Northwest Vermont Locality Pay Proposal



2013Federal Executive Association of VermontBruce McDonald, Chairman, Locality Pay Initiative TeamNorthwest Vermont Locality Pay ProposalRequest for consideration to establish a Locality Pay Area above Rest of US for Northwest Vermont Federal EmployeesTable of contentsSection 1fORWARD BY BRUCE MCDONALDSection 2LOCALITY PAY AREA PROPOSAL GENERALSECTION 3LOCALITY INFORMATIONSECTION 4FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY COMPARABILITY ACT BACKGROUNDSECTION 5WAGE COMPARISONSSECTION 6rECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND RELOCATIONsECTION 7COST OF LIVING COMPARISONSSECTION 8CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSAPPENDIX 1LOCALITY PAY AREA RATESAPPENDIX 2cost of livingAPPENDIX 3OES Data Comparision GraphsAPPENDIX 4LETTERS TO THE FEDERAL SALARY COUNCILSECTION 1Forward by Mr. McDonaldThe 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 15-25% 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- CBPDiana Richardson- FAA Kelly Larsen-FAAJeff Ostlund-TSACorey Price- ICEBruce McDonald-TSABethany Cassell-USCISJohn Abeling –VtARNGThe 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 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. SECTION 2FEDERAL EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATION OF VERMONTProposal to Establish a Locality Pay Area for Northwestern VermontChittenden, 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.SECTION 3Locality InformationNorthwest 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 ForceDepartment of the ArmyDepartment of Agriculture AgenciesForest ServiceNatural Resources Conservation ServiceFarm Service AgencyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationBureau of the CensusPatent and Trademark OfficeDepartment of Defense AgenciesFederal Bureau of InvestigationDrug Enforcement AdministrationU.S. Marshals ServiceBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and ExplosivesExecutive Office for U.S. AttorneysDepartment of Labor AgenciesDepartment of EducationDepartment of Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security AgenciesU.S. Coast GuardU.S. Secret ServiceCitizenship and Immigration ServicesImmigration and Customs EnforcementOccupational Safety & Health AdministrationCustoms and Border ProtectionDepartment of Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment of the Interior AgenciesFederal Aviation AdministrationU.S. Fish and WildlifeDepartment of StateInternal Revenue ServiceVeterans Health AdministrationGeneral Services AdministrationOffice of Personnel ManagementSocial Security AdministrationTransportation Security AdministrationThese 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 VermontChamplain CollegeBurlington CollegeSt. Michael’s College Norwich UniversityVermont Technical CollegeMiddlebury CollegeJohnson State CollegeVermont College of Fine ArtsUnion Institute & UniversityCommunity College of VermontNew England Culinary InstituteAlbany College of Pharmacy and Health Services (Colchester)Vermont College of CosmetologyGoddard CollegeThe Salon Professional AcademyVermont State Colleges – Office of the ChancellorO’Brien’s Aveda InstituteSECTION 4BackgroundThe 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 across-the-board increase, are mandated for each locality having a pay disparity between Federal and non-Federal 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 5WAGE COMPARISONSSOURCE OF THE DATA: The data in Table 1 is from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at . 