tampa bay region economic market report

University of South FloridaScholar Commons

College of Business Publications College of Business

1-1-2002

Tampa Bay Region economic market reportTampa Bay Partnership

University of South Florida. Center for Economic Development Research

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/business_pubPart of the Business Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Business at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in College ofBusiness Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Scholar Commons CitationTampa Bay Partnership and University of South Florida. Center for Economic Development Research, "Tampa Bay Region economicmarket report" (2002). College of Business Publications. Paper 71.http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/business_pub/71

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fbusiness_pub%2F71&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fbusiness_pub%2F71&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fbusiness_pub%2F71&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/business_pub?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fbusiness_pub%2F71&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/business?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fbusiness_pub%2F71&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/business_pub?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fbusiness_pub%2F71&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/622?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fbusiness_pub%2F71&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/business_pub/71?utm_source=scholarcommons.usf.edu%2Fbusiness_pub%2F71&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

The Tampa Bay Partnership is the regionalorganization that works with its partners to market the region nationally and internationally, to conduct regionalresearch and to coordinate efforts to influence business and government issues that impact economic growth and development.

TAMPA BAY MARKET REPORT 2002 .......................................................................2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................3

TAMPA BAY’S WORKFORCE ......................................................................................4POPULATION .......................................................................................................................................... 6MIGRATION ............................................................................................................................................ 8LABOR FORCE........................................................................................................................................ 9EMPLOYED WORKERS....................................................................................................................... 13EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS................................................................................... 15UNEMPLOYED WORKERS ................................................................................................................ 18UNEMPLOYMENT RATE ................................................................................................................... 20

WAGES AND INCOME .................................................................................................22WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISION.................................................................................................... 24PERSONAL INCOME........................................................................................................................... 26DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME ................................................................................................ 27

BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ...........................................................28BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS.......................................................................................................... 30GROSS SALES & TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY.......................................................................... 33HOUSING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SPENDING......................................................... 34COST OF LIVING.................................................................................................................................. 37ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BEFORE & AFTER 9/11.......................................................................... 38

EDUCATION INDICATORS .........................................................................................40HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES.......................................................................................... 42HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES ................................................................................................. 42SCHOLASTIC ASSESSMENT TEST SCORES................................................................................. 43HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZES........................................................................................................... 44PER-PUPIL EXPENDITURES FOR HIGH SCHOOL .................................................................... 45

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Photo Courtesy of: Tampa Bay CVB

The College of Business Administration’sCenter for Economic Development Research(CEDR) at the University of South Floridainitiates and conducts innovative research oneconomic development. CEDR’s educationprograms are designed to cultivate excellencein regional development. Its data center servesto enhance development efforts at USF, itsCollege of Business Administration, andthroughout the Tampa Bay region.

CEDR’s research activities include analysis ofeconomic impact, industry clustering,community development opportunities,

international trade and development patterns,wage parity, and demographics of the TampaBay region. CEDR’s Geographic InformationSystem capability enhances analysis ofdemographic, business establishment, andemployment patterns. Annually, CEDR offersFlorida’s only basic economic developmentcourse, which is fully accredited by theInternational Economic DevelopmentAssociation.

Dr. Dennis Colie is Director of CEDR. OtherCEDR staff members include Dodson Tong,data manager; Nolan Kimball, coordinator of

information and publications; Anand Shah, webdesigner; and research associates AlexMcPherson and Danny Hughes. Helping on thisproject, under the direction of Dr. Colie, wereDavid Sobush and Eduardo Drewnick, graduateresearch assistants in the College of BusinessAdministration’s MBA program.

For more information about CEDR, visit http://cedr.coba.usf.edu, or call 813-974-CEDR (2337).

The purpose of this report is to presentinformation, primarily data and statisticalindicators, about Tampa Bay’s workforce,wages and income, business and economicconditions, and the education of residents.The available data is organized by county andby metropolitan statistical area (MSA).

When using by-county data, we refer to thegroup of seven counties – Hernando,Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk,and Sarasota – as the Tampa Bay region. Theuse of seven-county regional data allows us tocompare statistics county-by-county, as wellas compare Tampa Bay regional averages.

When using by-MSA data, we refer to thegroup of three MSAs – Lakeland-WinterHaven, Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, andSarasota-Bradenton – as the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. The Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA isdefined by Polk County. The Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater MSA encompasses thecounties of Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas, andHillsborough, and the Sarasota-BradentonMSA includes Manatee County and SarasotaCounty. The letter M prefixes tables andcharts reporting MSA data.

The use of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregateallows us to benchmark statistics MSA-by-MSA, as well as compute Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate averages for benchmarking againsta comparison universe. We have selected thefollowing as a comparison universe: AtlantaMSA, Phoenix-Mesa MSA, Orlando MSA,Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA, Austin-SanMarcos MSA, and the Denver-Boulder-GreeleyConsolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area(CMSA).

Tampa Bay Market Report 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

ampa Bay’s population will exceed 3,575,000 bythe end of 2002.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated Tampa Bay’spopulation at 3,517,000 in January 2001. Although TampaBay continues to experience a substantial populationgrowth rate – about 3.3% per year since 1999 – otherregions, such as Orlando, Atlanta, and Austin, have beengrowing faster than Tampa Bay.

Net migration into the Tampa Bay region accounts for99+% of Tampa Bay’s population growth. Between 1998and 2001, Tampa Bay experienced net migration of 167,500persons, or slightly more than 55,800 persons per year. TheTampa Bay region accounted for 21.6% of Florida’s netmigration between 1998 and 2001.

Tampa Bay’s workforce will exceed 1,800,000 by the end of 2002.

The Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation estimatedTampa Bay’s workforce at 1,740,000 in January 2001. Thecompound average rate of increase in the Tampa Bayregion’s workforce between January 1999 and January2002 was 2.70%, which compares to a 2.35% average rateof growth for all of Florida.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 49.47% ofTampa Bay’s residents were participating in theworkforce in January 2001. Due to increasing weaknessin the economy since January 2001, we project that theregion’s labor force participation rate declined to 49.16%by January 2002. Furthermore, with improving economicconditions, we project that Tampa Bay’s labor forceparticipation rate will reach 49.70% in 2003. In 2003, weproject Florida’s labor participation rate will be about 3%below the Tampa Bay rate.

However, by comparison, the Tampa Bay’s laborparticipation rate is projected to be lower than the rates ofAtlanta, Orlando, and Charlotte (our three southeasternbenchmark areas).

Services remain the largest division within theemployment structure of Tampa Bay’s regional economy,increasing as a percent of total employment from 42.17%in January 1999 to 42.34% in January 2001.

Manufacturing’s share of the Tampa Bay region’semployment structure slightly declined from 8.69% inJanuary 1999 to 8.28% in January 2001, while the numberof workers employed in manufacturing actually increased.According to the State’s Covered Employment and Wagesdata, manufacturing employment in Tampa Bay grew from130,837 workers in January 1999 to 132,094 workers inJanuary 2001.

By January 2001, the weighted-average annual moneywage in Tampa Bay had risen to $30,667 for a 13.39%growth rate since January 1999.

In January 2001, the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate(FIRE) division of the Tampa Bay regional economyenjoyed the highest average wage at $46,763 per annumfor 107,981 employees, closely followed by theTransportation, Communications, and Utilities division at$44,607 per annum. The average money wage in theManufacturing division was $37,559 per annum for132,094 employees, while the average in the Servicesdivision was only $28,895 per annum for 675,136employees.

From 1999 through 2001, Tampa Bay regional businessand economic activity enjoyed robust growth.

Between January 1999 and January 2001, the number ofbusiness establishments in Tampa Bay increased by about1.4% per year.

Average monthly gross sales in the Tampa Bay regionincreased by 9.12% over the two-year period from 1999through 2001.

Over this same period, the growth in single-familyhousing permits was 22.04%, but multi-family housingpermits declined by 22.50%. Construction spending, basedon the number of permits issued, had a two-year 37.97%growth for single-family dwellings, but only a 2.55%growth for multi-family housing.

Notwithstanding the strong growth in businessestablishments, gross sales, and single-family housing, thecost of living in Tampa Bay remains favorable. Accordingto the Florida Department of Education’s relative cost ofliving index, Tampa Bay’s costs declined from 99.78% ofthe statewide average to 98.95% of the statewide averagein 2001.

The national recession, which began in March 2001, andthe terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 do not appearto have had a major impact on economic activity in TampaBay. Although, the unemployment rate has remainedabove the September 2001 level, gross sales and bed taxrevenues – measures of regional economic activity – appearto have recovered by July 2002.

Public secondary school outcomes for Tampa Baycontinue to mirror the state of Florida.

The Tampa Bay region’s average high school class size hasbeen smaller than the statewide size. Regional class sizeaveraged between 24 and 27 pupils in 2001. In Tampa Bay,average per-pupil expenditures for all types of programs atthe high school level increased from about $5,216 in 1998-1999 to about $5,832 in 2000-2001.

T

5

his section reports workforce data for the Tampa Bayregion by county and for the Tampa Bay MSA-

aggregate by MSA. The MSA data compare Tampa Bayagainst metropolitan areas in the southeast – Atlanta,Charlotte, and Orlando – and other selected MSAs –Austin, Denver, and Phoenix.

As of January 2001, Tampa Bay population (estimated atslightly over 3.5 million persons) represented 21.7% ofFlorida’s population (estimated at slightly over 16.2million persons). For both the Tampa Bay region and thestate of Florida, increases in population were due primarilyto migration, rather than an increase in births.

Labor force, an indicator of economic potential, consists ofemployed persons and unemployed persons. A person isdefined as unemployed if they sought work, were availablefor work, and were not employed. The labor force does notinclude persons not seeking employment, not available forwork, full-time students, or incarcerated persons. TheJanuary 2002 labor force in the Tampa Bay region hasincreased since 1999 at a rate (2.70% per annum) slightlygreater to that of population growth (1.62% per annum).With the exception of the Austin-San Marcos MSA and theCharlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate labor force growth led comparison MSAs. Thelabor force in the Austin-San Marcos MSA experienced thegreatest growth (3.22% per annum) during this period.

The workforce-to-population ratio in the Tampa Bay regiondecreased between 1999 and 2001 at an average compoundrate of 0.29% per year. Among comparison MSAs, the

Phoenix-Mesa MSA experienced the greatest decline inworkforce-to-population ratio, at a rate of –4.12% per year,whereas the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA enjoyed thegreatest increase, at a rate of 0.41% per year.

The number of employed workers in the Tampa Bay regionincreased at an average annual compound rate of 2.84%,with the service industry division increasing by 3.05% peryear between 1999 and 2001. While no industry division inthe Tampa Bay region experienced a decline during thisperiod, employment in the Manufacturing industry divisionwas essentially stagnant, growing at an average annualcompound rate of 0.48%. From 1999 to 2002, employmentgrowth in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate (2.14% perannum) led that of all the comparison MSAs except for theAustin-San Marcos, which saw its employment increase atan average annual compound rate of 2.27%.

Between 1999 and 2002, unemployment in the Tampa Bayregion increased at an average annual compound rate of14.16%. This increase can be attributed to the recentrecession and ongoing weak recovery. As expected, theunemployment rate also increased in the Tampa Bay region,with the regional unemployment rate increasing at anaverage annual compound rate of 11.56%. Despite theseincreases, the Tampa Bay region compared favorably to thecomparison universe of MSAs, experiencing the smallestincreases within the group. Within the comparison universeof MSAs, the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA saw thelargest increase in unemployed workers (34.21% per annum)and also in the unemployment rate (30.54% per annum).

T

Table 1 depicts population estimates forthe Tampa Bay region, aggregated bycounty, and estimates for Florida. Theestimates were derived by the U.S. CensusBureau (except the Jan-02 and Jan-03CEDR projections of the trend in CensusBureau estimates) based on the 2000census enumeration.

Since 1999, Tampa Bay’s population hasbeen increasing by an average of 56,268people per year and is expected to exceed3,575,000 by the end of 2002. Thecompound average rate of increase in theregion’s population between January 1999and January 2002 is estimated at 1.63% peryear, compared to an average increase of1.89% per year for the entire state ofFlorida.

The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate consistsof three Metropolitan Statistical Areas(MSA): Tampa-St. Petersburg-ClearwaterMSA, Sarasota-Bradenton MSA, and theLakeland-Winter Haven MSA. Table M1depicts population estimates for the threeMSAs, for the aggregate of the threeMSAs, and for a comparison universecomposed of other selected areas. The U.S.Bureau of Census has suspended therelease of MSA population estimates until2003; therefore, MSA estimates werederived by summing the U.S. Bureau of theCensus county estimates that compriseeach MSA.

6

POPULATION

Table 1 - Tampa Bay Region PopulationLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02* Jan-03*Hernando 128,449 130,380 133,624 136,289 139,008 Hillsborough 975,030 993,972 1,015,166 1,035,849 1,056,953 Manatee 256,610 262,425 270,160 277,201 284,425 Pasco 334,280 342,522 355,084 365,967 377,183 Pinellas 915,206 919,647 923,262 927,317 931,389 Polk 474,749 481,803 489,155 496,521 503,998 Sarasota 320,838 325,004 331,246 336,575 341,991 Tampa Bay 3,405,162 3,455,753 3,517,697 3,575,719 3,634,947 Florida 15,622,990 15,906,875 16,225,422 16,535,293 16,851,083

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program* CEDR Projection

Table M1 - Tampa Bay Region PopulationLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02* Jan-03*Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 454,998 471,453 489,155 500,177 515,029 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 546,524 571,521 601,406 622,022 646,374 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 2,266,287 2,341,052 2,427,136 2,486,015 2,557,371 Tampa Bay 3,267,809 3,384,025 3,517,696 3,608,214 3,718,773

Comparison UniverseAtlanta, GA MSA 3,800,560 4,000,936 4,203,679 4,354,752 4,539,089 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 2,972,211 3,145,044 3,330,018 3,464,717 3,626,862 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO MSA 2,390,370 2,507,279 2,625,063 2,706,010 2,811,078 Orlando, FL MSA 1,518,921 1,595,485 1,681,571 1,743,874 1,817,272 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 1,399,883 1,462,634 1,526,497 1,573,845 1,631,647 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 1,125,331 1,204,805 1,288,395 1,350,400 1,424,736 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; * CEDR Projection


Chart M1A - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Population

Chart M1B - Southeastern Population Comparison

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; * CEDR Projection


Chart M1C - Selected MSA Population Comparison


Since 1999, Tampa Bay’s populationaggregated by MSA has been growing atan annual average rate of about 3.30%.This is a slower growth rate than any MSAin the comparison universe. Thecomparison universe includes threesoutheastern MSAs: Atlanta MSA,Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA, andOrlando MSA, as well as three otherselected MSAs: Phoenix-Mesa MSA,Austin-San Marcos MSA, and theDenver-Boulder-Greeley ConsolidatedMetropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA).The Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA iscomprised of the Boulder-LongmontPrimary Metropolitan Statistical Area(PMSA), Denver PMSA, and GreeleyPMSA. The Austin-San Marcos MSAexperienced the fastest growth, with a6.08% average annual rate.

