USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Tampa Bay Region economic market report

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Tampa Bay Region economic market report
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Tampa Bay Partnership
University of South Florida -- Center for Economic Development Research
Publisher:
Tampa Bay Partnership.
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Economic surveys -- Florida -- Tampa Bay Region   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Statistics -- Tampa Bay Region (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
Prepared for the Tampa Bay Partnership by the USF Center for Economic Development Research.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - C63-00085
usfldc handle - c63.85
System ID:
SFS0000352:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 d19992004flu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C63-00085
0 245
Tampa Bay Region economic market report.
n 2000.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Tampa Bay Partnership.
c 2000
500
Prepared for the Tampa Bay Partnership by the USF Center for Economic Development Research.
505
Section 1: Tampa Bay's Workforce -- Section 2: Wages and Income in Tampa Bay -- Section 3: Business and Economic Conditions -- Section 4: Education Indicators -- Appendicies.
651
Tampa Bay Region (Fla.)
x Economic conditions
v Statistics.
650
Economic surveys
z Florida
Tampa Bay Region.
2 710
Tampa Bay Partnership.
University of South Florida.
Center for Economic Development Research.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c63.85



PAGE 1

Tampa Bay Region: 2000 ECONOMIC MARKET REPORTPrepared for the Tampa Bay Partnership by the USF Center for Economic Development Research TAMPABAYPARTNERSHIPFor Regional Economic Development HERNANDO HILLSBOROUGH MANATEEPASCO PINELLAS POLK SARASOTA ¨ USF Downtown Center

PAGE 2

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCEPOPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 MIGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 LABOR FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO . . . . . . . . . .9 EMPLOYED WORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS . . . . . . . . .13 UNEMPLOYED WORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17SECTION 2: WAGES AND INCOME IN TAMPA BAYWAGE AND INCOME SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . .19 WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . .19 PERSONAL INCOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME . . . . . . . . . . .22SECTION 3: BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS BUSINESS & ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SUMMARY . . . . .23 BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 GROSS SALES & TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY . . . . . . .24 HOUSING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SPENDING . . . .25 COST OF LIVING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27SECTION 4: EDUCATION INDICATORSEDUCATIONE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES . . . . . . . . . .28 SCHOLASTIC ASSESSMENT TEST SCORES . . . . . . . .29 HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZES . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES FOR HIGH SCHOOL . . . . . . .31 APPENDICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Table Of ContentsTAMPABAYREGIONOFWESTCENTRALFLORIDACOUNTIESOFHERNANDO HILLSBOROUGHMANATEE PASCO PINELLASPOLK SARASOTA

PAGE 3

2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 1 Tampa Bay Region: 2000 ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT The Center for Economic Development Research at the University of South Florida (USF) has prepared this report at the request of the Council of Governors of the Tampa Bay Partnership. As an overview, it presents key indicators that can be used in assessing the strength of the seven-county Tampa Bay region in west central Florida. This report in its entirety is also available on the Partnership's web site, www.tampabay.org or on the CEDR site, http://cedr.coba.usf.edu. Additional copies may also be obtained by contacting the Partnership at 813-878-2208, or info@tampabay.org. THETAMPABAYPARTNERSHIP, established in 1994, is a regional economic development marketing organization that works with its partners to market the region nationally and internationally, to conduct regional research, and to coordinate efforts to influence business and government issues that impact economic growth and development. The Partnership has 155 private and public investors. The Partnership's Council of Governors establishes strategic direction, prioritizes initiatives, and measures the effectiveness of the organization and the economic growth of the Tampa Bay region. Stuart L. Rogel is President and CEO of the Partnership. The College of Business Administration's Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) at the University of South Florida conducts research and performs analyzes on issues related to economic development community, researchers, businesses, students, faculty, staff and the general public. CEDR activities focus on the seven-county Tampa Bay Region comprising USF's economic service area, but also extend to the state of Florida and the Nation. CEDR research includes economic impact analyzes, industry clustering, market analyzes, international trade patterns and demographic and wage studies. Annually, CEDR offers Florida's only basic economic development course, fully accredited by the American Economic Development Council. CEDR staff have also created an interactive educational module for boards of directors, staff and community leaders entitled, How to prepare an Economic Development Action Plan for Your Community, available through the Florida Economic Development Council. Dr. Kenneth Wieand is Director of CEDR. He is a professor of Finance in the University of South Florida's College of Business Administration. CEDR staff members include economist Dr. Dennis Colie, Dr. Michael Murray, Brian Jacobik, Alex McPherson and Gina Space; coordinator of information and publications Nolan Kimball; web designer Anand Shah; and data manager Dodson Tong. For more information on CEDR and available products, visit http://cedr.coba.usf.edu or call the center at 813-974-CEDR (813-974-2337). Bank of America BayCare Health Network, Inc. City of Clearwater City of St. Petersburg City of Tampa Eckerd Corporation Florida Power Corporation Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce HCA The Healthcare Company Hillsborough County Outback Steakhouse Pasco Economic Development Council Pinellas County Publix Super Markets, Inc. St. Petersburg Times TECO Energy, Inc. University of South Florida Verizon THE TAMPA BAY PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS TAMPABAYPARTNERSHIPFor Regional Economic Development HERNANDO HILLSBOROUGH MANATEEPASCO PINELLAS POLK SARASOTA

PAGE 4

2TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 In-migration continuesTampa Bay continues to experience steady economic growth, made possible by continued population in-migration. Population growth impacts all Florida cities as well as large areas of the Southeast., the Southwest, the Far West, and the mountain states. Tampa Bay s growth is moderate when compared to other cities in these regions....stimulated by cost competitiveness. The explanation for Tampa s population growth appears to be strong business demand, stimulated by cost advantages. Tampa Bay commercial and industrial space remains a bargain when compared to other areas. The Tampa Bay labor market also remains competitive. Average payroll wages in Tampa Bay and in the rest of Florida are less than in many other states. Payroll wages in Tampa Bay during 1999 were only 89% of the national average. Evidence suggests that, when adjusted for Florida s lower cost of living, Tampa Bay earnings are much closer to the national average. The ACCRA cost of living index in 1998 rated Tampa Bay at 95.2% of the national average. Atlanta, at 102.2, Denver, at 108.1, Phoenix, at 102.3, and Austin, at 99.3, and Charlotte, at 99.1, all were higher. Compared to high cost areas such as Portland, Oregon, at 111.7, New York City (Manhattan) at 231.3, and San Diego, California, at 127.8, Tampa Bay is, indeed, a bargain. Employees in Tampa Bay find their money wages and salaries, after adjusting for the region s lower cost of living, to be comparable to higher cost areas. Lower money earnings, thus, are not a problem to be solved, but a cost advantage stemming from lower cost of living. This is the reason employees continue to stream into the area.Innovation in info-technology and telecommunications Tampa Bay, as a service-oriented economy, has benefited from technical changes originating in telecommunications and information technologies. Technical change automates service occupations and leads to higher wages. Though manufacturing wages remain higher than service wages nationally, the gap has narrowed. In constant, 1982 dollars, national manufacturing wages fell from $8.49 per hour to $8.19. Over the same period, service wages rose from $6.83 in constant 1982 dollars to $7.79.brightens prospects for Tampa Bay's services industries. The past several decades have witnessed a nationwide trend for financial and other services to grow as a percentage of total assets, income, and employment, and for manufacturing to decline. Tampa Bay has been a leader in this trend. Service industries have been and remain a larger part of the regional economy than nationally. The changing nature of services creates high-tech jobs in financial services, business services, health services, and educational services. This trend bodes well for Tampa Bay s workforce, and suggests that the forces of the competitive market may be relied upon to provide ample opportunities for educated individuals. CEDR envisions that economic development will focus less on changing the nature of Florida s business structure in coming years, and will emphasize creating the appropriate business, social, and environmental climate to support the development of all businesses.Can Tampa Bay sustain continued growth? Growth has been a constant in Tampa Bay for half a century. But even long-term economic trends eventually come to an end. Can the region continue to attract businesses and new residents as in the past? Certain constants remain. The region s climate continues to attract people weary of sleet and snow, and area beaches continue to draw sun-worshippers. But, population increases not supported by sound fiscal and environmental policies can lead to bottlenecks and increased living costs. The same factors that can slow new growth also reduce living standards for current residents. Congestion, pollution, and resource scarcity are not good for anyone. Tampa Bay has the intrinsic supplies of land, water, and air to sustain growth in the future, provided that they are used wisely. Civic leaders must devise the policies needed to accommodate Tampa Bay s growing population and work together across political jurisdictions to devise ways to implement them. Key Tampa Bay Market Trends

PAGE 5

2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 3 Executive Summary Tampa Bay s population is growing at a moderate pace. Tampa Bay s population growth rate at about 1.3% exceeds the U.S. average of just under 1.0%, but trails Florida s 1.58%. Tampa Bay s population growth rate is smaller than many of our national competitors. Regional population growth lagged six metropolitan areas that CEDR selected for comparison. Orlando has grown at more than twice our percentage rate! Every year, nearly 42,000 more persons move into Tampa Bay than leave the area. In-migration accounts for most of the area s population growth. Expect this growth about 1.3% annually from 1997 to continue into the future. Regional leadership should make planning for these new residents its overarching priority. Tampa Bay s workforce has responded well to the strong national economy. Workforce growth and employment growth outpace population growth. Tampa Bay s labor force has risen by nearly 50,000 annually. And, because the region s unemployment rate has fallen, regional employment has climbed by more than 53,000 persons per year since 1997. Other Sunbelt cities have experienced rapid workforce and employment growth as well. Phoenix, Austin-San Marcos, Atlanta, and Orlando all experienced more rapid population growth than Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater from January 1997 to January 2000. Money wages made strong gains, led by financial services. Residents joined the labor force to participate in rapidly growing wages. Wages in Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater and in Lakeland-Winter Haven rose at an annual rate of more than 5% during 1997-1998. Sarasota-Bradenton, which experiences lower average wages, gained 7.3% over the same period. Other fast-growing metropolitan areas experienced even faster wage gains. Wages in Orlando, Phoenix, Atlanta, and CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill rose more than 6% from 1997-1998. Payroll data indicate that wage gains in Austin-San Marcos, led by a 27% gain in manufacturing wages, rose by nearly 17% during the period. In Tampa Bay, Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) businesses reported a similar stellar performance. At $43,916, FIRE employees enjoyed the highest average wages of all industry divisions in January 1999. The gain in FIRE earnings represents an 11.9% growth from 1997.Business activity remains strong. Personal income. Income per person in Tampa Bay was $27,743 in 1998. The importance of non-wage income is apparent in Sarasota-Bradenton, where residents received per capita personal income of $34,178 per person. Housing. Housing permits and construction are sensitive to the level of economic activity in a region. Strong U.S. economic growth has combined with rapid growth of population and employment in Tampa Bay to produce robust construction activity. Over the period 1997-1999, new housing permits rose 28%. Most new housing permits were in Hillsborough County, which accounted for 14,532 of the 33,708 units permitted in 1999. The volatility of housing construction activity can be seen in multifamily starts in the comparison metropolitan areas. While population growth and housing construction have grown at a steady pace in Tampa Bay, growth in some of our comparison regions has been unsteady. Tampa Bay s 50% increase in housing construction during 1997-99 was doubled by Orlando. But multifamily spending declined by 13% in Phoenix over the same period. (Phoenix recently enacted measures to restrain growth.) Living costs. The cost-of-living index maintained by the Florida Department of Education places Tampa Bay at the average for the state. Within the region, cost of living is strongly related to population size. Pinellas County s living costs are 103.3% of the state average. But the cost of living in Hernando County is only 91.7% of the state average.Secondary education keeps pace with the state. The Florida Department of Education also maintains statewide data on public high school education. The data indicate that in resources devoted to education in Tampa Bay and in measures of educational achievement, Tampa Bay moderately outperforms the Florida average. Expenditures per pupil are $3,965 in Tampa Bay, and $4,024 statewide. Average class size for science students in Tampa Bay is 26.1 pupils versus 27.1 statewide. Tampa Bay students scored 1015 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test in 1999, compared to 997 statewide. Tampa Bay graduated 65% of entering 9th grade students in 1999, while students statewide graduated at a 60.2% rate.USF s Center for Economic Development Research prepared this report for the Tampa Bay Partnership in order to assess the economic strength of the seven-county Tampa Bay Region in west central Florida. The report is organized in sections that deal with Workforce Wages and Income Business and Economic Conditions Education

PAGE 6

4TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Except for CEDR estimates, the population data below are U.S. Bureau of Census estimates that are derived from the 1990 census. The CEDR estimates are linear projections, based on historical average growth rates, and are used when U.S. Bureau of the Census estimates were not available. The 2000 census is now completed, and when the population counts become available, revisions to earlier estimates may be appropriate. Table 1 depicts population estimates for the Tampa Bay Region, aggregated by county, and estimates for Florida. Since 1997 Tampa Bay s population has been increasing by an average of 41,880 people per year and is projected to exceed 3,350,000 by the end of 2000. The compound average rate of increase in the region s population between January 1997 and January 2000 is estimated at 1.29% per year, compared to an average increase of 1.58% per year for the entire state of Florida. (See also Population Growth of the Tampa Bay Region, in the Summer 2000 issue, Vol. 1, No. 2, of The Tampa Bay Economy for further county-by-county analysis of population growth trends.) The purpose of this report is to present information, primarily statistical data, about Tampa Bay s workforce, wages and income, business and economic conditions, and education indicators. The available data is organized either by county or by metropolitan statistical area (MSA). When using by-county data we refer to the group of seven counties Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinells, Polk, and Sarasota as the Tampa Bay region. The use of such regional data allows us to compare statistics county-by-county, as well as compute Tampa Bay regional averages. When using by-MSA data we refer to the group of three MSAs Lakeland-Winter Haven, Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, and Sarasota-Bradenton as the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. The use of aggregate Tampa Bay MSA data allows us to benchmark statistics MSA-by-MSA, as well as compute Tampa Bay MSAaggregate averages for benchmarking against a comparison universe. We have selected the following as a comparison universe: Atlanta MSA, Phoenix-Mesa MSA, Orlando MSA Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA, Austin-San Marcos MSA and the Denver-BoulderGreeley Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). Average 7-county increase is 41,880 p eople per year. Average Florida increase is 2 34,970 people per year. 3,267,809 3,310,010 3,352,876 3,185,355 3,100,000Jan-97Source: Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census *CEDR estimates 3,150,000 3,200,000 3,250,000 3,300,000 3,350,000 3,400,000 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00* Jan-01* 3,228,391 POPULATION Tampa Bay Market Report 2000 Table 1 TAMPA BAY REGION POPULATION Chart 1 TAMPA BAY REGION POPULATION LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00*Jan-01* Hernando122,887125,460127,536129,926132,361 Hillsborough900,995917,171932,949949,348966,035 Manatee233,481237,346241,580245,734249,960 Pasco315,113321,812327,917334,512341,240 Pinellas871,099875,248877,886881,299884,726 Polk443,147449,537454,998461,042467,166 Sarasota298,633301,820304,944308,149311,387 Tampa Bay3,185,3553,228,3913,267,8093,310,0103,352,876 Florida14,551,02514,796,58115,013,61215,250,39215,490,905* CEDR estimatesSource: Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of CensusSECTION 1: TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCE

PAGE 7

2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 5SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE Lakeland-Winter Haven,FLSource: U.S. Bureau of the Census *CEDR estimates 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa Bay Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* Tampa BaySource: U.S. Bureau of the Census *CEDR estimates 4,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000Atlanta, GA MSACharlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC MSA Orlando, FL MSA Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* 4,000,000 3,500,000 POPULATION CHART M1B SOUTHEASTERN POPULA TION COMPARISON TABLE M1 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE POPULA TION LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99*Jan-00*Jan-01* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA443,713449,505455,372461,316467,338 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA532,180539,221546,355553,584560,908 Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA2,211,9872,240,7662,269,9202,299,4532,329,371 Tampa Bay3,187,8793,229,4923,271,6473,314,3533,357,617 Comparison Universe: Atlanta, GA MSA3,587,6233,690,1523,795,6123,904,0854,015,659 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA2,794,5152,886,5172,981,5483,079,7073,181,099 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA2,298,0242,342,1962,387,2182,433,1052,479,874 Orlando, FL MSA1,439,9791,483,7641,528,8791,575,3671,623,268 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA1,336,3381,367,3781,399,1381,431,6371,464,891 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA1,055,3781,087,8321,121,2851,155,7661,191,307* CEDR estimates Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census CHART M1A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE POPULA TION The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate consists of three Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA): Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater MSA, Sarasota-Bradenton MSA, and the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA. Table M1 depicts population estimates for the three MSAs, for the aggregate of the three MSAs, and for a comparison universe composed of other selected areas. Since 1997 Tampa Bay s population, aggregated by MSA, has been growing at an annual average rate of about 1.31%. This is a slower growth rate than any MSA in the comparison universe. The comparison universe includes three southeastern MSAs: Atlanta MSA, Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA, and Orlando MSA, as well as three other selected MSAs: Phoenix-Mesa MSA, Austin-San Marcos MSA, and the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). The Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA is comprised of the Boulder-Longmont Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), Denver PMSA, and Greeley PMSA. The Phoenix-Mesa MSA experienced the fastest growth with a 3.29% average annual rate. Chart M1A depicts the population of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its component MSAs from January 1997 and projected to January 2001. Chart M1B compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s population with the three southeastern

PAGE 8

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 6TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Table 1X contains estimates of the number of people migrating into and out of one of the seven Tampa Bay counties. The estimates are based on changes of address listed on federal income tax returns from one year to the next year. The 1998-99 data, for example, are based on returns filed in 1999 for income earned in 1998 and are compared to 1997-98 filings to detect migrations. (Taxpayers claim exemptions on their returns, but one exemption does not necessarily reflect one person living in a household. Thus, CEDR estimated the number of persons per exemption based on an examination of Florida population versus total exemptions claimed by Florida filers for the years 1995 through 1998. The four-year average is 1.18204 persons per exemption.) Over the three years of available data, net migration for the Tampa Bay region is positive. The three-year average is 39,308 inmigrants more than outmigrants per year. (In Table 1X, IN and OUT include countyto-county moves within the Tampa Bay region, and NET reflects an overall increase or decrease for the Region.) The 39,308-person estimate of net migration per year closely approximates our 41,880-person estimate of annual population growth. However, births and deaths can also affect population change. The average annual population change due to births and deaths in the Tampa Bay region from 1997 to 1999 is a net loss of about 740 persons. (See Table 1Y, Tampa Bay Region Births/Deaths, at Appendix E.) MSAs of the comparison universe. The Atlanta MSA s population is about onethird larger than that of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. The Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill MSA and the Orlando MSA have approximately equal populations, which are about half the size of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate population. Chart M1C compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate population with the three other selected MSAs. Measured by population, the Phoenix-Mesa MSA is roughly equivalent to the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. However, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s population exceeds that of the Denver CMSA by about one-third and is three times larger than Austin-San Marcos MSA. POPULATION Tampa BaySource: U.S. Bureau of the Census *CEDR estimates4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Denver-BoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* MIGRATION 45,0001996-97Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income, County-to-County Migration Flow Data 1997-98 1998-9945,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 40,823 42,385 34,715 1996-971997-981998-99 LocationINOUTNETINOUTNETINOUTNET Hernando1002459714053024062733967984265983244 Hillsborough60405530907315087153291758062630562676363 Manatee181411442537161905813995506319294149104384 Pasco252801714781332561317302831126229187777452 Pinellas500264340666205047543443703249126452073919 Polk265912134452472661421656495825993223713622 Sarasota218441610557392261817144547422883171525731 Tampa Bay212,311171,48840,823215,489173,10442,385215,997181,28234,715 Florida1,504,9791,281,520223,459517,0921,314,150202,9421,514,5011,325,013189,488Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income, County-to-County Migration Flow Data Table 1X TAMPA BAY REGION MIGRATIONS CHART M1C SELECTED MSA POPULA TION COMPARISON Chart 1X Tampa Bay Region Net Migrations

PAGE 9

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 7 1,554,740 Jan-97 1,800,000 Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* 1,750,000 1,700,000 1,650,000 1,600,000 1,550,000 1,500,000 1,450,000 1,584,969 1,662,898 1,701,722 1,753,915Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security CEDR estimate Table 2 shows the number of labor force participants by county of residence and Florida-wide. CEDR projects that the Tampa Bay region s labor force will reach nearly 1,754,000 participants by the end of 2000. Concurrent with the region s average population increase of 41,880 people per year, its labor force has been growing by an average 49,794 people per year. This average growth in the region s labor force represents almost one-third (31.3%) of the average annual growth of the state s labor force. The compound average rate of increase in the region s labor force between January 1997 and January 2000 is estimated at 3.06% per year, compared to an average increase of 2.21% per year for all of Florida. In January 2000 almost onequarter (22.9%) of Florida s labor force resided in Tampa Bay. Table M2 shows the number of labor force participants by MSA of residence from January 1997 and projected to January 2001. The Atlanta MSA has the largest labor force of the comparison universe with nearly 2.3 million labor force participants projected for January 2001. In comparison, slightly over 1.75 million labor participants are projected to be residing within the three MSAs that comprise the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. LABOR FORCE Table 2 TAMPA BAY REGION LABOR FORCE Chart 2 TAMPA BAY REGION LABOR FORCE Table M2 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE LABOR FORCE LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA195,055195,552196,484201,941204,303 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA253,835254,258262,344279,459288,654 Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA1,105,8501,145,8791,162,2301,220,3231,261,184 Tampa Bay1,554,7401,595,6891,621,0581,701,7231,753,908 Comparison universe: Atlanta, GA MSA1,983,6462,094,6482,142,5452,210,1952,291,530 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA1,419,2881,443,7591,533,1731,585,8961,600,513 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA1,279,1301,337,6251,366,3811,405,6171,450,570 Orlando, FL MSA785,437816,205843,429894,523929,308 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA733,993729,710752,452775,916790,533 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA634,012656,916686,903721,773725,526*CEDR estimates Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* Hernando43,96745,55347,96448,69650,383 Hillsborough500,748514,395542,217555,284574,752 Manatee112,100111,277116,199123,384127,392 Pasco124,800128,683135,326137,961142,649 Pinellas436,335449,379473,677478,381493,278 Polk195,055194,663199,651201,941204,290 Sarasota141,735141,019147,864156,075161,170 Tampa Bay1,554,7401,584,9691,662,8981,701,7221,753,915 Florida6,955,0007,031,0007,313,0007,427,0007,591,000* CEDR estimates Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security

PAGE 10

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 8TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Lakeland-Winter Haven,FLSource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, covered Employment Statistics *CEDR estimates 90,000 70,000 60,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa Bay Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* 60,000 50,000 0 Tampa BaySource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics *CEDR estimates 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000Atlanta, GA MSACharlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC MSA Orlando, FL MSA Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* 0 Tampa Bay1,800,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,900,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 0Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Denver-BoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* 200,000 1,600,000 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, covered Employment Statistics *CEDR estimates The Orlando MSA leads the comparison universe with an average annual growth rate of its labor force of 4.40% from January 1997 to January 2000. Over the same time span, the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate s average annual increase in its labor force has been 3.07%. Within Tampa Bay, the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA experienced the smallest average annual rate of growth in the labor force, 1.17%. Chart M2A depicts the labor force of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its component MSAs from January 1997 and projected to January 2001. Chart M2B compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s population with the three southeastern MSAs of the comparison universe. The relative relationships of the size of the labor force of each area mirror the relative sizes of their populations. Chart M2C compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s labor force with the three other selected MSAs. Measured by labor force participants, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate is larger than any of the three selected comparison MSAs. LABOR FORCE Chart M2A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE LABOR FORCE Chart M2B SOUTHEASTERN LABOR FORCE COMPARISON Chart M2C SELECTED MSA LABOR FORCE COMPARISON

PAGE 11

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 9 The workforce-to-population ratio measures the proportion of the population of an area s residents who are participating in the labor force. Table 3 reveals that in January 1999, the Tampa Bay region s workforceto-population ratio was 50.89% (Florida 48.71%). Thus, slightly over half of the people residing in the region are in the labor force. The region s ratio has been steadily rising since 1997 and CEDR estimates that it reached 51.41% in January 2000 and projects that it will be about 52.31% by January 2001. Among the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region, Hernando is projected to have the lowest ratio at 38.06%, and Hillsborough is projected to have the highest ratio at 59.50%. Table M3 shows the workforce-topopulation ratio of residents by MSA from January 1997 and projected to January 2001. The Austin-San Marcos MSA has the highest ratio among the areas shown in the table, with nearly 61% of its population in the labor force. In comparison, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate will have just over 52% of its population in the labor force by January 2001. Among the areas of the comparison universe, only the Phoenix-Mesa MSA, with a 50.31% ratio, is projected to have a lower workforce-to-population ratio than the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. Among the MSAs that comprised the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate, the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA is projected to have the lowest ratio at 43.72%. Chart M3A depicts the workforceto-population ratio for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its component MSAs from January 1997 and projected to January 2001. The Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater MSA experienced the highest rate of increase, 8.3% per annum, in the ratio over the period January 1997 through the projected ratio for January 2001, while the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA suffered an average 0.55% decline in the ratio over the same time period. WORKFORCE-TOPOPULATION RATIO Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security and Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of Census Jan-1997 CEDR estimatesFlorida 7-county Tampa Bay Region 48% 47% 46% 45% Jan-1998 Jan-1999 Jan-2000*Jan-2001*49% 50% 51% 52% 53%48.81% 47.80% 50.89% 51.41% 52.31% 49.09% 47.52% 49.00% 48.70% 48.71% Table 3 TAMPA BAY REGION WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO Table M3 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99*Jan-00*Jan-01* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA43.96%43.50%43.15%43.77%43.72% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA47.70%47.15%48.02%50.48%51.46% Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA49.99%51.14%51.20%53.07%54.14% Tampa Bay48.77%49.41%49.55%51.34%52.24% Comparison universe: Atlanta, GA MSA55.29%56.76%56.45%56.61%57.06% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA50.79%50.02%51.42%51.50%50.31% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA55.66%57.11%57.24%57.77%58.49% Orlando, FL MSA54.55%55.01%55.17%56.78%57.25% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA54.93%53.37%53.78%54.20%53.97% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA60.07%60.39%61.26%62.45%60.90%*CEDR estimates Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00*Jan-01* Hernando35.78%36.31%37.61%37.48%38.06% Hillsborough55.58%56.08%58.12%58.49%59.50% Manatee48.01%46.88%48.10%50.21%50.97% Pasco39.60%39.99%41.27%41.24%41.80% Pinellas50.09%51.34%53.96%54.28%55.75% Polk44.02%43.30%43.88%43.80%43.73% Sarasota47.46%46.72%48.49%50.65%51.76% Tampa Bay48.81%49.09%50.89%51.41%52.31% Florida47.80%47.52%48.71%48.70%49.00%* CEDR estimatesSources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security and Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of Census Chart M3A TAMPA BAY REGION WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO

PAGE 12

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 10TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Chart M3B compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s workforce-to-population ratio with the three southeastern MSAs of the comparison universe. All of the southeastern comparison MSAs have higher workforce-to-population ratios than the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. However, the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA has seen its ratio drop at an annual average rate of 1.75% since January 1997. At the same time, the other southeastern comparison MSAs and the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate have experienced positive growth rates in their workforce-to-population ratios. Chart M3C compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s workforce-to-population ratio with the three other selected MSAs. By January 2001, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s ratio is projected to exceed the ratio of the Phoenix-Mesa MSA, but trail behind the ratios of Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA and AustinSan Marcos MSA. WORKFORCE-TOPOPULATION RATIO Lakeland-Winter Haven,FLSource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR estimates 1,200,000 800,000 400,000 200,0000SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa Bay1,000,000 600,000 0 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* Tampa BaySource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics *CEDR estimates 58% 54% 50% 48% 46%Atlanta, GA MSACharlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC MSA Orlando, FL MSA 44% 56% 52% Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* Tampa Bay70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10%Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Denver-BoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA0% 60%Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics *CEDR estimates Chart M3A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO Chart M3B SOUTHEASTERN WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO COMPARISON Chart M3C SELECTED MSA WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO COMPARISON

