Report 2010-036 Recommendations and Responses in 2014-041

Report 2010-036: Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund: Local Governments Continue to Have Difficulty Justifying Distribution Fund Grants

Department Number of Years Reported As Not Fully Implemented Total Recommendations to Department Not Implemented After One Year Not Implemented as of 2013-041 Response Not Implemented as of Most Recent Response
Amador County 2 5 3 2 0
Humboldt County 2 3 3 2 1
Riverside County 2 4 4 1 1
San Diego County 2 3 1 1 1
Santa Barbara County 2 6 6 3 1
Shasta County 2 5 5 3 2

Recommendation To: Santa Barbara, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should ensure that benefit committees' conflict-of-interest codes comply with the political reform act by reviewing the act and their codes, and changing the codes as necessary to meet the act's requirements.

Response

The conflict-of-interest codes are aligned with the political reform act and addressed in the Committee Bylaws. These were approved in December 2013. Bylaws are reviewed for compliance every two years.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: December 2013
  • Response Date: November 2014

Recommendation To: Humboldt, County of

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.

Response

The County of Humboldt is conducting additional review to insure that the grant applications quantify the impact of the casino and that the funds requested are proportional to the impacts. To this end, County staff is working in conjunction with the benefit committee to ensure a more rigorous review of the applications.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: July 2012
  • Response Date: October 2014

Recommendation To: Humboldt, 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.

Response

Due to staffing limitations the Auditor's Office is unable to implement.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement
  • Response Date: October 2014

Recommendation 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.

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.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement
  • Response Date: October 2014

Recommendation To: Santa Barbara, County of

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should require benefit committee filing officers to avail themselves of the free training provided by the FPPC so that the filing officers are aware of and meet their responsibilities under the political reform act. Counties should also adhere to FPPC guidelines for notifying filers of the need to submit statements of economic interests.

Response

Per last year's response, Financial Disclosure and conflict of interest laws were reviewed and current processes in place for reporting by county employees, elected officials and Brown Act committees were placed into practice by the Indian Gaming Community Benefit Committee.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: January 2012
  • Response Date: October 2014

Recommendation To: Shasta County

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.

Response

Shasta County's Auditor-Controller will make himself available to review grant applications that the Shasta County Indian Gaming Local Community Benefit Committee may feel need to be reviewed to determine that the grant funds requested will be proportional to the casino's impact.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: June 2015
  • Response Date: October 2014

Recommendation 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.

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.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: January 2012
  • Response Date: October 2014

Recommendation To: Shasta County

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should ensure that benefit committees' conflict-of-interest codes comply with the political reform act by reviewing the act and their codes, and changing the codes as necessary to meet the act's requirements.

Response

Shasta County is currently in the process of reviewing and updating the LCBC Bylaws to include a requirement that LCBC members comply with the political reform act.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: June 2015
  • Response Date: October 2014

Recommendation To: Amador County

To help ensure that they meet the grant requirements established in the Government Code, counties should require benefit committee filing officers to avail themselves of the free training provided by the FPPC so that the filing officers are aware of and meet their responsibilities under the political reform act. Counties should also adhere to FPPC guidelines for notifying filers of the need to submit statements of economic interests.

Response

All Committee members are encouraged to utilize the free training. The free training was discussed in the meeting, and a memo was sent to each member detailing the training. The minutes and memo are being sent a supporting documentation. The LBC will continue to abide by all State requirements for training required by the FPPC.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: April 2014
  • Response Date: October 2014

Recommendation To: Amador County

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.

Response

The County Auditor has reviewed and certified all applications that were approved.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: March 2012
  • Response Date: January 2014

Recommendation To: Riverside, 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.

Response

The amount the County Auditor Controller would require to conduct a rigorous analysis of each of the casinos' impacts and the proportion of funding for each project provided through the grants would far exceed the $49,441 Riverside County receives in administrative funding. For this reason, as well as the fact that Riverside County continues to struggle to provide required services in the face of AB 109 (State prison over-crowding realignment), the demise of Redevelopment and other shifts of cost to County governments, Riverside County is financially challenged to implement this recommendation of the State Auditor.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Not Fully Implemented
  • Completion Date: undetermined
  • Response Date: January 2014

Recommendation To: San Diego, 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.

Response

The County has taken this recommendation under advisement. Although the County will not be implementing this recommendation, the San Diego County Auditor conducted a review of the SD IGLCBC grant procedures on February 14, 2011, validated the SD IGLCBC's methods used to quantify impacts, and will continue to periodically review SD IGLCBC procedures going forward.

  • California State Auditor's Assessment of Status: Will Not Implement
  • Response Date: October 2013

Current Status of Recommendations

All Recommendations in 2014-041