Report 2013-036 Recommendation 3 Responses

Report 2013-036: Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund: Counties' Benefit Committees Did Not Always Comply With State Laws for Distribution Fund Grants (Release Date: March 2014)

Recommendation #3 To: Riverside, County of

To comply with state law, benefit committees should ensure that they obtain sufficient documentation from grant applicants to demonstrate that proposed projects mitigate casino impacts. If applicable, that documentation should demonstrate that the requested funding represents a correct proportionate share of the costs attributable to casino impacts.

Agency Response*

During the State Auditor's field work for the 2016-036 report, Riverside County's awarding of mitigation grants was reviewed and a determination was made that the benefit committee appropriately awarded grant funds to applicants that properly demonstrated casino impacts.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Completion Date: May 2015
  • Response Date: November 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented

As we state in our report issued in March 2017, our review of two mitigation grants awarded by the benefit committee in Riverside County found that the benefit committee appropriately awarded grant funds to applicants that had properly demonstrated casino impacts, and if applicable, proportionate amounts. We therefore assess this recommendation as fully implemented.


Agency Response*

During the FY 2013/14 Indian gaming mitigation grant process, a rigorous review of applications was conducted and sufficient documentation was obtained from grant applicants to demonstrate the proposed projects would mitigate the casino impacts targeted in the applications and that the correct proportionate share of costs attributable to casino impacts was awarded. Supporting documentation is being submitted to the Auditor's team during the current audit process.

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

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Partially Implemented

We are reviewing documentation related to this recommendation as part of an ongoing audit that is scheduled to be issued in Spring 2017. Because Riverside County provided documentation that we are assessing as part of the audit, we assessed this recommendation as partially implemented.


Agency Response*

During the last distribution of Indian Gaming Special Distribution Funds, Riverside County obtained sufficient documentation from grant applicants to demonstrate requested funding represented a correct proportionate share of the costs attributable to casino impacts.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Completion Date: May 2015
  • Response Date: September 2015

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

As we stated in our assessment of its one-year update when Riverside provided the documentation of its last distribution of grant funds, while Riverside provided some examples of applications by law enforcement, the link to casino impacts could still be improved. For example, one of the applications provided to us justified its request by noting increased traffic near the casino. However, the application also noted an increase in population in the city but attributed all of the cost of increased traffic to the casino. Further, the application provided an unsupported estimate of the cost of funding one traffic officer for one year at $250,000. Riverside County indicated to us that it has not made grant disbursements since the fiscal year 2013-14 awards described in its one-year update. Therefore, we continue to consider this recommendation not fully implemented.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Agency Response*

Over the years, there are many changes in the staffing responsible for preparing gaming mitigation grant applications, making it necessary to provide ongoing outreach and education about the importance of tracking casino-specific data to illustrate casino impacts. Through this education, jurisdictions are providing more specific data to justify their funding requests. Examples (supporting documentation) funded through each Individual Tribal Casino Account are being provided to the email address provided below.

Please let me know if additional information / clarification is needed.

  • Response Type†: 1-Year
  • Completion Date: May 2014
  • Response Date: March 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Partially Implemented

While Riverside provided some examples of applications by law enforcement, the link to casino impacts could still be improved. For example, one of the applications provided to us justified its request by noting increased traffic near the casino. However, the application also noted an increase in population in the city but attributed all of the cost of increased traffic to the casino. Further, the application provided an unsupported estimate of the cost of funding one traffic officer for one year at $250,000.


Agency Response*

In response to recommendation #3, the Community Benefit Committee conducted a comprehensive review of the FY 13/14 grant applications to ensure sufficient documentation was received from applicants and the proportionate share of costs were attributable to casino impacts. Applications for the current cycle were received from law enforcement / public safety agencies and the Transportation Department. This group is typically very thorough and meticulous in preparing their applications and the Committee observed that this application cycle was no exception.

  • Response Type†: 6-Month
  • Completion Date: June 2014
  • Response Date: December 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending

Although Riverside indicates that it conducted a comprehensive review to ensure sufficient documentation was received from applicants and the proportionate share of costs were attributable to casino impacts, it has not provided documentation to support its claim of full implementation.

  • Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Agency Response*

Grant applications are currently under review. Applications lacking sufficient documentation to demonstrate the proposed projects mitigate casino impacts will be requested / required before the applications receive further consideration.

  • Response Type†: 60-Day
  • Estimated Completion Date: 5/28/2014
  • Response Date: May 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Pending


All Recommendations in 2013-036

†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