U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–011 2009

111th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 111–78 

AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR LOCALITY PAY 

INCREASES 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR LOCALITY PAY INCREASES PAYABLE 

TO CIVILIAN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE GENERAL 

SCHEDULE (GS) AND CERTAIN OTHER PAY SYSTEMS IN JANUARY 2010, PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. 5305(a)(3) 

DECEMBER 1, 2009.—Referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform and ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HDOCE:\Seals\Congress.#13

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HDOC
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, November 30, 2009. 

Hon. NANCY PELOSI, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: I am transmitting an alternative plan for 

locality pay increases for civilian Federal employees covered by the 

General Schedule (GS) and certain other pay systems in January 

2010. 

Under title 5, United States Code, civilian Federal employees 

covered by the GS and certain other pay systems would receive a 

two-part pay increase in January 2010: (1) a 2.4 percent across-theboard adjustment in scheduled rates of basic pay derived from Employment Cost Index data on changes in the wages and salaries of 

private industry workers, and (2) locality pay adjustments averaging 16.5 percent based on Bureau of Labor Statistics salary surveys of non-Federal employers in each locality pay area. According 

to the statutory formula, for Federal employees covered by the locality pay system, the overall average pay increase would be about 

18.9 percent. This total Federal employee pay increase would cost 

about $22.6 billion in fiscal year 2010 alone. 

Title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement an alternative pay plan if I view the adjustments that would otherwise 

take effect as inappropriate due to ‘‘national emergency or serious 

economic conditions affecting the general welfare.’’ As in August, 

when I submitted an alternative plan under 5 U.S.C. 5303(b) to 

limit the across-the-board increase in 2010 to 2.0 percent, I have 

determined that it is appropriate to exercise my statutory alternative plan authority under 5 U.S.C. 5304a to set alternative January 2010 locality pay rates. 

A national emergency, within the meaning of chapter 53 of title 

5, has existed since September 11, 2001. Likewise, our country continues to face serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare and most Americans would not understand or accept that Federal employees should receive an average pay increase of 18.9 percent while many of their fellow citizens are facing employment cutbacks or unemployment. Such an increase would cost $19.9 billion 

more than the 2.0 percent overall Federal civilian pay increase that 

I proposed in my 2010 Budget and would build in later years. 

Accordingly, I have determined that under the authority of section 5304a of title 5, United States Code, the locality pay percentages currently in effect as shown in the attachment shall remain 

in effect in 2010. 

The law requires that I include in this report an assessment of 

the impact of my decision on the Government’s ability to recruit 

and retain well-qualified employees. As I said in August, I do not 

believe this decision will materially affect our ability to continue to 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HDOC
2 

attract and retain a quality Federal workforce. Since any pay raise 

above the amount proposed in this alternative plan would likely be 

unfunded, agencies would have to absorb the additional cost and 

could have to reduce hiring to pay the higher rates. Moreover, the 

GS ‘‘quit’’ rate continues to be very low (2.1 percent on an annual 

basis), well below the overall average ‘‘quit’’ rate in private enterprise. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HDOC
3 

ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR 2010 LOCALITY-BASED COMPARABILITY 

PAYMENTS 

Locality pay area Locality payment 

(percent) 

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA–AL ....................................................... 18.55 

Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA–NH–RI–ME ............................................... 23.98 

Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus, NY ....................................................................... 16.39 

Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL–IN–WI ................................................... 24.47 

Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH–KY–IN .............................................. 18.28 

Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH ................................................................................ 18.16 

Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH ...................................................................... 16.62 

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX .......................................................................................... 19.95 

Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH ..................................................................... 15.90 

Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO ................................................................................. 22.03 

Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI ..................................................................................... 23.56 

Hartford-West Hartford-Willimantic, CT–MA .................................................... 25.08 

Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX ........................................................................ 28.28 

Huntsville-Decatur, AL ........................................................................................ 15.46 

Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN ................................................................. 14.23 

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA .............................................................. 26.51 

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL ..................................................... 20.21 

Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI ....................................................................... 17.65 

Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN–WI ............................................................ 20.36 

New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY–NJ–CT–PA ................................................. 27.96 

Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA–NJ–DE–MD ............................................. 21.25 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ ............................................................................... 16.08 

Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA .................................................................................. 15.86 

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR–WA ............................................................ 19.71 

Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC ................................................................................... 17.38 

Richmond, VA ....................................................................................................... 16.10 

Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Yuba City, CA–NV .............................................. 21.53 

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA .................................................................. 23.44 

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA ................................................................. 34.35 

Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA .............................................................................. 21.06 

Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC–MD–VA–WV–PA .................... 23.10 

Rest of U.S. ............................................................................................................ 13.86 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HDOC