Chart M1A depicts the population of theTampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its threecomponent MSAs. The Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater MSA is the mostpopulous of the three MSAs and is theplace of residence for seven out of 10people living in Tampa Bay.

Chart M1B compares the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate population with the threeselected southeastern MSAs of thecomparison universe. The fastest growingMSA in the southeastern group from 1999to 2002 was Orlando, FL (14.81%). TheTampa Bay MSA-aggregate experiencedthe slowest population growth (10.42%)among the southeastern comparisons.

Chart M1C compares the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate population with the threeother selected MSAs. The Austin-SanMarcos, TX MSA experienced almostdouble the population growth (20.00%) ofthe Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and led allMSAs in the comparison universe.

7

8

Table 1X contains estimates of the numberof people migrating to Tampa Bay. Theestimates are based on population changesas reported by the Census Bureau andadjusted by the net effect of births anddeaths on that population change.

Over the period from 1998 to 2001, netmigration for the Tampa Bay region waspositive. Over the three-year time period,Hernando County experienced the lowestamount of net migration, 9,955.Hillsborough County experienced thegreatest amount of net migration, 42,355.As a region, Tampa Bay experienced netmigration of 167,489 persons over thethree-year period, or slightly more than55,800 persons per year. The year-by-year

figures are graphically presented in Chart1X. The Tampa Bay region accounted for21.6% of Florida’s net migration figure of774,554 persons between 1998 and 2001.

The annual compound percentage growthin population is broken down into twocategories: annual compound percentagegrowth due to migration and net annualcompound percentage growth. Differencesbetween the two figures are attributable tothe net effect of births and deaths withinan area. In areas where deathsoutnumbered births, growth due tomigration exceeded net growth, and viceversa. Pasco County enjoyed the highestgrowth rate due to migration (2.88% perannum), and the highest net growth rate(2.74% per annum) over the three-yearperiod. Pinellas County experienced thelowest growth rate due to migration andthe lowest net growth rate over the three-year period, with rates of 0.64% per annumand 0.53% per annum, respectively.

MIGRATION

Chart 1X - Tampa Bay Region Population Change due to Migration

Source: US Census Bureau; State of Florida Department of Health

Table 2 - Tampa Bay Region Labor Force Annual Compound

Location Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 % Change Jan-03*Hernando 46,475 47,720 50,197 50,251 2.60% 51,559Hillsborough 527,621 547,740 571,542 577,233 3.00% 594,525Manatee 115,773 119,587 125,466 128,828 3.56% 133,416Pasco 131,644 135,882 143,008 144,083 3.01% 148,419Pinellas 456,490 464,621 485,432 491,705 2.48% 503,885Polk 196,484 199,579 208,734 204,784 1.38% 207,608Sarasota 146,571 150,433 155,921 160,924 3.11% 165,935Tampa Bay 1,621,058 1,665,562 1,740,300 1,757,808 2.70% 1,805,262Florida 7,162,000 7,288,879 7,562,000 7,686,000 2.35% 7,866,906Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation* CEDR estimate

Table 1X - TAMPA BAY REGION MIGRATIONSAnnual Compound Annual Compound

Net Effect of Births and Deaths Population Change due to Migration Population % Growth Population % Growth Due toLocation 1998 1999 2000 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 1998-2001 Migration 1998-2001Hernando (879) (953) (772) 3,055 2,884 4,016 1.90% 2.10%Hillsborough 6,128 6,148 6,011 14,378 12,794 15,183 2.07% 1.87%Manatee (394) (240) (120) 6,171 6,055 7,855 2.51% 2.52%Pasco (1,601) (1,648) (1,437) 8,441 9,890 13,999 2.74% 2.88%Pinellas (3,168) (3,456) (2,964) 9,576 7,897 6,579 0.53% 0.64%Polk 1,395 1,339 1,596 5,870 5,715 5,756 1.52% 1.41%Sarasota (2,252) (2,106) (2,096) 6,767 6,272 8,338 1.55% 1.76%Tampa Bay (771) (916) 218 54,256 51,507 61,726 1.62% 1.62%Florida 38,404 34,841 41,191 248,155 249,044 277,356 1.90% 1.81%Source: US Census Bureau (with CEDR interpolation); State of Florida, Department of Health, Vital Statistics Reports of Live Births and Deaths

9

Chart 2 - Tampa Bay Region Labor Force

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation

Chart M2A - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Labor Force

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; * CEDR Estimates

The labor force consists of employedpersons and unemployed persons who areactively seeking work. Table 2 and Chart 2show the number of labor forceparticipants by county of residence. CEDRprojects the number of labor forceparticipants in the Tampa Bay region toreach 1,800,000 persons by January 2003.

Concurrent with the Tampa Bay region’saverage three-year population increase of56,268 people per year, its labor force hasbeen growing by an average of 45,583workers per year. This average growth inthe region’s labor force represents morethan one-quarter (26.1%) of the averageannual growth of Florida’s labor force.

We also estimate the compound averagerate of increase in the Tampa Bay region’slabor force between January 1999 andJanuary 2002 to be 2.70% per year, whichmay be compared to an average increase of2.35% per year for all of Florida. Thisaverage growth rate has been stronglyaffected by the continued weakness in thenational economy. The labor force growthrate between January 2000 and January2001 was 4.39% and 3.68% in Tampa Bayand Florida, respectively. However, fromJanuary 2001 to January 2002, the laborforce in Tampa Bay grew only 1.00%, adrastic decline. The labor force in Floridagrew only 1.63% during this period.

Table M2 shows the number of labor forceparticipants by MSA of residence fromJanuary 1999 and projected to January2003. The Atlanta MSA has the largestlabor force of the comparison universe,with over 2.3 million labor forceparticipants projected for January 2003. Incomparison, slightly over 1.8 million laborparticipants are projected to be residingwithin the three MSAs that comprise theTampa Bay MSA-aggregate.

The Austin-San Marcos MSA leads thecomparison universe in labor force growth,with an annual average compound rate of3.22% from January 1999 to January 2002.Over the same time span, the Tampa BayMSA aggregate’s average annual increasein its labor force has been 2.60% which,with the exception of the Austin-SanMarcos and Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock HillMSAs, leads all other MSAs in thecomparison universe.

Chart M2A depicts the labor force of theTampa Bay MSA-aggregate and itscomponent MSAs from January 1999 andprojected to January 2003. The Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater MSA is the

Table M2 - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Labor ForceLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03*Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 197,607 199,579 208,734 204,784 207,234 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 262,651 270,020 281,387 289,752 299,393 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 1,165,727 1,195,963 1,250,179 1,263,272 1,297,568 Tampa Bay 1,625,985 1,665,562 1,740,300 1,757,808 1,804,083

Comparison UniverseAtlanta, GA MSA 2,141,995 2,204,747 2,261,328 2,302,947 2,359,242 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 1,542,602 1,539,268 1,591,603 1,649,408 1,686,629 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA 1,376,602 1,379,980 1,436,277 1,453,321 1,479,833 Orlando, FL MSA 847,340 870,147 899,253 907,204 928,084 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 746,088 776,363 820,292 813,733 837,618 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 690,340 715,196 751,916 760,345 785,223 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics* CEDR Estimates

LABOR FORCE

10

predominant labor market, with almostthree times as many workers residing inthat MSA as are residing in the other twoTampa Bay MSAs combined. Despite itssmall size relative to the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate, the Sarasota-Bradenton MSAexperienced the largest average annual rateof growth in the labor force at 3.27%. TheLakeland-Winter Haven MSA saw thesmallest average annual rate at 1.19% peryear.

Chart M2B compares the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate’s population with thethree southeastern MSAs of thecomparison universe. The relativerelationships of the size of the labor forceof each area mirror the relative sizes oftheir populations.

Chart M2C compares the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate’s population with thethree other selected MSAs. The Austin-San Marcos MSA, the fastest growinglabor force in the comparison universe, hada three-year increase in its labor force of10.14% compared to Tampa Bay’s 8.11%.

Chart M2B - Southeastern Labor Force Comparison


Chart M2C - Selected MSA Labor Force Comparison


11

Table 3 reflects the two-year change( January 1999 to January 2001) inworkforce-to-population ratios, as well asprojected ratios for 2002 and 2003, for eachTampa Bay county. Pinellas County(2.64%) enjoyed the largest increases in theratio. Overall, the region’s workforce-to-population ratio went up by 1.92% in thetwo-year period. As of January 2002,Hillsborough County had the highestworkforce-to-population ratio; 55.73% ofthe residents of the county wereparticipating in the labor force. HernandoCounty had the lowest ratio (36.87%).

Table M3 shows the workforce-to-population ratio for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its component MSAs, as wellas the comparison MSAs. Due in large partto the weakness of the national economy,all MSAs in the comparison universe areprojected to experience a decrease in theworkforce-to-population ratio. BetweenJanuary 1999 and January 2001, TampaBay’s workforce-to-population ratiodecreased 0.29%, so that by January 2001,approximately 49% of the area’s residentswere participating in the labor force.

Table 3 - Tampa Bay Region Workforce-to-Population RatioLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02* Jan-03*Hernando 36.18% 36.60% 37.57% 36.87% 37.10%Hillsborough 54.11% 55.11% 56.30% 55.73% 56.27%Manatee 45.12% 45.57% 46.44% 46.47% 46.94%Pasco 39.38% 39.67% 40.27% 39.37% 39.37%Pinellas 49.88% 50.52% 52.58% 53.02% 54.12%Polk 41.39% 41.42% 42.67% 41.24% 41.20%Sarasota 45.68% 46.29% 47.07% 47.81% 48.54%Tampa Bay 47.61% 48.20% 49.47% 49.16% 49.70%Florida 45.84% 45.82% 46.61% 46.48% 46.70%Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division* CEDR Projection

Chart 3 - Tampa Bay Region Workforce-to-Population Ratio

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Population Estimates Program, U.S. Census Bureau; * CEDR Projection

Table M3 - Tampa Bay Region Workforce-to-Population RatioLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 * Jan-03*Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 43% 42% 43% 41% 40%Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 48% 47% 47% 47% 46%Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 51% 51% 52% 51% 51%Tampa Bay 50% 49% 49% 49% 49%

Comparison UniverseAtlanta, GA MSA 56% 55% 54% 53% 52%Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 52% 49% 48% 48% 47%Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO MSA 58% 55% 55% 54% 53%Orlando, FL MSA 56% 55% 53% 52% 51%Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 53% 53% 54% 52% 51%Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 61% 59% 58% 56% 55%Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; * CEDR Projection

WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO

12

Chart M3A depicts the workforce-to-population ratio for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its component MSAs fromJanuary 1999 and projected to January2003. In the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate,only the residents of the Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater MSA registered anincrease in workforce participation (0.14%)by January 2001. Although a reversal of this gain is projected in 2002, theTampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSAexperiences the smallest decline inworkforce participation within the TampaBay MSA-aggregate.

Chart M3B reveals that each of the threesoutheastern MSAs, which are employed asbenchmarks, had more than one-half oftheir residents in the labor pool, while theTampa Bay participation rate was slightlyless than one-half.

Chart M3C benchmarks the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate with other selectedMSAs. Among MSAs of the comparisonuniverse (both the southeastern and otherselected MSAs), only the Phoenix-Mesa,AZ MSA had a lower ratio than TampaBay’s ratio (47.80% versus 49.47%) inJanuary 2001.

Chart M3C - Selected MSA Workforce-to-Population Ratio Comparison

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; * CEDR Projection

Chart M3B - Southeastern Workforce-to-Population Ratio Comparison

Source: US Census Bureau; State of Florida Department of Health

Chart M3A - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Workforce-to-Population Ratio

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; * CEDR Projection

13

Table 4 and Chart 4 show the number ofemployed workers residing in Tampa Bayfrom January 1999 and projected to 2003.Six out of 10 of Tampa Bay’s nearly 1.68million employed workers reside in eitherHillsborough County or Pinellas County.

Table M4 shows the number of employedworkers for the Tampa Bay-aggregate andthe comparison MSAs from 1999 andprojected to 2003. The Tampa Bay four-year percent change in its number ofemployed residents reflects a faster growthrate (6.63%) than any of the comparisonMSAs with the exception of the Austin-San Marcos MSA (7.04%).

Chart 4 - Tampa Bay Region Employed Workers


Table 4 - Tampa Bay Region Employed WorkersLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03*Hernando 44,509 45,855 47,927 47,665 48,766 Hillsborough 512,656 531,599 555,612 552,578 566,565Manatee 113,209 117,111 121,518 124,212 128,112Pasco 126,923 131,425 137,361 136,611 140,002Pinellas 441,897 450,953 471,323 468,749 478,057Polk 187,448 190,998 198,682 193,101 195,023Sarasota 142,436 146,522 152,036 155,406 159,987Tampa Bay 1,569,078 1,614,463 1,684,459 1,678,322 1,716,401Florida 6,851,000 7,005,446 7,258,000 7,254,000 7,393,534Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation* CEDR estimate

EMPLOYED WORKERS

Table M4 - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Employed WorkersLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03*Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 188,567 190,998 198,682 193,101 194,636 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 255,953 263,633 273,554 279,618 287,983 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 1,129,469 1,159,832 1,212,223 1,205,603 1,232,105 Tampa Bay 1,573,989 1,614,463 1,684,459 1,678,322 1,714,614

Comparison UniverseAtlanta, GA MSA 2,081,179 2,141,978 2,199,720 2,202,533 2,244,537 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 1,497,106 1,494,507 1,548,637 1,559,425 1,580,769 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA 1,336,353 1,344,386 1,403,406 1,366,516 1,376,721 Orlando, FL MSA 821,413 846,392 873,012 853,584 864,585 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 727,022 753,032 785,894 760,522 772,028 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 672,180 698,775 736,224 719,493 735,993 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics* CEDR Estimates

14

Chart M4A depicts the number ofemployed workers for the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate and its component MSAs.In January 2002, just over 71% of TampaBay’s employed persons resided in theTampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA.

Chart M4B compares the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate’s population with thethree southeastern MSAs of thecomparison universe. The Tampa BayMSA-aggregate experienced the largestpercent increase (6.63%) in employedresidents among the southeastern groupover the January 1999 to January 2002period.

Chart M4C benchmarks employedworkers in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregateagainst other selected MSAs. Austin-SanMarcos, TX MSA experienced the largestincrease in employed workers (7.04%) sinceJanuary 1999 among MSAs in thecomparison universe.

Chart M4A - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Employed Workers


Chart M4B - Southeastern Employed Workers Comparison


Chart M4C - Selected MSA Employed Workers Comparison


15

Table 5, Tampa Bay Region Employment byIndustry Divisions, outlines the structure ofthe Tampa Bay region’s economy based onCovered Employment and Wages (ES202)data. The table reflects the number andpercent of employees in each division inJanuary 1999 and January 2001. Also shownis the rate of increase for each division duringthe January 1999 to January 2001 period.

As an official State of Florida DataRepository, CEDR has available theES202 data. This data set is a Bureau ofLabor Statistics-sponsored collection of joband wage data from all employersparticipating in Florida’s unemploymentinsurance program. Because self-employedproprietors do not contribute to theunemployment insurance system, they are

not counted in the ES202 data.Agricultural workers are often proprietorsor family members of proprietors and thusnot included in the data. Hence, it isgenerally understood that ES202 datacovers non-farm civilian wage and salaryemployment only. Geographically, the dataare based on the location of the reportingunit. Thus, the data usually (but not always)reflect the place of work of the employees.For example, a reporting unit may be anemployee leasing firm and the actual place ofwork for an employee may be outside of thedefined geographic area of the reporting unit.

Services remains the biggest divisionwithin the Tampa Bay regional economy,increasing as a percent of total employmentfrom 42.17% of the structure in January 1999

to 42.34% in January 2001. This representsa 6.29% increase in service employmentover the period. Manufacturing’s share ofthe Tampa Bay region’s employmentstructure slightly declined from 8.69% inJanuary 1999 to 8.28% in January 2001,while the number of workers employed inmanufacturing actually increased 0.96%from January 1999 to January 2001. Thereason for manufacturing’s decline in shareof the employment structure is that allother employment divisions were growingmore rapidly than manufacturing. PanelsA through G of Table 5 on the next pagedescribe the structure of employment byindustry division for each of the sevencounties of Tampa Bay, based on theES202 data.

EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS

Table 5 - Tampa Bay Region Employment by Industry DivisionsEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 41,361 2.75% 45,156 2.83% 9.18%Mining and Construction 82,188 5.46% 87,320 5.48% 6.24%Manufacturing 130,837 8.69% 132,094 8.28% 0.96%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 77,028 5.11% 82,945 5.20% 7.68%Trade 360,639 23.94% 384,338 24.10% 6.57%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 101,373 6.73% 107,981 6.77% 6.52%Services 635,209 42.17% 675,136 42.34% 6.29%Public Administration 77,805 5.16% 79,545 4.99% 2.24%Totals 1,506,440 100.00% 1,594,515 100.00% 5.85%Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data

Table M5 - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Employment by Industry DivisionsEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Mining and Construction 81,500 5.24% 87,400 5.20% 7.24%Manufacturing 130,800 8.42% 132,700 7.90% 1.45%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 67,300 4.33% 73,900 4.40% 9.81%Trade 369,900 23.80% 393,000 23.40% 6.24%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 104,000 6.69% 113,000 6.73% 8.65%Services 616,600 39.68% 682,800 40.65% 10.74%Public Administration 184,000 11.84% 196,700 11.71% 6.90%Totals 1,554,100 100.00% 1,679,500 100.00% 8.07%Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

16

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)provides job data known as CurrentEmployment Statistics (CES). CES arecompiled by means of a monthly survey ofover 390,000 establishments nationwide.Like ES202 data, the CES reflects non-farm civilian wage and salary employmentby place of work. Table M5 outlines thestructure of employment of the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate based on CES data. (TheCES data does not include an Agriculture,Forestry, and Fisheries division.) Broadlyviewed, the employment structure describedby CES data (Table M5) is consistent withthe structure revealed by ES202 data (Table5). Additionally, using CES data, we cancompare the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate’sstructure of employment with other areas ofthe country.

Panels A through C of Table M5 describethe structure of employment of the threeMSAs that make up the Tampa Bay MSA-

aggregate. As with the MSA-aggregate,services is the dominant employmentdivision. However, while services compriseover 40% of the employment structure inthe Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSAand in the Sarasota-Bradenton MSA,services are only 28.93% of the employmentstructure of the Lakeland-Winter HavenMSA. The Lakeland-Winter Haven MSAis the only Tampa Bay MSA in whichservices do not make up the largest divisionof employment, with trade representingslightly more of the employment structure(28.99% as opposed to 28.93% for services).

Panels D through F of Table M5 describethe employment structure of thesoutheastern MSAs of the comparisonuniverse. The services division of theeconomy is proportionately smaller for theAtlanta MSA and for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA than the servicesdivision of the economy for the Tampa Bay

MSA-aggregate. The Orlando MSA has aslightly higher percent of employment inthe services division than does the TampaBay MSA-aggregate. Also, the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate’s manufacturing division at7.90% of employment is slightly larger thanthe Orlando MSA at 6.15%. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill has the highestmanufacturing employment among thesoutheastern comparisons at 16.67% of itstotal employment structure followed byAtlanta at 9.88%. The only declinesbetween January 1999 and January 2001, insize of industry divisions, are a drop of4.58% and 5.26% in manufacturing for theAtlanta and Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock HillMSAs, respectively, and a drop of 4.83% infinance, insurance, and real estate for theOrlando MSA.

Panel A - Hernando CountyEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 508 1.80% 552 1.82% 8.66%Mining and Construction 2,150 7.61% 2,653 8.75% 23.40%Manufacturing 1,321 4.68% 1,349 4.45% 2.12%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 1,162 4.11% 1,081 3.57% -6.97%Trade 9,667 34.23% 10,112 33.36% 4.60%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 1,180 4.18% 1,319 4.35% 11.78%Services 9,723 34.43% 10,637 35.09% 9.40%Public Administration 2,530 8.96% 2,608 8.60% 3.08%Totals 28,241 100.00% 30,311 100.00% 7.33%

Panel B - Hillsborough CountyEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 14,415 2.55% 16,865 2.83% 17.00%Mining and Construction 27,924 4.94% 28,705 4.82% 2.80%Manufacturing 37,062 6.56% 38,157 6.41% 2.95%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 37,128 6.57% 40,570 6.81% 9.27%Trade 124,724 22.07% 134,047 22.51% 7.47%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 47,096 8.33% 49,811 8.36% 5.76%Services 250,683 44.36% 260,278 43.71% 3.83%Public Administration 26,089 4.62% 27,047 4.54% 3.67%Totals 565,121 100.00% 595,480 100.00% 5.37%

Panel C - Manatee CountyEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 7,018 6.69% 7,745 6.57% 10.36%Mining and Construction 4,757 4.53% 5,304 4.50% 11.50%Manufacturing 13,452 12.82% 13,006 11.03% -3.32%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 2,813 2.68% 2,770 2.35% -1.53%Trade 22,919 21.84% 25,294 21.45% 10.36%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 3,079 2.93% 3,341 2.83% 8.51%Services 45,609 43.47% 55,102 46.73% 20.81%Public Administration 5,274 5.03% 5,362 4.55% 1.67%Totals 104,921 100.00% 117,924 100.00% 12.39%

Panel D - Pasco CountyEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 3,024 4.16% 2,844 3.76% -5.95%Mining and Construction 5,122 7.05% 6,236 8.24% 21.75%Manufacturing 3,694 5.08% 3,077 4.07% -16.70%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 2,878 3.96% 2,542 3.36% -11.67%Trade 20,701 28.48% 21,918 28.97% 5.88%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 3,143 4.32% 3,255 4.30% 3.56%Services 29,382 40.42% 30,772 40.68% 4.73%Public Administration 4,745 6.53% 5,002 6.61% 5.42%Totals 72,689 100.00% 75,646 100.00% 4.07%

Panel E - Pinellas CountyEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 3,180 0.77% 3,208 0.72% 0.88%Mining and Construction 19,810 4.81% 20,549 4.63% 3.73%Manufacturing 46,510 11.30% 48,609 10.96% 4.51%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 18,699 4.54% 20,670 4.66% 10.54%Trade 98,639 23.97% 103,027 23.23% 4.45%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 30,303 7.37% 32,200 7.26% 6.26%Services 173,720 42.22% 194,211 43.79% 11.80%Public Administration 20,583 5.00% 21,052 4.75% 2.28%Totals 411,444 100.00% 443,526 100.00% 7.80%

Panel F - Polk CountyEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 10,947 6.09% 11,848 6.33% 8.23%Mining and Construction 13,253 7.37% 13,268 7.08% 0.11%Manufacturing 20,890 11.62% 18,819 10.05% -9.91%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 9,898 5.51% 10,738 5.73% 8.49%Trade 48,264 26.86% 52,186 27.86% 8.13%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 8,054 4.48% 9,098 4.86% 12.96%Services 56,056 31.19% 59,063 31.53% 5.36%Public Administration 12,357 6.88% 12,274 6.55% -0.67%Totals 179,719 100.00% 187,294 100.00% 4.21%

Panel G - Sarasota CountyEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 2,269 1.57% 2,094 1.45% -7.71%Mining and Construction 9,172 6.36% 10,605 7.35% 15.62%Manufacturing 7,908 5.48% 9,077 6.29% 14.78%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 4,450 3.08% 4,574 3.17% 2.79%Trade 35,725 24.76% 37,754 26.16% 5.68%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 8,518 5.90% 8,957 6.21% 5.15%Services 70,036 48.53% 65,073 45.09% -7.09%Public Administration 6,227 4.32% 6,200 4.30% -0.43%Totals 144,305 100.00% 144,334 100.00% 0.02%

Table 5

17

Panels G and H of Table M5 describe theemployment structure of the Phoenix-Mesa MSA and the Austin-San MarcosMSA. (Complete data necessary to depictthe employment structure of the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA was notavailable.) Services is the largestemployment division in the Phoenix areaand in the Austin area, comprising 32.25%and 29.82% of total employment,respectively. By comparison, the TampaBay MSA-aggregate’s services division is40.65% of total employment. BetweenJanuary 1999 and January 2001, the fastestgrowing industry divisions weretransportation, communication, andutilities (14.30%) in the Phoenix-MesaMSA and trade (15.62%) in the Austin-San Marcos MSA. Divisions with theslowest growth rates were manufacturing(0.36%) in the Phoenix-Mesa MSA andpublic administration (3.80%) in theAustin-San Marcos MSA.

Panel A - Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSAEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Mining and Construction 12,400 7.01% 12,900 6.98% 4.03%Manufacturing 20,900 11.81% 18,900 10.22% -9.57%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 9,100 5.14% 10,400 5.62% 14.29%Trade 50,000 28.26% 53,600 28.99% 7.20%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 8,400 4.75% 9,400 5.08% 11.90%Services 49,900 28.21% 53,500 28.93% 7.21%Public Administration 26,200 14.81% 26,200 14.17% 0.00%Totals 176,900 100.00% 184,900 100.00% 4.52%

Panel B - Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSAEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Mining and Construction 13,900 5.47% 16,100 5.86% 15.83%Manufacturing 21,400 8.42% 22,200 8.08% 3.74%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 5,500 2.16% 5,700 2.08% 3.64%Trade 59,800 23.52% 64,500 23.49% 7.86%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 11,800 4.64% 12,900 4.70% 9.32%Services 117,800 46.32% 128,800 46.90% 9.34%Public Administration 24,100 9.48% 24,400 8.89% 1.24%Totals 254,300 100.00% 274,600 100.00% 7.98%

Panel C - Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSAEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Mining and Construction 55,200 4.92% 58,400 4.79% 5.80%Manufacturing 88,500 7.88% 91,600 7.51% 3.50%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 52,700 4.69% 57,800 4.74% 9.68%Trade 260,100 23.16% 274,900 22.53% 5.69%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 83,800 7.46% 90,700 7.43% 8.23%Services 448,900 39.98% 500,500 41.02% 11.49%Public Administration 133,700 11.91% 146,100 11.98% 9.27%Totals 1,122,900 100.00% 1,220,000 100.00% 8.65%

Panel D - Atlanta, GA MSAEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Mining and Construction 107,300 5.19% 118,700 5.46% 10.62%Manufacturing 225,100 10.89% 214,800 9.88% -4.58%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 178,700 8.65% 192,500 8.85% 7.72%Trade 542,000 26.23% 563,100 25.90% 3.89%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 135,400 6.55% 140,300 6.45% 3.62%Services 615,100 29.76% 675,100 31.05% 9.75%Public Administration 263,000 12.73% 270,000 12.42% 2.66%Totals 2,066,600 100.00% 2,174,500 100.00% 5.22%

Panel E - Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSAEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Mining and Construction N/A N/AManufacturing 138,900 18.65% 131,600 16.67% -5.26%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 52,600 7.06% 56,300 7.13% 7.03%Trade 190,000 25.51% 201,300 25.49% 5.95%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 65,000 8.73% 68,300 8.65% 5.08%Services 204,200 27.41% 232,200 29.41% 13.71%Public Administration 94,200 12.65% 99,900 12.65% 6.05%Totals 744,900 100.00% 789,600 100.00% 6.00%

Panel F - Orlando, FL MSAEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Mining and Construction 46,900 5.54% 50,800 5.60% 8.32%Manufacturing 53,900 6.36% 55,800 6.15% 3.53%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 43,600 5.15% 46,600 5.13% 6.88%Trade 209,300 24.71% 220,800 24.33% 5.49%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 53,800 6.35% 51,200 5.64% -4.83%Services 351,300 41.48% 389,800 42.95% 10.96%Public Administration 88,200 10.41% 92,600 10.20% 4.99%Totals 847,000 100.00% 907,600 100.00% 7.15%

Panel G - Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSAEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Mining and Construction 112800 7.62% 119300 7.54% 5.76%Manufacturing 164700 11.13% 165300 10.45% 0.36%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 76200 5.15% 87100 5.51% 14.30%Trade 357000 24.13% 381900 24.14% 6.97%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 115000 7.77% 123200 7.79% 7.13%Services 470100 31.77% 510200 32.25% 8.53%Public Administration 183700 12.42% 194800 12.32% 6.04%Totals 1,479,500 100.00% 1,581,800 100.00% 6.91%

Panel H - Austin-San Marcos, TX MSAEmployees Percent Employees Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Mining and Construction 35,100 5.75% 40,300 5.96% 14.81%Manufacturing 79,100 12.97% 87,100 12.88% 10.11%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 20,200 3.31% 22,000 3.25% 8.91%Trade 133,800 21.93% 154,700 22.88% 15.62%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 32,300 5.29% 33,700 4.99% 4.33%Services 178,000 29.18% 201,600 29.82% 13.26%Public Administration 131,600 21.57% 136,600 20.21% 3.80%Totals 610,100 100.00% 676,000 100.00% 10.80%%

Table M5

18

Table 6 depicts the number of unemployedworkers in the Tampa Bay region fromJanuary 1999 and projected to 2003.Indicative of the recent national recessionand subsequent weak recovery, the numberof unemployed workers in Florida hasincreased by 38.91% since 1999, with theincrease in unemployed in Tampa Bay at52.92% over the same time span. Onaverage, the number of unemployed laborforce participants in the region has beenincreasing by just over 9,000 per year since1999. See also Chart 6.

Table M6 shows the number of unemployedlabor force participants by MSA ofresidence over the period from January1999 and projected to 2003. Again,reflecting the current weak nationaleconomy, all MSAs saw an increase in thenumber of unemployed residents. TheTampa Bay MSA-aggregate experiencedthe smallest increase in unemploymentfrom January 1999 to January 2002, at52.92%. In comparison, the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA was the hardesthit by the current economic conditions,experiencing a 179.09% increase in thenumber unemployed residents.

