Report 2010-036 Recommendation 3 Responses

Report 2010-036: Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund: Local Governments Continue to Have Difficulty Justifying Distribution Fund Grants (Release Date: February 2011)

Recommendation #3 To: Riverside, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should require that the county auditor review each grant application to ensure a rigorous analysis of a casino's impact and of the proportion of funding for the project provided by the grant. Benefit committees should consider a grant application only when the county auditor certifies that the applicant has quantified the impact of the casino and verifies that the grant funds requested will be proportional to the casino's impact.

Agency Response*

As recommended by State Auditor staff, this audit recommendation is superseded by 2013-036.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Completion Date: May 2014
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Resolved

In a later-published audit report, we made a similar recommendation to Riverside County but did not specifically recommend a certification and quantification of impact by the county auditor. Riverside County's response to this broader recommendation can be found under recommendations for report 2013-063.


Agency Response*

Neither the Governor nor the State Legislature appropriated Special Distribution Funds this fiscal year for Indian Gaming Mitigation Grants, so we were unable to consult with the County Auditor-Controller to determine the practicality of implementing this recommendation.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Estimated Completion Date: 6/30/2016
  • Response Date: September 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented


Agency Response*

The amount the County Auditor Controller would require to conduct a rigorous analysis of each of the casinos' impacts and the proportion of funding for each project provided through the grants would far exceed the $49,441 Riverside County receives in administrative funding. For this reason, as well as the fact that Riverside County continues to struggle to provide required services in the face of AB 109 (State prison over-crowding realignment), the demise of Redevelopment and other shifts of cost to County governments, Riverside County is financially challenged to implement this recommendation of the State Auditor.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Estimated Completion Date: undetermined
  • Response Date: January 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented


Agency Response*

The County of Riverside will attempt to fully implement the recommendation. The County Auditor-Controller is an elected official and cannot be 'required' to participate in the application review process; however, when applications are received, pursuant to AB 2515, the Auditor-Controller's participation in the review process will be requested.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Estimated Completion Date: May 31, 2013
  • Response Date: October 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented


All Recommendations in 2010-036

†Response Type refers to the interval in which the auditee is providing the State Auditor with their status in implementing recommendations made in an audit report. Auditees must submit a response regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year or subsequent to one year.

*Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader