Report 2010-036 All Recommendation Responses

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

Recommendation #1 To: Amador County

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.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From January 2014

The County Auditor has reviewed and certified all applications that were approved.

  • Completion Date: March 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2012

The Amador County Local Community Benefits Committee has not implemented this recommendation at this time due to staffing and time constraints in the Auditor's Office. The Committee reviews each application and verifies the impact of the casino for each entity requesting funds and ensures proportional division relative to impact.

The Amador County Local Community Benefits Committee will forward all completed applications to the Auditor's Office for his certification and comment. The Committee will leave as much time as possible for the Auditor to complete this task and allow as vigorous an analysis as possible.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Recommendation #2 To: Humboldt, 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.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2016

Due to staffing limitations the Auditor's Office is unable to implement.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015

Due to staffing limitations the Auditor's Office is unable to implement.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

Due to staffing limitations the Auditor's Office is unable to implement.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The County of Humboldt agrees in part with this recommendation. The County agrees that conducting additional review to insure that the grant applications quantify the impact of the casino and that the funds requested are proportional may be warranted. We do not agree that the county auditor is the only option and are concerned that this recommendation could delay the grant review process. We also do not believe that sufficient funds are provided to support this review by the county auditor. Other qualified County staff exist and are available to carry out this function.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2012

The County of Humboldt agrees in part with this recommendation. The County agrees that conducting additional review to insure that the grant applications quantify the impact of the casino and that the funds requested are proportional may be warranted. We do not agree that the county auditor is the only option and are concerned that this recommendation could delay the grant review process. We also do not believe that sufficient funds are provided to support this review by the county auditor. Other qualified County staff exist and are available to carry out this function.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


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.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

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

  • Completion Date: May 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up 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.


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015

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.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 6/30/2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From January 2014

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.

  • Estimated Completion Date: undetermined

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2012

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.

  • Estimated Completion Date: May 31, 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Recommendation #4 To: San Diego, 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.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The County has taken this recommendation under advisement. Although the County will not be implementing this recommendation, the San Diego County Auditor conducted a review of the SD IGLCBC grant procedures on February 14, 2011, validated the SD IGLCBC's methods used to quantify impacts, and will continue to periodically review SD IGLCBC procedures going forward.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2012

The County continues to take this recommendation under advisement. Both the County and the San Diego Indian Gaming Local Community Benefit Community (SD IGLCBC) agree with the importance of thorough review. However, instead of the San Diego County Auditor reviewing every grant application, the County Auditor conducted a review of the SD IGLCBC grant process and documents on February 14, 2011. The San Diego County Auditor validated the SD IGLCBC's methods used to quantify impacts. The Auditor did not have any suggestions to improve the request for information but did reiterate the need for thorough analysis of the data presented in the application during the review process.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Recommendation #5 To: Santa Barbara, 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.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

1. It is important to note that auditors would require clear analysis criteria and standards for identifying casino impacts. Similar, criteria and standards would be needed to analyze the proportionality of the grant awards. Given the diversity of tribal gaming mitigation agreements across the state, outside of the SDF, the criteria for impact analysis would be quite complex.

2. The independently elected Auditor does not have a specific statutory requirement to conduct the recommended analysis.

3. It is unclear from the recommendation where the casino impact analysis and proportionality assessment fit in the statutory process. If before, tribal sponsorship phase, then it may require additional work by the auditor that adds little to the tribe's sponsorship decision. If conducted after tribal sponsorship phase then it provides little additional value to the Committee.

4. The State budget or legislature has not appropriated Special Distribution Funds during the past few years. Auditor has not had anything to audit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

It is our understanding that no IGSDF allocations will be made in the coming year; therefore, based on a conversation with the State Auditor's office, no changes will be made at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

A more rigorous review of grant applications may be in order. Because counties are already reimbursed up to 2% of the amount awarded to administer grants, they may be better served by using these funds to reimburse the county Auditor-Controller to review the grant applications and certify those that quantify the casino's impact and fund projects in proportion to the casino's impact.

Santa Barbara County agrees in part with this recommendation. The County agrees that conducting additional review to insure that the grant applications quantify the impacts of the casino and that the funds requested are proportional to the impact. We do not believe that the 2% administrative cost reimbursement is sufficient to pay for the actual grant administration, administrative processing of applications and measuring impacts. Adding an additional review by the Auditor-Controller could not be cost justified within the 2% allowance.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2012

A more rigorous review of grant applications may be in order. Because counties are already reimbursed up to 2% of the amount awarded to administer grants, they may be better served by using these funds to reimburse the county Auditor-Controller to review the grant applications and certify those that quantify the casino's impact and fund projects in proportion to the casino's impact.

Santa Barbara County agrees in part with this recommendation. The County agrees that conducting additional review to insure that the grant applications quantify the impacts of the casino and that the funds requested are proportional to the impact. We do not believe that the 2% administrative cost reimbursement is sufficient to pay for the actual grant administration, administrative processing of applications and measuring impacts. Adding an additional review by the Auditor-Controller could not be cost justified within the 2% allowance.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Recommendation #6 To: Shasta County

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.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015

Shasta County's Auditor-Controller will make himself available to review grant applications that the Shasta County Indian Gaming Local Community Benefit Committee may feel need to be reviewed to determine that the grant funds requested will be proportional to the casino's impact.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Next Funding Cycle

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

Shasta County's Auditor-Controller will make himself available to review grant applications that the Shasta County Indian Gaming Local Community Benefit Committee may feel need to be reviewed to determine that the grant funds requested will be proportional to the casino's impact.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Shasta County's Auditor-Controller will make himself available to review grant applications that the Shasta County Indian Gaming Local Community Benefit Committee may feel need to be reviewed to determine that the grant funds requested will be proportional to the casino's impact.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From December 2012

The department did not provide a reason it will not implement this recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Recommendation #7 To: Yolo, 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.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The Yolo IGLCBC is an independent agency that is not subject to the authority of the County of Yolo. However, the County of Yolo did recommend to the IGLCBC that they establish a grant process that includes a rigorous analysis of the casino's impact and of the proportion of funding for the project provided by the grant. The IGLCBC approved a grant application that requires applicants to provide a description of the impacts on the jurisdiction associated with the tribal casino in Yolo County (Indian Gaming Impacts, attachment B to the grant application), an explanation of how the proposed project will mitigate impacts of the casino (Mitigation Objectives, attachment C ), and the completion of a Proportional Funding Worksheet (attachment D) that describes the method used to determine the proportional funding. The grant application and attachments are utilized as the basis for Yolo County staff to certify the impacts and proportionate share.

  • Completion Date: April 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2012

The Yolo IGLCBC is an independent agency that is not subject to the authority of the County of Yolo. The County of Yolo will recommend that the IGLCBC refer grant applications to the county auditor for certification that the applicant has quantified the impact of the casino and verification that the grant funds will be proportional to the casino's impact.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


Recommendation #8 To: Yolo, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should review the law for changes that may affect applicants' eligibility for distribution fund grants before awarding the grants so that ineligible entities do not receive grants.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

This item was fully implemented and a complete explanation was included in the September 25, 2012 report to your agency. We have reprinted it below for your convenience.

It is the practice of the Yolo IGLCBC to review the Government Code to determine which government entities are eligible for grants from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund. At the April 11, 2011 Yolo IGLCBC meeting, agenda item 7 was a review of local government entities eligible for grants. The attachment for agenda item 7 includes a reference to the relevant section of the government code. The meeting summary minutes reflect that the committee reviewed the list and requested the addition of an additional special district. The committee also requested modification of the draft grant application form to include a reference code sections governing the IGLCBC process.

  • Completion Date: November 2011

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2012

It is the practice of the Yolo IGLCBC to review the Government Code to determine which government entities are eligible for grants from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund. At the April 11, 2011 Yolo IGLCBC meeting, agenda item 7 was a review of local government entities eligible for grants. The attachment for agenda item 7 includes a reference to the relevant section of the government code. The meeting summary minutes reflect that the committee reviewed the list and requested the addition of an additional special district. The committee also requested modification of the draft grant application form to include a reference code sections governing the IGLCBC process.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #9 To: Amador County

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should more rigorously review applications that are to be administered and spent by an entity other than the local government that applies for the funds. Specifically, benefit committees should require that each grant application clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact of the casino on the applicant agency.

1-Year Agency Response

In April 2011 the benefit committee adopted procedures requiring eligible applicants to demonstrate how they will be able to document and quantify the impact that is being mitigated by the project. The county provided documentation demonstrating that it had implemented these procedures. (See 2013-406, p. 67)

  • Response Date: February 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #10 To: Humboldt, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should more rigorously review applications that are to be administered and spent by an entity other than the local government that applies for the funds. Specifically, benefit committees should require that each grant application clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact of the casino on the applicant agency.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

The County of Humboldt is conducting additional review to insure that the grant applications quantify the impact of the casino and that the funds requested are proportional to the impacts. To this end, County staff is working in conjunction with the benefit committee to ensure a more rigorous review of the applications.

  • Completion Date: July 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The County of Humboldt is conducting additional review to insure that the grant applications quantify the impact of the casino and that the funds requested are proportional to the impacts. To this end, County staff is working in conjunction with the benefit committee to ensure a more rigorous review of the applications.

  • Completion Date: July 2011

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2012

The County of Humboldt is conducting additional review to ensure that the grant applications quantify the impact of the casino and that the funds requested are proportional to the impacts. To this end, County staff is working in conjunction with the benefit committee to ensure a more rigorous review of the applications.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

The county claims it is conducting additional review to ensure grant applications quantify the impact of the casino, and that county staff are working in conjunction with the benefit committee to ensure a more rigorous review of applications. However, the county did not provide any information to substantiate its claim of full implementation.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #11 To: Riverside, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should more rigorously review applications that are to be administered and spent by an entity other than the local government that applies for the funds. Specifically, benefit committees should require that each grant application clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact of the casino on the applicant agency.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2012

Beginning in FY 2003/04 (the first year of the gaming mitigation grant program), the CBC has not recognized subcontractors, as stated on page 4 of the agreement template between the CBC and awarded local jurisdictions. Following the State Auditor's finding and recommendation in the February 2011 report, the CBC's application procedures were updated to include language stating that project services were not to be subcontracted without the express written approval of the CBC.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The county changed its contracting to forbid subcontracting of project services without written approval from the local benefit commission. Furthermore, the county requires applications to demonstrate the specific impact of the casino which will be mitigated by the grant.


Recommendation #12 To: San Diego, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should more rigorously review applications that are to be administered and spent by an entity other than the local government that applies for the funds. Specifically, benefit committees should require that each grant application clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact of the casino on the applicant agency.

1-Year Agency Response

The county stated that the benefit committee's process is one that provides a rigorous review of the grant applications through a comprehensive, transparent, and public process. The benefit committee has established application policies, procedures, and an application form for the grants following the priorities specified in Section 12715(g) of the California Government Code. The benefit committee further confirmed that grant documents request information from applicants to ensure that metrics clearly demonstrate proportionality for impacts. (See 2013-406, p. 68)

  • Response Date: February 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #13 To: Santa Barbara, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should more rigorously review applications that are to be administered and spent by an entity other than the local government that applies for the funds. Specifically, benefit committees should require that each grant application clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact of the casino on the applicant agency.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The grant application was redesigned and adopted by the Indian Gaming Community Benefit Committee at the April 22, 2011 meeting. The grant application now requires a full response to two separate information requests:

+ Purpose of Grant/Description of Project

+ Please describe, in detail, the impacts associated with the Tribal casino and/or gaming which the grant is designed to mitigate: (please include historical data, if available. Attach additional sheets if necessary to provide a detailed description of impacts.

These application materials were provided to the Indian Gaming Community Benefit Committee for the past two grant cycles. An example is attached.

  • Completion Date: April 2011

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2012

The grant application was redesigned and adopted by the Indian Gaming Community Benefit Committee at the April 22, 2011 meeting. The grant application now requires a full response to two separate information requests:

- Purpose of Grant/Description of Project

- Please describe, in detail, the impacts associated with the Tribal casino and/or gaming which the grant is designed to mitigate: (please include historical data, if available. Attach additional sheets if necessary to provide a detailed description of impacts.

These application materials were provided to the Indian Gaming Community Benefit Committee for the past two grant cycles.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #14 To: Shasta County

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should more rigorously review applications that are to be administered and spent by an entity other than the local government that applies for the funds. Specifically, benefit committees should require that each grant application clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact of the casino on the applicant agency.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

The Redding Rancheria (tribe paying into the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund in Shasta County), reviews all applications to determine if the grant will specifically mitigate the impact of the casino. Grant applications found not to mitigate the impacts of the casino are not sponsored by the Redding Rancheria and are not considered for funding by the full Indian Gaming LCBC.

  • Completion Date: January 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The Redding Rancheria (tribe paying into the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund in Shasta County), reviews all applications to determine if the grant will specifically mitigate the impact of the casino. Grant applications found not to mitigate the impacts of the casino are not considered for funding by the full Indian Gaming LCBC.