UNEMPLOYED WORKERS

Chart 6 - Tampa Bay Region Unemployed Workers


Table M6 - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Unemployed WorkersLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03*Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 9,040 8,581 10,052 11,683 12,726 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 6,698 6,387 7,833 10,134 11,634 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 36,258 36,131 37,956 57,699 67,363 Tampa Bay 51,996 51,099 55,841 79,516 91,611

Comparison UniverseAtlanta, GA MSA 60,816 62,769 61,608 100,414 118,682 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 45,496 44,761 42,966 89,983 112,951 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA 40,249 35,594 32,871 86,805 112,152 Orlando, FL MSA 25,927 23,755 26,241 53,620 68,315 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 19,066 23,331 34,398 53,211 74,917 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 18,160 16,421 15,692 40,852 53,528 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics* CEDR Estimates

Table 6 - Tampa Bay Region Unemployed WorkersLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03*Hernando 1,966 1,865 2,270 2,586 2,833 Hillsborough 14,965 16,141 15,930 24,655 29,119 Manatee 2,564 2,476 3,948 4,616 5,615 Pasco 4,721 4,457 5,647 7,472 8,708 Pinellas 14,593 13,668 14,109 22,956 26,698 Polk 9,036 8,581 10,052 11,683 12,728 Sarasota 4,135 3,911 3,885 5,518 6,075 Tampa Bay 51,980 51,099 55,841 79,486 91,575 Florida 311,000 283,433 304,000 432,000 482,012 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation* CEDR estimate

19

Chart M6A reveals that the preponderanceof the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate’sunemployed workers resides in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. This isnot surprising, given that just over 70% ofTampa Bay’s population reside within theTampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater area.However, it illustrates that an effort toincrease the labor force by reducingunemployment would have more potentialfor success in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA than in the other twosmaller MSAs.

Chart M6B compares the number ofunemployed workers in the southeasternMSAs of the comparison universe with theTampa Bay MSA-aggregate. In January2002, the Atlanta MSA was the onlylocation among the comparison MSAs tohave a larger number of unemployedresidents than the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. However, the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate experienced the smallestincrease in unemployed residents fromJanuary 1999 to January 2002 at 52.92%,or 27,520 persons.

Chart M6C compares the number ofunemployed workers in the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate with the other selectedMSAs in the comparison universe. Amongother selected MSAs, the Austin-SanMarcos MSA (–124.96) experienced thelargest three-year increase in unemployedworkers. Of the selected MSAs, only theAustin-San Marcos MSA had fewerunemployed persons (40,852) than theTampa Bay MSA-aggregate (91,611) inJanuary 2002.

Chart M6B - Southeastern Unemployed Workers Comparison


Chart M6A - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Unemployed Workers


Chart M6C - Selected MSA Unemployed Workers Comparison


Table M7- TampaBay MSA-Aggregate

Chart 7 - Tampa Bay Region Unemployment Rate

20

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

Table 7 displays the change in unemploy-ment rate for the seven counties of theTampa Bay region between January 1999and projected to 2003. During this timeperiod, the region’s unemployment rate wasconsistently lower than the rate for thestate of Florida. Sarasota County hasexperienced the lowest rate (3.43% inJanuary 2002), while Polk County had thehighest rate (5.71% in January 2002).See Chart 7.

Table M7 shows the unemployment ratefor residents of Tampa Bay’s MSAs as wellas other selected MSAs of the comparisonuniverse between January 1999 and January2002 and projected to January 2003.

Table 7 - Tampa Bay Region Unemployment RateLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03*Hernando 4.23% 3.91% 4.52% 5.15% 5.49%Hillsborough 2.84% 2.95% 2.79% 4.27% 4.90%Manatee 2.21% 2.07% 3.15% 3.58% 4.21%Pasco 3.59% 3.28% 3.95% 5.19% 5.86%Pinellas 3.20% 2.94% 2.91% 4.67% 5.30%Polk 4.60% 4.30% 4.82% 5.71% 6.13%Sarasota 2.82% 2.60% 2.49% 3.43% 3.66%Tampa Bay 3.21% 3.07% 3.21% 4.52% 5.07%Florida 4.34% 3.89% 4.02% 5.62% 6.13%Source: CEDR calculation based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency forWorkforce Innovation data; * CEDR estimate

Chart 7 - Tampa Bay Region Unemployment Rate

Source: CEDR calculation based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation data

Table M7 - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Unemployment RateLocation Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03*Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 4.6% 4.3% 4.8% 5.7% 6.1%Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 2.6% 2.4% 2.8% 3.5% 3.9%Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 4.6% 5.2%Tampa Bay 3.2% 3.1% 3.2% 4.5% 5.1%

Comparison UniverseAtlanta, GA MSA 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 4.4% 5.1%Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 2.9% 2.9% 2.7% 5.5% 6.8%Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA 2.9% 2.6% 2.3% 6.0% 7.6%Orlando, FL MSA 3.1% 2.7% 2.9% 5.9% 7.3%Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 2.6% 3.0% 4.2% 6.5% 8.8%Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 2.6% 2.3% 2.1% 5.4% 6.9%Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics* CEDR Estimates


21

Chart M7A reveals that the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate’s unemployment rateclosely mirrors that of the Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. This is to beexpected, as the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA comprises the bulk of thearea’s population and labor force. Thisstandard is projected to hold in the future,as well. The Lakeland-Winter HavenMSA had the highest rate ofunemployment (5.70% as of January 2002),but enjoyed the lowest increase sinceJanuary 1999, rising by 23.91%.

Chart M7B compares the unemploymentrate in three southeastern MSAs with thatof the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. TheTampa Bay MSA-aggregate experiencedthe smallest increase in the unemploymentrate over the 3-year period ending January2002, increasing 41.46%. The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA unemploymentrate rose 150.00% over this same period tolead all MSAs in the comparison universe.

Chart M7C compares the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate’s unemployment ratedecline with three other selected MSAs.The unemployment rate increase in eachof these MSAs was more than twice thatof the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. InJanuary 2002, the Denver-Boulder-Greeley MSA had the highestunemployment rate at 5.97%, while theAustin-San Marcos MSA had thelowest rate of the other selectedcomparison MSAs, at 5.40%. Incomparison, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate unemployment rate was 4.52%.

Chart M7C - Selected MSA Unemployment Rate Comparison


Chart M7B - Southeastern Unemployment Rate Comparison


Chart M7A - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Unemployment Rate


23

his section reports wages and income data for theTampa Bay region by county and for the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate by MSA. The MSA data compare

Tampa Bay against metropolitan areas in the southeast –Atlanta, Charlotte, and Orlando – and other selected MSAs– Austin, Denver, and Phoenix. Additionally, Florida’sdisposable income is benchmarked against Arizona, NorthCarolina, and Texas.

By January 2001, the weighted-average annual wage in theTampa Bay region had risen to $30,667 for a 13.39%growth rate since January 1999. The Finance, Insurance,and Real Estate (FIRE) industry division enjoyed thehighest average wage at $46,763, the average wage in theManufacturing industry division was $37,559, and theaverage wage in the Services industry division was $28,895.

Personal income is the current income received by personsfrom all sources, including investment income and transferpayments, minus their personal contributions for socialinsurance. The data is based on place of residence. Personalincome includes both monetary income (including non-paycheck income, such as employer contributions topensions) and non-monetary income (such as food stampsand net rental value to owner-occupants of their homes).The data includes farming and non-farming, military andcivilian, proprietorships (i.e., self-employment) and wageand salary employment and, therefore, is morecomprehensive than ES202 data that covers non-farm,civilian employees only. Tampa Bay personal income,

aggregated by MSA, grew 6.97% between 1998 and 2000.Among the comparison MSAs, the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA had the highest growth rate at 13.84% andthe Orlando MSA had the slowest growth rate at 8.22%.

Disposable personal income is personal income less certaintax and non-tax payments. The tax payments considered arepayments by persons (excluding social insurance that isalready deducted for calculation of personal income) forincome tax, estate and gift taxes, and property taxes. Non-taxpayments include passport fees, fines and penalties,donations, and tuition and fees paid to government schoolsand hospitals. Disposable personal income is generallyassociated with spending power and household consumptionof private sector goods and services. A disposable personalincome factor is the percentage of personal incomeremaining after certain tax and non-tax payments, asdelineated above, are subtracted from personal income. Thegreater the factor the more spending power for people of ageographic region relative to their personal incomes. In2000, Florida’s disposable income factor (personal incomeless certain tax and non-tax payments) was 0.856, havingdeclined 1.29% since 1998. Florida’s factor is comparable tothat of Arizona, greater than that of North Carolina, and lessthan that of Texas. However, the people of Florida and Texashave seen their spending power – measured by the disposableincome factor – shrink at a faster rate than have the residentsof North Carolina and Arizona.

T

24

WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISION

Table 8 reports average wages and wagegrowth in the Tampa Bay region fromJanuary 1999 to January 2001. The averageannual wage weighted by percent ofemployment by industry division in January1999 was $27,047. By January 2001, thisweighted-average annual wage rose to$30,667, a two-year 13.39% rate of growth.

Panels A through G below reports averagewages and wage growth for each of theseven counties of the Tampa Bay region.

Table M8 reports average annual wages forthe Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate for 1999through 2000. The average annual wage forthe Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate has beencalculated by weighting the annual average

wage for each industry division by thedivision’s percent of total employment.Note that the data upon which Table M8 isbased does not include the industrydivision Public Administration. (PublicAdministration is included in the FloridaES202 data.)

Table 8 - Tampa Bay Region Wages by Industry DivisionsAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth

Division Jan-99 Employment Jan-01 Employment 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $15,065 2.75% $16,074 2.83% 6.70%Mining and Construction $28,529 5.46% $32,229 5.48% 12.97%Manufacturing $32,732 8.69% $37,559 8.28% 14.75%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $36,899 5.11% $44,607 5.20% 20.89%Trade $21,876 23.94% $24,433 24.10% 11.69%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $42,160 6.73% $46,763 6.77% 10.92%Services $25,524 42.17% $28,895 42.34% 13.21%Public Administration $29,246 5.16% $34,572 4.99% 18.21%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $27,047 $30,667 13.39%Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data

Panel A - Hernando CountyAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth

Division Jan-99 Employment Jan-01 Employment 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $17,496 1.80% $19,296 1.82% 10.29%Mining and Construction $23,124 7.61% $24,228 8.75% 4.77%Manufacturing $28,273 4.68% $29,317 4.45% 3.70%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $29,148 4.11% $35,880 3.57% 23.10%Trade $16,848 34.23% $19,080 33.36% 13.25%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $32,172 4.18% $31,860 4.35% -0.97%Services $21,143 34.43% $23,852 35.09% 12.81%Public Administration $28,164 8.96% $33,456 8.60% 18.79%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $21,511 100.00% $24,057 100.00% 11.84%

Panel B - Hillsborough CountyAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth

Division Jan-99 Employment Jan-01 Employment 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $13,824 2.55% $15,384 2.83% 11.28%Mining and Construction $30,360 4.94% $35,124 4.82% 15.69%Manufacturing $31,452 6.56% $35,288 6.41% 12.20%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $39,228 6.57% $47,664 6.81% 21.51%Trade $24,528 22.07% $26,376 22.51% 7.53%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $44,868 8.33% $49,200 8.36% 9.65%Services $27,394 44.36% $31,708 43.71% 15.75%Public Administration $30,984 4.62% $35,700 4.54% 15.22%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $29,227 100.00% $33,171 100.00% 13.49%

Panel C - Manatee CountyAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth

Division Jan-99 Employment Jan-01 Employment 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $13,512 6.69% $13,200 6.57% -2.31%Mining and Construction $26,352 4.53% $29,820 4.50% 13.16%Manufacturing $34,919 12.82% $44,943 11.03% 28.71%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $32,616 2.68% $38,400 2.35% 17.73%Trade $19,020 21.84% $21,624 21.45% 13.69%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $31,728 2.93% $34,464 2.83% 8.62%Services $22,338 43.47% $23,907 46.73% 7.02%Public Administration $27,288 5.03% $31,932 4.55% 17.02%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $23,618 100.00% $26,305 100.00% 11.38%

Panel D - Pasco CountyAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth


Panel E - Pinellas CountyAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth


Panel F - Polk CountyAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth


Panel G - Sarasota CountyAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth


25

In 2000, the annual average wage in theTampa Bay MSA-aggregate was $29,521.This represented a 4.41% increase over the1999 figure. The data reflects the FIREindustry division enjoying the highestaverage wage during 2000 at $42,183.

Panels A through C below contains thethree MSAs of the Tampa Bay aggregate.Panels D through H below contains theMSAs of the comparison universe (exceptfor the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA forwhich data was unavailable). These panels

report average annual wages and wagegrowth from 1999 to 2000. Among thecomparison MSAs, the Austin-San MarcosMSA had the highest 2000 average wage of$43,169, while the Orlando MSA had thelowest 2000 average wage of $29,785.

