2013
Federal Executive
Association of Vermont
Bruce McDonald,
Chairman, Locality Pay
Initiative Team
NORTHWEST VERMONT
LOCALITY PAY PROPOSAL
Request for consideration to establish a Locality Pay Area above Rest of US for Northwest Vermont
Federal Employees
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1
FORWARD BY BRUCE MCDONALD
SECTION 2
LOCALITY PAY AREA PROPOSAL GENERAL
SECTION 3
LOCALITY INFORMATION
SECTION 4
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY COMPARABILITY ACT BACKGROUND
SECTION 5
WAGE COMPARISONS
SECTION 6
RECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND RELOCATION
SECTION 7
COST OF LIVING COMPARISONS
SECTION 8
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX 1
LOCALITY PAY AREA RATES
APPENDIX 2
COST OF LIVING
APPENDIX 3
OES DATA COMPARISION GRAPHS
APPENDIX 4
LETTERS TO THE FEDERAL SALARY COUNCIL
Northwest Vermont Locality Pay Area Proposal 2013
SECTION 1
Forward by Mr. McDonald
The overall purpose of this memorandum is to outline the growing inconsistency between
Northwest Vermont’s RUS (Rest of US) locality pay of 14.16% and the extraordinary cost of living
and comparable wages between the average federal employee and the private sector. To do so, one
must first dispel a few misconceptions that often plague new federal employees, especially those
who transfer here from other parts of the country and immediately take a hidden but very real 1525% drop in affordable housing, food, fuel and real buying power. For far too long, the federal
community has been forced to rely on Vermont’s natural beauty as a bargaining chip to attract new
employees or deter employees from leaving for higher pay, lower cost of living and greater
opportunities in other parts of the country. Indeed, we often hear the laughably out dated
misconceptions from new transfers that they thought they could “move to Vermont, buy a house for
less than $200,000 and live very comfortably on the GS-5-11 salary”. However, the stark reality is
far different:
In April 2013 a locality pay subcommittee was formed under the auspices of the Vermont Federal
Executive Association chartered with data analysis toward the feasibility a NW Vermont locality
package for submission to the President’s salary council. The group consisted of:
Sean McVey- CBP
Diana Richardson- FAA
Kelly Larsen-FAA
Jeff Ostlund-TSA
Corey Price- ICE
Bruce McDonald-TSA
Bethany Cassell-USCIS
John Abeling –VtARNG
The groups findings are submitted herein and the overall conclusion was that:





There are only 5 major cities in the entire country that cost more to live in and those
communities have much higher locality pay (appendix 2) Moving anywhere else
including, Miami, Atlanta, Portland, Minneapolis and anyone of over 25 major cities
results in an immediate increase in buying power for federal employees.
In 2012, Vermont was the second highest per capita tax state in the US.
Vermont has the second oldest population in the US, as new graduates and young
potential employees are frequently forced to move due to high cost of living
compared to the rate of compensation.
Northwest Vermont is hemorrhaging not just talented young graduates but senior
and highly experienced federal employees who transfer out of Northwest Vermont
prior to retirement in order to gain an automatic increase in locality pay and thus in
increase of high three for their retirement pay.
The vast majority of the federal workforce in Northwest Vermont are either native
Vermonters who choose to stay for quality of life or have family ties and will not
move regardless of better paid opportunities elsewhere…for now. New and highly
Northwest Vermont Locality Pay Area Proposal 2013

talented potential transfers quickly move back or decline job offers, once they speak
to a realtor.
By any reasonable standard, Northwest Vermont is long overdue for consideration
when one considers successful appeals for locality pay in other parts of the country
that cost far less to live in (Phoenix, Huntsville, Raleigh, etc.).
By any standard one uses, Northwest Vermont stands out as being long overdue for
consideration of locality pay increase. Indeed, all federal employees have felt the pinch in
real income resulting from three years without a cost of living increase, but coupled with
local high inflation, taxes and skyrocketing housing and food costs the price is increasingly
unbearable.
Northwest Vermont Locality Pay Area Proposal 2013
SECTION 2
FEDERAL EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATION OF VERMONT
Proposal to Establish a Locality Pay Area for Northwestern Vermont
Chittenden, Franklin and Grand Isle Counties, Vermont
The Federal agencies in Northwest Vermont face significant personnel challenges in recruiting and
retaining employees. These challenges have been growing each year and are primarily a result of
two factors:
Northwest Vermont private sector pay levels in healthcare, education, professional, finance,
technical services and food production companies are generally higher than the “Rest of the U.S.”
(RUS) pay level of 14.16% currently available for Federal employees in Northwest Vermont.
All of New England except for the state of Vermont has a locality pay area of 24.8% or higher. In
addition, the Boston locality pay area due to its proximity to Northwest Vermont is able to attract
our talent. Vermont Federal employees are frequently moving to other Federal agencies in the
Boston area, resulting in a loss of qualified employees in Northwest Vermont. Employees generally
come to Vermont to get their “foot in the door” of Federal Employment, and then transfer to a
variety of areas that offer higher pay and lower cost of living expenses for the same job, Boston
being just one of the recipients of qualified Northwest Vermont employees.
These significant local pay disparities of Federal pay, relative to the rest of New England, and
competition with the amount of private sector jobs in the area, have led to major difficulties for
Federal agencies in filling vacancies and maintaining staffing needs in Northwest Vermont.
