Report 2010-036 Recommendation 17 Responses

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

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

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