Report 2013-036 All Recommendation 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 #1 To: Butte, 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.

60-Day Agency Response

Our grant process was expanded to include a Technical Advisory Meeting with applicants to discuss the specifics of each application, and the required documentation. In addition, after each application was reviewed, a letter was sent to the applicant requesting the necessary data to substantiate the grant requests. This process was adopted by the IGLCBC as the standard approach.

Completion Date: April 2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

Recommendation #2 To: Lake County

6-Month Agency Response

Training was provided to Committee members and applicable agencies regarding the audit findings and necessary documentation to demonstrate the necessary nexus and a proportionate share of the impact. Committee/Administrative Office Staff worked with agencies during the application process to insure applications demonstrated a proportionate share. In fact, applications for funding from the Public Services Department were not accepted due to not being able to demonstrate a proportionate share of impacts.

While this was listed as "fully implemented" the same process will need to be followed each year (if the SDF program continues).

Completion Date: May 2014
Response Date: December 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Lake County provided documentation that it is ensuring that grant applicants demonstrate that requested project funds represent a proportionate share of costs attributable to casino impacts.

60-Day Agency Response

Staff have organized and held a training session for all committee members to review and discuss the audit report's findings and recommendations. This meeting was held on January 31, 2014 and also included the direction provided to staff in crafting an appropriate response to the audit. The Committee will begin reviewing applications for funding on May 15, 2014. On this date staff will again review the audit recommendations and provide an overview of the need for a demonstrated proportionate share of costs. Staff will continue to provide appropriate guidance to Committee members on reviewing and ensuring appropriate documentation is provided to demonstrate proposed projects are funded based on a correct proportionate share.

Estimated Completion Date: Ongoing
Response Date: May 2014

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

Recommendation #3 To: Riverside, County of

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.

Completion Date: May 2015

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.

Completion Date: May 2014

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.

Completion Date: May 2015

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.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

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.

Completion Date: May 2014
Response Date: March 2015

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.

Completion Date: June 2014
Response Date: December 2014

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.

Auditee did not substantiate 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.

Estimated Completion Date: 5/28/2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

Recommendation #4 To: San Diego, County of

6-Month Agency Response

The California State Auditor has marked this audit finding as Pending. The San Diego IGLCBC is of the opinion that this finding is implemented. The County has implemented a protocol in the 2013-2014 grant cycle that includes County Counsel and committee staff reviews grant applications, and makes recommendations to the San Diego IGLCBC for applications that need additional information. Attached is a training notice, announcing meetings that were held on February 7th and 14th this year for potential applicants to review statutory requirements for nexus to gaming facility impacts, and requesting documents clearly show proportional impacts. Once applications were submitted, the San Diego IGLCBC had the opportunity to review and ask questions following a review by committee staff and County Counsel. This is shown by the attached agenda and meeting minutes from the April 9, 2014 meeting of the IGLCBC. This review resulted in significant changes to applications, shown in the meeting materials attached for the subsequent meeting, an additional meeting held on April 24, 2014, prior to the committee recommending any grants for approval. The IGLCBC will continue to consider this implemented due to procedures and practices that contain review and public discussion for committee recommendations.

Estimated Completion Date: February 6, 2015
Response Date: September 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Although San Diego County's benefit committee marked this status as "Not Fully Implemented," its response states that it believes the recommendation has been fully implemented, and the documentation it provided confirms that assessment. Therefore, we assessed the recommendation as fully implemented.