Northwest Vermont Locality Pay Area Proposal 2013
SECTION 3
LOCALITY INFORMATION
Northwest Vermont Metropolitan area and the New England City and Town Area (NECTA) consist
of Burlington and South Burlington, and the counties of Chittenden, Franklin and Grand Isle.
Northwest Vermont consists of 37 cities, towns, and villages with a total population of about
211,261 as of the 2010 census.
Towns included in these counties are: Alburgh, Bakersfield, Berkshire, Bolton, Buels Gore,
Burlington, Charlotte, Colchester, Enosburgh, Essex, Fairfax, Fairfield, Fletcher, Franklin, Georgia,
Grand Isle, Highgate, Hinesburg, Huntington, Isle La Motte, Jericho, Milton, Montgomery, North
Hero, Richford, Richmond, Shelburne, Sheldon, South Burlington, South Hero, St. Albans, St. George,
Swanton, Underhill, Westford, Williston, Winooski.
Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders, and Congressman Peter Welch represent the people of
the State of Vermont.
According to the most recent information from OPM (February 2013), the Northwest Vermont
Region has 3,160 Federal employees (all schedules) in the following agencies:
Department of the Air Force
Drug Enforcement Administration
Department of the Army
U.S. Marshals Service
Department of Agriculture Agencies
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
Department of Labor Agencies
Farm Service Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Department of Education
Department of Health and Human Services
Bureau of the Census
Department of Homeland Security Agencies
Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. Coast Guard
Department of Defense Agencies
U.S. Secret Service
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Northwest Vermont Locality Pay Area Proposal 2013
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Occupational Safety & Health
Administration
Department of State
Customs and Border Protection
Internal Revenue Service
Veterans Health Administration
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
General Services Administration
Department of the Interior Agencies
Office of Personnel Management
Federal Aviation Administration
Social Security Administration
Transportation Security Administration
These Federal agencies are in competition with a number of private sector companies, Vermont
State government, and local colleges and universities for qualified applicants. Companies such as
IBM, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Ben & Jerry’s, National Life Group, Cabot Creamery
Cooperative, Burton Snowboards, Green Mountain Power, Fairpoint Communications, Mylan
Technologies, Goodrich Corp, and BlueCross BlueShield of Vermont, as well as a number of banks
successfully operate in the area and compete for many of the same applicants that Federal agencies
are trying to hire.
Beyond the competitive private sector businesses and State government agencies, Northwest
Vermont is home to large hospitals and medical care centers, plus a number of colleges and
universities which compete with Federal agencies to attract well-qualified candidates to their
positions. The medical industry employers include Fletcher Allen Health Care, Northwestern
Medical Center, Central Vermont Medical Center, VNA of Chittenden and Grand Isle Counties, GE
Healthcare, Howard Center and Washington County Mental Health Services.
The colleges and universities in the area include:
University of Vermont
Johnson State College
Champlain College
Vermont College of Fine Arts
Burlington College
Union Institute & University
St. Michael’s College
Community College of Vermont
Norwich University
New England Culinary Institute
Vermont Technical College
Albany College of Pharmacy and Health
Services (Colchester)
Middlebury College
Northwest Vermont Locality Pay Area Proposal 2013
Vermont College of Cosmetology
Goddard College
The Salon Professional Academy
Vermont State Colleges – Office of the
Chancellor
O’Brien’s Aveda Institute
Northwest Vermont Locality Pay Area Proposal 2013
SECTION 4
Background
The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) replaced the nationwide General
Schedule (GS) with a method for setting pay for white-collar employees that uses a combination of
across-the-board and locality pay adjustments. The policy for setting General Schedule pay
contained in 5 U.S.C. 5301 is that —
(1) There is equal pay for substantially equal work within each local pay area;
(2) Within each local pay area, pay distinctions be maintained in keeping with work and
performance distinctions;
(3) Federal pay rates be comparable with non-Federal pay rates for the same levels of work within
the same local pay area; and
(4) Any existing pay disparities between Federal and non-Federal employees should be completely
eliminated.
The across-the-board pay adjustment provides the same percentage increase to the statutory pay
systems (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 5302(1)) in all locations. This adjustment is linked to changes in the
wage and salary component, private industry workers, of the Employment Cost Index (ECI), minus
0.5 percentage points.
The locality-based comparability payments for GS employees, which are in addition to the acrossthe-board increase, are mandated for each locality having a pay disparity between Federal and nonFederal pay of greater than 5 percent.
As part of the annual locality pay adjustment process, the Pay Agent prepares and submits a report
to the President which—
(1) Compares rates of pay under the General Schedule with rates of pay for non-Federal workers
for the same levels of work within each locality pay area, based on surveys conducted by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics;
(2) Identifies each locality in which a pay disparity exists and specifies the size of each pay
disparity;
(3) Recommends appropriate comparability payments; and
(4) Includes the views and recommendations of the Federal Salary Council (FSC), individual
members of the FSC, and employee organizations.
The President's Pay Agent consists of the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the Office of
Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. This report fulfills the Agent's
responsibility under 5 U.S.C. 5304(d), as amended. It recommends locality pay adjustments if such
adjustments were made under 5 U.S.C. 5304.
SECTION 5
WAGE COMPARISONS
SOURCE OF THE DATA: The data in Table 1 is from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) at http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcma.htm. This link provided data from the
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey. The team gathered the data from the link for
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. This site
provided OES Survey data for hundreds of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) across the United
States, including the Burlington/South Burlington, VT Metro Area.
