johnson county (mo) innovation district corridor study

Abstract

In conducting analysis of the Innovation District, there were several areas researched to provide a well-rounded assessment. Demographic information across the area presents a fairly consistent picture and economically, the indication is that the Innovation District is in a relatively strong position with several programs available to bolster development.

Input gathered from public involvement efforts included several categories of efforts including public meetings, stakeholder interviews, “MindMixer”, and task force specific meetings and progress reports. Key businesses/employers and community leaders were interviewed to identify assets and challenges inherent in the Johnson County business climate.

In an effort to provide general guidance for land development within the study area, several data types were collected and evaluated. These data types include elements of both the natural environment and the built environment including transportation routes. This data was analyzed and a “K-factor” was applied to provide a generalized description of areas for optimal land uses (industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural) for future development.

A generalized targeting viability analysis was conducted at a “macro” level, to examine how the Innovation District’s targeted industries fit into the prescribed state, regional, and local economic development targets. Report Notes:This Johnson County Innovation District Corridor Study was prepared by Johnson County Economic Develop - ment Corporation (JCEDC) with Olsson Associates, consultants, under award 05-06-05256 from EconomicDevelopment Administration (EDA), U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, andrecommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Develop-ment Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Executive Summary

P a g e I

Demographic and Economic Conditions

Analysis of demographic information for the Innovation District, Johnson County, and the City of Warrensburg presents a fairly consistent picture in some areas. In regard to household incomes, the trend for all three geographic areas is towards higher incomes. Generally, the percentage of households with income ranges above $50,000 is increasing over time, and the percentage of households with incomes below $50,000 is decreasing over time.

However, there are a few aspects where the Innovation District stands out. First is that the District shows continued population growth at higher rates than Johnson County and the City of Warrensburg, while Johnson County and the City of Warrensburg fluctuate between 0 percent and 1 percent over the same time period. Also, the median age is older in the Innovation District as compared to the city and county, though this number is dragged downwards for the city because of college age residents. The 20-24 age group also shows an effect on the District. Additionally, the changes in population distribution indicate that people over the age of 55 are migrating into the Innovation District at a moderate rate. Educational attainment is also generally increasing in the Innovation District, with gains in those with Associate’s degrees and decreases in those without high school diplomas.

Economically, several metrics indicate the Innovation District is in a relatively strong position. Of the industries with high location quotients in the county (Utilities (2.0), Manufacturing (1.31), Healthcare and Social Assistance (1.0) and Other Services except Public Administration (1.04)), Utilities ($1,618 per week in 2013), Manufacturing ($1,022), and Healthcare and Social Assistance ($1,833) have higher average weekly wages in Missouri than many other industries. The Innovation District also has an above average tax climate, with a combined national rank of 14 based on the combined state, county and local rates. A retail leakage/surplus analysis indicates people enter the district for many types of shopping.

Other areas affecting the economic performance of the Innovation District are academic research and development and economic development institutions. Academic research institutions in Missouri collectively spent over $1.1 billion on R&D overall in 2011. Another economic asset at UCM is the Small Business & Technology Development Center (SBTDC), which assists small businesses at all stages that are in need of specialized assistance. To continue the growth and development of the Innovation District, institutional assets like the Johnson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC), the Warrensburg Chamber of Commerce, and the Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission (PTRPC) can be leveraged for further partnership and investment in the Innovation District.

Executive Summary | J o h n s o n C o u n t y I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t

P a g e I I

Public Involvement

Input gathered from public involvement efforts included several categories of efforts including public meetings, stakeholder interviews, the online town hall platform “MindMixer”, and task force specific meetings and progress reports. Key businesses/employers and community leaders were identified by the Steering Committee to take part in personal interviews designed to identify assets and challenges inherent in the Johnson County business climate. Some general sentiments from these efforts included the following:

Improve transportation (highway, street, bike path, and trails) infrastructure Enhance safety along the highway portion of the study corridor Improve industries and economic activity A larger, better-trained work force Improve sewage treatment Improve emergency response times and capabilities More affordable housing Improve access to the airport, including signage Impacts caused by the lack of controlled land

General Guidance for Land Development in the Study Area

In an effort to provide general guidance for land development within the study area, several data types were collected and evaluated. These data types include elements of both the natural environment and the built environment.

The process of analysis for each data set required several qualitative assumptions, which provided a system of numbered rankings to be assigned to each separate area within the study area as a function of each data type. Once all areas within the study area were assigned a rank according to the specific data type and the specific land use type, these rankings were summed to provide an aggregate score, which indicates those areas best suited for each land use type. Additional emphasis was placed on select Natural Environmental Data Types. Specifically a “K factor” was applied to these data types that are least able to be changed or altered by potential future development. The following statements provide a generalized description of the resultant land use selection for future development within the study area.

I n d u s t r i a l Adjacent to the south leg of Missouri 13 Highway East Loop Brady Commerce Park Show-Me Industrial Park Warrensburg Industrial Center Shamrock Business Park


P a g e I I I

C o m m e r c i a l North and south sides of U.S. 50 Highway, west of the Missouri 13 Highway Directly adjacent to the Missouri 13 Highway, just west of Brady Commerce Park

R e s i d e n t i a l Undeveloped areas near the urban boundaries of both Warrensburg and Centerview Undeveloped areas along the Missouri 13 Highway corridor south of U.S. 50 Highway Undeveloped areas along the Missouri 58 Highway corridor Undeveloped areas along but not adjacent to the U.S. 50 Highway corridor between Missouri 58

Highway and Warrensburg

A g r i c u l t u r a l Areas adjacent to the Missouri 13 Highway and generally north of the Blackwater River alignment Areas near the Missouri Aviation Center Max B. Swisher Skyhaven (Skyhaven) Airport

Generalized Targeting Viability Summary

This generalized targeting viability analysis is an important part of the effort to position the Johnson County Innovation District for positive economic development. Though targeting is often done on a “micro” level, the size of the Innovation District makes specific site targeting challenging. The benefit of this, however, is that a generalized targeting analysis provides the opportunity for Johnson County to examine how the Innovation District fits into the prescribed state, regional, and local economic development targets, what industries the County’s labor pool could support, and what general site characteristics each of the identified targets require. By conducting this analysis, Johnson County increases the likelihood of successful economic development in the District.

The analysis identified four potential categories of targets with a few subcategories. They are Advanced/Light Manufacturing, with subcategories of Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 33531), Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 33311), Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 3363), and Aircraft and Aircraft Part Manufacturing (NAICS 33641a). Financial and Professional Services is another target category, which includes Technical Support Centers and Administrative Service Centers (NAICS 5614). The final industry target includes the vast industry of Transportation and Logistics (NAICS 48-49).

Transportation Summary

The U.S. 50 Highway corridor is developed/classified for the larger types of development, and would provide higher levels of freight and corridor mobility, but will require evaluation to identify safe and effective access locations. It is anticipated development adjacent to the corridor would require permitted upgrades to the median access breaks and potential for auxiliary turn lanes.

Within the corporate limits of Warrensburg, U.S. 50 Highway is classified as a freeway, and as such, direct access restricted. Hence, development would require accessing the highway through the service interchanges via the local road network.


P a g e I V

The Missouri 13 Highway East Loop corridor is suitable for various types of development and could provide satisfactory access to the major transportation corridors. The single-lane roundabouts located along this corridor appear to be traversable for heavy vehicle traffic. New accesses along this corridor would be restricted to the existing locations, or require permitting approval from MoDOT.

The Missouri 13 Business Route corridor has limited areas for suitable development, due to the existing development and roadway network

The Missouri 58 Highway corridor may be suitable for various types of development and could provide suitable access to the major transportation corridors. The lower classification roadway may not be as suitable for large freight movements due to the reduced surfaced width and unrestricted access drives. Again, new accesses along this corridor may require permitting approval from MoDOT.

Next Steps

The suggestions for the next steps includes the following:

DevelopInnovationPrograms.Efforts would include the formation of a Regional Working Committee to bring together regional stakeholders to evaluate existing partners and resources and look to ways that they can improve current offerings. This would include evaluating other programs and developing best practices into a strategic plan. Explore programs related to growth and align them to encourage collaborations between education and development to support a culture of innovation. The development of these programs would also effectively bring together existing workforce development, education, and economic development efforts to increase opportunities to retain needed, skilled labor for enhancing business attraction opportunities.

BusinessExpansionandRetention(BRE)Survey. Business Retention and Expansion (BRE) surveying is amongst the most critical elements of a successful local economic development program. It is estimated that as much as 80% of all local economic development growth can be attributed to an up- or down-line demand or supply chain. As a result, many of the most promising leads for economic development growth will come from existing companies within the Johnson County community. In addition, retention of existing companies is critical to sustaining a healthy economic base. Johnson County economic development efforts should center on regular retention and expansion visitation, preferably visiting with all primary employers once per year and the top five employers twice per year. Each employer should be asked to provide an example of a company or industry segment that would complement their operations, if they were to locate within Johnson County. These responses, coupled with effective site preparation, incentives and tax environment positioning, and the presence of skilled workforce can provide a solid business case for recruitment of new economic development opportunities.

MasterPlanning. While generalized infrastructure attributes are understood pertaining to the areas slated for primary development opportunities, it will be necessary for these sites to be understood not only for general infrastructure diligence, but also for optimization and function. Sites that are master planned to align infrastructure capacities to suitable targets for the Johnson County market assist economic development efforts in two ways. First, a prospective end-user is capable of understanding how they can function within the subject site. Second, alignment of the market targets to infrastructure capacities provides a clear picture of the


P a g e V

most viable industrial segments for Johnson County. This streamlining of market to site capacity creates an enhanced business case for prospective end-users, allows for precious industrial land preservation through site optimization.

County‐wideZoning. County-wide zoning does not exist in Johnson County. While this inevitably is the decision of the residents of the County, it is important to note that there are potential longer-term negative impacts to the absence of local zoning. Primary development looks to zoning to aid in protection of their sites and facilities to ensure that they do not provide encumbrance to nearby users and vice versa. In addition, lack of zoning makes it difficult to schedule and efficiently extend infrastructure improvements. Capacities cannot be effectively estimated if a pattern for acceptable development is not established. Johnson County should consider zoning code adoption in future years.

CIPGoals. Dollars for capital improvements are typically precious and must be targeted effectively to ensure that growth needs are met effectively and efficiently. Combining findings for highest-and-best land use designations with capital improvements to create a schedule for meeting community needs is an important next step in the growth of Johnson County.

Table of Contents

P a g e i

Report Contents Demographic & Economic Conditions .......................................... 1

Demographic Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Economic Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Demographic and Economic Conditions Summary ......................................................................................... 20

Public Involvement Summary.................................................... 22

Public Meetings ............................................................................................................................................... 22

Business/Employer & Community Leader Interviews ..................................................................................... 23

MindMixer ........................................................................................................................................................ 23

Website Integration ......................................................................................................................................... 27

Progress Meetings ........................................................................................................................................... 27

Development in the Study Area ................................................ 29

General Site Information ................................................................................................................................. 29

Natural Assets ................................................................................................................................................. 29

Assets in the Built Environment ...................................................................................................................... 30

General Guidance for Land Development in the Study Area .......................................................................... 36

Opportunity & Market Focus ..................................................... 42

New Technologies and Innovations ................................................................................................................ 42

Generalized Targeting Viability Analysis ......................................................................................................... 51

Land Suitability to Identified Targets ............................................................................................................... 61

Transportation System ............................................................. 68

Transportation System Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 68

Site Development Potential ............................................................................................................................. 71

Table of Contents | J o h n s o n C o u n t y I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t

P a g e i i

Maps Corridor Developability

1. Site Map 2. USGS Topography Map 3. Floodplain Map 4. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map 5. Soil Map 6. Foreign Trade Zone Map

Corridor Assets 1. Existing Land Use 2. Employment Centers 3. Industrial Parks 4. Optimal Land Use

Transportation 1. Local Transportation Network Map 2. Regional Transportation Network Map 3. Travel Distance Map 4. Airport Locations Map

Utilities 1. Sewer Infrastructure Map 2. Telecommunications Service Area Map 3. Water Map 4. Natural Gas Map

Hazard Avoidance 1. Airspace Map 2. Fire Protection

Appendix 1. NRCS Soils Information

Summary Report D e m o g r a p h i c & E c o n o m i c C o n d i t i o n s

P a g e 1

Demographic & Economic Conditions Demographic Analysis

The development of a demographic profile for the Innovation District Study Area, the City of Warrensburg, and Johnson County provides a greater understanding of the trends affecting the local population. Factors that go into the demographic profile include the social characteristics of the community, the condition of local housing, and the economic characteristics of the population and the local industries. Demographic data provides a look at both the existing and past conditions of the communities, allowing for an interpretation of these changing socioeconomic conditions.

P o p u l a t i o n

PopulationChangeThe graph below displays the County total population over the past 50 years of the governmental areas included in the Innovation District: the City of Warrensburg and Johnson County, MO. Population is represented by the vertical axis, while the horizontal axis identifies past decades (1960-2010). In addition, this graph includes population estimates for the years 2012 and 20171. These estimates are the products of the U.S. Census and ESRI, produced for the purpose of showing the continuing trends of local population growth and/or decline.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2017.

1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2017.

9,689

13,125

13,807

15,244

16,340

18,838

19,401

20,533

28,981

34,172

39,059

42,514

48,258

52,959

53,896

56,714

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 2017

Population

Year

Population Change by Decade

Warrensburg,MO

JohnsonCounty, MO

Summary Report | D e m o g r a p h i c s a n d E c o n o m i c s

P a g e 2

The City of Warrensburg and Johnson County, MO have experienced a steady growth over the past 50 years. From 1960 to 2010, the population of Warrensburg grew from 9,689 to 18,838 or 94.4 percent. During the same period, Johnson County grew its population by 82.7 percent or 27,733 persons. Future population estimates for Warrensburg and Johnson County predict that the community will continue to grow. The U.S. Census American Community Survey estimates that the population of Warrensburg will increase to 19,401 in 2012 and increases further to 20,533 residents in 2017. The population estimates for Johnson County also shows a continued growth to 53,896 in 2012 and 56,714 residents in 2017.

The historic trends for the Innovation District from 1990 to 2010 show a similar level of stable population growth exhibited by the City of Warrensburg and Johnson County. From 1990 to 2010, the population grew by 543 residents or 31.4 percent. The 2012 and 2017 estimates for the Innovation District show a continued population growth. The population estimate for 2012 is 2,371 and in 2017, it is 2,562.

An additional way to analyze population growth trends for the Innovation District compared to both the City of Warrensburg and Johnson County is to look at the annual growth of each area. In this way, it is possible to see how the population growth experienced in each area is distributed.

From 1990 to 2000, the annual growth rate for the Innovation District (0.8 percent) was almost equal to that of the City of Warrensburg (0.7 percent). Both the Innovation District and the city lagged behind the annual growth rate for Johnson County (1.4 percent). A noticeable change seems to take place during the period from 2000 to 2010 as the annual growth rate for the Innovation District (2.2 percent) became larger than both the City of Warrensburg (1.5 percent) and Johnson County (1.0 percent).

1,728

1,860

2,271

2,371

2,562

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1990 2000 2010 2012 2017

Population

Year

Population Change: Innovation District

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRIforecasts for 2012 and 2017.

0.7%

1.5%

0.3% 0.6%

1.4%

1.0%

0.2% 0.5%

0.8%

2.2%

2.2%

1.6%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

1990 ‐ 2000 2000 ‐ 2010 2010 ‐ 2012 2012 ‐ 2017

Annual Growth (%)

Growth Period

Annual Population Growth Rate

Warrensburg,MO (%)

JohnsonCounty, MO(%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecastsfor 2012 and 2017.


P a g e 3

The population estimates for 2012 and 2017 show a continued population growth occurring in the Innovation District; 2.2 percent and 1.6 percent respectively. These trends seem to indicate that the Innovation District has in recent years, and will in the near future, received a large portion of local population growth.

PopulationDistributionThe distribution of local population allows for a review of population age groups and allows for an interpretation of the make-up of population by age group. The graph below depicts the population distribution of the Innovation District by age group or cohort. Population age cohorts are organized by grouping persons of a similar age into 5 year groups ranging from 0 to 85. The population distribution graph contains data obtained from the 1990, 2000, and 2010 U.S. Census data as well as the American Community Survey 2012 and 2017 estimated values.


While reading the above chart, it is important to note two different phenomena within the data. The first is the occurrence of a population decrease within one age cohort and the subsequent and relative increase in an older age cohorts. This scenario would indicate that a relatively larger than average age group or groups are “aging” through the data from one census to the next. The second phenomenon is an increase or decrease in population within one age cohort without a corresponding increase or decrease in neighboring cohorts. This second scenario might suggest that a specific age group or groups are migrating into or out of the city.

Several age cohorts have experienced a significant change. From 1990 to 2000, the three largest age cohort increases include: 45-49 (47.7 percent), 50-54 (43.4 percent), and 10-14 (42.0 percent). From 1990 – 2000, the three largest decreases in age cohorts include: 20-24 (-28.4 percent), 25-29 (-10.8 percent), and 30-34 (-7.1 percent). From 2000 to 2010, the three largest increases in age cohorts include: 85+ (264.7 percent), 80-84 (95.5 percent), and 25-29 (60.6 percent). From 2000 to 2010 the largest decreases in age cohorts include: 40-44 (-14.1 percent), 10-14 (-7.7 percent), and 35-39 (-5.8 percent). The 2012 and 2017 population estimates show a more stable change in all age cohorts. From 2010 to 2012, the three largest increases in age cohorts include: 65-69 (10.8 percent), 70-74 (10.5 percent), and 60-64 (9.9 percent). From 2010 to 2012, only two age cohorts are estimated to decrease: 45-49 (-1.5 percent) and 15-19 (-0.7 percent). From 2012 to 2017, the three

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0%18.0%

Percent

Age Group

Population by Age Group: Innovation District

1990 Census

2000 Census

2010 Census

2012

2017


P a g e 4

29.9

33.3

32.2

23.5

24.1

24.3

26.2

28.5

29.8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

1990 2000 2010

Percentage

Year

Median Age

InnovationDistrict

Warrensburg

JohnsonCounty

largest increases in age cohorts include: 65-69 (29.3 percent), 70-74 (28.6 percent), and 75-79 (16.7 percent). From 2012 to 2017, only two age cohorts are estimated to decrease: 40-44 (2.3 percent) and 20-24 (2.1 percent).

The change in population distribution shows that the Innovation District is affected by the college age residents and shows increases in the associated age groups. The Innovation District also seems to show that age groups older than 55 years of age are migrating into the study area.

The Median age of the Innovation District indicates that the residents of the Innovation District are slowly getting older. Compared to both the City of Warrensburg and Johnson County, the Innovation District residents are older on average.

H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e Household Income is defined as the sum of the gross income earned by all members of a household. This can be used to infer the level of wealth of the residents of a community. The changes in household income over time can infer the increase or decrease of wealth within the community.

CityofWarrensburg


The City of Warrensburg has seen a general shift in household income from the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census2. This shift in household income has meant a general decrease in households with an income of less than $50,000 and a corresponding increase in households with an income of greater than $50,000. From 2000

2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2017.

28.5%

16.0%

11.4%

15.1%

17.6%

6.0%

4.3%

1.1%23.9%

14.5%

10.3%

10.1%

17.9%

11.3%

9.4%

2.6%

17.3%

16.1%

10.7%

14.4%

19.8%

8.3%

11.2%

2.2%

16.9%

12.6%

8.1%

12.7%

25.1%

10.1%

12.1%

2.5%

0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%

Percent

Household Income

Household Income: City of Warrensburg

2000 Census 2010 Census 2012 2017



P a g e 5

to 2010, the three incomes with the greatest increases include: $150,000+ (184.4 percent), $100,000 to $149,999 (157.1 percent), and $75,000 to $99,999 (118.3 percent). From 2000 to 2010, only two income levels showed a decrease in the number households: $35,000 to $49,999 (-21.8 percent) and < $15,000 (-2.2 percent). The estimates for both 2012 and 2017 indicate the household income levels for the City of Warrensburg will continue to rise. From 2010 to 2012, the three greatest increases in household income include: $35,000 to $49,999 (43.7 percent), $100,000 to $149,999 (20.7 percent), and $50,000 to $74,999 (12.2 percent). From 2010 to 2012 three household income levels have an estimated decrease: < $15,000 (-26.6 percent), $75,000 to $99,999 (-25.8 percent), and $150,000+ (-13.2 percent). From 2012 to 2017, the three greatest increases in household income include: $50,000 to $74,999 (36.0 percent), $75,000 to $99,999 (30.0 percent), and $150,000+ (19.6 percent). From 2012 to 2017, there are three household income levels estimated to decrease: $25,000 to $34,999 (-18.8 percent), $15,000 to $24,999 (-15.8 percent), and $35,000 to $49,999 (-5.3 percent).