60-Day Agency Response

The audit report includes a discussion of the three grants reviewed by the Bureau of State Audits. The audit report highlights that the grant applications included demonstrate the grant will mitigate casino impacts, but finds inadequate demonstration of the proportional share of the costs attributable to casino impacts. The IGLCBC has increased the amount of documentation requested from grant applications over the past three grant cycles, and will continue to require documentation that demonstrates proportional share of the costs attributable to casino impacts. A change in state law, signed in September 2012 and effective January 1, 2013, amended Government Code section 12715(b)(1)(a), requiring Each grant application shall clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact of the casino on the grant applicant, was enacted partway through the audit period and provided additional guidance. The IGLCBC will continue to request additional information and include a process to have applicants document the grants to meet this requirement. As was explained to the Bureau of Audits, IGLCBC staff provides training for grant applicants, a review of applications before they are shared with the IGLCBC by IGLCBC Staff and Counsel, an oral presentation process for applicants, and for the past three grant cycles, including the 2013-2014 cycle that is underway the IGLCBC has also asked for additional information to supplement the record as the IGLCBC reviews and makes final grant determinations. The IGLCBC will continue to consider this under advisement and will review applications for consistency with the law and documentation of how they mitigate proportional impacts from gaming facilities.

Completion Date: March 2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

San Diego did not provide documentation to substantiate implementation of this recommendation.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #5 To: Butte, County of

To comply with state law requiring it to reserve specific amounts of mitigation grant funds for local government jurisdictions based on the nexus criteria, Butte Countys benefit committee should correct its determinations of nexus eligibility for the city of Oroville and Butte County by April 1, 2014.

60-Day Agency Response

At its March 6, 2014 meeting, the IGLCBC reviewed its nexus findings and concurred with the State Auditors report. The City of Oroville and County of Butte applicants were advised to apply as nexus 3 for grants from the Berry Creek account.

Completion Date: March 2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

Recommendation #6 To: Butte, County of

To comply with state law requiring it to reserve specific amounts of mitigation grant funds for local government jurisdictions based on the nexus criteria, Butte Countys benefit committee should ensure that it awards the minimum funding to each local government jurisdiction consistent with its corrected nexus determinations.

6-Month Agency Response

At its 6/11/14 meeting, the LCBC awarded grants and awarded the minimum funding to each local government jurisdiction selected for grants consistent with the correct nexus determinations.

Completion Date: June 2014
Response Date: August 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Butte County provided documentation that its process for awarding funds in 2014 was based on correct nexus determinations.

60-Day Agency Response

As of this report, the LCBC has not awarded grants for the current cycle.

The recommendation to reserve specific amounts of mitigation grant funds for local government jurisdictions based on nexus criteria has been addressed and the committee has discussed its understanding of the requirement.

It is anticipated that on the 6/11/14 meeting all grants will be awarded and this recommendation completed.

Estimated Completion Date: 6/11/14
Response Date: May 2014

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

Butte County has not yet provided documentation to support its implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation #7 To: Butte, County of

To ensure that grant recipients comply with state law concerning interest earned on mitigation grant funds, by June 2014, the Butte County benefit committee should establish policies and procedures to verify that grant recipients have placed grant awards in interest-bearing accounts, and that the interest is spent only on activities that mitigate the effect of tribal gaming on local jurisdictions.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

On April 13, 2014 the IGLCBC adopted by-laws that added the requirement to place grant funds in interest-bearing accounts and use interest earned on mitigating casino impacts. On September 16, 2015, the IGLCBC added the requirement to report on the use of interest earnings to show interest being spent only on activities that mitigate the effect of tribal gaming on local jurisdictions.

Completion Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Currently Feasible

Although Butte County's benefit committee has established requirements for the grantees to report interest earned as part of grantees' annual reports, it has not established policies and procedures for its staff to verify that grant recipients comply with those requirements. It is important to acknowledge that the Legislature has not appropriated any funding for mitigation grants since fiscal year 2013-14.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2017

Completion Date: September 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

Although Butte County's benefit committee has established requirements for the grantees to report interest earned as part of grantees' annual reports, it has not established policies and procedures for its staff to establish that grant recipients comply with those requirements. It is important to acknowledge that the Legislature has not appropriated any funding for mitigation grants since fiscal year 2013-14.

Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

Completion Date: September 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented

Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

On April 13, 2014 the IGLCBC adopted by-laws that added the requirement to place grant funds in interest-bearing accounts and use interest earned on mitigating casino impacts. Additionally, the requirement to report on interest earnings was added to the annual report, which was accepted by the IGLCBC on September 16, 2015.

