Downtown and Waterfront Revitalization Plan-1979

„ CITY Of cSOU
0CM LIBRARY
MAR 25 1982
TIf P O'I'
- DOWNTOWN
AND
WTIT�R�'1�C�
REVITt1LIZt1
PI,AN
NT
TION
v
DCM COPY DCM COPY

This report was financed in part by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the State of North Carolina, and meets the requirements of
the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act of 1974.

:y.
CITY OF SOUTHPORT
DOWNTOWN AND WATERFRONT
REVITALIZATION PLAN
September 1979
Prepared by:
Southport Planning and Zoning Board
Southport Downtown Revitalization Committee
Brunswick County Planning Department

TABLE OF CONTENTS
a'
History of Southport
Project Goals
Citizen Participation Structure
Studies
Opinion Surveys
Existing Land Use
Existing Land Regulations
Circulation
Visual Analysis
Facade
Market Analysis
Population
The Master Plan
The Implementation Plan
Project Financing

A BRIEF HISTORY OF SOUTHPORT
The Town of.Southport was laid out in 1792 near the Colonial
English Fort Johnston. One hundred half acre lots were laid in a
,- modified grid iron pattern with shoreline streets running parallel
with the waterfront, and cross -streets running perpendicular to the
river.
The first citizens of the new Town were primary river pilots who
.earned their living guiding cargo boats up the Cape Fear River.
But the impact of these first citizens was small. The Town did
not really begin to prosper until the early nineteenth century when
the.United States War Department rebuilt the delapidated Fort Johnston
and the County seat was moved from Lockwood's Folly to Southport.
Soon after this, the tourist trade began to emerge. In the later
part of the 18501s, Southport reportedly became a favorite resort of
many wealthy Wilmington residents.
But even then, at the dawn of the -civil war, Southport was not
a wealthy Town Most inhabitants still found.their living connected
with the river and ocean. The river pilot was still the leading
occupation, and with competition being so stiff, most could earn
but a small.amount of.money. The few merchants in Town supplied only
the necessities.
It was not until the late 1880's that Southportshowed any
significant growth. With the closing of.the new inlet and the
dredging of the Cape Fear River, a natural deep water harbor was
created at Southport. Many had hopes that this small coastal village
could grow into a prosperous new seaport for the Southeast. Wealthy
businessmen -became attracted to the Town buying land and speculating
on new commercial ventures. Sidewalks were paved, larger residences

Constructed, water and electricity were promised. Real estate
companies, insurance agencies and a bank were established. By the
end of the nineteenth century., a commercial district was developing
,- on East Moore Street. Several new docks were developed along the
waterfront in response to the growing commercial fishing fleet. -New
churches were constructed, and a school was built to meet the needs
of the expanding population. The hopes that Southport would become
a prosperous port city seemed undeniable. Yet' -.it never happened.
At the time, Southport desparately needed.a rail or truck line to
one of the developing industrial cities in the Piedmont. When one
was finally established, the businessmen who had spurred such growth
were long gone.
Some growth occurred through World War I up until the depression
of the 1930s when.military personnel returned in full strength to
Southport during World War II, there was a surge in the economic
growth of the Town. This upsurge continued with the influx of a
few large industries in the area and the commercial development of
nearly beaches.
In the -past few years the rosy economic picture of Southport
has taken a downhill turn. The County Seat has been -moved from
•l
Southport to a .more .centrally located spot in the County,. leaving
many buildings vacant in the heart of the downtwon commercial area.
Income.from commercial fishing has decreased resulting from lower fish
counts stemming from poor environmental management of not only
Southport, but of the surrounding areas as well.

GOALS
The people of Southport hope to reverse the existing economic
trend in their community. The need for planning was recognized and
.' a contract was drawn between the City of Southport, the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, and the
Brunswick County Planning Department for a Downtown Rehabilitation
Study. Current problems were identified and the following goals
established:
1. Develope a comprehensive revitalization master plan
to guide in the development of new growth and the
preservation of existing community assets.
2. Develope guidelines to upgrade the quality of the
physical environment of the.central business district
(CBD) so that it becomes safe, convenient, and attractive
to consumers.
3. Develope economic revitalization -strategies that result
in offering the consumers a variety of goods and services
at competitive prices.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Citizen participation is a very important aspect of any plan
which will affect the public. The SouthportPlanning Board appointed.
William R. Thorsen, a member of the Board to head a citizen advisory
committee consisting of seven members. Member selection was based
on educational and work background. The committee has a wide
background ranging from the Arts to Business, to Finance, to Geography
to Fishing, to Construction.
In order to establish many of .the goals of this project the Advisory
Committee. -chose to invite personnel from the institute of Cultural
Affairs to Southport to conduct a method of Citizen Involvement
known as the Town Meeting concept. This was used extensively during
the Bicentennial Celebration across the U.S. The program was very
productive and -contributed much to the goals of this project.
The Advisory Committee believed strongly in the concept of
experience is the best teacher. In order to receive outside citizen
involvement the Committee made arrangements to visit two cities
similar to Southport which had previously began a revitalization program.
The cities of Edenton and Williamston, N.C. were chosen and final
arrangements made. The.group found the trip most educational and
solicited a great deal of public opinion•on programs in their respective
communities. Many,of the ideas born in those projects are incorporated
into the Southport plan. Of course there are other areas where
public participation is most important.
The.general public is again another facet of the total public
participation senerio. Using a group of high school students from
a local school, the Committee made arrangements to survey the general
populus of Southport. Survey forms were prepared which asked a,wide

variety of questions concerning development in the downtown and
waterfront areas. The results are enclosed in this report.
Another important part of this senerio is the entrepreneur's
opinion. Surveys were again prepared to ask specific questions which
relate to the Southport businessman and how he would be affected
by this project. The results of this survey are also enclosed.
Finally the over all plan must be subject to review of the
general public. Two public hearings were held to offer an
opportunity for citizen. involvement in the final stages of pre-
paring the master plan.'