JohnsonCounty


Johnson County has experienced a general shift in household income from 2000 to 2010, generally parallel to that seen in the City of Warrensburg3. As in Warrensburg, this shift in household income has meant a general decrease in households with an income of less than $50,000 and a corresponding increase in households with an income of greater than $50,000. From 2000 to 2010, the three incomes with the greatest increases include: $100,000 to $149,999 (167.9 percent), $75,000 to $99,999 (66.9 percent), and $50,000 to $74,999 (20.4 percent). From 2000 to 2010, only two income levels showed a decrease in the number households: $35,000 to $49,999 (-25.4 percent) and < $15,000 (-13.5 percent). The estimates for both 2012 and 2017 indicate the household income levels for Johnson County will continue to rise. From 2010 to 2012, the three greatest increases in household income include: $150,000+ (60.7 percent), $100,000 to $149,999 (27.6 percent), and $50,000 to $74,999 (14.4 percent). From 2010 to 2012 the three household income levels with the largest decrease include: $35,000 to $49,999 (-11.9 percent), $15,000 to $24,999 (-11.7 percent), and < $15,000 (-9.3 percent). From 2012 to 2017, the three greatest increases in household income include: $50,000 to $74,999 (30.1 percent), $75,000 to $99,999 (26.7 percent), and $150,000+ (18.1 percent). From 2012 to 2017, 3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2017.

18.0%

16.0%

15.4%

18.6%

18.9%

7.8%

3.7%

1.6%

14.0%

15.6%

10.3%

17.5%

20.4%

11.6%

9.0%

1.6%

12.5%

13.5%

11.4%

15.1%

22.9%

10.8%

11.3%

2.5%

11.6%

9.7%

8.0%

14.6% 28.1%

12.9%

12.2%

2.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Percent

Household Income

Household Income: Johnson County

2000 Census 2010 Census 2012 2017


P a g e 6

there are three household income levels estimated to decrease: $25,000 to $34,999 (-25.3 percent), $15,000 to $24,999 (-23.8 percent), and < $15,000 (-1.5 percent).

InnovationDistrict


The 2012 and 2017 population estimates of the Innovation District show that much like the City of Warrensburg and Johnson County, the Median Household Income will increase. The levels of household income expected to increase include all those $50,000 and greater4. All other household income levels below $50,000 are expected to decline. From 2012 to 2017, the three greatest increase in household income include: $75,000 to $99,999 (35.5 percent), $50,000 to $74,999 (33.5 percent), and $150,000+ (27.8 percent). From 2012 to 2017, only two household income levels are expected to decrease: $25,000 to $34,999 (-20.2 percent) and $15,000 to $24,999 (-18.6 percent).

A comparison of the overall Median Household Income of the Innovation District to both the City of Warrensburg and Johnson County helps to show how these three regions relate to one another5. A quick glance at the data shows that the median household income of the Innovation District relates more closely to Johnson County than to the City of Warrensburg. All three regions tend to show relatively equal increases and decreases in this statistical measurement. However, the median household income of both the Innovation District and Johnson County are higher than the City of Warrensburg.

4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2017. 5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2017.

9.5%

15.0%

12.9%

15.4%

19.1%

12.5%

13.8%

1.9%

8.7%

11.2%

9.5%

14.7%

23.3%

15.5%

14.9%

2.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Percentage

Household Income

Household Income: Innovation District

2012

2017

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2017.

$46,562

$54,408

$40,066

$49,656

$46,844

$53,446

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

2012 2017

Income Levels

Year

Median Household Income

InnovationDistrict

City ofWarrensburg

JohnsonCounty


P a g e 7

E d u c a t i o n a l A t t a i n m e n t

InnovationDistrictThe Educational Attainment for the Innovation District provides an interpretation of the amount of education that the residents of a region have completed. Showing this statistical measurement over time can show how the level of residents’ education changes. This trend can show whether or not a region is becoming more or less educated, which has implications on the ability of a local workforce to perform high quality jobs that demand higher levels of education.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 2000 Census Population and Housing.

From 1990 to 2009, the level of education for the residents of the Innovation District has shown a general decrease in those with an education less than a high school diploma, a general increase in those with an education greater than a high school diploma or less than a bachelor’s degree, and a generally steady level of residents with a bachelor’s degree or greater6. From 1990 to 2000, the three greatest increases in educational attainment include: Bachelor’s Degree (56.1 percent), Master’s Degree or greater (40.5 percent), and Some College (9.9 percent). From 1990 to 2000, only two educational attainment levels show a decrease: 9th – 12th, no diploma (-44.3 percent) and < 9th Grade (-12.5 percent). From 2000 to 2009, the three greatest increases in educational attainment include: Associates Degree (173.2 percent), Some College (61.2 percent), and High School Grad (32.5 percent). From 2000 to 2009, three levels of educational attainment show a decrease: 9th – 12th, no diploma (-37.0 percent), Bachelor’s Degree (-9.9 percent), and Masters or greater (-6.1 percent).

6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, 2000 Census Population and Housing.

4.0%

13.3%

29.5%

24.3%

3.8%

12.5%

12.7%

3.2%

6.7%

28.7%

24.1%

3.7% 17.6%

16.1%

2.7%

3.3%

30.3%

30.9%

8.2%

12.6%

12.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

< 9th Grade 9th ‐ 12th, nodiploma

High SchoolGrad

Some College Assoc.Degree

Bach. Degree Master's orgreater

Educational Attainment: Innovation District

1990 Census

2000 Census

2009 ACS Est


P a g e 8

4

32

71

154

37

73

22

10

10

27

35

13

0

2

119

240

7

82

36

117

0 100 200 300

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Transportation and warehousing

Utilities

Information

Finance and insurance

Real estate and rental and leasing

Professional, scientific, and technical services

Management of companies and enterprises

Administrative and support and waste…

Educational services

Health care and social assistance

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

Accommodation and food services

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

# of Jobs

2009 Employment by Industry: Innovation District

Economic Conditions

This section will review economic information for the Johnson County Innovation District site using JCEDC, CEDS, Pioneer Trails RPC, U.S. Census, regional, and economic data to assess current economic conditions, anticipated growth, tax base, employment, and perform location quotient analysis to better gauge export or primary development opportunities as well as clustering opportunities to benefit both new and existing employers.

I n d u s t r y a n d E m p l o y m e n t

EmploymentbyIndustryThe level of Employment by Industry provides a view of the organization of employment within a target region. This data allows the reader to understand the number of local jobs within each North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry. Knowing which industries dominate local employment allows for a better understanding of which industries require attention for the purpose of business retention and by extension which industries require additional business attraction activities.

In 2009, the industry with the highest levels of employment within the Innovation District was Health care and social assistance (240 jobs). The second highest industry of employment within the Innovation District is Manufacturing (154 jobs). In contrast, the industry with the lowest level of employment is Management of companies and enterprises (no jobs). The second lowest level of employment within the Innovation District is the Administrative and support and waste management services industry (2).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey.


P a g e 9

Another way to analyze employment by industry data is to compare and contrast the target area to the surrounding areas. To this end, the project team has compiled the employment by industry information for the City of Warrensburg, Johnson County, and the State of Missouri7. These levels of employment within each industry are compared to each other as a percentage of total local employment.

11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 53 Real estate and rental and leasing

21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 54 Professional and technical services

22 Utilities 55 Management of companies and enterprises

23 Construction 56 Administrative and waste services

31‐33 Manufacturing 61 Educational services

42 Wholesale trade 62 Health care and social assistance

44‐45 Retail trade 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation

48‐49 Transportation and warehousing 72 Accommodation and food services

51 Information 81 Other services, except public administration

52 Finance and insurance 92 Public administration

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey.

7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

NAICS Codes

Innovation District City of Warrensburg Johnson County State of Missouri

2009 Percent Employment by Industry


P a g e 1 0

When compared to the three areas of Warrensburg, Johnson County, and the State of Missouri, the Innovation District ranks 1st in percent of total industry population in the following NAICS Industries:

1. Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction (NAICS 21) – 2.9 percent 2. Manufacturing (NAICS 31-33) – 3.4 percent 3. Wholesale trade (NAICS 42) – 6.7 percent 4. Real estate and rental and leasing (NAICS 53) – 3.2 percent 5. Health care and social assistance (NAICS 62) – 22.0 percent 6. Public administration (NAICS 92) – 10.7 percent

Conversely, the following NAICS industries within the Innovation District ranked last as a percentage of total local employment:

1. Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting (NAICS 11) – 0.4 percent 2. Retail trade (NAICS 44-45) – 2.0 percent 3. Transportation and warehousing (NAICS 48-49) – 0.9 percent 4. Information (NAICS 51) – 0.9 percent 5. Finance and insurance (NAICS 52) – 2.5 percent 6. Professional, scientific, and technical services (NAICS 54) – 1.2 percent 7. Management of companies and enterprises (NAICS 55) – 0.0 percent 8. Administrative and support and waste management services (NAICS 56) – 0.2 percent 9. Arts, entertainment, and recreation (NAICS 71) – 0.6 percent 10. Other services (except Public Administration)8 (NAICS 81) – 3.3 percent

EmploymentbyIndustryThe State of Missouri provides the average weekly wage by NAICS Industry as a part of each successive economic census9. This statistical measure allows the reader to understand with greater detail the level of compensation within each successive industry. Business leaders can use this information to anticipate the labor costs associated with a certain industry prior to entering a new market area.

8 Comprised of establishments engaged in providing services not specifically provided for elsewhere in the classification system. Establishments in this sector are primarily engaged in activities, such as equipment and machinery repairing, promoting or administering religious activities, grant making, advocacy, and providing dry cleaning and laundry services, personal care services, death care services, pet care services, photofinishing services, temporary parking services, and dating services. Private households that engage in employing workers on or about the premises in activities primarily concerned with the operation of the household are included in this sector. 9 Source: Produced by MERIC in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


P a g e 1 1

State of Missouri Average Weekly Wage (in Dollars)

Industry 2004 2008 2013

Base Industry: Total, all industries $673 $783 $827

NAICS 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting $520 $576 $554

NAICS 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction $1,110 $1,290 $1,264

NAICS 22 Utilities $1,217 $1,437 $1,618

NAICS 23 Construction $767 $929 $927

NAICS 31-33 Manufacturing $821 $954 $1,022

NAICS 42 Wholesale trade $925 $1,084 $1,145

NAICS 44-45 Retail trade $419 $459 $484

NAICS 48-49 Transportation and warehousing NA $763 $790

NAICS 51 Information $952 $1,129 $1,382

NAICS 52 Finance and insurance $972 $1,084 NA

NAICS 53 Real estate and rental and leasing $569 $641 $720

NAICS 54 Professional and technical services $1,055 $1,260 $1,262

NAICS 55 Management of companies and enterprises $1,358 $1,898 $1,833

NAICS 56 Administrative and waste services $482 $547 $597

NAICS 61 Educational services $736 $844 $805

NAICS 62 Health care and social assistance $655 $739 $771

NAICS 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation $545 $607 $660

NAICS 72 Accommodation and food services $239 $272 $287

NAICS 81 Other services, except public administration $438 $482 $547

Source: Produced by MERIC in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


P a g e 1 2

In 2013, the five highest paid average weekly wages for the State of Missouri include:

1. Management of Companies and Enterprises ($1,833) 2. Utilities ($1,618) 3. Information ($1,382) 4. Mining ($1,264) 5. Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services ($1,262)

In 2013, the five lowest paid average weekly wages for the State of Missouri include:

1. Accommodation and Food Services ($287) 2. Retail Trade ($484) 3. Other Service – except Public Administration ($547) 4. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting ($554) 5. Administrative Support, Waste Management and Remediation Services ($597)

From 2004 to 2013, the average weekly wages for the State of Missouri has fluctuated10. Due to local, regional, and national market forces, these wages have increased or decreased due to the supply and/or demand of the products of each industry. The evaluation of these forces can infer if any industry is experiencing an upward or downward trend in industry-wide compensation. From 2004 to 2013, no industry average weekly wage decreased and the three greatest increases in average weekly wage include:

1. Information (45.2 percent) 2. Management of Companies and Enterprises (35.0 percent) 3. Utilities (32.9 percent)

During this same period the three smallest increases in average weekly wage include:

1. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting (6.5 percent) 2. Educational Services (9.4 percent) 3. Mining (13.9 percent)

10 Source: Produced by MERIC in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


P a g e 1 3

Source: Produced by MERIC in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

LocationQuotientAnalysisA location quotient (LQ) is the ratio of analysis-industry employment in the analysis area (Johnson County) to base-industry employment in the analysis area divided by the ratio of analysis-industry employment in the base area (United States) to base-industry employment in the base area. In general terms, it provides a comparison of employment by industry between a particular area of interest (Johnson County) to a base area (in this case, the full United States).11 What this indicates is how high of a concentration the area has in the industry when compared to the nation. If the LQ is above 1, this generally indicates an advantage; if it is below 1, this indicates a low concentration and/or disadvantage. For example, the Manufacturing industry has an LQ of 1.31 in Johnson County. This means that employment in the manufacturing industry compared to all industries in Johnson County is 31 percent higher than the national ratio of manufacturing employment to total employment.

Identifying high location quotients also shows what is unique about the local economy and what industries are currently exporting their goods or services to areas around the country. However, this data must be considered in the context of other economic indicators, as a high LQ in an industry like Retail Trade might indicate low employment elsewhere in the local economy, not necessarily a unique advantage in Retail Trade in the target location.

11 The smallest geographic area of this data is at the county level.

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting

Mining

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale Trade

Retail Trade

Transportation and Warehousing

Information

Finance and Insuarance

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

Management of Companies and Enterprises

Adminitrative Support; Waste Management and…

Educational Services

Health Care and Social Assistance

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation

Accomodation and Food Services

Other Services (except Public Administration)

Weekly Wage

State of Missouri Average Weeky Wage by NAICS Industry

2004

2008

2013


P a g e 1 4

Location Quotients calculated from Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Data

Industry Johnson County, Missouri

Base Industry: Total, all industries 1

NAICS 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting NDNAICS 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction NDNAICS 22 Utilities 2.0NAICS 23 Construction 0.93NAICS 31-33 Manufacturing 1.31NAICS 42 Wholesale trade 0.56NAICS 44-45 Retail trade 1.51NAICS 54 Professional and technical services 0.31NAICS 55 Management of companies and enterprises 0.24NAICS 56 Administrative and waste services 0.4NAICS 61 Educational services 0.57NAICS 62 Health care and social assistance 1.0NAICS 48-49 Transportation and warehousing 0.7NAICS 51 Information 0.6NAICS 52 Finance and insurance 0.87NAICS 53 Real estate and rental and leasing 0.44NAICS 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation NDNAICS 72 Accommodation and food services NDNAICS 81 Other services, except public administration 1.04NAICS 99 Unclassified NC

Footnotes: (ND) Not Disclosable (NC) Not Calculable, the data does not exist or it is zero

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor.

For Johnson County, the Utilities (2.0), Manufacturing (1.31), Healthcare and Social Assistance (1.0) and Other Services except Public Administration (1.04) have the highest location quotients. Johnson County has several industries that are below the national average, such as Professional and Technical Services (0.31), Management of Companies and Enterprises (0.24), Administrative and Waste Services (0.4), and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (0.44). Since Johnson County is relatively small in terms of industry/population, many industries that may have only one or a few industry establishments makes employment data not disclosable (ND) to the public. The leading industries-- those with high location quotients for Johnson County--will be listed in the following section.


P a g e 1 5

LeadingIndustries

Industry NAICS Employment12 Establishments13 Location Quotient

Utilities 22 83 5 2.0 Retail trade 44-45 1745 138 1.51 Manufacturing 31-33 1180 32 1.31 Health care and social assistance 62 1346 110 1.0 Other services, except public

administration 81 360 136 1.04

R e t a i l M a r k e t p l a c e A n a l y s i s A Retail Marketplace Analysis is a useful tool to provide an overview of the retail industry in the Johnson County Innovation District. The Retail Marketplace Analysis in the table below illustrates the demand and supply of retail sales by industry within the district boundary. This analysis is sometimes called a “retail gap analysis” or “a supply and demand analysis.” This information can help to indicate how retail needs of local residents are being met or unmet, identify possible opportunities, and understand the strengths and weaknesses of the local retail sector13.

Retail Gap Analysis – Innovation District

Industry Group NAICS Demand (Retail Potential)

Supply (Retail Sales)

Retail Gap Leakage/ Surplus Factor

Number of Businesses

Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 441 $3,957,167 $38,034,424 -$34,077,257 -81.2 7 Furniture & Home Furnishings

Stores 442 $459,702 $1,541,856 -$1,082,154 -54.1 0

Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores 444 $690,740 $13,028,624 -$12,337,884 -89.9 2

Food & Beverage Stores 445 $2,716,694 $1,132,160 $1,584,533 41.2 1 Health & Personal Care Stores 446,4461 $1,717,141 $1,109,261 $607,881 21.5 2 Gasoline Stations 447,4471 $2,469,358 $12,273,502 -$9,804,144 -66.5 2 Clothing & Clothing Accessories

Stores 448 $1,234,476 $189,524 $1,044,951 73.4 1

Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book & Music Stores 451 $364,095 $3,219,410 -$2,855,315 -79.7 1

General Merchandise Stores 452 $4,788,688 $12,153,381 -$7,364,693 -43.5 2 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 453 $559,282 $3,288,798 -$2,729,517 -70.9 5 Non-store Retailers 454 $1,395,508 $10,976,068 -$9,580,560 -77.4 3 Food Services & Drinking Places 722 $2,309,561 $7,741,264 -$5,431,704 -54.0 7

12 Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. 2012 data. 13 ESRI Business Analyst and Dun and Bradstreet; customized to the Johnson County Innovation District Boundary.


P a g e 1 6

In the table on the previous page, the column “Retail Gap” is the Supply (Retail Sales) subtracted from the Demand (Retail Potential) of each different type of store. A negative number in the Retail Gap column indicates a surplus of retail sales, which means that business type brings in customers from outside the trade area. A positive number indicates a leakage of retail opportunity to outside the trade area, where local consumers travel outside of the trade area to purchase goods14.

A retail leakage suggests that there is unmet demand in the trade area and that the community can support additional space for the type of business; however, this is not always the case. For example, there could be a competing store or stores in an adjacent community that controls a large portion of the market for that type of store, in which case, it would be difficult to capture more of that market share with a new local store. For the Johnson County Innovation District, it is likely that because of the small area and associated local retail demand, combined with existing commercial buildings, the area naturally draws consumers from outside the boundary (which represents only 14.8 square miles).

Conversely, a retail surplus suggests that the community’s trade area is capturing the local market as well as attracting shoppers from non-local areas. Again, a retail surplus does not necessarily mean that the community cannot support additional business. One example would be a community that has a strong cluster of stores that developed into a destination for both local and non-local shoppers.

Leakage/SurplusIndex‐InnovationDistrictThe Retail Leakage/Surplus Index graph below provides a relative comparison of the supply and demand across retail product categories. It is calculated by dividing actual sales by potential sales (both of these values can be found in Retail Gap Analysis table on the previous page). A negative index number means that the community is attracting retail sales from outside the trade area (surplus); a positive index means that local shoppers are traveling outside of the boundary to buy these goods from retailers (leakage).

Leakage/Surplus by Industry Subsector

Source: ESRI Business Analyst and Dun and Bradstreet; customized to the Innovation District Boundary.

14 For more information on ESRI Retail MarketPlace data, please view the methodology at http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/esri-data-retail-marketplace.pdf.

Leakage/Surplus Factor706050403020100-10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80

Food Services & Drinking Places Nonstore Retailers

Miscellaneous Store Retailers General Merchandise Stores

Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores

Gasoline Stations Health & Personal Care Stores

Food & Beverage Stores Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores

Electronics & Appliance Stores Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores

Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers


P a g e 1 7

The Johnson County Innovation District is in a strong position in regard to retail sales. The majority of retail categories show retail surpluses, with large negative index values. Only three retail categories show leakages where consumers are leaving the area to purchase goods: in Food and Beverage Stores (41.2), Health and Personal Care Stores (21.5), and Clothing and Clothing Accessory Stores (73.4).

