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 - C63-00086
usfldc handle - c63.86
System ID:
SFS0000353:00001


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 C63-00086
0 245
Tampa Bay Region economic market report.
n 2001.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Tampa Bay Partnership.
c 2001
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/?c63.86



PAGE 1

Prepared for the Tampa Bay Partnership by the USF Center for Economic Development ResearchTAMPA BAY REGION2001ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT TAMPABAYPARTNERSHIPFor Regional Economic DevelopmentHERNANDO HILLSBOROUGH MANATEEPASCO PINELLAS POLK SARASOTA USF Downtown Center¨

PAGE 2

SECTION 1: TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCEPOPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 MIGRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 LABOR FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO . . . . . . .10 EMPLOYED WORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS . . . . . .14 UNEMPLOYED WORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20SECTION 2: WAGES AND INCOME IN TAMPA BAYWAGE AND INCOME SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . .22 WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS . . . . . . . . .22 PERSONAL INCOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 DISPOSABLE PERSO NAL INCOME . . . . . . . . .26SECTION 3: BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS BUSINESS & ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SUMMARY . .27 BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS . . . . . . . . . . .27 GROSS SALES & TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY . . .29 HOUSING PERMITS & CONSTRUCTION SPENDING .30 COST OF LIVING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32SECTION 4: EDUCATION INDICATORSEDUCATION SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES . . . . . . . .33 SCHOLASTIC ASSESSMENT TEST SCORES . . . .34 HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZES . . . . . . . . . . .34 PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES FOR HIGH SCHOOL . . .35 APPENDICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36TABLE OF CONTENTSTAMPABAYREGIONOFWESTCENTRALFLORIDACOUNTIESOFHERNANDO HILLSBOROUGHMANATEE PASCO PINELLASPOLK SARASOTA

PAGE 3

2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 1 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 be obtained by contacting the Partnership at 813-878-2208, or info@TampaBay.org. THETAMPABAYPARNERSHIP, established in 1994, is a regional economic development organization that works with its partners to market the regional nationally and internationally, to conduct regional research, and to coordinate efforts to influence business and government issues that impact economic growth and development. Its two major public policy issues are infrastructure/transportation and workforce 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 Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership. BayCare Health Network, Inc. City of Clearwater City of St. Petersburg City of Tampa Florida Power Corporation 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 TAMPA BAY REGION2001ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT The College of Business Administration's Center for E conomic Development Research (CEDR) at the University of South Florida initiates and conducts innovative research on economic development. CEDR's education programs are designed to cultivate excellence in regional development. Its data center serves to enhance development efforts at USF, its College of Business Administration, and throughout the Tampa Bay region. CEDR's research activities include analyses of economic impact, industry clustering, community development opportunities, international trade patterns, wage parity, and demographics of the Tampa Bay region. CEDR's Geographic Information System capability enhances analyses of demographic, business establishment, and employment patterns. Annually, CEDR offers Florida's only basic economic development course, which is fully accredited by the International Economic Development Association. Dr. Kenneth Wieand is Director of CEDR. He is a professor of finance in the College of Business Administration. Other CEDR faculty are Dr. Dennis Colie, economist and associate director of CEDR; analyst Gina Space; and Dodson Tong, data manager. CEDR staff includes Nolan Kimball, coordinator of information and publications; Anand Shah, web designer; and Alex McPherson, research associate. Helping on this project, under the direction of Dr. Colie, was David Sobush, graduate research assistant in the College of Business Administration's MBA program. For more information about CEDR, visit http://cedr.coba.usf.edu, or call 813-974-CEDR (2337). ¨

PAGE 4

Tampa Bay's population continues to grow at a moderate pace.Tampa Bay's population growth rate at about 1.59% per year exceeds the U.S. average of just under 1.25%, but trails Florida's 2.14%, consistent with trends previously published in the Market Report. 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. The Austin-San Marcos MSA has grown at more than two and one-half times our percentage rate.In-migration continues to account for most of the area's population growth. Every year, nearly 41,000 more persons move into Tampa Bay than leave the area. This growth, about 1.28% annually from 1997, is expected 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 national economy.Workforce growth and employment growth outpaced population growth in the previous decade. Tampa Bay's labor force has grown by 1.74% annually. And, because the region's unemployment rate has fallen, regional employment has grown by about 2% per year since 1990.Other Sunbelt cities have experienced rapid workforce and employment growth as well. Regional growth of those indicators lagged that of the six comparison areas.Money wages made strong gains, led by financial services.Residents who joined Tampa Bay's labor force enjoyed rapidly growing wages. Wages in Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater and in Lakeland-Winter Haven rose at an annual rate of more than 10% between 1997 and 2000. Sarasota-Bradenton, which experiences lower average wages, gained 8.9% over the same period.Payroll data indicate that wages rose by nearly 48% between 1990 and 2000. The Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) businesses led the way, with wages increasing by more than 67% over that time period. In addition, at $42,092 FIRE employees enjoyed the highest average wage of all industry divisions in 2000.Business activity remains strong.Personal income. Income per person in Tampa Bay was $28,731 in 1999. The importance of non-wage income is apparent in Sarasota-Bradenton, where residents received per capita personal income of $35,679.Housing. Housing permits and construction are sensitive to the level of economic activity in a region. Strong U.S. economic growth has combined with a growth of population and employment in Tampa Bay to produce robust construction activity. Over the period 1997-2000, new housing permits rose 18%. Most new housing permits were in Hillsborough County, which accounted for 11,656 of the 31,100 units permitted in 2000.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 density. Pinellas County's living costs are 103.3% of the state average, while the cost of living in Hernando County is only 92.93% of the state average.Secondary education keeps pace with the state.The Florida Department of Education also maintains statewide data on public education. The data indicate that in resources devoted to education in Tampa Bay and in measures of educational achievement, Tampa Bay outperforms the Florida average. Expenditures per "regular" pupil are $4,153 in Tampa Bay, and $4,247 statewide. Average class size for science students in Tampa Bay is 25.6 pupils versus 26.7 statewide. Tampa Bay students scored an average of 1013 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test in 2000, compared to 995 statewide. In 2000, Tampa Bay graduated 65.1% of students who entered 9th grade in 1996, while students statewide graduated at a rate of 62.3%. 2TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001EXEC UTIVE SUMMARYUSF's Center for Economic Development Research prepared this report for the Tampa Bay Partnership and its members 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 WorkforceWages & Income Business & Economic Conditions Education

