0

MUSTANG ALLEY Return on Investment Study: Town of Williamston, SC

Prepared By:

Lori Dickes, PhD, Clemson University

Elizabeth Crouch, PhD, University of South Carolina

Thomas Walker, PhD, Clemson University

1

Table of Contents

Page Number

Table of Contents 1

Figures and Tables 2

Introduction 3

Survey Analysis Overview 4

Williamston Spring Water Festival Survey 4

Event Results 5

Williamston Development and Revitalization Results 8

Design Preference Survey 12

Methods 12

Results 13

Return on Investment Analysis 15

Estimate 1: Property Tax Revenues 15

Estimate 2: Contingent Valuation: Visitor Spending 16

Estimate 3: Hospitality Revenues 19

Total Return on Investment 19

Employment Growth 20

Analysis Caveats 22

Business Case Examples 23

Implementing Local Development: Strategies and Suggestions 25

BIDS 25

TIFS 25

MCBP 26

MID 26

Conclusions 27

Sources 28

Appendix 29

2

List of Tables and Figures

Page Number

Table

1. Proposed changes in tax revenue due to property development 16

2. Visitor counts and estimated visitor spending 18

3. Hospitality Fund Revenue Changes 19

4. Total estimated spending and property value impacts 20

5. Williamston employment generation 2015-2017 21

6. Examples of national employment multipliers 21

7. Job growth scenarios over 10 years 22

8. Potential changes in property value for three sample businesses 24

Figures

1. How respondents heard about the Spring Water Festival 6

2. Respondents rating of the Spring Water Festival 6

3. Frequency of visiting Mineral Spring Park 7

4. Likelihood of attending a similar event in the future 7

5. Frequency of visiting Williamston shops and restaurants 8

6. Top three priorities for downtown Williamston 9

7. Missing from downtown Williamston 10

3

Mustang Alley ROI Study

Introduction

Economic development ensures that key foundations for economic growth are in place for a community to effectively leverage its assets. Laying the foundation for economic growth includes, among other things, parking infrastructure, signage, green space and public spaces, storm water infrastructure and many others. When communities ensure local infrastructure is robust, along with elements of community place making/beautification, additional benefits of growth can be gained. The gains that communities hope to create center on fueling new economic activity and positive economic stimulus from additional spending both within and outside the community. A key goal is that economic activity enhances existing property values; thereby generating additional property value revenue to both the city and county. Positive economic stimulus also occurs as a community attracts new business from outside the community and adds both residential and commercial development to the local portfolio. Assessing the value or benefits from economic development investments can be accomplished with a variety of both qualitative and quantitative tools. One such tool is a return on investment analysis. A return on investment analysis is used to measure an investment’s potential profitability or pay off.

This tool is utilized for both public and private sector investments, but a range of additional

considerations and opportunity costs must be considered for public investments. In its simplest form,

ROI measures the return on an investment relative to its costs.

This study will broadly analyze the potential return on investment from the Mustang Alley

Redevelopment in the Town of Williamston. Using SGA Architect’s’ Feasibility Analysis report and data

provided by Envision Williamston, this project sought to estimate the return on investment if the Town

undertakes one of these redevelopment options. This report proceeds by reviewing survey results from

two community engagement efforts at the Spring Water and Homesteading Festivals. This is followed by

four unique return on investment analyses estimating potential increases in property values, visitation

and spending, along with employment growth over a ten-year period, assuming redevelopment occurs.

Finally, this report highlights several different economic development tools that the Town of

Williamston could consider for an initiative like the Mustang Alley redevelopment.

4

Survey Analysis Overview

To inform the return on investment analysis for Williamston’s downtown redevelopment efforts, two

key survey tools were developed and implemented. The first was an intercept survey implemented at

the Spring Water Festival, held in Williamston every August. This is a well-attended event with a wide

range of ages and visitors from the area. Researchers used this event to gather data on the types of

amenities respondents like in surrounding cities and ideas and priorities for downtown Williamston. The

second set of qualitative data was collected at the Homesteading Festival, September 9, 2017 through a

design preference survey At the Homesteading event, design boards illustrating three (3) conceptual

designs were placed on display next to the covered playground shelter in Mineral Spring Park. Event

goers were invited to participate in the decision-making process around this economic development

initiative. The team intercepted Festival goers to ask for their favorite architectural drawing overall and

to provide feedback on favorite features of the different drawings. These data will be used to inform the

return on investment results and are discussed in the next sections of the report.

Williamston Spring Water Festival Survey Results

Date and Location: Spring Water Festival Mineral Spring Park, Williamston, SC August 26, 2017

Research Facilitators: Lori Dickes, PhD, Clemson University Thomas Walker, PhD, Clemson University Sulaiman Balogun, PhD candidate, Clemson University Amber Mann, Master’s Student, Clemson University Sonya Crandall, Envision Williamston

Researchers from Clemson University chose an intercept survey method to gather a wide spectrum of

data on preferences and priorities for downtown Williamston. The survey instrument is included in

Appendix A. A team of 5 researcher’s intercepted attendees of the Festival for over 3 hours, resulting in

109 completed surveys. Respondents were randomly chosen, most were primarily from the upstate

area of South Carolina, and all were attending the 2017 Williamston Spring Water festival. Almost 50%

of respondents were from Anderson County, with 33 from Williamston and 18 from Anderson.

5

Event Results

The first portion of the survey focused on the Spring Water Festival, how attendees learned of the

event, if they enjoyed the event, and whether they would return for future Williamston events. Figure 1

illustrates how attendees learned about the Spring Water festival. The top response was in the other

category (38.53%), with many learning of the festival by living, working, or having lived in Williamston

and having prior knowledge of the Spring Water festival. Friends and family members (27.52%) and

social media (10.09%) were the next highest responses respectively.

Question two sought feedback from attendees on how they would rate the Spring Water Festival (Figure

2). The event was well-received by attendees, with excellent (48.62%) and very good (42.2%) receiving

the majority of responses.

To better understand Williamston visitation, the third question asked respondents about their frequency

of visits to Mineral Springs Park. Figure three illustrates that almost 40% of respondents visit Mineral

Springs Park somewhat often. The park also draws visitors very often (22.94%) and not so often

(22.94%) equally. Attendees primarily learned of the event through familiarity with the Williamston area

and through word of mouth from family or friends, with social media also drawing some visitors to the

event.

6

Figure 1: How respondents heard about the Spring Water Festival

Figure 2: Respondents rating of the Spring Water Festival

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

How did you learn about today's event?

Responses

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Overall, how would you rate the event?

Responses

7

Figure 3: Frequency of visiting Mineral Spring Park

Mineral Springs Park is an important city asset that draws people to downtown Williamston somewhat

frequently and plays an important role in hosting events, drawing visitors to the downtown area. Figure

4 indicates that over 86% of respondents are very or extremely likely to attend a similar event in

Williamston again in the future. However, respondents by and large are local and did not stay in hotels

while visiting Williamston for the Spring Water Festival in 2017.

Figure 4: Likelihood of attending a similar event in the future

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

How likely are you to attend a similar event again in the future?

Responses

Extremelyoften

Very often Somewhatoften

Not sooften

Not at alloften

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

How often do you visit the Mineral Spring Park in Williamston?

Responses

8

Figure 5: Frequency of visiting Williamston shops and restaurants

Williamston Development and Revitalization Results

The second portion of the survey was used to better understand festival attendee’s preferences for area

cities and what they like about them, along with clarifying ideas on how to enhance downtown

Williamston. Respondents identified other towns they liked and what should be prioritized in

downtown Williamston in the future. When asked how often they visited downtown shops and

restaurants in Williamston (Figure 5), the top response was not so often (31.19%). However, extremely

often, very often, and often had a combined total of almost 60% (59.64%). Thus, there is an existing

base of local individuals who at least visit downtown Williamston often for shopping and dining.

The next question collected responses on other cities and towns in the region that people like to visit.

The cities and the number of responses are identified below:

Greenville – 62

Anderson – 39

Easley - 20

Clemson -19

Traveler’s Rest- 10

Fountain Inn- 8

Pickens- 5

A number of smaller cities received one or two responses. They are as follows:

Abbeville

Belton

Clinton

Dacusville

Greenwood

Extremelyoften

Veryoften

Often Not sooften

Not at alloften

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

How often do you visit the downtown shops and/or

restaurants in Williamston?

Responses

9

Honea Path

Inman

Landrum

Laurens

Pendleton

Simpsonville

Spartanburg

Woodruff

Many respondents also noted that the bigger cities were too congested, it was hard to find parking

along with other disamenities. What respondents shared in common with the cities they mentioned is

they all had places to eat, shop and a reason to visit. They had a uniqueness to them that drew people

in.

Question seven is a key component of this research and primary motivation for this project. This

question asked respondents to identify the top three priorities for downtown Williamston (Figure 6).

The top three responses were restaurants (74.31%), shopping options (50.46%), and a grocery store

(34.86%). Other highly desired priorities were a coffee shop (28.44%) and a movie theater (25.69%).

Figure 6: Top three priorities for Downtown Williamston

When respondents were further probed on what they thought was missing from downtown Williamston

generally, responses confirmed earlier results. Figure 7 reveals that shopping (23.85%), restaurants

(19.27%), and general entertainment (19.27%) had the most responses. These several questions reveal

that in terms of prioritizing ideas for downtown Williamston; shopping, restaurants, entertainment, and

a grocery store were most desired by respondents. Additionally, attendees like the city amenities

available in the larger upstate cities of Greenville and Anderson but dislike the traffic and parking

problems. In finding model towns for Williamston to emulate, Traveler’s Rest or Fountain Inn were

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

What do you think the TOP THREE PRIORITIES should be for

Downtown Williamston? (Select up to 3)

Responses

10

mentioned by multiple respondents. In conversations about model communities, respondents

emphasize the value of restaurants, entertainment, and shopping.

The last question asked for additional comments or suggestions. Of the 25 comments, ten respondents

said some variation of “keep up the good work” or that they liked the community and appreciated the

ongoing efforts to improve. Several people mentioned wanting more shopping options in general with 1

specifically mentioning a grocery store and another Walmart. Other comments and suggestions include:

More cooperation between Williamston and Pelzer

Enjoy the car show and music shows

Excited about the historical walking tour

Cleanliness and presentation

Enjoy the actual entertainment

Enjoyed what they did for the eclipse

Spend money more productively than flower beds- fix the roads

Pleasant and friendly town

More family based activities

Put a few more restaurants and coffee shops

Figure 7: Missing from downtown Williamston

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

What is missing from downtown Williamston?

Responses

11

In conclusion, the Spring Water Festival Survey results provide complementary evidence to SGA

Architects community focus groups and community background research. Survey results reveal that

residents and visitors alike overwhelmingly believe the Town has potential and is a nice community to

live and visit for festivals and events like Spring Water. In terms of improvement, respondents indicated

more shopping, restaurants and entertainment are important to stimulating more visitation and

spending in the community. This information provides evidence that with targeted redevelopment and

infrastructure improvements, community members and visitors may spend additional money in the

community and visit local retail outlets more frequently.

12

Design Preference Survey

Date and Location: Sixth Annual Homesteading Festival Mineral Spring Park, Williamston, SC September 9, 2017

Research Facilitators: Sonya Crandall, Envision Williamston Stephen Eggl, SGA Architects Thomas Walker, PhD, Clemson University

Attendees at the sixth Annual Homesteading Festival were intercepted and invited to participate in a

Design Preference Survey for the Mustang Alley Feasibility Study. The designs were created jointly by

SGA Architects, the Town of Williamston and Envision Williamston. The designs are based on the initial

schematic for downtown redevelopment (Envision Williamston Community Master Plan, 2017, p. 44).

The findings from this survey will be used in combination with the results of a public meeting held on

June 29th, personal interviews conducted with key stakeholders, and other qualitative and quantitative

research to develop the final refined plan for the redevelopment of the downtown historic Williamston

area.

Methods

Part 1: Nominal Group Process (Dot Voting)

Design boards illustrating three (3) conceptual designs were placed on display next to the covered

playground shelter in Mineral Spring Park. Event goers were invited to participate in the decision-making

process around this economic development initiative. Each attendee was provided four colored dots.

Each person or small group was then introduced to each design with the key features and intended uses

highlighted. Participants were then invited to place a dot on their favorite design feature illustrated in

each of the three (3) different concepts. A fourth board displayed all three (3) design options in a

vertical pattern for comparison purposes. Participants were invited to place a fourth dot on the poster

next to their overall most preferred design.

13

Part 2: Suggestions

A white post-it board was also on display for respondents to write-in any additional suggestions they

may have in response to the three design options.

Results

Each conceptual design is summarized below with the major features of each design, number of

respondents that preferred this design and what specific amenities of each design were preferred.

OPTION 1: Alleyway, Parking (70 spaces), and Recreation, and Water Retention Areas

(n = 49)

In this option, the dots were placed as follows:

Swing Park (23 Dots)

Splash Pad (21 Dots)

Water Retention Areas (2 Dots)

Additional Buildings Across Main Street (1 Dot)

Additional Restaurant on Mustang Alley Row (1 Dot)

Area Across Mineral Park Lane (1 Dot)

OPTION 2: Alleyway, Parking (63 spaces), Pedestrian Plaza, Seating & Dining

(n = 62)

In this option, the dots were placed as follows:

Pedestrian Plaza for Outdoor Seating and Dining w/ Splash Pad (28 Dots; of which 9 were directly placed on the Splash Pad)

New Buildings for Retail and Dining (25 Dots)

New Parking (6 Dots)

Additional Buildings Across Main Street (2 Dots)

OPTION 3: Alleyway, Parking (62 spaces), Amphitheater, Parklet and Splash Pad, Mill St Buildings and

Road Extension (n = 91)

In this option, the dots were placed as follows:

Outdoor Amphitheater (41 Dots)

Parklet Surrounding the Splash Pad (22 Dots)

New Buildings along Mill Street (10 Dots)

Extension of Mill Street to Pelzer Avenue (9 Dots; of which 4 were placed directly on the

crosswalks between Main St and the Mill St extension)

Additional Buildings Across Main Street (2 Dots)

New Parking (2 Dots)

Steps to Mineral Park Lane (2 Dots)

Creation of Green Space near the Fast Food Restaurant (1 Dot)

Trees along Main and Crosswalk at Alleyway (1 Dot)

Historic Downtown Main Street Building (1 Dot)

14

The top five most preferred individual features are identified by the number of respondents and the

conceptual design option.

Outdoor Amphitheater (41: Option 3)

Pedestrian Plaza (28; Option 2)

New Buildings for Retail and Dining (25; Option 2)

Swing Park (23; Option 1)

Parklet Surrounding Splash Pad (22; Option 3)

Ninety-two respondents identified their overall conceptual design preference. Option 3 was the most

preferred by over 50% of respondents. Option 2 was the next best option with approximately 30% of the

responses.

OVERALL DESIGN PREFERENCES (n= 92)

Option 3: Amphitheatre, Parklet, Shop/Dine, and Road Extension Plan – 50 Dots

Option 2: Pedestrian Plaza and Shop/Dine Plan – 32 Dots

Option 1: Parking and Outdoor Recreation Plan – 10 Dots Many attendees had additional thoughts and ideas for improving downtown Williamston and possible

modifications to the existing conceptual drawings.

PARTICIPANT SUGGESTIONS: Write-In Comments and Recommendations

Edible Park / Food Forest (2)

The same canopy for all retail stores (or awnings)

Clean up the retail stores up near Calvary. Downtown looks great, but not so much on the upper

end.

Phase Option 1 into Option 3 (to start small and build up to the other, more ambitious design

components).

Interconnected walking / biking trail circuit.

Use old Railroad Track / Creek Adventure / Zip Line.

Incorporate moisture loving plants in retention areas so that they look like they belong there;

keep it natural looking, not just functional; but more aesthetically pleasing.

Better rest rooms!!

Get Swinging Medallions to events! Please!

Need a full, sit down restaurant.

Coffee shop.

Toy shop.

Combine Option #2 with the Amphitheatre design in Option #3.

Both sets of survey results were used to inform the return on investment analysis described in the next

section. Survey results provide rich information on citizen and visitor preferences and the types of areas

of development that local consumers would value and potentially respond to with increased local

spending. They also illustrate the types of local investment that the town may consider encouraging to

serve as catalyst(s) for improved economic activity.

