HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-15 Finance Committee of Whole - minutesDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Monday, November 9, 2015 Council Chambers Minutes of Meeting Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. She stated that the purpose of this meeting is to hear presentations regarding requests for additional funding from Syntero (Dublin Counseling Center) and from the Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau. Council Members present: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Gerber, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Reiner and Mr. Peterson. Ms. Salay arrived later. Mayor Keenan was absent. Staff present: Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Mumma. Request for Increased Funding for 2016 – Syntero (Dublin Counseling Center) Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the City provides funding each year to Syntero. The agency is primarily funded through the Franklin County ADAMH levy and through third-party payments. The City participates in funding as well, as Syntero provides a significant service in Dublin to residents. Ms. Erwin-Rinaldi is requesting an increase in funding, and will present her request at this time. Ms. Erwin-Rinaldi, Executive Director thanked Council for this opportunity to present tonight, and for the support Syntero already receives from the City. They are requesting that Council consider an increase in funding due to the aging of the population in the community. After their merger two years ago, they acquired a very robust aging services program. They would like to provide additional services in the Dublin community to those aging in the community. They are requesting a range of funding that Council can consider. Some of the services they provide in other communities and would like to add in the Dublin community are widow/widowhood support groups; low vision support groups, which are provided in partnership with the City of Upper Arlington and the City of Worthington. They would like to initiate caregiver support services for caregivers in the community who provide those services. They already partner with the DCRC in providing wellness and education sessions in conjunction with the Senior Services programming. They have been meeting with many community groups to assess the needs, and they have a list of potential programming ideas for the aging population. The other request is for a range of additional funding for the Dublin A.C.T. Coalition. This Coalition focuses on underage drinking and other drug abuse and has been active in the Dublin community for five years. A federal grant was obtained that was helpful in supporting a number of initiatives in the community. They did pay for, with federal grant monies, the prescription drop box at the Police Department, in collaboration with the Police. They have created a number of initiatives and partnerships with the Dublin Schools; with the community, such as with the Social Host law working with Vice Mayor Gerber; and they created a number of materials focused on “Parents who Host Lose the Most.” They have worked with the School athletic department and created a PSA contest among the three high schools. Each year, the students take on a subject. Last year, it was the abuse of marijuana and a student from Coffman won the PSA contest. In addition to the other services they provide in the community, they are asking Council to consider an uptick in their funding so they can concentrate more on older adults in the community and provide more awareness on drug abuse and create more prevention activities in the community. Finance Committee of the Whole November 9, 2015 Page 2 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that with the loss of the federal grant that the Dublin A.C.T. Coalition had previously received, and understanding the request is for funding to help pay for a portion of that former grant, what else is Dublin A.C.T. doing to support their activities? Ms. Erwin-Rinaldi responded that Syntero is utilizing some of the Franklin County ADAMH prevention dollars to help support some of the activities that are part of that initiative. They are also looking for other grant dollars, and hope to be successful at accessing some. At this point, they are requesting that the City fund a portion of the Coordinator’s salary. Mr. Lecklider asked what Coordinator she is referring to. Ms. Erwin-Rinaldi responded this is the Coordinator of the coalition, whose members are the City, the Schools, the Police Department, Fire Department, other organizations and businesses in the community who meet regularly to raise awareness about drug abuse and substance abuse in the community. Mr. Lecklider asked for clarification – is there currently a person in this position? Ms. Erwin-Rinaldi responded affirmatively. A portion of her salary is funded with some of the ADAMH dollars Syntero receives. Mr. Lecklider asked about the salary paid to this coordinator. Ms. Erwin-Rinaldi responded that the total salary per year is $45,000. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the Coordinator has other duties aside from this. Ms. Erwin-Rinaldi responded that she also provides treatment services and prevention services in the Schools and in the community. Mr. Lecklider asked for clarification about the funding requested for the Coordinator position. Ms. Erwin-Rinaldi stated that is in the range of $5,000 to 10,000 of support. Vice Mayor Gerber asked if this is a one-time request, or if she anticipates this request again next year. Ms. Erwin-Rinaldi responded that if they do receive additional funding from the City, they would have to justify to Council that it was needed and necessary before asking for continued funding at this level. She does not believe the needs will go away, in view of the population statistics in this community. In terms of the prevention support, she is hopeful that it will not be necessary to request more founding, but there is much work to be done. Vice Mayor Gerber commented that Council has been involved in studying demographics and trends in Dublin for the past five years, particularly related to the Bridge Street project. It is clear from everything he reads that the number of people aged 65 and above will double in the next five years, generating more needs in the community. The program 60 Minutes had a segment recently about Central Ohio communities with heroin problems in the Schools. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she met with Ms. Erwin Rinaldi to discuss her request. She pointed out that in the last ten years, the City has built a number of assisted living or senior housing communities. These same facilities call upon the Dublin Counseling Center to come in and provide services to their elderly residents/patients. There is a high frequency of depression in this population group. Other decisions by the City have impacts on agencies like Syntero. Mr. Reiner agreed with Vice Mayor Gerber that the demographics point to increased problems in both of these areas. He thanked Syntero for all of their efforts on behalf of the community. Finance Committee of the Whole November 9, 2015 Page 3 Mr. Lecklider stated that the documents provided to Council list other communities that Syntero serves. It is a convenience to Dublin to have Syntero located in our community, but he believes they have facilities in two other locations as well. Does Syntero request an equal amount of funding from the other communities served? Ms. Erwin Rinaldi responded they do not request an equal amount of funding, as the historical funding from the other municipalities has been different. The City of Upper Arlington provides $30,000 per year to the agency for only aging support services, and it is earmarked only for that purpose. Syntero has approached their City Council to request additional funding for other services, but currently, they receive only the $30,000. They also receive $10,000 per year from the City of Worthington for just older adult supported services in collaboration with the Gerlach Center. They provide a widowhood/widow/widower support group and low vision support group, as well as some other supportive services. Mr. Lecklider asked if the services of Syntero are broken out into the percentage of Dublin residents versus Upper Arlington, Worthington, etc. Ms. Erwin Rinaldi responded yes – they are very careful about not using their funding for other residents in other areas. They receive funding from a variety of sources and are well diversified and good at making sure that the money provided by various funding sources are going to the populations that they commit they will go to. Vice Mayor Gerber stated that he recalls this is funded through the General Fund – correct? Ms. Mumma responded affirmatively. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if staff have any comments regarding the request. Vice Mayor Gerber moved to approve an additional $75,000 for the older adults supportive services and an additional $10,000 for the alcohol and other drug community based prevention activities. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Gerber, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Request for Additional Percentage of Hotel-Motel Tax Funds – Dublin Convention and Visitors Bureau Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the DCVB currently receives 25 percent of the hotel/motel tax funds. Mr. Dring has requested additional funding, and has provided a PowerPoint in the packet. Mr. Dring, Executive Director thanked Council and staff for hearing their request, which was initially brought forward to staff in August. The Board has been working on this matter since last November as part of the Strategic Plan. It will be the first time in the DCVB’s history that they have made such a request. It is important to note that this is not just a DCVB request; it is a request on behalf of about 15 Dublin hotels who unanimously support this. Letters have been provided in the packet from the hotels, and representatives are present from some hotels tonight to respond to questions.  In terms of sales and marketing, they do in-depth every year. He has provided the tactics that are tied to the mission and goals, with specific key measurements. Finance Committee of the Whole November 9, 2015 Page 4  One of the key metrics that Bureaus use is how much money is spent on marketing versus administrative costs. The industry average is typically 60 percent marketing and 40 percent administrative; last year, the DCVB was 80 percent marketing and 20 percent administrative in terms of cost split. They maximize their marketing dollars.  