June 16th Presentation - Kansas City Urban Market Assets

Slide 2: Overview  Reason for the DrillDown  DrillDown Process  Kansas City Results  District Results and Selected Neighborhoods  Questions after each major section

Slide 3: Major Barrier to Urban Investment  Major barrier: Lack of purchasing power  Major barrier: Insufficient concentration of target customer  Major barrier: Crime or Perception of Crime  Why are we here? Accurate market information about our urban core areas. Source: ICSC Retail Survey 2002

Slide 4: The Census  Census increasingly undercounts urban core areas and is less accurate as time passes  Full count every 10 years – need yearly household data to inform policy & update market models for development  Misses pockets of development and subsequent growth (ex. population from Crossroads, Westport condos and lofts)  Cash economy is absent

Slide 5: The DRILLDOWN  Social Compact, nonprofit funded by a coalition of Banks and retail companies to improve inner-city marketability.  An estimate of the urban population using multiple data sources from federal, state & city levels  Transactional data: utility use, purchases, and property information.

Slide 6: The DRILLDOWN Asset Data Drives Urban Investment  Uncovers hidden market assets, like population, true purchasing power, and the informal economy  Backed by Brookings, ICSC, the Federal Reserve, top 100 marketing retail research departments.  Conducted in over 100 urban neighborhoods resulting in nearly one billion in investment  15 cities to date, three more coming on in 2008. www.socialcompact.org

Slide 7: DrillDown Impact in Other Cities  Houston – Results provide solid case for redevelopment of Gulfgate Mall and surrounding area.  D.C. - Key to attracting Target and Giant to two urban neighborhoods.  Harlem – $1 billion in cash economy. Fleet setup two branches, 3 atms and a micro-lending facility.  Cleveland - $820 million cash economy results in KeyBank establishing new branches and strategy to increase banking in urban core neighborhoods.

Slide 8: DrillDown: How Does It Work?  Transactional data versus reported data  Use multiple 'layers' of data  Overlay, one dataset may capture

Slide 9: DrillDown: How Does It Work? Census Address 1 Address 2 Address 3 Address 4 Address 5

Slide 10: DrillDown: How Does It Work? Census Credit Address 1 Address 2 Address 3 Address 4 Address 5

Slide 11: DrillDown: How Does It Work? Census Credit Permits Address 1 Address 2 Address 3 Address 4 Address 5

Slide 12: DrillDown: How Does It Work? Census Credit Permits Water Address 1 Address 2 Address 3 Address 4 Address 5

Slide 13: Sample of the Data Sets  Credit Bureaus (3)  KC Water  MLS/Home Sales  Building Permits  Claritas Consumer  Demolition Permits  BLS Cons Exp Rep  Public Housing  ESRI Business Ind.  Parcel Data  IRS Records  Tax Assessment  USPS Records  Payday/Banks/Retail

Slide 14: Notes on Results  DrillDown captures both missed households & pockets of new development  Not necessarily growth since 2000  DrillDown is an estimation technique not a survey method

Slide 15: Kansas City Highlights  Population: 533,117, or approximately 71,000 higher than 2000 Census estimates.  Change: Census 2006 estimates show a small population decrease of -1.9%, compared to the DrillDown estimates of 15%.

Slide 16: Kansas City Highlights  Income: DrillDown estimates average household income is $54,000 or 13% higher than the Census 2000 estimate.  When the informal or "cash" economy is included, the average household income rises to $57,000.  Cash economy: The DrillDown estimates the citywide cash economy to be worth $668 million dollars

Slide 17: P o p u la tio n C h a n g e D r illD o w n 2 0 0 7 & C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 ,0 0 0 5 3 3 ,1 1 7 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 4 6 2 ,2 5 5 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 0

Slide 18: A v g In c o m e D r i l l D o w n 2 0 0 7 & C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 $ 5 7 ,3 2 6 $ 4 8 ,1 2 5 $ 4 5 ,0 0 0 $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 $0 I n c lu d e s I n f o r m a l o r C a s h E c o n o m y

Slide 19: District Map

Slide 20: Districts Overview  Population : The DrillDown estimates show significant change in all Districts, the largest in Districts 1, 3 and 5  Income: Average household income is higher in all Districts, with large spikes in District 3 and 5 due to the informal or cash economy.