15

Return on Investment Analysis

SGA architects provided a detailed report and three conceptual designs and cost estimates for the

Mustang Alley re-development. The options and the corresponding costs for each option are:

Option 1: $781,140

Option 2: $1,045,021

Option 3: $906, 121

The community has considered a hybrid mix of these options so it is possible that what is ultimately

decided may be some variation on these estimates. Additionally, many communities make these

investments in phases to spread these investments out so this analysis does not assume Williamston

makes a specific investment at a specific point in time. Instead this portion of the analysis develops four

different estimates of potential revenue streams that the Town might expect from this type of

development. Economic development always involves some risk, but this type of development has

evidence of benefits and returns to local employment, business creation, increased property

development and even additional residential development as employment and business grows.

Estimate 1: Property Tax Revenues

We assume that properties adjacent to the new development will increase in value post development.

Property value changes occur over time and assume an ongoing positive trajectory of development and

ongoing maintenance. Using the tax assessed value for sixty-one properties located in the development

area and adjacent to the proposed development, we calculate the increase in tax revenues for potential

scenarios where the property value of the adjacent properties increased over a ten-year period. Time

horizon scenarios were run such that properties within and adjacent to the development increased by

3%, 5%, and 7.5% over a ten-year period. For example, for a 7.5% increase (over ten years) in property

values, the total millage that the city would collect from all adjacent properties is $6,695,872. In the

absence of the 7.5% increase, the tax revenue millage would have been $6,447,638. Thus, the increase

in tax revenues due to property value enhancements from this development, over a ten-year period,

where property values would be increasing by 7.5%, would be $248,234.1 over ten years. The results

from each scenario is presented in Table 1. In addition, Table 1 also illustrates the total potential return

on property taxes from 11-20 years at an 8% total return over this time period (assumed 7.5% return

from years 1-10). A twenty-year time horizon for substantive public investments is not unusual and

provides evidence that with targeted development, property tax revenues alone could result in

substantial revenue gains for the Town of Williamston.

16

Table 1: Proposed changes in tax revenue due to property development (10 year time horizon)

Difference in tax revenue due to development scenario over 10 and 20 years

Tax revenue without development at the end of ten years

$6,447,638 0

3% over ten years $6,544,352 $96,714

5% over ten years $6,595,934 $148,296

7.5% over ten years $6,695,872 $248,234

8% over twenty years $13, 659,321 $764,045

These estimates of property value increase are conservative. It is possible that over ten years with

improved development and new business moving into the area, property values could increase more

than the 7.5% estimate.

Contingent Valuation: Visitor Spending

The next set of estimates assumes an increase in attendance and spending to Williamston through

contingent valuation. This approach assumes that the number of visitors that come to each Williamston

event or festival would potentially increase due to this improved development. We assessed the visitor

count that came to each festival in 2016 and 2017. The Easter hunt, for example, brings roughly 1,000

visitors to Williamston each year. Assuming each visitor spends on average, $25 for food, gas, etc., then

the total sales revenues from the Easter hunt is $25,000. Estimates for visitor spending are based on the

extant research on average event spending for small community single day events and festivals.

We hypothesize that this development effort would entice additional visitors to come to Williamstown

for festivals. Based on this premise, we calculate increased visitor counts with estimates of a 5%, 7%,

and 10% increase. We then calculate the expected change in expenditures from each festival. For

example, post development, we hypothesize that the visitor count for the Easter hunt may increase by

5%, bringing the total visitor count to 1,050. Assuming each visitor spends $25 in Williamstown when

they come for the festival, the total expenditures from visitors coming to the Easter hunt is $26,250

after the 5% increase in visitor counts. Therefore, the total expenditure increase due to the improved

development is $1,250 for the Easter hunt.

These changes were calculated by each scenario, for each festival, and total expenditures were summed

by scenario (see Table 2). For all festivals, an increased visitor count of 5%, would result in an annual

increase of $118,016 in total expenditures. An increased count of 7% would result in an increase of

$165,223 in total expenditures per year. An increased visitor count of 10% would result in an increase of

$236,032 in total expenditures annually. With additional development downtown and potentially new

small businesses downtown, these festivals and events have the potential to attract more visitation and

17

spending. If the community chooses to continue these events and/or add new ones, these visitation

counts and related spending would be expected to increase. The community should consider festivals

and events as a part of its overall economic development strategy but should not rely on these alone to

achieve the types of results it is planning for.

18

Table 2: Visitor Counts and Estimated Visitor Spending

Festival

Visitor Count 2017

Scenario 1: Visitor Count Increases 5% after development

Scenario 2: Visitor Count Increase 7%

Scenario 3: Visitor Count Increase 10%

Expenditure per visit

Total expenditures 2017

Total Expenditures after 5%

Total Expenditures after 7%

Total Expenditures after 10%

Christmas Park 53863 56556 57633 59249 $25 1346575 1413904 1440835 1481233

Easter Hunt 1000 1050 1070 1100 $25 25000 26250 26750 27500 HOWDY Clean-up Day/Week 300 315 321 330 $25 7500 7875 8025 8250

Plant Fest 2000 2100 2140 2200 $25 50000 52500 53500 55000

Pig in the Park 2000 2100 2140 2200 $25 50000 52500 53500 55000

Fourth of July 4000 4200 4280 4400 $25 100000 105000 107000 110000

Party in the Park 2400 2520 2568 2640 $25 60000 63000 64200 66000

Spring Water Festival 9500 9975 10165 10450 $25 237500 249375 254125 261250

Homesteading Festival & Creekside VW Show

6250 6563 6687.5 6875 $25 156250 164063 167188 171875

Jazz Fest Series 600 630 642 660 $25 15000 15750 16050 16500

Boo in the Park 12500 13125 13375 13750 $25 312500 328125 334375 343750

Totals: 94413 99134 101022 103854 2,360,325 2,478,341 2,525,548 2,596,358

Differences in total expenditures post development 118,016 165,223 236,032.5

19

Estimate 3: Hospitality Revenues

Related to increased visitation and spending an additional factor of consideration are potential increases in

hospitality revenues. The hospitality fund is revenue generated from the local hospitality tax, a tax on the sales

of prepared meals and beverages sold in establishments. This estimate for the return on investment assumes an

increase in revenue to Williamston through an increase in this fund. Over the last five years, the hospitality

fund realized an average growth rate of 3.8% per year, with great variations from year to year (growth rates

ranged from 1.6% to 8.8%). Additionally, there is an estimated decline for the 2017-2018 year due to a

reduction in workforce from the completion of a Duke Energy project.

With this in mind, we assumed growth in the hospitality fund of 3% per year for the next ten years, without the

development. If the development took place, we hypothesize that the rate of growth for the hospitality fund will

increase to 4% per year for the next ten years. The difference between the two amounts was calculated for each

year, resulting in a $187,600 increase in the hospitality fund over ten years with this Downtown redevelopment

effort.

Table 3: Hospitality Fund Revenue Changes

Difference in tax revenue due to development scenario over ten years

Hospitality fund without development at the end of ten years (3% annually)

$311,453 0

Hospitality fund with development at the end of ten years (4% annually)

$346,377 $187,600

Total Return on Investment- Multipliers and Total Returns

Revenue estimates in the prior sections estimate projected tax revenue, expenditure and hospitality fund increases

over a ten-year time horizon. We assume that property values will increase over the ten-year time horizon, leading to

increased tax revenues for the town. If property values increased 7.5% over ten years, this would result in $248,234 in

increased tax revenues at the end of the ten years. Over twenty years with gradual increases in property values,

property tax revenue could increase to $764, 045.

We also assume a 10% increase in visitor counts due to the property development. This would result in an estimated

increase in total festival expenditures of $236,032 for the town. Using local economic impact multipliers established in

previous research, we estimate that each one-day festival will have a 1.40 impact multiplier, meaning that for every $1

spent, there is an additional spending impact of 40 cents (Jackson et al. 2005). Applying the multiplier to the 10%

increase in visitor spending results in an additional increase in local spending of $94,413 annually. Recent research from

Aiken, SC reveals a multiplier of 1.8 from additional visitation and spending to Aiken’s downtown and surrounding

community. With a multiplier of 1.8, additional spending is estimated at $188,825.

20

In addition, with increased visitation and spending there will be additional growth in the Town’s hospitality fund. We

assume an increase of 4% per year for the next ten years with a total increase in the hospitality fund of $187,600 over

ten years with this redevelopment effort.

Table 4 illustrates the combined impacts of estimated increases in property values, spending from growth in town

visitation, increases in the hospitality fund and additional spending from multiplier effects. The respective totals are

$766,279 for the 1.4 multiplier and $860,691 for the 1.8 multiplier. In conclusion, these different estimates of growth

potential illustrate an opportunity for the Town to facilitate and support economic growth and development with

enabling community investments like downtown redevelopment. In addition, increased visitation over time or the

addition of businesses than spur outside spending and time spent in the community could increase these estimates.

Table 4: Total Estimated Property Value, Spending and Hospitality Fund Impacts

1.4 Multiplier 1.8 Multiplier

Property Value Increase (7.5%) 248,234 248,234

Visitation Growth (10%) 236,032 236,032

Additional Spending (10% Visitation) 94,413 188,825

Hospitality Fun (4% annual) 187,600 187,600

Total Impact

766,279 860,691

Employment Growth

A key goal of economic development is job growth and new firm creation. Table 5 illustrates that year over year growth

from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017 has been very strong in terms of employment and overall investment. Specifically, there

was 450% increase in jobs created year over year and a 228% increase in total public/private investment. These trends

are positive and are worth investigating more about the type(s) of job creation going on in the community. A key

component of measuring the impact of job creation is understanding the types and quality of the jobs created. For

example, are they part-time or full-time, are they minimum wage or skilled positions? These questions are key to

estimating the potential impact of employment.

21

Table 5: Williamston Employment Generation 2015-2017

FY 2015-2016 FY 2016-2017 Percentage Change

Total Jobs Created 12 66 450

Firms Represented 8 14 75

Total Public/Private Investment $708,000 $2,751,500 288.6299435

Public 206,000 21,500 -89.5631068

Private 502,000 2,730,000 443.8247012

Sources: Williamston Business Licenses 2015-16; 2016-17. Main Street Program Reinvestment Statistics 2015-16; 2016-17. Similar to increased local and visitor spending, employment generation has spillover effects for a community.

Employment multipliers vary by type of industry and sector. Several examples of employment multipliers by sector are

illustrated below. It is important to note that employment multiplier vary substantially across sectors and Table 6 only

illustrates five sectors. Employment multipliers can be interpreted in the following manner; for every job created in

eating and drinking establishments 1 additional job will be created in the economy. The sectors illustrated here reveal

that some types of employment generation definitely generates a bigger bang for your economic development buck.