Completion Date: September 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

Butte County provided documentation showing that the county adopted a requirement that recipients of mitigation grant funds deposit the funds in interest bearing accounts and self-report interest earned. However, Butte's process does not include procedures to verify that grantees have deposited the funds in interest bearing accounts.

Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

1-Year Agency Response

In order to comply with state law concerning interest earned on mitigation grant funds, the Butte County Indian Gaming Local Community Benefits Committee (BCIGLCBC) added a requirement to the grant funds application which states: "A local government jurisdiction that receives a grant from an Individual Tribal Casino Account shall deposit all funds received in an interest-bearing account and use the interest from those funds only for the purpose of mitigating an impact from a casino. If any portions of the funds in the account are used for any other purpose, the remaining portion shall revert to the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund."

In addition, the BCIGLCBC amended its bylaws, Article V, Section 1, adding letter h. as follows: "Require grant recipients to place funds in interest bearing accounts and use interest earned on mitigating casino impacts."

Finally, to verify grant recipients proper use of interest earnings, Butte County IGLCBC staff worked with CSAC to update the "Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund Annual Report" to include a column titled "Interest earned on grant funds through end of FY xx". In the worksheet, this amount rolls into the total funds and expenditures.

This process requires the BCIGLCBC to award grants only to those who acknowledge and agree to the interest earning provisions, and requires grant recipients to report on interest earnings and how they were used.

This recommendation is considered fully implemented at this point. The Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund program has been discontinued due to lack of funding, therefore it is not reasonable to expend additional public resources to set up processes to monitor a non-existing program.

Completion Date: April 2014
Response Date: February 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

Butte County provided documents showing that it now requires recipients of Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund moneys to deposit the funds in interest bearing accounts. However, it's process only requires grantees to self-report interest earned. As a result, Butte's process does not verify that grantees have in fact deposited the funds in interest bearing accounts.

6-Month Agency Response

The Butte County Benefits Committee Application Procedures include the following statement:

22. A local government jurisdiction that receives a grant from an Individual Tribal Casino Account shall deposit all funds received in an interest-bearing account and use the interest from those funds only for the purpose of mitigating an impact from a casino. If any portions of the funds in the account are used for any other purpose, the remaining portion shall revert to the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund.

At its April 3, 2014 meeting, the BCIGLCBC updated its bylaws, Article V, Section 1, adding letter h. as follows: "Require grant recipients to place funds in interest bearing accounts and use interest earned on mitigating casino impacts."

To verify grant recipients proper use of interest earnings, Butte County IGLCBC staff worked with CSAC to update the "Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund Annual Report" to include a column titled "Interest earned on grant funds through end of FY xx". In the worksheet, this amount rolls into the total funds and expenditures.

Completion Date: April 2014
Response Date: January 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Although its response indicates that it worked to update the annual report to include a column about interest earned on grant funds, Butte County did not provide documentation that it has established policies and procedures to verify that grant recipients are complying with state law regarding interest earned on mitigation grant funds.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

60-Day Agency Response

At its April 3, 2014 meeting, the IGLCBC adopted updated by-laws that added the requirement to place grant funds in interest-bearing accounts and use interest earned on mitigating casino impacts. In addition, the annual report will add the requirement to report on the use of interest earned.

Completion Date: April 2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

Butte County has not yet provided the documentation referenced in its response.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #8 To: Lake County

To ensure that grant recipients comply with state law concerning interest earned on mitigation grant funds, by June 2014, the Lake County benefit committee should establish policies and procedures to verify that grant recipients have placed grant awards in interest-bearing accounts, and that the interest is spent only on activities that mitigate the effect of tribal gaming on local jurisdictions.

1-Year Agency Response

During the SDF Committee meeting held on March 10, 2015, the committee adopted the amendment to "Statement of Assurances, Certifications and Hold Harmless" to address procedure to verify that grant recipients put funds in an interest-bearing account and that interest earned on unspent funds are spent on the approved. Per Richard Powers request, I am sending unapproved committee minutes from said meeting. We have not held a meeting to "approve"

Completion Date: March 2015
Response Date: August 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

6-Month Agency Response

Training was provided to Committee members and applicable agencies regarding the audit findings related to interest earned on mitigation funds. Additional information was added to the application guidelines and application forms requiring this information. This year in preparation of the annual report, agencies not supplying adequate information were contacted until the information was provided. The County identified interest accrued on previous years grants and the annual report was updated to include this information and accurately reflect the total funds to be appropriated for applicable projects.