Table M8 - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Wages by Industry DivisionsAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth

Division Jan-99 Employment Jan-00 Employment 99-00Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $16,636 2.60% $17,097 2.65% 2.77%Mining and Construction $30,670 6.15% $32,340 6.29% 5.44%Manufacturing $34,609 9.86% $36,341 9.66% 5.00%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $38,054 4.84% $40,145 4.89% 5.49%Trade $22,999 27.33% $24,100 27.39% 4.79%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $39,897 7.62% $42,183 7.51% 5.73%Services $27,344 41.58% $28,336 41.61% 3.63%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $28,274 100.00% $29,521 100.00% 4.41%Source: ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages), US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Panel A - Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSAAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth

Division Jan-99 Employment Jan-00 Employment 99-00Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $18,096 5.24% $18,356 5.40% 1.44%Mining and Construction $32,830 8.23% $34,070 7.96% 3.78%Manufacturing $35,204 13.41% $36,452 12.63% 3.55%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $33,852 5.80% $34,840 5.85% 2.92%Trade $22,162 32.47% $22,963 32.88% 3.61%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $33,332 5.33% $34,632 5.57% 3.90%Services $25,792 29.52% $26,988 29.70% 4.64%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $26,920 100.00% $27,842 100.00% 3.42%

Panel B - Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSAAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth

Division Jan-99 Employment Jan-00 Employment 99-00Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $15,392 3.94% $15,496 3.65% 0.68%Construction $28,704 6.59% $30,888 6.64% 7.61%Manufacturing $35,672 9.94% $37,492 9.35% 5.10%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $34,008 2.42% $34,840 2.23% 2.45%Trade $20,031 26.77% $21,239 25.91% 6.03%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $41,964 5.35% $44,148 5.15% 5.20%Services $24,752 44.99% $25,220 47.06% 1.89%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $25,611 100.00% $26,547 100.00% 3.66%

Panel C - Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSAAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth

Division Jan-99 Employment Jan-00 Employment 99-00Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $16,588 1.88% $17,264 1.96% 4.08%Mining and Construction $30,696 5.73% $32,361 5.94% 5.42%Manufacturing $34,216 9.29% $36,036 9.27% 5.32%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $39,208 5.24% $41,600 5.37% 6.10%Trade $23,835 26.66% $24,989 26.86% 4.84%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $40,248 8.50% $42,692 8.39% 6.07%Services $28,132 42.70% $29,328 42.19% 4.25%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $29,091 100.00% $30,508 100.00% 4.87%

Panel D - Atlanta, GA MSAAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth

Division Jan-99 Employment Jan-00 Employment 99-00

Mining and Construction $36,821 6.33% $38,482 6.52% 4.51%Manufacturing $43,472 12.41% $47,008 11.85% 8.13%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $51,428 9.95% $54,288 10.15% 5.56%Trade $29,918 30.67% $31,417 30.62% 5.01%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $52,520 7.40% $56,992 7.30% 8.51%Services $36,140 33.25% $39,052 33.55% 8.06%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $37,918 100.00% $40,477 100.00% 6.75%

Panel E - Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSAAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth


Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $18,876 1.88% $19,916 1.86% 5.51%Mining and Construction $33,840 8.78% $35,070 8.80% 3.63%Manufacturing $45,656 12.26% $50,336 11.94% 10.25%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $39,416 5.93% $41,756 6.08% 5.94%Trade $25,838 27.23% $27,235 27.16% 5.41%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $40,352 8.83% $43,004 8.67% 6.57%Services $29,588 35.09% $33,384 35.48% 12.83%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $32,241 100.00% $34,979 100.00% 8.49%

Panel F - Orlando, FL MSAAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth


Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $20,332 1.88% $21,112 1.92% 3.84%Construction $31,460 6.38% $33,124 6.59% 5.29%Manufacturing $40,716 7.24% $42,172 7.07% 3.58%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $37,024 5.77% $38,636 5.64% 4.35%Trade $22,731 28.11% $24,034 27.64% 5.73%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $36,764 7.03% $40,352 6.13% 9.76%Services $27,508 43.59% $28,704 45.01% 4.35%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $28,439 100.00% $29,785 100.00% 4.73%

Panel G - Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSAAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth


Mining and Construction $33,384 8.25% $34,735 8.29% 4.04%Manufacturing $36,920 21.70% $38,948 20.61% 5.49%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $47,164 8.50% $49,036 8.61% 3.97%Trade $25,991 31.00% $26,717 31.46% 2.79%Services $32,032 30.54% $33,436 31.03% 4.38%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $32,618 100.00% $33,909 100.00% 3.96%

Panel H - Austin-San Marcos, TX MSAAverage Annual Wage % of Total Average Annual Wage % of Total Growth


Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries $21,008 0.97% $22,620 0.96% 7.67%Construction $33,696 7.62% $36,296 7.50% 7.72%Manufacturing $61,568 16.15% $64,376 16.27% 4.56%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities $42,068 4.20% $46,904 4.17% 11.50%Trade $40,033 28.94% $39,647 28.95% -0.96%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate $40,976 6.55% $44,148 6.10% 7.74%Services $34,372 35.58% $37,804 36.04% 9.98%Weighted Avg. Annual Wage $40,977 100.00% $43,169 100.00% 5.35%

26

PERSONAL INCOME

Table 9 - Tampa Bay Region Personal Income1998 2000 % Growth in

Location Aggregate Income* Per Capita Income Aggregate Income* Per Capita Income Per Capita IncomeHernando $2,780,392 $21,784 $3,014,099 $22,921 5.22%Hillsborough $24,667,034 $25,558 $27,541,096 $27,458 7.43%Manatee $7,464,963 $29,370 $8,256,780 $31,064 5.77%Pasco $7,255,721 $21,919 $8,393,310 $24,153 10.19%Pinellas $26,515,267 $29,041 $28,875,630 $31,321 7.85%Polk $10,121,517 $21,469 $11,306,380 $23,285 8.46%Sarasota $11,626,741 $36,466 $12,245,998 $37,430 2.64%Tampa Bay $90,431,635 $26,745 $99,633,293 $28,610 6.97%Florida $405,146,187 $26,161 $445,739,968 $27,764 6.13%Source: Regional Economic Information System (REIS) of the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)* Note: Expressed in thousands of Dollars

Table M9 - Tampa Bay Region Personal Income1998 2000 % Growth in

Location Aggregate Income* Per Capita Income Aggregate Income* Per Capita Income Per Capita IncomeLakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA $10,121,517 $21,469 $11,306,380 $23,285 8.46%Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA $19,091,704 $33,319 $20,502,778 $34,577 3.78%Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA $61,218,414 $26,197 $67,824,135 $28,214 7.70%Tampa Bay $90,431,635 $26,745 $99,633,293 $28,610 6.97%

Comparison UniverseAtlanta, GA MSA $116,795,660 $30,121 $136,832,483 $33,013 9.60%Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA $77,874,169 $25,329 $90,308,896 $27,564 8.82%Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA $78,606,354 $31,947 $94,440,297 $36,370 13.84%Orlando, FL MSA $38,426,208 $24,508 $43,921,185 $26,523 8.22%Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA $40,358,859 $28,212 $46,599,513 $30,901 9.53%Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA $32,797,474 $28,382 $40,483,241 $32,039 12.88%Source: Regional Economic Information System (REIS) of the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); * Note: Expressed in thousands of Dollars

Personal income and per capita personalincome are reported in Table 9. In 2000,the latest year for which data is available,Pinellas County workers received 28.98%of the Tampa Bay region’s aggregatepersonal income. Hillsborough Countyworkers received 27.64%. Workers in theother Tampa Bay counties received smallerproportions of the aggregate personalincome. Per capita personal income washighest in Sarasota County ($37,430) andlowest in Hernando County ($22,921).Between 1998 and 2000, the growth rate inper capita personal income was fastest forPasco County (10.19%) and slowest forSarasota County (2.64%).

In 1998, aggregate personal income for theTampa Bay region was slightly over $90.4billion, and personal income grew to justunder $99.7 billion in 2000. Per capitapersonal income in the Tampa Bay region,$26,745 in 1998, rose 6.97% to $28,610 in

2000. By comparison, the 1998 totalpersonal income for Florida was slightlyover $405.1 billion and grew to just over$445.7 billion in 2000. Per capita personalincome in Florida was $26,161 in 1998,rising 6.13% to $27,764 in 2000.

Table M9 reports 1998 and 2000 Tampa Baypersonal income and per capita personalincome aggregated by its three MSAs, andalso includes personal income data for theselected comparison MSAs. The Tampa BayMSA-aggregate had personal income slightlyover $90.4 billion in 1998 and slightly over$99.6 billion in 2000. The MSA with thehighest per capita income in the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate was Sarasota-Bradenton with$33,319 in 1998 and $34,577 in 2000. In2000, the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSAhad the highest per capita personal income at$36,370. The lowest per capita income in theTampa Bay MSA-aggregate and among thecomparison MSAs was recorded in the

Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA at $21,469 in1998 and $23,285 in 2000.

The growth of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate’s personal income between 1998and 2000 was 6.97%. Among thecomparison MSAs, the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA had the highest growth ratewith 13.84%, and the Orlando MSA hadthe slowest growth rate with 8.22% over thesame time period.

Differences in per capita personal incomeamong the three MSAs of Tampa Bay weresmaller in 2000 than they were in 1998. Thedecline in per capita personal incomedifferences is partly because the MSA withthe highest per capita personal income,Sarasota-Bradenton, experienced a slowergrowth rate than did the MSA with thelowest per capita personal income,Lakeland-Winter Haven.

27

DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME

Table 10 displays aggregate and per capitadisposable personal income for the TampaBay region and the state of Florida. Thetable also contains disposable personalincome data for a selection of other states(Arizona, North Carolina and Texas) forcomparisons. In 1998, 1999, and 2000, percapita disposable income for the TampaBay region exceeded that of Florida as wellas each of the selected comparison states.

Table 11 and Chart 11 show the disposablepersonal income factors for Florida and thecomparison states of Arizona, NorthCarolina, and Texas from 1998 to 2000.Florida’s factor is comparable withArizona’s and higher than that of NorthCarolina, but in Texas people retain about1.5% more of personal income than in theother states including Florida. From 1998through 2000, Florida’s disposable personalincome experienced a 1.29% decline,greater than the declines of Arizona, NorthCarolina, and Texas.

Table 10 - Tampa Bay Region Disposable Personal IncomePer Capita Aggregate Disposable Income

Disposable Income (millions of dollars)Annual Growth

Location 1998 1999 2000 1998 1999 2000 1998-2000 2001^ 2002^Tampa Bay* $23,188 $23,758 $24,490 $78,404 $81,467 $85,286 4.30% $88,950 $92,772 Florida $22,481 $22,995 $23,983 $348,156 $362,384 $385,023 5.16% $404,896 $425,794 Arizona $19,937 $20,645 $21,800 $97,359 $103,716 $112,603 7.54% $121,098 $130,234 North Carolina $21,162 $21,791 $23,138 $165,258 $173,222 $186,893 6.34% $198,751 $211,360 Texas $22,164 $22,931 $24,139 $446,767 $471,422 $505,622 6.38% $537,896 $572,230 Source: Table 5.08, "Florida Statistical Abstract 2000," Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis^ CEDR projection* CEDR Estimate based on Florida's disposable income factor

Chart 11 - Disposable Personal Income Factors for Selected States

Source: Tables 5.05 and 5.08, "Florida Statistical Abstract 2000,"Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida

Table 11 - Disposable Personal Income Factors for Selected States1998-2000

Location 1998 1999 2000 % ChangeFlorida 0.867 0.863 0.856 -1.29%Arizona 0.864 0.862 0.858 -0.73%North Carolina 0.860 0.857 0.854 -0.77%Texas 0.879 0.876 0.870 -0.99%Source: Tables 5.05 and 5.08, "Florida Statistical Abstract 2000,"Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida

Photo Courtesy of: Tampa Bay CVBPhoto Courtesy of: Tampa Bay CVB

29

n this section, statistics that reflect the state of theTampa Bay regional economy are examined. SinceJanuary 1999, the number of businesses in the region

has been growing by about 1.4% per annum. Servicebusinesses continue to be the largest industry divisionwithin the structure of the Tampa Bay regional economy,comprising roughly 40% of all businesses. Over the two-year span from January 1999 to January 2001, the regionexperienced a net gain of 12 manufacturing businesses, butmanufacturing’s percentage of the industry structureshrunk from 4.36% to 4.24%.

Regional economic activity, as measured by gross andtaxable sales, indicates robust growth. Average monthlygross sales in the Tampa Bay region increased 9.12%

over the two-year period from 1999 to 2001.Additionally, there was a two-year growth in single-family construction spending in the Tampa Bay regionof 22.04%.

The annual cost-of-living index, which is prepared by theFlorida Department of Education, reveals that the TampaBay region’s cost of living is slightly lower than Florida-wide costs. However, there is a varied cost-of-livingstructure when the seven counties of the Tampa Bay regionare considered separately. In 2001, the cost of living inHernando County was 6.42% lower than the regional costof living. On the other hand, Pinellas County was the mostexpensive, with a 2001 cost of living about 3% above theTampa Bay region’s average cost of living.

I

30

BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS

Table G1 and Chart G1 show the numberof businesses (participating in Florida’sunemployment insurance program) byindustry division in the seven-countyTampa Bay region in January 1999 and inJanuary 2001. There were 85,217businesses in Tampa Bay in January 1999,and that number rose to 87,996 businessesin January 2001, a 3.26% increase over thetime period.

The most numerous type of establishmentis a service business. Service businessescomprised 39.65% of Tampa Bay’s regionalindustry structure in January 1999. InJanuary 1999, the number of serviceestablishments in the Tampa Bay regionwas 33,789, and by January 2001 thenumber had grown to 35,038, a 3.7%increase.

No industries in the Tampa Bay region,except for the agriculture, forestry,and fisheries and public administrationindustries, experienced a net loss ofestablishments in the past decade.Manufacturing experienced the slowestgrowth in the time period, posting a 0.32%increase.

Panels A through G of Table G1 on page31 depict business establishments byindustry division for each of the sevencounties of the Tampa Bay region.

Chart G1 - Tampa Bay Region Business Establishments by Division

Table G1 - Tampa Bay Region Business Establishments by DivisionEstablishments Percent Establishments Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 2,930 3.44% 2,919 3.32% -0.38%Mining and Construction 8,572 10.06% 8,932 10.15% 4.20%Manufacturing 3,715 4.36% 3,727 4.24% 0.32%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 2,930 3.44% 3,173 3.61% 8.29%Trade 23,101 27.11% 23,580 26.80% 2.07%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 8,034 9.43% 8,929 10.15% 11.14%Services 33,789 39.65% 35,038 39.82% 3.70%Public Administration* 2,146 2.52% 1,698 1.93% -20.88%Totals 85,217 100.00% 87,996 100.00% 3.26%Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data* Public Administration includes Major Group 99 Nonclassifiable Establishments.