SURVEY RESULTS
Two different surveys were taken in Southport to gather
residents' opinions on improving the Downtown and Waterfront
areas. The first was a door-to-door questionnaire taken by a
small group of South Brunswick High School students. The.second
was.a random telephone survey taken from the Southport phone
directory. Admittedly, only a small percentage of the residents
were poled but each survey verifies the other in that trends.of
opinion developed in the door -to -door -questionnaire were quickly
reinforced in the telephone survey with only a few variations.
In general the residents favored tourism, but were split
50-50 when it came to deciding if it should be encouraged by
conserving/preserving or developing the waterfront. Type of
development favored tended to be restaurants and motels.
Slightly over half.the residents shopped at least weekly in
the Downtown shops with their complaints stemming mostly from the
lack of variety and quality of merchandise rather than the quality.
of the built environment (buildings, signs, -sidewalks, parking).
The residents' main reason for shopping downtown was convenience.
The most desired _stores were bothmen's andwomen's clothing and a shoe
store. Also high on the list was a'department store and fast_
food restaurant. '
Types of desired entertainment mentioned included a swimming
pool, bowling alley, and a skating rink, but top on the list was by
far a movie theatre.
The next page (s) include the compiled data of both surveys
in percentage from the first number listed is the total percentage

from the door-to-door survey, the second is the total percentage.
from the telephone survey. Most discrepancies result from the
form of the surveys themselves. The door-to-door survey was
leading, in that problems with the shopping area were listed and all
one had to do was agree and check them off. In contrast, the telephone
survey offered no such prodding, and any problems that are listed had
to be prevelant enough to be thought up at the time.

Door to Door Survey
and
Telephone Survey
1. How often do you shop in downtown
Southport?
Daily 34',
25;0
Weekly 2400
4T%
Seldom 31'0
30%
Not at All 407.
monthly 57o
-
2. Why do you shop in Southport?
Convenience 47
5T1.
Nice people 29Q'
Plenty of Parking 117.
-
Good Selection
Attractive Shopping
envir onTr ent 0
-
3• What are the major Problems
of.the downtown shopping area?
Lack of Variety
73°,
40'/,
High Prices
36i"0
150:;
Unpleasant -Surroundings
227.
5%
._ Lack of parking
227,
-
Poor Use of signs
Poor displays
Inconvenient Hours
i07.
-
Insufficient advertising
S/�
-
Rundown Buildings
lea;
-
Vacant Buildings
5%
4. Do you shop for the following in
Southport?
Groceries
7707;
95%
Hardware
521;
60�;
Doctor
650"'
80'0

SURVEY RESULTS
Age: Under 16
17%
17-25
21%
26-40
34%
41-60
16
Over 60
21%
Married
53%
Single
47%
Employed
66%
Unemployed
34%
Male
30 %
Female
70%

Door to Door Survey
and
Telephone Survey
La�-�Ter 2900 75%
Clot',ing 1570 15
Bank 75'/ 95�,
Medicine 6570 85''
Dentist 55% 75%
Repair Shops 2070 55%
Furniture o,
5„ -
Insurance 3770%
Restaurant 43% 70%
Numbers indicate the total percentage that do shoo
for the items in Southport
5. Which would you rather see the waterfront become?
A natural park area, iust generally cleaned up 44% 557.
A developed area 56 450%
6. What type of development would you like to see along the
waterfront?
Industry 31%
Marina 20% 5%
Commercial fishing 7% -
Boat building and repair 7;'; 10%
Motels and Hotels 27% 25
Restaurants 29% 25%
7. Do you favor developing the tourist industry in Southport?
Yes 380"3 95'0
No 12% 5%
8. Have you ever considered going into business in Southport?
Yes. 24 o, a No 7 6% -

8. con't. TYPE OF BUSINESS
Theatrical
Health Spa
« Seam -tress
_ - Seafood
Clothing Store,
Restaurant
Interior Design
Cafe
Percent

NEW STORES
PERCENT
PERCE_d',
g Shoe
47
25
4
Department (Variety).
18
15
Clothing_
58
45
Sporting Goods
3.
-
Sandwich Place (Fast Food)
12
-
Bookstore
3
-
Electronic
1
-
Hat
1
-
Hard-,aare
3
-
Grocery
1
-
Bicycle/Repair
1
-
Craft Store
1
-
Household
1
-
Furniture
5
5
Jewelry
3
-
Record
3
-
Novelties
5
5
Linens
-
5

10 . E TEr T? I` I'_- 17
Camp grounds
Croquet
's
Table tennis
Rec Center
Theatre
Place for teens
Arcade
Museum
Swimming pool
Place to dance
Parks
Bars
Bike routes
Bowling
Restaurants
Hiking trails
Playground
Historical
Indoor basketball
Skating rink
Sports
Historical
Discos.
Arts & Crafts
Civic center
Amusement park
Tennis courts
Specialty
Elderly entertainment
PE'RCENTAGF
_
5
1
1
-
(4)
_
30
35
8
_
3
4
_
8
15
3
10
7
5
3
1
5
15
5
5
_
3
_
4
1
_ -
3
)0 .
l
3
_
7
3
5
4
_
3
_ 1
5

/ n.A-r_.:...r..
Clean up the water_ront
doesn't encourae the job industr-: , Deo-ple will have
l 4 �1•_
to locate elsewhere.
The only stores do,�wnco.•m. are specialty shops (auto Darts, drugs,
ban'-s, pro-essionals) e-xcluding Leggetts
Improve the lighting
Convert doun=-m into specialty area for tourists
Remove the crab factory, it is an eyesore
Make the property owners nick up there trash
Make shows more attractive
Better boat ramps are needed.
Larger buildings and stores are needed
The people in the stores don't act as if they need your business.
They seen to feel you have to shop there.
Vrnat will. we do with the birds?
The streets and buildings need to be imroved and beautified.
The do-mtoT,m and waterfront area should be redone to
resemble a fishing town village.
Southport could be a very nice ulace if it had the kind ofenter-
- enter-
tainment to develop our young as well as give the old a new outlook
on life.
Let tle tourist stay on the beach; but.have a good compact shopping
area Tunr_0VIM
.
More visb le signs are needed to show points of historic interest.
Its•nrobably too late, planning business district development
should have been done when CP&L and Pfizer were causing growth.

ENTREPRENEUR SURVEY SUMMARY
In general, area merchants favored improving the downtown
and.waterfront areas, and most (65%) were willing to spend
money on improvements with little or no financial assistance.
Almost all merchants (880) were willing to finance some
physical improvements if given some monetary aid. The most
favored type of financial assistance was low interest loans.
Second choice was matching grants. The source least favored
was revenue from increased taxes.
Slightly over half the merchants rented their stores with
rents ranging from $100.00 to $300.00 (for those responding to.
this particular question). Average rent was $207.40 per month..
Within the past year five businesses have located in the
CBD,-but the majority of stores had been there for five to
ten years. Over•two thirds of•those surveyed intend to remain
downtown "forever".
The area needing greatest improvement was building facades,
with slightly over a quarter of those questioned indicating it
should be the city's responsibility.
Most importantly this survey shows a genuine overall desire
of the merchants to improve the CBD area. It is extremely
encouraging to note that the majority of businesses concerned
are willing -to spend money to improve the general appearance
of their community.

ENTREPRENEUR SURVEY
The Brunswick County Planning Department is currently
gathering information to help in developing a Downtown Revitalization
plan for Southport. Your answer to the following questions would
be greatly appreciated. All information will be totaled and
averaged, so as not to reveal the identity of the individual stores
and businesses concerned.
Business Name
Address
Type of Business
1. What improvements, if any, do you feel are needed in
downtown Southport?
increased parking 11%
street bearing 5%
waterfront improvements 5%.
police protection. 11%
improve building facades 33%
improve sidewalks 5%
maintain Franklin Square Park 5%
recreate old Southport atmosphere 22%
median 11%
2. Which of the improvements you listed, should the.City be
responsible for?.
sidewalks 5%
• trash and litter pickups 11%
maintain Franklin Square Park 5%
waterfront improvements 11%
widening of 211 5%
underground utilities 5%
median 5%
police protection 11%
parking 11%
improve building facades 28%
3. Would you be willing to spend money on building and/or '
landscaping improvements with no financial assistance?
yes 65%
no 35 %
4. Would you be willing.to spend money on building and/or
landscaping improvements with some sort of financial assistance?
yes 88 % .
no 22%

If so, chat type financial assistance would you favor?
Special district Lax 12%
General tax revenue 18%
Revenue shares 29%
Powell bill money 23
Matching grants 47%
Low interest loans 59%
5. Do you -rent or own building?
own 44%
rent 66%
Monthly rent ranged from $100.00 - $300.00. The average was
$207.40.
6. How long have you occupied present building?
less than a year 28%
1-5 years 22%
6-10 years 39%
more than 10 years 11%
7. How long do you intend to stay there?
1-2 years 11%
undecided 22%
indefinitely 67%
8. Do you foresee any need to expand your building space in the
near future?
yes 22%
no 78%
9. Is all building space actively used?
yes 78%
no 22
10. Where does most of your loading take place?
back 22%
front 28 % '
not applicable 50%
11. Are you satisfied with the volume of your business?
yes 17%
no 72 %
not applicable- 11%

STUDIES
The completion of a variety of studies was needed before
any major comprehensive plan could be developed. Following are
the studies which were completed:
1. Existing Land Use
This map illustrated an extreme problem of vacant
buildings, due largely to the move of County offices,
:and vacant lots,, due to no large demand for -floor space
in the CBD. In addition.a large number of buildings
in the area housed professional offices, primarily
attorneys. It was also found that only a handful of
persons owned a large portion of land in the CBD and
along the waterfront rather than a large number of
people owning a msall amount. Finally, it was found
the city continues to decrease its amount of park area
by encroaching on its edges to build city facilities.
2. Existing Land Regulations
The CAMA Land Use Plan was used as a_basis for this map
along with City zoning and subdivision ordinances, and
applicable CAMA regulations. Strip development is
being encouraged by zoning, allowing commercial growth
along Howe Street from the City Limits to the waterfront,
Sign regulation is minimal.-
3. Circulation
Vehicular traffic flowed easily through the CBD and along,
the waterfront, but single blocks of four lane traffic
appeared confusing and unnecessary for the volume of traffic.
A four lane road divides the heart of the CBD discouraging
pedestrains to cross to the opposite side.' Also included
in this study were possible off-street parking areas and
various access routes to them.
4. Visual Analysis
Southport has a unique feature in that just one block from
the CBD is a potentially beautiful waterfront. Where views
of the waterfront already exist in the CBD they should be
developed and emphasized. The major problem with the water-
front is also prevalent throughout the business district.
There'.is a lack of edging between_ parking areas and side-
walks, parking and grassy areas, parking areas and roads
and etc. causing a significant lack of definition between
adjacent areas. In general, city maintenance is poor, and
not only are sidewalks in dire need of repair but the city
parks need to be better maintained and thoroughly landscaped.

5. Facade Study
There is a general lack of uniformity in the spacing of
buildings in' the CBD. A general structural rhythm should
be -established and maintained the length of the main
commercial strip. New buildings should be constructed
in vacant lots and those lots not large neough to be
built on should be cleaned up and used as pedestrain access
ways to off-street parking areas. The ground floor of store
fronts should be restored to improve details, pedestrain
signs, and awnings.
6. Market Analysis
Study included

_ 13
li
r-
a13
o©©
.I- � z
o
o
[P.,
IIf''1iI r■■�1i}1 I I I r
KeyL=
77
€�Gommcrcial -�--«�_.,�..� �=� ' _%iI� _::�I;� _-�•c :�� .sz^
Government aru4 �{ s `•
lrv*i+Vtion
` ❑ � Sao MO�,�
Vacant Lo+9Rwk
�� 13
6 1 J {I .I� I II ii1IIIIIIIf IryIIII IUII f 5 -�
u
I _
73 (sou poar
1)()%\*N'1'0\\'\ AND vwrt.QrQONT REVITALIZATION
Exiyl-in9 Land Uge -
F NORTII
M Vli 11 \C M' DFMOTMFCT

L 2 i N
�7 D 0<C;*A 3sp:1
is 3� � ����;.�� •
J
• .� ' 1� �a �v � 4��6>r ��^c- t.l..;w��;l+,i :t�,- —lei .,t;,,Q ��; .'
TO It 4 1"� Z. 1h1� /tkrP r J 4 d- d�� J .� •t ., -
IIVV JltxS
ry.
xr�-
A
��•lr�� ��.T � l5 [E : �t +s'4 1.t� i�. �t �N tom,,
t t }�+j A. -� � � r' � � k 4 (uY •9, � � w� � ^ura.�,+ww?:+"�t��r. "'" >, $ t�'� wL7M+:F , ,,;G� , i Y::
.r.,� t �
� ik{ �� ti�{, �' F 1 ti.j iJ fi {}' }a{i ,�ifi! a �(�,�}t� 9`k •�J'�.pt*r�? � "Y fit" r5 _
&4 7D, K j 1kIi M•kkt [s d....4�,,i,��"Iy'}Y�.`"°" �^ IR t ne.Ayi �� -
�r
� ii

0
I
; IVI
%
'Key
Sin le F4mily Residential
---Muf+i Fatuity Residential
A
­Open Spaces
( entral Dusiness P6+ri&t
.4 DOW NT(
oral Dminess District
Wight Industrial
Sc Alf
I INCH =100
oe
*0*
.0.0 J#
rea of Environmen-
em (CAMN
JCITY­OF
60UT11 P(DQ'r:l
AWN `ANDiW�TERy�r'RONT PEVITAWNrION
VVIV