While this was listed as "fully implemented" the same process will need to be followed each year that money remains unspent on projects.

Completion Date: October 2014
Response Date: December 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Lake County did not provide documentation that it has established policies and procedures to verify that grant recipients are complying with state law regarding interest earned on mitigation grant funds.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

60-Day Agency Response

Staff have revised the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) that is sent to applicants and notifies each agency that upon approval of funding by the committee they will be required to submit verification that an interest bearing account exists in which they will deposit Indian gaming funds. Additionally, as part of the submital process for the annual report, staff will require verification that the funds were deposited into said interest bearing account and to provide verification of the amount of interest accrued on any grants. The committee will verify that grants and any subsequent interest will be spent to mitigate the effect of Indian gaming through the annual report process.

Estimated Completion Date: On-going
Response Date: May 2014

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

Recommendation #9 To: San Diego, County of

If San Diego County's benefit committee believes that its processes for distributing grant funds are vital to its effective management of distribution fund grants, it should seek legislative authority to change its process. Otherwise, San Diego County's benefit committee should instruct the Controller to release funds directly to the grant recipients.

60-Day Agency Response

The IGLCBC had a process in place since its establishment that required agreements to be entered into between the IGLCBC and the entities that were awarded grants, and appreciates the draft audit reports conclusion that the practice shows some benefits. The IGLCBC has required these direct agreements to meet the requirements Government Code Section 12715(c), (d), (e), and (h), which provide that the IGLCBC will administer the various grants and that the grants shall terminate if a local jurisdiction uses a grant for an unrelated purpose. Section 12716 also requires the IGLCBC staff to submit reports on the Committees grant activities. For this reason, the IGLCBC grant program was structured to fund grants through these agreements that it could directly enforce against local jurisdiction recipients if necessary.

On January 23, 2014, the California State Controller notified the County of San Diego Grant Administrator that the Controllers office will no longer be making the entire distribution to the County of San Diego, therefore distributions will be made to directly to individual cities or special districts awarded grant funds. For the upcoming grant year, and with this additional guidance, the County will be requesting that grant agreements for all recipients be in place in advance of the IGLCBCs request to the Controller for distribution of grant funds not awarded to the County. The IGLCBC will still require statements and that interest payments be returned to the Committee for distribution for additional grants. At the April 9, 2014 meeting of the IGLCBC, the Committee made a motion to support a legislative amendment fix to the relevant sections of the Government Code to allow the IGLCBC to continue its previously-existing practice. Until such time that an amendment is passed, however, the IGLCBC will request that the Controllers office issue checks directly to non-County grant recipients.

Completion Date: March 2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

Recommendation #10 To: San Diego, County of

If San Diego County's benefit committee believes that its processes for distributing grant funds are vital to its effective management of distribution fund grants, it should seek legislative authority to change its process. Otherwise, San Diego County's benefit committee should refrain from placing limits on the time available for grant recipients to spend the grant funds.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018

County of San Diego has incorporated revisions to the by-laws of the IGLCBC to reflect that the inclusion of a timeframe in the grant agreement is an administrative procedure for tracking purposes, based upon the time applicants request in initial applications. To continue having accounting controls on these grants, agreements will still include reporting time limits, but the revisions will allow Committee Staff to grant extensions requested by applicants. These by-laws were adopted by the IGLCBC on February 11, 2015 and the revisions were submitted on March 6, 2015. Therefore, the IGLCBC has implemented the State Auditor's recommendation by removing limits on the time available for grant recipients to spend the grant funds.