  • Completion Date: January 2011

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented

As stated in the original recommendation, Shasta County should require that each grant application clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact of the casino on the applicant agency, not merely review the applications to determine if the grants will mitigate the casino impact.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From December 2012

All grant applications are reviewed by the local tribe to determine if the application mitigates the effects of the casino. At this time, the local tribe also makes a decision as to which applications that they will sponsor based on if the application will mitigate the effects of the casino. After review by the tribe, all applications are forwarded to the Local Community Benefit Committee for review and then decision on which applications to grant.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The county reported its process is to allow the local tribe to review all applications to determine if the proposed project mitigates the impact of the casino. However, the Benefit Committee or County Auditor should review applications to determine if the project mitigates the impact of the casino, not the tribe.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Recommendation #15 To: Yolo, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should more rigorously review applications that are to be administered and spent by an entity other than the local government that applies for the funds. Specifically, benefit committees should require that each grant application clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact of the casino on the applicant agency.

1-Year Agency Response

The county stated that in the benefit committee's last funding cycle, the benefit committee elected to fund three applications which clearly described the impacts of tribal gaming they were seeking to mitigate, including an analysis of proportionality where appropriate. (See 2013-406, p. 68)

  • Response Date: February 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #16 To: Amador County

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should ensure that eligible cities and counties receive the proportional share of funding they are set aside according to the nexus test by making the governments aware of available distribution fund grants and of the minimum grant amounts that are set aside for them under the nexus test.

1-Year Agency Response

The county provided notice to each jurisdiction in the county that was eligible for funding from the distribution fund of their eligibility and the amounts set aside for them. (See 2013-406, p. 68)

  • Response Date: February 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #17 To: Santa Barbara, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should ensure that eligible cities and counties receive the proportional share of funding they are set aside according to the nexus test by making the governments aware of available distribution fund grants and of the minimum grant amounts that are set aside for them under the nexus test.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Staff developed a nexus test spreadsheet that calculated the proportional share of funding available to each jurisdiction that accounted for the quantity of nexus tests they successfully meet. Additionally, the public notice includes the breakdown of funds available for grant funds eligible through nexus and those grants available for discretionary funds.

  • Completion Date: April 2011

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2012

Staff developed a nexus test spreadsheet that calculated the proportional share of funding available to each jurisdiction that accounted for the quantity of nexus tests they successfully meet. Additionally, the public notice includes the breakdown of funds available for grant funds eligible through nexus and those grants available for discretionary funds.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

Although the county calculated the minimum amount set aside to local governments and issued a public letter informing local governments of the amount of nexus and discretionary funding, the county has not demonstrated that it informed local governments of the minimum amount they were eligible for. The recommendation was to inform local governments of the minimum amount set aside for them.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Recommendation #18 To: Amador County

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should encourage eligible local governments to submit multiple applications so that the benefit committees can choose appropriate projects while ensuring that local governments are awarded the amount defined in law.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2012

The Amador County Local Community Benefits Committee publishes a notice in the local newspaper notifying the public and qualifying entities of the application deadline and in concurrence with SB621 outlines the parameters required for receipt of funding. Further, each entity is notified of the amount that they are eligible to receive.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #19 To: Riverside, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should encourage eligible local governments to submit multiple applications so that the benefit committees can choose appropriate projects while ensuring that local governments are awarded the amount defined in law.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2012

In their request for applications (sent to cities, special districts and county departments), the Riverside County Indian Gaming Local Community Benefit encouraged eligible jurisdictions to submit multiple applications to ensure local governments were awarded funds consistent with the spirit and intent of the legislation and in the amounts designated for their mitigation efforts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The county demonstrated that it has encouraged eligible jurisdictions to submit multiple applications so as to ensure local governments can receive all funds they are eligible for.


Recommendation #20 To: San Diego, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should encourage eligible local governments to submit multiple applications so that the benefit committees can choose appropriate projects while ensuring that local governments are awarded the amount defined in law.

1-Year Agency Response

The county stated that it continues to broadly distribute notice to eligible local governments via email to announce the call for applications. It also indicated that it files public notice with the clerk of the board so agenda packets are posted in compliance with the Brown Act requirements. The benefit committee's frequently ask questions state that eligible agencies can submit multiple applications. (See 2013-406, p. 69)

  • Response Date: February 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #21 To: Santa Barbara, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should encourage eligible local governments to submit multiple applications so that the benefit committees can choose appropriate projects while ensuring that local governments are awarded the amount defined in law.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Public notices for the Spring 2013 grant funding cycle did include the suggestion that entities are encourgaed to submit multiple applications. As a result of this suggestion in the public notice, one entitity did submit a second appllication for mitigation funding.

