Amador County – A State audit of Indian Gaming Special Distribution Funds released Tuesday pointed out problems in Amador County’s methods.

State Auditor Elaine M. Howle’s office reviewed tribal gaming grants received in fiscal year 2008-2009, and recommended Amador County make changes in how its benefit committees take action, and how the actions are recorded. The report said Amador County agencies had received 10 grants totaling $616,000 from the Jackson Rancheria Casino as of 2009.

The audit noted a California Gambling Control Commission reported that Indian tribes operated almost 65,000 slot machines in June 2010, and the National Indian Gaming Commission said “revenues from Indian gaming in California and Northern Nevada grew from $2.9 billion in 2001 to $7 billion in 2009.

The gaming special distribution fund allows disbursement of funds by tribes that have slot machines that predate state compact laws. Funds are placed into a county tribal account. The report showed Amador County has between 1,000 and 2,000 slot machines, and received up to $1 million in the county tribal casino account.

The report said Amador County Counsel Martha Shaver explained that Amador County’s grant award process differs from other counties “in that the applications are submitted directly to the chief executive officer of the local casino but are then reviewed by the benefit committee for selection prior to receiving tribal sponsorship.” That was unlike other counties, where tribal sponsorship seemed to determine grant awards. The audit said the “grant application also describes this process,” but “the county did not provide any meeting minutes or written procedures demonstrating how the applications were reviewed and processed.”

A “nexus set-aside” discrepancy was also noted, where $65,000 was set aside for Sutter Creek, “but the city was awarded only $31,000.” The audit said “Amador County set-asides were not documented.”

Amador was one of two counties where the benefit committees did not have “conflict of interest codes that meet the requirements of the Political Reform Act.”

The audit noted that the “benefit committee in Amador County provided a document with a conflict of interest code that meets the requirements of the Political Reform Act.” The County Clerk’s office reported the change “was on the benefit committee’s agenda for a meeting held less than a month before the 2009 filing deadline for statements of economic interests but there is no record that the code received approval.” Committee member filings were made, but two were late.

Howle’s report included a Jan. 19 letter from Amador County Administrative Officer Chuck Iley, who said the county “found the information provided to be useful and will use it in subsequent rounds of funding.”

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.