Completion Date: January 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

As we indicate in our report, state law does not expressly give the benefit committee the authority to place time limits on the spending of grant funds because funds are supposed to be sent directly from the State to the grantee. Because San Diego's policy is to still set time limits, we assessed this recommendation as no action taken. However, it is also important to acknowledge that the Legislature has not appropriated any funding for mitigation grants since fiscal year 2013-14.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

The County of San Diego has fully implemented an alternative solution as described in our previous response that we believe addresses the concern raised in the audit report and related recommendation. As such, the recommendation as issued in the report will not be implemented.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

1-Year Agency Response

County of San Diego has incorporated revisions to the by-laws of the IGLCBC to reflect that the inclusion of a timeframe in the grant agreement is an administrative procedure for tracking purposes, based upon the time grant applicants request in initial applications. To continue having accounting controls on these grants, agreements will still include time limits, but the revisions will allow Committee Staff to grant extensions requested by applicants. The San Diego IGLCBC still believes this is a narrow interpretation of the statue, and may consider recommendations to modify State Law in the future. These by-laws were adopted by the IGLCBC on February 11, 2015 and the revisions are attached in strikeout and underline format.

Completion Date: February 2015
Response Date: March 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

As we indicate in our report, state law does not expressly give the benefit

committee the authority to place time limits on the expenditure of grant funds as funds are supposed to be sent directly from the State to the grantee. Because San Diego's policy is to still set time limits, we assessed this recommendation as no action taken.

6-Month Agency Response

This Audit Finding is listed that no action has been taken. We believe the auditor has given an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the statute. However, our practice has been to incorporate the grant agreement term the period of time requested by the grantee in the original application. This was not intended to require an unreasonable time limit for grant recipients, but merely an institutional control on the performance under the grant agreement. As indicated in the attached meeting minutes from April 9, 2014, the IGLCBC has a process established to extend agreements for grantees that have remaining funds, and will incorporate this process into future grant agreements. The IGLCBC will consider revisions to the bylaws prior to the one year response period for this audit, in response to the findings and to clarify this process. Those revisions will be provided to the California State Auditor when they are completed.

Estimated Completion Date: February 6, 2015
Response Date: September 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

San Diego indicates it will consider revisions to the bylaws before the one year response and will provide those revisions when completed. Until we are able to assess any revisions provided we assess this as pending.

60-Day Agency Response

Additionally, the draft audit report finds that the IGLCBC should not place time limits on the time available for the grant funds. The County believes this is a narrow interpretation of the statute. The Countys practice has been to incorporate as the grant agreement term the period of time requested by the grantee in its application. This practice was not intended to require an unreasonable time limit for grant recipients, but is merely an institutional control on the performance under the grant agreement. However, the IGLCBC can revise the term section in the grant agreements to specify that the term of the agreement may be extended upon request.

Estimated Completion Date: FY 2014-2015
Response Date: May 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

San Diego states that it can revise its grant agreements to specify that the term of the grant agreement may be extended upon request. However, San Diego has not indicated that it has made this change and does not indicate that the recommendation is fully implemented.

Recommendation #11 To: Controller's Office, State

Unless the Legislature amends current state law, the Controller should implement its plan to modify its distribution process beginning with fiscal year 2013-14 grant awards to ensure that it only releases funds directly to approved grant recipients.

60-Day Agency Response

In February 2014 the State Controllers Office (SCO) revised the distribution processes and revised the Authorization Form to Release Funds from the County Tribal Casino Account to ensure that the local Indian Gaming Local Benefit Committees provide the information for each local government entity for which a grant has been approved so that funds are released directly to the approved grant recipients. The revised Authorization From to Release Funds from the County Tribal Casino Account form includes Government Code 12715(k)(1), funds will be sent directly to the local government entity for which a grant has been approved by the committee. SCO notified San Diego County, in writing, on January 23, 2014 that we will deny and no longer process release of funds forms that direct payment to the county unless the county is the specific grant recipient.

Completion Date: February 2014
Response Date: April 2014

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

Recommendation #12 To: Butte, County of

To comply with the reform act, Butte County's benefit committee should adopt a conflict code and appoint a filing officer by June 2014.