  • Completion Date: February 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2012

Public notices for the next grant funding cycle will include the suggestion of submitting multiple applications.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


Recommendation #22 To: Shasta County

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should encourage eligible local governments to submit multiple applications so that the benefit committees can choose appropriate projects while ensuring that local governments are awarded the amount defined in law.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Shasta County sends the grant application to 26 different entities (eligible for grant funding) along with the three incorporated cities in the County and every County department. A press release is also sent to media outlets in the County. It is not uncommon for the Indian Gaming LCBC to receive multiple applications from the same entity.

  • Completion Date: January 2011

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

In December 2013, Shasta County updated its press release template for grant applications to include the following statement, "Eligible local governments are encouraged to submit multiple applications so that the benefit committee can choose appropriate projects for funding."


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From December 2012

The application is sent to 23 independent districts as well as to the cities that are eligible to apply for funding. All county departments are also notified of the availability of funding. Also, a press release is issued alerting interested parties that there is funding available.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

The county did not provide supporting documentation to demonstrate that appropriate notice is given for grants.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #23 To: Amador County

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should require benefit committee filing officers to avail themselves of the free training provided by the FPPC so that the filing officers are aware of and meet their responsibilities under the political reform act. Counties should also adhere to FPPC guidelines for notifying filers of the need to submit statements of economic interests.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

All Committee members are encouraged to utilize the free training. The free training was discussed in the meeting, and a memo was sent to each member detailing the training. The minutes and memo are being sent a supporting documentation. The LBC will continue to abide by all State requirements for training required by the FPPC.

  • Completion Date: April 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From January 2014

All members of the SDF Committee have filed appropriate form 700s, but have not all been through training. That will be corrected this cycle, when they will all complete the training.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 4/1/2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2012

A majority of Local Community Benefits Committee members serve in some capacity of County or City Government and are made aware of the responsibility to submit statements of economic interest by staff. In addition the Clerk of the LCBC notifies each member of the need to submit their form by the deadline. Some members have attended training relative to FPPC guidelines and statements of economic interests at conferences and trainings attended throughout the year, however to my knowledge have not attended the free training.

The Clerk of the Amador County Local Community Benefits Committee will make all members aware of the free training provided by the Fair Political Practices Commission.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Recommendation #24 To: Humboldt, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should require benefit committee filing officers to avail themselves of the free training provided by the FPPC so that the filing officers are aware of and meet their responsibilities under the political reform act. Counties should also adhere to FPPC guidelines for notifying filers of the need to submit statements of economic interests.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The County of Humboldt has implemented this recommendation. The benefit committee filing officer currently utilizes the free FPPC training and will adhere to the FPPC guidelines for notification.

  • Completion Date: February 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2012

The County of Humboldt has implemented this recommendation. The benefit committee filing officer currently utilizes the free FPPC training and will adhere to the FPPC guidelines for notification.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

The county states that the benefit committee filing officer utilizes free FPPC training and will adhere to FPPC guidelines for notification. The county states it implemented this recommendation as of 2/21/2011. The county did not provide supporting information.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #25 To: Riverside, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should require benefit committee filing officers to avail themselves of the free training provided by the FPPC so that the filing officers are aware of and meet their responsibilities under the political reform act. Counties should also adhere to FPPC guidelines for notifying filers of the need to submit statements of economic interests.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2012

The Riverside County Indian Gaming Local Community Benefit Committee policy A-2, Policy to Adopt the Standard Code of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) as the Conflict of Interest Code, was updated to incorporate FPPC notification guidelines for filing officers and to request Committee members attend the free training provided by the FPPC. This information was verbally conveyed to Committee members on February 24, 2011 and March 1, 2012.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #26 To: Santa Barbara, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should require benefit committee filing officers to avail themselves of the free training provided by the FPPC so that the filing officers are aware of and meet their responsibilities under the political reform act. Counties should also adhere to FPPC guidelines for notifying filers of the need to submit statements of economic interests.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

Per last year's response, Financial Disclosure and conflict of interest laws were reviewed and current processes in place for reporting by county employees, elected officials and Brown Act committees were placed into practice by the Indian Gaming Community Benefit Committee.