As discussed above, however, this does not necessarily indicate that the Johnson County Innovation District has a great surplus of retail establishments. Rather, the district is small and due to low population in the boundary area, customers are naturally drawn from other areas.

T a x R a t e s / S t r u c t u r e

State and Local Sales Tax Rates for Missouri, 2013

State Tax Rate

National Rank

Avg. Local Tax Rate

Combined Rate

National Rank

Johnson County Rate

Warrensburg Local Rate

4.225 percent 37 3.23 percent 7.46 percent 14 2.175 percent 1.88 percent

Source: Tax Foundation, Sales and Local Tax Rates 2013, http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-2013.

2014 State Business Tax Climate Index Ranks, Missouri & Nearby States

State Overall Rank

Corporate Tax Rank

Individual Income Tax

Rank

Sales Tax Rank

Unemployment Insurance Tax

Rank

Property Tax Rank

Missouri 16 7 27 26 9 7 Adjacent states nearest to Johnson County, MO

Kansas 20 37 17 31 12 29 Nebraska 34 36 30 29 8 39

Iowa 40 49 32 24 36 38 Source: Tax Foundation, 2014 State Business Tax Climate Index, http://taxfoundation.org/article/2014-state-business-tax-climate-index.

The Tax Foundation is a leading independent (non-partisan) tax policy research organization based in Washington, DC.15 In addition to compiling data as it does for the first table in this section, it analyzes and compares tax rates by type, creating indices that can be useful in comparing states. The second table above depicts rankings for Missouri and adjacent states nearest to Johnson County. The State Business Tax Climate Index represents the tax climate of each state as of July 1, 2013. It is based on corporate taxes, individual income taxes, sales taxes, unemployment taxes, and property taxes. The rankings above correspond to the following scale: 1 (most favorable) to 50 (least favorable); therefore, Missouri’s overall rank of 16 indicates it has the 16th-most favorable business tax climate in the nation as determined by the Tax Foundation’s metric.

15 Tax Foundation, About Us, http://taxfoundation.org/about-us.


P a g e 1 8

Research conducted by the Foundation shows that favorable tax systems are an important part of competitiveness, attracting new businesses, and generating employment growth. Taxes are but one factor in location decisions, which also include concerns such as raw material availability/proximity, transportation connectivity and infrastructure, and desired labor pool, to name a few. Understanding how Missouri compares to its neighbors with regard to tax policy, however, can help contextualize the economic climate of the state and region for the Johnson County Innovation District and serve as a selling point when recruiting targeted businesses.

A s s e t s a n d I n s t i t u t i o n s Identifying the relevant assets and institutions and leveraging their impact is an important component to community economic development. This section will explore the formal institutions related to economic development and local assets such as academic research centers.

Academic Research and Development

Academic research and development (R&D) is an effective tool to incentivize innovation, increase the education level of the workforce, and encourage start-ups, all of which provide positive impact on the local and/or regional economy. Critical to this impact is creating and sustaining partnerships with local academic institutions, with both government and private industry, which intend to accomplish that the impact remains local and that the institution’s R&D efforts are valuable and effective in the local and regional economy.

The National Science Foundation tracks and records R&D spending at colleges and universities across the nation. The table below shows these institutions located in Missouri, whose institutions spent over $1.1 billion on R&D overall in 2011; highlighted is the University of Central Missouri (UCM), which is located in Johnson County (Warrensburg, MO, where the Innovation District is located). As the table shows, UCM did not meet the criteria for inclusion until 2011, when it invested $205,000 in R&D.

Research & Development Spending at Public & Private Missouri Universities, 2004-2011($, Thousands)

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Public

Lincoln U., Jefferson City 2,181 2,656 5,395 5,573 6,263 8,011 8,475 8,518

MO State U. 4,677 6,538 5,385 9,424 9,313 11,396 7,770 5,584 MO U. of Science and Technology 46,388 40,832 39,274 31,168 36,533 35,672 42,263 41,581

Northwest MO State U. ne16 ne ne ne ne ne ne 209

Southeast MO State U. 195 232 169 ne ne ne ne 187

Truman State U. 588 524 1,031 593 760 701 882 710 U. Central MO ne ne ne ne ne ne ne 205

16 NE=not eligible; institution did not meet the criteria for inclusion.


P a g e 1 9

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 U. MO, Columbia 227,592 234,334 231,170 244,429 251,894 253,527 238,500 230,957 U. MO, Kansas City 35,208 34,282 27,572 30,944 28,892 28,657 30,163 32,769

U. MO, St. Louis 14,684 14,022 13,587 13,214 14,374 15,665 14,628 18,461 Private

A. T. Still U. of Health Sciences

839 1,206 1,439 826 1,179 623 1,253 1,925

Goldfarb School of Nursing

ne ne ne ne ne ne ne 1,767

Kansas City U. of Medicine

1,110 987 1,218 1,302 1,428 992 685 239

St. Louis U. 41,263 47,356 48,248 56,921 59,236 38,075 46,839 53,179 Washington U., St. Louis

492,998 535,642 551,333 575,846 566,378 630,141 695,974 725,039

Source: National Science Foundation, Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, 2013.

Specifically, the University of Central Missouri has a Small Business & Technology Development Center (SBTDC) that assists small businesses at all stages that are in need of specialized assistance. The SBTDC leverages university, federal, state, and private resources to train and counsel owners, managements, and assist new businesses in becoming more profitable and productive17. The center places specific focus on high-growth companies and technology-related businesses. The SBTDC cooperates with the U.S. Small Business Administration and the network of Missouri Small Business & Technology Development Centers, acknowledging that strong small businesses are important for the local, regional, and national economy. Developing and leveraging this partnership with UCM, the SBTDC, and advocating for increased R&D is an opportunity for the Johnson County Innovation District.

Workforce and Economic Development Institutions

Another category of institutions to highlight are those that actively promote economic objectives of the region, including economic development and/or workforce development organizations as well as business coalitions and chambers of commerce. The following page contains a list of these institutions that have responsibilities within Johnson County. Ensuring these institutions plan, cooperate, and strategize together is important for the region as well as the Johnson County Innovation District.

Johnson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC)

The JCEDC works to increase economic development throughout Johnson County by providing business location services, providing data, facilitating partnerships, and operating four task forces—Business Development, Infrastructure & Development, Innovation & Entrepreneurship, and Partnership. The JCEDC is conducting this study in order to continue moving the Johnson County Innovation District forward.

17 University of Central Missouri, http://www.ucmo.edu/sbtdc/.


P a g e 2 0

Warrensburg Chamber of Commerce

The Warrensburg Chamber of Commerce’s mission is to “create opportunities to promote business success and welcome visitors.”18 Through networking events, a full slate of programs, membership services, and a special group for young professionals in Warrensburg, the Chamber furthers the goals of the business community and works to create an environment conducive to success.

Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission (PTRPC)

The PTRPC is the agency responsible for regional planning for Johnson, Lafayette, Pettis, and Saline counties in Missouri. The agency works to promote and implement planning activities in the areas of economic development, homeland security, solid waste management, and transportation. PTRPC also provides GIS services to the four counties and their local communities.19 The economic development goals of the PRTPC are to:

Encourage entrepreneurship, business development, and business expansion; Plan for regional prosperity; Promote infrastructure improvements throughout the region; and Preserve regional quality of life.20

Collaborating with the PRTPC will be critical to the success of the Johnson County Innovation District to ensure the District is adequately planned for, has the appropriate infrastructure, and is recognized as a local and regional asset in the quad-county area.

Demographic and Economic Conditions Summary

Analysis of demographic information for the Innovation District, Johnson County, and the City of Warrensburg presents a fairly consistent picture in some areas. In regard to household incomes, the trend for all three geographic areas is towards higher incomes. Generally, the percentage of households with income ranges above $50,000 is increasing over time, and the percentage of households with incomes below $50,000 is decreasing over time.

However, there are a few aspects where the Innovation District stands out. First is that the District shows continued population growth at higher rates than Johnson County and the City of Warrensburg—around 2 percent per year from 2000-2017, while Johnson County and the City of Warrensburg fluctuate between 0 percent and 1 percent over the same time period. Also, the median age is older in the Innovation District as compared to the city and county, though this number is dragged downwards for the city because of college age residents. The 20-24 age group also shows an effect on the District. Additionally, the changes in population distribution indicate that people over the age of 55 are migrating into the Innovation District at a moderate rate.

18 Warrensburg Chamber of Commerce, http://www.warrensburg.org/. 19 Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission, http://www.trailsrpc.org/. 20 Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission, http://www.trailsrpc.org/economic-development/ceds-goals-and-objectives/.


P a g e 2 1

Educational attainment is also generally increasing in the Innovation District, with gains in those with Associate’s degrees and decreases in those without high school diplomas.

Economically, several metrics indicate the Innovation District is in a relatively strong position. Of the industries with high location quotients in the county (Utilities (2.0), Manufacturing (1.31), Healthcare and Social Assistance (1.0) and Other Services except Public Administration (1.04)), Utilities ($1,618 per week in 2013), Manufacturing ($1,022), and Healthcare and Social Assistance ($1,833) have higher average weekly wages in Missouri than many other industries. The Innovation District also has an above average tax climate, with a combined national rank of 14 based on the combined state, county and local rates. A retail leakage/surplus analysis indicates people enter the district for many types of shopping.

Other areas affecting the economic performance of the Innovation District are academic research and development and economic development institutions. Academic research institutions in Missouri collectively spent over $1.1 billion on R&D overall in 2011; the University of Central Missouri (UCM) did not register R&D spending until 2011, when it invested $205,000. Another economic asset at UCM is the Small Business & Technology Development Center (SBTDC), which assists small businesses at all stages that are in need of specialized assistance. To continue the growth and development of the Innovation District, institutional assets like the Johnson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC), the Warrensburg Chamber of Commerce, and the Pioneer Trails Regional Planning Commission (PTRPC) can be leveraged for further partnership and investment in the Innovation District.

Summary Report P u b l i c I n v o l v e m e n t S u m m a r y

P a g e 2 2

Public Involvement Summary The following section outlines the efforts undertaken to solicit public input on this project and the ultimate results of those endeavors. There were several categories of efforts including public meetings, stakeholder interviews, the online town hall platform “MindMixer”, and task force specific meetings and progress reports.

Public Meetings

K i c k o f f M e e t i n g A town hall meeting was held on November 12, 2013. Gilbert Powers (JCEDC Board President) led the meeting and introduced the Olsson Associates (Olsson) team. Olsson presented an overview of the project and encouraged the public to provide input. Two (2) stations were set up at the back of the room to provide additional information. Station 1 provided an aerial view for residents to identify their properties and document their future land use plans. Station 2 provided the opportunity for visitors to log in and experience the MindMixer site (http://jocomoinnovation.mindmixer.com/) as well as an opportunity for those without a computer to provide comments.

Following the town hall meeting, 800 postcards were mailed to property owners in the study area, inviting them to comment on the MindMixer site. Prior to the final meeting, an additional 800 postcards were mailed to encourage further participation.

M i d - P o i n t P r o g r e s s M e e t i n g A mid-point progress meeting was held on June 17, 2014. Olsson presented the findings of the research to date. This included presenting the Task Force a summary of the memos submitted to date, project deviations, and what to expect as the project wraps up. The majority of this meeting focused on the data gaps in the utility infrastructure.

Immediately following the presentation to the Task Force, a presentation was made to the public. This presentation covered demographic and economic trends, targeted industries, existing land use, and transportation findings. MindMixer was re-introduced and the public was encouraged to provide thoughts and feedback.

F i n a l P r e s e n t a t i o n M e e t i n g A final meeting was held on September 25, 2014. Olsson presented the final findings and development opportunities. This meeting also served as a final opportunity for the public to provide feedback on the findings.

Summary Report | P u b l i c I n v o l v e m e n t S u m m a r y

P a g e 2 3

Business/Employer & Community Leader Interviews

Key businesses/employers and community leaders were identified by the Steering Committee to take part in personal interviews designed to identify assets and challenges inherent in the Johnson County business climate. The interviews were conducted on November 12, 2013, by Olsson and JCEDC staff members. Some general sentiments included the following:

The need for improved transportation (highway, street, bike path, and trails) infrastructure The need for safety enhancements along the highway portion of the study corridor The need for more industries and economic activity The need for a larger, better-trained work force The need for improved sewage treatment The need for improved emergency response times and capabilities The need for more affordable housing The need for improved access to the airport, including signage Concerns over the impacts caused by the lack of controlled land

MindMixer

Olsson, with the help of JCEDC, established an online, virtual town hall information gathering forum (MindMixer) to collect and aggregate public input data to include in plan development and documents. Information gathered from the online portal was used throughout the duration of the project.

Some questions established for the MindMixer site included the following:

How can we make Johnson County an economically and globally competitive place to work and live?

What’s your big idea for the future of the Innovation District Corridor?

How can we make Johnson County a more permanent home for our residents? Where should we get started?

What are your top three reasons for living in Johnson County?


P a g e 2 4

MindMixer had a total of 62 participants, 76 percent female and 24 percent male with an average age of 39.

I d e a S u b m i s s i o n s Bringing in Business - Making Johnson County More Competitive

How can we make Johnson County an economically and globally competitive place to work and live?

Greater focus on entertainment and cultural amenities 13 votes

Greater tax incentives for business relocation 9 votes

Improvements in services and public facilities 9 votes

Streamline existing regulations 6 votes

Increased funding for schools 6 votes

More affordable housing 3 votes

Better transportation 2 votes

Other (Provide your choice in the comments.) 1 vote

Votes (49); Comments (1)


P a g e 2 5

Community Vision

What's your big idea for the future of the Innovation District Corridor?

Top Ideas:

More diverse economic experience 10 Stars

Incentives for small business start up 8 Stars

Bring in a Kohl's and a Hyvee or Price Chopper 8 Stars

Find companies that need collage graduates 5 Stars

A county-wide bike and pedestrian trail connection 4 Stars

I n s t a n t P o l l s Calling Johnson County Home

How can we make Johnson County a more permanent home for our residents? Where should we get started?

More jobs for college graduates 23 votes

Greater tax incentives for business investment 17 votes

Improve our public schools 13 votes

More affordable housing 10 votes

Vocational training options at local schools and colleges 8 votes

Better health care options 7 votes

Other (please add your idea in the comments) 7 votes

More transportation options 5 votes

Votes (90); Comments (0)


P a g e 2 6

Living in Our Community

What are your top three reasons for living in Johnson County?

Family-Oriented 21 votes

Job 21 votes

Affordability 13 votes

Schools & Higher Education 11 votes

Safety 10 votes

Atmosphere & Character 7 votes

Friendly & Diverse Community 7 votes

Climate & Location 4 votes

Live Entertainment Venues or Other Cultural Activities 1 vote

Shopping & Restaurants 0 votes

Votes (95)

Based on the initial round of responses, additional questions were added to the MindMixer site. The responses to this second round were extremely limited. The technical memos were published to MindMixer in September for additional comments and these questions were renewed. Below are the final comments:

After reviewing the draft demographic and economic conditions section of the Corridor Study, I... o Mostly agree with the data reported (all 3 votes)

After reviewing the draft Guidance for Development of the Corridor, I.... o Mostly agree with the recommendations (all 2 votes)

“Need to highlight the various industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural areas being proposed on a color-coded map and include it in the report.” Comment from Doug W.

How would you describe your Internet service in terms of speed, choices, reliability, and cost? o Providers are extremely limited. o People are looking forward to Google Fiber.

What communication strategies would you implement to connect business owners with loans and incentives available?

o NO RESPONSES What entertainment and/or cultural amenity would you expect to find in Johnson County?

o Increase hours and vendors at the farmer's market, and make it year-round. If you were an elected official, where would you invest limited budget funds?

o NO RESPONSES


P a g e 2 7

How long is your daily commute? o Two (2) replied “less than 15 minutes.” o One (1) replied “45-60 minutes.”

What recommendations do you have to improve your commute? o Improve Hwy 13 to I-70. o No problems there.

G e n e r a l M i n d M i x e r C o m m e n t s Many comments made on the MindMixer site were not a result of directly solicited questions. Many bore the same theme and are summarized below:

Create opportunities for new and existing businesses. o Cut red tape, and reduce the cost of doing business. o Provide tax breaks and incentives for new and existing businesses. o Ensure county support in navigating loans and promoting buy-local campaigns. o Engage businesses that align with majors at UCM.

Look to attract technology and manufacturing companies and renewable energies. Offer more grocery store and shopping options. Offer more services and diversity in entertainment such as restaurants and hotels as well as family-

oriented entertainment options such as a bowling alley arcade, a youth dance club, or youth sporting events.

Drive traffic downtown, and capitalize on the existing Amtrak resource. Institute planning and zoning. Create a county-wide bike and pedestrian trail connection. Clean up abandoned former businesses and roadways. Develop an eclectic arts district, community gardens, boutique shopping, and an expansion of the Main

Street Project. Increase medical facilities.

Website Integration

Materials created by Olsson were made available in a format that could be placed on the MindMixer site and the JCEDC website.

Progress Meetings

In addition to monthly progress reports that were submitted, progress meetings were conducted with the task force. These project meets were intended to coincide as much as possible with the already established Johnson County EDC (JCEDC) Infrastructure & Development Task Force (Task Force) meetings.


P a g e 2 8

F e b r u a r y A virtual meeting was conducted on February 19, 2014, to review the outline for public involvement as well as demographic and economic conditions.

A p r i l An in-person meeting was conducted on April 21, 2014, to discuss generalized targeting and land use. Final versions of Tech Memo 1 (Public Involvement) and Tech Memo 2 (Demographic and Economic Conditions) were submitted.

J u n e An in-person meeting was conducted on June 17, 2014, to brief the task force and to present the Mid-Point Progress report and the Executive Project Briefing. The public comments period was extended to go through August 1, 2014.

A u g u s t A virtual meeting was conducted on August 18, 2014, to discuss findings to date and to determine optimal land use to allow the task force to provide comments.

S e p t e m b e r An in-person meeting was conducted on September 25, 2014, to deliver the final report and provide a 45-minute presentation to the public to gather final comments.

Summary Report D e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e S t u d y A r e a

P a g e 2 9

Development in the Study Area General Site Information

The site area is 9,290.69 acres. The innovation boundary generally follows U.S. 50 Highway through Warrensburg, west to Missouri 58 Highway, where it turns south and terminates at Centerview. From Warrensburg east, the boundary follows the Missouri 13 Highway to the north, stops at the new Missouri Business Highway 13 and Missouri Highway 13 East Loop Roundabout, and follows Missouri 13 Highway East Loop south where it terminates at SE 250th Road. The boundary runs parallel to the roads described above, approximately ¼ to ½ mile on either side of the road.

For the purpose of this study, undeveloped land includes those properties that are primarily devoted to agricultural use or are in a relatively natural state. Based on this definition, approximately 6,034.99 acres (or 65 percent of the site area) is undeveloped. The remaining 3,255.70 acres (or 35 percent of the site area) is divided between either roadway or railway right-of-way (ROW) and those properties that are used for industrial uses, commercial uses, residential uses, and public uses. The existing ROW comprises approximately 1,082 acres (or 11.7 percent of the study area), and the combination of industrial, residential, commercial, and public uses comprise approximately 1,953 acres (or 20.9 percent of the study area). The remaining 220.7 acres (or 2.4 percent of the study area) is defined as vacant land use.

Natural Assets

S i t e T o p o g r a p h y a n d F l o o d p l a i n I n f o r m a t i o n Topography varies widely across the Innovation District. Slopes vary from being very flat to very steep, and some locations are heavily wooded with rocky terrain that is not conducive to any type of development. Typical of areas near tributaries and creeks, very flat low-lying areas frequently become flooded. In general, however, wide areas of workable slopes exist for development, particularly along or near transportation corridors.

The midsection of the district contains the steepest slopes, north and south of U.S. 50 Highway within the study area, from PCA Road on the east to the U.S. 50 Highway/Young Avenue intersection on the west.

A review of the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps has been performed on the site. The areas that exist within the 100-year floodplain that align with the tributaries to Blackwater River. It is possible to develop within the 100-year floodplain; however, buildings must be set one foot or above the 100-year floodplain elevation for insurance considerations. Parking lots are generally allowed to be built within the floodplain, but special consideration needs to be taken for paving and utilities. It’s important to note that time is involved to permit through the Army Corps of Engineers for Letter of Map Revisions and that, in general, development is not allowed within the floodway (river or stream channels).