Gib `\ 1� 5 rti r,'-�.' •''si•ttS�Y,}`��� r5'� a `� �. -�"'ti - 34� .., 1.: 1',
"asp%` .`'+" u� r'"�,. (i ���� �'• _ lJ 1.--! �%y' � ��-'1
� � I
1 t
arY or
60
!' pOtiX'N1.OWN AND W p,j,I'{?C�N'I'
Circulation Analyoi9
! 11%c'U 70 1 F T
I'��I GV1 k'F c'( )I VI) I i MIN: I It \L'I'll %I

r •+
Key • � , , � � �� r�ra, � ,
2-Way -Vehicular, OmulaTiot� ;•r r `r f e! ra ) rr* '+ ` `t� rr
-W Vahlcul"-"-Y:vld on 2{
('�,�`�r�
F bsSi 6 %rki �/'�'�
V �t
c{ p.Lr�f�S,�1 >•rra 1 f+ r 7 c �. a ui i CIT 1• Ol r
Existing LoadigSOUTtIPORT
ND WAATERFRONT REVlTAL11A1'10
}.+s$,r p
^.4 j it t'�!"F}�+NA>r- g" �J"}ji✓ f �' �,ri{ fM�4.4`l{ '.:,f,+ i ]t`':r. i t..��l''�Re �rwr�1:.TJr+y �! � i. ..
yr a 'fir �t r j{{�;rr v' �f�„r{ +tr✓Y� �µ,{. �i� � �� »>�$ jr+�r4��?� a �.ct � .. 1 T:" �,�. ;,, ... a '•, r Y 1 r
y,t { � k .. •r o r
/��r �n��e��r�v °� Gi ulaition mulosr,
�•• 1 'r V• jrJ:1 `� �'.,tC� i ait WR E.T., '�+�.S r.NY` �xd4'6{. �µ.a P :•�v� ��, • \�1�1�11
1. ' �• I3RU1�cS1C'ICC •[K COUNTY PLANNINURNOTMF.NT •-

L!:7
EjLi
oao
Cl -
- _ - � -U ^�. a�t - .ter=(� sai��►.. ,ay
_ 1�
;t: 4
v.
e
r
f
-
' Landmarks - - --�� -
i� �
Visual Improve.--:- = 2 C
ment needed _ b,77,
Water Views %1 x
^.,E.dj Problem El
GOO �IeWS a; 1 �. �.:.:«.:•�✓'
' �.L ..,4 ••n a`r arm fi y � '� Y z 3 _
ary or
fy � F M jlvuTwti� � ( .3 Y
I)OWNTOVIN AND \Vn•rr:aeaONT ar:vrr uzNrioN,
V151 al Analysis; 'tic�ru
-
Y

i
tt �
1 f r l r
• � � � w , ; r : a, : � \�,q� 1, i
0
' t Y 1n 1.r1► l) 4 t.. � � il, ., � Iw^y1� P.+ .,
' .. - f 1 .. u 1 ;!'. . � �. Jf.tt � �� 1 a wr.�MM� N►din"3'm�i. i '
- f f t •. � I ' ' ' M rM ' $ � kh3 1_ 1 r J+`t + s�V M � � ' �
.00
p i 2 ,i r n1 A `?s tart r{. t r t
Ker of + ty Ct;Ki 1a� f••1 r + i) U rk�MeN i
' S 4 > �.Y} ti�r�n 5,�aie +' ';a�,�iJ� w i Y+� ..eQ.,y r.J ,�?�,..
y� V ,t - M�a^ k�.y� »•+ta S, jf 3. U: 4 1 Y••yy 1 J ,f
Y u h "°x�r.., �Mi t� i �Yxf iy Y�4S }( " ry�F� {f Al, l Y%ts ty 4" wl1 � rrt
'/ �"i':r�x t•vj, �4�i•$ "r
k {_;�{•Y: wr,+prA7 ji i F i� ,'t �"�" R ,.� {�(�?+�� 4 :z}s d� , �e,{ P
La� 11'i r
.jt'f,.t' ti.:. �i•' y,�. ��t e,t:S A ,�, r�i >"L+rh u.✓S,N�,��A R'� � �j£ trf�ry ���,�w� � E xJ"��i; �� � f i',
/� �,-,,, rf?,-. - �" � irr .1�K �i�r�i r?k�� '+ �i�'�,�iii'�btx�i�''�'� •yr '�`'4 �)�',����jJ+ � h 33�n a d�g�. % �9 +x'" d r.� r'1, 7�.'�wir s f ''
v foual una µ ; }4 am r Ya y C j N t•at wr r ho` to ?� j l �et�H,M1@ n. i y �' }g 1�+ �4� x{ �} �a 1 a y s
`AI�{,�� .� �3 �'.' ,Y1Y "i � ��,.y� 9:ii''k"nJ � � �t'1a q' r arch ��f(� h S�x•+•' � `'✓I'ia''q��,IJ.f F � t
' of r fi . '.9;"^;t.:. xi: a'h .te r„ti 3i! .`.7''' �4 't• t tr h' ', 1` 'Ij X,''fs ,�'t' t".il'l� �l i �xFSS Hi -' 'K } Vt �4°*'i.
�?�OOd ��%GWS�•:�"•'�� `��z, ,�,�,a..¢,w Mrv+t 1'' ..i � £ 7.;`£.� SRra ;gn t?iksY'��'�b'1'�b?�1� .:��ywk f�*.mob, � t �'. �A�pi}1^` ^��,r�`�� .n� t; .°} ,4•�
.r Ed�N�yw�� 1
�u'�-�
yr �� '� tia � • � k C 's NV1.
T
�V 7 ,
RTMCNTrr
.. .. .....�.. .. ... .. ri,.•... .�..✓.+...au...+,...."a.+..................+-..«........r .-.x�•..r...�.. aY.w.W»...2 l:M .J.r,: W - a..n ..... ... .,`.. ., .. .. ` ..