PAGE 13

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 11 Employment in the Tampa Bay region has been increasing by an average of 53,119 workers per year since 1997. See Table 4 and Chart 4, Tampa Bay Region Employed Workers. The average annual increase in the Tampa Bay region s employed workers amounts to almost one-third (29.1%) of the average annual growth of employed persons in the state. The compound average rate of increase in employed workers in the Tampa Bay region between January 1997 and January 2000 was 3.38% per year, compared to an average annual increase of 2.66% in Florida. By the end of 2000 about 1,703,786 employed persons are expected to reside in the Tampa Bay region. Table M4 shows the number of employed persons residing in the selected MSAs from January 1997 and projected to January 2001. EMPLOYED WORKERS 1,491,311 Jan-97 Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01*1,750,000 1,700,000 1,650,000 1,600,000 1,550,000 1,500,000 1,450,000 1,607,296 1,647,894 1,703,786 1,400,000 1,350,000 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security CEDR estimates Average 7-county increase is 53,119 employed workers per year. Average Florida increase is 182,415 employed workers per year. 1,525,103 T able 4 TAMPA BAY REGION EMPLOYED WORKERS Chart 4 TAMPA BAY REGION EMPLOYED WORKERS Table M4 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE EMPLOYED WORKERS LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA183,224185,089187,448192,909196,256 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA245,821246,202255,645272,715282,412 Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA1,062,2661,103,1721,125,9851,182,2701,225,295 Tampa Bay1,491,3111,534,4631,569,0781,647,8941,703,771 Comparison universe: Atlanta, GA MSA1,912,6962,029,3242,078,8712,152,4312,239,085 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA1,369,7321,407,1041,487,4151,540,8091,602,573 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA1,234,2301,293,1051,325,8811,371,0011,419,936 Orlando, FL MSA755,155787,805817,511869,450911,322 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA708,841708,201733,077753,707769,375 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA611,801636,917668,765705,537739,883 *CEDR estimates Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* Hernando41,98443,32745,86246,73348,433 Hillsborough481,695497,108526,195538,282558,585 Manatee108,563107,944113,460120,768125,134 Pasco119,259123,075130,277133,268138,294 Pinellas419,328432,745458,066463,987479,906 Polk183,224184,430189,988192,909196,250 Sarasota137,258136,474143,448151,947157,185 Tampa Bay1,491,3111,525,1031,607,2961,647,8941,703,786 Florida6,590,0006,692,0006,980,0007,130,0007,319,660 *CEDR estimates Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security

PAGE 14

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 12TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Chart M4A depicts the number of employed workers for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its component MSAs. In January 2000, just over 71% of Tampa Bay s employed persons resided in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. The Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA has the fewest employed residents, 196,256 projected for January 2001, among the MSAs of the comparison universe. Chart M4B compares the number of employed workers in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate with the three southeastern MSAs of the comparison universe. Employment in the Atlanta MSA is the highest of the MSAs of the comparison universe, with approximately 2.4 million working residents projected for January 2001. The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate trails the Atlanta MSA with a projection of about 1.7 million working residents in January 2001. Chart M4C compares the number of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s employed workers with the three other selected MSAs. The average annual increase in employed residents is highest in the comparison universe in the Austin-San Marcos MSA, with a growth rate of 4.87%. The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate had an average annual growth rate in employed residents of 3.39% over the same period. The Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill MSA experienced the lowest growth rate, 2.08%, in employed residents among the comparison MSAs. EMPLOYED WORKERS Lakeland-Winter Haven,FLSource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR estimates 1,200,000 800,000 400,000 200,000SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa Bay1,000,000 600,000 0 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* Tampa BaySource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR estimates 2,500,000 1,000,000 500,000Atlanta, GA MSACharlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC MSA Orlando, FL MSA 0 2,000,000 1,500,000 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* Tampa Bay1,600,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Denver-BoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA0% 1,400,000Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR estimates Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* 1,800,000 Chart M4A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE EMPLOYED WORKERS Chart M4B SOUTHEASTERN EMPLOYED WORKERS COMPARISON Chart M4C SELECTED MSA EMPLOYED WORKERS COMPARISON

PAGE 15

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 13 Table 5, Tampa Bay RegionEmployment by Industry Divisions, outlines the structure of the Tampa Bay region s economy based Covered Employment and Wages (ES202) data. The table reflects the number and percent of employees in each industry division in January 1997 and in January 1999. Also, shown is the rate of increase (decrease) for each division during the January 1997 to January 1999 period. As an official State of Florida Data Repository, CEDR has available the ES202 data. This data set is a Bureau of Labor Statistics-sponsored collection of job and wage data from all employers participating in Florida s unemployment insurance program. Because self-employed proprietors do not contribute to the unemployment insurance system, they are not counted in the ES202 data. Agricultural workers are often proprietors or family members of proprietors and, thus, not included in the data. Hence, it is generally understood that ES202 data covers non-farm civilian wage and salary employment only. Geographically, the data are based on the location of the reporting unit. Thus, the data usually, but not always, reflect the place of work of the employees. (For example, a reporting unit may be an employee leasing firm and the actual place of work for an employee may be outside of the defined geographic area of the reporting unit.) Services remain the biggest division within the Tampa Bay regional economy, increasing as a percent of total employment from 41.43% of the structure in January 1997 to 42.06% in January 1999. This represents a 6.67% increase in service employment over the period. Although only comprising 6.70% of the Tampa Bay region s employment structure in January 1999, the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) division experienced the most rapid increase in employment with a 13.56% rise from January 1997 to January 1999. Manufacturing s share of the Tampa Bay region s employment structure slightly declined from 8.84% in January 1997 to 8.67% in January 1999, while the number of workers employed in manufacturing actually increased 3.15% from January 1997 to January 1999. The reason for manufacturing s decline in share of the employment structure is five out of eight employment divisions were growing more rapidly than manufacturing. Appendix A contains Panels A through G of Table 5. The panels describe the structure of employment by industry division for each of the seven counties of Tampa Bay, based on the ES202 data. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides job data known as Current Employment Statistics (CES). CES are compiled by means of a monthly survey of over 390,000 establishments nationwide. Like ES202 data, the CES reflects nonfarm civilian wage and salary employment by place of work. Table M5 outlines the structure of employment of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate based on CES data. (The CES data does not include an Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries division.) Broadly viewed, the employment structure described by CES data (Table M5) is consistent with the structure revealed by ES202 data (Table 5). Additionally, using CES data we can compare the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s structure of employment with other areas of the country. EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS Table M5 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS Table 5 TAMPA BAY REGION EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS EmployeesPercent EmployeesPercent Growth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Mining & Construction73,2005.06%81,5005.22%11.34% Manufacturing127,6008.82%130,8008.38%2.51% Transportation Comm. & Utilities58,9004.07%67,3004.31%14.26% Trade362,70025.07%369,90023.70%1.99% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate92,4006.39%104,0006.66%12.55% Services551,20038.10%623,30039.93%13.08% Public Administration180,70012.49%184,00011.79%1.83% Totals1,446,700100.00%1,560,800100.00%7.89%Source: US Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor StatisticsEmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries44,1503.08%41,2182.74%-6.64% Mining & Construction74,0955.18%81,9705.45%10.63% Manufacturing126,4888.84%130,4748.67%3.15% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities69,8274.88%77,8375.18%11.47% Trade359,53425.12%360,66323.98%0.31% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate88,7086.20%100,7366.70%13.56% Services593,02241.43%632,59442.06%6.67% Public Administration75,7265.29%78,5985.23%3.79% Totals1,431,550100.00%1,504,090100.00%5.07%Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data.

PAGE 16

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 14TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Appendix B contains Panels A through C of Table M5. These panels describe the structure of employment of the three MSAs that make up the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. As with the MSAaggregate, services are the biggest division within each of the MSAs. However, while services comprise over 40% of the employment structure in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA and in the SarasotaBradenton MSA, services are only 28.29% of the employment structure of the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA. (Services, which comprise 28.29% of the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA, are only slightly larger than trade both wholesale and retail which is 28.23% of that MSA.) The only decline recorded for an industry division between January 1997 and January 1999 was for the manufacturing division of the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA s economy. There manufacturing employment declined 1.42%. Appendix C contains Panels D through F of Table M5. These panels describe the employment structures of the southeastern MSAs of the comparison universe. The services division of the economy is proportionately smaller for the Atlanta MSA and for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA than the services division of the economy for the Tampa Bay aggregate. The Orlando MSA has a slightly higher percent of employment in the services division than does the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. Also, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s manufacturing division at 8.38% of employment is slightly larger than the Orlando MSA at 7.06%. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill has the highest manufacturing employment among the southeastern comparisons at 18.65% of its total employment structure followed by Atlanta at 10.89%. The only declines, between January 1997 and January 1999, in size of the industry divisions, which are noted among the southeastern comparison MSAs, is a drop of 2.94% in manufacturing and a drop of 0.94% in transportation & public utilities for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA. Appendix D contains Panels G and H of Table M5. These panels describe the employment structure of the PhoenixMesa MSA and the Austin-San Marcos MSA. (Complete data necessary to depict the employment structure of the DenverBoulder-Greeley CMSA was not available.) Services are the largest employment division in the Phoenix area and in the Austin area, comprising 31.77% and 29.18% of total employment, respectively. By comparison, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s services division is 39.93% of total employment. Between 1997 and 1999 the fastest growing industry division in both the Phoenix area and the Austin area was mining & construction. Divisions with the slowest growth rates were manufacturing (5.11%) in the Phoenix-Mesa MSA, and public administration (4.44%) in the Austin-San Marcos MSA. Two recent articles published in this journal, The Tampa Bay Economy, provide important insights about the structure of employment and wages in the Tampa Bay Region. See The Structure of Nonfarm Employment in Tampa Bay, in the Spring 2000 issue, Vol. 1, No. 1, and Wages and Employment in Florida, the U.S. and Tampa Bay, in the Summer 2000 issue, Vol. 1, No. 2. From Tables 1 and 2 (which are summarized in Charts 1 and 2, respectively), above, it is seen that on average the Tampa Bay region is adding 41,880 people to its population each year, while at same time the region s labor force is growing by an average of 49,794 workers every year. There are two readily discernable reasons why the labor force is growing faster than the population. First, people already living in the region, who were not previously in the labor force, are continuing to join the labor force. And second, as Table 6 details, the number of unemployed workers in the region continues to get smaller. EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS UNEMPLOYED WORKERS Table 6 TAMPA BAY REGION UNEMPLOYED WORKERS LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* Hernando1,9832,2262,1021,9631,956 Hillsborough19,05317,28716,02217,00216,369 Manatee3,5373,3332,7392,6162,366 Pasco5,5415,6085,0494,6934,440 Pinellas17,00716,63415,61114,39413,615 Polk11,83110,2339,6639,0328,255 Sarasota4,4774,5454,4164,1284,018 Tampa Bay63,42959,86655,60253,82851,019 Florida364,000339,000333,000298,000278,775* CEDR estimatesSource: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security

PAGE 17

On average, the number of unemployed labor force participants in the region has been decreasing by about 3,100 per year since 1997. In January 2000 there were slightly less than 54,000 unemployed workers in Tampa Bay (18.06% of Florida s unemployed) and by the end 2000 it was expected that as few as 51,000 workers will be unemployed in the Tampa Bay region. Table M6 shows the number of unemployed labor force participants by MSA of residence from January 1997 and projected to January 2001. The Atlanta MSA is the only region that has a larger number of unemployed workers than the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 15 Jan-97 Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000Average 7-county decrease is 3,102 unemployed workers per year. Average Florida decrease is 21,306 unemployed workers per year. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security CEDR estimates63,429 59,866 55,602 53,828 51,019 Chart 6 TAMPA BAY REGION UNEMPLOYED WORKERS Table M6 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE UNEMPLOYED WORKERS LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA11,83110,4639,0369,0328,272 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA8,0148,0566,6996,7446,392 Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA43,58442,70736,24538,05336,511 Tampa Bay63,42961,22651,98053,82951,134 Comparison universe: Atlanta, GA MSA70,95065,32463,67457,76453,964 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA49,55636,65545,75845,08744,686 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA44,90044,52040,50034,61631,800 Orlando, FL MSA30,28228,40025,91825,07323,551 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA25,15221,50919,37522,20921,485 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA22,21119,99918,13816,23614,626*CEDR estimates Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics UNEMPLOYED WORKERS

PAGE 18

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 16TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Atlanta, GA MSA Tampa BaySource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR estimates 80,000 20,000 10,000Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC MSA Orlando, FL MSA0 40,000 30,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* Lakeland-Winter Haven,FLSource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR estimates 50,000 30,000 20,000 10,000SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa Bay40,000 0 60,000 70,000 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* Chart M6A reveals that the preponderance of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s unemployed workers resides in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. This is not surprising given the differences in population among Tampa Bay s three MSAs. However, it illustrates that an effort to increase the labor force by reducing unemployment would have more potential for success in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSAs than in the other two smaller MSAs. Chart M6B compares the number of unemployed workers in the southeastern MSAs of the comparison universe with the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. Since January 1997 the number of unemployed people in Atlanta and Orlando have been steadily decreasing. However, in both the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA, the number of unemployed actually increased in January 2000 over January 1999. Nevertheless, CEDR estimates that by January 2001 the number of unemployed in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate will be slightly less than the number in January 1999. Chart M6C compares the number of unemployed workers in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate with the numbers the three selected major MSAs. Tampa Bay60,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Denver-BoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA0% 50,000Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR estimates Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* 70,000 UNEMPLOYED WORKERS Chart M6A TAMPA BAY REGION MSA AGGREGATE UNEMPLOYED WORKERS Chart M6C SELECTED MSA AGGREGATE UNEMPLOYED WORKERS Chart M6B SOUTHEASTERN UNEMPLOYED WORKERS

