I hope credit unions consider that like every other entity in the universe, the NCUA's costs go up every year. Yes, the industry must be critical of dollars spent, but that criticism must be supported by realistic expectations.

Each year, CU Times publishes a story that lists the NCUA's highest earners. That story used to focus on employees earning six figures; now, it lists NCUA staffers who earn more than $200,000 per year.

Outside the Beltway, many Americans envision a stereotypical federal worker who rakes in high pay for relatively little work. Perhaps that stereotype once had some truth to it, but based on my personal observations and interactions with the agency, the NCUA appears to be staffed by hard working employees who earn every penny.

While $200,000 is an impressive salary in most parts of the U.S., it doesn't go very far in Washington. Last month, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said Washington surpassed Manhattan and San Francisco as the country's most expensive metropolitan area.

I'm relocating my family back to Southern California later this month. The primary reason is to be closer to family – Washington tries hard to provide a good atmosphere for kids, but overall, it's just not a very family-friendly place, especially for transplants with no family support.

Affordability, however, was another reason. We purchased a lovely home in Los Angeles' Inland Empire for just $168 per square foot. If we wanted to purchase a home in Alexandria, Va., where we currently rent, we'd have to pay about $500 per square foot for a condo. A single family home with a yard is completely out of our reach.

While I can sympathize with the NCUA's staffing costs given locality pay pressures, there are some budget categories in which credit unions should be very critical.

First, expect fireworks when the NCUA asks for approval to add new full-time staff positions next year. Granted, the agency didn't add any new positions in 2014 or 2013. However, as the number of credit unions shrinks, the NCUA will be hard pressed to explain why it needs to expand its FTE ranks. The new positions requested during the agency's mid-year budget adjustment were not examiners, but instead positions that will help the agency meet new demands mandated by outside forces. One position would report to the inspector general and support the increase in congressionally mandated requests and an influx in mandatory audits Dodd-Frank and other new laws. The second position would support the new security office.

That second staff position highlights another hot-button budget issue: The Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility at NCUA headquarters, which will cost more than $1.2 million. It's important to note that SCIF is required by executive order – the NCUA has no choice in the matter. While I can understand why such a facility might be needed in a national emergency, it's still hard to comprehend why the NCUA would need to use it in the normal course of business. Like municipal police forces that misuse military surplus equipment, SCIF seems like an excuse for federal agencies to install high-tech toys just because they can.

Third, look for the NCUA to attempt to hide some cost increases in the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund budget, rather than the operating budget. Last year, the board approved a $750,000 line item in the share insurance fund budget to fund the creation of a registry of industry CUSOs. The stress test rule may also be funded by the NCUSIF budget.

Yes, these rules protect the share insurance fund but don't they all? Hopefully this attempt to decrease the appearance of increased operational costs isn't repeated again this year.

Heather Anderson is executive editor of CU Times. She can be reached at [email protected].