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:00-0000All Occupations11-0000Management17-0000Architecture and Engineering25-0000Education, Training, and Library29-0000Healthcare Practitioners and Technical31-0000Healthcare Support43-0000Office and Administrative Support51-0000Production 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 1Locality Area - OES Data - May 2012Occupation SeriesAverage Location 00-0000 11-0000 17-0000 25-0000 29-0000 31-0000 43-0000 51-0000 Variance Burlington-South Burlington, VT 47,990 103,510 73,890 56,180 78,420 29,690 34,940 34,750 –––––Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Popano Beach, FL 42,830114,600 70,590 48,660 71,260 26,940 32,410 30,710 Variance 12.05% -10.71% 4.67% 15.45% 10.05% 10.20% 7.81% 13.16% 7.84%Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 47,420 114,140 75,490 46,800 73,72028,190 34,920 32,030Variance 1.20%-10.27% -2.17% 20.04% 6.38%5.32% 0.06% 8.50% 3.63%Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 45,310102,170 73,170 58,750 70,97025,500 34,300 35,720Variance 5.92% 1.31% 0.98% -4.57% 10.50%16.43% 1.87% -2.80% 3.71%Raleigh-Cary, NC 45,880116,260 70,390 48,680 70,56027,320 34,290 33,340Variance 4.60%-12.32% 4.97% 15.41% 11.14% 8.67% 1.90% 4.23% 4.83%Columbus, OH 45,330104,700 69,620 57,400 74,86026,120 34,520 32,380Variance 5.87% -1.15% 6.13% -2.17% 4.86%13.67% 1.22% 7.32% 4.47%Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 42,720105,590 66,870 47,480 69,94027,690 33,350 36,230Variance 12.34% -2.00% 10.50% 18.32% 12.12% 7.22% 4.77% -4.26% 7.38%Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ 45,240 99,780 76,230 45,760 76,92029,730 34,610 33,350 Variance 6.08% 3.74% -3.17% 22.77% 1.95%-0.13% 1.00% 4.20% 4.56%Dayton, OH 43,800 95,850 81,200 51,330 70,29026,860 32,520 34,410Variance 9.57% 8.00% -9.89% 9.45% 11.57%10.54% 7.44% 0.99% 5.96%Indianapolis-Carmel, IN 44,360 96,750 69,610 47,190 70,57027,990 34,310 34,170Variance 8.18% 6.99% 6.15% 19.05% 11.12% 6.07% 1.84% 1.70% 7.64%SECTION6RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, AND RELOCATIONThis 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.The salary disadvantage makes it very difficult for the Federal agencies in Northwest Vermont to:Recruit employees,Retain employees, andAttract Federal employees to relocate to the areaVarious 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. SECTION 7COST OF LIVING COMPARISONSSOURCE 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 “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: 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.The employee declines the position upon researching the cost of living in the area. Employees take the position and then leave at a later date claiming it is due to cost of living in this area. MetropolisZip CodeOPM RateDifferenceCOL Difference"Raise"Houston, TX7706828.7114.5520.8435.39Detroit, MI4820524.099.9319.0228.95Columbus, OH4321017.16325.1828.18Raleigh, NC2760617.643.4824.2627.74Cincinnati, OH4521618.554.3923.3227.71Dayton, OH4543416.242.0822.1724.25Atlanta, GA3034919.295.1319.124.23Huntsville, AL3582416.021.8622.2624.12Pittsburgh, PA1520316.372.2121.1123.32Dallas, TX7521020.676.5116.1222.63Phoenix, AZ8500316.762.619.2321.83Indianapolis, IN4622514.680.5221.2621.78Denver, CO8024922.528.3612.7921.15Buffalo, NY1420916.982.8217.7820.6Milwaukee WI5323518.13.9415.8319.77Cleveland, OH4412718.684.5215.2219.74Portland, OR9720920.356.1913.5319.72Richmond, VA2323016.472.3114.7917.1Minneapolis, MN5542420.966.89.2416.04Miami, FL3318520.796.639.0515.68Chicago, IL 6064725.110.942.2413.18Seattle, WA9814821.817.653.8411.49Manchester NH?24.810.640.1310.77Sacramento, CA 9583222.28.041.769.8Albany, NY1220914.1608.318.31Hartford, CT0610325.8211.66-3.448.22Philadelphia, PA 1686621.797.63-2.525.11Los Angeles, CA9004027.1613-9.173.83Burlington, VT0540114.16000San Diego, CA9212624.1910.03-10.030Boston, MA 0211324.810.64-16.78-6.14San Jose, CA9513435.1520.99-28.04-7.05New York, NY1002528.7214.56-23.78-9.22Washington, DC2000424.2210.06-20.74-10.68SECTION 8CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSThere 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 1Locality-Based Comparability Payments and Pay Increasesin 2012 for General Schedule EmployeesLocality 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, TX28.71% 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% Alaska24.69%Washington-Baltimore-Northern VA-DC-MD-PA-VA-WV24.22% San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 