Summary Report | D e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e S t u d y A r e a

P a g e 3 0

W e t l a n d s I n f o r m a t i o n Information from the NWI (National Wetlands Inventory) map shows that wetlands exist within the study boundary and are located within some of the floodplain areas. Construction activities that affect wetlands should be given special consideration. Wetlands have the potential to be classified as Waters of the State or Waters of the United States. Wetlands that are determined to be Waters of the United States (jurisdictional) are subject to review by the Army Corps of Engineers. Major impacts to existing wetlands that are jurisdictional must be permitted and will typically go through a review period with the Corps of Engineers (six-to-nine months). The permit requires specific mitigations of the wetland disturbance that can potentially affect site development.

The NWI map does not always accurately depict the existing condition of wetlands. Olsson Associates recommends that wetland delineations be performed on land parcels to more accurately evaluate the condition of any wetlands that may exist. Once the delineation is complete, the impacts to the property and the potential development of the parcels can be more fully known.

S o i l s I n f o r m a t i o n As with topography, soils also vary widely across the district, according to the USGS (United States Geological Survey). The low-lying areas referenced in the “topography” section above may include expansive and slow-draining soils. While not undevelopable, any construction within those areas will need to take those properties into account and may need to include remedies such as soil amendments, over-excavation and/or surcharging, and building and paving sub-drains.

Many soils are listed as “not prime farmland,” These areas are low, rocky, or otherwise not good for farming and, therefore, may not be favorable for development either.

The major soil types include silty loams, silty clay loams, and small areas of rock outcrops and areas with shallow bedrock. With the exception of those soils located in frequently flooded areas, no soil types are undevelopable, but it simply gets more expensive to work in soil types that are expansive or that include rock.

Assets in the Built Environment

U t i l i t y I n f r a s t r u c t u r e I n f o r m a t i o n

Power

The area within the Johnson County Innovation District boundary is served by two power companies: West Central Electric Cooperative (WCEC) and Kansas City Power and Light (KCP&L). Geographically, about half of the Innovation District is served by KCP&L, and the other half is served by the WCEC. Population-wise, approximately 80 percent of the area is served by KCP&L, which leaves approximately 20 percent of the population in the area being served by WCEC. Generally, the two companies partner with each other for future utility extensions to evaluate which can provide service more inexpensively.


P a g e 3 1

For future utility provisions, KCP&L was able to provide the following information:

“Within regulatory approval, KCP&L may partner further in a project by justifying the costs associated with initial KCP&L-related construction costs to the point at which the customer takes service. Based on the initial order of magnitude cost estimate for infrastructure needs to serve this building, all of these costs may be covered by the projected revenue justification. A final analysis will be completed as the project progress to determine exact costs.”

West Central Electric Cooperative normally collects fees before construction when the future sales are uncertain. However, a provision can be included for when future sales are realized, where some of the costs of the original extension can be refunded to the developer. In general, the cooperative is fairly flexible, as long as its risks are mitigated.

Contact information:

West Central Electric Cooperative Steve Moore Director of Marketing and Member Services [email protected] P.O. Box 452 Higginsville, Missouri 64037 Tel: 660.584.2131

Kansas City Power and Light Mark W. Dawson, CEcD District Community Affairs Manager [email protected] East & Southeast Districts 5 SE 16th Street Lee’s Summit, MO 64081 Tel: 816.922.7103 Fax: 816.525.0561

Natural Gas

The area is served by one natural gas company, Laclede Gas/Missouri Gas Energy. Sporadic locations within the study area contain larger-sized natural gas mains, up to 8 inches in size.

Laclede Gas/Missouri Gas Energy determines contributing costs for main extensions by taking into account natural gas load requirement data and running an economic evaluation that includes the total cost of the project, customer class, and number of meters. Service lines are sometimes included and sometimes are not.


Missouri Gas Energy Jabbar Wesley Economic Development and Residential Representative [email protected] 3420 Broadway Kansas City MO 64111 Tel: 816.360.5926 Cell: 816.509.1033 Fax: 816.360.5569


P a g e 3 2

Water

The area within the innovation district is served by five different water districts, with four of those making up a majority of the study area:

Missouri American Water Public Water Supply District #1 Public Water Supply District #3 Pettis Johnson & Saline County District #1

The vast majority of the study area is served by existing water mains, the largest of which range from 6 to 8 inches. A 12-inch water line is proposed adjacent to the 21st Street alignment. No information was received from Pettis Johnson & Saline County District #1, so it is unknown what water mains exist in that area.

Contact information for three of the service districts:

Missouri American Water Ray Elliott Operations Superintendent [email protected] 1705 Montserrat Park Road Warrensburg, MO 64093 Tel: 660.747.3192 Ext. 5

Public Water Supply District #1 Kristi Johnson 4 NW OO Highway Warrensburg, MO 64093 Tel: 660.429.2231

Public Water Supply District #3 David Streeter, General Manager [email protected] 106 SE 421 Road Warrensburg, MO 64093 Tel: 660.429.2494 Fax: 660.429.2978

Sanitary Sewer

There are two municipal sanitary sewer collection and treatment systems in the Innovation District; the City of Warrensburg and the City of Centerview. There are multiple centralized collection and treatments systems which primarily serve separate residential subdivisions. The remaining sanitary sewer systems are on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS). Any on-site system which generates 3000 gallons or more is permitted by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and is considered to be a "commercial" OWTS.

The City of Warrensburg Wastewater collection and treatment is overseen by the Public Works Department. Maps provided by the Public Works Department include both existing and proposed sanitary sewer trunk and interceptor lines. This means that some areas of the district would need to provide outfall sewers to tie into the interceptor lines, but capacities within the interceptor sewers would be taken into account for the areas draining to them.

The City of Warrensburg Wastewater Treatment system operates two separate treatment plants - one located just Northwest of Warrensburg and one located Northeast of Warrensburg. For areas that are not currently served by the City of Warrensburg municipal waste water system and contiguous to the city limits of Warrensburg, service will be provided when areas agree to be annexed into the city.


P a g e 3 3


Marvin Coleman Director of Public Works 102 S. Holden City of Warrensburg, Mo. 64093 Tel: 660.747.9135 Fax: 660.747.8927

The City of Centerview’s sanitary sewer system currently has capacity; however, it is out of compliance per the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) standards for water quality. The jurisdiction is planning for compliance, but it is important to know that, depending on timing, a large user would most likely need to work with the jurisdiction and the DNR during permitting.

Telecommunications

Two main fiber telecommunications lines run through the study area, one on the far north side, running east-west, and one on the far south side. The fiber map is provided by GeoTel Telecommunications Geography and report lines owned by local telecommunications provider, CenturyLink. CenturyLink provides DSL service throughout most of the district.

The Bluebird network owns two telecommunications lines that cross through the district; one runs parallel to U.S. 50 Highway. The other runs parallel to Missouri 13 Highway and Missouri Business 13.

F u t u r e U t i l i t y I n f r a s t r u c t u r e D e v e l o p m e n t Disclosing much of the utility information that was provided could be considered sensitive or even illegal. Some of this data, in the wrong hands could be a risk to our national security and as such carries heavy fines for those that would be providing that information. However, in the course of this project’s development, the utility partners expressed a willingness to expand and provide services base on development needs. Please refer to previous sections for general guidance regarding how and when jurisdictions determine utility extensions.

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n f r a s t r u c t u r e I n f o r m a t i o n

Roadway Assets

The U.S. 50 Highway corridor is a four-lane divided highway with full movement access control restricted to a minimum of ¼ mile spacing. A majority of the full access breaks are Type 1 median openings, servicing local/collector roadways within the county. The junction of Missouri 58 Highway is a J-turn intersection, which restricts 58 Highway traffic from directly turning left turn, but rather must turn right, then make a U-turn on U.S. 50. Left –turns off U.S. 50 are permitted and auxiliary right-turn lanes are provided. Within the corporate limits of Warrensburg, U.S. 50 Highway is a freeway with access limited to service interchanges. The junction of U.S. 50 Highway and the Missouri 13 Highway business route is a tight diamond service interchange with traffic signals at the ramp terminals and a partial tight diamond service interchange located at PCA Road. Located to the east of Warrensburg, a full diamond interchange at the junction of Missouri 13 Highway and U.S. 50 Highway uses single-lane roundabouts at the ramp terminals.


P a g e 3 4

The Missouri 13 Highway East Loop corridor is located to the east of Warrensburg and is a two-lane concrete highway with surfaced shoulders and access control of approximately 1 mile spacing. The access breaks are either single-lane roundabouts or typical at-grade intersections, servicing local/collector roadways within the county.

The Missouri 13 Business Route corridor is located to the north of Warrensburg and is a two-lane asphalt highway with surfaced shoulders with no specific access control. The existing access breaks are typical at-grade intersections, servicing local/collector roadway, and many private driveways.

The Missouri 58 Highway corridor is located to the west of Warrensburg and is a two-lane asphalt highway with no surfaced shoulders and no apparent access spacing requirements. The access breaks are a mix of local roads, commercial, residential, and field drives.

The local and collector roads within the study area are a mix of two-lane paved and two-lane gravel roadways with no access control.

Existing Rail and Rail Service Potential

The subject site is located along Union Pacific Railroad’s (UPRR) Sedalia Subdivision near MP 224.15 (Missouri 58 Highway). The east/west mainline track serves both passenger and freight rail ranging in speeds from 50 to 75 mph, respectively. Amtrak’s Missouri River Runner route runs between the Gateway Multimodal Transportation Center in St. Louis, Missouri, and the Kansas City Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri. Additionally, near Centerview is an existing siding (Track 232) and industrial lead (Track 856) branch runs from the existing mainline.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) records indicate a moderately high volume of 23 trains per day. According to UPRR, this mainline corridor is classified as “Restricted Access” due to line density, which requires significant planning and investment for providing rail access. Proximity, terrain, property impacts, and environmental issues will be a challenge for rail development. Proposed industrial trackage branching from the existing mainline will require signalization at powered switch locations and sufficient storage capacity to clear an entire unit-train from the mainline (approximately 8,500 – 9,000 linear feet). Additionally, if customer operations require varying directional flow, the proposed facility must have access to the mainline from both directions.

Proximity to existing adjacent trackage allows several track layouts and alternatives to be evaluated; however, industrial track development is often contingent upon user needs and requirements. Careful planning and coordination with UPRR is critical for successfully constructing and operating a rail-serve facility. The proposed track construction required for rail-serve development, especially near existing Track 232, will require UPRR coordination along with review and approval from engineering design, signal, network planning, and other UPRR departments. Several considerations must be made during the early stages of planning and development, including, but not limited to, track and site layout, safety, operations, maintenance, storage and handling of materials, security, land-use, access, and versatility.


P a g e 3 5

L a n d U s e a n d Z o n i n g

Zoning

The City of Warrensburg is the only municipality within the Innovation District that has zoning designations. Johnson County does not have a zoning ordinance. Therefore, it will be necessary for future development to work with the local jurisdictions to address location concerns as they relates to surrounding property or plans for development.

D e v e l o p m e n t C l u s t e r s

Agricultural

By far, the primary land use within the Innovation District is agricultural. The existing land use survey conducted during this study indicated that approximately 6,034.99 acres (or 65 percent) of the study area is in an agricultural use or setting. For the purpose of this study, land is designated as “agricultural” if the primary use of the land is agricultural or if the land is undeveloped.

Residential

Residential use can be found throughout the study area. High density residential developments are confined to both the Warrensburg and the Centerview city limits. The remaining residential developments throughout the study area are generally lower density and reside on large lots generally surrounded by rural settings. The low density residential developments within the study area are generally located along the U.S. 50 Highway corridor. Approximately 728.23 acres (or 7.8 percent) of the study area is devoted to residential use.

Public

Public land use is defined by this study as those properties that are either owned and/or operated by public entities within Johnson County, Warrensburg, or Centerview. These properties tend to be used to serve a public use or function. Specific properties that might fall within this general category include state, county, or city public administration buildings; public schools; public utilities; and parks and recreational properties including the University owned Skyhaven Airport. Approximately 729.34 acres (or 7.9 percent) of the study area is devoted to public use.

Commercial

Not surprisingly, commercial clusters appear primarily along U.S. 50 Highway, within the Warrensburg limits. These areas include commercial centers near the intersection of U.S. 50 Highway and the Missouri 13 Highway Business Route. An additional cluster of commercial uses exist west of Warrensburg and east of Skyhaven Airport on U.S. 50 Highway near NW 151st Road, west of U.S. 50 Highway and NW 361st Road, and near the intersection of U.S. 50 highway and Missouri 58 Highway in the westernmost portions of the study area. The remaining areas of commercial use within the study area are generally dispersed and located very near one of the highway corridors. Approximately 213.61 acres (or 2.3 percent) of the study area is devoted to commercial use.


P a g e 3 6

Industrial

Industrial use is clustered within the study area in several locations. The most prominent industrial development cluster is located within the U.S. 50 Highway between the Missouri 13 Highway business route and the Missouri 13 Highway East Loop. Additional industrial clusters are located near the intersection of the Missouri 13 Highway business route and the Missouri 13 Highway East Loop north of Warrensburg, near the intersection of U.S. 50 Highway and Missouri 58 Highway, and near Centerview adjacent to Missouri 58 Highway. Approximately 281.35 acres (or 3.0 percent) of the study area is devoted to industrial use.

In addition to existing industrial land use, the study area contains four (4) separate business or industrial parks where existing and future industrial use are intended or targeted. These four industrial parks include the Show-Me Industrial Park, the Shamrock Business Park, the Warrensburg Industrial Center, and the Brady Commerce Park.

The Show-Me Industrial Park is approximately 36 acres and is located within the city limits of Centerview, northwest of the intersection of Missouri 58 Highway and the Union Pacific Railroad. This development is partially developed.

The Shamrock Business Park is approximately 150 acres and is located south of U.S. 50 highway and approximately ½ mile east of Missouri 58 Highway. This property currently contains no occupants.

The Warrensburg Industrial Center is approximately 148 acres and is located south of U.S. 50 Highway, east of Ridgeview Drive, and west of Devasher Road. Only the north half of the Warrensburg Industrial Center, or 73 acres, is within the study area, but this portion of the park is nearly built-out.

The Brady Commerce Park is approximately 658 acres and is located northeast of the intersection of the U.S. 50 Highway and the Missouri 13 Highway East Loop. At present, the Brady Commerce Park contains no users.

General Guidance for Land Development in the Study Area

In an effort to provide general guidance for land development within the study area, several data types were collected and evaluated. These data types include elements of both the natural environment and the built environment. This list includes the following data types:

Natural Environment Data Types:

Slope Soils – as a measure of agricultural potential Soils – aggregated for suitability for construction National Wetlands Inventory Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)


P a g e 3 7

Built Environment Data Types:

Proximity to urban areas within the study area Proximity to the roadway network within the study area by roadway functional classification Proximity to area(s) potentially served by existing railroad or potential railroad spurs Proximity to water infrastructure within the study area by size of water pipe segment Proximity to sewer infrastructure within the study area by type of infrastructure segment Proximity to telecommunication infrastructure within the study area Proximity to natural gas infrastructure within the study area by size of gas line segment Proximity to existing industrial parks within the study area

The above data types were spatially analyzed within the study area to identify those areas best suited for these land use types: Industrial, Commercial, Residential, and Agricultural. The process of analysis for each data set above required several qualitative assumptions, which provided a system of numbered rankings to be assigned to each separate area within the study area as a function of each data type. Once all areas within the study area were assigned a rank according to the specific data type and the specific land use type, these rankings were summed to provide an aggregate score, which indicates those areas best suited for each land use type. Additional emphasis was placed on select Natural Environmental Data Types. Specifically a “K factor” was applied to these data types that are least able to be changed or altered by potential future development. These data types include those propertied within the FIRM 100-year floodplain, the properties that contain an identified wetland, and the properties that contain soils that are detrimental to potential future development. The following statements provide a generalized description of the resultant land use selection for future development within the study area.

I n d u s t r i a l Generally, industrial land is targeted within those areas that:

have low slope do not have existing wetlands are generally out of the floodplain contain soils conducive to construction are closest to high capacity utility segments are nearest to high capacity roadway segments are nearest to areas with potential rail access fall within existing planned industrial parks


P a g e 3 8

The resulting areas for prime industrial use include the following:

Adjacent to the south leg of Missouri 13 Highway East Loop: This area includes relatively good access to utilities, is located along a highway, and is generally free of wetlands and floodplain, except for that area south of U.S. 50 highway and west of Missouri 13 Highway East Loop. Interceptor sewer and water are available around this area but not immediately through it, so extensions would need to be constructed. Power availability seems good in this area as well.

o Note: Indications show that the southeast corner of the U.S. 50 Highway/Missouri 13 Highway East Loop is a prime area for industrial development. A potential exists for a loop track off the rail line, utility and roadway infrastructure is immediately available, and the area is relatively flat. However, a creek runs through the area, which may or may not be able to be realigned. If so, permitting could be expensive and time-consuming.

I n d u s t r i a l o r C o m m e r c e P a r k s Additional consideration should be paid to Industrial Parks or Commerce Parks located within the study area. The boundaries of these areas were included as a factor in the evaluation of the study area, however further attention needs to be given to these properties given the status of ownership and advertised use of each property. Typically, it is difficult for a city or private entity to obtain either ownership or control of development rights of a specific property or properties of sufficient size to accommodate all types of industrial development. The Innovation District should leverage the presence of these four parks by targeting future industrial development within these areas when and where applicable. It is the opinion of this study that the location of future industrial development should target these areas which are in close proximity to area utilities and infrastructure which can provide the most appropriate capacity for transportation, utility resources, and the like. This understanding helps to identify those industrial parks which are suitable for short-term development and which are better suited for long-term development. This distinct is made based upon the proximity of each industrial park and existing or proposed infrastructure elements. As the community grows and as the local infrastructure expands the community should re-evaluate the situation.

To better understand the potential capabilities of each of the industrial parks it is appropriate to provide an analysis of each area. The proposed land use map shows local industrial parks as a separate land use designation called “(IP) Industrial Park. It is important that these areas be allowed maximum flexibility as they develop to provide for the accommodation of future development proposals of multiple size and configuration. While it makes sense that the primary use of Industrial Parks be geared toward industrial land use, there are parts of the areas that might work well for commercial or even agriculture. This understanding should be reached through continues site specific master planning efforts. Below is an overview of local industrial parks with a description of their viability as it relates to industrial development.

o Brady Commerce Park: Sanitary sewer and water infrastructure are nearby though not within the park. The park has good access to existing and future power and is almost completely free of wetlands. Some floodplain runs through the area, which would need to be planned around or permitted through the Corps of Engineers. Presence of floodplain also means relatively flat area, which is good for large industrial uses. Bluebird owns telecommunication lines that run parallel to U.S. 50 Highway. An 8" natural gas main with 230 PSI is located 4,200 feet to the


P a g e 3 9

west of the most northwest corner of the park. Brady Commerce Park is likely one of the best areas for industrial development, given its proximity to highways, flat terrain, and access to utility infrastructure. There is also the ability for commercial development directly adjacent to both the 13 Highway Bypass and 50 Highway to serve the industrial use within the park, as well as the greater community and passing commuters using the highways.

o Show-Me Industrial Park: Although the existing rail in this location cannot be accessed, a few aspects about this location make it industrial development friendly. The area is relatively flat and does not contain floodplain or wetlands. Water infrastructure and telecommunications infrastructure are located nearby. The ability exists for a large user to extend and connect to the sanitary sewer system; however, additional time may need to be allocated to work through permitting with the City of Centerview and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The Show-Me Industrial Park is a moderately effective area for industrial development, with the main limitation and/or delay being the sanitary sewer permitting.

o Warrensburg Industrial Center: This area contains some of the largest existing clusters of industrial land use within the study area. The Industrial Center covers approximately 148 acres, approximately 73 acres of which are included within the study area. Of this land within the study area, approximately 17 acres are owned by the city and currently not developed, offering the community a future development opportunity. The area has immediate access to high capacity water and sewer facilities. This industrial park is located near high capacity natural gas segments and has access to electrical power adequate for existing and future industrial uses. This area is prime for industrial development, the only drawback being that there is limited undeveloped area available within the Center.

o Shamrock Business Park: This Industrial Park was the one out of the four that was analyzed that appeared to be inadequately served for most types of industrial development. The largest drawback for this park is the lack of existing and future planned utility infrastructure. With the exception of nearby water and a relatively small availability of power (less than five megawatts available according to KCP&L), there are no other utilities in the immediate area; nor are the any planned utility extensions. Sanitary sewer ends approximately two miles to the east and there are no natural gas or telecommunications lines in the area. From a natural environment perspective, the prospect is a bit better as there is no floodplain and only spotty wetlands; and the area is relatively flat. However without the availability of most utility infrastructure, it would be a tough sell to attract most industrial development. Shamrock might also be conducive to highway commercial development adjacent to 50 Highway as a compatible use to any industrial development that may take place.