31

Table G1

Panel A - Hernando CountyEstablishments Percent Establishments Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 83 3.69% 90 3.68% 8.43Mining and Construction 371 16.48% 417 17.05% 12.40%Manufacturing 72 3.20% 77 3.15% 6.94%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 88 3.91% 101 4.13% 14.77%Trade 606 26.92% 635 25.96% 4.79%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 179 7.95% 209 8.54% 16.76%Services 778 34.56% 852 34.83% 9.51%Public Administration 74 3.29% 65 2.66% -12.16%Totals 2,251 100.00% 2,446 100.00% 8.66%

Panel B - Hillsborough CountyEstablishments Percent Establishments Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 799 3.11% 840 3.11% 5.13%Mining and Construction 2,217 8.64% 2,283 8.46% 2.98%Manufacturing 997 3.89% 1,040 3.86% 4.31%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 961 3.74% 1,046 3.88% 8.84%Trade 7,053 27.49% 7,330 27.18% 3.93%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 2,575 10.03% 2,848 10.56% 10.60%Services 10,427 40.63% 10,982 40.72% 5.32%Public Administration 632 2.46% 603 2.24% -4.59%Totals 25,661 100.00% 26,972 100.00% 5.11%

Panel C - Manatee CountyEstablishments Percent Establishments Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 289 5.06% 264 4.56% -8.65%Mining and Construction 657 11.51% 669 11.55% 1.83%Manufacturing 302 5.29% 279 4.82% -7.62%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 173 3.03% 195 3.37% 12.72%Trade 1,559 27.32% 1,546 26.68% -0.83%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 515 9.02% 541 9.34% 5.05%Services 2,056 36.03% 2,187 37.75% 6.37%Public Administration 156 2.73% 113 1.95% -27.56%Totals 5,707 100.00% 5,794 100.00% 1.52%

Panel D - Pasco CountyEstablishments Percent Establishments Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries 275.00 4.69% 273.00 4.37% -0.73%Mining and Construction 798.00 13.60% 889.00 14.23% 11.40%Manufacturing 182.00 3.10% 197.00 3.15% 8.24%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 227.00 3.87% 253.00 4.05% 11.45%Trade 1,547.00 26.36% 1,686.00 26.98% 8.99%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 502.00 8.55% 573.00 9.17% 14.14%Services 2,188.00 37.28% 2,255.00 36.09% 3.06%Public Administration 150.00 2.56% 123.00 1.97% -18.00%Totals 5,869.00 100.00% 6,249.00 100.00% 6.47%

Panel E - Pinellas CountyEstablishments Percent Establishments Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 551 2.19% 541 2.12% -1.81%Mining and Construction 2,132 8.48% 2,202 8.63% 3.28%Manufacturing 1,281 5.09% 1,275 5.00% -0.47%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 712 2.83% 776 3.04% 8.99%Trade 6,846 27.23% 6,834 26.77% -0.18%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 2,446 9.73% 2,672 10.47% 9.24%Services 10,555 41.98% 10,782 42.24% 2.15%Public Administration 622 2.47% 442 1.73% -28.94%Totals 25,145 100.00% 25,524 100.00% 1.51%

Panel F - Polk CountyEstablishments Percent Establishments Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 594 6.35% 573 6.00% -3.54%Mining and Construction 1,020 10.90% 1,018 10.67% -0.20%Manufacturing 463 4.95% 471 4.93% 1.73%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 460 4.91% 482 5.05% 4.78%Trade 2,683 28.66% 2,779 29.11% 3.58%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 747 7.98% 864 9.05% 15.66%Services 3,157 33.73% 3,191 33.43% 1.08%Public Administration 236 2.52% 167 1.75% -29.24%Totals 9,360 100.00% 9,545 100.00% 1.98%

Panel G - Sarasota CountyEstablishments Percent Establishments Percent Growth

Division Jan-99 of Total Jan-01 of Total 99-01Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 339 3.02% 338 2.95% -0.29%Mining and Construction 1,377 12.27% 1,454 12.68% 5.59%Manufacturing 418 3.72% 388 3.38% -7.18%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 309 2.75% 320 2.79% 3.56%Trade 2,807 25.01% 2,770 24.16% -1.32%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 1,070 9.53% 1,222 10.66% 14.21%Services 4,628 41.23% 4,789 41.77% 3.48%Public Administration 276 2.46% 185 1.61% -32.97%Totals 11,224 100.00% 11,466 100.00% 2.16%

32

Panel A - Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSAEstablishments Percent of Establishments Percent of Growth

Division 1999 Total 2000 Total 99-00Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 586 6.45% 575 6.29% -1.88%Mining and Construction 1,030 11.34% 1,035 11.32% 0.49%Manufacturing 466 5.13% 471 5.15% 1.07%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 453 4.99% 450 4.92% -0.66%Trade 2,679 29.49% 2,724 29.78% 1.68%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 740 8.15% 769 8.41% 3.92%Services 3,130 34.46% 3,123 34.14% -0.22%Totals 9,084 100.00% 9,147 100.00% 0.69%

Panel B - Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSAEstablishments Percent of Establishments Percent of Growth

Division 1999 Total 2000 Total 99-00Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 640 3.84% 622 3.73% -2.81%Construction 2,127 12.75% 2,186 13.10% 2.77%Manufacturing 724 4.34% 676 4.05% -6.63%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 481 2.88% 481 2.88% 0.00%Trade 4,363 26.15% 4,345 26.03% -0.41%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 1,590 9.53% 1,594 9.55% 0.25%Services 6,762 40.52% 6,789 40.67% 0.40%Totals 16,687 100.00% 16,693 100.00% 0.04%

Panel C - Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSAEstablishments Percent of Establishments Percent of Growth

Division 1999 Total 2000 Total 99-00Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 1,710 2.98% 1,726 2.95% 0.94%Mining and Construction 5,572 9.70% 5,845 9.98% 4.90%Manufacturing 2,530 4.40% 2,525 4.31% -0.20%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 1,982 3.45% 2,037 3.48% 2.77%Trade 15,965 27.78% 16,190 27.64% 1.41%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 5,747 10.00% 5,882 10.04% 2.35%Services 23,961 41.70% 24,377 41.61% 1.74%Totals 57,467 100.00% 58,582 100.00% 1.94%

Panel D - Atlanta, GA MSAEstablishments Percent of Establishments Percent of Growth

Division 1999 Total 2000 Total 99-00Mining and Construction 11,692 10.70% 11,692 10.79% 0.00%Manufacturing 4,899 4.48% 4,792 4.42% -2.18%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 4,616 4.22% 4,685 4.33% 1.49%Trade 32,897 30.09% 32,224 29.75% -2.05%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 11,345 10.38% 11,817 10.91% 4.16%Services 43,873 40.13% 43,109 39.80% -1.74%Totals 109,322 100.00% 108,319 100.00% -0.92%

Panel E - Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSAEstablishments Percent of Establishments Percent of Growth

Division 1999 Total 2000 Total 99-00Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 1,946 2.74% 2,003 2.76% 2.93%Mining and Construction 7,144 10.05% 7,388 10.18% 3.42%Manufacturing 3,467 4.88% 3,473 4.78% 0.17%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 2,534 3.56% 2,615 3.60% 3.20%Trade 20,555 28.92% 20,569 28.33% 0.07%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 7,609 10.70% 7,912 10.90% 3.98%Services 27,831 39.15% 28,649 39.46% 2.94%Totals 71,086 100.00% 72,609 100.00% 2.14%

Panel F - Orlando, FL MSAEstablishments Percent of Establishments Percent of Growth

Division 1999 Total 2000 Total 99-00Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 1,320 3.30% 1,355 3.30% 2.65%Construction 3,944 9.85% 4,139 10.07% 4.94%Manufacturing 1,547 3.86% 1,544 3.76% -0.19%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 1,613 4.03% 1,632 3.97% 1.18%Trade 11,976 29.92% 12,135 29.53% 1.33%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 3,859 9.64% 3,992 9.71% 3.45%Services 15,771 39.40% 16,302 39.67% 3.37%Totals 40,030 100.00% 41,099 100.00% 2.67%

Panel G - Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSAEstablishments Percent of Establishments Percent of Growth

Division 1999 Total 2000 Total 99-00Mining and Construction 5,321 14.02% 5,546 14.10% 4.23%Manufacturing 2,619 6.90% 2,670 6.79% 1.95%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 1,619 4.26% 1,696 4.31% 4.76%Trade 13,807 36.37% 14,077 35.79% 1.96%Services 14,597 38.45% 15,341 39.01% 5.10%Totals 37,963 100.00% 39,330 100.00% 3.60%

Panel H - Austin-San Marcos, TX MSAEstablishments Percent of Establishments Percent of Growth

Division 1999 Total 2000 Total 99-00Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 575 2.01% 604 2.03% 5.04%Construction 2,799 9.77% 2,919 9.82% 4.29%Manufacturing 1,419 4.95% 1,447 4.87% 1.97%Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 954 3.33% 1,007 3.39% 5.56%Trade 7,342 25.63% 7,523 25.31% 2.47%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 3,006 10.49% 3,151 10.60% 4.82%Services 12,553 43.82% 13,068 43.97% 4.10%Totals 28,648 100.00% 29,719 100.00% 3.74%

Table M10 - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Business Establishments by Industry DivisionsEstablishments Percent of Establishments Percent of Growth Establishments Establishments

Division 1999 Total 2000 Total 99-00 2001* 2002*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 2,936 3.53% 2,923 3.46% -0.44% 2,910 2,897Mining and Construction 8,729 10.49% 9,066 10.74% 3.86% 9,416 9,780Manufacturing 3,720 4.47% 3,672 4.35% -1.29% 3,625 3,578 Transportation, Comm., & Utilities 2,916 3.50% 2,968 3.52% 1.78% 3,021 3,075 Trade 23,007 27.64% 23,259 27.55% 1.10% 23,514 23,771 Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 8,077 9.70% 8,245 9.77% 2.08% 8,416 8,592 Services 33,853 40.67% 34,289 40.62% 1.29% 34,731 35,178 Totals 83,238 100.00% 84,422 100.00% 1.42% 85,623 86,841 Source: ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages), US Bureau of Labor Statistics* CEDR Estimate

Table M10 reports the number ofbusinesses (participating in a State’sunemployment insurance program) byindustry division in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate in 1999 (the earliest year forwhich data is nationally available) and2000. Business establishments reported inthis table are based on ES202 data releasedby the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statisticscovering MSAs throughout the nation.

(Note that the national data upon whichTable M10 is based does not includeindustry division, Public Administration.Public Administration is included in theFlorida-ES202 data.)

There were 83,238 business establishmentsin the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate in 1999and 84,422 in 2000, for a 1.42% growthrate. Service businesses were the most

common, comprising slightly over 40% ofthe Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate industrystructure in 2000. That same year,manufacturing businesses accounted for4.35% of the structure.

Panels A through C of Table M10 reportthe number of business establishments ineach of the three MSAs of the Tampa BayMSA-aggregate for 1999 and 2000.

33

GROSS SALES & TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY

Gross and taxable sales data was obtainedfrom the Florida Department of Revenue,and its use in this report is intended as ameasure of economic activity. That is,increased (decreased) sales are interpretedas an indication of increased (decreased)economic activity. However, it is noted thatmost services are exempted from the salestax. Gross sales are the sum of taxable andnon-taxable sales as reported monthly bybusinesses to the Florida Department ofRevenue.

Tables G2 and G3 contain averagemonthly gross sales and average monthlytaxable sales, respectively, by each countyof the Tampa Bay region, for the two-yearperiod between 1999 and 2001. Chart G2displays the average monthly gross andtaxable sales for the same time period on aregional basis.

Average monthly gross sales in the TampaBay region increased by 9.12% over thetwo-year period from 1999 to 2001.Average monthly taxable sales in theTampa Bay region increased by 8.91% overthe same time period. Both of thesestatistics are indicative of robust economicgrowth between 1999 and 2001. And, bothstatistics are comparable to Florida’s15.00% two-year gain in average monthlygross sales and 9.53% two-year gain inaverage monthly taxable sales.

Measured by gross sales, most economicactivity ($3.6 billion per month out of theTampa Bay region’s $9.4 billion per monthin 2001) takes place in HillsboroughCounty, followed by Pinellas County with$2.4 billion per month and Polk Countywith $1.2 billion per month.

Chart G2 - Tampa Bay Region Average Monthly Sales

Source: Florida Department of Revenue

Table G2 - Tampa Bay Region Average Monthly Gross Sales by County% Growth in

Location 1999 2000 2001 1999-2001Hernando $324,007,192 $327,256,069 $345,758,194 6.71%Hillsborough $3,322,405,495 $3,609,879,872 $3,618,298,372 8.91%Manatee $510,504,004 $558,040,242 $601,744,023 17.87%Pasco $500,704,526 $457,977,239 $482,363,740 -3.66%Pinellas $2,161,604,748 $2,386,215,655 $2,398,891,765 10.98%Polk $1,148,649,696 $1,229,711,129 $1,229,802,503 7.07%Sarasota $708,076,282 $777,423,553 $789,929,162 11.56%Tampa Bay $8,675,951,944 $9,346,503,759 $9,466,787,759 9.12%Florida $44,915,553,365 $49,973,527,439 $51,652,699,425 15.00%

Table G3 - Tampa Bay Region Average Monthly Taxable Sales by County% Growth in

Location 1999 2000 2001 1999-2001Hernando $75,533,591 $79,746,248 $83,636,382 10.73%Hillsborough $1,383,156,899 $1,458,453,130 $1,504,908,853 8.80%Manatee $240,827,158 $260,819,447 $282,626,516 17.36%Pasco $225,043,612 $241,648,263 $256,683,245 14.06%Pinellas $958,690,294 $1,013,609,864 $1,026,141,584 7.04%Polk $465,269,688 $479,260,735 $482,516,550 3.71%Sarasota $401,414,912 $439,707,157 $447,400,551 11.46%Tampa Bay $3,749,936,154 $3,973,244,844 $4,083,913,680 8.91%Florida $19,535,190,309 $20,906,129,751 $21,396,717,339 9.53%Source: Florida Department of Revenue

34

Housing permits issued by countyauthorities and construction spending(aggregate value) represented by thepermits are another indication of regionaleconomic activity. Tables G4 and G5report annual data (for years 1999 through2001) for housing permits andconstruction spending, respectively, for theseven-county Tampa Bay region. TheManufacturing and Construction Division,Bureau of the Census, distributes the dataset of construction authorized by buildingpermits. The data set is primarily based onreports submitted to the Bureau by localbuilding permit officials in response to amail survey, although some data may begenerated by Census Bureau interviewersor imputed from past data.

Table G4 reveals a two-year growth rate insingle family housing permits in theTampa Bay region of 22.04%. However,during this same period permits issued formulti-family housing declined by 22.50%.By comparison, Florida’s two-year growthrate in single-family housing permits was11.39%, and the number of multi-familyhousing permits issued statewide duringthe same period declined by 16.89%.

However, the growth in the number ofpermits issued, particularly for multi-family housing, was not evenly distributedamong the Tampa Bay region’s counties.Polk County experienced the biggestgrowth in the region for single-familyhousing permits, with a two-year 29.39%rate. Hernando County experienced theslowest growth in single-family housingpermits, with a two-year 9.78% increase.Furthermore, while four counties of TampaBay experienced a decline in the number ofmulti-family permits issued from 1999 to2001, Manatee (509.24%) experienced asix-fold increase in the number of permitsissued over the same two-year period.

Chart G4 - Tampa Bay Region Housing Permits

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division

Table G4 - Tampa Bay Region Housing Permits1999 2000 2001 % Growth 1999-2001

Location Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-FamilyHernando 1,217 37 1,150 176 1,336 211 9.78% 470.27%Hillsborough 7,152 7,513 7,328 4,328 8,508 2,463 18.96% -67.22%Manatee 2,625 238 2,848 604 3,214 1,450 22.44% 509.24%Pasco 3,115 709 3,021 465 3,976 915 27.64% 29.06%Pinellas 1,825 1,412 1,794 982 2,006 2,399 9.92% 69.90%Polk 2,967 912 3,520 1,226 3,839 682 29.39% -25.22%Sarasota 2,959 1,186 3,041 617 3,799 1,185 28.39% -0.08%Tampa Bay 21,860 12,007 22,702 8,398 26,678 9,305 22.04% -22.50%Florida 106,569 58,153 106,447 48,822 118,702 48,333 11.39% -16.89%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division

HOUSING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SPENDING

35

Table G5 reports the constructionspending associated with the housingpermits discussed above. There was a two-year (1999 to 2001) growth in single-family construction spending in the TampaBay region of 37.97%, and a two-yeargrowth rate for multi-family constructionof 2.55%. By comparison, the growth ratesfor the entire state of Florida over the sametime span were 27.23% for single-familyconstruction spending and 0.67% formulti-family construction spending.