They had a clean audit from the State of Ohio recently. They have been accredited, as Council is aware.  On page 5, the results from 2011 through 2014 are outlined with specific metrics. The more money spent in marketing, the higher the results. The hotel revenues are slightly increasing over the years, the room nights increasing by 22 percent, sales leads by 85 percent, etc.  In comparing CVBs across the state of Ohio, the average percent of hotel/motel tax in the cities Dublin competes with is 88 percent. The average allocation to all Ohio CVBs is 82 percent. The current allocation of hotel-motel tax in Dublin is 25 percent and has been at this level since the hotel-motel tax was enacted in 1988. Page 7 of the PowerPoint shows some of the competitive cities that receive high percentages of hotel-motel tax. On page 8, similar U.S. cities are shown in terms of percentage. Carmel, IN receives 100 percent of the hotel-motel tax; Franklin, TN at 50 percent; Greenville, SC at 35 percent; Dublin at 25 percent.  In terms of tourism as an economic engine, tourists spend money not only in hotels, but in restaurants, shops, transportation, and entertainment. The economic impact of visitors to Dublin is tremendous, much broader than just the hotel-motel tax they contribute. They are the only organization whose sole mission is to build the hotel-motel tax.  As a whole, the hotels can be viewed as a corporation, with 1,500 plus employees. A good example if the Top Gun event which brought room nights and generated hotel-motel tax of $29,500 – but the economic impact was much broader for the people who shopped, ate at the restaurants for a week. The total economic impact of that event was nearly $4million.  On page 12, the request is outlined. Currently, the DCVB receives 25 percent of the six percent hotel-motel tax levied at Dublin hotels. This has been in place at this level since 1988 when the law was enacted. By state law of Ohio, the minimum amount that a CVB can obtain is 25 percent of the hotel-motel tax revenue. There is increased Dublin product to sell, with the Bridge Park development and the future convention center.  At the same time as this increased product, the DCVB must maintain and expand marketing of the current Dublin tourism product.  In 2014, the overall hotel-motel tax revenue was $2.6 million. The City’s 75 percent of that was just over $2 million. For 2015, the revenues are up 8 percent over the same period last year, and this is expected to continue through the last quarter of 2015, generating $2.9 million. The City’s portion would of that would be $2.1 million. Based on feedback from Dublin hotels, they are projecting a four percent increase in revenue in 2016, which would bring the total hotel-motel tax revenue to $3 million and the City’s portion as $2.27 million.  The threat in the future for the DCVB is that competition continues to increase with cities allocating increased marketing dollars to attract visitors and building new facilities to accommodate them. They are very excited about Bridge Park and the District, but the competing cities, such as in Butler County where there is a new AC hotel. Carmel, IN just built a new sports complex. Cities are doing what they can to attract tourists. With the amount of new hotel product in Central Ohio is drawing visitors away from Dublin as well. Finance Committee of the Whole November 9, 2015 Page 5  Another threat is believing the adage of “if you built it, they will come.” Marketing dollars and dedicated resources are needed to sell and promote Dublin to ensure success.  In addition, they don’t want to have reduced funding for the product already in Dublin as a result of the need for marketing for the Bridge Street District.  In terms of opportunity, destination marketing provides a 13:1 return on investment. For every dollar spent, $13 are returned, based on studies.  Monies invested in marketing will result in building the hotel-motel tax revenues for the City of Dublin.  A further investment will build up the pot of a potential $2.19 million of City bed tax. What the DCVB does will generate more monies for that pot to be spent for other needed items in the future.  The DCVB will use the increased bed tax in a strategic, focused, transparent manner aligned with their mission, goals and objectives.  Providing sales and support for the future Convention and Event Center is exciting, and there is a need to collaborate with the various parties to make sure the world knows of this planned facility.  There is no use of local or resident taxes to be used in this – it is purely from the bed tax revenue only. On behalf of the DCVB Board and the entire Dublin Tourism industry, he is requesting a 10 percent increase annually in Hotel-Motel Tax Revenue allocation that will bring their percentage from 25 percent to 35 percent. That increase will be invested in sales and marketing only to get the word out and sell and market the City of Dublin. Based on this year’s bed tax projections, this would translate to an allocation to the DCVB of $291,600, which will return $3.7 million to the City of Dublin. In terms of the return on investment and organizational measurements, the chart shows what expected results can be obtained from increased funding of 10 percent:  2014 generated 144 leads; with increased funding, can