2005 Taxable Sales: Polk County

Judith I. StallmannUniversity of Missouri Extension

Professor of Agricultural Economics, Rural Sociology and Truman School of Public

Affairs

Bolivar LeadershipJanuary 23, 2007

Retail Sales

□Provide employment in the county□Is not high wage, generally

□Provide sales tax revenues to the cities and to the county□Sales tax revenues come from

other sectors also

□Quality of life

Retail as a percentage of total Polk employment

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Retail % of employment

Retail % of earnings

Retail employment and earning as percentages of total: Polk

9.0%9.5%

10.0%10.5%11.0%11.5%12.0%12.5%

2001 2002 2003 2004

% of total employment % of total earnings

Retail earnings and Per Capita Income (2001 Dollars)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Do

llars

Polk real per capita income

Polk real earnings per retail worker

Missouri real earnings per retail worker

Retail Sales

Are a function of:□Population—consumer base□Local per capita income□Local retail availability so

that county residents can shop locally

□Attraction of consumers from outside the county

Population: 1969-2004

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000 PolkCedarDadeDallasSt. ClairHickory

Population: Cumulative Growth Percentages, 1969-2004

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Perc

ent

Dade

Dallas

Cedar

Greene

Hickory

Polk

St. Clair

Missouri

Per Capita Income: Current Dollars

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Dol

lars

Missouri

Cedar

Dade

Dallas

Greene

Hickory

Polk

St. Clair

Retail sales analysis

□Compare actual retail sales to potential retail sales

□Shows how much of the potential sales are actually being captured locally

Potential Retail Sales

(State per capita retail sales X county % of state per capita income X county population)

•State per capita retail sales is adjusted by•County per capita income as a % of state per capita income •And multiplied by the county population

Retail Pull Factor

_Actual retail sales_Potential retail sales

Multiplying by 100 gives the percentage of the potential that

is spent locally

Taxable Retail Sales: 2005 Polk County

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

BU

ILD

ING

MA

TA

TE

RIA

LS

GE

NE

RA

LM

EC

HA

ND

ISE

FO

OD

ST

OR

ES

AU

TO

MO

TIV

ED

EA

LE

RS

AN

DG

AS

OL

INE

A

PP

AR

EL

AN

DA

CC

ES

SO

RY

ST

OR

ES

FU

RN

ITU

RE

&eq

uip

men

t

EA

TIN

G A

ND

DR

INK

ING

MIS

CE

LL

AN

EO

US

RE

TA

IL

Pu

ll F

ac

tor

Taxable sales: 2005 Polk County

0.000.200.40

0.600.801.001.20

1.401.60

Retailtaxable sales

Non-retailtaxable sales

TOTALtaxable sales

Pu

ll f

acto

rs

Retail sales tax revenues

Actual retail sales- potential retail sales =

- -$48,013,920

□With a 1% local option tax this is $480,139 in lower sales tax revenues

Retail: Polk, 2002 and 2005

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50B

UIL

DIN

GM

AT

AT

ER

IAL

S

GE

NE

RA

LM

EC

HA

ND

ISE

FO

OD

ST

OR

ES

AU

TO

MO

TIV

ED

EA

LE

RS

AN

DG

AS

OL

INE

AP

PA

RE

L A

ND

AC

CE

SS

OR

YS

TO

RE

S

FU

RN

ITU

RE

&eq

uip

men

t

EA

TIN

G A

ND

DR

INK

ING

MIS

CE

LL

AN

EO

US

RE

TA

IL

Po

lk T

ota

l

Pu

l Fac

tors

2002

2005

Know the Data□Based on taxable sales

□Food stores□State taxes□Local option taxes

□Other sales not taxable

□Data disclosure problems with 6 firms or fewer

□New way of classifying data

Retail sales: Polk vs. Missouri

□Polk population growth more rapid□Per capita income growth is slower□Economies of scale in retail--some

types of stores will locate only in cities above a certain size

□Commuting outside the county can lower retail sales □average journey to work is 25 minutes

Changing Retail Environment

□Destination shopping□Internet and catalog sales□Increasing percentage of

income spent on untaxed services as compared with retail sales

□Retail earnings are falling□Perhaps more part-time workers□Is a sector that is not growing as

fast as the economy in general

U.S. Retail and E-retail

(Millions of dollars) 20042004 %% change change 00-0400-04

Total Retail Trade

3,477, 308

13.2

Mail order (not e-commerce)

94,906 6.5

E-commerce 70,906 150.6Electronic shopping and mail order houses

52,217 146.6

E-commerce other businesses

18,689 162.4Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade 2004

Total E-commerce ($ millions)

Total e-commerce 1,577,8

60

% of total

Manufacturing shipments

996,174

64

Wholesale 451,574 29Retail 70,906 4.6Selected Services

59,206 3.8

Numbers don’t tell all□Local information is important

□Is there shifting of purchases between retail sectors? □Food stores to department stores or general merchandise stores.

□Drugs to food stores and general merchandise

□Are local spending patterns different from the state in some important way?

Total retail sales pull factors, 2004

Cedar

Dade Dallas

Greene

HickoryPolk

St. Clair

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Data disclosure

The $64,000 Question□Why do people in the county shop

outside of the county?

□Why do firms not locate in the county□May be that the economics are such

that it is not profitable to locate in the county

Even better questions

□ Why are people shopping in the county? Build on what works.□Those who live in the county

□Those who do not live in the county

□Can sectors with low-sales be indicators of potential new businesses?

Stallmannj@missouri.edu

Thank-you for the invitation

The following slides provide additional information about

surrounding counties.

This likely will not be directly covered but is provided as additional information for

those who are interested.

52. Building materials, hardware, and garden supply: Pull factors, 2004

Cedar

Dade

Greene

Hickory

Polk

St. Clair

Dallas

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

53. General merchandise stores: Pull factors, 2004

Cedar

Dade Dallas

Greene

Hickory Polk St. Clair

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

54. Food stores: Pull factors, 2004Cedar

Dade

Dallas

Greene

Hickory

Polk

St. Clair

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

55. Automotive dealers and gasoline stations: Pull factors, 2004

Cedar

Dade

Dallas

Greene

Hickory Polk

St. Clair

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

56. Apparel and accessory stores: Pull factors, 2004

Cedar

Dade

Dallas

Greene

Hickory

Polk

St. Clair0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

57. Furniture, home furnishings and equipment: Pull factors, 2004

Cedar

DadeDallas

Greene

Hickory

Polk

St. Clair0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

58. Eating and drinking places: Pull factors, 2004

Cedar

Dade

Dallas

Greene

Hickory

Polk

St. Clair

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

59. Miscellaneous retail: Pull factors, 2004

DadeDallas

Greene

Hickory

Polk

St. Clair

Cedar

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8