• 1, li .a 1 rl
r +r
hee! A•r 1: owe. M t.,-.
trSd 1n...::;' -
�„t rrq•rr - f
R11��tyr ♦Iny riw ntrtef c+t,la
«+mrtrd C fdM) k•� .. ''.. !•�:t-d ..'•r� er"rx:ee ••nth to
. •-a nrr f; t[tiYG toned Jc reitt:uk �t >. m p.. r•
••s-,. ,�s ,+ti r•`r; 1*1,1w."A to It In wt•t Mvr+lnt4 n(fwni.•.: Fe•1e••.T r.rn i;p ne ,Jr7 •�•. -.c.
. ra.rmkyrtrl7 <Irt tertnr 1 J n,;, x" rsdd kt 0"1 fir' 11.a1 rltr IM1t r`lw tf.i•tt n+trXu lntc m lntm r' TYc • Ael^�Cwrietwxn, b�d-Pr rac - • -
saa;„y1i�almf a <uiry..t• '�, p•'rMa. !a.l1s ie r.h0 dC.e.0 W
r t
•xmt o�F+e nwdrno - : - - Y5'nkw+�Y.N rtt to ,tal..r, a a--1 - -
t.. ,:.:• • �t :'•;r }i:r T}w dl 1v7 {cf kavYu�wptrealt - it oarW %1
v �r :�H A�c� hira�Mr.•I iJ ta.we+
::, a :. ,.1. i,.:M re r; .('.iAe i.•.tcirw .#Yt41 ke d r mb.1t. sn sa FnaLG :+• •1 + v
r•.. l4rfiff tr-e�e.,lgrw �,rY 1rt :.•t7 t
\'` Lil7f[r rhG :r
Sim
.-_ \ Vinr!•tn iif�water•� -. _ - -
.. tr NaKr <tr.it tC .>'CL'pt.A -
Exiotin-e Moore 5fraet
CITY or
C5ouri'l l pol'-Yr
[�C \\•\'('(-)\\'\ AND W.\TF. Q 1-QO\'('
Facade Stud
y

Proposed Moore Street
Wf�_A ExiStin Moore 5treet
CITY CAI'
L)O\v\'I'nA'N AND WATl�L l)ONT I?I \�I'f�\l.1/.:\'I'I��\
Facade 6t-ud
Y

Proposed Moore 5"fY'eef
Ex i5ti n3 Moore 9 rea+
CITY OF
cSOU 'f' H POQT
DOWNTO\�'N AND WATEQ)FQON"f' hf:\�I'l�l.1/,t�'CION
Facade 6ludi
VI"Y I'l VAP,', ( ',I.l

CONSUMER :AND MARKET ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
�= The history of the economic development of American cities in the
twentieth century has been subjected to substantial changes in the habits
1
and preferences of both rural and urban residents. Significant factors
in the shift of spending preferences has been the mass production of the
automobile, the billions of dollars invested in highways, and America's
passion for the mobility of the family car, coupled with the abundance of
gasoline available at bargain prices.
In this country, the family shopping trip has evolved from a horse-
drawn wagon trip to the country store to an excursion to more distant
urban areas where high business volumes make substantial reductions in
the cost of the necessities of life possible. In a sense, the shopping
trip became a way of life for the American family, offering an opportunity for
a greater variety of goods and services, to which families became
accustomed.
This trend resulted several decades ago in the evolution of the
shopping center, which developed a pattern and design tailored after
the diversity available in downtown areas. Housed in one central loca-
tion, it -was possible to satisfy a multitude of shopping needs in a
single trip, and like most downtown areas, included restaurants and
entertainment as well.
As a result of the competition of vast shopping centers in growing
suburban areas, downtown areas, large and small, were subjected to di-
minishing sales and customers. They were further threatened by a mul-
titude of competing convenience stores placed strategically near resi-
dential areas. As a consequence, reduced sales margins, vacancies, lack

of capital for improvements, and dwindling numbers of planned facilities
for downtown shoppers resulted.
Southport has witnessed such a decline. It is obvious from an analysis
of goods and services gffered in the central business district that
business volume has decreased. This situation is further nourished -by the
recent move -of the county seat to a more centrally located site in the
county.
A number of factors have developed that begin to reverse these trends.
Foremost, is the rising cost of transportation and energy, which have
decreased families disposable income for transportation to work, shopping
and recreation. Transporation costs to work in rural areas are fairly
constant and are now subject to increases in the cost of 'energy. Areas
where savings may be instituted are recreation and travel costs. This
is an area where the benefits of revitalization may be accompanied by the
reduction of trips to outlying shopping centers, thus benefiting CBD
merchants. Such benefits, however, should be stimulated by investments
in facilities, inventory and amenities of the downtown shopping district.
Other factors which should be considered in downtown redevelop-
ment include the trends in personal income, the type of employment in
~' Brunswick County, and the recent history and analysis of local retail
sales. Unfortunately, this data is not available for towns under. -a
population of 5,OOO persons, but such data is available for the county.
Accordingly, data for county residents will be used for this analysis.

PERSONAL INCOME
What is the potential Southport customer's life like? How much money does
his family have? What kind of work does he do? What is the history of
sales in the area? These questions and others must be answered before an
economic revitalization effort can be planned for Southport. The following
analysis will help answer these questions.
Table 2 lists changes in personal income, the sum of all income to
individuals in Brunswick County from 1969 to 1976. It shows that personal
income in the county more than doubled, increasing from $45 million in
1969 to $126.9 million in 1976, an increase of $82 million dollars in a
seven year period.
Considering the estimated rate of inflation, incomes still increased
.during the period by $35.2 million, an increasing 78 percent per year or 11% per yr
Increases such as this are more common in areas where incomes are very low,
but even so, income in Brunswick County has increased substantially over
the past few years, substantially exceeding the rate of inflation.
TABLE 2
Personal Income in Brunswick County (Millions of Dollars)
1969-1976
�f 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
-,. $45.0 $57.7 $00.7 $75.7 '$88.2 $101.5 $113.4 $126.9
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
These recent increases of income indicate that the purchasing power
of county residents has risen substantially. If more of this increased
income can be channeled to Southport stores for purchases of goods and
services, local merchants should be able to increase their inventories
and the variety of their merchandise, as well as to invest in capital
improvements.
Increased total income in Brunswick County raises the question as
to whether these increases in income are due to inflation, larger

average incomes of its residents, or a larger population. Available
evidence indicates that all three factors are partially responsible for
the increased flow of dollars into the Southport area. however, a
substantial portion of the increase can be attributed to individual
increases in per capita income shown in Table 3. A substantial propor-
tion of this increase in income has benefited individuals already living
in Southport and Brunswick County. During this same seven year period,
per capita personal income has increased from $1,883 per person per year
to $3,789. In other words, income in Brunswick County doubled over the
seven year period from 1969 to 1976. Inflation is estimated to account
for approximately 57 percent of the increase, leaving 43 percent of the
gain in income available for increased purchases of goods and services.
Based on these figures, sales increases based on increased per capita
incomes are a prospect.
TABLE 3
Per Capita Income in Brunswick County
1969-1976
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
$1,883 $2,358 $2,379 $2,715 $2,895 $3,148 $3,466 $3,789
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Table 4 illustrates the sources of increases in disposable income
in Brunswick County from 1971 to 1976. It shows that wage and salary
disbursements in the County increased from $38 million in 1971 to $85
million in 1976, an increase of 124 percent during the five year
period. This was an average yearly increase of 11.5 percent, greater
than the average rate of inflation during the period, which was 6.4
percent.
It also shows sharp increases from income in trade during the
period. Income from retail trade in Brunswick County almost doubled