generate 200 leads  2014 generated 22,750 room nights; with increased funding, can generate 30,000 room nights  Will increase unique website visits to DCVB from the 95,280 (27 percent) in 2014 to 45 percent  Increase social media engagement from 51 percent to 65 percent  Generate impressions through earned media – 2014 was 3,020,165 and expect that to increase to 5,000,000 He stated that the marketing plan is the foundation of what they do to compete with the other cities in the market. With the increased funding, they can:  Extend their marketing reach beyond the state of Ohio to penetrate key feeder markets of Pittsburgh, Detroit, Indianapolis, Lexington, Charleston/Huntington; to penetrate one market annually costs in the range of $50-75,000 in advertising dollars  Provide dedicated marketing dollars for Bridge Park and the Bridge Street District. They have discussed a dedicated staff person for this District, work with the local merchants and HDBA. They will launch a campaign of digital, print, broadcast media at a cost of $40-50,000; sell convention space to regional/national meeting planners at Sales Shows, FAM Trip, etc. at a cost of $35-45,000 Finance Committee of the Whole November 9, 2015 Page 6  Expand marketing to promote niche, emerging markets such as outdoors, highlighting the Scioto River. This includes research, marketing/sales support materials at a cost of $15- 25,000 and a digital campaign at a cost of $30-50,000. He summarized that they have been successful with their efforts, and they want to increase the tactics to ensure they will continue to be successful with their mission. He commented in regard to the office space issue, mentioned in the City staff memo. They view this as a separate issue from the increased percentage request. In December of 2016, their current lease expires and they will be seeking new office space. Their rent will increase dramatically, whether they stay in their current location or move to a new location. This is an organizational issue for the Bureau. However, the revenue they would have used for marketing will be needed to offset these relocation costs – resulting in less marketing and more administrative costs in 2016. Mr. Dring stated that Dublin has undergone a transformational change in the past few years, and the Bureau wants to be part of this change, bring more visitors to Dublin to spend money in the hotels and restaurants. This request is a big change for Dublin, as the funding structure for the DCVB has been in place for 28 years since the hotel-motel tax was first enacted in 1988. They believe that this change will provide an undeniable return on investment; a change that will provide tremendous increased exposure of the City in the regional and national markets; that it is a change that will grow future hotel-motel tax dollars; and that this is an investment for the future of Dublin. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked staff to provide information about the current City funding for the DCVB. Ms. Mumma responded that in 2014, the DCVB received $665,000 in the City’s calendar year. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for any further staff comments regarding this request. Ms. Mumma stated that staff reviewed the hotel-motel tax fund balance. While the balance is healthy, staff had not considered what is the appropriate level of fund balance. Under Ms. LeRoy’s leadership, staff reviewed where the exposure points would be should there be a rainout for the Irish Festival. For the remaining events, a weather event would not impact the City to a great degree. Following her review, Ms. LeRoy identified about $800-850,000 as the exposure of additional expense if no revenue was brought in for the Festival. That is a worst case scenario if the entire Festival was rained out. For simplicity, she would identify this need as $1 million. Currently, at the end of 2014, the hotel-motel tax fund had $3.3 million as a balance. Looking at this conservatively, an appropriate level is about $1.5 million, which would cover one year’s worth of Irish Festival expenses plus an additional buffer. She also pointed out there are many years in which the revenue from the hotel-motel tax together with the revenue generated at the City’s events are sometimes close to the expenditures. In 2014, the City brought in revenue of $4.2 million and spent $4,193,000. That variance in 2014 was only $9,000. The prior couple of years, the revenue exceeded the expenditures by $200,000 – which contributed to the growth in the fund balance. However, 2014 is an example of when the expenditures are closely aligned with the revenues. Looking at this on an annual basis – the allocation of bed tax expenditures – in 2014, $8,900 of variance between revenues and expenditures, and the graph shows how the bed tax funds are distributed. The DCVB receives 25 percent of the bed tax revenue, but the graph shows all of the expenditures of the bed tax fund collectively. When taking into account Finance Committee of the Whole November 9, 2015 Page 7 the revenue brought in from Events, the DCVB percentage shows as 14 percent – not 25 percent. The takeaway is that there is a healthy fund balance; however, any increase in expenditures will over time come from the fund balance. Once the fund balance is spent down, any other Event expenditures