C o m m e r c i a l Generally, commercial land is targeted within those areas without existing wetlands, generally out of the floodplain, containing soils conducive to construction, closest to moderate capacity utility segments, and nearest to high capacity roadway segments. The resulting areas for prime commercial use include the following:

North and south sides of U.S. 50 Highway, west of the Missouri 13 Highway: This area is adjacent to existing development yet has good roadway access and visibility along U.S. 50 Highway. The


P a g e 4 0

interchange would be just east of the proposed commercial area, which would provide access on and off the loop. The site is near utilities, including sewer, water, and power. This area is just outside the Warrensburg city limits. Spotty wetlands exist on both the north and south side of the highway, and a strip of floodplain runs along the north side of the highway. Both items will need to be taken into consideration during development.

Directly adjacent to the Missouri 13 Highway, just west of Brady Commerce Park: If the industrial area within Brady Commerce Park develops as planned, this would provide a good opportunity for commercial development along the highway, due to visibility and proximity to an employment center.

R e s i d e n t i a l Generally, residential land is targeted within those areas without existing wetlands, out of the floodplain, containing soils conducive to construction, nearest to existing urban boundaries, closest to low to moderate capacity utility segments, closest to low to moderate capacity roadway segments, and furthest away from potential rail access or rail extensions. The resulting areas for prime residential use include the following:

Undeveloped areas near the urban boundaries of both Warrensburg and Centerview: These areas can provide adequate sewer, water, and electrical utilities with minimal extensions. Also, these areas will allow existing roadways to be minimally extended to provide auto access.

Undeveloped areas along the Missouri 13 Highway corridor south of U.S. 50 Highway: This area has good access to transportation but will require rather significant extension of water and sewer to serve.

Undeveloped areas along the Missouri 58 Highway corridor: Much like the Missouri 13 Highway south of U.S. 50 Highway, this area provides access to adequate transportation for future residential development. Existing utilities in this area do not provide for high capacity and, as such, are more suitable for residential development as compared to either industrial or commercial use.

Undeveloped areas along but not adjacent to the U.S. 50 Highway corridor between Missouri 58 Highway and Warrensburg: This area has already experienced some low density residential development. U.S. 50 highway will allow for adequate transportation to the area. The area already provides good water capacity. An existing sewer main is near this area but will require an extension to facilitate high density residential development.


P a g e 4 1

A g r i c u l t u r a l Generally, agricultural land is targeted within those areas containing soils of prime agricultural potential, furthest from existing urban boundaries, furthest from utility segments, furthest from roadway segments, and furthest away from potential rail access or rail extensions. Although not necessarily related to future project development, agricultural land needs to be identified and set aside due to its importance and impact on the local economy. The resulting areas for prime agricultural use include the following:

Areas adjacent to the Missouri 13 Highway and generally north of the Blackwater River alignment: This area is heavily affected by the 100-year floodplain and wetlands. The area contains prime farmland. The area contains no access to existing or proposed sewer lines. It contains access to low capacity waterline segments.

Areas near the Skyhaven Airport: This area indicates an appropriate suitability for both agriculture and residential uses, although, as a measure of land area, agriculture appears to be the more prominent use. The area has access to a small water capacity. Additional extensions of the sewer system would be required to service this area. This area is near the local natural gas mainline; however, no end-service segments are providing access to this utility feature.

Summary Report O p p o r t u n i t y & M a r k e t F o c u s

P a g e 4 2

Opportunity & Market Focus New Technologies and Innovations

In light of the quickly changing global economy, it is critical that Innovation District leaders take a fact‐ based, in‐depth look at its potential economic opportunities and threats in terms of productivity, innovation and entrepreneurship. With the University of Central Missouri as a key stakeholder with access to intellectual capital and special expertise, the Innovation District corridor study will strive to link technologies and innovations inherent with the University of Central Missouri and other resources and work with the private sector to apply these innovations in order to create the knowledge jobs of tomorrow. This report will explore some of the initial steps in this process.

To accomplish this objective, leaders must continue to coordinate the following:

1. Identify Local, Regional and State Partners and Resources 2. Explore Partner programs and impacts 3. Benchmark best practices with similar resources, and 4. Identify strategies to enhance innovation and entrepreneurship for Innovation District and region 5. Implement key strategies 6. Measure impact of implemented strategies 7. Apply course corrections accordingly

I d e n t i f y i n g L o c a l a n d R e g i o n a l P a r t n e r s a n d R e s o u r c e s

Johnson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC)

Johnson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC) is a 501c3 non‐profit organization that provides economic and community development services for all of Johnson County, Missouri and its communities. The organization provides one‐on‐one business assistance, micro loan funds, financing options and incentives, for new and existing businesses – small to large. In addition, the organization provides the county and community with development services, access to grants and loans, and connections to regional, state, and federal‐level resources and assistance.21

21 Source: Johnson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC) website: http://www.growjocomo.com

Summary Report | O p p o r t u n i t y & M a r k e t F o c u s

P a g e 4 3

University of Central Missouri (UCM)

University of Central Missouri was founded in 1871. The university is located in Warrensburg, Missouri, located in Johnson County and approximately 45 miles from the Kansas City metro area. The University occupies 1,561 acres and is composed of the following colleges: College of Health, Science and Technology, Harmon College of Business and Professional Studies, College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, College of Education, and The Honors College. UCM offers programs in more than 150 undergraduate and graduate areas of study. UCM has achieved national recognition for many of its academic programs, including criminal justice, education and aviation. UCM Fall 2013 enrollment totaled 12,513, which included 9,974 undergraduates and 2,539 graduates.22

Small Business & Technology Development Center (SBTDC)

Located on the UCM campus, the Small Business & Technology Development Center assists small businesses, normally defined as 500 employees or less, in all stages from start‐up to existing businesses that are in need of specialized assistance. The SBTDC links University, federal, state, and private resources to counsel and train owners and managers, and assist new and existing small business firms to become more productive and profitable.

The SBTDC offers a wide variety of training in both technical and business topics. This training is offered to startup and exiting business owners, operators and employees and also to Economic Developers, Chamber Executives, and students.

The SBTDC functions cooperatively in a partnership with the State of Missouri, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and the network of Missouri SBDC’s. Together, the organizations provide statewide assistance to small businesses and manufacturers, helping them become more efficient, productive and profitable, and thereby stimulating Missouri’s economy. Strong small businesses are vital to our national and regional economy.23

UCM Office of Sponsored Programs

UCM Office of Sponsored Programs provides centralized grant administration and sponsored program support. The mission of the Grants Administration at Central Missouri is to provide members of the UCM community with the services and resources they need to successfully obtain and manage funding for their creative, scholarly, service, and research endeavors; and to protect the interests of the University, Departments, and faculty by ensuring compliance with sponsor rules and regulations.

The purpose of seeking either external or internal funding in the form of grants or contracts is to support and advance the teaching, research, and public service mission of the University of Central Missouri. External funding can be an important supplement to state appropriations, fees, gifts, and other sources of revenue available to the university.

22 Source: University of Central Missouri – 2013 Fact Book 23 Source: UCM Small Business & Technology Development Center (SBTDC) webpage: http://www.ucmo.edu/sbtdc/


P a g e 4 4

Internal funding in the form of internal grants, research awards, and academic program support for research and scholarly activity can complement existing research; provide seed money for new research, and enable faculty, staff, and students to attend conferences and workshops which contribute directly to strengthening the research, external funding initiatives and scholarly activities on campus.

The services and resources provided by Sponsored Programs are designed to assist Principal Investigators and Program Directors with the following:

Identifying funding sources Developing proposals Preparing budgets Obtaining, interpreting, and following grants and contracts management guidelines, policies, and

regulations Coordinating institutional review and routing Accepting awards Preparing and submitting initial requests for fund numbers Managing rejections and resubmitting proposals Handling post‐award negotiations with granting or contracting agencies24

I d e n t i f y i n g S t a t e P a r t n e r s a n d R e s o u r c e s

Missouri Technology Corporation (MTC)

MTC is a public‐private partnership created by the Missouri General Assembly to promote entrepreneurship and foster the growth of new and emerging high‐tech companies. MTC focuses on 21st Century bioscience industries that build on Missouri's rich history in agriculture.

The Missouri Technology Corporation funds several programs across the state of Missouri that support the growth of innovative businesses.

Missouri Innovation Center Network

Missouri Innovation Center Network is a major statewide resource for commercializing Missouri innovations. The centers were created to “provide assistance to individuals and business organizations during the early stages of the development of new technology‐based business ventures,” by state statute 348.271 RSMo.

Missouri innovation centers work closely with their associated universities and are primarily targeted to develop high‐growth advanced technology companies. Innovation Centers provide specialized facilities, access to capital, technical and business experts, resources and specialized service providers to these companies. Services include:

Stimulating technology entrepreneurship Opportunity assessment (the technology, the market and the management team)

24 Source: UCM Office of Sponsored Programs – Policy Guide


P a g e 4 5

Planning, financing and accomplishing research and development Developing the business plan and securing startup funding and growth capital Incubating the ventures that result (mentoring and physically accommodating startup firms)

According to the MTC website, the Missouri Innovation Centers are identified as follows:

Center for Emerging Technologies – St. Louis, MO Rolla Innovation Center – Operated by Missouri Enterprise – Rolla, MO Missouri Innovation Center – Columbia, MO Southeast Innovation Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship – Cape Girardeau, MO Newman Business and Technology Innovation Center – Joplin, MO Missouri Rural Enterprise and Innovation Center – Kirksville, MO Brush Creek Enterprise Center/UMKC Innovation Center – Kansas City, MO Jordon Valley Innovation Center / Springfield Innovations Inc. – Springfield, MO Institute for Industrial and Applied Life Sciences – St. Joseph, MO Dean L. Hubbard Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship – Maryville, MO.25

Innovation District companies in need of the services provided by the Missouri Innovation Center network must access one of these centers depending on the services needed and the specialty of the center.

Missouri IDEA (Innovation, Development, and Entrepreneurship Advancement) Fund

Missouri Technology Corporation's IDEA Fund promotes the formation and growth of businesses that engage in the transfer of science and technology into job creation. Since 2010, MTC has closed over 50 investments, bringing jobs and innovation to the state of Missouri. Programs include:

Missouri TechLaunch Seed Capital Co‐Investment Program Venture Capital Co‐Investment Program High‐Tech Industrial Expansion Program

Missouri Building Entrepreneurial Capacity (MBEC)

The MBEC program, a cornerstone of MTC investment strategy, was developed to create more home‐grown, high‐tech companies. Missouri must support entrepreneurs and foster innovation. Through the MBEC program, MTC will make strategic investments that expand the support system for entrepreneurs that are commercializing new technologies or that enhance the capacity of Missouri to grow its innovation economy.

Research Alliance of Missouri (RAM)

A part of the Missouri Technology Corporation, Research Alliance of Missouri (RAM) was formed in 2003 by many founding Missouri universities including UCM. The RAM mission is to improve the well‐being of Missourians through increased research productivity and technology innovation within Missouri universities,

25 Source: Missouri Technology Corporation (MTC) website: http://www.missouritechnology.com/


P a g e 4 6

promote economic development through increased collaborative efforts between the academic and business sectors, and provide greater access of Missouri businesses to university derived technologies.

The Research Alliance of Missouri consists of chief research officers of 12 major universities across the state. In order to define critical issues related to the evolution of a knowledge‐based economy for Missouri, RAM identified resources at its disposal to:

Provide basic and advanced education and training for the workforce needs of Missouri businesses; Produce new knowledge through research; Facilitate technology transfer from newly created knowledge into commercialized products in order to

improve the standard of living of Missourians; and Enhance Federal funding through collaborative agreements26

UCM is a member of RAM. According to RAM, this membership is represented by the Director of Sponsored Programs.

Missouri Life Sciences Research Board (MLSR) and the Missouri Life Sciences Research Trust Fund

Missouri Life Sciences Research Board and the Missouri Life Sciences Research Trust Fund were created in 2003 by the Missouri legislative process to:

Enhance research capacity in life sciences to better service the health and welfare of Missouri citizens; Missouri as a center of life science research and development by building on the success of existing

Missouri research institutions; Create and attract new research and development institutions; and, Transform research into commercial life science technology.

The Missouri Life Sciences Research Trust Fund was created in section 196.100 and requires the State Treasurer to “deposit into the fund twenty‐five percent of all money’s received from the master settlement agreement,” beginning in 2007 and perpetually thereafter. The Trust Fund was also appropriated $13.45 million in 2008.

According to the MLSRB Comprehensive Progress Report dated January 26, 2011, the General Assembly and Governor approved $13.3 million to the Trust Fund, with $13 million available for new grants in Fiscal Year 2010. Again, the language was specifically targeted for projects in the fields of animal science, plant science, medical devices, biomaterials and composite research, diagnostics, nanotechnology related to drug development and delivery, clinical imaging, or information technology related to human health. The MLSRB received 168 letter of intent proposals, 145 for research projects and 23 for commercialization projects. From the initial 168 proposals, the MLSRB invited 66 projects (53 research and 13 commercialization) to submit full proposals. The MLSRB was informed in late October 2009 that the Trust Fund was included in the state spending restriction; and therefore, no grants were awarded in Fiscal Year 2010.

26 Source: The Research Alliance of Missouri webpage: http://www.missouritechnology.com/research‐ support/research‐alliance‐of‐missouri


P a g e 4 7

No new funding was appropriated to the Trust Fund for Fiscal Year 2011.27

Missouri Research Centers are identified as follows:

Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (St. Louis area) Midwest Research Institute (Nation‐wide Independent research institute) Missouri State University (Springfield, MO) Missouri University of Science and Technology (Rolla, MO) The Stowers Institute for Medical Research (Kansas City area) University of Missouri (Columbia, MO) University of Missouri‐Kansas City (Kansas City area) Washington University in St. Louis (St. Louis area) Missouri Plant Science Center (Mexico, MO) University of Missouri Technology Park at Fort Leonard Wood28

In an August 2006 report published by State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI) entitled “A Resource Guide for Technology‐based Economic Development; Positioning Universities as Drivers; Fostering Entrepreneurship and Increasing Access to Capital,” it is generally acknowledged now that the following elements are required for a tech‐based economy:29

An intellectual infrastructure, i.e. universities and public or private research laboratories that generate new knowledge and discoveries

Mechanisms for transferring knowledge from one individual to another or from one company to another Physical infrastructure that includes high quality telecommunications systems and affordable high

speed internet connections Highly skilled technical workforce Source of risk capital Quality of life, and Entrepreneurial culture

27 Source: Missouri Life Sciences Research Trust Fund (MLSRTF) webpage: http://www.missouritechnology.com/research‐support/missouri‐life‐sciences‐research‐board 28 Source: Listing of Missouri Research Centers webpage: http://www.missouritechnology.com/research‐ support/missouri‐research‐centers 29 Source: “A Resource Guide for Technology‐based Economic Development; Positioning Universities as Drivers; Fostering Entrepreneurship and Increasing Access to Capital” – State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI) with funding from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) – Page 7


P a g e 4 8

B e s t P r a c t i c e s i n B u i l d i n g I n t e l l e c t u a l I n f r a s t r u c t u r e According the 2006 SSTI report, “universities that have been most effective in launching and supporting knowledge economies appear to display the following characteristics:

They are performing world‐class research in areas that correspond to the science and technology drivers of the national and regional knowledge sectors.

They have mechanisms in place, including financing programs, to facilitate the translation of research findings into commercial products and processes.”

They have a cadre of nationally prominent faculty. A new paradigm has emerged that recognizes that a key to attracting research dollars and building an institution’s capabilities and reputation is to attract world‐class researchers.

They have leadership who views the university as a key partner with industry and government in creating and growing a knowledge economy.

They have the physical infrastructure to support research and technology development.30

A s s e s s i n g t h e E x i s t i n g I n t e l l e c t u a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e Academic research and development (R&D) is an effective tool to incentivize innovation, increase the education level of the workforce, and encourage start‐ups, all of which provide positive impact on the local and/or regional economy. Critical to this impact is creating and sustaining partnerships with local academic institutions, with both government and private industry which intend to accomplish that the impact remains local and that the institution’s R&D efforts are valuable and effective in the local and regional economy.

The National Science Foundation tracks and records R&D spending at public and private colleges and universities across the nation. Generally, institutions of higher learning spend the majority of the R & D budget on salaries, wages and benefits for research personnel and capitalized equipment. Federal agencies fund much of this activity. In 2011, Health and Human Services, Department of Defense and National Science Foundation are the top three (3) federal agencies providing R & D funding. Across all possible R & D expenditures, institutions of higher learning spent the greatest percentage on science and engineering. Specifically, institutions spent more on medical, biological sciences, and electrical engineering research and development.

In 2011, Washington University (St. Louis) invested the largest amount in R & D among all of the Missouri public and private colleges and universities. Most of this investment was federally funded. The University of Missouri (Columbia) is a distant second at about 20 percent of the Washington University (St. Louis) expenditure.

30 Source: “A Resource Guide for Technology‐based Economic Development; Positioning Universities as Drivers; Fostering Entrepreneurship and Increasing Access to Capital” – State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI) with funding from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) – Page 12


P a g e 4 9

According to the National Science Foundation, the University of Central Missouri (UCM – Warrensburg) spent $205,000 on research and development related activities in 2011.31 This amount is a direct NSF grant. UCM has had several NSF grants over the last couple of years. These grants have paid for faculty and student wages in the fields of analytic chemistry, physical chemistry, and math. In addition, UCM was a recipient of a grant to renovate a lab in WC Morris.32

Most of the public colleges and universities in Missouri have an important mission – to deliver a learning experience that transforms students into lifelong learners, dedicated to service, with the knowledge, skills and confidence to succeed and lead in the region, state, nation and world. Generally, this mission and the supporting budget won’t allow for traditional R & D related expenditures.

B e s t P r a c t i c e s i n D e v e l o p i n g S o u r c e s o f R i s k C a p i t a l According to the report published by State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI) entitled “A Resource Guide for Technology‐based Economic Development; Positioning Universities as Drivers; Fostering Entrepreneurship and Increasing Access to Capital,” Access to capital is a critical component to building strong local and regional innovation economies. In order for new technology enterprises to take root and grow locally, sufficient funding at every level, from angel investment to institutional venture capital, must be available and accessible.33

Initiatives designed to encourage private investment include:

Entrepreneurship education Certification/validation/due diligence/ “brokerage” services Angel education – creating smart money Angel organization development Investor forums and conferences Tax credits to encourage investments and pools of funds SBIR/STTR outreach and assistance

31 Source: Data compiled from the National Science Foundation (NSF) FY 2011 Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey – July 2013. Data tables also available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/herd/ 32 Source: UCM Office of Institutional Research, Dr. Skip Crooker, Director – Staff Email Dated 8/22/2014 33 Source: “A Resource Guide for Technology‐based Economic Development; Positioning Universities as Drivers; Fostering Entrepreneurship and Increasing Access to Capital” – State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI) with funding from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) – Page 65


P a g e 5 0

Initiatives designed to address local capital gaps through the direct provision of funding include:34

Grants or loans for applied R&D Funding without taking an equity stake Direct equity investment in firms by public sector Pension or public funds invested in venture capital funds Tax credits direct to firms Debt financing for later life

A s s e s s i n g t h e A c c e s s t o R i s k C a p i t a l The Small Business and Technology Development Center (SBTDC) offer quality entrepreneur training and education opportunities. Johnson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC) and other financial, economic development and chamber of commerce partners link Johnson County entrepreneurs and existing business owners to the SBTDC for these educational opportunities and one‐on‐one technical assistance.

In partnership with the SBTDC, JCEDC Innovation & Entrepreneurship Task Force offers investor networking forums and limited entrepreneur‐to‐investor brokerage services. JCEDC also offers a low‐interest micro loan program for startup and existing Johnson County enterprises.

To facilitate business planning, JCEDC offers a one‐year free license to “FastStart” or “Monocle” a web‐based business and financial planning software tool. This software allows startups and existing business owners to plan for their business and examine different business model changes and impacts. This software also allows for “business planning mentors” from the SBTDC and/or JCEDC to provide on‐line guidance or support to the business owner, as needed.