HOW THE DATA WAS ANALYZED: The data from the May 2012 Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES) was gathered for Burlington/South Burlington, VT Metropolitan area and compared
against the same May 2012 OES data for 9 other Metropolitan areas that currently have locality pay.
8 Major Occupational Groups that were prominent in the Burlington/South Burlington area
including All Occupations combined were compared against these other 9 metro areas.
The Team analyzed the following 8 Major Occupational Groups:








00-0000
11-0000
17-0000
25-0000
29-0000
31-0000
43-0000
51-0000
All Occupations
Management
Architecture and Engineering
Education, Training, and Library
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Healthcare Support
Office and Administrative Support
Production
These codes and titles represent Major Groups. The Major Groups contain all OES Survey data for
each of the occupational subcategories within that Group. The team selected these Major Groups
because they represent a large percentage of GS occupations. It is within these occupational groups
that Federal agencies must compete to recruit and retain well-qualified employees.
ANALYSIS – COMPARISON TO EIGHT CURRENT LOCALITY PAY AREAS: Appendix 3 identifies
eight current Locality Pay Areas and the MSAs that make up each of them. The team compared the
data of the selected 8 Major Occupational Groups against these 9 other locality pay areas to show
how the Burlington/South Burlington MSA ranks among other MSAs which currently have locality
pay. The analysis in Tables 1 and Appendix 3 represents comparisons of the 2012 Northwest
Vermont (Burlington/South Burlington) mean annual wage for each of the eight SOCs to the mean
annual wage for those SOCs in each of the nine representative Locality Pay Areas. These tables
clearly show that without locality pay, Federal Agencies in Northwest Vermont are having
recruiting and retention problems due to the pay scale in this area.
In Table 1 the Average Variance column demonstrates that the Burlington-South Burlington
median wages across all 8 Major Occupational Series is higher than the 9 locality pay areas
represented in this comparison.
Table 1
Locality Area - OES Data - May 2012
Occupation Series
Location
00-0000
Burlington-South Burlington, VT
47,990
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Popano Beach, FL 42,830
Variance
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
Variance
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Variance
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Variance
Columbus, OH
Variance
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY
Variance
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ
Variance
Dayton, OH
Variance
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
Variance
11-0000
17-0000
25-0000
103,510
73,890
56,180
29-0000
31-0000
43-0000
51-0000
Average
Variance
78,420
29,690
34,940
34,750
–––––
114,600
70,590
48,660
71,260
26,940
32,410
30,710
12.05%
-10.71%
4.67%
15.45%
10.05%
10.20%
7.81%
13.16%
47,420
114,140
75,490
46,800
73,720
28,190
34,920
32,030
1.20%
-10.27%
-2.17%
20.04%
6.38%
5.32%
0.06%
8.50%
45,310
102,170
73,170
58,750
70,970
25,500
34,300
35,720
5.92%
1.31%
0.98%
-4.57%
10.50%
16.43%
1.87%
-2.80%
45,880
116,260
70,390
48,680
70,560
27,320
34,290
33,340
4.60%
-12.32%
4.97%
15.41%
11.14%
8.67%
1.90%
4.23%
45,330
104,700
69,620
57,400
74,860
26,120
34,520
32,380
5.87%
-1.15%
6.13%
-2.17%
4.86%
13.67%
1.22%
7.32%
42,720
105,590
66,870
47,480
69,940
27,690
33,350
36,230
12.34%
-2.00%
10.50%
18.32%
12.12%
7.22%
4.77%
-4.26%
45,240
99,780
76,230
45,760
76,920
29,730
34,610
33,350
6.08%
3.74%
-3.17%
22.77%
1.95%
-0.13%
1.00%
4.20%
43,800
95,850
81,200
51,330
70,290
26,860
32,520
34,410
9.57%
8.00%
-9.89%
9.45%
11.57%
10.54%
7.44%
0.99%
44,360
96,750
69,610
47,190
70,570
27,990
34,310
34,170
8.18%
6.99%
6.15%
19.05%
11.12%
1.84%
1.70%
6.07%
7.84%
3.63%
3.71%
4.83%
4.47%
7.38%
4.56%
5.96%
7.64%
SECTION6
RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, AND RELOCATION
This locality pay proposal outlines the significant job competition that exists due to the numerous
contending employers, plus the region’s low unemployment rate: 4.1% compared to the national
average of 7.6% as of May 2013.1
The salary disadvantage makes it very difficult for the Federal agencies in Northwest Vermont to:
o
Recruit employees,
o
Retain employees, and
o
Attract Federal employees to relocate to the area
Various Department Executives have provided examples of the struggles and impact of these issues
to support our endeavor to correct this continued issue. These individual writings are compiled in
Appendix 4.
1
Vermont Department of Labor, Press Release dated June 21, 2013
SECTION 7
COST OF LIVING COMPARISONS
SOURCE OF THE DATA: In order to get an understanding as to where Burlington, Vermont stands
within the scope of OPMs established higher locality pay areas the first step was to locate the OPM
guidelines that list the locations and locality pay rates. In order to get the correct zip code the data
site “Zipskinny” was used which utilizes US Census data to locate the metropolitan zip code for each
of these locations. In order to do a comparison of data salary figure was needed which was collected
from the BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) Overview of Wage Data by Area and Occupation;
“Wage Data by State”; “Vermont”. Within the Vermont data the series 11-0000 “Management
Occupations” was selected as it covered a broad range of occupations. From here the website
www.bankrate.com “Cost of Living” calculator was used in order to pull up comparison data
between two locations. Each location from the OPM guidelines zip code was compared to the
Burlington, Vermont location resulting in information about the average housing cost, apartment
cost and the percent difference needed to maintain a current standard of living in that location.
