Report 2010-036 Recommendation 5 Responses

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

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.

Agency Response*

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.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement


Agency Response*

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.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Response Date: October 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement


Agency Response*

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.

  • Response Type†: Annual Follow Up
  • Response Date: October 2013

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement


Agency Response*

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.

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

California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement


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