Table 6: Examples of National Employment Multipliers

Employment Multipliers

Business Services 1.6

Construction 1.9

Eating and Drinking Establishments 1

Manufacturing 2.9

Retail Trade .88

Source: Economic Policy Institute, Employment Multipliers

Using the data from Table 5 we developed estimates of possible job creation using conservative estimates of job

growth. These are presented in Table 7. Assuming a conservative increase in jobs this year of 25 new positions in the

town of Williamston, we assume a steady 10% job growth annually for 10 years in scenario 1 and a 20 % job growth

annually in scenario 2. From there we assume that these new jobs are split equally between eating and drinking

establishments and business services with respective employment multipliers of 1 and 1.6. The total job growth,

including the estimated spillover employment, in each year from 2018-2027 is illustrated in Table 7. Scenario 1 yields

total 10 year job growth of 1009 jobs and scenario 2 yields 1099 total jobs over 10 years.

It is important to note that employment is likely more varied across sectors and would represent a wider distribution of

employment multipliers. These estimates, however, provide evidence that with steady and targeted employment

growth Williamston could see additional spillover employment further benefiting the Town. In economic development

there is always a chicken and egg problem- jobs go where the people and human capital are and vice versa- as such

communities are in the position of having to create environments that are conducive to attracting both people and

employers. Improving public spaces and facilitating the enhancement of downtown spaces can be a critical tool in

creating an environment that will result in job creation, increased spending, increased property values and other

possible spillovers like new construction and enhanced public revenues.

22

Table 7: Job Growth Scenarios over 10 years

Analysis Caveats

These scenarios make assumptions about spending, visitation, employment growth. While these estimates use

conservative numbers, based on data provided by the Town, there is always the risk that a community will not realize

these results. There are many positive and negative economic stimuli that may result in stronger or weaker outcomes

than estimated here.

These scenarios do not consider several issues that are key to the overall costs and benefits of this project. These

estimates do not account for any costs related to loans or capital costs. If the community chooses to issue a bond, these

estimates do not account for bond issue related costs. Additionally, to achieve these results the Town would have to

allocate a professional or small group of professionals to manage these efforts. This research does not account for the

opportunity cost of these professionals’ time and expertise.

SCENARIO 1

Base Employment Growth 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

25 base jobs - 10% annual growth 28 30 33 37 40 44 49 54 59 65

Multiplier Effects

50% Eating and Drinking Establishments (EM=1) and 50% Business Services (EM=1.6) 36 39 43 48 52 57 64 70 77 85

Total Job Growth 63 70 77 85 92 101 112 124 136 149

SCENARIO 2

Base Employment Growth

25 base jobs - 20% annual growth 30 33 36 40 44 48 53 58 64 71

Multiplier Effects

50% Eating and Drinking Establishments (EM=1) and 50% Business Services (EM=1.6) 39 43 47 52 57 62 69 75 83 92

Total Job Growth 69 76 83 92 101 111 122 134 148 163

23

Business Case Examples

To illustrate the types of impacts on individual local businesses researchers chose 3 sample firms with different square

footage to estimate potential economic impacts. We chose three firms representing those with a small square footage

footprint (less than 2,000), medium footprint (3,000-4,000) and large footprint (5000 or greater). This provides a wider

understanding of how development efforts like this impact individual firms.

Table X below demonstrates the tax revenue from these business properties, both with and without development at

the end of ten years at 3%, 5%, and 7%, and at the end of twenty years with 8%. These “mini-scenarios” highlight the

impact the development would have for the property values of the businesses and subsequently, their tax revenues to

the city of Williamston. Our results show increases from a low of $3500 to a high of $14,000. Changes in property values

are a positive sign of economic development and while this means increased property tax revenue, the assumption is

that this comes due to increases in spending and business activity.

To estimate how much additional spending individual businesses will accrue is difficult without more information on

the types of businesses, an understanding of their revenue streams, and potential for growth. However, rough

estimations, based on previous estimates of visitation and spending multipliers reveal that downtown businesses could

expect additional local spending.

While we cannot predict exact sales for individual firms, additional spending from increased visitation and economic

activity of between $3000-$23,000 per year is a conservative estimate depending on the type and size of firm.

As Williamston moves forward with any economic development plan it will be important for it to keep in mind details

from the Town’s Community Master Plan (See http://envisionwilliamston.com/wp-

content/uploads/2016/04/Williamston-FINAL_reduced_for_web.pdf).

The Master Plan identified major demand leakages that confirm results from this analysis. More shopping, restaurants,

grocery stores and other related retail are generally important areas for the community to focus on moving forward.

The following business types should be considered as a part of any area redevelopment.

Other Motor Vehicle Dealers

Home Furnishing Stores • Appliances, TVs, Electronics Stores • Lawn, Garden Equipment, Supplies Stores • Grocery Stores • Specialty Food Stores • Beer, Wine and Liquor Stores • Jewelry Stores • Sporting Goods Stores • Full-Service Restaurants

• Special Foodservices Areas identified in the Town Master Plan for targeted development are also in line with this analysis. The Master Plan

calls for the following objectives:

• Objective: Two New Downtown Restaurants

• Objective: Monthly Food Truck/Pop-Up Events

• Objective: Expanded Sporting Goods Selection in Existing Retailer

24

In conclusion, while it is difficult to predict the exact impact for an individual business, Williamston businesses will

benefit from this development. Increased economic activity takes time, planning and investment and both public and

private parties can benefit from these investments.

