Funding of Constitutional Officers - Virginia Joint Legislative Audit ...

To show how some of the choices can affect the allocation of funds to the officers,
several components are different in the two examples. The choices which vary are:
• The first example does not include a cost of competing factor for Northern
Virginia offices, while second example includes the cost ofcompeting factor
based on the differential for similar State position classifications.
• Example 1 assigns a higher proportion of cost responsibility for the shared
cost categories to the local governments. The second example assigns more
cost responsibility for the shared cost categories to the State.
The choices made for each example, and tables summarizing the funding which results
from those choices are presented in the remainder of this appendix.
SUMMARY OF CHOICES FOR EXAMPLE 1
• Staffing based on statewide staffing standards
• Salaries based on a weighted statewide average for FY 1990, with
adjustments for merit increases of 3.65 percent in FY 1991 and
3.65 percent in FY 1992.
• No cost ofcompeting for Northern Virginia offices
• Level funding ofnon-personnel costs
• A minimal level ofState cost responsibility for shared State-local cost
categories
• A statewide aggregate local share for ability to pay of50 percent for sheriffs,
clerks ofcourt, and Commonwealth's attorneys, and 75 percent for treasurers,
commissioners ofrevenue, and directors offinance
• Distribution offee revenues based on the State and local shares ofcosts.
62