There are many sources for venture capital which invest in all phases of enterprise around the region – Mid‐America Angels LLC, SeedStep Angels, and Women’s Capital Connection to name a few.

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

1. Form a regional working committee: a. Regional stakeholders should come together to educate themselves and others about

existing partners and resources. JCEDC Innovation & Entrepreneur Task Force, an existing task force, should consider providing startup administration and organize such gatherings.

b. The Working Committee should become an independent group comprised of key stakeholders and subject experts

c. Look to the region and multi‐state‐level, specifically the Kansas City Missouri and Kansas area, for resources and key support systems

d. Explore best practices carefully with considerations for local connections, implementation and/or adaptation

e. Develop a strategic plan 34 Source: “A Resource Guide for Technology‐based Economic Development; Positioning Universities as Drivers; Fostering Entrepreneurship and Increasing Access to Capital” – State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI) with funding from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) – Page 66


P a g e 5 1

2. Explore the costs and benefits of re‐establishing a local MTC designated Missouri Innovation Center

3. Connect with UCM Director of Sponsored Programs to share any insights as a result of their membership on The Research Alliance of Missouri

4. Explore potential location advantages such as the Johnson County Innovation District’s proximity to the Animal Health Corridor between Manhattan Kansas and Columbia Missouri

5. Create and support existing policies and legislation that encourage collaborations between Universities and Economic Development to support a culture of innovation and applied technologies.

a. Support the passage of a “Missouri Angel Investment Tax Credit” b. Determine the amount of appropriation, if any, and work with UCM Missouri Innovation

Campus (MIC) to help promote tax credits in exchange for donations made to MIC and collaborations with new business partners

c. Work with the Missouri Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Initiative and the Missouri Department of Higher Education to support the yet‐to‐be developed grant program for information technology certificate education in a joint effort with business

d. Determine the amount of appropriation, if any, for the newly created Rural Regional Development Grant program within the Missouri Department of Economic Development

All colleges and universities want to wisely use resources to create and maintain an entrepreneurial environment and support the launch of new businesses. Many innovative and entrepreneurial members of these communities of higher education start new businesses based on new discoveries with commercialization potential. These new businesses create jobs, generate tax revenues, and bring fresh dollars into the local and regional economies through investments and sales. Colleges and universities make significant contributions to the competitiveness of the economy by conducting relevant research and successfully transferring this to industry.

Generalized Targeting Viability Analysis

The purpose of this section is to assess economic development target viability and associated land suitability. The basis for this analysis is existing Johnson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC) targets in addition to state and regional industry targets. As a note, industry target analysis is often performed for one or more specific sites, which allows for detailed analysis about what types of industries a specific parcel can accommodate taking into account its size, layout, utility access, and other characteristics. For the Johnson County Innovation District, however, this analysis will be completed at a higher level, discussing economic development targets that fit well into local, regional and state efforts and are generally good fits for the District and its amenities.


P a g e 5 2

E x i s t i n g S t a t e , R e g i o n a l a n d L o c a l E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t T a r g e t s

State Targets

In 2011, the State of Missouri published a Final Report of the Strategic Initiative for Economic Growth, a planning process aimed at better positioning the state to create jobs, growth, and spark investment in targeted clusters. The process identified seven different industry clusters which represent, in the state’s view, the strongest possibilities for job creation and economic growth. These clusters are Advanced Manufacturing, Energy Solutions, Biosciences, Health Sciences and Services, Information Technology, Financial and Professional Services, and Transportation and Logistics. Each cluster also has specific “niches”, both of which are listed below. These niches, according to the state, reflect high-value opportunities for economic growth based on Missouri’s competitive strengths.

Target Cluster: Advanced Manufacturing o Niche: Transportation Equipment o Niche: Aerospace and Defense

Target Cluster: Energy Solutions Target Cluster: Biosciences

o Niche: Plant and Agricultural Technology o Niche: Companion and Feed Animal Sciences o Niche: Biomedical

Target Cluster: Health Sciences and Services o Niche: Health Care Innovation o Niche: Health Sciences o Niche: Health Services

Target Cluster: Information Technology o Niche: Software, Hardware, and Systems Design o Niche: Data Centers o Niche: Technology Resource Centers

Target Cluster: Financial and Professional Services o Niche: Financial Services o Niche: Professional Services o Niche: Customer Care Centers

Target Cluster: Transportation and Logistics o Niche: Freight Haulers o Niche: Warehousing o Niche: Wholesalers


P a g e 5 3

The Strategic Initiative for Economic Growth identifies eight high-level strategies aimed at addressing challenges and capitalizing on opportunities for growth in the targeted clusters and niches listed above. Each strategy also contains one or more specific, actionable tactics to execute the strategies. The eight strategies are as follows:

1. Missouri will support its local developers in the retention and expansion of existing businesses and employers.

2. Missouri will invest in technology and innovation to attract, launch, and sustain the growth companies of the future.

3. Missouri will aggressively market the state to domestic and select international audiences. 4. Missouri will attract, develop and retain a workforce with the education and skills to succeed in a

21st-Century economy. 5. Missouri will optimize its tax, incentive and regulatory policies to best support the growth of high-

value target sectors. 6. Missouri will develop a best-in-class foreign trade initiative. 7. Missouri will develop a culture that encourages small and minority business development and

entrepreneurship. 8. Missouri will provide the infrastructure necessary for companies and communities to be successful.

Johnson County’s targeting efforts, to the greatest degree practicable, should align their strategies and goals to support those identified above by the State of Missouri.

Regional Targets

Economic analysis has also been performed on a regional scale in Missouri. Johnson County resides in the West Central region of Missouri, for which a “Pattern Analysis” was conducted in 2010 through the Missouri Department of Economic Development. This analysis was intended to highlight industry patterns that drive new wealth in a regional economy”—a goal similar to that of targeting industries. It focuses on “spot strengths”, which consist of one or two firms in one industry sector, and “core clusters”, which are made up of high employment across a mix of linked industries. The spot strengths and core clusters identified accounted for 18 percent of all private employment in the region in 2010.35

The analysis for West Central Missouri (which includes Saline, Johnson, Pettis, Henry, Benton and St. Clair counties) identified three overarching patterns/industries: Agribusiness, Metal/Machinery Manufacturing, and Electrical Equipment manufacturing. Figure 1 on the following page shows these industry patterns and their location quotients.

35 West Central Region Pattern Analysis, Missouri Department of Economic Development, 2010.


P a g e 5 4

Figure 1: Industry Pattern and Location Quotient (LQ)

A location quotient (LQ) is the ratio of analysis-industry employment in the analysis area (in this case, the West Central Region of Missouri) to base-industry employment in the analysis area divided by the ratio of analysis-industry employment in the base area (United States) to base-industry employment in the base area. In general terms, it provides a comparison of employment by industry between a particular area of interest (West Central Missouri) to a base area (in this case, the full United States). What this indicates is how high of a concentration the area has in the industry when compared to the nation. If the LQ is above 1, this generally indicates surplus beyond what is required for local needs, thus creating export capabilities. If it is below 1, this indicates a low concentration and/or low demand and a lack of multiplier impact. For example, the Food Manufacturing industry has an LQ of 6.0 in West Central Missouri. This means that employment in the food manufacturing industry compared to all industries in West Central Missouri is six times (600 percent) higher than the national ratio of food manufacturing employment to total employment.

While location quotients are a valuable starting point when assessing industry strengths in a given area, combining LQ analysis with other economic metrics allows for greater in-depth analysis. One metric with which to do this is employment growth. The West Central Region study performed this analysis, which is displayed in Figure 2 on the following page. What this shows is that the manufacturing sectors, while having lower LQs than Food Manufacturing, are growing at a high annual percentage in terms of employment. Conversely, Food Manufacturing has a high location quotient, but its annual employment growth decrease suggests it is a mature industry experiencing greater efficiency from automation, a slight overall decline, or a combination of both. It is important to note that these data are pre-recession, meaning employment growth likely decreased for a few years before showing slight rebounds in recent years.


P a g e 5 5

Figure 2: West Central Region Industry Pattern Trends

In this study, the Agribusiness Cluster contains Animal Production (NAICS 112) and Food Manufacturing (NAICS 311). For the West Central region, much of the food manufacturing centers around meat and dairy products. This cluster benefits from the proximity of farmers to food manufacturing which generates lower transportation costs. As international exports increase, specifically farm product exports, the report indicates the region is in a strong position to produce more value-added food products, capitalizing on existing industry and infrastructure.

The Metal and Machinery Manufacturing Cluster, for the purposes of this study, consists of Primary Metal Manufacturing (NAICS 331), Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332), and Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333). This cluster had employment of 3,700 in the region (out of 56,407 non-farm employees) in 2007 with an annual growth rate of 5.6 percent from 2003 to 2007. Fabricated metal production shapes metal from Primary metal producers into basic forms for use in more advanced machinery. Machinery manufacturers then use both primary and fabricated metal products as inputs into their manufacturing process, creating more intricate and advanced metal products. Examples of products include cast aluminum, metal wire, ammunition, and more advanced products like HVAC machinery. These industry subsectors hire similar workers, including welders, machinists, and machine operators, professions that demand wages higher than the regional average.


P a g e 5 6

A final “spot strength” identified in the study is Electrical Equipment and Appliance Manufacturing (NAICS 335). This industry is characterized as a spot strength since it includes a small amount of firms representing the vast majority of employment. This industry showed strong growth from 2003 to 2007 at 5.5 percent; U.S. growth in the same industry averaged 1.5 percent over the same period. For the West Central Region, firms specialize in small electric motors and electric utility components. The growth in the region complements other regions in the state of Missouri which also have strong concentrations of electrical equipment manufacturing.

Local Targets: Johnson County

The Johnson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC) performed a Target Industry Analysis in 2007 on behalf of the county, using quantitative economic analysis as well as qualitative stakeholder input to determine appropriate economic development targets for the county. These targets are intended to be “best fits for targeted investment opportunities” within the county. JCEDC identified three broad target industries: Advanced Manufacturing, Business Services (Service Centers), and Aviation-related Logistics.

Within Manufacturing, JCEDC identified advanced manufacturing firms-- in particular, smaller, light manufacturing firms-- with an emphasis on firms that complement and/or build upon the existing manufacturing industry base operating in the region.

Two sectors of the Business Services industry were identified as most desirable for Johnson County. These include Technical Support Centers and Administrative Service Centers. Technical Support Centers are high-end call centers operated by or for companies to provide ready access to expert telephone, web-based or email assistance with products or services. Administrative Service Centers are locations where administrative workers engage in corporate office support functions, such as processing orders, billings, claims and other similar tasks.

The Logistics industry was also identified as a potential economic development target for Johnson County. With good access to major transportation corridors, including Highway 50, Interstate 70, and Interstate 35, as well as large tracts of land, Johnson County could be a desirable location for warehousing and distribution of products.

The analysis noted the presence of Whiteman Air Force Base, located approximately 10 miles from the Innovation District, and the significant military installation it represents, suggesting that targeted industries should consider the possible relationship or supply of complimentary products and services demanded by the base. While acknowledging not every industry target will have a natural association with Air Force needs, JCEDC notes that compatibility with Whiteman ought to be considered.

JCEDC also discussed a number of items as next steps to investigate the targeted industries. They suggested creating focus groups to pursue a “discussion of key trends in the industry and general industry site location needs”, as well as questions such as:

What other key trends and location needs should be considered in evaluating the industry sector as a target industry for growth and development in Johnson County?

What segments of industry offer the greatest potential for creating high-wage, high growth opportunities in Johnson County?


P a g e 5 7

Does Johnson County offer a competitive location advantage in terms of the community’s assets/strengths and weaknesses?

What specific “niche” opportunities should be considered?

The end product of these focus groups would be recommendations for effective, customized marketing approaches to each of the target industries.

EconomicIndustryStrengthsofJohnsonCountyFigure 3 below summarizes statistics of some of the leading industries in Johnson County as determined by location quotient.

Figure 3: Overview of Leading Industries in Johnson County

Industry NAICS Employment36 Establishments Location Quotient

Utilities 22 83 5 2.00 Retail trade 44-45 1745 138 1.51

Manufacturing 31-33 1180 32 1.31 Health care and social

assistance 62 1346 110 1.00

Other services, except public administration

81 360 136 1.04

JohnsonCountyLaborBasinAnalysis37In 2012, a Labor Availability Analysis was completed by the Docking Institute of Public Affairs for the Johnson County Labor Basin, which includes Johnson County as well as the adjacent counties of Lafayette, Saline, Pettis, Benton, Henry, Cass and part of Jackson. The report defines “available labor pool” as those who indicate they are looking for employment or would consider changing their jobs for the right employment opportunity.

The report found an estimated total population of 323,624, with a civilian labor force of 156,876. The basin contained an available labor pool of 93,623, which is 29 percent of the population and nearly 60 percent of the civilian labor force. The area had an unemployment rate of 9.61 percent. Nearly 67 percent of the available labor pool has at least some college education and over 94 percent has at least a high school diploma. Approximately 16 percent are currently employed as general laborers, 8 percent are employed in government or high-skill blue collar jobs, and 14 percent are employed in professional, white-collar jobs. The vast majority of the available labor pool will commute up to 30 minutes one-way for employment, while over 40 percent would commute up to 45 minutes one-way. An estimated 12 percent of the available labor pool are interested in a new job at $9 an hour, 29 percent at $12 an hour, and 48 percent at $15 an hour.

36 Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. 2012 data. 37 Johnson County Labor Basin—Labor Availability Analysis. Prepared by the Docking Institute of Public Affairs for the Central Missouri Economic Development Alliance. June 2012.


P a g e 5 8

Overall, these numbers indicate there is a sufficient supply of available labor for a potential new or expanding employer in Johnson County. The report also indicates that there are workers with a variety of skills and many of them have at least some post-secondary education. Generally, the available labor pool is willing to drive a reasonable distance to work and workers are available at several different hourly wages.

Figure 4 below shows the distribution of the available labor pool in the Johnson County Labor Basin by zip code. The darker colors indicate those areas contain a larger percentage of the available labor pool compared to other zip codes. Certain areas in Johnson (near Warrensburg), Cass, Jackson and Pettis (near Sedalia) Counties show a larger amount of available labor compared to the rest of the basin.

Figure 4: Percent of Total Available Labor Pool by Zip Code

In regards to the Targeting Viability Analysis, the report indicates that large employers or potential employers should cite available labor as a positive for the Johnson County Innovation District. In general, there is an abundance of workers available in the region with a variety of skill levels and perceived flexibility in wage and commute distance.


P a g e 5 9

J o h n s o n C o u n t y I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t G e n e r a l i z e d T a r g e t s Targeting analysis seeks to identify the best industries to match with specific industrial sites to increase the value and success of the Johnson County’s economic development efforts. Because the Innovation District is so large, and contains four unique business park areas, this analysis is done with a wider lens, focusing less on the specific site characteristics and more on the general fit of the industry. With this in mind, clustering industries is important, as is the harmony of state, regional and local targeting efforts.

Figure 5 below summarizes the commonalities in targets from state, regional and local sources.

Figure 5: Comparison of State, Local and Regional Targets

Targeted Industry State of Missouri

West Central Region

Johnson County

Advanced Manufacturing X X X Energy Solutions X

Biosciences X X Health Sciences and Services X

Information Technology X Financial and Professional Services X X

Transportation/Logistics X X

Therefore, the following industries have been identified as the most suitable for the Johnson County Innovation District:

Advanced/LightManufacturingManufacturing is already an important industry sector to the Innovation District. The District currently has five (5) manufacturing businesses which represent nearly 12 percent of District employment38. Generally, manufacturing, especially light/advanced manufacturing, provides good paying jobs and an increased tax base with few negative community impacts. To increase the likelihood of successful retention and recruitment, though, it is important to target more specific sectors within the manufacturing industry. Four of these subsectors are discussed below.

ElectricalEquipmentManufacturing(NAICS33531)This industry manufactures electrical products such as transformers, electric motors, generators, relays, and industrial controls. Products are often sold to other manufacturing industries, wholesalers and the construction sector. The industry requires a large labor supply, proximity to transportation corridors, and proximity to complementary manufacturing facilities. In the Innovation District, the Warrensburg Industrial Center is home two electrical product manufacturers: Enersys and GE Transportation, providing a local base of electrical product manufacturers upon which to build.

38 Data Source: Dunn & Bradstreet 2012, obtained via Esri Business Analyst online. Some businesses’ employment data may be non disclosable per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, making analysis at the Innovation District Level difficult.


P a g e 6 0

FarmMachineryandEquipmentManufacturing(NAICS33311)This subsector of the industry manufactures agricultural machinery and equipment and powered home lawn and garden equipment. Key agricultural equipment includes tractors, harvesting and seeding machinery, and other hardware such as grinders, mixers, wool presses and windmills. In the Innovation District, the Warrensburg Industrial Center is home to Swisher Acquisition, Inc., a lawn and garden equipment producer. As agriculture is an important industry for Missouri, as well as a driver of Midwestern economies, farm machinery manufacturers benefit from a strong local and regional customer base and a reasonably priced labor supply.

MotorVehiclePartsManufacturing(NAICS3363)Companies in this industry manufacture motor-vehicle gasoline engines and related parts including valves, pistons, crankshafts, camshafts, fuel injectors and pumps. The Johnson County Economic Development Corporation has already identified this industry sector as a potential targeting effort for the Innovation District. Missouri and the surrounding region is home to several manufacturers of automobiles and automobile equipment, increasing the clustering opportunities for potential new or expanded manufacturers.

Aircraft,Engine&PartsManufacturing(33641a)This industry manufactures and overhauls entire aircrafts as well as develops prototypes and converts aircrafts. The industry also includes the manufacture and conversion of aircraft engines and propulsion systems as well as parts and auxiliary equipment. This target should be viewed in the long-term. Though the Innovation District (and Johnson County overall) has assets that could support aircraft or aircraft part manufacturers, there are other clusters of industry activity elsewhere in the nation that are well established and extremely competitive. The Skyhaven Airport has adjacent available land for development, however its runway is short of the usual industry requirements. Renovations to extend that runway to 5,500 ft. or more would be very expensive. Also, nearby the Innovation District is Whiteman Air Force Base. With some public support, the area represents a possible clustering opportunity for a niche portion of the aircraft manufacturing process (engines, auxiliary equipment and other parts) that could supply larger, more established clusters of aircraft manufacturing activity.

FinancialandProfessionalServices

TechnicalSupportCenters/AdministrativeServiceCenters(NAICS5614)These industries provide support services to any company in need of technical or administrative support. Technical Service Centers provide telemarketing services on a contract or fee basis. Telemarketers use telephone or email to promote clients’ products or services, take orders, solicit contributions or provide information on behalf of clients; these centers also provide phone-based service and assistance to customers of clients. Administrative Service Centers provide postal and mailing services, word-processing services, on-site PC rental services and office product sales as well as copy centers are included in this industry. These centers may be a well-positioned target for the Innovation District because of available greenfield land and a large supply of reasonably-priced labor. The centers have high flexibility for site location and have relatively few requirements besides an information technology connection and a certain site size.


P a g e 6 1

TransportationandLogistics(NAICS48‐49)Transportation and Logistics make up a wide variety of industry subsectors. Generally, these cover local and long distance freight trucking, freight railroad transportation, port and waterway operations, as well as warehouse space for retail, wholesale and manufacturing sectors. The Innovation District is home to nine (9) businesses that employ 97 people, which represents over 5 percent of employment in the District. Transportation and Logistics businesses generally require proximity to major markets, large tracts of available land (free of wetlands) and rail access is a requirement for some.

Land Suitability to Identified Targets

This section of the Targeting Viability Analysis will address the general suitability of the Johnson County Innovation District to the targeted industries. This will be done by comparing an overview of the Innovation District site and its features to known site requirements of certain industry segments.

J o h n s o n C o u n t y I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t D e s c r i p t i o n The Johnson County Innovation District is a 9,468 acre area within Johnson County, Missouri designated as an area with great potential for economic growth. The study area is 9.75 miles long (west to east) along Highway 50 beginning at Highway 58 to just east of the new Highway 13, locally known as the East Loop, and 4 miles wide north and south from SW 200 Road to NW 200 Road and encompassing all of the City of Centerview and the northern portion of the City of Warrensburg. The District also boasts the Missouri Aviation Center Max B. Swisher Skyhaven Airport, a public-use airport owned by the University of Central Missouri. JCEDC believes that the District “affords an excellent opportunity for business expansion, economic development, innovation, job creation, cultural and environmental practices and education-business partnerships which has a greater regional impact.”39

Located nearby the Innovation District is the University of Central Missouri in the city of Warrensburg as well as Whiteman Air Force Base, which is home to over 3,000 military personnel.