HOW THE DATA WAS ANALYZED: From this information two charts were created. The first chart
shows that 25 of 33 areas that receive locality pay would allow a Vermont employee to take a pay
decrease in order to maintain their standard of living.
The second chart looks at the overall positive financial impact of moving from Burlington, Vermont
to any of 28 of the 33 locations from the OPM locality pay chart (see Appendix 1). These numbers
were derived from subtracting 14.16 (the standard locality pay percent) from each of the locality
pay numbers then adding them to the standard of living percent difference. The remaining number
is the percent “increase” or “decrease” in pay someone could achieve in each of those locations
maintaining their current standard of living. In addition, we have provided supplemental data in
Appendix 2.
CONCLUSION: The largest impact on the government employee attraction and retention of
qualified applicants in Chittenden County is the cost of living in this area. By reviewing the data on
these two charts as well as the average management salary we can conclude that Burlington is
among the top third most expensive place to live of all locations on the locality pay chart and is in
the lower third for average salary. We also see the perceived raise that one can receive when the
cost of living difference and the locality pay are combined; Burlington Vermont is only less
expensive than four major cities in the United States.
Within the government there is greater flexibility for employees to move from office to office with a
fair amount of ease. Given this, Chittenden County experiences three common scenarios that are
frequent hurdles to attracting and retaining qualified employees:
1. The employee takes a position in Chittenden County so that they can “get their foot in the
door” knowing they do not intend to stay.
2. The employee declines the position upon researching the cost of living in the area.
3. Employees take the position and then leave at a later date claiming it is due to cost of living
in this area.
-10.00%
-20.00%
-30.00%
San Jose, CA
New York, NY
Washington, DC
Boston, MA
San Diego, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Hartford, CT
Philadelphia, PA
Burlington, VT
Manchester NH
Sacramento, CA
Chicago, IL
Seattle, WA
Albany, NY
Miami, FL
Minneapolis, MN
Denver, CO
Portland, OR
Richmond, VA
Cleveland, OH
Milwaukee WI
Dallas, TX
Buffalo, NY
Detroit, MI
Atlanta, GA
Phoenix, AZ
Houston, TX
Pittsburgh, PA
Indianapolis, IN
Dayton, OH
Huntsville, AL
Cincinnati, OH
Raleigh, NC
Columbus, OH
40.00%
Needed in order to maintain current standard of living in comparison to Burlington, VT
Based on the average wage as listed in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Percent Increase or Decrease
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Metropolis
Zip Code
OPM Rate
Difference
COL Difference
"Raise"
Houston, TX
Detroit, MI
Columbus, OH
Raleigh, NC
Cincinnati, OH
Dayton, OH
Atlanta, GA
Huntsville, AL
Pittsburgh, PA
Dallas, TX
Phoenix, AZ
Indianapolis, IN
Denver, CO
Buffalo, NY
Milwaukee WI
Cleveland, OH
Portland, OR
Richmond, VA
Minneapolis, MN
Miami, FL
Chicago, IL
Seattle, WA
Manchester NH
Sacramento, CA
Albany, NY
Hartford, CT
Philadelphia, PA
Los Angeles, CA
Burlington, VT
San Diego, CA
Boston, MA
San Jose, CA
New York, NY
Washington, DC
77068
48205
43210
27606
45216
45434
30349
35824
15203
75210
85003
46225
80249
14209
53235
44127
97209
23230
55424
33185
60647
98148
28.71
24.09
17.16
17.64
18.55
16.24
19.29
16.02
16.37
20.67
16.76
14.68
22.52
16.98
18.1
18.68
20.35
16.47
20.96
20.79
25.1
21.81
24.8
22.2
14.16
25.82
21.79
27.16
14.16
24.19
24.8
35.15
28.72
24.22
14.55
9.93
3
3.48
4.39
2.08
5.13
1.86
2.21
6.51
2.6
0.52
8.36
2.82
3.94
4.52
6.19
2.31
6.8
6.63
10.94
7.65
10.64
8.04
0
11.66
7.63
13
0
10.03
10.64
20.99
14.56
10.06
20.84
19.02
25.18
24.26
23.32
22.17
19.1
22.26
21.11
16.12
19.23
21.26
12.79
17.78
15.83
15.22
13.53
14.79
9.24
9.05
2.24
3.84
0.13
1.76
8.31
-3.44
-2.52
-9.17
0
-10.03
-16.78
-28.04
-23.78
-20.74
35.39
28.95
28.18
27.74
27.71
24.25
24.23
24.12
23.32
22.63
21.83
21.78
21.15
20.6
19.77
19.74
19.72
17.1
16.04
15.68
13.18
11.49
10.77
9.8
8.31
8.22
5.11
3.83
0
0
-6.14
-7.05
-9.22
-10.68
40
30
95832
12209
06103
16866
90040
05401
92126
02113
95134
10025
20004
Perceived Income Increase or Decrease
Achieved when locality pay and the standard of living differences are combined
20
10
-10
-20
Houston, TX
Detroit, MI
Columbus, OH
Raleigh, NC
Cincinnati, OH
Dayton, OH
Atlanta, GA
Huntsville, AL
Pittsburgh, PA
Dallas, TX
Phoenix, AZ
Indianapolis, IN
Denver, CO
Buffalo, NY
Milwaukee WI
Cleveland, OH
Portland, OR
Richmond, VA
Minneapolis, MN
Miami, FL
Chicago, IL
Seattle, WA
Manchester NH
Sacramento, CA
Albany, NY
Hartford, CT
Philadelphia, PA
Los Angeles, CA
Burlington, VT
San Diego, CA
Boston, MA
San Jose, CA
New York, NY
Washington, DC
0
SECTION 8
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several factors that have caused significant staffing challenges for Federal agencies in
Northwest Vermont as they try to recruit qualified applicants, retain essential staff, and attract
employees to relocate to the area. For example:
The Federal agencies in Northwest Vermont are experiencing difficulty in recruiting new
employees locally, attracting employees from other areas to a high cost area with no commensurate
locality pay rate, and retaining current employees. These problems are largely due to the disparity
between RUS pay levels and pay levels in other areas in New England which offer a much higher
Locality Pay rate.