Slide 21: Districts Overview  Cash Economy: Large cash economy in Districts 3, 5 and 6.  Density is a critical market asset in District 3 and 4, demonstrating the highest per acre purchasing power across the city.

Slide 22: P o p u la tio n C h a n g e D r illD o w n 2 0 0 7 & C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 9 8 ,4 1 6 9 6 ,1 8 6 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 9 4 ,0 7 4 8 5 ,8 2 6 7 8 ,5 7 2 8 0 ,0 4 3 7 5 ,0 0 0 5 0 ,0 0 0 2 5 ,0 0 0 0 D is tr ic t 1 D is tr ic t 2 D is tr ic t 3 D is tr ic t 4 D is tr ic t 5 D is tr ic t 6

Slide 23: A v g In c o m e D r illD o w n 2 0 0 7 & C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 $ 7 0 ,1 3 8 $ 6 7 ,0 8 6 $ 6 1 ,7 8 4 $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 $ 5 3 ,7 9 3 $ 5 0 ,0 4 1 $ 4 5 ,0 0 0 $ 4 1 ,1 1 3 $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 $0 D is tr ic t 1 D is tr ic t 2 D is tr ic t 3 D is tr ic t 4 D is tr ic t 5 D is tr ic t 6 In c lu d e s In fo r m a l o r C a s h E c o n o m y

Slide 24: P u r c h a s in g P o w e r P e r A c r e D r illD o w n 2 0 0 7 & C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 $ 2 3 6 ,8 0 3 $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 0 2 ,7 0 6 $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 5 7 ,7 6 3 $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 $ 3 3 ,3 9 0 $ 4 0 ,9 6 3 $ 2 5 ,5 2 9 $0 D is t r ic t 1 D is t r ic t 2 D is t r ic t 3 D is t r ic t 4 D is t r ic t 5 D is t r ic t 6

Slide 25: District 1  Population: 98,416 - difference of 29% from Census 2000  Income: $53,793 average income with cash economy included - 17% difference from Census 2000

Slide 28: District 2  $70,138 average income with cash economy included - 19% difference from Census 2000  Highest average income of all districts and should bode well for the retail that will serve the downtown CBD and Rivermarket population.

Slide 31: District 3  Population change: 17%  Average income: $41,113  $$ per acre = $102,726 - 44% difference from Census 2000.  2nd highest $$ per acre

Slide 34: District 4  Avg Income: $67,086 - 16% difference from Census 2000  $$ per acre: $236,803 - 15% difference from Census 2000

Slide 37: District 5  Pop: 75,832 - difference of 24% from Census 2000  Greatest change in total economy with a 53% difference from the Census by including the cash economy.

Slide 40: District 6  Population: 76,591 - difference of 5% from Census 2000  Avg Income $61,784 - informal cash economy included - 17% difference from Census 2000

Slide 43: Next Steps  Additional Data – retail leakage, credit report penetration, vacancy rates  Monthly Webinars  DesktopApplication (July/August) – enable quick (SIMPLE) data access using google map platform  Custom reports with Corridor Partners or on a purchase/request basis for others

Slide 44: KCUMA Team  Dan Melton, PhD – Team Leader  Robyne Turner, PhD – UMKC Leader  Ryan Gerety – Social Compact Liaison  Kate Bender – KCMO Liaison  Doug Bowles – UMKC CEI Liaison  UMKC Team: Chris Green, Heather Starzynski, Joe Zhao, Sam Newby

Slide 45: Questions? For More Information: Dan Melton KCUMA Coordinator dmelton@nonprofittechnologies.com http://www.kcuma.org