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.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

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.

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

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

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.

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

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015

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.

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

1-Year 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.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year 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.

6-Month 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.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month 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.

60-Day 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.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

All Recommendations in 2013-036

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.