S i t e R e q u i r e m e n t s o f I d e n t i f i e d T a r g e t s This section will detail the site requirements for identified targets. These requirements will vary by each specific business, but are useful guidelines when targeting broad industries for a large site like the Johnson County Innovation District. In addition to a brief overview of industry sites, the requirements are separated into “musts” and guidelines.

39 “EDA Invests in the Johnson County Innovation District“ Johnson County Economic Development Corporation. http://www.growjocomo.com/?p=1150#sthash.QEaFxA3R.dpuf


P a g e 6 2

Advanced/LightManufacturing40

OverviewAdvanced/Light Manufacturing developments often create large numbers of jobs, do not put great stress on infrastructure, and represent significant capital investments. Since light manufacturing has such a broad spectrum of individual industries, their specific needs will vary greatly. However, there are commonalities among them that create the conditions for a well-positioned light manufacturing site.

Musts Site must be located in an area with a population of at least 12,500 within a 75-mile radius Site must be a minimum of 15 developable contiguous acres and configured appropriately Site must be within 10 miles, via truck route, of an Interstate or limited access, 4-lane improved

highway system If zoning currently exists, the site must be properly zoned for light industrial or a letter of commitment to

rezone it appropriately The 15 developable acres of the property must be located outside the FEMA 100-year flood plain The 15 developable acres of the property must be free of wetlands, protected species or other

environmental issues (or have plan of mitigation achievable within 180 days) Electrical, natural gas, water, sewer and telecommunications services must be properly sized and have

appropriate capacity to service project or have the capability to have adequate service developed Site must have access to a T-3 line (fiber optic line or equivalent service preferable) for servicing the

site within 180 days Site must be within 90 miles of a commercial service airport

BusinessServices41

OverviewBusiness service developments can house many workers in an office-style park, providing relatively stable jobs with low barriers to entry. Though types of business service developments vary greatly, the Innovation District is well positioned for technical support centers and administrative centers. Though each company has slightly different uses for these centers, the following criteria are necessary for a well-positioned business service site.

Musts Site must be a minimum of 10 net contiguous, developable acres and configured appropriately If zoning currently exists, the site must be properly zoned for office park or a letter of commitment to

rezone it appropriately The 10 developable acres must be located in an area outside the FEMA 100-year flood plain

40 Oklahoma Certified Site Program: Light Industrial Park Resources. Oklahoma Department of Commerce. http://okcommerce.gov/community-resources/certification-programs/site-ready-program/site-ready-application-process/ 41 Oklahoma Certified Site Program: Light Industrial Park Resources. Oklahoma Department of Commerce. http://okcommerce.gov/community-resources/certification-programs/site-ready-program/site-ready-application-process/


P a g e 6 3

The 10 developable acres must be free of wetlands, protected species, or other environmental issues or have a mitigation plan achievable within 180 days

Site must be served by adequate electrical, natural gas, water and sewer utilities for the project type or have the capability to have adequate service developed

Site must be served with fiber optic infrastructure, or equivalent service with at least 155.5 Mbps bandwidth, or have plan of mitigation (with estimated cost and schedule impact) for servicing the site within 180 days

Site must be located in an area with a population of at least 25,000 within a 50-mile radius

Warehousing42

OverviewTransportation and Warehousing developments have some specific needs. Included in these are strong transportation access and a minimum of 50 acres (while many developments are much larger). Warehouses often have higher-paying jobs with low to medium barriers to entry, like a short training course to certify forklift operators. With its size and available parcels, and good transportation access, the Innovation District is in a strong position for third party logistics firms (3PLs), trucking firms, warehouses, and more. The following criteria are a minimum for this type of development.

Musts Site must be a minimum of 50 developable contiguous acres, and configured to support the site

development plan Site must be within 5 miles, via truck route, of an Interstate or limited access, 4-lane improved highway

system If zoning currently exists, the site must be properly zoned for a warehouse/distribution facility or a letter

of commitment to rezone it appropriately The 50 developable acres of the property must be located in an area outside the FEMA 100-year flood

plain The 50 developable acres of the property must be free of wetlands, protected species or other

environmental issues (or have plan of mitigation achievable within 180 days) Electrical, natural gas, water and sewer utility services must be properly sized and have appropriate

capacity to service project or have the capability to have adequate service developed Site must have access to a fiber optic line or equivalent service for servicing the site within 180 days

42 Oklahoma Certified Site Program: Light Industrial Park Resources. Oklahoma Department of Commerce. http://okcommerce.gov/community-resources/certification-programs/site-ready-program/site-ready-application-process/


P a g e 6 4

Aircraft,Engine&PartsManufacturing43

OverviewAircraft, Engine & Parts Manufacturing developments are similar to those of advanced/light manufacturing. The one main difference is access to a commercial service runway. However, the longest runway at the Skyhaven Airport is currently smaller than the 5,500 ft requirement, and renovations to upgrade the current runway would be extremely costly. This is one reason why this industry target should be considered long-term. As discussed previously, there is also intense competition for aircraft and aerospace manufacturing, so the niche industry of Aircraft, Engine and Parts Manufacturing may be more attainable and a better fit for this site. With that said, if improvements were made, the Innovation District would have all the necessary requirements for Aerospace manufacturing, including value-added opportunities with Whiteman Air Force Base nearby. The following are the minimum criteria for an Aerospace development, with Aircraft, Engine & Parts Manufacturing having similar requirements except the 5,500 ft. runway.

Musts Site must be a minimum of 50 net contiguous developable acres and configured to support the site

development plan If zoning currently exists, the site must be properly zoned for light manufacturing or aerospace or a

letter of commitment to rezone it appropriately The 50 developable acres must be located in an area outside the FEMA 100-year flood plain The 50 developable acres must be free of wetlands, protected species, or other environmental issues

(or have plan of mitigation achievable within 180 days) Site must be served by adequate electrical, natural gas, water and sewer utilities for the project type or

have the capability to have adequate service developed Site must be served by fiber optic cable or by multiple (min. 2) copper lines of T-1 capabilities with at

least 1.5 Mbps bandwidth or have a plan to upgrade the lines to such a level Site must be adjacent to a commercial service airport with a 5,500 ft. runway

L a n d S u i t a b i l i t y o f I d e n t i f i e d I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t T a r g e t s The Johnson County Innovation District is a large, disjointed area which could be suitable to a wide range of industries. In order to analyze the suitability of the innovation district to identified targets, the focus of this section will be the District’s four existing industrial and commercial business parks. See Figures 7-9 for maps and aerial photography of these sites.

To perform a more specific analysis, detailed site characteristics for each of the four business parks would be necessary. This information would include full parcel ownership and boundary data, natural gas, water, fiber, and electric service information, transportation and right-of-way and other easement data, and floodplain and soil data, to name a few. This could be a potential follow-up effort to the generalized targeting information contained herein.

43 Oklahoma Certified Site Program: Light Industrial Park Resources. Oklahoma Department of Commerce. http://okcommerce.gov/community-resources/certification-programs/site-ready-program/site-ready-application-process/


P a g e 6 5

Figure 6: Johnson County Innovation District Industrial Areas (as of August 2013)

Figure 7: Warrensburg Industrial Center (Left), Brady Commerce Park (Right)


P a g e 6 6

Figure 8: Shamrock Business Park (Left), Show-Me Industrial Park (Right)

As Figures 8 and 9 show, the Johnson County Innovation District contains large tracts of available land in their four existing business/industrial parks. These parks include Warrensburg Industrial Center, Brady Commerce Park, Shamrock Business Park and Show-Me Industrial Park. Warrensburg Industrial Center is the most developed park of the four, with most of its larger parcels already developed; however, there are still available parcels remaining. Though this analysis is high-level, generally, the Innovation District business/industrial parks can be customized to most any user, are planned for industrial-type uses, and have good local access.

Another high-level positive attribute of the Innovation District is its regional and national location. The District is located such that a majority of Midwestern destinations are within a one-day travel time for trucks, including major cities such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Omaha, Des Moines, Minneapolis- St. Paul, Milwaukee, Chicago, Indianapolis, Columbus, Louisville, Nashville, and Memphis, among others. Nearly the entire United States (with the exception of the West Coast) is accessible within two days. See the travel time/distance map within the map section.


P a g e 6 7

G e n e r a l i z e d T a r g e t i n g V i a b i l i t y S u m m a r y This generalized targeting viability analysis is an important part of the effort to position the Johnson County Innovation District for positive economic development. Though targeting is often done on a “micro” level, the size of the Innovation District makes specific site targeting challenging. The benefit of this, however, is that a generalized targeting analysis provides the opportunity for Johnson County to examine how the Innovation District fits into the prescribed state, regional, and local economic development targets, what industries the County’s labor pool could support, and what general site characteristics each of the identified targets require. By conducting this analysis, Johnson County increases the likelihood of successful economic development in the District.

The analysis identified four potential categories of targets with a few subcategories. They are Advanced/Light Manufacturing, with subcategories of Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 33531), Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 33311), Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 3363), and Aircraft and Aircraft Part Manufacturing (NAICS 33641a). Financial and Professional Services is another target category, which includes Technical Support Centers and Administrative Service Centers (NAICS 5614). The final industry target includes the vast industry of Transportation and Logistics (NAICS 48-49).

The Innovation District itself is a large area (over 9,000 acres), with four business parks, a public-use airport, and adjacent access to the city of Warrensburg. It has a vast amount of available land ripe for development; however, because of its size and ability to accommodate many industries, its site characteristics do not limit the options for development targets. This is a positive attribute for the District, but it does not direct economic development staff to any particular industry or set of industries. Further site investigation is necessary to move beyond a generalized analysis and support business recruitment and expansion on a site-specific basis.

Overall, this generalized targeting viability analysis has aligned the Johnson County Innovation District with state, regional and local efforts, ensured compatibility of the uses to the District’s size, characteristics and infrastructure, and positioned the District for successful economic development efforts through business recruitment and expansion.

Summary Report T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S y s t e m

P a g e 6 8

Transportation System Transportation System Existing Conditions

E x i s t i n g T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o r r i d o r s The JCEDC study area parallels a number of transportation corridors, of which varying levels of suitability for future development exist. These transportation corridors are comprised of the following routes:

U.S. 50 Highway - Principal Arterial / Freeway – running east/west Missouri 13 Highway East Loop - Principal Arterial – running north/south Missouri 13 Business Route - Principal Arterial – running north/south Missouri 58 Highway - Minor Arterial – running north/south Local & Collector Roadways Union Pacific Railroad - Sedalia Subdivision – running generally east/west Skyhaven Airport

E x i s t i n g R o a d w a y A s s e t s The U.S. 50 Highway corridor is a four-lane divided highway with full movement access control restricted to minimum ¼ mile spacing. A majority of the full access breaks are Type 1 median openings, servicing local/collector roadways within the county. The junction of Missouri 58 Highway is a J-turn intersection, which restricts 58 Highway traffic from directly turning left turn, but rather must turn right, then make a U-turn on U.S. 50. Left –turns off U.S. 50 are permitted and auxiliary right-turn lanes are provided. Within the corporate limits of Warrensburg, U.S. 50 Highway is a freeway with access limited to service interchanges. The junction of U.S. 50 Highway and Missouri 13 Highway business route is a tight diamond service interchange with traffic signals at the ramp terminals, and a partial tight diamond service interchange located at PCA Road. Located to the east of Warrensburg, a full diamond interchange, at the junction of the Missouri 13 Highway and U.S. 50 Highway, uses single lane roundabouts at the ramp terminals.

The Missouri 13 Highway East Loop corridor is located to the east of Warrensburg, and is a two-lane concrete highway with surfaced shoulders and access control of approximately 1 mile spacing for the southern portion and varies on the north portion. The access breaks are either single-lane roundabouts or typical at-grade intersections, servicing local/collector roadways within the county.

The Missouri 13 Business Route corridor is located to the north of Warrensburg, and is a two lane asphalt highway with surfaced shoulders with no specific access control. The existing access breaks are typical at-grade intersections, servicing local/collector roadway, and a number of private driveways.

Summary Report | T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S y s t e m

P a g e 6 9

The Missouri 58 Highway corridor is located to the west of Warrensburg, and is a two-lane asphalt highway with no surfaced shoulders and no apparent access spacing requirements. The access breaks are a mix of local roads, commercial, residential and field drives.

The local and collector roads within the study area are comprised of a mix of two-lane paved and two-lane gravel roadways with no access control.

E x i s t i n g R a i l a n d R a i l S e r v i c e P o t e n t i a l The subject site is located along Union Pacific Railroad’s (UPRR) Sedalia Subdivision near MP 224.15 (Highway 58). The east/west mainline track serves both passenger and freight rail ranging in speeds from 50 to 75 mph, respectively. Amtrak’s Missouri River Runner route runs between the Gateway Multimodal Transportation Center in St. Louis, MO and the Kansas City Union Station in Kansas City, MO. Additionally, near Centerview there is an existing siding (Track 232) and industrial lead (Track 856) branch from the existing mainline.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) records indicate moderately high volume of 23 trains per day. According to UPRR, this mainline corridor is classified as “Restricted Access” due to line density, which requires significant planning and investment for providing rail access. Proximity, terrain, property impacts, and environmental issues will be a challenge for rail development. Proposed industrial trackage branching from the existing mainline will require signalization at powered switch locations and have sufficient storage capacity to clear an entire unit-train from the mainline (approximately 8,500 – 9,000 linear feet). Additionally, if customer operations require varying directional flow, the proposed facility must have access to the mainline from both directions.


P a g e 7 0

Proximity to existing adjacent trackage allows for evaluation of several track layouts and alternatives; however, industrial track development is often contingent upon user needs and requirements. Careful planning and coordination with UPRR is critical for successfully constructing and operating a rail-serve facility. Proposed track construction required for rail-serve development, especially within close proximity of existing Track 232, will require UPRR coordination along with review and approval from engineering design, signal, network planning, and other UPRR departments. Several considerations must be made during the early stages of planning and development including, but not limited to, track and site layout, safety, operations, maintenance, storage and handling of materials, security, land-use, access, and versatility.

E x i s t i n g A i r p o r t Within the Innovation District the Skyhaven Airport is a public-use airport owned by the University of Central Missouri. Skyhaven is located 3 miles northwest of the City of Warrensburg adjacent to U.S. 50 Highway, providing convenient access to town. The airport has two runways, Runway 13/31 which is 2,801 feet long, and Runway 18/36 which is 4,206 feet long. The airport recently acquired land to extend Runway 18/36. Structures within the runway approaches may have to be limited in height.

Common activities at the airport consist of corporate flying, flight training, military exercises, and recreational flying. Seasonal activities at the airport include aerial agricultural spraying, aerial inspections, air cargo, environmental patrols, forest firefighting, as well as aerial photography and advertising.


P a g e 7 1

The airport also supports search and rescue operations, emergency medical transports, medical doctor transports, and law enforcement operations. The Missouri State Trooper’s Rotary Division relies on the airport to perform search and rescue operations and training, while LifeFlight Eagle and Air Ambulance rely on the airport as well for emergency medical transports.

Site Development Potential

The U.S. 50 Highway corridor is developed/classified for the larger types of development, and would provide higher levels of freight and corridor mobility, but will require evaluation to identify safe and effective access locations. It is anticipated development adjacent to the corridor would require permitted upgrades to the median access breaks and potential for auxiliary turn lanes.

Within the corporate limits of Warrensburg, U.S. 50 Highway is classified as a freeway, and as such, direct access restricted. Hence, development would require accessing the highway through the service interchanges via the local road network.

The Missouri 13 Highway East Loop corridor is suitable for various types of development and could provide satisfactory access to the major transportation corridors. The single-lane roundabouts located along this corridor appear to be traversable for heavy vehicle traffic. New accesses along this corridor would be restricted to the existing locations, or require permitting approval from MoDOT.

The Missouri 13 Business Route corridor has limited areas for suitable development, due to the existing development and roadway network

The Missouri 58 Highway corridor may be suitable for various types of development and could provide suitable access to the major transportation corridors. The lower classification roadway may not be as suitable for large freight movements due to the reduced surfaced width and unrestricted access drives. Again, new accesses along this corridor may require permitting approval from MoDOT.

Co

rrido

r D

evelop

ability

Co

rrido

r Assets

Transpo

rtation

Utilities

Hazard

A

void

anceA

pp

endix

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Unio n Pacific Railroad

£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58

B l a c k w a t e r R i v e r

C e n t e r v i e w

W a r r e n s b u r g

Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d

UCM SKYHAVEN MUNICIPAL

FLETCHER FIELD

Innovation District: Johnson County Economic Development CorporationJohnson County, MOSeptember, 2014

Site Map - Innovation District Boundary ¯0 2 41

Miles

LegendInnovation DistrictMunicipal BoundsRiversStreams

Transportation NetworkOther FreewayPrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor CollectorLocal RoadRailroad

Airport Facilities!(o Public Airport!(p Private Air Field

Airport RunwayAirport Property

Service Layer Credits:


£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d


FLETCHER FIELD


USGS Topography ¯0 2 41

Miles

LegendInnovation DistrictMunicipal BoundsRiversStreams






£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d


FLETCHER FIELD


Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) ¯0 1.5 30.75

Miles

Reference ItemsInnovation DistrictMunicipal BoundsRiversStreams




FEMA Floodplain100 yr Floodplain Data digitized from

FEMA FIRM maps



£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d


FLETCHER FIELD


NRCS National Wetland Inventory ¯0 1.5 30.75

Miles





Wetland CategoriesLaucustrine Limnetic Unconsolidated BottomePalustrine Aquatic BedPalustrine EmergentPalustrine Forested Broad-Leaved DeciduousPalustrine Unconsolidated BottomRiverine Lower Perennianl Unconsolidated Bottom



£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d

100

349

349

434

393

100

378

349105

107

163

140

141

116

349

453

116

140

349

116 100

453

100378

163116

100 349453

700

700

453

453

116

116 116

453

100116

116

105 105

434189

100

189

368

700

105

349

368

453

105

378

700

116

116

140

189

116

105

700

700

105

700

100

140

481

434

116

116

140

116

453

368

116

189

100

116

434

434

434

116

434

116116

601

368

116

453

116

116

368

140

116

434100

481

116

453

163

116163

700

116

116

453

378349

116

453

378

116

116

116

453

453

116

189

434

453

163

634

453

453

453

481

116

453

116

349

116

140

189

116 453

116

481

378

700

453

140

116

116

481481

700

434

481

453

100

140

140

189

378

116

700

140

453

116

140

116

116

453

700

481

453

378

434349

349 116

116

116

434

349

481

368

140

368

107

116

116

434140

116

378

116

378

116

481

434

655

116

105

349

700

116

142

378

116

116


USGS Soil Types ¯0 2 41

Miles



Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) typesArisburg silt loam (100)Barco loam (434)Blackoar silt loam (105)Bolivar fine sandy loam (700)Bremer silty clay loam (107)Deepwater silt loam (453)Dockery silty clay loam (141)Freeburg silt loam (601)

Gorin silt loam (368)Haig silt loam (393)Higginsville silt loam (125)Kanima very channery loam (911)Lightning silt loam (415)Mandeville silt loam (189)Nodaway silt loam (163)Norris channery silt loam (481)

Polo silt loam (378)Sampsel silty clay loam (116)Snead silty clay loam (140)Snead-Rock outcrop complex (142)Weller silt loam (634)Winfield silt loam (655)Zook silty clay loam (349)Water (901)

"/

"/

"/

_̂

K a n s a s C i t y

W i c h i t a

S a i n t L o u i s

Sp r in g f ie l d

Ov er l an d P a rk

In d e p e nd e n c e

Lawre n c e

Ola t he

St . Jo s e ph

Co lu m b ia Sa in t Pe t e rs

Leb a no n

Ot ta wa

Ca rt h ag e

Jop l in

Se d a l i a

Ma rs h a l l

Mob e r l y

K i r k sv i l l e

Ma ryv i l l eBe at r i c e

N e b r a s k a

K a n s a s

M i s s o u r i

I l l i n o i s

O k l a h o m a

I o w a

Par son s

Emp or ia

Ma n ha t ta n

Ro l l a

Jac k son v i l l e

P i t t s bu rg

Ju n ct ion C i ty

Me x ic o

Fu l ton

N ix a

Fa r m in g ton

Ma com b

Qui n cy

Ha nn i ba l

Ra ym oreBe l t on

D er b y

Innovation District

100 M i leRadius

FTZ No. 17

FTZ No. 225

FTZ No. 102

§̈¦44

§̈¦55

§̈¦35

§̈¦70

§̈¦57

§̈¦29

§̈¦135

§̈¦64

§̈¦72

§̈¦335 §̈¦435

§̈¦155

§̈¦255§̈¦270

§̈¦172

§̈¦235

§̈¦74

§̈¦70

§̈¦35

§̈¦55

§̈¦70

§̈¦135

§̈¦72

£¤50

£¤67

£¤24

£¤54

£¤69

£¤160

£¤36

£¤61

£¤56

£¤400

£¤136

£¤63

£¤75

£¤81

£¤166

£¤169

£¤71

£¤60

£¤65

£¤59

£¤73£¤77

£¤51

£¤159

£¤177

£¤40

£¤64

£¤62

£¤275

£¤45W

£¤50

£¤56

£¤60

£¤169

£¤71

£¤50

£¤54

£¤60

£¤54

£¤136 £¤67

£¤60

£¤69

£¤59

£¤36

£¤77

£¤54

£¤169

£¤63

£¤136

£¤67

£¤81

£¤160 £¤67

£¤75

£¤63

£¤77

£¤77

£¤61

£¤51

£¤60

£¤75

£¤61

£¤65

£¤56

£¤60

£¤71

£¤62

£¤24

£¤36

£¤50

£¤61

£¤63

£¤54

£¤50

£¤60

£¤136

£¤160

£¤60

£¤54

£¤51

£¤81

£¤71

£¤75

£¤160

£¤81 £¤65

£¤62

£¤67

£¤51£¤69

£¤77

£¤75£¤60

£¤65

£¤60

£¤160

£¤67

£¤71

£¤136

£¤61

£¤60

£¤71

£¤63

£¤36

£¤71£¤69

£¤169

£¤77

£¤59

£¤73

£¤136

£¤160

£¤136£¤63

£¤54

£¤75

£¤60

£¤136

£¤169

£¤65

£¤59

Legend"/ Foreign Trade Zone

InterstateUS or State HighwayRailroadState LineCounty Line


Local Foreign Trade Zones ¯0 60 12030

Miles

Co

rrido

r D

evelop

ability

Co

rrido

r Assets

Transpo

rtation

Utilities

Hazard

A

void

anceA

pp

endix



£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d


FLETCHER FIELD


Existing Land Use ¯0 1.5 30.75

Miles





Land UseCategories

ResidentialCommercialIndustrialPublicAgriculturalVacant


!