from $4.4 mullion in 1971 to $8.1 million in 1976, an increase of
84 percent, or an average of 16.8 percent per year.
Other substantial increases in personal income during the period
were generated by non -durable industry 275 percent; Finance,Insurance,and
Real Estate, 70 percent; Services, 100 percent; and local government, 100 percent.
Income derived from durable manufacturing declined during the period
by 27 percent, dropping from 1.1 million in 1971 to 0.8 million -..in 1976.
This analysis indicates that besidesincreasing potential sales in
Southport owing to increased numbers of people within its market area,
the prospects for increasing sales derived from higher disposable
incomes of area residents is also a likely prospect.

TABLE 4
SOURCES OF PERSONAL INCOME BY INDUSTRY
_1r1_L;NSWICy COUNTY
1971-1976
MILLION•OF DOLLARS
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
Wage & Salary Dis-
bursements
38.0
51.4
58.2
70.2
76.1
85.0
Farm
2.2
3.6
4.9
5.5
5.7
6.3
Non -Farm
5.4
6.7
8.1
7.4
7.1
7.6
Private
35.2
49.8
58.1
69.5
74.5
84.8
Aar. Services,
Foresty, Fisheries
(D)
0.5
(D)
1.0
(D)
(D)
Construction
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)_
Manufacturing
15.1
26.3
35.0
44.2
47.5
53.4
Non -Durable
14.0
25.4
34.9
43.4
46.8
52.5
Durable
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
Transportation
8.4
7.5
3.1
4.3
6.0
8.0
and Pub. Utilities
Wholesale Trade
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
(D)
Retail Trade -Double
4.4
5.4
6.6
6.3
7.8
8.1
Retail Trade
Fin. Ins. and Re
1.0
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.7
Services
2.8
3.6
4.1
4.3
4.4
5.6
Government and Gov.
Enterprises
10.1
11.5
12.1
13.5
14.7
15.7
Federal,Civilian
3.8
4.2
3.6
4.0
4.4
4.3
Federal, Military
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.1
State and Local,
.5.3
6.3
7.2
8.4
9.4
10.4,
(D) Not Available: For reasons
of personal disclosure
- Source: U.S. Bureau
of Economic Analysis, Cape
Fear Council
of
Governments
Percent Chang
124
186
41
141
(D)
(D)
253
275
-27
6
(D)
84
70
100
55
13
22
96

LABOR TORCE
Table 5 illustrates labor force information for Brunswick County
from 1970 through 1977. It should be noted that unemployment
has been high in recent years, peaking at 10.2 percent during 1976.
Also notable is the fact that only agricultural, and lumber and
wood manufacturing employment declined, while all other areas of
employment showed marked increases during the seven year period.
Total employment increased 27.9 percent, with the largest increases
in manufacturing, 1,740 persons; wholesale and retail trade, 440
persons; and local government 600 persons.

1,
BRUNS14ICK COUNTY
AVERAGE LABOR FORCE
ESTIMATES
1970 to 1.977
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1.977
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
11,250
11,070
12,370
3.3,360
13,81.0
1.4,31.0
1.5,15 0
15,300
Unemployment, Total
440
620
630
560
830
1,380
1,550
1,470
Rate of unemployment
3.9
5.6
5.1
4.2
6.0
9.6
10.,2
9.6
Employment,'Total
10,810
10,450
11,840
12,800
1.2,980
12,930
.13,600
13,630
Agricultural employment
560
510
540
530
490
510
530
450
Nonag. Wage & Salary Employ.
1,100
1,090
1,320
1,330
1,440
1,540 ,,
.1,610
1,690
Manufacturing
1,690
1,480
2,560
3,060
3,300
3,320
3,390
3,4.30
Food
80
80
90
1.20
130
170
200
240
Lumber & Wood
100
90
80
60
50
70
60
70
Other Manufacturing
1,510
1,310
2,390
2,880
39120
3,080
3,130
3$ 120
Nonmanufacturing
3,440
4,550
6,330
5,830
6,030
5,510
5,540
5,300
Construction
220
1,240
2,930
2,620
2,600
1,770
1,1.00
340
Trans., Comm,, & P. Utilities
1,010
790
660
310
390
450
.640
1,090
Trade
730
750
940
1,020
1,050
1,150
1,170
1,170
Fin. Ins., & Real Estate
110
130
200
230
250
240
210
220
Service
190
240
230
250
250
240
450
520
Government
1,160
1,360
1,280
1,280
1,370
1,600
1,840
1.,760
Other Nonmanufacturing
20
40
90
120
120
60
130
200
DATA BASED ON PLACE OF RESIDENCE
6,790
7,630
10,750
10,750
11,260
10,850
11,070
10,870
Includes Nonagricultural self-employed workers,
unpaid family workers,
and domestic
workers
in private
households.
Industrial segments are not additive
to the "Nonag. Wage and
Salary Employ."
shown
under "CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE" since
labor
force data are by "place of residence."
Include Textiles; Apparel; Furniture;
Printing;
Chemicals;
Stone, Clay,
and Glass;
Prim. Metals; Nonelect.Machinery;
and
Trans. Equipment.
Includes Agricultural Services;
Fisheries; and
Mining.