6-Month Agency Response

The Conflict of Interest Code was brought to the LCBC on April 3, 2104, with an anticipated completion date of June 11, 2014. A 45-day comment period is required, and due to the modifications that were made after the April presentation to the LCBC, the final COI was not able to be adopted by the committee on the anticipated June date. The COI code adoption will be on the LCBC September 17, 2014 meeting. The COI code includes the appointment of a filing officer.

Estimated Completion Date: 9/17/14
Response Date: August 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Butte provided documentation that its benefit committee adopted a conflict code and appointed a filing officer in September 2014.

60-Day Agency Response

At its April 3, 2014 meeting, the IGLCBC adopted updated by-laws that added the requirement for the committee to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code (COIC) as required by law. The Committee directed staff to develop the COIC and take the administrative steps necessary for adoption. The COIC is currently under development and legal review. Upon the completion of development and legal review, the COIC will be posted for the required 45 day comment period. It is anticipated that the IGLCBC will adopt the COIC at its June 11, 2014 meeting

Estimated Completion Date: 6/11/14
Response Date: May 2014

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

Recommendation #13 To: San Diego, County of

To comply with the reform act, the benefit committee for San Diego County should review staff responsibilities to ensure that its conflict code requires all individuals participating in or making governmental decisions to disclose reportable interests.

1-Year Agency Response

IGLCBC has re-adopted the conflict of interest code as a formal part of the bylaws on February 11, 2015 to include specific references to members, alternates, and including staff. Committee Staff and members will complete 2015 Form 700s by the April 2015 deadline. A protocol is now in place for updates to the membership roster to coordinate with the County of San Diego's Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

Completion Date: February 2015
Response Date: March 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

6-Month Agency Response

This Audit Finding is listed as Pending. The IGLCBC requires all members and alternates of the IGLCBC complete form 700 documents, per the attached conflict of interest codes. The IGLCBC has had the practice of including staff related to the committee, and has included them on Committee Rosters, however the Committee will consider modifications to the conflict of interest codes to include staff responsibilities. The County of San Diego County of San Diego, through the Clerk of the Board, has a process to monitor FPPC training and filing Statements of Economic Interest for all members. This will be considered further prior to the one year final response for this audit, in response to the findings. Those revisions will be provided to the California State Auditor when they are completed.

Estimated Completion Date: February 6, 2015
Response Date: September 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The audit finding is directed at members of the IGLCBC who either did not file a Form 700 or did not file on time. The IGLCBC has a process in place that requires staff and the filing officers to attend required training and shares this training information with the IGLCBC members. The IGLCBC will formalize these procedures in its the bylaws. However even without the formal change, the IGLCBC members have all filled appropriately in 2014, and IGLCBC staff will follow up with the filing and training requirements in future years. IGLCBC staff has and will continue to file Form 700 documents, as required for involvement in the operations and preparation of materials for the IGLCBC. These records are availalble upon request.

Completion Date: April 2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

San Diego County's response indicates that the benefit committee will formalize the procedures in its bylaws. We have assessed the response as pending until the benefit committee updates its bylaws and provides documentation to substantiate its claim of full implementation.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #14 To: Riverside, County of

To comply with the reform act, the benefit committee for Riverside County should review staff responsibilities to ensure that its conflict code requires all individuals participating in or making governmental decisions to disclose reportable interests.

6-Month Agency Response

In response to recommendation #14 of State Auditor's report (2013-036), the Community Benefit Committee reviewed staff responsibilities to ensure that its Conflict Code required all individuals participating in or making governmental decisions to disclose reportable interests and determined the Code should be revised to include Counsel and staff.

On September 4, 2014, evidence was provided to the State Auditor of the Community Benefit Committee's adoption of the revised Conflict of Interest Code during their meeting of May 28, 2014. In addition, as the Code reviewing body, the item has been scheduled for consideration (of approval) by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on September 9, 2014.

Completion Date: June 2014
Response Date: December 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Riverside County's benefit committee County provided us with its updated Conflict of Interest code which confirms the revision noted in its response.

60-Day Agency Response

The conflict code has been updated to include benefit committee staff and counsel to the list of required filers. It will be presented for adoption by the benefit committee at their next meeting on May 28, 2014.