24.19% Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI24.09%Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO 22.52% Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Truckee, CA-NV 22.20% Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA21.81% Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD21.79% 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-AL19.29%Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 18.68% Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN18.55% 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, AZ16.76% Hawaii16.51%Richmond, VA16.47% Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA16.37% Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH16.24% 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 . APPENDIX 2COST OF LIVINGThe 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 VermontAs 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 LivingVermont, VTUnited StatesOverall117100Food109100Utilities126100Miscellaneous114100EconomyVermont, VTUnited StatesUnemployment Rate5.30%8.60%Recent Job Growth0.65%0.35%Future Job Growth36.00%32.10%Sales Tax6.00%5.00%Income Taxes3.55%4.70%Income per Cap.$26,883$26,154Household Income$50,778$50,935ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOMEIncome Less than 15K10.67%12.37%Income between 15K and 25K10.62%10.53%Income between 25K and 35K11.56%10.88%Income between 35K and 50K16.31%15.37%Income between 50K and 75K 22.15%20.14%Income between 75K and 100K 13.03%12.41%Income between 100K and 150K10.53%11.27%Income between 150K and 250K 3.68%5.01%Income between 250K and 500K1.31%1.86%Income greater than 500K 0.12%0.16%HousingVermont, VTUnited StatesMedium Home Age3935.1Medium Home Cost$195,400$153,800Home Appreciation0.88%1.62%Homes Owned56.24%57.69%Homes Vacant20.49%11.38%Homes Rented23.26%30.93%Property Tax Rate$19.70$11.20Chittenden CountyAs 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 LivingChittenden, VTUnited StatesOverall126100Food108100Utilities131100Miscellaneous112100HousingChittenden, VTUnited StatesMedium Home Age3535.1Medium Home Cost$252,500$153,800Home Appreciation1.92%1.62%Homes Owned61.33%57.69%Homes Vacant5.93%11.38%Homes Rented32.74%30.93%Property Tax Rate$19.14$11.20Burlington and South Burlington, Vermont Metro AreaAs 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 LivingBurlington-South Burlington, VTUnited StatesOverall122100Food109100Utilities130100Miscellaneous112100HousingBurlington-South Burlington, VTUnited StatesMedium Home Age36.235.1Medium Home Cost$226,300$153,800Home Appreciation1.61%1.62%Homes Owned61.17%57.69%Homes Vacant9.87%11.38%Homes Rented28.96%30.93%Property Tax Rate$18.72$11.20Other Northern Vermont Locations(Grand Island County, St. Albans, & Franklin County)Grand Island CountyAs 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 LivingGrand Isle, VTUnited StatesOverall121100Food111100Utilities128100Miscellaneous110100St. AlbansAs 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 LivingSt. Albans, VTUnited StatesOverall111100Food110100Utilities127100Miscellaneous112100Franklin CountyAs 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 LivingFranklin, VTUnited StatesOverall113100Food110100Utilities127100Miscellaneous1121001. COL charts retrieved on 3/15/13 from 3APPENDIX 4 From: Flanagan, Colleen J To: McDonald, Bruce <BTV>Cc: Palmatier, DavidSubject: Locality Impact StatementThe 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. FlanaganImmigration & Customs EnforcementHomeland Security Investigations - Tipline188 Harvest LaneWilliston, VT? 05495(802) 662-8114From: Drew, Vicky - NRCS, Colchester, VT [mailto:Vicky.Drew@vt.] To: Rees, Lisa TCc: McDonald, Bruce <BTV>Subject: RE: Updated Passport Day Flyer/Locality Pay UpdateLisa,?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. DrewState Conservationist USDA NRCS356 Mountain View Drive, Suite 105Colchester, VT 05446(802)951-6796, Ext. 242 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download