PAGE 5

The purpose of this report is to present information, primarily data and statistical indicators, about Tampa Bay's workforce, wages and income, business and economic conditions, and the education of residents. The available data is organized by county and by metropolitan statistical area (MSA). When using by-county data, we refer to the group of seven counties Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, and Sarasota as the Tampa Bay region. The use of 7-county regional data allows us to compare statistics county-by-county, as well as compare 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 Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA is defined by Polk County, the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA encompasses the counties of Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas, and Hillsborough, and the Sarasota-Bradenton MSA includes Manatee County and Sarasota County. The letter M prefixes tables and charts reporting MSA data. The use of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate allows us to benchmark statistics MSA-by-MSA, as well as compute Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate averages for benchmarking against a comparison universe. We have selected the following as a comparison universe: Atlanta MSA, Phoenix-Mesa MSA, Orlando MSA, CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill MSA, Austin-San Marcos MSA, and the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). See Appendix A for information about forthcoming changes to metropolitan statistical areas. 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 3TAMPA BAY MARKET REPORT 2001 Preparation of this report began in May 2001. Since then, the September 11 terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have occurred. Many economists have expressed an opinion that these attacks and the continuing possibility of further attacks in the U.S. and war in Central Asia and the Middle East will have a serious deleterious effect on the U.S. economy. Even before the attacks, there were indications that the U.S. economy was contracting during the third quarter of 2001. CEDR projections of demographic and economic indicators appear throughout this market report. The reader should keep in mind that the projections are linear extensions of historical trends. If business and economic conditions severely and abruptly turn down, particularly in response to the events of September 11, the projections may not be reliable forecasts.

PAGE 6

This section reports workforce data for the Tampa Bay region by county and for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate by MSA. The MSA data compare Tampa Bay against metropolitan areas in the southeast Atlanta, Charlotte, and Orlando and other selected MSAs Austin, Denver, and Phoenix. Population reported in this section is based on the 1990 and 2000 censuses. By April 2000, population in the Tampa Bay region rose to almost 3.5 million persons, an annual compound growth rate of 1.59%. For the state of Florida, population grew to almost 16 million persons, an annual compound growth rate of 2.14%. For both the Tampa Bay region and the state of Florida, these increases in population were due primarily to migration, rather than an increase in births. Labor force, an indicator of economic potential, consists of employed persons and unemployed persons. A person is defined as unemployed if they sought work, were available for work, and were not employed. The labor force does not include persons not seeking employment, not available for work, full-time students, or incarcerated persons. The labor force in the Tampa Bay region has increased since 1990 at a rate (1.74% per annum) slightly greater than that of population growth (1.59% per annum). The labor force growth of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate lagged behind that of the comparison MSAs. The labor force in the Austin-San Marcos MSA experienced the greatest growth (4.33% per annum) during the inter-census period. The workforce-to-population ratio in the Tampa Bay region increased between 1990 and 2000 at an average compound rate of 0.145% per year. Among comparison MSAs, the Phoenix-Mesa MSA experienced the greatest decline in workforce-to-population ratio at a rate of 0.149% per year, whereas the Austin-San Marcos MSA enjoyed the greatest increase at a rate of 0.335% per year. The number of employed workers in the Tampa Bay region increased at an average annual compound rate of 2.00%, with the Service industry division increasing by 4.61% per year between 1990 and 2000. In the Tampa Bay region, only the Manufacturing industry division decreased its number of employed workers during this period, experiencing an average annual compound loss of 0.11%. Employment growth in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate lagged behind that of the comparison MSAs; the leader among these, the Austin-San Marcos MSA, saw its employment increase at an average annual compound rate of 4.62%. Between 1990 and 2000, unemployment in the Tampa Bay region declined at an average annual compound rate of 4.61%. Every county in the Tampa Bay region saw its number of unemployed workers decrease during this time period, and none more so than Polk County, which enjoyed an overall unemployment reduction of 63.36% (9.55% per annum). As expected, the unemployment rate also decreased in each county of the Tampa Bay region, with the regional unemployment rate decreasing at an average annual compound rate of 6.51%. Within the comparison universe of MSAs, the Austin-San Marcos MSA enjoyed the greatest decline in unemployed workers (4.88% per annum) and also in unemployment rate decline (8.82% per annum). 4TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001Table 1 depicts population estimates that were reported in the Tampa Bay Region: 2000 Economic Market Report. The estimates were derived by the U.S. Census Bureau (except the Jan-00 CEDR projection of the trend in Census Bureau estimates) based on the 1990 census enumeration. The 2000 census enumeration is now complete, and we know that the previous estimates were too low. Table 2 reflects the population increases in the Tampa Bay region from 1990 to 2000. Over this 10-year span, Tampa Bay's population increased by 507,000 persons or almost 51,000 persons per year. (A comparison of the January 2000 estimate in Table 1 with the actual April 2000 census count in Table 2 reveals that the Table 1 annual population estimates, based from the 1990 census count, accumulated an approximate 271,000 underestimate of the Tampa Bay population.) Table 2 also contains CEDR's population projections for 2001 and 2002. The projections are calculated using the 1990 to 2000 average annual compound rates of population growth. Chart 2A depicts the relative sizes of the populations in Tampa Bay's seven counties. The most populous county is Hillsborough County, which accounts for almost 29% of the region's population. Pinellas County follows closely with about 27% of the region's population.POPULATIONTAMPA BAY REGION POPULATIO N PROJECTION BASED ON 1990 CENSUS LocationJan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00 Hernando122,887125,460127,536129,926 Hillsborough900,995917,171932,949949,348 Manatee233,481237,346241,580245,734 Pasco315,113321,812327,917334,512 Pinellas871,099875,248877,886881,299 Polk443,147449,537454,998461,042 Sarasota298,633301,820304,944308,149 Tampa Bay3,185,3553,228,3943,267,8093,310,010 Florida14,551,02514,796,58115,009,61215,250,392Source: Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census SECTION 1TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCE TAMPA BAY REGION POPULATION ESTIMATESTable 1