Estimated Completion Date: 05/28/2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

Recommendation #15 To: Butte, County of

To comply with the reform act, the benefit committee for Butte County once it adopts its conflict code, should review staff responsibilities to ensure that its conflict code requires all individuals participating in or making governmental decisions to disclose reportable interests.

6-Month Agency Response

Staff presented conflict of interest code to the IGLCBC on 9/17/14, which included a discussion of staff responsibilities on filing and monitoring. The presentation also included a memo that had been sent to Committee members, declaration & summary of proceedings and resolution. The Committee adopted the conflict of interest code and approved the process and staff responsibilities.

Completion Date: September 2014
Response Date: December 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

60-Day Agency Response

It is anticipated that when the conflict of interest code is adopted in June 2011, the committee will direct staff to develop policies to ensure that all individuals participating in or making governmental decisions disclose reportable interests.

Estimated Completion Date: 9/17/14
Response Date: May 2014

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

Recommendation #16 To: Lake County

To ensure that the benefit committee members and other designated individuals comply with reform act requirements for filing statements of economic interests, the Lake, Riverside, and San Diego benefit committees filing officers should attend FPPC training so that they are aware of and meet the responsibilities under the reform act. Each of these benefit committees should also establish a formal process for ensuring that all required individuals file statements of economic interests. For example, each benefit committees filing officer should notify designated individuals of their responsibility to submit statements of economic interests and follow up with those who fail to file.

6-Month Agency Response

The responsibilities for completing all tasks related to finding statements of economic interests were transferred from the Committee/Administrative Office to the County Clerk/Auditor/Controller that has responsibility for filing statements for all other County entities. This transfer eliminates the need for training for benefit committee members as the County Clerks staff is already trained on these responsibilities.

Completion Date: May 2014
Response Date: December 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Resolved

The Lake County benefit committee provided documentation demonstrating it designated the County Clerk as its filing officer.

Recommendation #17 To: Riverside, County of

6-Month Agency Response

In response to recommendation #17 of State Auditor's report (2013-036), I volunteered to assume the role of filing officer designee. On May 13, 2014, I contacted 'Alex' of the Fair Political Practices Commission to schedule training, in an effort to be aware of and meet the responsibilities under the reform act. Alex told me she would contact me when additional filing officers requested training, for efficiency, anticipated in approximately one month. I next contacted the Commission on June 16, 2014 and was told the training had not yet been scheduled. On September 3, 2014, training was scheduled for September 11, 2014, at 2:45 p.m. If you need to confirm this information, you can reach Alex at (916)322-6437. (Addendum: Due to technical issues suffered by the FPPC, their webinar was rescheduled and occurred on October 9, 2014.)

A formal process was established through a revision to Community Benefit Committee Policy A-2, which was submitted to the State Auditor on September 5, 2014. In accordance with this policy and procedure, notification and reminder email were sent to required filers. Copies of the email were also submitted to the Auditor on September 5, 2014.

Completion Date: November 2014
Response Date: December 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Based on documentation provided by Riverside we agree it has fully implemented this recommendation.

60-Day Agency Response

The method outlined in the benefit committee's policies was followed and the disclosure statement from every committee member, committee staff and counsel were received.

Completion Date: April 2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

Riverside did not provide documentation to substantiate its claim that it has fully implemented this recommendation. Additionally, its response does not address whether its filing officer attended FPPC training or whether the committee has established a formal process for ensuring that all required individuals file statements of economic interests.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Recommendation #18 To: San Diego, County of

1-Year Agency Response

The County of San Diego's Clerk of the Board of Supervisors has a process to track Form 700s for all Boards, Commissions and Committees, with the support of IGLCBC staff. This process uses an internal tracking system, hosted by the COB that gives access to committee staff to track and submit forms. Additionally, the revisions to the bylaws to adopt the interest code are responsive to this finding to include all members and staff.