PAGE 19

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 17 Table 7 displays the unemployment rates in the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region from January 1997 to (estimated) January 2001. The region s unemployment rate is consistently lower than the rate for the entire state of Florida. Manatee County has experienced the lowest rate (2.12% in January 2000) while Polk County had the highest rate (4.47% in January 2000). Since 1997 the Tampa Bay region s unemployment rate has been falling an average of 0.29 of a percentage point per year (an 8.13% annual rate of decline of the unemployment rate over a previous year), and the region s unemployment rate itself is expected to be about 2.9% by January 2001. For comparison, Florida s unemployment rate has been declining by an average 0.39 of a percentage point per year (an 8.48% rate of decline of the unemployment rate over a previous year) since 1997 and the state s unemployment rate is expected to be 3.67% by January 2001. Table M7 shows the unemployment rate for residents of Tampa Bay s MSAs as well as other selected MSAs of the comparison universe from January 1997 and projected to January 2001. Jan-97 Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* 4.5%Average 7-county decrease is 0.29% per year. Average Florida decrease is 0.39% per year. Source: CEDR calculation based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Dept. of Labor and Employment Security data4.08% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0%3.78% 3.34% 3.16% 2.91% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Table 7 TAMPA BAY REGION UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Chart7 TAMPA BAY REGION UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Table M7 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA6.1%5.4%4.6%4.5%4.0% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA3.2%3.2%2.6%2.4%2.2% Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA3.9%3.7%3.1%3.1%2.9% Tampa Bay4.1%3.8%3.2%3.2%2.9% Comparison universe: Atlanta, GA MSA3.6%3.1%3.0%2.6%2.4% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA3.5%2.5%3.0%2.8%2.8% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA3.5%3.3%3.0%2.5%2.2% Orlando, FL MSA3.9%3.5%3.1%2.8%2.5% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA3.4%2.9%2.6%2.9%2.7% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA3.5%3.0%2.6%2.2%2.0%*CEDR Estimates LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00Jan-01* Hernando4.51%4.89%4.38%4.03%3.88% Hillsborough3.80%3.36%2.95%3.06%2.85% Manatee3.16%3.00%2.36%2.12%1.86% Pasco4.44%4.36%3.73%3.40%3.11% Pinellas3.90%3.70%3.30%3.01%2.76% Polk6.07%5.26%4.84%4.47%4.04% Sarasota3.16%3.22%2.99%2.64%2.49% Tampa Bay4.08%3.78%3.34%3.16%2.91% Florida5.23%4.82%4.55%4.01%3.67%* CEDR estimate Source:CEDR calulation based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Dept.of Labor and Employment Security data

PAGE 20

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY S WORKFORCE 18TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Chart M7A reveals that the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s unemployment-rate picture closely mirrors the rate picture of the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. This is understandable because the TampaSt. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA comprises the majority of the area s population. So, for example, although the SarasotaBradenton MSA s unemployment rate was 2.4% in January 2000 and the LakelandWinter Haven MSA s rate was 4.5% in the same month, the MSA-aggregate and Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater rates were almost identical at 3.1% to 3.2%. Chart M7B c ompares the unemployment rates of three southeastern MSAs with that of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. Notice that the unemployment rate situations among these southeastern regions between January 1997 and projected to January 2001 are very much alike. Chart M7C compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s unemployment rate with three other selected MSAs. Note again that the unemployment rate measurement of the workforce situation in each of these MSAs is very similar. In January 2000 the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate had the highest unemployment rate at 3.2%, while the Austin-San Marcos MSA experienced the lowest rate at 2.2%. Lakeland-Winter Haven,FLSource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR estimates 5.0 2.0 1.0SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa Bay4.0 3.0 0 6.0 7.0 Atlanta, GA MSA Tampa Bay 2.0 1.5Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC MSA Orlando, FL MSA0 3.0 2.5 4.5 4.0 3.5 1.0 0.5 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR estimates Tampa Bay4.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Denver-BoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA0 3.5Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR estimates 4.5 1.0 0.5 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99* Jan-00* Jan-01* UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Chart M7A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Chart M7B SOUTHEASTERN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE COMPARISON Chart M7C SELECTED MSA UNEMPLOYMENT RATE COMPARISON

PAGE 21

2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 19 Table 8 reports average wages and wage growth in the Tampa Bay region from January 1997 to January 1999. Wages reported in this table are based on FloridaES202 data. The average annual wage, weighted by percent of employment by industry division, in the Tampa Bay region in January 1997 was $25,154. By January 1999, this weighted-average annual wage had risen to $27,052 for a 7.55% rate of growth over the two-year period. In January 1999, the FIRE industry enjoyed the highest average annual wage in the Tampa Bay region at $43,916. By comparison, the average wage in manufacturing was $31,405, and the average wage in services was $25,439. Appendix F contains Panels A through G of Table 8. These panels report average wages and wage growth for each of the seven counties of the Tampa Bay r egion. SECTION 2: WAGES AND INCOME IN TAMPA BAY In this section, wage and income data are reported for the Tampa Bay region by county and for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate by MSA. The MSA data are used to compare Tampa Bay against metropolitan areas in the Southeast Atlanta, Charlotte, and Orlando and other selected MSAs Austin, Denver and Phoenix. Additionally, Florida s disposable personal income is benchmarked against the states of Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas. By January 1999, the weighted-average annual wage in the Tampa Bay region had risen to $27,052 for a 7.55% growth rate over the previous two-year period. The FIRE industry enjoyed the highest annual average wage at $43,916, the average wage in manufacturing was $31,405, and the average wage in services was $25,439. The growth of Tampa Bay personal income, aggregated by MSA, between 1997 and 1998 was 5.10%. Among the comparison MSAs, the Austin-San Marcos MSA had the highest growth rate at 11.29% and the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA had the slowest growth rate at 5.42%. In 1998 Florida s disposable income factor was 0.853, having declined 0.92% since 1996. Florida s factor is comparable to that of Arizona and North Carolina, although its decline from 1996 to 1998 was a little steeper than those states. However, the people of Texas had greater spending power a higher disposable income factor for a given level of personal income during the 1996 to 1998 period than residents of Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina. Texas factor was 0.879 in 1998, having declined 0.57% since 1996. Wages and Income WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS Table 8 TAMPA BAY REGION WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS Avg. Annual% of TotalAvg. Annual% of TotalGrowth DivisionWage: Jan-97EmploymentWage: Jan-99Employment97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$12,0043.08%$13,3092.74%10.87% Mining & Construction$26,5865.18%$27,9765.45%5.23% Manufacturing$29,8718.84%$31,4058.67%5.14% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities$38,0514.88%$39,8065.18%4.61% Trade$20,76825.12%$21,82923.98%5.11% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$39,2516.20%$43,9166.70%11.89% Services$23,49441.43%$25,43942.06%8.28% Public Administration$28,9535.29%$28,7625.23%-0.66% Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$25,154$27,0527.55%Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data.

PAGE 22

20TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Table M8 reports average annual wages for Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate for 1997 and 1998 (the latest year for which data is nationally available). Wages reported in this table are based on ES202 data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics covering MSAs throughout the nation. The average annual wage for Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate has been calculated by weighting the annual average for each industry division by the division s percent of total employment. (N ote that the national data upon which Table M8 is based does not include the industry division, Public Administration. Public Administration is included in the F lorida-ES202 data.) In 1998 the annual average wage in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate was $27,076. This was a 5.60% increase over the previous year. The data reflects the FIRE industry enjoying the highest average wage during 1998 at $38,995. Appendix G contains Panels A through C of Table M8 for the three MSAs of the Tampa Bay aggregate. Appendix H contains panels D through H of Table M8 for the MSAs of the comparison universe (except the Denver-Boulder-Greeley PMSA for which data was unavailable). These panels report average annual wages and wage growth, from 1997 to 1998. Among the comparison MSAs, the AustinSan Marcos MSA had the highest 1998 average wage of $36,974, while the Orlando MSA had the lowest 1998 average wage of $28,292. SECTION 2: WAGES AND INCOME IN TAMPA BAY Personal income and per capita personal income are reported in Table 9. Personal income is the current income received by persons from all sources, including investment income and transfer payments, minus their personal contributions for social insurance. The data is based on place of employment. Personal income includes both monetary income (including non-paycheck income such as employer contributions to pensions) and non-monetary income (such as food stamps and net rental value to owneroccupants of their homes). The data includes farming and nonfarming, military and civilian, proprietorships (i.e. selfemployment) and wage and salary employment and, therefore, is more comprehensive than ES202 data that covers nonfarm, civilian employees only. PERSONAL INCOME WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS Table M8 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISION Table 9 TAMPA BAY REGION PERSONAL INCOME 1997: Aggregate IncomePer Capita1998: Aggregate IncomePer Capita% Growth in Location(thousands of $)Income(thousands of $)IncomePer Capita Income Hernando$2,595,577$20,934$2,732,742$21,5873.12% Hillsborough$22,991,508$25,277$24,389,283$26,3554.26% Manatee$6,900,778$29,365$7,294,239$30,4403.66% Pasco$6,846,152$21,499$7,377,513 $22,6915.54% Pinellas$25,108,430$28,761$26,873,564$30,6336.51% Polk$9,461,189$21,179$10,234,132$22,6096.75% Sarasota$10,752,512$35,809$11,263,309$37,1313.69% Tampa Bay$84,656,146$27,085$90,164,782$28,4374.99% Florida$376,559,054$25,645$400,028,545$26,8454.68%Source: Regional Economic Informatiuon System (REIS) of the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)Average Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$15,2622.77%$16,0412.69%5.10% Construction $27,6935.72%$29,3635.86%6.03% Manufacturing$31,51510.21%$33,10710.06%5.05% Transportation & Public Utilities$35,1944.72%$36,2174.69%2.91% Trade$20,84728.31%$21,91127.87%5.11% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$36,4297.32%$38,9957.57%7.04% Services$24,87040.94%$26,26241.25%5.60% Weighted Average Annual Wage$25,639$27,0765.60%Source: ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages), US Bureau of Labor Statistics

PAGE 23

2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 21 In 1998, the latest year for which data is available, Pinellas County workers received 29.8% of the Tampa Bay region s aggregate personal income. Hillsborough County workers received 27.0%. Workers in the other Tampa Bay counties received smaller proportions of the aggregate personal income. Per capita personal income was highest in Sarasota County $37,131 and lowest in Hernando County $21,587. Between 1997 and 1998, the growth rate in per capita personal income was fastest for Polk County 6.75% and slowest for Hernando County 3.12%. In 1997 aggregate personal income for the Tampa Bay region was slightly over $84.6 billion and personal income grew to just over $90.1 billion in 1998. Per capita personal income in the Tampa Bay region was $27,085 in 1997, rising 4.99% to $28,437 in 1998. By comparison, the 1997 total personal income for Florida was slightly over $376.5 billion and grew to just over $400.0 billion in 1998. Per capita personal income in Florida was $25,645 in 1997, rising 4.68% to $26,845 in 1998. Table M9 reports 1997 and 1998 Tampa Bay personal income and per capita personal income aggregated by its three MSAs, and also includes personal income data for the selected comparison MSAs. The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate had personal income slightly over $84.6 billion in 1997 and slightly over $90.1 billion in 1998. The MSA with the highest per capita income in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate, as well as among the comparison MSAs, was Sarasota-Bradenton with $32,980 in 1997 and $34,178 in 1998. In 1998, the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA was a close second to the Sarasota-Bradenton MSA in per capita personal income at $34,092. The lowest per capita income in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and among the comparison MSAs was recorded in the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA at $21,179 in 1997 and $22,609 in 1998. The growth of the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate s personal income between 1997 and 1998 was 5.10%. Among the comparison MSAs, the Austin-San Marcos MSA had the highest growth rate with 11.29%, and the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA had the slowest growth rate with 5.42% over the same time period. Differences in per capita personal income among the three MSAs of Tampa Bay were smaller in 1998 than they were in 1997. This is evident because the MSA with the highest per capita personal income, Sarasota-Bradenton, experienced the slowest growth rate while the MSA with the lowest per capita personal income, Lakeland-Winter Haven, experienced the fastest growth rate. SECTION 2: WAGES AND INCOME IN TAMPA BAY PERSONAL INCOME Table M9 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE PERSONAL INCOME 1997: 1998:% Growth in Aggregate IncomePer CapitaAggregate IncomePer Capita Per Capita Location(thousands of $)Income(thousands of $)IncomeIncome Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA$9,461,189$21,179$10,234,132$22,6096.75% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA$17,653,290$32,980$18,557,548$34,1783.63% Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA$57,541,667$25,861$61,373,102$27,2245.27% Tampa Bay$84,656,146$26,397$90,164,782$27,7435.10% Comparison universe: Atlanta, GA MSA$106,038,694$29,194$115,271,629$30,7885.46% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA$71,417,025$25,134$78,210,114$26,6866.17% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA$60,480,094$31,813$66,023,835$34,0927.16% Orlando, FL MSA$35,366,191$24,154$38,405,705$25,5555.80% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA$36,880,578$27,305$39,795,116$28,7845.42% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA$27,911,566$26,136$32,129,655$29,08711.29%Source: Local Area Personal Income, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