PAGE 7

Chart 2B shows the 10-year population growth rates for the Tampa Bay region, its counties, and the state of Florida. In Tampa Bay, Hernando County grew the fastest (29.36%), while Pinellas County experienced the slowest growth rate (8.20%). By comparison, the Tampa Bay region's combined 10-year population growth rate was 17.11%, while Florida's population grew by 23.53% over the same 1990 to 2000 span. In terms of an average annual compound rate of growth from 1990 to 2000, the Tampa Bay region experienced a 1.59% population increase per year, which is less than Florida's 2.14% increase per year. Also see Appendix B for year-by-year population trends for each of Tampa Bay's seven counties. The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate consists of three Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs): Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater MSA, Sarasota-Bradenton MSA, and the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA. Table M1 provides population increases between 1990 and 2000 according to actual census counts. The table shows the increases for each of Tampa Bay's three MSAs and aggregate population increase, which is the sum of the increases for each of the three MSAs. The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate can be compared to population increases in other MSAs of the comparison universe. Tampa Bay's 10-year percentage change in population of 17.11% reflects a slower growth rate than any of the six comparison MSAs. Chart M1A depicts the relative sizes of the populations in Tampa Bay's three MSAs. The Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater MSA is the most populous of the three MSAs and is the place of residence for seven out of 10 people living in Tampa Bay. Chart M1B shows the 10-year population growth rates for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its three component MSAs. Over the past 10 years, the Sarasota-Bradenton MSA grew the fastest (20.53%), while the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA had the slowest growth rate (15.86%). 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 5 Population by Enumeration10-Year Annual Compound LocationApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Hernando101,115130,80229.36%2.61%134,213137,713 Hillsborough834,054998,94819.77%1.82%1,017,1331,035,649 Manatee211,707264,00224.70%2.23%269,895275,919 Pasco281,131344,76522.63%2.06%351,872359,125 Pinellas851,659921,4828.20%0.79%928,772936,119 Polk405,382483,92419.37%1.79%492,571501,372 Sarasota277,776325,95717.35%1.61%331,213336,553 Tampa Bay2,962,8243,469,88017.11%1.59%3,525,1313,581,263 Florida12,937,92615,982,37823.53%2.14%16,323,71816,672,347*CEDR projectionSource: U.S. Bureau of the Census 29.36% 19.77% 24.70% 22.63% 8.20% 19.37% 17.35% 17.11% 23.53%0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% Hernando Hillsborough ManateePascoPinellasPolkSarasotaTampa BayFlorida N ESTIMATES Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 483,924 589,959 2,395,997Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSASarasotaBradenton, FL MSATampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA 130,802 998,948 264,002 344,765 921,482 483,924 325,957Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk SarasotaSource: U.S. Bureau of the Census Table 2 TAMPA BAY REGION POPULATION Chart2B TAMPA BAY POPULATION GROWTH: April1990 April 2000Chart 2A TAMPA BAY REGION POPULATION: CENSUS 2000 Chart M1A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE POPULATION: CENSUS 2000

PAGE 8

Chart M1C benchmarks the 10-year population growth rate of Tampa Bay against the growth rates of selected southeastern MSAs. The fastest growing MSA in the southeastern group during the last decade was Atlanta, GA (38.93%). The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate experienced the slowest population growth rate (17.11%) among the southeastern comparisons. Chart M1D benchmarks the 10year population growth rate of Tampa Bay against the growth rates of other selected MSAs. Both the Austin-San Marcos, TX (47.69%) and the Phoenix-Mesa, AZ (45.27%) MSAs had population growth rates more than double that of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. 6TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 19.37% 20.53% 15.86% 17.11%0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting DataLakelandWinter Haven, FL MSA SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa Bay 17.11% 45.27% 30.37% 47.69%0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%TampaPhoenix-Mesa, AZ MSADenver-BoulderCO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSASource: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data 17.11% 38.93% 34.27% 29.02%0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00%Tampa BayAtlanta, GA MSA Orlando, FL MSA CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSASource: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistrictung Data Population by Enumeration10-YearAnnual Compound LocationApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA405,382483,92419.37%1.79%492,586501,404 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA489,483589,95920.53%1.88%601,050612,350 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA2,067,9592,395,99715.86%1.48%2,431,4582,467,443 Tampa Bay2,962,8243,469,88017.11%1.59%3,525,0513,581,099 Comparison Universe: Atlanta, GA MSA2,959,9504,112,19838.93%3.34%4,249,5454,391,480 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA2,238,4803,251,87645.27%3.80%3,375,4473,503,714 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA1,980,1402,581,50630.37%2.69%2,650,9492,722,259 Orlando, FL MSA1,224,8521,644,56134.27%2.99%1,693,7331,744,376 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA1,162,0931,499,29329.02%2.58%1,537,9751,577,655 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA846,2271,249,76347.69%3.98%1,299,5041,351,224*CEDR projection Source: U.S. Bureau of the CensusSECTION 1TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCE Table M1 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE POPULATIONChart M1C SOUTHEASTERN POPULATION GROWTH BENCHMARKS: April 1990 April 2000 Chart M1D SELECTED MSA POPULATION GROWTH BENCHMARKS: April 1990 April 2000 Chart M1B TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE POPULATION GROWTH: April 1990 April 2000