In Pinellas County, there was little growthin single-family construction spendingbetween 1999 and 2001. Sarasota andPasco counties experienced over 50%growth in single-family constructionspending from 1999 to 2001, whileHernando, Hillsborough, Pinellas, andSarasota counties all experienced over100% growth in multi-family constructionspending over the same time.

Table G5 - Tampa Bay Region Construction Spending (in thousands)1999 2000 2001 % Growth 1999-2001

Location Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-FamilyHernando $110,358 $1,584 $131,044 $6,880 $161,857 $6,958 46.67% 339.12%Hillsborough $624,080 $470,151 $655,550 $339,686 $765,702 $203,047 22.69% -56.81%Manatee $313,316 $17,197 $380,633 $31,241 $466,705 $88,005 48.96% 411.73%Pasco $287,185 $44,074 $310,336 $27,048 $439,063 $52,709 52.89% 19.59%Pinellas $315,037 $110,835 $312,987 $97,955 $364,278 $229,965 15.63% 107.48%Polk $243,358 $41,444 $276,665 $54,015 $300,911 $26,173 23.65% -36.85%Sarasota $382,918 $56,002 $436,757 $43,517 $642,040 $153,342 67.67% 173.82%Tampa Bay $2,276,251 $741,288 $2,503,971 $600,342 $3,140,556 $760,198 37.97% 2.55%Florida $12,259,133 $3,842,846 $13,539,656 $3,922,756 $15,596,898 $3,868,502 27.23% 0.67%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division

Chart G5 - Tampa Bay Region Construction Spending

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division

Table M11 compares the growth rate in thenumber of housing permits issued in theTampa Bay MSA-aggregate from 1999 to2001 with the growth rate in the number ofpermits issued in the MSAs of thecomparison universe.

The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate’s growthrate for the time period 1999-2001 forsingle-family permits was 22.04%, thehighest rate of any of the comparisonMSAs. By comparison, over the same timespan, the Austin-San Marcos MSAexperienced the greatest rate of decline insingle-family permits at 22.12%. Multi-

family housing permits issued in the TampaBay MSA-aggregate declined by 22.50%.Among the comparison universe, the fastestrate of growth in multi-family housingpermits issued was the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA’s 101.51% and the greatestdecline in multi-family permit growth wasthe 49.95% decline experienced by theOrlando MSA.

Table M12 reports the construction spendingassociated with the housing permits shown inTable M11. In the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate, single-family constructionspending grew by 37.97% and multi-family

spending grew by 2.55% between 1999 and2001. By comparison, over the same timespan, the Austin-San Marcos MSAexperienced the greatest decline, 17.68%, forsingle-family construction spending, and theOrlando MSA had the highest growth rate(exclusive of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate)of 16.45% for single-family constructionspending. For multi-family constructionspending among the MSAs of the comparisonuniverse, the Denver-Boulder-GreeleyCMSA had the highest growth rate at112.50%, and the lowest rate was the 42.76%decline experienced by the Orlando MSA.

Table M11 - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Housing Permits1999 2001 % Growth 1999-2001

Location Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-FamilyLakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 2,967 912 3,839 682 29.39% -25.22%Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 5,584 1,424 7,013 2,635 25.59% 85.04%Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 13,309 9,671 15,826 5,988 18.91% -38.08%Tampa Bay 21,860 12,007 26,678 9,305 22.04% -22.50%

Comparison UniverseAtlanta, GA MSA 48,275 12,771 48,423 16,845 0.31% 31.90%Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 38,448 9,265 37,170 8,930 -3.32% -3.62%Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA 22,363 7,021 20,358 14,148 -8.97% 101.51%Orlando, FL MSA 16,368 13,225 16,700 6,619 2.03% -49.95%Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 17,944 6,531 16,831 5,588 -6.20% -14.44%Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 11,704 8,193 9,115 8,699 -22.12% 6.18%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division

36

Table M12 - Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Construction Spending (in thousands)1999 2001 % Growth 1999-2001

Location Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-FamilyLakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA $243,358 $41,444 $300,906 $26,171 23.65% -36.85%Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA $696,234 $73,199 $1,108,740 $241,341 59.25% 229.71%Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA $1,336,659 $626,644 $1,730,892 $492,669 29.49% -21.38%Tampa Bay $2,276,251 $741,287 $3,140,538 $760,181 37.97% 2.55%

Comparison UniverseAtlanta, GA MSA $5,456,758 $667,734 $5,638,625 $993,180 3.33% 48.74%Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA $4,963,226 $507,501 $5,334,407 $521,454 7.48% 2.75%Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA $2,990,877 $447,761 $2,923,467 $951,499 -2.25% 112.50%Orlando, FL MSA $1,927,168 $685,104 $2,244,175 $391,922 16.45% -42.79%Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA $1,930,804 $291,029 $2,117,859 $327,295 9.69% 12.46%Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA $1,398,732 $342,138 $1,151,447 $325,311 -17.68% -4.92%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division

COST OF LIVING

Table G6 provides relative costs of livingand county rankings for 1999, 2000, and2001. The relative cost-of-living index isprepared and released annually by theFlorida Department of Education. Theaverage cost of living in a given year is setat 100, and a Florida county’s relative costof living is expressed as a percentage ofthe average. For example, in 1999,Hernando County’s relative cost of livingwas 91.71% of the average, or 8.29%below average. The county’s rank is alsoshown. In the example, HernandoCounty ranked 47th in 1999. That is, only20 other counties had a lower cost ofliving in 1999 than Hernando.

From 1999 through 2001, the weightedaverage cost-of-living index for the TampaBay region has been slightly below 100%indicating that Tampa Bay’s cost of living islower than Florida-wide costs. Over theperiod, only Hernando County has enjoyeda cost of living at about 5% or more belowaverage for Florida. In fact, in Hernandocosts have become relatively cheaper, asindicated by the county’s increasing rankfrom 47 in 1999 to 55 in 2001. On theother hand, counties with above-averagerelative costs of living are Sarasota andPinellas. Pinellas is the most expensivecounty in Tampa Bay, ranking 5th in thestate with a relative index of 101.94% in2001. From 1999 through 2001, both PolkCounty and Pasco County have seendramatic decreases in their cost-of-livingrankings, both declining by at least 18spots during that period.

Putting these figures into a largerperspective, according to the AmericanFederation of Teachers Interstate Cost ofLiving Index, Florida ranked 29th in2000, meaning that only 22 states(including the District of Columbia) had alower cost of living.

37

Table G6 - Tampa Bay Region Relative Cost of Living IndexLocation 1999 Rank 2000 Rank 2001 RankHernando 91.71% 47 92.93% 49 92.53% 55Hillsborough 100.48% 7 100.31% 7 99.86% 8Manatee 99.27% 10 96.93% 16 98.49% 9Pasco 96.36% 17 96.38% 20 95.06% 35Pinellas 103.34% 5 101.41% 6 101.94% 5Polk 95.93% 19 95.24% 26 95.44% 29Sarasota 100.57% 6 100.20% 8 100.10% 7Tampa Bay* 99.78% 98.96% 98.95%Source: Florida Department of Education* Tampa Bay is the 7-county average weighted by population for each county.


38

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BEFORE & AFTER 9/11

It is widely accepted that the terrorist attacksof September 11, 2001 had significantimpacts on the U.S. economy. We examineselected measures of the region’s economicactivity before and after the terrorist attacks.When interpreting these measures, wecaution that it is difficult, at best, to separatethe 9/11 impacts from the effects of anational recession that is generally

recognized to have begun in March 2001.

Appendix A: Selected Economic Indicatorsfor Tampa Bay before September 11, 2001shows labor market measures as well as grosssales, bed tax revenues, and housing permits.The monthly measurements shown are forAugust, September, and October in the years1999, 2000, and 2001. Notably, the

unemployment rate increased to 4.06% inOctober 2001 from 3.86% in September2001. In both 1999 and 2000, theunemployment rate declined in Octoberfrom the previous September. Gross sales fellto $8.5 billion in October 2001 from almost$8.9 billion in September 2001. Bed taxrevenues also fell to $2.25 million in October2001 from $2.50 million in September 2001.

APPENDIX B: Selected Economic Indicators For Tampa Bay After September 11, 2001Period Labor Force % Change Employment % Change Unemployment % Change Unemployment Rate % ChangeAug-01 1,807,692 1,740,644 67,048 3.71%Sep-01 1,797,437 -0.57% 1,728,042 -0.72% 69,395 3.50% 3.86% 4.09%Oct-01 1,798,665 0.07% 1,725,556 -0.14% 73,109 5.35% 4.06% 5.28%Nov-01 1,799,733 0.06% 1,725,894 0.02% 73,839 1.00% 4.10% 0.94%Dec-01 1,798,718 -0.06% 1,725,473 -0.02% 73,235 -0.82% 4.07% -0.76%Jan-02 1,757,947 -2.27% 1,676,877 -2.82% 81,070 10.70% 4.61% 13.27%Feb-02 1,763,459 0.31% 1,687,325 0.62% 76,134 -6.09% 4.32% -6.38%Mar-02 1,769,150 0.32% 1,695,550 0.49% 73,600 -3.33% 4.16% -3.64%Apr-02 1,772,046 0.16% 1,695,683 0.01% 76,273 3.63% 4.30% 3.46%May-02 1,783,901 0.67% 1,708,109 0.73% 75,792 -0.63% 4.25% -1.29%Jun-02 1,785,238 0.07% 1,701,196 -0.40% 84,042 10.89% 4.71% 10.80%Jul-02 1,806,106 1.17% 1,722,360 1.24% 83,746 -0.35% 4.64% -1.50%Aug-02 1,811,225 0.28% 1,724,207 0.11% 87,018 3.91% 4.80% 3.61%Sep-02 1,787,939 -1.29% 1,701,913 -1.29% 85,306 -1.97% 4.77% -0.69%Oct-02 1,786,093 -0.10% 1,705,044 0.18% 81,049 -4.99% 4.54% -4.89%

Period Gross Sales % Change Tourism-Bed Tax % Change Housing Permits % ChangeAug-01 $8,554,599,592 3,181,379 2,844 Sep-01 $8,878,204,880 3.78% 2,503,693 -21.30% 2,751 -3.27%Oct-01 $8,502,341,527 -4.23% 2,353,028 -6.02% 2,461 -10.54%Nov-01 $8,570,851,140 0.81% 2,678,601 13.84% 3,145 27.79%Dec-01 $8,273,677,721 -3.47% 2,706,130 1.03% 3,026 -3.78%Jan-02 $12,706,386,386 53.58% 3,361,695 24.23% 3,810 25.91%Feb-02 $9,073,167,994 -28.59% 4,773,364 41.99% 3,130 -17.85%Mar-02 $8,492,423,676 -6.40% 5,831,055 22.16% 2,865 -8.47%Apr-02 $10,259,305,538 20.81% 4,856,061 -16.72% 3,252 13.51%May-02 $8,169,398,912 -20.37% 3,862,988 -20.45% 3,031 -6.80%Jun-02 $7,872,974,696 -3.63% 3,186,800 -17.50% 3,226 6.43%Jul-02 $8,005,034,374 1.68% 3,299,550 3.54% 3,841 19.06%Aug-02 $8,896,414,995 11.14% 4,207 9.53%Sep-02 2,382 -43.38%Oct-02Source: Compiled from CEDR Databases. Series reflect most recent data available at publication.

APPENDIX A: Selected Economic Indicators For Tampa Bay Before September 11, 2001Period Labor Force % Change Employment % Change Unemployment % Change Unemployment Rate % ChangeAug-99 1,692,963 1,642,317 50,646 2.99%Sep-99 1,691,404 -0.09% 1,638,911 -0.21% 52,493 3.65% 3.10% 3.74%Oct-99 1,702,508 0.66% 1,652,159 0.81% 50,349 -4.08% 2.96% -4.71%Aug-00 1,726,417 1,676,385 50,032 2.90%Sep-00 1,726,060 -0.02% 1,674,020 -0.14% 52,040 4.01% 3.01% 4.03%Oct-00 1,741,432 0.89% 1,692,602 1.11% 48,830 -6.17% 2.80% -7.00%Aug-01 1,807,692 1,740,644 67,048 3.71%Sep-01 1,797,437 -0.57% 1,728,042 -0.72% 69,395 3.50% 3.86% 4.09%Oct-01 1,798,665 0.07% 1,725,556 -0.14% 73,109 5.35% 4.06% 5.28%

Period Gross Sales % Change Tourism-Bed Tax % Change Housing Permits % ChangeAug-99 $8,000,177,229 $2,969,575 3,919 Sep-99 $8,267,901,858 3.35% $2,554,513 -13.98% 2,456 -37.33%Oct-99 $8,560,931,374 3.54% $2,793,191 9.34% 2,893 17.79%Aug-00 $8,250,374,961 $3,149,386 2,374 Sep-00 $8,553,502,499 3.67% $2,825,765 -10.28% 3,045 28.26%Oct-00 $9,410,973,384 10.02% $2,910,149 2.99% 2,034 -33.20%Aug-01 $8,554,599,591 $3,181,379 2,844 Sep-01 $8,878,204,880 3.78% $2,503,693 -21.30% 2,751 -3.27%Oct-01 $8,502,341,527 -4.23% $2,353,028 -6.02% 2,461 -10.54%Source: Compiled from CEDR Databases.

39

In 1999 and 2000, both gross sales and thebed tax revenues increased in October fromthe previous September.

Appendix B: Selected Economic Indicatorsfor Tampa Bay after September 11, 2001depicts the same measures as shown inAppendix A. The monthly measurementsrun from August 2001 to the most recentmonth for which data is available in 2002.Since the unemployment rate was 4.06% inOctober 2001, it increased to 4.54% byOctober 2002. However, gross sales appear tohave quickly recovered, so that August 2002sales of nearly $8.9 billion exceed any singlemonth in the August to December 2001

period. Bed tax revenues have similarlyresponded. July 2002 revenues of $3.3million are higher than any single month inthe August to December 2001 period.

Appendix C: Selected Economic Indicatorsfor Tampa Bay by County after September11, 2001 reports the unemployment rate,gross sales, and bed tax revenues by countyfrom August 2001 to the most recent monthfor which data is available in 2002. FromSeptember 2001 to October 2001, PinellasCounty experienced the biggest jump, amongTampa Bay counties, in its unemploymentrate. In Pinellas County, the unemploymentrate increased to 3.94% in October 2001

from 3.51% in September 2001. In Polk andSarasota counties, unemployment declinedbetween September and October 2001. AllTampa Bay counties had higherunemployment rates in September 2002 thanin September 2001. Year over year, August2001 to August 2002, only Pinellas Countyreports a decline in gross sales. For allcounties, except Hernando and Pasco, thereis a drop in bed tax revenues from August2001 to September 2001. The biggest changewas a $342,490 decline in Pinellas County.The data indicate that by March 2002 bed,tax revenues for all counties were above theAugust 2001 levels.