RETAIL SALES
Historically, retail sales in Brunswick County have increased in
proportion to the increases in population and per capita income
of the county. Table 6 indicates that retail sales have increased
from 26.4 million in FY 1967-68 to 88.1 million in FY 1978-79, an
increase of 61.7 million, or 233 percent over the 11 year period,
an average increase of approximately 21.2 percent per year. It is probable
that Southport merchants have not received their proportional.share of.this
increase due most probably to their failure to compete with other districts
within the Southport market area.
TABLE 6
Retail Sales
Brunswick County
1967-1978
Fiscal Year Sales
1967-68
$26,464,004
1968-69
29,449,256
1969-70
32,408,259
1970-71
38,182,538
1971-72
95,519,005
1972-73
57,245,787
1973-74
68,938,459
1974-75
74,579,219
1975-76
78,856,227
1976-77
80,323,028
1977-78
88,180,572
Source: N.C. Department of Revenue

Table 7 indicates the types of merchandise the sales for which
are lower than average for the State of North. Carolina. These
include apparel sales which constitute only 0.5 percent of all
sales in the county; furniture, which captures only 1.9 percent
of total county sales; retail sales, which include only 1.8
percent of total county sales; and autos, planes and boats
which comprise just 6.1 percent of all county.sales.
TABLE 7
Analysis of Retail Sales
Brunswick County
1977-78
Brunswick County
Sales
Retail Sales (Farm, Mill
Fuel to Farmers) $ 1,640,993
Autos, Planes, and Boats 5,378,151
Apparel 481,590
Automotive 13,094,461
Food 26,603,341
Furniture 1,641,674
General Merchandise 17,297,721
Building Materials 8,648,666
Unclassified 13,393,975
Sources: N.C. Department of Revenue .
Cape Fear Council of Governments
Brunswick
Percent
Statewide
of Total
Averasze
1.8
3.2
6.1
9.0
0.5
2.5
14.9
18.4
30.2
22.1
1.9
4.4
19.6
17.8
9.8
9.1
15.2
13.4

TOURISM
Southport --as barely tapped its tourism potential. In a 1974 survey,
tourism was shown to have generated $18,045,979 in sales in Brunswick County.
Of these total expenditures, an estimated $14 million were for basic services
and goods, lodging, food, automobile and miscellaneous.
Only 7% of available lodging is motels and campgrounds. The other 93%
' is primarily seasonal rental houses owned.by non-residents, so much of the
r
1
rent received goes directly out of the County. It is estimated that only
20% of the total rents remain in the County as rental commissions and local
owner's rents.
1
The major recreation expenditure of visitors to the County is for salt
water sports fishing, bringing in more than $4 million. An estimated 82% of
' those expenditures were directly related to privately owned boats. Charter
boat owners report no marked increase in gorwth, although, pier and surf fishing
have increased significantly to become more popular.
TABLE 8
TOURISM EXPENDITURES-BRU?1SWICK COMITY 1974
EXPENDITURE TYPE EXPENDITURE TOTAL
VISITORS
i -
1 Basic:
_ Lodging $ 604,383
Food 5,309,944
Auto 1,409,403
Miscellaneous 1,546,881
MAJOR RECRATION:
Sports Fishing 4,780,342 '
Golf 181,750
Admissions 75,000
TOTAL --VISITORS $13,907,703
PASS THROUGH
Food 4,000,000
Auto 1,000,000
Motels 50,000
TOTAL --PASS THROUGH 5,050,000
TOTAL ALL
$18,957,703
Source: Brunswick County Planning Department

` In 1974, the 625,035 visitors to Brunswick County stayed 2,986,284
days and spent $13,907,703 for the average of $4.66 per person, per day.
In comparison, a 1972 study done in South Carolina showed visitors
to the Myrtle Beach area spent $10.13 per day, the Charleston area,
.$11.84 per day and in -the lower South Carolina Coast area, $17.31 a day.
The basic reason for the high expenditures in South Carolina area:
1. A greater percent of the visitors stayed in motels and therefore,
ate in restaurants creating higher lodging and food costs.
2. An exceptionally wide variety of commercial recreation is
available offering more spending opportunities.
There are a fete factors which may adversely affect the future of
tourism in Southport. The first is its geographical location. Southport
is in a rather out-of-the-way spot and through this might be a charming
asset to many residents, it could cause some prospective visitors to search
for a more accessible place to vacation. This situation is compounded -by the
rising cost. of gasoline, which is already causing_a decline in tourism all
over the Country.
Hopefully, the adverse affect on area merchants from higher' full costs
and lowered tourism will be countered by more local residents shopping at
nearby shopping areas (CBD) rather than.traveling to outlying shopping centers.

BRUNSWICK COUNTY
MARKET 1 AREAS S / LELAN
B7 r 4 ILAAI NGTON
76
SCALE: EACH CIRCLE DENOTES A
4,81 OR 12 MILE RADIUS
BEL 4 r
3/4"= 4 MILES' ,17 OLD TW'r
—oou 1 NEW
211 In HANOVER
�rn COUNT
Da BE �YlAhIP ,y�„
YV EXUM oI
O�
BOLIV
BOILI SPRS vS� R ON
Lot BYIO
a S
GRI SITO
O�� 17
OC ADA tl
C !
Q1, �I ISLE
Ile
_ B-ACN
S P LA
0 R NSWICK.
4L SUNNY
SMI POINT
�<
211 13 0O t
SOU RT
HOL
CH - NO Y U �0 Q O y
ACN o4
. b�ACf/ C
4Sh
ATLANTIC 0 EAN
BALD HEAD
13 AND

POPIILATIM'
A portion of increases in disposable income in Brunswick County has been
r
shown to exist from the increases in individual income in the County. Additional
spending power is also being generated by increased number of County residents
due to population increases in the County.
Population in Brunswick County has increased from 17,125 persons in 1940
to 33,000 in 1977, an increase of 93 percent. Since the 1970 census, the
population has increased by 8,777.persons, an increase of 36 percent, or 5 percent
per year. Furthermore, this 7 year increase since 1970 is larger than the increase
in any previous decade, indicating that the population growth rate is increasing
in the County. The combination of access to the waterways and the Atlantic Ocean,
plus available land and living space are powerful magnets, in drawing an increased
number of settlers toward the Brunswick County shoreline. These facts are
illustrated in Table 9. Furthermore, the Town of Southport is sharing in this
increase. Housing increased by 950 persons in the seven years since the 1970
census, a gain of 42.8 percent, according to the N.C. Department of Administration.
As a result of past and future population increases in both Brunswick County and
the Town of Southport, the spending power of .the local market is increasing.
13

1940
17,125
Brunswick County
1940
17,125
1958
19,238
1960
20,278
1970
24,223
1977
33,000
TABLE 9
Popuiation
Brunswick County
1940-1977
1950 1960
19,238 20,278
Southport
1,760
1,748
2,034
2.270
3,170
1970 1977
24,223 33,000
Source: Bureau of the Census N.C. Department of Administration (1977)

THE MASTER PLAN
Considering the data generated from the analysis of the
studies discussed previously, the goals established at the beginning
of the planning process, and the goals adopted in the City Land
Use Plan, the planners, generated three alternative plans for re-
vitalization. These plans were reviewed by the Planning Board,
the Revitalization Sub -committee, the Town Council and by the
general public. Comments were received for a two week period.
The final outcome of the reviews are reflected in the enclosed
Master Plan.
The Plan specifically points to 22 areas of proposed improvements.
This Master Plan is a general guide for redevelopment and does
not depict detailed architectural or engineering drawings which
may be necessary for certain aspects of the renovation project.