PAGE 9

2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 7 Table 1X contains estimates of the number of people migrating to Tampa Bay. The estimates are based on population changes as reported by the Census Bureau, and adjusted by the net effect of births and deaths on that population change. Over the four years of available data, net migration for the Tampa Bay region is positive. Over the four-year time period, Hernando County experienced the lowest amount of net migration, 13,457. Hillsborough County experienced the greatest amount of net migration, 37,473. As a region, Tampa Bay experienced net migration of 164,123 persons over the four-year period, or slightly more than 41,000 persons per year. The year-by-year figures are graphically presented in Chart 1X. The Tampa Bay region accounted for 20.6% of Florida's net migration figure of 795,875 persons between 1996 and 2000. The annual compound percentage growth in population is broken down into two categories: annual compound percentage growth due to migration and net annual compound percentage growth. Differences between the two figures are attributable to the net effect of births and deaths within an area. In areas where deaths outnumbered births, growth due to migration exceeded net growth, and vice versa. Hernando County enjoyed the highest growth rate due to migration (2.69% per annum), whereas Pasco County experienced the highest net growth rate (2.06% per annum) over the four-year period. Pinellas County experienced the lowest growth rate due to migration and the lowest net growth rate over the four-year period with rates of 0.73% per annum and 0.35% per annum, respectively. AnnualAnnual CompoundCompound PopulationPopulation % Growth Growth Due Net Effect of Births and DeathsPopulation Change Due to MigrationMigrationto Migration Location19961997199819991996-19971997-19981998-19991999-20001996-20001996-20001996-2000 Hernando(806)(819)(879)(953)3,767 3,392 2,955 3,343 13,457 2.02%2.69% Hillsborough5,660 5,962 6,128 6,148 7,358 10,214 9,650 10,251 37,473 1.68%1.04% Manatee(189)(281)(394)(240)3,241 4,146 4,628 4,394 16,409 1.62%1.73% Pasco(1,760)(1,623)(1,601)(1,648)8,517 8,322 7,706 8,243 32,788 2.06%2.56% Pinellas(3,247)(3,354)(3,168)(3,456)5,365 7,503 5,806 6,869 25,543 0.35%0.73% Polk1,377 1,642 1,395 1,339 4,117 4,748 4,066 4,705 17,636 1.31%0.99% Sarasota(2,010)(2,054)(2,252)(2,106)4,890 5,241 5,376 5,311 20,818 1.03%1.72% Tampa Bay(975)(527)(771)(916)37,254 43,566 40,186 43,117 164,123 1.25%1.28% Florida36,641 38,474 38,404 34,841 208,227 207,082 174,627 205,939 795,875 1.61%1.36%Source: US Census Bureau (with CEDR interpolation); State of Florida, Department of Health, Vital Statistics Reports of Live Bi rths and Deaths FL MSA 37,254 43,566 40,186 43,11734,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 41,000 42,000 43,000 44,000 45,0001996-19971997-19981998-19991999-2000 !" # MIGRATION Table 1X TAMPA BAY REGION MIGRATIONS Chart 1X TAMPA BAY REGION POPULATION CHANGE DUE TO MIGRATION

PAGE 10

The labor force consists of employed persons and unemployed persons who are actively seeking work. Table 3 and Chart 3A show the number of labor force participants by county of residence. The Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation formerly Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security has revised the numbers of labor force participants upward for past years since the publication of the Tampa Bay Region: 2000 Economic Market Report. The revisions in the estimates for labor force participation are consistent with the upward revision of population estimates since Census 2000. Based on the revised trend, CEDR projects the number of labor force participants in the Tampa Bay region to reach 1,752,000 persons by April 2002. (As this report is being edited in November 2001, the U.S. economy is in decline. The government reported that third quarter GDP was 0.4%. National unemployment rose to 5.4% in October from 4.9% in September. The labor force is also shrinking as some laid-off workers become discouraged about finding new employment. Therefore, CEDR's linear projection for the April 2001 labor force is likely to be biased upward.) Concurrent with the Tampa Bay region's average 10-year population increase of almost 51,000 people per year, its labor force has been growing by an average of about 26,800 workers per year. This average growth in the region's labor force represents more than one-quarter (27.3%) of the average annual growth of Florida's labor force. More recently 1997 to 2000 population growth has subsided to about 41,500 new Tampa Bay residents per year, while the labor force has been adding about 49,000 new workers per year. This indicates that the robust economy of the late 1990s attracted many of Tampa Bay's residents to join the labor force. By April 2002, we project that almost one-quarter (22.04%) of Florida's labor force will reside in Tampa Bay. 8TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 10-yearAnnual Compound LocationApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Hernando35,72548,28635.16%3.06%49,76351,285 Hillsborough449,378557,53224.07%2.18%569,686582,105 Manatee94,275121,29228.66%2.55%124,387127,561 Pasco107,668138,33828.49%2.54%141,849145,450 Pinellas416,142472,86913.63%1.29%478,951485,111 Polk198,471201,7651.66%0.16%202,097202,430 Sarasota122,834152,54024.18%2.19%155,880159,293 Tampa Bay1,424,4931,692,62218.82%1.74%1,722,0671,752,023 Florida6,408,0007,391,00015.34%1.44%7,497,2387,605,002*CEDR projection Source: Agency for Workforce Innovation, Office of Workforce Services, Labor Market Statistics 48,286 557,532 121,292 138,338 472,869 201,765 152,540 Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk SarasotaSource: Agency for Workforce Innovation, Office of Workforce Information, Labor Market Statistics 35.16% 24.07% 28.66% 28.49% 13.63% 1.66% 24.18% 18.82% 15.34%0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Hernando Hillsborough ManateePascoPinellasPolkSarasotaT ampa Bay Florida LABOR FORCE SECTION 1TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCE Table 3 TAMPA BAY REGION LABOR FORCE Chart 3B TAMPA BAY LABOR FORCE GROWTH: April 1990 April 2000 Chart 3A TAMPA BAY REGION LABOR FORCE: April 2000

PAGE 11

POLK COUNTY LABOR FORCE GROWTHWe have discussed the relatively small growth rate of Polk County's labor force between 1990 and 2000 with economist Gordon Kettle,Director of Research at the Central Florida Development Council (CFDC).Mr. Kettle's analysis reveals that there was a general decline in Polk County's labor force between 1990 and 1996. Thereafter,the labor force has continually expanded.He notes that the predominantly rural (at that time) Polk County agricultural industries were particularly hard hit by a freeze in 1989. The debilitating effect of the freeze on the county's economy was closely followed by a nationwide recession in 1990-91.Many Polk County residents in their prime working years moved away to seek employment elsewhere during the first half of the decade.However, Polk County's population continued to rise as older people,many of whom were retirees, replaced the younger residents who were moving away. Other residents who were unemployed simply became discouraged and stopped looking for work.The structure of Polk County employment is now more diversified than at the beginning of the last decade. We also estimate the compound average rate of increase in the Tampa Bay region's labor force between April 1990 and April 2000 to be 1.74% per year, which may be compared to an average increase of 1.44% per year for all of Florida. Within Tampa Bay, H ernando County enjoyed the largest 10-year growth rate in its labor force (35.16%) and Polk County experienced a 1.66% growth rate. See Chart 3B. Also, see Appendix C for year-by-year labor force trends for each of Tampa Bay's seven counties. Chart M2A depicts the relative sizes of the labor forces of each of the three MSAs that make up Tampa Bay. The Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA is the predominant labor market, with more than four times as many workers residing in that MSA as are residing in either of the other two Tampa Bay MSAs. Table M2 shows the increases in the labor force for the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate and the comparison MSAs between 1990 and 2000. The Tampa Bay 10-year percentage change in the labor force of 18.82% reflects a slower growth rate than any of the six comparison MSAs. The most rapidly growing labor force within Tampa Bay was that of the Sarasota-Bradenton MSA, which grew 26.13% in the 10-year span. See Chart M2B 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 9 1.66% 26.13% 20.63% 18.82% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% LakelandWinter Haven, FL MSA SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa Bay Annual Workers10-YearCompound LocationApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA198,471201,7651.66%0.16%202,097202,430 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA217,109273,83226.13%2.35%280,262286,844 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA1,008,9131,217,02620.63%1.89%1,240,0651,263,540 Tampa Bay1,424,4931,692,62318.82%1.74%1,722,0681,752,025 Comparison Universe: Atlanta, GA MSA1,640,8522,246,02836.88%3.19%2,317,6602,391,577 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA1,160,5661,537,66932.49%2.85%1,581,5471,626,678 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA1,081,6121,381,66727.74%2.48%1,415,9131,451,008 Orlando, FL MSA674,232882,82330.94%2.73%906,943931,722 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA642,210794,69823.74%2.15%811,810829,291 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA475,030725,50852.73%4.33%756,893789,635* CEDR projection Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Table M2 Chart M2A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE LABOR FORCE April 2000TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE LABOR FORCEChart M2B TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE LABOR FORCE GROWTH: April 1990-April 2000 201,765 273,832 1,217,026 Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSASarasotaBradenton, FL MSA