APPENDIX C: Selected Economic Indicators for Tampa Bay by County After September 11, 2001Panel A: Unemployment RatePeriod Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota Tampa BayAug-01 3.42% 3.36% 3.25% 3.72% 3.34% 6.88% 2.45% 3.71%Sep-01 3.76% 3.47% 3.27% 3.76% 3.51% 6.78% 3.18% 3.86%Oct-01 4.05% 3.71% 3.65% 4.14% 3.94% 6.28% 3.11% 4.06%Nov-01 4.31% 3.89% 3.44% 4.45% 4.15% 5.59% 2.92% 4.10%Dec-01 4.29% 3.86% 3.26% 4.41% 4.08% 5.78% 2.83% 4.07%Jan-02 5.31% 4.38% 3.61% 5.31% 4.75% 5.80% 3.47% 4.61%Feb-02 4.83% 4.15% 3.42% 4.88% 4.57% 5.33% 2.90% 4.32%Mar-02 4.91% 3.97% 3.36% 4.74% 4.36% 5.17% 2.80% 4.16%Apr-02 5.38% 4.11% 3.46% 5.02% 4.43% 5.17% 3.21% 4.30%May-02 5.37% 4.16% 3.42% 4.90% 4.27% 5.24% 2.99% 4.25%Jun-02 5.94% 4.58% 3.82% 5.40% 4.47% 6.54% 3.27% 4.71%Jul-02 5.57% 4.38% 4.04% 5.02% 4.24% 7.17% 3.43% 4.64%Aug-02 5.52% 4.56% 4.45% 5.06% 4.42% 7.54% 3.22% 4.80%Sep-02 5.24% 4.49% 4.40% 4.99% 4.46% 7.11% 3.70% 4.77%Oct-02 4.78% 4.31% 4.27% 4.79% 4.41% 6.30% 3.41% 4.54%

Panel B: Gross SalesPeriod Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota Tampa BayAug-01 $335,726,551 $3,242,318,096 $517,443,287 $448,409,700 $2,210,143,640 $1,122,361,013 $678,197,304 $8,554,599,592 Sep-01 $345,967,150 $3,622,326,825 $512,984,211 $444,974,478 $2,104,094,622 $1,125,261,904 $722,595,690 $8,878,204,880 Oct-01 $317,702,442 $3,274,217,842 $537,561,363 $450,379,822 $2,125,921,176 $1,107,983,541 $688,575,341 $8,502,341,527 Nov-01 $342,439,149 $3,291,428,810 $529,978,541 $446,509,966 $2,112,943,222 $1,148,359,256 $699,192,197 $8,570,851,140 Dec-01 $368,233,391 $3,104,403,129 $559,397,072 $444,911,378 $1,963,890,299 $1,111,142,029 $721,700,422 $8,273,677,721 Jan-02 $380,431,481 $4,643,576,736 $835,944,813 $594,749,670 $3,650,825,477 $1,527,395,593 $1,073,462,614 $12,706,386,386 Feb-02 $322,702,770 $3,533,605,027 $619,820,217 $495,202,201 $2,231,964,421 $1,070,845,420 $799,027,937 $9,073,167,994 Mar-02 $326,137,684 $3,186,631,418 $555,168,259 $478,676,143 $2,107,419,413 $1,051,604,804 $786,785,954 $8,492,423,676 Apr-02 $356,669,690 $3,804,794,554 $695,080,777 $544,285,524 $2,412,793,641 $1,460,883,942 $984,797,409 $10,259,305,538 May-02 $367,594,534 $3,705,891,365 $595,732,732 $501,620,110 $2,172,868,714 $1,199,594,621 $814,168,140 $9,357,470,217 Jun-02 $363,977,230 $3,567,243,429 $596,042,218 $493,335,367 $2,270,760,634 $1,254,659,142 $783,549,170 $9,329,567,190 Jul-02 $330,677,553 $3,686,141,894 $604,906,990 $516,653,571 $2,508,940,990 $1,290,818,105 $792,287,090 $9,730,426,194 Aug-02 $358,611,344 $3,589,346,690 $519,697,907 $472,070,283 $2,051,924,233 $1,185,185,225 $719,579,314 $8,896,414,995

Source: Compiled from CEDR Databases. Series reflect most recent data available at publication.

Panel C: Tourism-Bed TaxPeriod Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota Tampa BayAug-01 $14,498 $1,162,925 $158,149 $43,878 $1,052,369 $349,445 $400,115 $3,181,379 Sep-01 $17,466 $1,011,684 $109,250 $45,585 $709,879 $310,062 $299,767 $2,503,693 Oct-01 $17,356 $858,465 $126,426 $30,931 $924,042 $201,612 $194,196 $2,353,028 Nov-01 $20,709 $1,105,828 $140,610 $27,545 $888,680 $239,675 $255,554 $2,678,601 Dec-01 $19,981 $1,006,436 $188,164 $38,265 $870,331 $267,139 $315,814 $2,706,130 Jan-02 $26,537 $984,715 $334,008 $61,166 $1,306,008 $244,714 $404,547 $3,361,695 Feb-02 $30,448 $1,387,040 $413,275 $73,204 $1,780,592 $283,111 $805,694 $4,773,364 Mar-02 $35,528 $1,656,656 $461,512 $84,993 $2,318,746 $379,757 $893,863 $5,831,055 Apr-02 $23,174 $1,806,432 $249,182 $79,701 $1,626,057 $ - $1,071,515 $4,856,061 May-02 $21,129 $1,385,812 $173,920 $65,958 $1,265,703 $369,036 $581,430 $3,862,988 Jun-02 $19,271 $1,050,369 $204,041 $60,086 $1,253,646 $246,732 $352,655 $3,186,800 Jul-02 $20,672 $1,077,315 $213,562 $40,212 $1,309,730 $256,809 $381,250 $3,299,550

Source: Florida Department of Revenue. Series reflect most recent data available at publication.Polk County April 2002 data had not been posted by publication.

Photo taken by Jason Marsh of USF



41

his section reports indicators of the state of public highschool education in the Tampa Bay Region. The FloridaDepartment of Education supplies statistics by county

and CEDR calculated regional averages weighted by thestudent population of each county.

For the academic year ending in 2001, the Tampa Bayregion’s graduation rate was 66.6%. Additionally, the region’spublic high school dropout rate was 3.8%, mirroring that ofthe state of Florida.

Between 1999 and 2001, average SAT scores in the TampaBay region have been in the 1013 to 1015 range, out of 1600maximum possible points.

On average, the Tampa Bay region’s average high school classsize has been smaller than the statewide size. Overall,regional class size averaged between 24 and 27 pupils in2001. In Tampa Bay, average per-pupil expenditures for alltypes of educational programs at the high school levelincreased from about $5,216 in 1998-1999 to about $5,832in 2000-2001.

T

42

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES

Table G7 reports public high schoolgraduation rates for the Tampa Bay region.In the academic years ending 1999, 2000,and 2001 the region’s graduation rates were64.0%, 65.1%, and 66.6%, respectively.The region’s graduation rates werecomputed by CEDR as a weighted average,by student population, of the rates for eachof the seven counties of the Tampa Bayregion.

Chart G7 compares the Tampa Bayregion’s public high school graduation rateswith state of Florida rates. The chart showsthat since 1999, the Tampa Bay region hasexceeded the statewide graduation rate.

Table G8 reports public high schooldropout rates for 1999 through 2001 in theTampa Bay region, and Chart G8compares the region’s dropout rates withthose of the entire state of Florida. Like thegraduation rates above, the region’s dropoutrates were computed by CEDR as aweighted average by student population.

For the academic year ending in 1999, theTampa Bay region’s public high schooldropout rate was just over 5%. The TampaBay region’s dropout rate for the academicyears ending in 2000 and 2001 was 3.8%.For the three years examined, the TampaBay region’s public high school averagedropout rate has been approximately thesame as the statewide rate.

Table G7 - Tampa Bay Region High School Graduation RatesAcademic Year Ending

Location 1999 2000 2001Hernando 68.7% 67.4% 67.8%Hillsborough 69.5% 71.4% 74.4%Manatee 56.2% 61.4% 65.2%Pasco 63.5% 64.8% 65.9%Pinellas 65.3% 64.3% 64.4%Polk 53.3% 55.3% 52.6%Sarasota 63.0% 63.4% 70.3%Tampa Bay 64.0% 65.1% 66.6%Florida 60.2% 62.3% 63.8%Source: Florida Department of Education

Table G8 - Tampa Bay Region High School Dropout RatesAcademic Year Ending

Location 1999 2000 2001Hernando 6.1% 2.9% 2.0%Hillsborough 4.2% 2.6% 2.7%Manatee 7.4% 6.3% 4.5%Pasco 5.5% 4.4% 4.3%Pinellas 3.7% 3.1% 4.2%Polk 8.7% 5.9% 5.8%Sarasota 7.6% 3.6% 3.1%Tampa Bay 5.4% 3.8% 3.8%Florida 5.4% 4.6% 3.8%Source: Florida Department of Education

Chart G7 - Tampa Bay Region High School Graduation Rates Comparison

Source: Florida Department of Education

HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES

Photo taken by Jason Marsh of USF

43

SCHOLASTIC ASSESSMENT TEST SCORES

In Table G9 average Scholastic AssessmentTest (SAT) scores for students in TampaBay are reported for each county foracademic years 1999 through 2001. Thetable includes weighted average (bystudent population) test scores for theTampa Bay region.

The region’s weighted average test scoreshave been in the 1013 to 1015 range ascompared to Florida’s range of 993 to 995over the same time span. See Chart G9,below. For additional comparisons, wenote that national average test scores were1016 and 1019 in 1999 and 2000,respectively (reference 2001 StatisticalAbstract of the United States, published bythe U.S. Census Bureau, Economics andStatistics Administration).

Table G9 - Tampa Bay Region SAT ScoresAcademic Year Ending

Location 1999 2000 2001Hernando 997 1008 1004Hillsborough 1012 1011 1005Manatee 1007 988 996Pasco 1019 1010 1008Pinellas 1028 1029 1038Polk 985 984 980Sarasota 1060 1053 1065Tampa Bay 1015 1013 1015Florida 993 995 993Source: Florida Department of Education

Chart G8 - Tampa Bay Region High School Dropout Rates Comparison


Chart G9 - Tampa Bay Region SAT Scores



44

HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZES

Table G10 lists average public high schoolclass sizes for the seven counties of theTampa Bay region and a weighted average(by student population) of the sevencounty averages to represent the TampaBay region. Average class sizes are listedby academic subjects: language arts,mathematics, science, and social studies.

The Tampa Bay region’s average publichigh school size has been less than thestatewide average class size in Floridafrom 1999 to 2001. See Chart G10 below.

The Tampa Bay region’s per-pupilexpenditures for high school by type ofeducational program are in Table G11.The table covers academic years 1998-1999 through 2000-2001. The regionalexpenditures are computed as a weightedaverage, by student population, of each ofthe seven counties of Tampa Bay.

Chart G10 - Tampa Bay Region High School Class Size


Table G10 - Tampa Bay Region High School Class Size(average number of students per class)

Language Arts Math Science Social StudiesLocation 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001 1999 2000 2001Hernando 22.8 21.6 22.3 22.9 22.3 23.4 25.1 23.9 24.8 25.5 25.4 24.6Hillsborough 22.7 22.7 22.8 25.6 24.8 25.2 26.8 26.0 26.0 28.5 27.4 28.5Manatee 25.9 27.1 23.7 25.5 26.2 24.3 26.8 26.9 26.4 27.9 27.4 26.2Pasco 21.9 22.5 22.3 22.9 23.6 22.8 22.9 24.1 23.2 23.3 23.1 23.1Pinellas 27.1 25.6 25.8 27.2 25.5 25.3 28.0 26.9 27.2 28.1 28.1 28.2Polk 21.9 21.9 22.2 25.0 23.3 25.1 24.5 23.5 25.0 24.5 24.1 24.9Sarasota 22.2 23.2 24.9 23.1 25.3 26.9 23.7 25.2 26.9 23.4 24.6 26.9Tampa Bay 23.8 23.6 23.6 25.3 24.7 25.0 26.1 25.6 25.9 26.7 26.3 26.9Florida 25.7 25.3 25.4 26.6 25.8 25.7 27.1 26.7 26.9 27.7 27.5 27.8Source: Florida Department of Education

45

PER-PUPIL EXPENDITURES FOR HIGH SCHOOL

Chart G11 compares the Tampa Bayregion’s average per pupil expenditures forhigh school with those of the state ofFlorida. The chart depicts increased averagespending per pupil from 1998-1999 to2000-2001, for all educational programs inboth the region and statewide. The largest

year-to-year increase in the Tampa Bayregion and also for the state of Florida wasfor “exceptional” education. In academicyear 2000-2001, the Tampa Bay region’s perpupil expenditures exceeded Florida’s perpupil expenditures for “at-risk” and“vocational” education.

Table G11 - Tampa Bay Region Per-Pupil ExpedituresExceptional Regular At-Risk Vocational

Location 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001

Hernando $5,646 $6,158 $6,664 $3,873 $3,904 $4,181 $5,517 $9,719 $8,864 $4,730 $4,519 $4,873

Hillsborough $7,326 $7,669 $7,947 $3,840 $4,052 $4,254 $4,695 $4,602 $4,620 $5,015 $5,072 $5,324

Manatee $6,473 $6,617 $7,339 $4,088 $4,297 $4,324 $5,256 $4,450 $4,436 $4,536 $4,499 $4,910

Pasco $7,341 $7,810 $7,496 $3,917 $4,017 $4,332 $6,191 $8,098 $8,794 $5,136 $5,946 $4,791

Pinellas $6,724 $7,303 $7,880 $3,865 $3,987 $4,402 $5,103 $5,326 $5,319 $4,199 $4,420 $4,912

Polk $6,460 $6,834 $7,433 $4,042 $4,287 $4,332 $5,211 $6,657 $6,381 $5,368 $7,198 $7,360

Sarasota $7,491 $7,751 $7,884 $4,686 $5,030 $4,912 $5,257 $5,430 $5,681 $4,881 $6,059 $6,979

Tampa Bay $6,939 $7,341 $7,711 $3,965 $4,153 $4,362 $5,134 $5,703 $5,694 $4,827 $5,344 $5,561

Florida $6,880 $7,092 $7,726 $4,024 $4,247 $4,441 $5,081 $5,383 $5,424 $4,714 $4,879 $4,982Source: Florida Department of Education

Chart G11 - Tampa Bay Region Per-Pupil Expenditures


Tampa Bay Partnership4300 W. Cypress Street, Suite 250

Tampa, FL 33607(813) 878-2208 • Fax: (813) 872-9356

The Tampa Bay Economic Market Report is sponsored by the Tampa Bay Partnership’s

Council of Governors:BayCare Health System

City of ClearwaterCity of St. Petersburg

City of Tampa Florida High Tech Corridor Council

HCA, Inc.Hillsborough County

Outback Steakhouse, Inc.Pinellas County

Progress Energy FloridaPublix Super Markets, Inc.

St. Petersburg TimesThe Tampa Tribune

TECO EnergyUniversity of South Florida

Verizon Florida

AN ENTERPRISEFLORIDA PARTNER

tampa bay region economic market report

Documents