would need to be either reduced or offset with General Fund or other revenues. Mr. Peterson asked for clarification. In terms of the 14 percent the Bureau receives (shown on the graph) of all revenues that go into the bed tax fund, the DCVB receives 25 percent of the actual hotel-motel tax revenues. All of the other revenues that go into the hotel-motel tax fund are from sources such as Event revenues, correct? Ms. Mumma responded that is correct – the DCVB receives 25 percent of the hotel-motel tax revenue generated by the hotels. To put that into perspective, the City brought in $2.6 million in hotel-motel tax revenue in 2014. The City brought in an additional $2.2 million in other revenue into this fund. Therefore, the Bureau receives approximately 14 percent of that total revenue of $4.8 million. Mr. Peterson asked how much the 14 percent overall will increase if the DCVB’s share of hotel- motel tax goes to 35 percent. Ms. Mumma responded that under the 2014 scenario, as opposed to the DCVB receiving $668,000 they would have received $936,000 or roughly $267,000 additional. Mr. Peterson stated that Mr. Dring has indicated the Bureau spends 80 percent on marketing and 20 percent on administrative costs at this time. For 2016, in view of the office space issues, that percentage will shift somewhat. Mr. Dring responded that is correct – likely 75 percent on marketing and 25 percent on administrative. Mr. Peterson stated that the additional 10 percent hotel-motel tax funding would then all go to the marketing side, making up for the potential reduction, and likely increase the marketing share. Mr. Dring stated that 100 percent of this funding request would go to sales and marketing. The office lease issues will be addressed separately by the Bureau. Mr. Peterson summarized that it would not be an 80/20 split, but close. Mr. Dring responded that is correct. Vice Mayor Gerber asked what collaborative efforts the Bureau has with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Dring responded there are some, but not much – the missions of the two organizations are very different. The Bureau’s efforts are all external and not local in terms of marketing. If there are FAM trips coming in, they might work with the Chamber. For the most part, there are two different missions for the entities. They have a great relationship with the Chamber. Ms. Salay asked if the Bureau anticipates hiring additional staff if the increased percentage is approved. Mr. Dring responded that they will look closely at their marketing plan and determine what the goals and objectives are, and then determine what is needed to meet them. Staffing would be part of that discussion. They have been at the same staffing level since 2004. Ms. Salay stated that she would be interested in this aspect, whether it is part-time or full-time staff. That is a sizable amount of cost, but if there has been no staff increase since 2004, it seems they would consider this. Finance Committee of the Whole November 9, 2015 Page 8 Ms. Salay asked if there is a chart available regarding all the sources of revenue of the hotel- motel tax fund. She is curious about the various expenditures – Art in Public Places, the Dublin Arts Council, etc. She would like information about these distributions. Ms. Mumma responded that in 2014, because the revenues and expenditures were very close, it is very clear. From a revenue standpoint, she can prepare a graph that is more easily understandable for the next meeting. If $2.2 million of other revenue was brought in – revenue from sales of beverages at the DIF – there are direct expenses related to that revenue. There are $2.6 million in bed tax revenues in 2014. Therefore, collectively, in 2014, $4.87 million was brought in. Ms. Salay stated she is aware that a certain percentage goes to the DAC. What is that amount? Ms. Mumma responded it is approximately 25 percent. The DCVB receives an actual 25 percent of the hotel-motel tax revenue. The DAC agreement is structured for a set dollar amount, and is based upon the projected bed tax revenues at the time the contract was negotiated. Ms. Salay asked what the percentage is for the DAC. Ms. Mumma responded that in some years, it is the DAC’s favor and some years not – depending upon actual revenues received. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that at the time the DAC entered into the agreement with the City, they were housed in a facility owned by the City. Because of the agreement they entered into and the projection of bed tax revenues, the DAC has not realized any of the increase in the bed tax. In essence, the DCVB has marketed on behalf of the City and that has been successful. The DAC, on the other hand, must do fundraising through other sources to raise revenue. Ms. Salay stated it may be a good time to look at bed tax revenue expenditures more comprehensively in order to understand the impact of an additional 10 percent provided to the DCVB. Perhaps that could be scheduled at the next budget hearing. Mr. McDaniel added that a discussion is needed regarding a fund balance policy in relation to covering a rained out Festival. There is not a standing policy about this and it warrants discussion. As part of this, all of the other aspects could be discussed. He added that the City and the DCVB are great partners, and