Completion Date: February 2015
Response Date: March 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

6-Month Agency Response

This Audit Finding is listed as Pending. The IGLCBC requires all members and alternates of the IGLCBC complete form 700 documents, per the attached conflict of interest codes. The IGLCBC has had the practice of including staff related to the committee, and has included them on Committee Rosters, however the Committee can consider modifications to the conflict of interest codes to include staff responsibilities. The County of San Diego, through the Clerk of the Board, has a process to monitor FPPC training and filing Statements of Economic Interest. This will be considered further prior to the one year final response for this audit, in response to the findings. Those revisions will be provided to the California State Auditor when they are completed.

Estimated Completion Date: February 6, 2015
Response Date: September 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

Completion Date: April 2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation

Recommendation #19 To: Butte, County of

To ensure that the benefit committee members and other designated individuals comply with reform act requirements for filing statements of economic interests, after Butte County's benefit committee has appointed a filing officer, the filing officer should attend FPPC training and notify designated individuals of their responsibility to submit statements of economic interests and follow up with those who fail to file.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

On September 17, 2014, the Indian Gaming Local Community Benefits Committee adopted a Conflict of Interest Code, and appointed a Filing Officer. The Filing Officer has taken the FPPC training on February 10, 2016.

Completion Date: February 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2015

On September 17, 2014, the Indian Gaming Local Community Benefits Committee adopted a Conflict of Interest Code, and appointed a Filing Officer. The Filing Officer has contacted the FPPC to schedule training, and will do so the next time it is offered.

Completion Date: September 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented

As indicated in the response the filing officer has not yet attended the FPPC training. Also, Butte County has not provided documentation to demonstrate that the filing officer notified designated individuals of their responsibility to submit statements of economic interests and followed up with any individuals who failed to file.

Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

1-Year Agency Response

The BCIGLCBC adopted its conflict of interest code on 9/17/14, and named the filing officer. The filing officer is expected to attend FPPC training to understand their responsibilities and to notify designated individuals of their responsibility to submit Form 700 filings. The FPPC does not have regularly scheduled trainings, but does offer it periodically. Staff has registered with the FPPC, but as of this writing, the FPPC has not scheduled training. Upon notification from the FPPC, staff will attend the training.

Estimated Completion Date: July 2015
Response Date: February 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Butte County provided documentation that it has reached out to the FPPC to schedule a training but has not been able to attend yet.

6-Month Agency Response

The conflict of interest code is on the 9/17/14 LCBC meeting agenda and is expected to be adopted at that time. The code names the filing officer, who will attend FPPC training. Per the FPPC, training is offered after the start of a new calendar year "in preparation for the spring filing season." No actual dates for training has been set by the FPPC as of this writing, but will certainly be prior to March 31, 2015. The filing officer will notify designated filers of their responsibilities and to follow up with those who fail to file.

Estimated Completion Date: March 31, 2015
Response Date: September 2014

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

As noted in Butte's response, this recommendation is not yet fully implemented. The filing officer has not yet attended FPPC training, notified designated filers of their responsibilities, or followed up with those failing to file.

60-Day Agency Response

It is anticipated that in conjunction with the adoption of the conflict of interest code, the committee will appoint a filing officer and direct the filing officer to attend FPPC training and notify designated filers of their responsibilities and to follow up with those who fail to file.

Estimated Completion Date: June 11, 2014
Response Date: May 2014

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

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To improve compliance with state laws and provide technical assistance in administering the mitigation grant program, the Legislature should consider designating an agency, such as the gambling commission or Justice, to provide oversight and technical assistance to the benefit committees. The oversight entity could, at a minimum, ensure that local government jurisdictions receive the amount reserved for them in state law.

Description of Legislative Action

The Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

Legislative Action Current As-of: March 2019

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

Legislation has not been introduced to address this specific recommendation.

Legislative Action Current As-of: March 2018

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

Legislation has not been introduced to address this recommendation.

Legislative Action Current As-of: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

Legislation has not been introduced to address this recommendation.

Legislative Action Current As-of: March 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

Legislation has not been introduced to address this specific recommendation

Legislative Action Current As-of: February 2015

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

All Recommendations in 2013-036

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.