PAGE 12

Chart M2C benchmarks the 10year labor force growth rate of Tampa Bay against the growth rates of selected southeastern MSAs. The fastest growing labor force in the southeastern group during the past decade was Atlanta, GA (36.88%). Chart M2D benchmarks the 10-year labor force growth rate of Tampa Bay against the growth rates of other selected MSAs. The Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA had a 10-year increase in its labor force of 52.73% compared to Tampa Bay's 18.82%. 10TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 Table 4 reflects the 10-year change (April 1990 to April 2000) in workforceto-population ratios, as well as projected ratios for 2001 and 2002, for each Tampa Bay county. Sarasota County (2.58%) and Pinellas County (2.45%) enjoyed the largest increases in the ratio Overall, the region's workforce-to-population ratio went up by 0.7% in the 10-year period. Chart 4 displays the ratios for Tampa Bay as of April 2000. Hillsborough County had the highest ratio; 55.81% of the residents of the county were participating in the labor force. Hernando County had the lowest ratio (36.92%). See Appendix D for year-byyear workforce-to-population trends for each of Tampa Bay's seven counties. Table M3 shows the percentage changes of the workforce-to-population ratios for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its component MSAs, as well as the comparison MSAs. LocationApr-90Apr-00ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Hernando35.33%36.92%1.58%37.08%37.24% Hillsborough53.88%55.81%1.93%56.01%56.21% Manatee44.53%45.94%1.41%46.09%46.23% Pasco38.30%40.13%1.83%40.31%40.50% Pinellas48.86%51.32%2.45%51.57%51.82% Polk48.96%41.69%-7.27%41.03%40.38% Sarasota44.22%46.80%2.58%47.06%47.33% Tampa Bay48.08%48.78%0.70%48.85%48.92% Florida49.53%46.24%-3.28%45.93%45.61%* CEDR projection Tampa BayPhoenixMesa, AZ MSA DenverBoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSATampa BayAtlanta, GA MSA Orlando, FL MSA CharlotteGastoniaRock Hill,NC-SC MSASource: Bureau of Labor Statistics 18.82 36.88 30.94 23.740.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 18.82 32.49 27.74 52.730.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO 36.92% 55.81% 45.94% 40.13% 51.32% 41.69% 46.80% 48.78% 46.24% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% HernandoHillsboroughManatee PascoPinellasPolkSarasotaTampaFlorida SECTION 1TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCE Table 4 TAMPA BAY REGION WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIOS Chart M2D SELECTED MSA LABOR FORCE GROWTH BENCHMARKS: April 1990-April 2000 Chart M2C SOUTHEASTERN LABOR FORCE GROWTH BENCHMARKS: April 1990-April 2000Chart 4 TAMPA BAY REGION WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATIONRATIOS: April 2000

PAGE 13

Chart M3A displays workforce-topopulation ratios in April 1990 and in April 2000. Between April 1990 and April 2000 Tampa Bay's workforce-to-population ratio increased 1.46%, so that by April 2000, approximately 48% of the area's residents were participating in the labor force. In the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate, the residents of the Sarasota-Bradenton MSA registered the largest 10-year gain in workforce participation (4.65%). This gain was closely followed by a 4.11% increase in labor force participation by residents of the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA, which reached a workforce-to-population ratio of just over 50% by April 2000. Chart M3B reflects the April 2000 workforce-to-population ratios for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its component MSAs. 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 11 Ratios10-YearAnnual Compound LocationApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA48.96%41.69%-14.84%-1.594%41.03%40.38% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA44.35%46.42%4.65%0.456%46.63%46.84% Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA48.79%50.79%4.11%0.404%51.00%51.20% Tampa Bay48.08%48.78%1.46%0.145%48.85%48.92% Comparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA55.44%54.62%-1.48%-0.149%54.54%54.46% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA51.85%47.29%-8.79%-0.916%46.85%46.42% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA54.62%53.52%-2.01%-0.203%53.41%53.30% Orlando, FL MSA55.05%53.68%-2.49%-0.252%53.55%53.41% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA55.26%53.00%-4.09%-0.417%52.78%52.56% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA56.14%58.05%3.40%0.335%58.25%58.44%* CEDR projection 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% LakelandWinter Haven, FL SarasotaBradenton, FL MS Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MS Tampa Bay Atlanta, GA MS Phoenix-Mesa, AZ DenverBoulderGreeley, CO CMS Orlando, FL MS CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, NCMS Austin-San Marcos, TX MSApr-90 Apr-00Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics LakelandWinter Haven, FL MSA SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa BaySource: Bureau of Labor Statistics 41.69% 46.42% 50.79% 48.78%0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Table M3 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIOS Chart M3B TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIOS: April 2000Chart M3A WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIOS

PAGE 14

In addition, Chart M3C reveals that each of the three southeastern MSAs, which are employed as benchmarks, had more than one-half of their residents in the labor pool, while the Tampa Bay participation rate was slightly less than one-half. Chart M3D benchmarks the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate with other selected MSAs. Note the large difference between the Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA's workforce-to-population ratio of 58.05% compared to Tampa Bay's ratio of 48.78%. Among MSAs of the comparison universe (both the southeastern and other selected MSAs), only the Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA had a lower ratio than Tampa Bay's ratio (47.29% versus 48.78%) in April 2000. 12TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 Tampa Bay Atlanta, GA MSA Orlando, FL MSA CharlotteGastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC MSASource: Bureau of Labor Statistics 48.78% 54.62% 53.68% 53.00% Table 5 shows the 10-year (April 1990 to April 2000) increases in the number of employed workers residing in Tampa Bay and projections for 2001 and 2002. Chart 5A depicts the distribution of employed workers by county as of April 2000. Six out of 10 of Tampa Bay's nearly 1.65 million employed workers reside in either Hillsborough County or Pinellas County. Chart 5B shows the percentage of growth in the number of employed workers between 1990 and 2000. Overall, Tampa Bay achieved a 21.91% increase in employed workers compared with a statewide increase of 17.92%. Among the seven Tampa Bay counties, Hernando County had the biggest percent increase (40.69%) while Polk County had the smallest percent increase (9.06%). See Appendix E for year-by-year employment trends for each of Tampa Bay's seven counties. Tampa BayPhoenixMesa, AZ MSA DenverBoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSASource: Bureau of Labor Statistics 48.78% 47.29% 53.52% 58.05% EMPLOYED WORKERS 10-Year Annual Compound LocationApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Hernando33,28446,82740.69%3.47%48,45350,136 Hillsborough429,045542,86526.53%2.38%555,790569,023 Manatee91,189118,98830.49%2.70%122,197125,492 Pasco101,687134,21031.98%2.81%137,987141,869 Pinellas398,548460,51015.55%1.46%467,213474,014 Polk178,186194,3329.06%0.87%196,025197,733 Sarasota118,774148,87125.34%2.28%152,272155,750 Tampa Bay1,350,7131,646,60321.91%2.00%1,679,5441,713,145 Florida6,048,0007,132,00017.92%1.66%7,250,5567,371,082*CEDR projection Source: Agency for Workforce Innovation, Office of Workforce Services, Labor Market Statistics Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota46,827 542,865 118,988 134,210 460,510 194,332 148,871Source: Agency for Workforce Innovation, Office of Workforce Services, Labor Market Statistics SECTION 1TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCE Table 5 TAMPA BAY REGION EMPLOYED WORKERS Chart M3C SOUTHEASTERN WORKFORCE-TOPOPULATION RATIO BENCHMARKS: April 2000 Chart M3D SELECTED MSA WORKFORCE-TOPOPULATION RATIO BENCHMARKS: April 2000Chart 5A EMPLOYED TAMPA BAY RESIDENTS April 2000

PAGE 15

Chart M4A is a picture of the relative sizes of the employed population of each of the three MSAs of Tampa Bay. Table M4 shows the increases in employment for the Tampa Bay-aggregate and the comparison MSAs between 1990 and 2000. The Tampa Bay 10-year percent change in its number of employed residents reflects a slower growth rate than any of the six comparison MSAs. Chart M4B is a comparison of the 10-year percentage increases in employment among the MSAs of Tampa Bay. 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 13 Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsPetersburg-194,332 267,859 1,184,412 Tampa-St. Clearwater, FL MSASarasotaBradenton, FL MSALakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA HernandoHillsboroughManatee PascoPinellasPolkSarasotaTampaFlorida 40.69% 26.53% 30.49% 31.98% 15.55% 9.06% 25.34% 21.91% 17.92% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% Employed Workers 10-YearAnnual Compound LocationApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA178,186194,3329.06%0.87%196,025197,733 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA209,963267,85927.57%2.47%274,462281,228 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA962,5641,184,41223.05%2.10%1,209,2331,234,575 Tampa Bay1,350,7131,646,60321.91%2.00%1,679,5441,713,145 Comparison Universe: Atlanta, GA MSA1,566,3552,182,53739.34%3.37%2,256,1542,332,254 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA1,109,5781,500,11035.20%3.06%1,546,0361,593,368 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA1,033,5771,350,63330.68%2.71%1,387,2571,424,873 Orlando, FL MSA638,752860,21234.67%3.02%886,202912,978 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA624,921774,41523.92%2.17%791,204808,358 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA453,217712,27557.16%4.62%745,215779,679* CEDR projection Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Chart M4B TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE EMPLOYED WORKERS GROWTH: APRIL 1990APRIL 20009.06% 27.57% 23.05% 21.91%0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%LakelandWinter Haven, FL MSA SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa BaySource: Bureau of Labor Statistics Chart M4A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE EMPLOYED WORKERS Table M4 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE EMPLOYED WORKERS Chart M4B TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE EMPLOYED WORKERS GROWTH: April 1990April 2000 Chart 5B -GROWTH IN EMPLOYED WORKERS RESIDING IN TAMPA BAY: April 1990 April 2000

PAGE 16

14TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2000 Chart M4C benchmarks the 10year percent increase in employed workers in Tampa Bay against the increases of selected southeastern MSAs. The Atlanta, GA MSA experienced the largest percent increase (39.34%) in employed residents among the southeastern group during the past decade. Chart M4D benchmarks the 10year increase in employed workers in Tampa Bay against other selected MSAs. Employment in the Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA increased by 57.16% between April 1990 and April 2000. Table 5A, Tampa Bay Region Employment by Industry Divisions, outlines the structure of the Tampa Bay region's economy based on Covered Employment and Wages (ES202) data. The table reflects the number and percent of employees in each division in April 1990 and April 2000. Also shown is the rate of increase (decrease) for each division during the April 1990 to April 2000 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 35.31% of the structure in April 1990 to 43.03% in April 2000. This represents a 57.01% increase in service employment over the period. Manufacturing's share of the Tampa Bay region's employment structure slightly declined in the past decade from 10.85% to 8.33%. While not the only division to lose share in the region's employment structure, manufacturing was the only division to see a decrease in actual employment, declining by 1.11% between April 1990 and April 2000. Panels A through G of Table 5A 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 5A). Additionally, using WORKERS GROWTH BENCHMARKS: APRIL 1990 21.91% 35.20% 30.68% 57.16%0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%Tampa BayPhoenixMesa, AZ MSA DenverBoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSASource: Bureau of Labor Statistics CHART M4C SOUTHEASTERN EMPLOYED WORKERS GROWTH BENCHMARKS: APRIL 1990APRIL 200021.91% 39.34% 34.67% 23.92%0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00%Tampa BayAtlanta, GA MSA Orlando, FL MSA CharlotteGastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC MSASource: Bureau of Labor StatisticsEMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS SECTION 1TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCE Chart M4C SOUTHEASTERN EMPLOYED WORKERS GROWTH BENCHMARKS: April 1990 April 2000 Chart M4D SELECTED MSA EMPLOYED WORKERS GROWTH BENCHMARKS: April 1990 April 2000