  • Completion Date: January 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Financial disclosure and conflict of interest laws were reviewed and current processes in place for reporting by county employees, elected officials and Brown Act committees were placed into practice by the Indian Gaming Community Benefit Committee.

  • Completion Date: April 2011

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented

While the county did notify filers of the need to submit the statements of economic interest, it has not yet required benefit committee filing officers to avail themselves of the free training provided by the FPPC.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2012

Financial disclosure and conflict of interest laws were reviewed and current processes in place for reporting by county employees, elected officials and Brown Act committees were placed into practice by the Indian Gaming Community Benefit Committee.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #27 To: Shasta County

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should require benefit committee filing officers to avail themselves of the free training provided by the FPPC so that the filing officers are aware of and meet their responsibilities under the political reform act. Counties should also adhere to FPPC guidelines for notifying filers of the need to submit statements of economic interests.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Members of the Indian Gaming LCBC are listed as "Designated Position" in Shasta County's Conflict of Interest Code. All members are current in their filings with the FPPC. Members are encouraged to participate in the free training provided by the FPPC.

  • Completion Date: May 2011

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From December 2012

Shasta County filing officers notified all committee members of the requirement to submit the forms. All current committee members have complied.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

The county did not provide supporting documentation to indicate that Shasta County Committee members have submitted COF forms.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #28 To: Yolo, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should require benefit committee filing officers to avail themselves of the free training provided by the FPPC so that the filing officers are aware of and meet their responsibilities under the political reform act. Counties should also adhere to FPPC guidelines for notifying filers of the need to submit statements of economic interests.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2012

The filing officer for the Yolo IGLCBC followed the notification guidelines established by the FPPC by working with the Yolo County Clerk/Recorder's office to notify IGLCBC members of their need to file FPPC Form 700 at least 30 days prior to the filing deadline. All IGLCBC members filed their Form 700 prior to the deadline, so there was no need to take additional action. While all IGLCBC members are currently in compliance with filing requirements, the County will require the filing officer to avail himself of free training opportunities from the FPPC as time and resources permit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Recommendation #29 To: Santa Barbara, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should ensure that benefit committees' conflict-of-interest codes comply with the political reform act by reviewing the act and their codes, and changing the codes as necessary to meet the act's requirements.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2014

The conflict-of-interest codes are aligned with the political reform act and addressed in the Committee Bylaws. These were approved in December 2013. Bylaws are reviewed for compliance every two years.

  • Completion Date: December 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

The local committees by-laws (which include the conflict of interest provisions)have been reviewed and updated by committee counsel. The local committee will be considering the by-law/conflict of interest provisions at a special meeting in November or December 2013. The revisions to be considered for approval to the Indian Gaming Community Benefit Committee's Bylaws will align conflict of interest provisions with the political reform act.

  • Estimated Completion Date: December 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2012

Will consider adoption of amendment to the Indian Gaming Community Benefit Committee's Bylaws to align conflict of interest codes with the political reform act.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending


Recommendation #30 To: Shasta County

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should ensure that benefit committees' conflict-of-interest codes comply with the political reform act by reviewing the act and their codes, and changing the codes as necessary to meet the act's requirements.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

Shasta County is in the process of reviewing and updating the LCBC Bylaws to include a requirement that LCBC members comply with the political reform act. The updated bylaws will be reviewed at the next meeting of the LCBC when funding is allocated.

  • Estimated Completion Date: next funding cycle

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015

Shasta County is currently in the process of reviewing and updating the LCBC Bylaws to include a requirement that LCBC members comply with the political reform act. The updated bylaws will be reviewed and considered at the next meeting of the LCBC when funding is allocated.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

Shasta County is currently in the process of reviewing and updating the LCBC Bylaws to include a requirement that LCBC members comply with the political reform act.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2013

Shasta County is currently in the process of reviewing and updating the LCBC Bylaws to include a requirement that the LCBC members comply with the political reform act.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From December 2012

Shasta County filing officers notified all committee members of the requirement to submit the forms. All current committee members have complied.

Staff is currently in the process of updating the bylaws of the Local Indian Gaming Benefit Committee to include the requirements that members must complete a statement of economic interest form. Currently, members of the Local Indian Gaming Benefit Committee are listed in the County's conflict of interest code and all Local Indian Gaming Benefit Committee members have completed their statement of economic interest form.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented


All Recommendations in 2010-036

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