To help us correct these recruitment, retention, and relocation problems, we ask that the Federal
Salary Council support this proposal and take the steps necessary to establish a locality pay rate for
Northwest Vermont. In past years, the Council has put in place locality pay adjustments to correct
this kind of recruitment and retention problem in various areas across the nation.
After gathering and reviewing the data presented above, we think these salary disparities are
causing recruitment and retention problems similar to those observed in locations that the FSC has
previously considered as deserving of establishing a Locality Pay rate above the RUS rate. A pay
rate above the RUS is essential to the efforts of Northwest Vermont Federal agencies to recruit and
retain well-qualified employees. An appropriate rate in Northwest Vermont will help greatly with
our efforts to bring both new hires and experienced mid-career hires to our agencies.
We think that our proposal to establish a Locality Pay rate in Northwest Vermont is reasonable,
well documented and that it deserves the Council’s consideration and prompt action to move it
forward. We urge that the Council examine all avenues to allow establishment of an equitable
Locality Pay rate for Northwest Vermont, in order to eliminate or reduce the existing pay
disparities.
In the years before the National Compensation Survey data was available, the Occupational
Employment Statistics Survey (OES) was used to make the Locality Pay area decisions. We urge that
the FSC accept the OES data as the necessary documentation showing that a Locality Pay rate is
warranted and should be established for Northwest Vermont.
If any further studies are needed, we think it is essential that the Council strongly recommend to
the appropriate individuals and organizations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics be adequately
funded to complete the National Compensation Survey the Northwest Vermont area as soon as
possible.
We believe that, although the President’s Pay Agent has recommended an overhaul of the pay
system, the framework of the locality pay system now in use should still be given consideration
until some other system is in place. The recommendations of the Federal Salary Council and the
facts of each locality area should be considered currently.
We are aware and understand the difficult economic conditions currently facing our nation, and
that over the next few years the federal workforce will be significantly reduced. However, with a
significant reduction in workforce, it will be increasingly important to retain experienced staff as
productivity will need to increase to contend with each Agency’s workload. In a report published
by the Lewin Group, they estimated “by 2010, 40 percent of the U.S. workforce will be over 50 years
of age. This shifting demographic will be especially acute in knowledge-driven sectors such as
healthcare, aerospace, energy and others that have become increasingly technical and complex.”
The Federal Government must also recognize this increased demand for experienced workers, and
continue efforts to pay fair and competitive wages in our locality, and throughout the nation.
We sincerely appreciate the Council’s consideration of our locality pay rate request. We will also be
glad to provide the Council with any further data that may be required, or to meet with the
Council’s staff at any time to discuss these pay issues. Please contact the chairman of the Federal
Executive Association’s Locality Pay Initiative Team, Bruce McDonald at (802) 951-3501 or the
Vermont Federal Executive Association President, Lisa Rees at (802) 236-9653.
APPENDIX 1
Locality-Based Comparability Payments and Pay Increases
in 2012 for General Schedule Employees
Locality Pay Area [1]
Locality
Rate
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA
35.15%
New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA
28.72%
Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX
28.71%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA
27.16%
Hartford-West Hartford-Willimantic, CT-MA
25.82%
Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI
25.10%
Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH-ME-RI
24.80%
Alaska
24.69%
Washington-Baltimore-Northern VA-DC-MD-PA-VA-WV
24.22%
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
24.19%
Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI
24.09%
Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO
22.52%
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Truckee, CA-NV
22.20%
Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA
21.81%
Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD
21.79%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI
20.96%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL
20.79%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
20.67%
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA
20.35%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL
19.29%
Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH
18.68%
Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN
18.55%
Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI
18.10%
Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC
17.64%
Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH
17.16%
Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus, NY
16.98%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
16.76%
Hawaii
16.51%
Richmond, VA
16.47%
Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA
16.37%
Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH
16.24%
Huntsville-Decatur, AL
16.02%
Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN
14.68%
Rest of U.S.
14.16%
[1] Locality pay areas are defined in 5 CFR 531.603(b) and are available at
http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/locdef.asp .
APPENDIX 2
COST OF LIVING
The majority of Customs and Border Protection employees live near the U.S./Canadian
Border within Franklin, Orleans, Essex and Chittenden Counties. DHS employees
within the State of Vermont also work and reside within those counties, specifically
Franklin and Chittenden Counties. (Acknowledging all Federal employees are also
concentrated in these areas as well with the VA being located in Windsor County)
The Cost of Living (COL) in these areas is among the highest in Vermont, and exceeds
the U.S. national COL averages. Although the average CBP salary ($80,000) exceeds
the Vermont Household income of $50,778; the median cost of housing ranges from
$170,000 to $252,000 with higher property tax rates than the national averages,
thereby, resulting in only 43% of the Vermont population owning a home.