PAGE 17

Panel A Hernando County Annual EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthCompound Apr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Change Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries4762.32%4971.66%4.41%0.43% Mining and Construction19969.71%25368.46%27.05%2.42% Manufacturing11665.67%13074.36%12.09%1.15% Transportation Comm. & Utilities10585.15%11713.90%10.68%1.02% Trade564827.48%1001433.39%77.30%5.89% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate10855.28%12404.13%14.29%1.34% Services725435.29%1049735.00%44.71%3.76% Public Administration18709.10%27319.11%46.04%3.86% Totals20553100.00%29993100.00%45.93%3.85% Panel B Hillsborough County Annual EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthCompound Apr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Change Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries125272.85%134272.26%7.18%0.70% Mining and Construction230685.25%289724.87%25.59%2.30% Manufacturing396239.01%376186.32%-5.06%-0.52% Transportation Comm. & Utilities301786.86%376566.33%24.78%2.24% Trade11553426.28%12747521.43%10.34%0.99% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate 349167.94%471537.93%35.05%3.05% Services16224736.90%27177145.69%67.50%5.29% Public Administration216114.91%307195.16%42.15%3.58% Totals439704100.00%594791100.00%35.27%3.07% Panel C Manatee County Annual EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthCompound Apr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Change Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries807010.46%74956.31%-7.67%-0.80% Mining and Construction27833.61%55524.67%49.87%4.13% Manufacturing1007613.06%1312911.05%23.25%2.11% Transportation Comm. & Utilities24583.19%27902.35%11.90%1.13% Trade1831623.74%2422920.38%24.40%2.21% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate34604.48%32172.71%-7.55%-0.78% Services2761035.78%5679047.78%51.38%4.23% Public Administration43895.69%56614.76%22.47%2.05% Totals77162100.00%118863100.00%35.08%3.05% Panel D Pasco County Annual EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthCompound Apr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Change Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries34175.46%26573.58%-22.24%-2.48% Mining and Construction46907.50%58667.90%25.07%2.26% Manufacturing40586.49%31754.27%-21.76%-2.42% Transportation Comm. & Utilities29044.64%27513.70%-5.27%-0.54% Trade1889930.21%2138328.78%13.14%1.24% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate30074.81%31824.28%5.82%0.57% Services2181634.87%3011940.54%38.06%3.28% Public Administration37786.04%51606.95%36.58%3.17% Totals62569100.00%74293100.00%18.74%1.73% Panel E Pinellas County Annual EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthCompound Apr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Change Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries25940.73%32690.75%26.02%2.340% Mining and Construction198515.60%206234.72%3.89%0.382% Manufacturing4731713.34%4733610.85%0.04%0.004% Transportation Comm. & Utilities145104.09%187624.30%29.30%2.603% Trade10106628.49%10283023.56%1.75%0.173% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate256767.24%315397.23%22.83%2.078% Services12534235.34%18987543.50%51.49%4.241% Public Administration183375.17%222395.10%21.28%1.948% Totals354693100.00%436473100.00%23.06%2.096% Panel F Polk County Annual EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthCompound Apr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Change Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries67204.33%105125.65%56.43%4.58% Mining and Construction127148.19%130747.02%2.83%0.28% Manufacturing2177114.03%1996610.73%-8.29%-0.86% Transportation Comm. & Utilities80045.16%101905.47%27.31%2.44% Trade4238627.32%5127127.54%20.96%1.92% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate80365.18%86354.64%7.45%0.72% Services4517129.11%5967232.06%32.10%2.82% Public Administration103576.68%128256.89%23.83%2.16% Totals155159100.00%186145100.00%19.97%1.84% Panel G Sarasota County Annual EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthCompound Apr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Change Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries14881.27%20881.49%40.32%3.45% Mining and Construction94198.03%101247.21%7.48%0.72% Manufacturing91857.83%91876.55%0.02%0.00% Transportation Comm. & Utilities44333.78%43753.12%-1.31%-0.13% Trade3536830.16%3724626.54%5.31%0.52% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate82237.01%90296.43%9.80%0.94% Services4383037.37%6156743.87%40.47%3.46% Public Administration53404.55%67284.79%25.99%2.34% Totals117286100.00%140344100.00%19.66%1.81% Employees10-YearAnnual Compound DivisionApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries35,292 39,945 13.18%1.25%40,443 40,947 Mining and Construction74,521 86,747 16.41%1.53%88,075 89,423 Manufacturing133,196 131,718 -1.11%-0.11%131,571 131,424 Transportation Comm. & Utilities63,545 77,695 22.27%2.03%79,273 80,883 Trade337,217 374,448 11.04%1.05%378,390 382,374 Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate84,403 103,995 23.21%2.11%106,189 108,428 Services433,270 680,291 57.01%4.61%711,686 744,530 Public Administration65,682 86,063 31.03%2.74%88,421 90,843 Totals1,227,126 1,580,902 28.83%2.57%1,621,461 1,663,061 Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data, *CEDR ProjectionSource: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data Table 5A TAMPA BAY REGION EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 15

