FedSmith has received queries from a number of readers asking about having their geographic area added to the GS locality pay system. In its latest report, the Federal Salary Council (FSC) listed areas that have recently contacted the organization in an attempt to gain access to the higher salaries offered by locality pay.
It is obvious why they want to be added to the General Schedule (GS) locality pay system. Organizations with the federal bureaucracy can decide to add more people to the higher-paying locality pay system. If approval is given, the higher salaries flow to federal employees in those areas. The process does not require Congressional approval.
This article lists the areas that had the highest and lowest locality pay raises in 2022.
Article Contents
Numerous Areas Want to be Included in GS Locality Pay System
There are about 72 such areas that have requested to be added. A list of these areas is below. Some, such as Carroll County, Illinois, have recently been approved for being added to an existing GS locality pay area of Devenport, Iowa.
Several readers have recently inquired about cities in Florida, such as Orlando and Tampa, as these are fast-growing areas in a fast-growing state. The investigation of the Salary Council led to the conclusion that these “Rest of US” research areas do not meet the pay disparity criterion.
Some areas may qualify for being added in the next year or two. Fresno, California, for example, “now meets the pay disparity criterion” according to the Council’s report.
Most of these areas do not qualify for being added to a GS locality pay area or becoming a new GS locality pay area for a variety of reasons. The chart below is a reprint of the explanation provided by the Federal Salary Council for adding or not adding an area into the system.
As noted in previous articles, the Federal Salary Council does not make the final decision on adding an area to a GS locality pay area or creating a new GS locality pay area. But, having the approval of the Salary Council is a major first step for an area to be added to the system. The President’s Pay Agent makes the decision to approve or disapprove a recommendation from the FSC.
How to Request Consideration of Becoming or Added to a GS Locality Pay Area
There is little information available on how to try and have a geographic area added into the GS locality pay system. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) provides administrative support for the FSC. Based on the limited information available, requests can be sent to this address. This address is the same as the OPM address. OPM provides administrative support for the FSC and will presumably ensure that any requests received will be sent to the appropriate individuals for review. Individuals interested in providing input on the criteria used in the locality pay program may send an email message to pay-leave-policy@opm.gov.
Federal Salary Council
1900 E Street NW.
Washington, DC 20415-8200
Is GS Locality Pay Based on Cost of Living Expenses?
Those who are requesting to be added to the General Schedule’s locality pay system will probably not be able to outline all the reasons they need to have in order to qualify as a locality pay area or added to an existing locality pay area. The calculation is complex and some of the information is not readily available.
Adding new locality pay areas is determined based on several factors as outlined in decisions of the President’s Pay Agent and the Federal Salary Council. Locations that are in the “Rest of US” will not be added unless the area meets the pre-established requirements to be in a new locality area. OPM noted in a response to a FedSmith query that “current locality pay area boundaries already reflect use of approved criteria in defining locality pay areas.
The Federal Salary Council usually meets in the Fall of the year. When it has its next meeting, it will be to develop recommendations for locality pay in 2025.
A common misconception is that being added is a matter of demonstrating a high cost of living. That is not the case.
The base pay of a federal employee is established according to a specific formula which is set under statutory requirements.
A locality pay adjustment is different and is an additional amount added to a federal employee’s paycheck. It depends on where you work. The parameters that define GS locality pay areas aren’t set by law. The Federal Salary Council, which is comprised of pay and labor experts and representatives from federal employee unions, decided in 1994 that existing metropolitan statistical areas were the best way to define locality pay areas.
Despite common misconceptions, living costs or specific price levels like the Consumer Price Index aren’t factors when setting locality pay.
Instead, GS locality pay increases are based on a comparison from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which uses the National Compensation Survey, to measure non-federal compensation in a particular labor market and compare it to federal pay for GS employees who perform similar work in the same region.
For example, BLS can compare the average salary information for an engineer at a private company or state government in a city with the average salary of a federal engineer working in the same city.
The discrepancy or pay gap between the two is a major factor in determining a locality pay adjustment for a specific area during a given year.