PAGE 24

22TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Disposable personal income is personal income less certain tax and nontax payments. The tax payments considered are payments by persons (excluding social insurance that is already deducted for calculation of personal income) for income tax, estate and gift taxes, and property taxes. Nontax payments include passport fees, fines and penalties, donations, and tuition and fees paid to government schools and hospitals. Disposable personal income is generally associated with spending power and household consumption of private sector goods and services. Table 10 displays aggregate and per capita disposable personal income for the Tampa Bay region and the state of Florida. The table also contains disposable personal income data for a selection of other states (Arizona, North Carolina and Texas) for comparisons. In 1997 and 1998, per capita disposable personal income for the Tampa Bay region exceeded that of Florida as well as each of the selected comparison states. A disposable personal income factor is the percentage of personal income remaining after certain tax and nontax payments, as delineated above, are subtracted from personal income. The greater the factor the more spending power for people of a geographic area relative to their personal incomes. Table 11and Chart 11 show the disposable personal income factors for Florida and the comparison states of Arizona, North Carolina and Texas from 1996 to 1998. Florida s factor is comparable with Arizona and North Carolina, but in Texas people retain about 2.0% to 2.5% more of personal income than in the other states including Florida. (See also Tampa Bay Region: 1999 Economic Market Report, Section 1, page 7, wherein Texas relative high personal disposable income factor is attributed to 1997 reductions in property and business taxes.) From 1996 through 1998 Florida s disposable personal income experienced a greater average decline (-0.92% per annum) than any of the comparison states. SECTION 2: WAGES AND INCOME IN TAMPA BAY 1996 FACTORSource:Tables 5.05 and 5.08, "Florida Statistical Abstract 1999," Bureau of economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida Florida Arizona N. Carolina Texas 0.9 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.831997 1998 DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME Table 10 TAMPA BAY REGION DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME Table 11 DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME FACTORS FOR SELECTED STATES Chart 11 DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME FACTORS FOR SELECTED STATES 1997-1998 1997: 1998:% Growth in Aggegate Disp. IncomePer CapitaAggegate Disp. IncomePer CapitaPer Capita Location(thousands of $)Disp. Inc.(thousands of $)Disp. Inc.Disp. Inc. Tampa Bay*$72,982,724$23,350$76,954,201$24,2713.94% Florida$313,790,000$21,379$329,106,000$22,0643.20% Arizona$86,119,000$18,914$91,907,000$19,6864.08% North Carolina$148,266,000$19,953$154,638,000$20,4912.70% Texas$406,707,000$20,980$433,293,000$21,9284.52%* CEDR estimate based on Florida's disposable income factor. Source: Tables 5.08 and 5.09, "Florida Statistical Abstract 1999," Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of FloridaLocation1996199719981996-1998 Average % Change Florida0.8690.8620.853-0.92% Arizona0.8680.8600.854-0.81% North Carolina0.8680.8610.853-0.87% Texas0.8890.8850.879-0.57%Source: Tables 5.05 and 5.08, "Florida Statistical Abstract 1999," Bureau of economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida

PAGE 25

2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 23 Table G1 and Chart G1 show the number of businesses (participating in Florida s unemployment insurance program) by industry division in the 7-county Tampa Bay region in January 1997 and in January 1999. There were 80,801 businesses in Tampa Bay in January 1997 and that number rose to 84,488 businesses in January 1999, a 4.56% increase over the 2-year period. The most numerous type of establishment is a service business. Service businesses comprised 40.25% of Tampa Bay s regional industry structure in January 1999. In January 1997, the number of service establishments in the Tampa Bay region was 31,865, and by January 1999 the number has grown to 34,006 service establishments, a 6.72% increase. The only industry division in the Tampa Bay region to experience a loss of establishments was the (wholesale and retail) trade division. Trade establishments declined from 23,649 in January 1997 to 23,347 in January 1999, or a 1.28% reduction in trade establishments over the 2-year period. From January 1997 to January 1999, manufacturing business gained in both absolute number and percentage of the industry structure. Over the 2-year period 191 manufacturing businesses were added to Tampa Bay s regional industry structure, increasing its percentage of industry structure from 4.41% to 4.44%. Panels A through G of Table G1 depict business establishments by industry division of each of the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region. These panels are in Appendix I. SECTION 3: BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data Services 40% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 10% Public Administration 1% Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 3% Mining & Construction 10% Manufacturing 4% Transportation, Comm & Utilities 4% Trade 28% Table G1 TAMPA BAY REGION BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS BY DIVISION Chart G1 TAMPA BAY REGION BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS BY DIVISION EstablishmentsPercent EstablishmentsPer centGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries2,7663.42%2,9463.49%6.51% Mining & Construction7,7139.55%8,68010.27%12.54% Manufacturing3,5644.41%3,7554.44%5.36% Transportation, Comm. & Utilities2,7993.46%2,9803.53%6.47% Trade23,64929.27%23,34727.63%-1.28% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate7,8309.69%8,1279.62%3.79% Services31,86539.44%34,00640.25%6.72% Public Administration *6150.76%6470.77%5.20% Totals80,801100.00%84,488100.00%4.56%* Public Administration does not include Major Group 99 Nonclassifiable Elstablishments Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data. In this section, statistics that reflect the state of the Tampa Bay regional economy are examined. Since January 1997 the number of businesses in the region has been growing by about 2.2% per annum. Service businesses continue to be the largest industry division within the structure of the Tampa Bay regional economy, comprising over 40% of all businesses. Over the 2-year span from January 1997 to January 1999 the region experienced a net gain of 191 manufacturing businesses, increasing manufacturing s percentage of the industry structure from 4.41% to 4.44%. Regional economic activity, as measured by gross and taxable sales, indicates robust growth. Average monthly gross sales in the Tampa Bay region increased 13.84% over the 2-year period from 1997 to 1999. Additionally, there was a 2-year growth in single family construction spending in the Tampa Bay region of 30.36%, and a 2-year growth rate for multi-family construction of 46.49%. The annual relative cost of living index, which is prepared by the Florida Department of Education, reveals that the Tampa Bay region s cost of living is on a par with Florida-wide costs. However, there is a varied cost of living structure when the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region are considered separately. In 1999 the cost of living in Hernando County was 9% lower than the regional average cost of living. On the other hand, Pinellas County was the most expensive with a 1999 cost of living about 3.5% above the Tampa Bay region s average cost of living. Business & Economic Conditions Summary

PAGE 26

24TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Table M10 reports the number of businesses (participating in a state s unemployment insurance program) by industry division in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate in 1997 and in 1998 (the latest year for which data is nationally available). Business establishments reported in this table are based on ES202 data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics covering MSAs throughout the nation. (Note that the national data upon which Table M10 is based does not include industry division, Public Administration. Public Administra tion is included in the Florida-ES202 data.) There were 80,707 business establishments in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate in 1997 and 82,501 in 1998 for a 2.22% rate of growth. Service businesses were most common comprising slightly over 40% of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate industry structure in 1998. That same year manufacturing businesses accounted for 4.53% of the structure. Appendix J contains Panels A through C of Table M10. These panels report the number of business establishments in each of the three MSAs of the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate for 1997 and 1998. Appendix K contains Panels D through H of Table M10. These panels report the number of business establishments in MSAs of the comparison universe (except the Denver-Boulder-Greeley PMSA for which data was unavailable). Between 1997 and 1998 the number of businesses in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate grew by 2.22%. Among the comparison MSAs over the same time frame, the fastest rate of growth of businesses was the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA s 4.62% and the slowest rate of growth was the Orlando MSA s 0.57%.SECTION 3: BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS GROSS SALES & TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY Table G2 TAMPA BAY REGION AVERAGE MONTHLY GROSS SALES BY COUNTY % Growth Location19971998199997-99 Hernando$277,826,473 $298,946,937 $324,007,192 16.62% Hillsborough$2,964,028,023 $3,110,382,233 $3,322,405,495 12.09% Manatee$467,352,138 $476,371,569 $510,504,004 9.23% Pasco$366,458,600 $379,909,818 $500,704,526 36.63% Pinellas$1,953,793,247 $2,040,175,021 $2,161,604,748 10.64% Polk$966,695,596 $1,060,352,899 $1,148,649,696 18.82% Sarasota$625,254,972 $653,327,346 $708,076,282 13.25% Tampa Bay$7,621,409,050 $8,019,465,824 $8,675,951,944 13.84% Florida$39,988,456,903$41,256,381,278$44,915,553,36512.32% % Growth Location19971998199997-99 Hernando$65,190,554 $70,935,379 $75,533,591 15.87% Hillsborough$1,175,762,983 $1,263,360,020 $1,383,156,899 17.64% Manatee$212,954,296 $226,433,217 $240,827,158 13.09% Pasco$197,835,259 $208,624,903 $225,043,612 13.75% Pinellas$867,183,590 $915,581,296 $958,690,294 10.55% Polk$404,627,326 $436,984,797 $465,269,688 14.99% Sarasota$351,937,859 $373,050,927 $401,414,912 14.06% Tampa Bay$3,275,491,867 $3,494,970,538 $3,749,936,154 14.48% Florida$16,885,266,975$17,953,027,022$19,535,190,30915.69%Source: Florida Department of Revenue Table G3 TAMPA BAY REGION AVERAGE MONTHLY TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY Table M10 MSA-AGGREGATE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS BY DIVISION EstablishmentsPercent EstablishmentsPer centGrowth Division1997of Total1998of Total97-98Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing2,7933.46%2,8673.48%2.65% Construction7,8839.77%8,27110.03%4.92% Manufacturing 3,6254.49%3,7394.53%3.14% Transportation and Public Utilities 2,8123.48%2,8833.49%2.52% Trade23,58529.22%23,36928.33%-0.92% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 7,9019.79%8,0759.79%2.20% Services32,10839.78%33,29740.36%3.70% Totals80,707100.00%82,501100.00%2.22%Source: ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages), US Bureau of Labor Statistics Gross and taxable sales data was obtained from the Florida Department of Revenue and its use in this report is intended as a measure of economic activity. That is, increased (decreased) sales are interpreted as an indication of increased (decreased) economic activity. However, it is noted that most services are exempted from the sales tax. Gross sales are the sum of taxable and non-taxable sales as reported monthly by businesses to the Florida Department of Revenue. Tables G2 and G3 contain average monthly gross sales and average monthly taxable sales, respectively, by each county of the Tampa Bay region, for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. Average monthly gross sales in the Tampa Bay region increased by 13.84% (6.92% per annum arithmetic average) over the 2-year period from 1997 to 1999. Average monthly taxable sales in the Tampa Bay region increased by 14.48% (7.24% per annum arithmetic

PAGE 27

Housing permits issued by county authorities and construction spending (aggregate value) represented by the permits are another indication of regional economic activity. Tables G4 and G5 report annual data (1997 through 1999) for housing permits and construction spending, respectively, for the 7-county Tampa Bay region. The Manufacturing and Construction Division, Bureau of the Census, distributes the data set of construction authorized by building permits. The data set 2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 25 average) over the same time period. Both of these statistics are indicative of robust economic growth between 1997 and 1999. And, both statistics are comparable to Florida s 12.32% 2-year gain in average monthly gross sales and 15.69% 2-year gain in average monthly taxable sales. Measured by gross sales, most economic activity ($3.3 billion per month out of the Tampa Bay region s $8.6 billion per month in 1999) takes place in Hillsborough County, followed by Pinellas County with $2.1 billion per month and Polk County with $1.1 billion per month.SECTION 3: BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS HOUSING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SPENDING Table G4 TAMPA BAY REGION HOUSING PERMITS % Growth% Growth Location1997199719981998199919991997-991997-99 Single FamilyMultiFamilySingle FamilyMultiFamilySingle FamilyMultiFamilySingle FamilyMultiFamilyHernando1,210 43 973 53 1,244 37 2.81%-13.95% Hillsborough5,400 3,659 5,908 5,144 7,028 7,504 30.15%105.08% Manatee2,077 615 2,388 450 2,614 231 25.85%-62.44% Pasco2,278 302 2,584 620 3,117 709 36.83%134.77% Pinellas1,718 2,029 1,981 1,244 1,830 1,400 6.52%-31.00% Polk2,664 734 2,871 426 2,940 1,053 10.36%43.46% Sarasota2,385 1,263 2,727 1,865 2,814 1,187 17.99%-6.02% Tampa Bay17,732 8,645 19,432 9,802 21,587 12,121 21.74%40.21% Florida90,309 43,681 97,889 50,714 106,569 61,239 18.00%40.20%% Growth% Growth Location1997199719981998199919991997-991997-99 Single FamilyMultiFamilySingle FamilyMultiFamilySingle FamilyMultiFamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilyHernando$101,940$2,001$87,681$1,874$116,539$1,62314.32%-18.89% Hillsborough$477,256$206,199$535,452$356,948$655,087$445,94037.26%116.27% Manatee$202,776$26,324$256,036$19,777$311,809$17,15553.77%-34.83% Pasco$190,996$17,344$213,460$25,853$287,307$44,07450.43%154.12% Pinellas$304,260$107,741$326,960$85,541$312,997$107,8782.87%0.13% Polk$221,268$30,695$256,873$17,576$298,338$47,32934.83%54.19% Sarasota$301,612$101,213$343,716$84,179$364,491$56,01520.85%-44.66% Tampa Bay$1,800,109$491,516$2,020,179$591,748$2,346,568$720,01430.36%46.49% Florida$9,550,594$2,654,856$10,863,860$3,258,827$12,259,133$3,842,84628.36%44.75%Source: US Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division Table G5 TAMPA BAY REGION CONSTRUCTION SPENDING (in thousands) 1997 10,000,000,000 9,000,000,000 8,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 6,000,000,000 5,000,000,000 4,000,000,000 3,000,000,000 2,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 $0 $7,621,409,050$3,275,491,867 $8,019,465,824 $8,675,951,944$3,494,970,538 $3,749,936,1541998 1999Source: Florida Department of RevenueTaxable Gross GROSS SALES & TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY Chart G2 TAMPA BAY REGION AVERAGE MONTHLY SALES