Table 8: Potential changes in property value due to property development for three sample businesses

Business 1

Small Square

Footage – 1,000-

2,000 square feet

-

Business 2-

Medium Square

Footage – 3,000-

4,000 square feet

Business 3-Large

Square Footage

5000 or greater

Tax revenue without

development at the

end of ten years

$29,095 $69,216 $116,820

3% over ten years $29,531 $70,256 $118,573

Difference in tax

revenue due to

development scenario

3% over ten years

$436 $1,040

$1,753

5% over ten years $29,765 $70,810 $119,507

Difference in tax

revenue due to

development scenario

5% over ten years

$670

$1,594

$2,687

7.5% over ten years $30,215 $71,882 $121,317.6

Difference in tax

revenue due to

development scenario

7.5% over ten years

$1,120

$2,666

$4,498

8% over twenty years $61,638 $146,637 $247,483

Difference in tax

revenue due to

development scenario

8% over twenty years

$3,448

$8,205

$13,843

25

Implementing Local Development: Strategies and Suggestions

There are a wide variety of strategies and tools for implementing local economic development initiatives. Every

community must carefully consider what tools are right for them. There are range of decisions that must be evaluated

before a community undertakes one or some combination of these options. Most strategies require significant

collaboration with the county or area counties, attorney guidance, and specific planning and implementation

documents related to the strategy, among others. In the following section we briefly describe business improvement

districts, tax increment financing districts, multi-county business parks, and municipal improvement districts. There is

not a one size fits all approach and many communities utilize a combination of strategies to achieve their development

goals. In addition, many communities implement development plans in phases as funding, grant making and other

collaborative opportunities arise.

Business Improvement Districts (BIDs)

Business Improvement Districts are local economic development entities that combine private enterprise financing,

local authority, and shared management. In South Carolina they are authorized under the Municipal Improvements Act

of 1999. Columbia’s, City Center Partnership (CCP) (http://mainstcolasc.com/), is an example in South Carolina that has

had considerable press.

BIDs are:

Self-financing through cost-sharing formulas/agreements from the inception;

A tool to build local revenues through improved properties;

Entrepreneurial and can attract grants and other outside money to the locality; and

Well-tested and adaptable/flexible.

BIDs are most often utilized to create local marketing programs, largely designed to attract new customers and

sometimes commercial tenants, investors, and visitors. Some of the tools utilized are:

Electronic newsletters to keep constituencies informed;

Logos, branding slogans, color-consistent directional signage, and commercial locator maps; and

Special events and farmers’ markets which add an entertainment draw to the downtown area.

The types of uses for a BID are very similar to what Envision Williamston already does for the City. This tool does not

appear to be the appropriate tool for meeting the goals of the Mustang Alley project. While certain elements of a BID

could theoretically assist with the some of the goals of Mustang Alley, this tool would not allow for the breadth and

depth of economic and community development activities that the Town is hoping to achieve in the future.

Tax Increment Financing Districts (TIFs)

Tax Increment Financing is a public finance tool that municipalities can use to help revitalize areas that are currently or

in danger of becoming blighted and run down. The benefit of a TIF is the ability to acquire debt while the

redevelopment is occurring and to then use the enhanced property tax revenue to pay down the incurred debt. As

assessed property values in an area increase the municipality uses the increase in tax revenue (increment) from the

current capped tax amount to repay the bond.

Before communities can undertake a TIF they must have a specific project redevelopment area and redevelopment plan

approved. Additionally, TIFs are subject to strict state law. Some of the requirement under state law are:

1. The project area must be a blighted, conservation or agricultural area located within the municipality's boundaries.

26

2. The project must be publically owned 3. There must be evidence of the need for public intervention to ensure growth and redevelopment of an area. 4. The redevelopment plan and proposal must clearly specify how this effort will improve these condition and

enhance the overall tax base. 5. The plan and proposal must be approved by each taxing entity affected by the TIF, including counties, cities or

towns, school districts and special purpose districts. 6. Any surplus funds, over and above those required for bond repayment, must be refunded annually to taxing

entities.

Examples of TIFs in the state include:

City of Cayce/West Columbia

City of Myrtle Beach

Town of Lexington

City of Columbia

The benefits of a TIF are redevelopment gains without a tax increase. It fosters additional private investment in the

project area further enhancing the assessed value of properties in the redevelopment area. When TIFs are successful

redevelopment efforts spur additional investment, increased property values and resulting taxes and positive spillover

impacts to the surrounding community.

TIFs are a strategy that have a history of success in several communities in South Carolina. This strategy requires

substantial planning and proposal development to meet state requirements. Additionally it requires substantial buy in

from other local taxing entities. Currently, this strategy may not be the most appropriate for Williamston’s

redevelopment of Mustang Alley. At a minimum, several of the state requirements for approval would likely be

challenging for the Town to meet.

Multi County Business Parks (MCBP)

Another tool for local communities is the designation of a multi county business park (MCBP). This tool can be used for

downtown or commercial development and in South Carolina has been used by several smaller communities, like

Greenwood and Newberry. To implement a MCBP, at least two contiguous counties, must partner with a private

developer or owner to promote targeted economic development and improvements. One of the counties must have a

state designated job/employment status that is lower than the other county (ies). Counties may utilize negotiated fees

in lieu of taxes to facilitate the private developer, further incentivizing both the private and public investment.

This tool also requires substantial cooperation from local governments. State law dictates that a multicounty

designation can only be made by county council. When the designation is within a municipality it also requires

city/town council approval. This designation can also be used with other economic development tools. A community

interested in this option must plan carefully for the use of public funds towards economic development and work

closely with an attorney experienced in the nuances of state law around these issues.