the Bureau does a great job. Everyone who is listed in the pie chart is contributing to the growth of the base of the fund. What is critical about that “pie” is to what extent do we want that pie to continue to grow? A percentage of a larger base is more revenue. The base continues to grow. There is nothing in the City’s history that indicates that when hotel rooms are added, the existing hotels are impacted. He believes that relative growth has continued for all hotels, except during times of recession when the base line is impacted. The City wants the Bureau to continue to market and do the things that will grow the base. The Administration’s perspective is that rather than adding a percentage of a growing base, perhaps grants or further funding could be provided to a marketing program for the next year or two while other issues are addressed. The Administration also believes the City should consider the DCVB’s facility needs that must be addressed in the next year. Perhaps the City may want to assist the Bureau in terms of a facility. He cautioned that any increase in the percentage of the funding will take away from others who rely upon the funding, and perhaps result in the need to use General Funds to make up the difference. He does support and advocates for the Bureau, but perhaps in a way that is a contribution towards increased marketing – as the City continues to assess the need for a greater percentage of hotel-motel tax funds. Finance Committee of the Whole November 9, 2015 Page 9 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated those are certainly options that can be considered. The planning for the Bureau is compromised, however, if they are not able to rely upon additional funding that enables purchase radio, TV spots, etc. That would be a challenge, even if a percentage smaller than what they are requesting is approved or at least a large enough amount for three to five years so they can plan successfully. In looking at the pie chart of where the money goes, other than the Dublin Arts Council and the DCVB, basically all the rest goes to the City to operate its events. The City does need to review the amount of money it spends for Events. To her, the City is fortunate to have a Bureau, as not every community with hotels has such a Bureau. The Bureau does an enormous amount of marketing on behalf of the City of Dublin, and this increased percentage would be allocated to increasing the marketing. Personally, she would prefer to have the Bureau do that marketing into venues that the City’s public relations is not generally duplicating. The Bureau’s reach is much longer than that of the City. Vice Mayor Gerber stated that he and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher have served on the Finance Committee for many years and have been involved in many discussions about the balance of the bed tax, its purpose, etc. In regard to parades and events, he has been a proponent of having the public step up and the government easing back. In looking at other cities, such as the Macy’s Parade in New York and Savannah, Georgia’s St. Patrick’s Day, other groups do become involved. That is another item for future discussion. He does agree with Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher that the DCVB does a great job and they not only put “heads in beds” but create a lot of awareness in the marketplace that Dublin, Ohio is the best place to be. When the Economic Development staff goes out to attract businesses, many indicate they have already heard about Dublin. It is all interwoven. He is not adverse to this request, as Mr. Dring and his team have a proven track record. The environment today is more competitive, as he has indicated. This money is well spent in that area. He also believes that the City needs to “peel back the onion” with respect to the bed tax funds and how that is expended. In addition, the City needs to have a similar discussion in regard to how parades are funded as well as other events. Vice Mayor Gerber moved to recommend a 10 percent increase in hotel-motel tax funding for the DCVB. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Ms. Salay stated that she is supportive of this request and agrees with all of the comments about the Bureau and the points made by Mr. Dring. However, she agrees with Vice Mayor Gerber that Council needs to look at the other issues. She is supportive of this insomuch as Council looks at the entire program holistically. Because this funding is going toward marketing, the monies are well spent. But she does believe more study is needed regarding the use of the bed tax monies. Vice Mayor Gerber stated that a bed tax grant application review meeting is scheduled on Monday, November 30. Perhaps that is a good time to begin this discussion. Ms. Salay responded that the meeting is to review the grant requests. Vice Mayor Gerber stated that it would be a good opportunity to begin this discussion. Mr. Peterson clarified that he supports the motion on the floor based on two factors: 1) the return on investment of 13:1 makes this a purely financial decision; and 2) in comparing percentages of any other comparable city in the state of Ohio and any other comparable city across the country, the DCVB percentage is lower than any others. These two factors make this a relatively easy decision for him.