PAGE 28

26TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Table M11 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGREGATE HOUSING PERMITS is primarily based on reports submitted to the Bureau by local building permit officials in response to a mail survey, although some data may be generated by Census Bureau interviewers or imputed from past data. Table G4 and Chart G4 reveal a 2year growth rate in single family housing permits in the Tampa Bay region of 21.74%, and a 2-year growth rate for multi-family housing permits of 40.21%. By comparison, Florida s 2-year growth rate in single family housing permits was 18.00%, and the state s 2-year growth rate for multi-family housing permits was 40.20%. However, the growth in the number of permits issued, particularly for multi-family housing was not evenly distributed among the Tampa Bay region s counties. Pasco experienced the biggest growth in the region for single family housing permits with a 2-year 36.83% rate. The smallest growth in single family permits was Hernando s 2-year 2.81% rate. Fur thermore, while four counties of Tampa Bay experienced a decline in the number of mu ltifamily permits issued from 1997 to 1999, Pasco (134.77%) and Hillsborough (105.08%) more than doubled the number of permits issued over the same 2-year period. Table G5 and Chart G5 report the construction spending associated with the housing permits discussed above. There was a 2-year (1997 to 1999) growth in single family construction spending in the Tampa Bay region of 30.36%, and a 2-199719971998199819991999 % Growth 97-99 SingleMulti-SingleMulti-SingleMulti-SingleMultiLocationFamilyFamilyFamilyFamilyFamilyFamilyFamilyFamily Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA2,6457172,8734502,96791212.17%27.20% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA4,4571,8225,1682,2645,5841,42425.29%-21.84% Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA10,7456,24111,5737,28613,3099,67123.86%54.96% Tampa Bay17,8478,78019,61410,00021,86012,00722.49%36.75% Comparison universe: Atlanta, GA MSA38,48211,29245,78612,01748,27512,77125.45%13.10% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA32,21011,01436,56211,24038,4489,26519.37%-15.88% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA17,5527,22220,45710,81222,3637,02127.41%-2.78% Orlando, FL MSA13,6967,69515,02410,73416,36813,22519.51%71.86% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA13,0805,13415,7594,30817,9446,53137.19%27.21% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA8,4565,16110,8055,61811,7048,19338.41%58.75% 199719971998199819991999% Growth 1997-99 SingleMulti-SingleMulti-SingleMulti-SingleMultiLocationFamilyFamilyFamilyFamilyFamilyFamilyFamilyFamily Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA$188,727$27,296$219,358$19,273$243,358$41,44428.95%51.83% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA$503,347$123,705$605,411$96,488$696,234$73,19938.32%-40.83% Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA$1,073,872$344,002$1,170,880$491,587$1,336,659$626,64424.47%82.16% Tampa Bay$1,765,946$495,003$1,995,649$607,348$2,276,251$741,28728.90%49.75% Comparison universe: Atlanta, GA MSA$3,862,027$556,882$4,949,265$549,681$5,456,758$667,74341.29%19.91% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA$3,811,883$581,361$4,478,501$569,283$4,963,226$507,50130.20%-12.70% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA$2,212,005$360,933$2,731,361$590,560$2,990,877$447,76135.21%24.06% Orlando, FL MSA$1,421,158$343,033$1,724,744$502,584$1,927,168$685,10435.61%99.72% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA$1,440,718$232,793$1,789,846$224,893$1,930,804$291,02934.02%25.02% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA$883,012$217,103$1,139,276$204,000$1,398,732$342,13858.40%57.59%Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, C40 Building PermitsSECTION 3: BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS HOUSING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SPENDING Table M12 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGREGATE CONSTRUCTION SPENDING 1997 25,000 0 8,645 1998 1999Source: US Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction DivisionMulti-Family Single Family 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,0009,802 12,121 17,732 19,432 21,587 Chart G4 TAMPA BAY REGION HOUSING PERMITS

PAGE 29

Table G6 provides relative costs of living and county rankings for 1997, 1998 and 1999. The relative cost of living index is prepared and released annually by the Florida Department of Education. The average cost of living in a given year is set at 100 and a Florida county s relative cost of living is expressed as a percentage of the average. For example, in 1998 Hernando County s relative cost of living was 93.26% of the average, or 6.74% below average. The county s rank is also shown. In the example, Hernando County ranked 40th in 1998. That is, only 27 other counties had a lower relative cost of living in 1998 than Hernando. From 1997 through 1999 the weighted average cost of living index for the Tampa Bay region has been very slightly above or very slightly below 100% indicating that Tampa Bay s cost of living is on a par with Florida-wide costs. Over the period, only Hernando County has enjoyed a cost of living at about 5% or more below average for Florida. In fact, in Hernando costs have become relatively cheaper as indicated by the county s increasing rank from 32 in 1997 to 40 in 1999. On the other hand, counties with above average relative costs of living are Hillsborough, Sarasota, and Pinellas. Pinellas is the most expensive county in Tampa Bay, ranking 5th in the state with a relative index of 103.34% in 1999. Pasco County has seen the most dramatic increase in relative cost of living rising from 48th in the state in 1997 to 17th in the state by 1999. 2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 27 year growth rate for multi-family construction of 46.49%. By comparison, the growth rates for the entire state of Florida over the same time span were 28.36% for single family construction spending and 44.75% for multi-family construction spending. In Pinellas County there was little growth in construction spending between 1997 and 1999. Manatee and Pasco counties experienced over 50% growth in single family construction spending from 1997 to 1999, while Hillsborough and Pasco counties more than doubled construction spending for multi-family housing over the same time. Table M11 compares the growth rate in the number of housing permits issued in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate from 1997 to 1999 with the growth rate in the number of permits issued in the MSAs of the comparison universe. The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s 2year growth rate for single family permits was 22.49%. By comparison over the same time span, the Austin-San Marcos MSA experienced the fastest growth rate in single family permits at 38.41% and the slowest growth rate was 19.37% in the Phoenix-Mesa MSA. For multi-family housing permits issued, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate s 2-year growth rate was 36.75%. Among the comparison universe, the fastest rate of growth in multi-family permits issued was the Orlando MSA s 71.86% and the slowest rate was a 15.88% decline in multi-family permits issued in the Phoenix-Mesa MSA. Table M12 reports the construction spending associated with the housing permits shown in Table M11. There was a 2year (1997 to 1999) growth in single family construction spending in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate of 28.90%, and a 2year growth rate for multi-family construction of 49.75%. By comparison over the same 2-year period, the Austin-San Marcos MSA had the highest growth rate, 58.40%, for single family construction spending and the Phoenix-Mesa MSA had the lowest growth rate at 30.20% for single family construction spending. For multi-family construction spending among the MSAs of the comparison universe, the Orlando MSA had the highest growth rate at 99.72% and the lowest rate was a decline of 12.70% in the Phoenix-Mesa MSA.SECTION 3: BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS HOUSING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SPENDING COST OF LIVING Table G6 TAMPA BAY REGION RELATIVE COST OF LIVING INDEX Location1997Rank1998Rank1999Rank Hernando95.04%3293.26%4091.71%43 Hillsborough99.21%12100.86%8100.48%7 Manatee100.29%1099.22%1099.27%10 Pasco93.13%4895.44%2696.36%17 Pinellas101.91%6103.74%4103.34%5 Polk95.64%2794.98%3095.93%19 Sarasota101.26%8102.90%5100.57%6 Tampa Bay*98.96%100.06%99.78%* Tampa Bay is the 7-county average weighted by population for each county. Source: Florida Department of Education 1997 $2,500,000 1998 1999Source: US Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction DivisionMulti-Family Single Family (in thousands)$2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0$2.020,179 $2,346,568 $491,516 $591,748 $720,014 $1,500,000 Chart G5 TAMPA BAY REGION CONSTRUCTION SPENDING

PAGE 30

28TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Table G7 reports public high school graduation rates for the Tampa Bay region. In 1997, 1998, and 1999 the region s graduation rates were 73.90%, 71.91%, and 64.02%, respectively. The region s graduation rates were computed by CEDR as a weighted average, by student population, of the rates for each of the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region. Also, note that starting with academic year 1998-1999, the Florida Department of Education revised their method of calculating public high graduation rates to track individuals by student identification number, beginning with their first-time enrollment in the ninth grade. The revised calculation thereby accounts for incoming transfer students, and outgoing transfer students are removed from the tracked population. The revision removes distortion due to transfer students from the graduation rate calculation for the academic year ending in 1999; consequently, earlier rates are not strictly comparable to the 1999 rates shown in Table G7. Chart G7 compares the Tampa Bay region s public high school graduation rates with state of Florida rates. The chart shows that since 1997 the Tampa Bay region s graduation rate has met or exceeded the statewide graduation rate. SECTION 4: EDUCATION INDICATORS HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES 1997 80.01998 1999Source: Florida Department of EducationFlorida Tampa Bay 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 ChartG7 TAMPA BAY REGION HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES COMPARISONThis section reports indicators of the state of public high school education in the Tampa Bay region. The Florida Department of Education supplies statistics by county and CEDR calculated Tampa Bay regional averages weighted by the student population of each county. Prior to 1999 the Tampa Bay region s yearly graduation rate was consistently above 70%. However, in 1999 the Florida Department of Education changed the method for computing the graduation rate. The new method takes into account the effect of transfers into and out of a county s school system each year. Under the new computational method the Tampa Bay region s 1999 graduation rate was 64.02%. Additionally, for each of the academic years ending in 1997, 1998, and 1999 the Tampa Bay region s public high school dropout rate has been just over 5%. Between 1997 and 1999 average SAT scores in the Tampa Bay region have been in the 1015 to 1021 range, out of 1600 maximum possible points. On average, the Tampa Bay region s high school class size has been smaller than the statewide class size. Overall, regional class size averaged between 25 and 26 pupils in 1999. In Tampa Bay, average per-pupil expenditures for all types of educational programs at the high school level increased from about $4,900 in 1997-1998 to about $5,200 in 1998-1999. Education Summary Academic Year Ending Location199719981999 Hernando84.6%66.2%68.7% Hillsborough74.0%72.8%69.5% Manatee61.6%59.6%56.2% Pasco72.2%73.6%63.5% Pinellas78.4%72.4%65.3% Polk69.0%71.1%53.3% Sarasota77.4%79.9%63.0% Tampa Bay73.9%71.9%64.0% Florida73.2%71.9%60.2%Source: Florida Department of Education Table G7 TAMPA BAY REGION HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES Table G8 TAMPA BAY REGION POPULATION HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATESAcademic Year Ending Location199719981999 Hernando4.5%4.7%6.1% Hillsborough5.0%6.4%4.2% Manatee7.0%3.5%7.4% Pasco5.1%5.1%5.5% Pinellas4.6%3.0%3.7% Polk7.0%7.2%8.7% Sarasota4.2%4.2%7.6% Tampa Bay5.3%5.1%5.4% Florida5.4%4.8%5.4%Source: Florida Department of Education

PAGE 31

In Table G9, average Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores for students in Tampa Bay are reported for each county for academic years 1997 through 1999. The table includes weighed average (by student population) test scores for the Tampa Bay region. The region s weighted average test scores have been in the 1015 to 1021 range as compared to Florida s range of 997 to 1001 over the same time span. See Chart G9 below. For additional comparisons we also note that national average test scores were 1016 and 1017 in 1997 and 1998, respectively (reference 1999 Statistical Abstract of the United States, published by the U.S. Census Bureau, Economics and Statistics Administration). 2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 29 Table G8 reports public high school dropout rates for 1997 through 1999 in the Tampa Bay region and Chart G8 compares the region s dropout rates with those of the entire state of Florida. Like the graduation rates above, the region s dropout rates were computed by CEDR as a weighted average by student population. Also, note that beginning with academic year 1998-1999, the reported dropout rate is for all dropouts in grades 9 through 12. Prior years statistics showed a rate only for dropouts age 16 or over. For the academic years ending in 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Tampa Bay region s public high school drop out rate has been just over 5%. The Tampa Bay region s dropout rate has been approximately the same as the statewide rate. SECTION 4: EDUCATION INDICATORS 1025 1020 1015 1010 1005 1000 9851997 1998 1999Source: Florida Department of EducationFlorida Tampa Bay 995 990 SCHOLASTIC ASSESSMENT TEST SCORES Academic Year Ending Location199719981999 Hernando9921010997 Hillsborough102410211012 Manatee100810051007 Pasco99110141019 Pinellas103810391028 Polk989988985 Sarasota106110551060 Tampa Bay101910211015 Florida9981001997Source: Florida Department of Education Table G9 TAMPA BAY REGION SAT SCORES Chart G9 TAMPA BAY REGION SAT SCORES HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES 1997 1998 1999Source: Florida Department of EducationFlorida Tampa Bay 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 ChartG8 TAMPA BAY REGION HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES COMPARISON

PAGE 32

30TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 30 25 20 15 0Language Arts Math ScienceSource: Florida Department of EducationFlorida Tampa Bay 10 5Social Studies Average Number of Students per Class 98 99 97 97 98 99 97 98 99 97 98 99SECTION 4: EDUCATION INDICATORS Chart G10 TAMPA BAY REGION HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZE Table G10 lists average public high school class sizes for the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region and a weighted average (by student population) of the 7county averages to represent the Tampa Bay region. Average class sizes are listed by academic subjects: language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The Tampa Bay region s average public high school class size has been less than the statewide average class size in Florida from 1997 through 1999. See Chart G10 below. HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZES Table G10 TAMPA BAY REGION HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZE (average number of students per class) Language ArtsMathScienceSocial Studies Location199719981999199719981999199719981999199719981999 Hernando18.423.422.820.123.322.923.524.025.125.125.625.5 Hillsborough28.223.522.730.724.825.632.826.726.832.527.628.5 Manatee19.024.525.921.425.525.523.727.226.822.325.627.9 Pasco18.221.621.920.022.722.922.323.122.921.223.223.3 Pinellas21.927.327.124.527.827.224.827.728.026.528.628.1 Polk17.921.721.920.524.325.021.724.124.521.525.124.5 Sarasota17.323.722.219.023.223.121.126.223.721.026.223.4 Tampa Bay22.224.023.824.525.125.326.126.126.126.326.726.7 Florida22.825.625.725.426.426.626.726.927.127.627.527.7Source: Florida Department of Education

