opportunity to salvage it. In effect, the City Council has delivered a vote of no confidence in the original report.
City officials have also confirmed that no current employees would face pay reductions as a result of the review, something that is not permitted under city policy.
Even so, regardless of what conclusions the next study produces, it is unlikely everyone will be satisfied with the final outcome.
There may be ways to simplify the process and arrive more quickly at the regional comparisons the council is seeking. Yet factors such as internal wage compression and Oregon’s pay equity laws mean the task will remain complicated.
Which brings me to my personal phrase of the year for 2026, borrowed from Josephine County Commissioner Ron Smith during a January 7 exchange with now-recalled commissioner Chris Barnett:
Have fun with that.