Status of Requests for Becoming Part of GS Locality Pay Areas
| Bozeman, MT | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Carroll County, IL | Pay Agent has tentatively approved adding to Davenport locality pay area. |
| Central Florida (Bay Pines, Naples, and Orlando and Tampa Rest of US research areas) | None of the locations meet applicable criteria. Orlando and Tampa area are Rest of US research areas that do not meet the pay disparity criterion. |
| Charleston, SC | This Rest of US research area does not meet the pay disparity criterion. |
| Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA | Clallam is not adjacent to the Seattle locality pay area. Jefferson is adjacent to the Seattle basic locality pay area but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. |
| Columbia, MO (Columbia-Moberly-Mexico, MO CSA) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Coos County, NH (Berlin, NH Micropolitan Area) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Douglas and Lane Counties, OR | Part of a single proposal covering both locations. Neither county is evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. Douglas County is not adjacent to a basic locality pay area. Lane County is adjacent to the Portland basic locality pay area but does not meet the employment interchange criterion. |
| Duplin, New Hanover, and Pender Counties, NC | Part of a single proposal covering all three locations. Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| El Paso, TX | This Rest of US research area does not meet the pay disparity criterion. |
| Flagstaff, AZ | Adjacent to the Phoenix basic locality pay area but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. |
| Fresno, CA (including Kings County and Lemoore Naval Air Station, CA) | This Rest of US research area now meets the pay disparity criterion. |
| Garfield County, CO (Edwards-Glenwood Springs, CO CSA) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Grand County, CO (Grand Lake and Winter Park) | Adjacent to the Denver basic locality pay area but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. Not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Grand County, UT | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Grand Junction, CO MSA (Mesa County, CO) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Hazelton, WV (Morgantown-Fairmont, WV CSA) | Adjacent to the Pittsburgh basic locality pay area but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. Not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Herlong, CA (Lassen County) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Hood River County, OR (Hood River, OR Micropolitan Area) | Adjacent to the Portland basic locality pay area but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. Not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Humboldt County, CA (Eureka-Arcata, CA Micropolitan Area) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Jackson County, OR (Medford-Grants Pass, OR CSA) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Jacksonville, FL | This Rest of US research area does not meet the pay disparity criterion. |
| Johnson and Linn Counties, IA (Cedar Rapids, IA CSA) | Adjacent to the Davenport basic locality pay area but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. Not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Kalispell, MT (Flathead County, MT Micropolitan Area) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Karnes County, TX | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the San Antonio locality pay area. |
| Knoxville, TN (Knoxville, TN CSA) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Louisville, KY (Rest of US research area) | This Rest of US research area does not meet the pay disparity criterion. Adjacent to the Indianapolis basic locality pay area but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. |
| Madison County, VA | Madison County is proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the Washington-Baltimore locality pay area. |
| Madison, WI | This Rest of US research area does not meet the pay disparity criterion. Adjacent to the Milwaukee basic locality pay area but does not meet the employment interchange criterion. |
| Merced County, CA | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the San Jose locality pay area. |
| Myrtle Beach, SC (Myrtle Beach, SC CSA) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Nashville, TN | This Rest of US research area does not meet the pay disparity criterion. |
| New Orleans, LA | This Rest of US research area does not meet the pay disparity criterion. |
| Nottoway County, VA | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the Richmond locality pay area. |
| Pacific County, WA | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the Seattle locality pay area. |
| Pine County, MN | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the Minneapolis locality pay area. |
| Reno, NV | This potential Rest of US research area now meets the pay disparity criterion. |
| Rochester, MN | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the Minneapolis locality pay area. |
| Salt Lake City, UT CSA (including Hill AFB) | This Rest of US research area does not meet the pay disparity criterion. |
| San Juan County, WA | San Juan is proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the Seattle locality pay area. |
| Scranton, PA (Lackawanna County, PA) | This potential Rest of US research area does not meet the pay disparity criterion. The Scranton MSA is adjacent to the New York basic locality pay area but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. |
| Shenandoah National Park, VA (Rest of US locations other than Madison County, VA) | None of the several Rest of US counties comprising this set of locations meets applicable criteria. |
| Sierra County, CA | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the Sacramento locality pay area. |
| Siskiyou County, CA | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Smith County, TX (Tyler, TX CSA) | Adjacent to the Dallas basic locality pay area but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. Not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Southeast Idaho (Idaho Falls-Rexburg-Blackfoot, ID CSA) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Spokane, WA | This Rest of US research area now meets the pay disparity criterion. |
| Stanislaus County, CA | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the San Jose locality pay area. |
| Sussex County, DE (Salisbury, MD-DE CSA) | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the Philadelphia locality pay area. |
| Teton County, WY | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Toledo, OH | Adjacent to the Detroit and Cleveland basic locality pay areas but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. Not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Ukiah, CA (Mendocino County, CA) | Adjacent to the San Jose basic locality pay area but does not meet the proposed employment interchange criterion. Not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Waseca County, MN | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the Minneapolis locality pay area. |
| Wayne County, PA | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the New York locality pay area. |
| White River Junction, VT (Lebanon, NH-VT Micropolitan Area) | Proposed under a Working Group recommendation to be added to the Boston locality pay area. |
| Yellowstone National Park (including Teton County, WY) | Not adjacent to an existing basic locality pay area, and not evaluated using the NCS/OEWS Model. |
| Yuma, AZ | This Rest of US research area does not meet the pay disparity criterion. |
Frequently Asked Questions About GS Locality Pay
What is a GS locality Pay Area?
Locality pay areas consist of a main metropolitan area defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and forming the basic locality pay area and, where criteria recommended by the Federal Salary Council and approved by the President’s Pay Agent are met.
What Are the Boundaries for GS Locality Pay Areas?
The boundaries of locality pay areas are based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The President’s Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) to determine locality pay areas. The boundaries of locality pay areas are based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers.
Where Are GS Locality Pay Areas Located?
This article lists 2022 locality pay areas. OPM publishes a list of locality pay areas and the pay tables for each locality every year. Tables for the next year are published around the end of December.
What is Pay Disparity?
Pay disparity is calculated by the Federal Salary Council and is the overall difference between (1) base General Schedule average salaries excluding any add-ons such as GS special rates and existing locality payments and (2) non-Federal average salaries surveyed by BLS in locality pay areas. These calculations measure salary but do not take into account the amount of employee benefits provided.
What Does the “Rest of the US” Mean in the GS Locality Pay System
“The “Rest of United States” GS locality is in effect the locality pay area area for federal GS employees not classified in another specified GS Locality Pay Area. The 2022 Locality Pay Adjustment for the Rest of U.S. was 16.2%. The result means that GS employees are paid at least 16.2% more than the GS Base Pay Table.
Where Can I Find the GS Locality Pay Percentage for Each Locality Pay Area?
The locality per percentage is updated in most years. The locality pay tables specify the percentage for each locality area. The locality pay percentage is posted at the top of the pay table for each locality pay area.
Here is an example for 2022: “INCORPORATING THE 2.2% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE AND A LOCALITY PAYMENT OF 18.68%”. This means that 2.2% was added to the GS Base Pay Table for the Albany, NY locality pay area in 2022. The 18.68% means that this percentage has been added over time to the base pay table for this locality pay area.