PAGE 33

2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 31 The Tampa Bay region s per pupil expenditures for high school by type of educational program are in Table G11. The table covers academic years 19971998 and 1998-1999. The regional expenditures are computed as a weighted average, by student population, of each of the seven counties of Tampa Bay. Chart G11 compares the Tampa Bay region s average per pupil expenditures for high school with the average per pupil expenditures of the state of Florida. The chart depicts increased average spending per pupil from 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 for all educational programs in both the region and statewide. The largest year-toyear increase in both the Tampa Bay region and Florida was for exceptional education. In academic year 1998-1999 the Tampa Bay region s per pupil expenditures exceeded Florida s per pupil expenditures for all program types except regular education. $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $Exceptional RegularFlorida Tampa Bay$5,000 $1,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 At-Risk Vocational 97-98 97' 98 97' 98 97-98 98' 99 98' 99 98' 99 98' 99SECTION 4: EDUCATION INDICATORS PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES FOR HIGH SCHOOL Table G11 TAMPA BAY REGIONPER PUPILEXPENDITURES FOR HIGH SCHOOL Chart G11 TAMPA BAY REGION PER PUPILEXPENDITURES Exceptional Regular At-Risk VocationalLocation1997-19981998-19991997-19981998-19991997-19981998-19991997-19981998-1999Hernando$5,550$5,646$3,458$3,873$5,322$5,517$4,327$4,730 Hillsborough$6,253$7,325$3,742$3,840$4,247$4,695$4,836$5,015 Manatee$6,599$6,473$3,800$4,086$5,206$5,256$4,206$4,536 Pasco$7,123$7,341$3,689$3,917$5,924$6,191$4,886$5,136 Pinellas$6,218$6,724$3,712$3,865$5,000$5,103$3,862$4,199 Polk$6,276$6,460$3,796$4,042$5,219$5,211$5,408$5,368 Sarasota$5,980$7,491$4,865$4,686$5,491$5,257$5,148$4,881 Tampa Bay$6,308$6,939$3,814$3,965$4,943$5,134$4,649$4,827 Florida$6,555$6,880$3,902$4,024$4,827$5,081$4,422$4,714Source: Florida Department of Education

PAGE 34

32TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Table 5 EMPLOYMENT BY DIVISION Panel A Hernando CountyEmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries3671.41%4981.76%35.69% Mining & Construction2,0497.87%2,1287.54%3.86% Manufacturing1,2704.88%1,3274.70%4.49% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities1,1554.43%1,1504.07%-0.43% Trade8,35332.07%9,64234.15%15.43% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate1,1844.55%1,2264.34%3.55% Services9,20235.32%9,67634.27%5.15% Public Administration2,4709.48%2,5889.17%4.78% Totals26,050100.00%28,235100.00%8.39%Panel B Hillsborough CountyEmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries14,0362.66%14,3022.54%1.90% Mining & Construction24,6904.68%27,9124.95%13.05% Manufacturing35,8176.79%36,7906.52%2.72% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities32,8056.22%37,3086.61%13.73% Trade126,24223.94%125,08922.17%-0.91% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate40,3807.66%46,6278.26%15.47% Services228,29043.30%249,89144.29%9.46% Public Administration24,9714.74%26,2494.65%5.12% Totals527,231100.00%564,168100.00%7.0Panel C Manatee County (adjusted for reporting error)EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries7,6226.72%7,0006.67%-8.16% Mining & Construction4,1573.67%4,7334.51%13.86% Manufacturing12,44910.98%13,43212.80%7.90% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities2,6442.33%2,9102.77%10.06% Trade22,31519.68%22,64821.58%1.49% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate3,1122.74%3,0722.93%-1.29% Services55,97049.36%57,39854.69%2.55% Public Administration5,1234.52%5,2935.04%3.32% Totals113,392100.00%116,486111.00%2.73%Panel D Pasco CountyEmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries3,4464.72%3,0294.16%-12.10% Mining & Construction4,5596.25%5,1737.10%13.47% Manufacturing4,1105.63%3,7115.09%-9.71% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities2,8733.94%2,8763.95%0.10% Trade20,52928.14%20,65028.34%0.59% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate2,7903.82%3,1434.31%12.65% Services29,99341.11%29,45240.42%-1.80% Public Administration4,6616.39%4,8376.64%3.78% Totals72,961100.00%72,871100.00%-0.12% Tampa Bay Region Employment Structure by Industry Divisions Panel E Pinellas CountyEmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries2,7500.70%3,1810.77%15.67% Mining & Construction18,5454.73%19,8954.85%7.28% Manufacturing44,28811.29%46,38911.30%4.74% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities16,6464.24%19,2624.69%15.72% Trade98,71725.17%98,55824.01%-0.16% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate25,5916.53%30,1027.33%17.63% Services164,86142.04%172,31541.98%4.52% Public Administration20,7475.29%20,7675.06%0.10% Totals392,145100.00%410,469100.00%4.67%Panel F Polk CountyEmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries14,0188.01%10,9416.10%-21.95% Mining & Construction12,0436.88%12,9247.20%7.32% Manufacturing20,90211.94%20,91611.65%0.07% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities9,4535.40%9,8915.51%4.63% Trade46,65126.65%48,27526.90%3.48% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate7,5624.32%8,1054.52%7.18% Services52,59830.05%56,00631.20%6.48% Public Administration11,7956.74%12,4366.93%5.43% Totals175,022100.00%179,494100.00%2.56%Panel G Sarasota County (adjusted for reporting error)EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries1,9111.53%2,2671.71%18.63% Mining & Construction8,0526.45%9,2056.95%14.32% Manufacturing7,6526.13%7,9095.98%3.36% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities4,2513.41%4,4403.35%4.45% Trade36,72729.44%35,80127.05%-2.52% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate8,0896.48%8,4616.39%4.60% Services52,10841.77%57,85643.71%11.03% Public Administration5,9594.78%6,4284.86%7.87% Totals124,749100.00%132,367100.00%6.11% APPENDIX A

PAGE 35

2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 33 APPENDIX C Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Employment Structure by Industry Divisions Table M5 EMPLOYMENT BY DIVISION Panel A Lakeland-Winter Haven MSAEmployeesPercent EmployeesPercent Growth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Mining & Construction11,7006.99%12,4007.00%5.98% Manufacturing21,20012.66%20,90011.80%-1.42% Transportation & Public Utilities8,6005.14%9,1005.14%5.81% Trade47,30028.26%50,00028.23%5.71% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate7,8004.66%8,4004.74%7.69% Services45,60027.24%50,10028.29%9.87% Public Administration25,20015.05%26,20014.79%3.97% Totals167,400100.00%177,100100.00%5.79%Panel B Sarasota-Bradenton MSAEmployeesPercent EmployeesPercent Growth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Mining & Construction12,1005.02%13,9005.43%14.88% Manufacturing20,2008.39%21,4008.36%5.94% Transportation & Public Utilities5,2002.16%5,5002.15%5.77% Trade59,10024.54%59,80023.37%1.18% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate11,3004.69%11,8004.61%4.42% Services109,60045.51%119,40046.66%8.94% Public Administration23,3009.68%24,1009.42%3.43% Totals240,800100.00%255,900100.00%6.27%Panel C Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSAEmployeesPercent EmployeesPercent Growth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Mining & Construction49,4004.76%55,2004.89%11.74% Manufacturing86,2008.30%88,5007.85%2.67% Transportation & Public Utilities45,1004.34%52,7004.67%16.85% Trade256,30024.68%260,10023.06%1.48% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate73,3007.06%83,8007.43%14.32% Services396,00038.13%453,80040.24%14.60% Public Administration132,20012.73%133,70011.85%1.13% Totals1,038,500100.00%1,127,800100.00%8.60% EMPLOYMENT BY DIVISION Panel D Atlanta MSAEmployeesPercent EmployeesPercent Growth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Mining & Construction89,3004.70%107,3005.19%20.16% Manufacturing216,00011.38%225,10010.89%4.21% Transportation & Public Utilities159,1008.38%178,7008.65%12.32% Trade508,10026.76%542,00026.23%6.67% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate123,1006.48%135,4006.55%9.99% Services550,00028.97%615,10029.76%11.84% Public Administration252,80013.32%263,00012.73%4.03% Totals1,898,400100.00%2,066,600100.00%8.86%Panel E Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSAEmployeesPercent EmployeesPercent Growth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Mining & ConstructionNot Available Manufacturing143,10020.75%138,90018.65%-2.94% Transportation & Public Utilities53,1007.70%52,6007.06%-0.94% Trade178,10025.82%190,00025.51%6.68% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate51,9007.52%65,0008.73%25.24% Services175,60025.46%204,20027.41%16.29% Public Administration88,00012.76%94,20012.65%7.05% Totals689,800100.00%744,900100.00%7.99%Panel F Orlando MSAEmployeesPercent EmployeesPercent Growth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Mining & Construction41,1005.34%46,9005.52%14.11% Manufacturing52,2006.78%53,9006.35%3.26% Transportation & Public Utilities39,4005.12%43,6005.13%10.66% Trade194,80025.29%209,30024.65%7.44% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate44,7005.80%53,8006.34%20.36% Services314,10040.78%353,50041.63%12.54% Public Administration83,90010.89%88,20010.39%5.13% Totals770,200100.00%849,200100.00%10.26% Southeastern MSAs Employment Structure by MSA by Industry Divisions APPENDIX E Tampa Bay Region s Births and Deaths Table 1Y TAMPA BAY REGION BIRTHS/DEATHSBIRTHSDEATHSNET Location199719981999199719981999199719981999 Hernando104610881065186519672018-819-879-953 Hillsborough138871430614444792581788296596261286148 Manatee285628603044313732543284-281-394-240 Pasco336034123501498350135149-1623-1601-1648 Pinellas925394399257126071260712713-3354-3168-3456 Polk646665076594482451125255164213951339 Sarasota253426032638458848554744-2054-2252-2106 Tampa Bay394024021540543399294098641459-527-771-916 Source: State of Florida, Department of Health, Vital Statistics Reports of Live Births and Deaths online access at: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/planning_eval/vital_statistics/statistical_report.htm APPENDIX B

PAGE 36

34TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Table 8 WAGES BY DIVISION Panel A Hernando CountyAvg. Annual% of TotalAvg. Annual% of TotalGrowth DivisionWage: Jan-97EmploymentWage: Jan-99Employment97-99Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$17,8561.41%$17,4841.76%-2.08% Mining & Construction$21,0847.87%$23,0887.54%9.50% Manufacturing$27,1804.88%$28,3194.70%4.19% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities$27,7564.43%$29,2924.07%5.53% Trade$14,47232.07%$16,84834.15%16.42% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$27,3364.55%$31,3564.34%14.71% Services$18,88035.32%$21,53934.27%14.08% Public Administration$27,8889.48%$28,0809.17%0.69% Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$19,662$21,64210.07%Panel B Hillsborough CountyAvg. Annual% of TotalAvg. Annual% of TotalGrowth DivisionWage: Jan-97EmploymentWage: Jan-99Employment97-99Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$12,3962.66%$13,8002.54%11.33% Mining & Construction$28,5724.68%$30,3844.95%6.34% Manufacturing$29,5736.79%$31,4866.52%6.47% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities$38,9406.22%$39,2646.61%0.83% Trade$22,57223.94%$24,49222.17%8.51% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$38,1007.66%$42,6248.26%11.87% Services$24,66043.30%$27,34344.29%10.88% Public Administration$31,2484.74%$30,9844.65%-0.84% Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$26,581$29,0099.14%Panel C Manatee CountyAvg. Annual% of TotalAvg. Annual% of TotalGrowth DivisionWage: Jan-97EmploymentWage: Jan-99Employment97-99Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$12,5042.66%$13,5962.54%8.73% Mining & Construction$24,3964.68%$26,4004.95%8.21% Manufacturing$29,8696.79%$34,8596.52%16.71% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities$31,8126.22%$32,8326.61%3.21% Trade$17,68823.94%$18,97222.17%7.26% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$28,8487.66%$31,7648.26%10.11% Services$18,14043.30%$21,77244.29%20.03% Public Administration$27,8884.74%$27,2884.65%-2.15% Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$21,104$23,84012.97%Panel D Pasco CountyAvg. Annual% of TotalAvg. Annual% of TotalGrowth DivisionWage: Jan-97EmploymentWage: Jan-99Employment97-99Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$15,0962.66%$14,8922.54%-1.35% Mining & Construction$20,7004.68%$21,3364.95%3.07% Manufacturing$24,5986.79%$24,3116.52%-1.16% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities$28,5006.22%$29,8806.61%4.84% Trade$14,46023.94%$15,49222.17%7.14% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$27,7207.66%$25,7168.26%-7.23% Services$22,06243.30%$23,52344.29%6.62% Public Administration$25,4044.74%$25,3084.65%-0.38% Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$21,157$22,1514.70%APPENDIX F Tampa Bay Region Wages by Industry Divisions Panel E Pinellas CountyAvg. Annual% of TotalAvg. Annual% of TotalGrowth DivisionWage: Jan-97EmploymentWage: Jan-99Employment97-99Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$16,9560.70%$17,7480.77%4.67% Mining & Construction$25,4884.73%$27,4684.85%7.77% Manufacturing$32,31011.29%$33,67711.30%4.23% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities$34,3564.24%$38,1244.69%10.97% Trade$22,23625.17%$22,38024.01%0.65% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$37,4046.53%$42,1927.33%12.80% Services$24,62742.04%$25,96241.98%5.42% Public Administration$29,4365.29%$30,0245.06%2.00% Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$26,381$27,9505.95%Panel F Polk CountyAvg. Annual% of TotalAvg. Annual% of TotalGrowth DivisionWage: Jan-97EmploymentWage: Jan-99Employment97-99Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$14,5928.01%$16,4046.10%12.42% Mining & Construction$29,1366.88%$30,2527.20%3.83% Manufacturing$32,21611.94%$33,83611.65%5.03% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities$30,7085.40%$32,0645.51%4.42% Trade$19,76426.65%$21,49226.90%8.74% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$29,7604.32%$32,6524.52%9.72% Services$23,29830.05%$23,53431.20%1.01% Public Administration$27,7446.74%$26,4246.93%-4.76% Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$24,105$25,3175.03%Panel G Sarasota CountyAvg. Annual% of TotalAvg. Annual% of TotalGrowth DivisionWage: Jan-97EmploymentWage: Jan-99Employment97-99Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$16,3201.53%$17,1601.71%5.15% Mining & Construction$24,5166.45%$24,9246.95%1.66% Manufacturing$29,8316.13%$31,7795.98%6.53% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities$30,9363.41%$34,1163.35%10.28% Trade$17,60429.44%$18,52827.05%5.25% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$39,9726.48%$47,5926.39%19.06% Services$24,09841.77%$23,80443.71%-1.22% Public Administration$28,1644.78%$29,3764.86%4.30% Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$23,902$24,9554.40%Tampa BayAvg. Annual% of TotalAvg. Annual% of TotalGrowth DivisionWage: Jan-97EmploymentWage: Jan-99Employment97-99Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$12,0043.08%$13,3092.74%10.87% Mining & Construction$26,5865.18%$27,9765.45%5.23% Manufacturing$29,8718.84%$31,4058.67%5.14% Taransportation, Comm. & Utilities$38,0514.88%$39,8065.18%4.61% Trade$20,76825.12%$21,82923.98%5.11% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$39,2516.20%$43,9166.70%11.89% Services$23,49441.43%$25,43942.06%8.28% Public Administration$28,9535.29%$28,7625.23%-0.66% Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$25,154$27,0527.55%