SOUTHPORT DOWNTOWN -AND
WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN
Improved Piers,for
Small Craft
Bulkheading
Q WATERFRONT DESIGN
\ ,q PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS
�,/ U �p Additional Parking
6 rl a�
Additional
No Bulkheading Parking
in this Area
To Remain in
Natural State
o
O�
O
pQ g O �p0
Bulkheading '
a
s,

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Development of a plan is superficial unless you have the
ability to implement it. The organization structure recommended
' for implementation relies on cooperation and coordination from
U both the public and private sectors.
It.is recommended that the current sub -committee for this
project be retained and expanded to include representatives from
Phizer, CP&L, the Chamber of Commerce, the Merchants Association,
the Downtown Beautification Committee, etc.
This Committee's role should be that of a liason between
the public and private sectors in implementing this plan. It is
further recommened that this Committee be subdivided to include
several sub -committees. These sub -committees should include:
A. New Development Sub -committee, this sub -committee should work
closely with the Chamber of. Commerce in promotion of the area,
collection of data for attracting new businesses to the area, etc.
Another sub -committee should be: B. Downtown Retail Sub -committee,
their responsibilities should include coordination of local sales,
advertising, improving window displays, and facade improvements.
And the third sub -committee: C., Downtown and Waterfront Physical
Improvements Task Force, whose responsibilities should include coordin-
ation between public and private sectors, physical improvements
proposed for the area, and to insure that the revitalization effort
does not fail because of apathy.

PROJECT FINANCING
As indicated early in the project, businessmen in the
l area are willing to invest in the project with minimal assistance.
However, with.a project of this size and nature it must be
recognized that a great deal of money will be needed to produce
successful results. Following is a list of potential funding
sources to'aid in implementation of the project. The list
gives the namesof the grant, loan, etc. the catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance number, the objective of the source, an
estimate of funds available, a range of previous year funds,
and the average grant, loan, etc.
It is furthermore recommended that all applications for
assistance, architectural or engineering drawings, etc. be per-
formed by qualified personnel in the respective areas by the
direction of the -Southport City Council and the Revitalization
Committee.

. A,•
SOUTHPORT DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PLAN
FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
r FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
I. Department Agriculture
1. Name Water and Waste Water Disposal Systems Grants and Loans,
number 10.418
Objective: To provide grants and loans for construction and
improvements of water and waste water facilities
Available Funds: FY est. $700,000,000
Range: (1979 loans) $50,000 to 53,000,000
(1979 grants) $5,000 to 7,000 mean $207,589.00
2. -Name: Business and industrial loans, number 10.422
Objective: To assist public, private or cooperative organizations
organized for profit or non-profit, to obtain quality
loans.for the purpose of improving, developing or
financing business, industry and employment.
Available Funds: FY 80 est_1,000,000,000
Range: $11,000 to 33,000,000 mean FY 79 824,000
3. The Farmers Home Administration has additional loan and grant programs
for homes and businesses,repair and construction.
II. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
1. Name: EDA Grant and loans for public works., number 11.300
Objective: To -assist in the construction of public facilities needed
to encourage long-term economic growth.
2. dame: EDA Business Development Assistance, number 11.301
Objective: To sustain commercial viability, create or retain
permanent jobs, in redevelopment areas.
Available Funds: FY 80.est $61,440,000
Range: FY 79 $260,000 to 5,200;000 mean $1,500.00
3. The EDA also has other grant and loan programs which will assist in both
planning and implementation of redevelopment projects.

Office of Minority Business Enterprises
1. Name: Minority Business Development- Management
Assistance number 11.800.
Objective: To provide management and technical assistance to
economically and socially disadvantaged individuals
who need assistance in starting or operating a business.
Available Funds: FY 80 est. $40,487,000
Range: FY 79 $10',000 to $ 3,000,000 mean $150,000
III. Department of Housing and Urban Development -Community Planning and Development.
1. Name: Community Development Block Grant Program number 14.219
Objectives: To assist in providing decent housing and expanded economic
opportunity, principally for persons of low and moderate
income.
Available Funds: FY.80 est. $939,662,000
Range: FY 79 $100,000 to 600,000 mean $200,000
2. Name: Section 312 Rehabilitation Loans, number 14.220
Objective: To provide funds for rehab. of residential, commercial,
or other non-residential properties.
Available Funds: FY 80 $185,000,000
Range: $13,500/loan residential property
$200,000/loan multi -family
$70,000/loan non-residential
w
3. Name: Urban Development Action Grants, number 14.221
Objective: To assist distressed cities -and co6rties in alleviating physical
and economic deteriation through economic development
and neighborhood revitalization.
Available Funds: FY 80 est. $400,000,000
Range: FY 78 $77,700 to $5,700,000 mean $934,000
IV. Community Services Administration
1. Name: Community Economic Development,number 49.011
Objectives: To provide assistance to private locally initiated
community development corporations.
Available Funds: FY 80 est $44,500,000
Range: FY 79 $150,000 to $7,000,000 mean $1,500,000

V. Small Business Administration
1. Name: Economic opportunity loans for small mousiness, number 59.003
Objective: To provide loans for 15 years to small businesses owned
by low-income or socially or economically disadvantaged
persons.
Available Funds: FY 80 $65,000,000
Range: FY 79 $1,000 to.$100,000 loans mean $30,000
2. Name: Management Assistance, number 59,005
Objective: To provide advisory services to small business persons
to improve skills to manage and operate business.
Available Funds: FY 80 est $19,267,000
3. Name: Small Business Loans
Objective: To aid small businesses in obtaining financing
Available Funds: FY.80 est $205,000,000
Range: Loans 1,000 to 350,000 mean $54,782, FY 79

STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE
I. Special Tax District
t
Created by S.S. 160A-536, the special tax district enables cities
to access for additional facilities and services provided.
II. Powell Bill Funds
Issued to cities who maintain public streets for maintenance and
new construction of public rights -of -way.
PRIVATE ASSISTANCE
I. Local Financial Institution
Loans can be acquired from local banks and saving and loans for
usein specific redevelopment projects
II. Private Foundations
Many.foundations exist as a means of tax credit for large business.
organizations. The foundations often invest in such projects as a means
of meeting foundation requirements.