Municipal Improvement District (MID)

A Municipal Improvement District (“MID”) is a designation that allows for a special assessment bond to be levied on a property based on the valued benefit the property receives from targeted public investment projects. While the state defines “improvements” slightly differently in state statute for county and municipal governments, all of them include recreational facilities, pedestrian facilities, sidewalks, storm drains, or water facility improvements, the relocation, construction, widening, and paving of roads and streets, any building or other facilities for public use. This may include public works eligible for financing pursuant to the Revenue Bond Act for Utilities and may include the acquisition of necessary easements and land and all things incidental.

27

Before creating a MID, a city council must develop a case that:

The planned improvements would benefit from a MID

These investments would increase property values in the MID

Without a MID property values would likely decrease

Once the local government approves the creation of a MID, it can authorize assessments on real property located within the district. Several important issues to consider with MIDs; for a county to impose an assessment there is a requirement that the majority of the property owners, representing at least 66% of the assessed values of the real property in the MID, approve the assessment. Additionally, al investments financed by assessments must be owned by the local government, state or other public entities. In sum, the idea is that MID creates a platform for investments that enhance the general public welfare be creating an environment for additional local development and investment.

These are not the only tools to finance public investments in the state but these are some of the more popular options.

The Bailey Bill is another tool that may work for some communities interested in renovating historic community

properties. What all of these tools have in common is they are trying to stimulate economic development in the

designated area of the community and to lay the groundwork for additional spillover development and growth. A

community interested in any of these options must plan carefully for the use of public funds towards economic

development and work closely with an attorney experienced in the nuances of state law around these issues.

Conclusions

The scenario development in this report provides evidence that investment in the Mustang Alley project could yield

economic impacts approaching $700,000 over a 10-year time horizon from property value increases, visitation growth,

and additional spending. When considering the impacts of additional job growth, these impacts could far exceed this.

The Upstate of South Carolina is experiencing a renaissance that the Town of Williamston has an opportunity to connect

with through its own economic development planning and implementation. Its geographic proximity to Greenville,

Anderson, and Clemson place it in a prime location to realize some of the spin offs from these communities growth and

development. Investing in quality infrastructure and place-making projects have resulted in positive impacts for

communities across the state and nation. While the results of this analysis are estimates, the numbers underscore the

potential value that the Mustang Alley project can bring to the community.

As the community moves forward, additional analysis related to specific costs and benefits would be valuable. Clarifying

who benefits from these investments and that benefits are widely shared across the community is critical when

considering investing public funds. However, creating an enabling environment for growth and development of

communities is a key function of local and municipal governments and these types of projects can facilitate these

efforts.

28

Sources

Bivens, J. 2003. Updated Employment Multipliers for the U.S. Economy. Economic Policy Institute Working Paper #268.

Houstoun, L. 2009. Business Improvement Districts: Partnering Local Governments and Business. Public Management.

Pp. 14-17. https://icma.org/documents/business-improvement-districts-partnering-local-government-and-business

Howell Linkous & Nettles, LLC. 2012. TIFs, MIDs, RIDs, CDDs, SSRBs: The Alphabet Soup of Development Financing Incentives. www.bond-law.com; http://www.bond-law.com/assets/alphabet_soup.pdf Parker Poe Law Firm. Tax Increment Financing in South Carolina. http://www.masc.sc/Pages/newsroom/uptown/July%202017/Tax-Increment-Financing-in-South-Carolina.aspx Porca, S. 2009. The Economic Impact of the Aiken Corporation and Aiken Downtown Development Association on the

City of Aiken, SC. http://aikencorporation.org/acorp/study/study.pdf

Town of Williamston Community Master Plan, http://envisionwilliamston.com/wp-

content/uploads/2016/04/Williamston-FINAL_reduced_for_web.pdf.

29

Event Experience

Appendix- Survey

* 1. How did you learn about today's event?

TV / Radio

Newpaper

Billboard

Facebook / Social Media

Website

Poster / Flyer

Email

A Friend or Family Member

Other (please specify)

* 2. Overall, how would you rate the event?

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Spring Water Festival Survey - Aug 26, 2017

30

* 3. How often do you visit the Mineral Spring Park in Williamston?

Extremely often

Very often

Somewhat often

Not so often

Not at all often

* 4. How likely are you to attend a similar event again in the future?

Extremely likely

Very likely

Somewhat likely

Not so likely

Not at all likely

5. How would you describe the Town of Williamston?

* 6. How often do you visit the downtown shops and/or restaurants in Williamston?

Extremely often

Very often

Often

Not so often

Not at all often

31

7. What is an example of some downtowns/other towns you have visited that you like?

Greenville

Anderson

Clemson E

Easley

Traveler's Rest

Pickens

Fountain Inn

Clinton

Laurens

Woodruff

Other (please specify)

8. In your own words, what are the things that you like most about those cities or towns?

32

* 9. What do you think the TOP THREE PRIORITIES should be for Downtown Williamston? (Select up to 3)

Residential development

Shopping options Restaurants

Fast food establishments

Grocery store

Coffee shop

Brewery or local wine bar

Bowling alley

Movie theater

Roller skating rink

More parks Fitness

center Spa services

Bed and Breakfast / Inn Other

(please specify)

10. What is one big idea that would encourage you to visit more frequently?

* 11. What is missing from downtown Williamston?

Shopping

Restaurants

Entertainment

Place(s) to take the Children

Recreational Activities

Other (please specify)

33

12. In what city do you live?

13. What state do you reside in?

* 14. Are you staying in a hotel overnight?

Yes

No

Other (please specify)

15. If yes, in which city are you staying for overnight accommodations?

16. Do you have any other comments or suggestions?

Thank you for participating in our survey!

--- The Envision Williamston Team

34