Due to the high cost of living in Vermont, the current COL (ranging from 111 to 126) for
the surrounding areas in Vermont do not adequately reflect the current COL rates. The
following charts highlight the COL within Vermont. (Cost of Living, Economy, Household
Income, Housing)
State of Vermont
As of 2012, Vermont's population is 625, 741. Since 2000, it has had a population
growth of 2.78 percent. The median home cost in Vermont is $195,000. Home
appreciation the last year has been 0.88 percent. Compared to the rest of the country,
Vermont's Cost of living is 16.70% Higher than the U.S. average. Vermont public
schools spend $8,230 per student. The average school expenditure in the U.S. is
$5,691. There are about 10.7 students per teacher in Vermont. The unemployment rate
in Vermont is 5.30 percent (U.S. avg. is 8.60%). Recent job growth is Positive. Vermont
jobs have increased by 0.65 percent.
The Cost of Living indices are based on a US average of 100. An amount below 100
means Vermont, VT is cheaper than the US average. A cost of living index above 100
means Vermont, VT is more expensive. Overall, Vermont, VT cost of living is 116.70.
Cost of Living
Vermont, VT
United States
Overall
117
100
Food
109
100
Utilities
126
100
Miscellaneous
114
100
Economy
Vermont, VT
United States
Unemployment Rate
Recent Job Growth
5.30%
8.60%
0.65%
0.35%
Future Job Growth
Sales Tax
36.00%
32.10%
6.00%
5.00%
Income Taxes
Income per Cap.
3.55%
4.70%
$26,883
$26,154
Household Income
$50,778
$50,935
Income Less than 15K
Income between 15K and 25K
Income between 25K and 35K
Income between 35K and 50K
Income between 50K and 75K
Income between 75K and 100K
Income between 100K and 150K
Income between 150K and 250K
Income between 250K and 500K
10.67%
12.37%
10.62%
10.53%
11.56%
10.88%
16.31%
15.37%
22.15%
20.14%
13.03%
12.41%
10.53%
11.27%
3.68%
5.01%
1.31%
1.86%
Income greater than 500K
0.12%
Housing
Vermont, VT
United States
Medium Home Age
Medium Home Cost
Home Appreciation
Homes Owned
Homes Vacant
Homes Rented
Property Tax Rate
39
35.1
$195,400
$153,800
0.88%
1.62%
56.24%
57.69%
20.49%
11.38%
23.26%
30.93%
$19.70
$11.20
ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
0.16%
Chittenden County
As of 2012, Chittenden County's population is 156,545 people. Since 2000, it has had a
population growth of 6.81 percent. The median home cost in Chittenden County is
$252,500. Home appreciation the last year has been 1.92 percent. Compared to the
rest of the country, Chittenden County's Cost of Living is 25.80% Higher than the U.S.
average. Chittenden County public schools spend $6,768 per student. The average
school expenditure in the U.S. is $5,691. There are about 13.6 students per teacher in
Chittenden County. The unemployment rate in Chittenden County is 3.60 percent (U.S.
avg. is 8.60%). Recent job growth is Positive. Chittenden County jobs have increased
by 1.16 percent. Overall, Chittenden County, VT cost of living is 125.80.
Cost of Living
Chittenden, VT
United States
Overall
126
100
Food
108
100
Utilities
131
100
Miscellaneous
112
100
Housing
Chittenden, VT
United States
Medium Home Age
35
35.1
Medium Home Cost
$252,500
$153,800
Home Appreciation
1.92%
1.62%
Homes Owned
61.33%
57.69%
Homes Vacant
5.93%
11.38%
Homes Rented
32.74%
30.93%
Property Tax Rate
$19.14
$11.20
Burlington and South Burlington, Vermont Metro Area
As of 2012, Burlington-South Burlington Metro Area's population is 211,261 people.
Since 2000, it has had a population growth of 6.22 percent. The median home cost in
Burlington-South Burlington Metro Area is $266,300. Home appreciation the last year
has been 1.61 percent. Compared to the rest of the country, Burlington-South
Burlington Metro Area's Cost of Living is 22.40% Higher than the U.S. average.
Burlington-South Burlington Metro Area public schools spend $6,853 per student. The
average school expenditure in the U.S. is $5,691. There are about 13 students per
teacher in Burlington-South Burlington Metro Area.
The unemployment rate in Burlington-South Burlington Metro Area is 3.70 percent (U.S.
avg. is 8.60%). Recent job growth is Positive. Burlington-South Burlington Metro Area
jobs have increased by 1.08 percent.
A cost of living index above 100 means Burlington-South Burlington Metro Area, VT is
more expensive. Overall, Burlington-South Burlington Metro Area, VT cost of living is
122.40.
