Report 2010-036 Recommendation 14 Responses

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

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.

Agency Response*

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.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Completion Date: January 2012
  • Response Date: October 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented


Agency Response*

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.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Completion Date: January 2011
  • Response Date: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of 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

Agency Response*

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.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Response Date: December 2012

California State Auditor's Assessment of 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

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