!

(

( !

!

!(

(

(!

!

(

(

!!!

!

!!

!

!

(((

(

((

(

(

!

!

!

(

(

(


£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d


FLETCHER FIELD


Employment Centers ¯0 2 41

Miles

Reference ItemsInnovation DistrictMunicipal BoundsRiversStreamsLocal RoadRailroad



Business Locations (> 25 employeess)

!( 25 - 28!( 29 - 40!( 41 - 60!( 61 - 105!( 106 - 150

Land UseCategories

CommercialIndustrial



£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d

Brady Commerce

Park

!(

Warrensburg Industrial

Center

!(

ShamrockBusiness

Park

!(

Show-MeIndustrialPark


FLETCHER FIELD


Innovation District - Industrial Parks ¯0 2 41

Miles


Transportation NetworkOther FreewayPrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor CollectorLocal RoadsRailroad



Industrial ParksIndustrial Park


£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

ª̈58

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

100th Rd

ª̈13


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d

Show-Me Industrial Park

ShamrockBusiness Park

Warrensburg Industrial Center

Brady Commerce Park

AG

AG

AG

AG

AG

AG

AG

AGAG

AG

RES

RES

RES

RESRES RES

RES

RES

RES

RES

C

C

C

IP

IP

IP

IP

IND

UU

UU

U

U

U


FLETCHER FIELD


Optimal Land Use Guidance ¯0 1.5 30.75

Miles



!(o Public Airport!(p Private Air Field


LegendOptimal Land UseGuidance

(R) Residential Use(C) Commercial Use(I) Industrial Use(AG) Agriculture Use(U) Existing Urban Areas(IP) Industrial Park Overlay

Co

rrido

r D

evelop

ability

Co

rrido

r Assets

Transpo

rtation

Utilities

Hazard

A

void

anceA

pp

endix


Union Pacific Railroad

£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n St

Warre

n St

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e wW a r r e n s b u r g

Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d

K n o b K n o s t e r

W h i t e m a n A F B

H o l d e n

))EE

))HH

ª̈13

ª̈23

))PP

ª̈58

ª̈131

))M

))MM

N o r t h F o r k B l a c k w a t e rR i v e r

S o u t h F o r k B l a c k w a t e r R i v e r

C l e a rF o r k

B l a c kw

ate

rR

i ve r

))YY

ª̈23

))F))W

))U

Jo

hn

so

n

Co

un

ty

Se

da

lia

C

ou

nt

y


SHORT AIR LAKE SEXTON

FLETCHER FIELD


Local Transportation Network ¯0 4 82

Miles

Reference ItemsInnovation DistrictCity LimitsCounty LineRiversStreams

Transportation Elements!(o Public Airport!̀ Military Airbase!(p Private Air Field

Other FreewayPrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor CollectorLocal RoadsRailroad

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!! !!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

K a n s a s C i t y

W i c h i t a

S a i n t L o u i s

Sp r in g f ie l d

Ov er l an d P a rk


Lawre n c e

Ola t he

St . Jo s e ph


Leb a no n

Ot ta wa

Ca rt h ag e

Jop l in

Se d a l i a

Ma rs h a l l

Mob e r l y

K i r k sv i l l e


N e b r a s k a

K a n s a s

M i s s o u r i

I l l i n o i s

O k l a h o m a

I o w a

Par son s

Emp or ia

Ma n ha t ta n

Ro l l a

Jac k son v i l l e

P i t t s bu rg

Ju n ct ion C i ty

Me x ic o

Fu l ton

N ix a

Fa r m in g ton

Ma com b

Qui n cy

Ha nn i ba l

Ra ym oreBe l t on

D er b y

Innovation District

100 M i leRadius

K a n s a s C i t y I n t l

L a m b e r t - S t L o u i s I n t l

S c o t t A F B

F o r n e y A A F


J o p l i n R e g i o n a l

C o l u m b i a R e g i o n a l

K i r k s v i l l e R e g i o n a l

S p r i n g f i e l d R e g i o n a l C a p e G i r a r d e a u R e g i o n a l

Topeka

Springfield

Jefferson City

§̈¦44

§̈¦55

§̈¦35

§̈¦70

§̈¦29

§̈¦135

§̈¦72

§̈¦64

§̈¦335

§̈¦435

§̈¦57

§̈¦255§̈¦270

§̈¦172

§̈¦155

§̈¦235

§̈¦470

§̈¦35

§̈¦135

§̈¦70

§̈¦64

§̈¦72

£¤50

£¤67

£¤54

£¤160

£¤24

£¤69

£¤36

£¤61

£¤56

£¤400

£¤63

£¤75

£¤81

£¤166

£¤136

£¤169

£¤71

£¤60

£¤59

£¤65

£¤73£¤77

£¤51

£¤159

£¤177

£¤40

£¤60

£¤177

£¤77

£¤50

£¤73

£¤60

£¤63

£¤69

£¤61

£¤63

£¤60

£¤50

£¤59

£¤71

£¤63

£¤59

£¤160

£¤60

£¤136

£¤56

£¤63

£¤36

£¤77

£¤136

£¤81

£¤73

£¤169

£¤60

£¤69

£¤160

£¤67

£¤65

£¤136

£¤166

£¤77

£¤63

£¤160

£¤67

£¤136

£¤24

£¤36

£¤60

£¤65

£¤77

£¤71

£¤61

£¤54

£¤61

£¤56

£¤54

£¤77

£¤169

£¤24

£¤67

£¤60£¤60£¤81

£¤69

£¤169

£¤81

£¤169

£¤75

£¤71£¤69

£¤65

£¤59

£¤160

£¤54

£¤136

£¤67

£¤65

£¤61

£¤24

£¤73

£¤71

£¤63

£¤65

£¤67

£¤169

£¤160

£¤36

Legend_̂ State Capital

City by Population

! 250,000 or Greater! 100,000 to 249,999! 50,000 to 99,999! 10,000 to 49,999! Less than 10,000

InterstateUS or State HighwayRailroad

!(o International!̀ Military!(o Regional!(p Municipal

State LineCounty Line


Regional Transportation Network ¯0 60 12030

Miles

G u l f o f

M e x i c o

A t l a n t i c O c e a n

P a c i f i cO c e a n

_̂Innovation

District

Mesa

Miami

Tampa

Tulsa

Omaha

Newark

Toledo

Boston

Austin

Dallas

DenverAurora

Tucson

Fresno

Raleigh

Atlanta

Chicago

Memphis

Buffalo

Detroit

Houston

El Paso

Phoenix

Anaheim

Oakland

Seattle

New York

Columbus

St. Paul

San Jose

Portland

Baltimore

Charlotte

Cleveland

LexingtonSt. Louis

Nashville

Milwaukee

Arlington

Las Vegas

RiversideSanta Ana

San Diego

Washington

Pittsburgh

Cincinnati

Louisville

Fort Worth

Long Beach

Sacramento

New Orleans

Minneapolis

San Antonio

Kansas City

Albuquerque

Philadelphia

Indianapolis

Jacksonville

Oklahoma City

Virginia Beach

Corpus Christi

Colorado Springs

Dover

Salem

Albany

Pierre

Helena

Topeka

Carson

Trenton

Jackson

Concord

Augusta

LansingMadison

Lincoln

Olympia

Hartford

Richmond

Columbia

Bismarck

Santa Fe

Cheyenne

Annapolis

Frankfort

Harrisburg

Charleston

Montgomery

Montpelier

Des Moines

Boise City

Springfield

Tallahassee

Baton Rouge

Little Rock

Jefferson City

Salt Lake City§̈¦80

§̈¦90

§̈¦40

§̈¦8

§̈¦10

§̈¦76

§̈¦29

§̈¦15

§̈¦44

§̈¦94

§̈¦65

§̈¦75

§̈¦5

§̈¦35

§̈¦25

§̈¦49

§̈¦16§̈¦30

§̈¦84

§̈¦57

§̈¦27

§̈¦95

§̈¦85

§̈¦55

§̈¦43§̈¦39

§̈¦37

§̈¦64

§̈¦72

§̈¦81

§̈¦74

§̈¦24

§̈¦45

§̈¦59

§̈¦88

§̈¦840

§̈¦390

§̈¦19

§̈¦91

§̈¦86

§̈¦87

§̈¦26

§̈¦495

§̈¦540

§̈¦35W

§̈¦66

§̈¦185

§̈¦155

§̈¦215

§̈¦680

§̈¦190

§̈¦475

§̈¦240

T e x a s

U t a h

M o n t a n a

C a l i f o r n i a

I d a h o

A r i z o n a

N e v a d a

O r e g o n

I o w a

K a n s a sC o l o r a d o

W y o m i n g

N e w M e x i c o

O h i o

M i n n e s o t a

N e b r a s k a

M i s s o u r i

F l o r i d a

I l l i n o i s

G e o r g i aO k l a h o m a

A l a b a m a

A r k a n s a s

W a s h i n g t o n

S o u t h D a k o t a

M a i n e

W i s c o n s i n

N o r t h D a k o t a

V i r g i n i a

N e w Y o r k

I n d i a n a

L o u i s i a n a

M i c h i g a n

K e n t u c k y

M i s s i s s i p p i

T e n n e s s e e

P e n n s y l v a n i a

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

W e s t V i r g i n i a

V e r m o n t

M a r y l a n d

N e w J e r s e y

N e w H a m p s h i r e

M a s s a c h u s e t t sC o n n e c t i c u t

¯

US Travel Distance from Site (Approx.)Travel Time

Less than One DayOne to Two Day

Note: Travel times used in this graphic were approximated using the assumption of 11 hours of drive time and posted speed limt for each road segement.

Legend!\ National Capital!\ State Capital!( Major Citiy

InterstateUS StatesU.S. BoundaryNorth America

Major Rivers (States)Major Lakes (State)Ocean Background

0 500 1,000250Miles


Travel Distance to Innovation District

!(o

!̀

!(o

!(o

!(o

!(o

!(o!(p

!(o

!(p !(p

!(o

!(p

!̀

!̀

!(p

_̂

K a n s a s C i t y

W i c h i t a

S a i n t L o u i s

Sp r in g f ie l d

Ov er l an d P a rk


Lawre n c e

Ola t he

St . Jo s e ph


Leb a no n

Ot ta wa

Ca rt h ag e

Jop l in

Se d a l i a

Ma rs h a l l

Mob e r l y

K i r k sv i l l e


N e b r a s k a

K a n s a s

M i s s o u r i

I l l i n o i s

O k l a h o m a

Par son s

Emp or ia

Ma n ha t ta n

Ro l l a

Jac k son v i l l e

P i t t s bu rg

Ju n ct ion C i ty

Me x ic o

Fu l ton

N ix a

Fa r m in g ton

Ma com b

Qui n cy

Ha nn i ba l

Ra ym oreBe l t on

D er b y

Innovation District

100 M i leRadius

K a n s a s C i t y I n t l

L a m b e r t - S t L o u i s I n t l

S c o t t A F B

F o r n e y A A F


J o p l i n R e g i o n a l

C o l u m b i a R e g i o n a l

K i r k s v i l l e R e g i o n a l

S p r i n g f i e l d R e g i o n a l C a p e G i r a r d e a u R e g i o n a l

§̈¦44

§̈¦55

§̈¦35

§̈¦70

§̈¦29

§̈¦135

§̈¦72

§̈¦64

§̈¦335

§̈¦435

§̈¦57

§̈¦255§̈¦270

§̈¦172

§̈¦155

§̈¦235

§̈¦470

§̈¦135

§̈¦35

§̈¦64

§̈¦70

§̈¦72

§̈¦72

£¤50

£¤67

£¤54

£¤160

£¤24

£¤69

£¤36

£¤61

£¤56

£¤400

£¤63

£¤75

£¤81

£¤166

£¤136

£¤169

£¤71

£¤60

£¤59

£¤65

£¤73£¤77

£¤51

£¤159

£¤177

£¤40

£¤60

£¤177

£¤77

£¤50

£¤73

£¤60

£¤63

£¤61

£¤63

£¤60

£¤50

£¤59

£¤71

£¤63

£¤59

£¤160

£¤54

£¤60

£¤60

£¤136

£¤56

£¤63

£¤36

£¤77

£¤136

£¤81

£¤73

£¤169

£¤60

£¤69£¤160

£¤67

£¤65

£¤50

£¤24

£¤136

£¤166

£¤63

£¤136

£¤160

£¤160

£¤136

£¤54

£¤36

£¤67

£¤60

£¤65

£¤77

£¤71

£¤61

£¤61

£¤56

£¤77

£¤169

£¤60£¤60

£¤24

£¤81

£¤69

£¤169

£¤67

£¤24

£¤169

£¤75

£¤71£¤69

£¤65

£¤59

£¤54

£¤136

£¤65

£¤36

£¤61

£¤160

£¤73

£¤71

£¤63

£¤65

£¤67

£¤169

£¤160

Legend!(o International!̀ Military!(o Regional!(p Municipal

InterstateUS or State HighwayRailroadState LineCounty Line


Airport Map ¯0 60 12030

Miles

Co

rrido

r D

evelop

ability

Co

rrido

r Assets

Transpo

rtation

Utilities

Hazard

A

void

anceA

pp

endix


!(p

!(o !(SS

!(S S

!(SS !(SS

!(SS !(SS

!( SS!(S S

!(S S!(SS

!(SS!(S S

!(S S

!(S S

!(SS !(SS !(SS !(SS !(SS

!(SS

!(SS!(SS

!(SS !(SS!(SS

!(SS!(SS

!(SS !(S S

!(SS!(SS

!(S S!(S S

!(S S

!(SS

!(SS

!(SS!(SS!(SS!(SS!(SS

!(SS

!(SS

!( SS

!(SS

!(SS

!( SS!(SS

!( SS!(SS

!(SS!(SS

!( SS!( SS

!( SS

!(SS!(SS!(SS

!(SS!(SS

!( SS

!(SS!(SS!(SS

!(SS

!( SS!( SS

!( SS!( SS!( SS

!( S S!(SS

!( SS!(SS!( SS!(SS

!( SS

!(S S!( SS!( SS

!(SS

!(SS

!( SS!( SS

!( SS!( SS

!( SS!( SS

!( SS!( SS

!( SS!(SS

!(SS!(SS!(SS!(SS

!(SS

!(SS

!(SS!( SS

!( SS!(SS

!( SS!( S S

!( SS!(S S

!( SS

!(SS!(SS!(SS

!(SS

!(S S

!(SS !(SS!( SS

!( SS!( SS

!(SS!(SS!(SS!(SS

!(SS!(SS

lJ

3Q

3Q

lJ


£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d


FLETCHER FIELD


Sanitary Sewer Network ¯0 2 41

Miles

Reference ItemsInnovation DistrictMunicipal BoundsRiversStreamsRoadsRailroad



Sanitary Sewer InfrastructureExisting Infrastructure3Q Wastewater Treatment Plant (in use)lJ Existing Lift Stations

!(SS !(SS Sewer InterceptorForcemain Unspecified Sewer Lines

Proposed InfrastructurelJ Proposed Lift Station

!(SS !(SS Sewer Interceptor


#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*


£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d


FLETCHER FIELD


Telecommunications Network ¯0 2 41

Miles


Transportation NetworkOther FreewayPrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor CollectorLocal RoadsRailroad



TelecommunicationsInfrastructure#* Cell Tower

CenturyLink FiberBluebird Network



£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d


4 in

12 in

9 in

7 in

7 in

4 in

7 in

7 in

4 in

4 in

7 in

4 in

7 in

7 in

7 in

7 in

9 in

7 in

9 in

4 in4 in

7 in

7 in

7 in

7 in

4 in

4 in

7 in

4 in

4 in

7 in

7 in

9 in

7 in

9 in

4 in

7 in

4 in

4 in

7 in

9 in

4 in

7 in

7 in

7 in

7 in 9 in

7 in

9 in

4 in

4 in

4 in

4 in

4 in

7 in

4 in

7 in

4 in

7 in

4 in

4 in

4 in

4 in

4 in

7 in

4 in

4 in

4 in

9 in

4 in

4 in4 in

FLETCHER FIELD


Water Network ¯0 2 41

Miles

Reference ItemsInnovation DistrictMunicipal BoundsRiversStreamsLocal RoadRailroad



Water SystemInfrastructureExisting Water Lines

12"9"8"7"6"4"3Less than 3"

Future Water Lines4"6"12"

Co

rrido

r D

evelop

ability

Co

rrido

r Assets

Transpo

rtation

Utilities

Hazard

A

void

anceA

pp

endix



£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d


FLETCHER FIELD


Airport Aerospace ¯0 1.5 30.75

Miles





Airport Height Restrictions796 - 844 Feet845 - 903904 - 945946 - 10011002 - 1053

1054 - 10891090 - 11581159 - 11931194 - 12851286 - 1369


²µ

²µ²µ


£̄¤50

£̄¤50

g§13

g§13

ª̈13

Hale Lake Rd

Division RdClark St

Gay St

Magu

ire S

t

Mitch

ell St

Holde

n StWa

rren S

t

Young St

SE 100th Rd

ª̈13

ª̈58


C e n t e r v i e w


Division Rd

NW 200th Rd

NW 400th Rd

))OO ))V

))BB

))BB

))DD

NE 200th Rd

NE 300th Rd

NW 500th Rd

SE 180th Rd

SE 250th Rd

SE 200th Rd

NE 50

1st R

d

NW 50

1st R

d

SW 10

1st R

d

NE 25

1st R

d


FLETCHER FIELD


Fire Protection Service Area ¯0 1.5 30.75

Miles




FireProtection²µ Fire Station

Response Time5 Minutes10 Minutes15 Minutes

Co

rrido

r D

evelop

ability

Co

rrido

r Assets

Transpo

rtation

Utilities

Hazard

A

void

anceA

pp

endix

johnson county (mo) innovation district corridor study

Documents

johnson county economic

city of warrensburg

land development

geographic areas

higher incomes

future development

median age

age group