Cost of Living
Burlington-South Burlington, VT
United States
Overall
122
100
Food
109
100
Utilities
130
100
Miscellaneous
112
100
Housing
Burlington-South Burlington, VT
United States
Medium Home Age
36.2
35.1
Medium Home Cost
$226,300
$153,800
Home Appreciation
1.61%
1.62%
Homes Owned
61.17%
57.69%
Homes Vacant
9.87%
11.38%
Homes Rented
28.96%
30.93%
Property Tax Rate
$18.72
$11.20
Other Northern Vermont Locations
(Grand Island County, St. Albans, & Franklin County)
Grand Island County
As of 2012, Grand Isle County's population is 6,970 people. Since 2000, it has had a
population growth of 1.00 percent. The median home cost in Grand Isle County is
$236,700. Home appreciation the last year has been 2.06 percent. Compared to the
rest of the country, Grand Isle County's Cost of Living is 21.10% Higher than the U.S.
average. Grand Isle County public schools spend $9,722 per student. The average
school expenditure in the U.S. is $5,691. There are about 9.4 students per teacher in
Grand Isle County. The unemployment rate in Grand Isle County is 6.00 percent (U.S.
avg. is 8.60%). Recent job growth is Positive. Grand Isle County jobs have increased by
1.20 percent.
Cost of Living
Grand Isle, VT
United States
Overall
121
100
Food
111
100
Utilities
128
100
Miscellaneous
110
100
St. Albans
As of 2012, St. Albans's population is 6,918. Since 2000, it has had a population growth
of -8.31 percent. The median home cost in St. Albans is $168,500. Home appreciation
the last year has been 1.99 percent. Compared to the rest of the country, St. Albans's
Cost of Living is 11.10% Higher than the U.S. average. St. Albans public schools spend
$7,355 per student. The average school expenditure in the U.S. is $5,691. There are
about 10.7 students per teacher in St. Albans. The unemployment rate in St. Albans is
4.60 percent (U.S. avg. is 8.60%). Recent job growth is Positive. St. Albans jobs have
increased by 0.81 percent. Overall, St. Albans, VT cost of living is 111.10.
Cost of Living
St. Albans, VT
United States
Overall
111
100
Food
110
100
Utilities
127
100
Miscellaneous
112
100
Franklin County
As of 2012, Franklin County's population is 47,746. Since 2000, it has had a population
growth of 5.13 percent. The median home cost in Franklin County is $170,000. Home
appreciation the last year has been 1.75 percent. Compared to the rest of the country,
Franklin County's Cost of Living is 12.90% Higher than the U.S. average. Franklin
County public schools spend $6,553 per student. The average school expenditure in the
U.S. is $5,691. There are about 11.9 students per teacher in Franklin County. The
unemployment rate in Franklin County is 4.60 percent (U.S. avg. is 8.60%). Recent job
growth is Positive. Franklin County jobs have increased by 0.81 percent.
Cost of Living
Franklin, VT
United States
Overall
113
100
Food
110
100
Utilities
127
100
Miscellaneous
112
100
1. COL charts retrieved on 3/15/13 from
http://www.bestplaces.net/city/vermont/burlington
APPENDIX 3
May 2012 OES Data: All Occupations Average Mean Wage (00-0000) vs. 2013 Locality %
$50,000
25
24
$49,000
23
$48,000
22
21
20
$46,000
19
18
$45,000
17
$44,000
16
15
$43,000
14
$42,000
13
12
$41,000
11
$40,000
Annual Mean Wage
Locality %
% Locality
Annual Mean Wage
$47,000
10
Columbus, OH
ClevelandElyria-Mentor,
OH
Phoenix-MesaGlendale, AZ
IndianapolisCarmel, IN
$45,880
$45,330
$45,310
$45,240
17.64
17.16
18.68
16.76
Burlington-S.
Burlington, VT
Atlanta-Sandy
Springs, GA
Raleigh-Cary,
NC
$47,990
$47,420
14.16
19.29
Dayton, OH
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale, FL
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls, NY
$44,360
$43,800
$42,830
$42,720
14.68
16.24
20.79
16.98
May 2012 OES Data: Management Occupations (11-0000)
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$-
Annual Mean Wage
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale, FL
Atlanta-Sandy
Springs, GA
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls, NY
Columbus, OH
Burlington-S.
Burlington, VT
Cleveland-ElyriaMentor, OH
Phoenix-MesaGlendale, AZ
IndianapolisCarmel, IN
Dayton, OH
116,260
114,600
114,140
105,590
104,700
103,350
102,170
99,780
96,750
95,850
May 2012 OES Data: Architectural and Engineering Occupations (17-0000)
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Annual Mean Wage
Dayton, OH
Phoenix- MesaGlendale, AZ
Atlanta- Sandy
Springs, GA
Burlington- S.
Burlington, VT
$81,200
$76,230
$75,490
$73,890
Cleveland- ElyriaRaleigh- Cary, NC
Mentor, OH
$73,170
$73,090
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale, FL
Columbus, OH
IndianapolisCarmel, IN
Buffalo- Niagara
Falls, NY
$70,590
$69,620
$69,610
$66,870
May 2012 OES Data: Education, Training, and Library Occupations (25-0000)
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Annual Mean Wage
Cleveland-ElyriaMentor, OH
Columbus, OH
Burlington-S.
Burlington, VT
Dayton, OH
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale, FL
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls, NY
IndianapolisCarmel, IN
Atlanta-Sandy
Springs, GA
Phoenix-MesaGlendale, AZ
$58,750
$57,400
$56,180
$51,330
$48,680
$48,660
$47,480
$47,190
$46,800
$45,760
May 2012 OES Data: Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations (29-0000)
$80,000
$78,000
$76,000
$74,000
$72,000
$70,000
$68,000
$66,000
$64,000
Annual Mean Wage
Burlington-S.