PAGE 37

2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 35 Table M8 WAGES BY DIVISION Panel A Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$16,1156.62%$17,1186.06%6.22% Mining & Construction $30,7388.07%$32,4558.55%5.59% Manufacturing$32,96614.07%$34,71813.71%5.31% Transportation & Public Utilities$31,2125.65%$32,8235.62%5.16% Trade$20,09031.98%$21,62031.94%7.62% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$30,9385.20%$32,9745.37%6.58% Services$24,47228.42%$24,94828.74%1.95% Weighted Average Annual Wage$24,935$26,2665.34%Panel B Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$14,5263.88%$15,2093.74%4.70% Construction $26,4165.72%$27,7126.00%4.91% Manufacturing$31,8949.51%$33,8979.64%6.28% Transportation & Public Utilities$31,1602.42%$32,5792.35%4.55% Trade$18,26626.93%$19,29826.92%5.65% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$37,0895.26%$39,5715.32%6.69% Services$22,03046.27%$23,99846.03%8.93% Weighted Average Annual Wage$22,928$24,6127.34%Panel C Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$15,1341.87%$15,8671.90%4.84% Construction $28,1125.65%$29,8655.71%6.24% Manufacturing$31,0849.72%$32,5489.53%4.71% Transportation & Public Utilities$36,3725.10%$37,2165.07%2.32% Trade$21,58427.96%$22,56427.34%4.54% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$36,9008.14%$39,5308.43%7.13% Services$25,67341.57%$26,98442.02%5.11% Weighted Average Annual Wage$26,456$27,8355.21% APPENDIX G APPENDIX H Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Wages by Industry Division Wages by Selected MSA by Industry Division Panel D Atlanta, GA MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$20,2810.83%$21,6520.86%6.76% Mining & Construction $32,6335.70%$34,7505.89%6.49% Manufacturing$38,84813.04%$41,57412.70%7.02% Transportation & Public Utilities$45,9219.63%$48,0599.74%4.66% Trade$26,28331.18%$28,32130.79%7.75% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$46,9597.42%$51,2427.56%9.12% Services$32,24632.20%$34,02132.46%5.50% Weighted Average Annual Wage$33,579$35,8316.71%Panel E Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$16,9781.86%$17,8001.86%4.84% Mining & Construction$30,9658.33%$32,1998.60%3.99% Manufacturing$41,35513.21%$44,45913.12%7.51% Transportation & Public Utilities$35,8445.71%$37,5375.72%4.72% Trade$23,03627.92%$24,48427.59%6.28% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$35,6508.71%$39,2568.78%10.12% Services$26,45434.26%$28,15434.34%6.43% Weighted Average Annual Wage$29,005$30,9466.69%Panel F Orlando, FL MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$19,1903.71%$20,6513.52%7.61% Construction$28,38911.02%$30,21111.35%6.42% Manufacturing$37,63113.44%$39,32013.38%4.49% Transportation & Public Utilities$33,57710.24%$34,42110.44%2.51% Trade$20,53850.21%$21,91949.88%6.72% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$34,96311.38%$38,04311.42%8.81% Weighted Average Annual Wage$26,627$28,2926.25%Panel G Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$20,3091.08%$21,6311.14%6.51% Mining & Construction $30,5827.72%$32,4137.96%5.99% Manufacturing$33,72224.05%$35,50522.99%5.29% Transportation & Public Utilities$44,9348.77%$46,6468.37%3.81% Trade$23,25230.32%$24,72130.06%6.32% Services$27,76328.07%$30,28729.48%9.09% Weighted Average Annual Wage$29,472$31,2546.05%Panel H Austin-San Marcos, TX MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$18,0331.05%$19,9150.97%10.44% Construction$30,4987.00%$32,2357.24%5.70% Manufacturing$49,62117.64%$63,16417.72%27.29% Transportation & Public Utilities$33,5144.25%$38,0324.23%13.48% Trade$21,79128.25%$28,02527.86%28.61% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$36,0216.74%$38,9336.64%8.08% Services$30,04435.07%$31,83735.33%5.97% Weighted Average Annual Wage$31,621$36,97416.93%

PAGE 38

36TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Table G1 Business Establishments by Division Panel A Hernando CountyEstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries783.79%833.75%6.41% Mining & Construction33416.22%36816.63%10.18% Manufacturing703.40%733.30%4.29% Transportation, Comm. & Utilities743.59%873.93%17.57% Trade60129.19%60727.43%1.00% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate1597.72%1798.09%12.58% Services70434.19%77434.98%9.94% Public Administration391.89%421.90%7.69% Totals2,059100.00%2,213100.00%7.48%Panel B Hillsborough CountyEstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries7703.18%7983.14%3.64% Mining & Construction1,9808.16%2,2328.78%12.73% Manufacturing9553.94%9973.92%4.40% Transportation, Comm. & Utilities9423.88%9873.88%4.78% Trade7,22829.80%7,14228.08%-1.19% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate2,52110.40%2,62010.30%3.93% Services9,68839.95%10,49541.27%8.33% Public Administration1670.69%1590.63%-4.79% Totals24,251100.00%25,430100.00%4.86%Panel C Manatee CountyEstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries2644.96%2965.16%12.12% Mining & Construction54810.30%68211.88%24.45% Manufacturing2805.26%3005.23%7.14% Transportation, Comm. & Utilities1562.93%1813.15%16.03% Trade1,52128.58%1,59627.81%4.93% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate4959.30%5138.94%3.64% Services1,99237.44%2,10236.63%5.52% Public Administration651.22%691.20%6.15% Totals5,321100.00%5,739100.00%7.86%Panel D Pasco CountyEstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries2454.48%2794.79%13.88% Mining & Construction72813.32%80313.80%10.30% Manufacturing1793.27%1863.20%3.91% Transportation, Comm. & Utilities2083.81%2293.93%10.10% Trade1,55328.41%1,56226.84%0.58% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate4598.40%5058.68%10.02% Services2,04437.39%2,19537.71%7.39% Public Administration500.91%611.05%22.00% Totals5,466100.00%5,820100.00%6.48%Panel E Pinellas CountyEstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries5112.12%5532.23%8.22% Mining & Construction2,0088.34%2,1638.71%7.72% Manufacturing1,2295.11%1,2795.15%4.07% Transportation, Comm. & Utilities6842.84%7232.91%5.70% Trade7,08329.43%6,89627.75%-2.64% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate2,3729.86%2,4789.97%4.47% Services10,05641.78%10,61742.73%5.58% Public Administration1240.52%1370.55%10.48% Totals24,067100.00%24,846100.00%3.24%Panel F Polk CountyEstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries5916.48%5956.38%0.68% Mining & Construction9039.90%1,03811.12%14.95% Manufacturing4795.25%4975.33%3.76% Transportation, Comm. & Utilities4514.94%4614.94%2.22% Trade2,78430.51%2,70929.03%-2.69% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate7718.45%7518.05%-2.59% Services3,03933.30%3,17033.97%4.31% Public Administration1071.17%1101.18%2.80% Totals9,125100.00%9,331100.00%2.26%Panel G Sarasota CountyEstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries3072.92%3423.08%11.40% Mining & Construction1,21211.53%1,39412.55%15.02% Manufacturing3723.54%4233.81%13.71% Transportation, Comm. & Utilities2842.70%3122.81%9.86% Trade2,87927.39%2,83525.52%-1.53% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate1,05310.02%1,0819.73%2.66% Services4,34241.31%4,65341.88%7.16% Public Administration630.60%690.62%9.52% Totals10,512100.00%11,109100.00%5.68%Panel H Tampa BayEstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-97of TotalJan-99of Total97-99 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries2,7663.42%2,9463.49%6.51% Mining & Construction7,7139.55%8,68010.27%12.54% Manufacturing3,5644.41%3,7554.44%5.36% Transportation, Comm. & Utilities2,7993.46%2,9803.53%6.47% Trade23,64929.27%23,34727.63%-1.28% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate7,8309.69%8,1279.62%3.79% Services31,86539.44%34,00640.25%6.72% Public Administration6150.76%6470.77%5.20% Totals80,801100.00%84,488100.00%4.56%APPENDIX I Tampa Bay Region Business Establishments by Division

PAGE 39

2000 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 37 Table M8 WAGES BY DIVISION Panel A Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$16,1156.62%$17,1186.06%6.22% Mining & Construction $30,7388.07%$32,4558.55%5.59% Manufacturing$32,96614.07%$34,71813.71%5.31% Transportation & Public Utilities$31,2125.65%$32,8235.62%5.16% Trade$20,09031.98%$21,62031.94%7.62% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$30,9385.20%$32,9745.37%6.58% Services$24,47228.42%$24,94828.74%1.95% Weighted Average Annual Wage$24,935$26,2665.34%Panel B Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$14,5263.88%$15,2093.74%4.70% Construction $26,4165.72%$27,7126.00%4.91% Manufacturing$31,8949.51%$33,8979.64%6.28% Transportation & Public Utilities$31,1602.42%$32,5792.35%4.55% Trade$18,26626.93%$19,29826.92%5.65% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$37,0895.26%$39,5715.32%6.69% Services$22,03046.27%$23,99846.03%8.93% Weighted Average Annual Wage$22,928$24,6127.34%Panel C Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$15,1341.87%$15,8671.90%4.84% Construction $28,1125.65%$29,8655.71%6.24% Manufacturing$31,0849.72%$32,5489.53%4.71% Transportation & Public Utilities$36,3725.10%$37,2165.07%2.32% Trade$21,58427.96%$22,56427.34%4.54% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$36,9008.14%$39,5308.43%7.13% Services$25,67341.57%$26,98442.02%5.11% Weighted Average Annual Wage$26,456$27,8355.21%Panel D Atlanta, GA MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$20,2810.83%$21,6520.86%6.76% Mining & Construction $32,6335.70%$34,7505.89%6.49% Manufacturing$38,84813.04%$41,57412.70%7.02% Transportation & Public Utilities$45,9219.63%$48,0599.74%4.66% Trade$26,28331.18%$28,32130.79%7.75% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$46,9597.42%$51,2427.56%9.12% Services$32,24632.20%$34,02132.46%5.50% Weighted Average Annual Wage$33,579$35,8316.71%Panel E Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$16,9781.86%$17,8001.86%4.84% Mining & Construction$30,9658.33%$32,1998.60%3.99% Manufacturing$41,35513.21%$44,45913.12%7.51% Transportation & Public Utilities$35,8445.71%$37,5375.72%4.72% Trade$23,03627.92%$24,48427.59%6.28% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$35,6508.71%$39,2568.78%10.12% Services$26,45434.26%$28,15434.34%6.43% Weighted Average Annual Wage$29,005$30,9466.69%Panel F Orlando, FL MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$19,1903.71%$20,6513.52%7.61% Construction$28,38911.02%$30,21111.35%6.42% Manufacturing$37,63113.44%$39,32013.38%4.49% Transportation & Public Utilities$33,57710.24%$34,42110.44%2.51% Trade$20,53850.21%$21,91949.88%6.72% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$34,96311.38%$38,04311.42%8.81% Weighted Average Annual Wage$26,627$28,2926.25%Panel G Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$20,3091.08%$21,6311.14%6.51% Mining & Construction $30,5827.72%$32,4137.96%5.99% Manufacturing$33,72224.05%$35,50522.99%5.29% Transportation & Public Utilities$44,9348.77%$46,6468.37%3.81% Trade$23,25230.32%$24,72130.06%6.32% Services$27,76328.07%$30,28729.48%9.09% Weighted Average Annual Wage$29,472$31,2546.05%Panel H Austin-San Marcos, TX MSAAverage Annual % of Total Average Annual % of Total Growth DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 1998Employment97-98 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$18,0331.05%$19,9150.97%10.44% Construction$30,4987.00%$32,2357.24%5.70% Manufacturing$49,62117.64%$63,16417.72%27.29% Transportation & Public Utilities$33,5144.25%$38,0324.23%13.48% Trade$21,79128.25%$28,02527.86%28.61% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$36,0216.74%$38,9336.64%8.08% Services$30,04435.07%$31,83735.33%5.97% Weighted Average Annual Wage$31,621$36,97416.93%APPENDIX K APPENDIX J Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Business Establishments by Industry Division Business Establishments by Selected MSA by Industry Division

PAGE 40

TAMPABAYPARTNERSHIP4300 W. Cypress Street Suite 250 Tampa, FL 33607 (813) 878-2208 Fax: (813) 872-9356 www.TampaBay.org ¨ AN ENTERPRISE FLORIDA PARTNER