Economic Development & Tourism

NEW!!!!! 2019- The Legislative Auditor has done an audit, of the TRT (transient room tax) money, of several counties – Davis, Garfield, Grand, Salt Lake, Wasatch, Washington, Wayne, and Weber. At the MAY 1, 2019 County Council Meeting, the County Manager will present a report to the council and public on these TRT monies.

TRT Revenue Growth for 29 Counties from Fiscal Year 2013 to 2017 is in the FULL audit. These numbers differ slightly from those in the bulk of the report because the Tax Commission operates on fiscal years, while counties operate on calendar years. Here is the increase in TRT $$$ for Wasatch alone:

County 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

Wasatch 1,270,597 1,401,805 1,423,479 1,548,326 1,864,285 7,508,491

TRT Revenue Percentage Growth Year-to-Year from Fiscal Year 2013 to 2017. (Each year’s percentage growth is calculated using the previous year as a baseline. The 2013 baseline is not shown as the percentage change between the first two years is represented in 2014.)

County 2014 2015 2016 2017 5-year growth

Wasatch 10% 2% 9% 20% 47%

KSL Article Gehrke- Salt Lake Trib Article

(From the audit) Usage Is Restricted – Counties can charge a tax of up to 4.25 percent on hotel or other accommodation stays. These taxes are charged by the hotels and then remitted to the Utah State Tax Commission. The Tax Commission then distributes these funds to the counties.

Utah Code Allows TRT Funds to Be Used for Four General Tourism-Related Purposes. These purposes will be discussed in more detail further in the report.

Establishing and promoting recreation, tourism, film production, and conventions Promotion
Acquiring or operating convention rooms, visitor information centers, museums, or sports and recreation facilities Acquiring and Operating
Acquiring or making payments for land or infrastructure improvements for use 2 Payments
Mitigation of tourism impacts for solid waste disposal, emergency medical services, search and rescue, law enforcement, and road repair for class B through D roads. This use is only allowed for 4th through 6th class counties Mitigation

In 2017 the Eight Sampled Counties Spent More Money Advertising Out-of-State Than in Utah. Staffing and operations includes counties’ tourism staff costs, buildings, visitor center costs, and some travel. The percentages in this figure are estimates based on the best data we could gather.
County Total Promotional Spending* In-State Out-of State Staff&Operations
Davis $1,076,000 29 % 38 % 33 %
Garfield 1,269,200 13 66 21
Grand 2,801,200 15 72 13
Salt Lake 10,031,900 0** 40 60
Wasatch 692,000 10 30 60
Washington 3,392,200 7 70 23
Wayne 321,000 10 51 39
Weber 880,000 3 39 58

(Source: Auditor Analysis of County Data
* The numbers in Figure 3.1 do not match those listed in Figure 2.2 because this figure shows only the promotion total and does not include any project spending.
** Salt Lake County reports that, because they try to advertise only to larger markets, their promotion dollars are all targeted outside the state)

Few Counties Submit Tourism Revenue Reports
In 2016, 16 of the 29 Utah counties submitted reports to the Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) through the Utah Office of Tourism (UOT). 19 By the inception of the audit in July 2018, UOT had received 2017 reports from just 3 of the 29 counties.

Compliance rates were higher in 2016 than 2017. These numbers reflect tourism revenue reports received before the audit’s inception in July 2018.
County 2016 2017
Davis Yes No*
Garfield No No
Grand Yes No
Salt Lake No No
Wasatch Yes No
Washington Yes No*
Wayne Yes No
Weber Yes No*
Count 6/8 0/8

****MORE recent WASATCH CO. AUDITS——–

2019- Auditor- Internal Control Report Card

2018 Auditor report of Wasatch Co Internal controls 10-2018

Wasatch County Council Response- 2018 Audit Wasatch Co RESPONSE

RECOMMENDATIONS– 1. INADEQUATE SEPARATION OF DUTIES OVER CASH ACCOUNTS

By definition, all treasurers have access to entity bank accounts and cash receipts. Likewise,
accountants have access to financial records and systems. This inherent access to cash and record
keeping creates a risk of undetected theft or unauthorized disbursements. To manage the risk
associated with these key financial duties, the treasurer must perform certain tasks to check the
accountant’s control over record keeping and the accountant must perform certain tasks to check
the treasurer’s access to cash receipts and bank accounts.
In Utah, county treasurers collect property taxes for all local government entities within each
county. The property tax collection account (Treasurer’s Trust Account) is especially risky since
most property tax software does not integrate with the accounting system for the rest of the
county accounts. This lack of integration can create a scenario where the county treasurer
performs all of the accounting and treasurer duties for the Treasurer’s Trust Account.
Recommendation:
We recommend the County separate the duties of record keeping and reconciliation of both
the property tax collection account (Treasurer’s Trust Account) and the county operating
accounts. This should be accomplished by having a person outside of the treasurer’s office
directly receive the bank statements from the bank and perform the bank reconciliation of
the Treasurer’s Trust Account. Also, someone in the Treasurer’s office should directly
receive the bank statements from the bank and reconcile all county operating accounts

2. INADEQUATE GENERAL INTERNAL CONTROLS were cited by the auditor.

a. (Question 16) The County does not appear to provide management with monthly financial
reports comparing current year-to-date spending to the budget.
Recommendation:
We recommend the County provide management with monthly financial reports that
compare current year-to-date spending to the budget.
b. (Question 17) The County does not appear to prepare a monthly bank reconciliation of all
bank accounts.
Recommendation:
We recommend the County perform a monthly reconciliation of all bank accounts.
c. (Question 21) The County does not appear to perform detailed tracking of awarded cash and
gift cards, including award type (cash vs. gift card, noting retailer), recipient names, and
dates and amounts awarded.
Recommendation:
We recommend the County provide a detailed tracking awarded cash and gift cards,
including award type (cash vs. gift card, noting retailer), recipient names, and dates
and amounts awarded.
d. (Question 24) The County does not appear to have procedures in place to ensure that a nonsubordinate of the credit or purchase card holder reconciles original receipts to original
statements to ensure all transactions are appropriate, authorized, and supported by
documentation.
Recommendation:
We recommend the County implement procedures to ensure that a non-subordinate of the credit or purchase card holder reconciles original receipts to original statements to ensure all transactions are appropriate, authorized, and supported by documentation.
e. (Question 25) The County does not appear to have a process in place to ensure officers and
employees disclose conflicts of interest in accordance with Utah Code 17-16a.
Recommendation:
We recommend the County implement a policy that ensures officers or employees
disclose conflicts of interest in accordance with Utah Code 17-16a.

______________________________________

See what the future looks like! ONE WASATCH Ski link presentation- ONE Wasatch

See the NEW MOUNTAIN ACCORD redevelopment plan for the Wasatch Back here. Wasatch and Summit County entities are collaborating to ensure a vision in economic, transportation, and enviromental issues on the Wasatch Back.

Watch videos here! Wasatch Taxpayers YouTube page

_________________________________________

2012- Econ Dev. Annual Report

Wasatch County Economic & Tourism Board Budget 2010-2012

Wasatch_County_Council-December5th2012-Mtg-Notes-AWardell

Wasatch_County_Council-December5th2012-Mtg-Agenda

Wasatch County Transient Room Outlets (active accounts only)

Wasatch County General Fund – Requested Budget Nov 21 2012