Burlington, VT
Phoenix-MesaGlendale, AZ
Columbus, OH
Atlanta-Sandy
Springs, GA
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale, FL
Cleveland-ElyriaMentor, OH
IndianapolisCarmel, IN
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Dayton, OH
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls, NY
$78,420
$76,920
$74,860
$73,720
$71,260
$70,970
$70,570
$70,560
$70,290
$69,940
May 2012 OES Data: Health Care Support Occupations (31-0000)
$31,000
$30,000
$29,000
$28,000
$27,000
$26,000
$25,000
$24,000
$23,000
Annual Mean Wage
Phoenix-MesaGlendale, AZ
Burlington-S.
Burlington, VT
Atlanta-Sandy
Springs, GA
IndianapolisCarmel, IN
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls, NY
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale, FL
Dayton, OH
Columbus, OH
Cleveland-ElyriaMentor, OH
$29,730
$29,690
$28,190
$27,990
$27,690
$27,320
$26,940
$26,860
$26,120
$25,500
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls, NY
Dayton, OH
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale, FL
$33,350
$32,520
$32,410
May 2012 OES Data: Office and Administrative Support (43-0000)
$35,500
$35,000
$34,500
$34,000
$33,500
$33,000
$32,500
$32,000
$31,500
$31,000
Annual Mean Wage
Burlington-S.
Burlington, VT
Atlanta-Sandy
Springs, GA
Phoenix-MesaGlendale, AZ
Columbus, OH
IndianapolisCarmel, IN
$34,940
$34,920
$34,610
$34,520
$34,310
Cleveland-ElyriaRaleigh-Cary, NC
Mentor, OH
$34,300
$34,290
May 2012 OES Data: Production Occupations (51-0000)
$37,000
$36,000
$35,000
$34,000
$33,000
$32,000
$31,000
$30,000
$29,000
$28,000
$27,000
Annual Mean Wage
Buffalo-Niagara
Falls, NY
Cleveland-ElyriaMentor, OH
Burlington-S.
Burlington, VT
Dayton, OH
IndianapolisCarmel, IN
Phoenix-MesaGlendale, AZ
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Columbus, OH
Atlanta-Sandy
Springs, GA
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale, FL
$36,230
$35,720
$34,750
$34,410
$34,170
$33,350
$33,340
$32,380
$32,030
$30,710
APPENDIX 4
From: Flanagan, Colleen J
To: McDonald, Bruce <BTV>
Cc: Palmatier, David
Subject: Locality Impact Statement
The Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Tip Line Unit serves as a 24x7
national intake center to receive, analyze, document, and disseminate
investigative leads regarding more than 400 crimes enforced by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The staffing levels for the HSI Tipline Unit have decreased dramatically since
April 2011 with 21 employees leaving the unit. 40% of those employees left
for areas that had a higher locality pay. These were employees that started
their government careers at the HSI Tipline and had relocated to Vermont
from a variety of states. These employee expressed surprise and concern
when they realized how expensive it was to live in Vermont. We have had a
few employees take the position with the intention of getting their foot in the
door and did not relocate their families or household. Once they are able to
do so, they start applying for other federal positions in hopes of returning to
their home state. This is frustrating in that we invest a great deal of time
and money to recruit, clear, and train employees who subsequently transfer to
other agencies for higher pay or geographic locations due to the higher cost of
living in Vermont.
Our current work staff is also affected by the high cost of living in
Vermont. 50% of our workforce drive a substantial distance from the office
building due to the high cost of living within Chittenden County were our
facility is located. 15% of our workforce are either currently, or have in the
past, taken on outside employment to supplement their income. All of our
workforce are currently at the GS-11 or higher, with a good majority of them
earning night differential, Sunday pay and Holiday pay which helps supplement
the base income.
Our employees want to continue with their successful government careers here
in Vermont. However, when faced with the recent economic challenges,
employees will need to reevaluate their current financial situation to decide if
the sacrifice of financial stability is worth staying in Vermont, which will
impact our ability to support the DHS, ICE, and HSI Missions.
Colleen J. Flanagan
Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Homeland Security Investigations - Tipline
188 Harvest Lane
Williston, VT 05495
(802) 662-8114
From: Drew, Vicky - NRCS, Colchester, VT [mailto:Vicky.Drew@vt.usda.gov]
To: Rees, Lisa T
Cc: McDonald, Bruce <BTV>
Subject: RE: Updated Passport Day Flyer/Locality Pay Update
Lisa,
Last year, we had a GS-13 position that was vacated, in part, due to the cost of living here in
Vermont. The incumbent took a lateral transfer to Missouri. While this was reflected in the
spreadsheet, what we did not add was how challenging it was to back fill the position. I had to
advertise the position twice. Despite offering FULL relocation, the first advertisement resulted
in a panel of four that were not found best qualified. I then advertised the position a second time,
making it a multi-disciplinary position to attract more candidates. Again, I was provided a
certificate with only 4 qualified candidates, for a GS-13 position with full relocation. Typically,
we see a dozen or more applications for a GS-13 position. During the interviews, one GS-12
candidate from MD (in a locality pay area) was surprised to hear that he would likely take a cut
in pay to move to VT for a GS-13 position and backed away from the job, as a result.
I don’t know if this will help or not, but thought I would share it with you, just in case.
Vicky M. Drew
State Conservationist
USDA NRCS
356 Mountain View Drive, Suite 105
Colchester, VT 05446
(802)951-6796, Ext. 242