PAGE 18

16TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 SECTION 1TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCE Panel A Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthAnnual Compound DivisionApr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Growth Mining and Construction12,300 7.90%12,500 6.77%1.63%0.16% Manufacturing22,500 14.45%20,200 10.94%-10.22%-1.07% Transportation, Comm., and Utilities7,500 4.82%9,500 5.15%26.67%2.39% Trade43,000 27.62%52,700 28.55%22.56%2.05% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate8,900 5.72%8,900 4.82%0.00%0.00% Services38,200 24.53%53,700 29.09%40.58%3.46% Public Administration23,300 14.96%27,100 14.68%16.31%1.52% Totals155,700 100.00%184,600 100.00%18.56%1.72% Panel B Sarasota-Bradenton MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthAnnual Compound DivisionApr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Growth Mining and Construction12,200 6.40%15,800 5.85%29.51%2.62% Manufacturing19,200 10.07%22,400 8.30%16.67%1.55% Transportation, Comm., and Utilities5,300 2.78%5,400 2.00%1.89%0.19% Trade53,300 27.95%63,100 23.37%18.39%1.70% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate11,800 6.19%12,800 4.74%8.47%0.82% Services65,600 34.40%125,700 46.56%91.62%6.72% Public Administration23,300 12.22%24,800 9.19%6.44%0.63% Totals190,700 100.00%270,000 100.00%41.58%3.54% Panel C Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthAnnual Compound DivisionApr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Growth Mining and Construction50,200 5.68%58,200 4.85%15.94%1.49% Manufacturing92,400 10.45%89,600 7.47%-3.03%-0.31% Transportation, Comm., and Utilities41,200 4.66%53,100 4.43%28.88%2.57% Trade242,300 27.40%269,300 22.44%11.14%1.06% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate64,500 7.29%86,600 7.22%34.26%2.99% Services276,600 31.28%498,700 41.56%80.30%6.07% Public Administration117,000 13.23%144,400 12.03%23.42%2.13% Totals884,200 102.84%1,199,900 100.00%35.70%3.10% Panel D Atlanta MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthAnnual Compound DivisionApr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Growth Mining and Construction71,500 4.71%119,800 5.49%67.55%5.30% Manufacturing194,200 12.80%221,500 10.15%14.06%1.32% Transportation, Comm., and Utilities128,200 8.45%190,200 8.72%48.36%4.02% Trade408,900 26.96%566,100 25.95%38.44%3.31% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate106,400 7.02%141,300 6.48%32.80%2.88% Services378,800 24.98%676,400 31.00%78.56%5.97% Public Administration228,700 15.08%266,400 12.21%16.48%1.54% Totals1,516,700 100.00%2,181,700 100.00%43.85%3.70% CES data we can compare the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's structure of employment with other areas of the country. Panels A through C of Table M5 describe the structure of employment of the three MSAs that make up the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. As with the MSAaggregate, services is the biggest division within each of the individual MSAs. However, while services comprise over 40% of the employment structure in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA and in the Sarasota-Bradenton MSA, services are only 29.09% of the employment structure of the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA. Services, which comprise 29.09% of the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA, are only slightly larger than trade both wholesale and retail which is 28.55% of that MSA. The only decline for an industry division between April 1990 and April 2000 was in the manufacturing division of the Lakeland-Winter Haven and TampaSt. Petersburg-Clearwater MSAs' economies. In those MSAs, manufacturing employment declined 10.22% and 3.03%, respectively. Panels D through F of Table M5 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 CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill MSA than the services division of the economy for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. The Orlando MSA has a TAMPA BAY REGION AGGREGATE EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS Table M5 EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthAnnual Compound DivisionApr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Growth Mining and Construction74,700 6.07%86,500 5.23%15.80%1.48% Manufacturing134,100 10.90%132,200 7.99%-1.42%-0.14% Transportation, Comm., and Utilities54,000 4.39%68,000 4.11%25.93%2.33% Trade338,600 27.52%385,100 23.28%13.73%1.30% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate85,200 6.92%108,300 6.55%27.11%2.43% Services380,400 30.91%678,100 40.99%78.26%5.95% Public Administration163,600 13.29%196,300 11.86%19.99%1.84% Totals1,230,600 100.00%1,654,500 100.00%34.45%3.00%Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

PAGE 19

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 7.99% of employment, is slightly larger than the Orlando MSA at 6.05%. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill has the highest manufacturing employment among the southeastern comparisons at 17.26% of its total employment structure followed by Atlanta at 10.15%. The only declines, between April 1990 and April 2000, in size of industry divisions, which are noted among the southeastern comparison MSAs, is a drop of 11.31% in manufacturing for the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill MSA and a drop of 7.76%, also in manufacturing, for the Orlando MSA. Panels G and H of Table M5 describe the employment structure of the Phoenix-Mesa MSA and the AustinSan Marcos MSA. (Complete data necessary to depict the employment structure of the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA was not available.) Services is the largest employment division in the Phoenix area and in the Austin area, comprising 32.90% and 29.82% of total employment, respectively. By comparison, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's services division is 40.99% of total employment. Between April 1990 and April 2000 the fastest growing industry division in both the Phoenix area and the Austin area was mining and construction. Divisions with the slowest growth rates were manufacturing (15.77%) in the Phoenix-Mesa MSA and public administration (21.56%) in the Austin-San Marcos MSA. 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 17 Panel E Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthAnnual Compound DivisionApr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Growth Mining and ConstructionNot Available Manufacturing153,800 26.07%136,400 17.26%-11.31%-1.19% Transportation, Comm., and Utilities51,000 8.65%55,600 7.04%9.02%0.87% Trade153,100 25.95%201,500 25.50%31.61%2.79% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate38,000 6.44%66,400 8.40%74.74%5.74% Services122,300 20.73%230,900 29.22%88.80%6.56% Public Administration71,700 12.15%99,500 12.59%38.77%3.33% Totals589,900 100.00%790,300 100.00%33.97%2.97% Panel F Orlando MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthAnnual Compound DivisionApr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Growth Mining and Construction41,000 6.72%51,500 5.70%25.61%2.31% Manufacturing59,300 9.72%54,700 6.05%-7.76%-0.80% Transportation, Comm., and Utilities31,300 5.13%44,900 4.97%43.45%3.67% Trade158,500 25.98%217,700 24.08%37.35%3.22% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate35,900 5.88%50,700 5.61%41.23%3.51% Services210,400 34.48%390,400 43.19%85.55%6.38% Public Administration73,800 12.09%94,000 10.40%27.37%2.45% Totals610,200 100.00%903,900 100.00%48.13%4.01% Panel G Phoenix-Mesa MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthAnnual Compound DivisionApr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Growth Mining and Construction59,700 5.85%119,600 7.58%100.34%7.20% Manufacturing141,400 13.86%163,700 10.38%15.77%1.48% Transportation, Comm., and Utilities59,300 5.81%82,300 5.22%38.79%3.33% Trade253,800 24.87%372,300 23.61%46.69%3.91% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate76,700 7.52%119,200 7.56%55.41%4.51% Services281,600 27.60%518,900 32.90%84.27%6.30% Public Administration147,900 14.49%201,200 12.76%36.04%3.13% Totals1,020,400 100.00%1,577,200 100.00%54.57%4.45% Panel H Austin-San Marcos MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowthAnnual Compound DivisionApr-90of TotalApr-00of Total90-00% Growth Mining and Construction12,500 3.21%40,100 6.04%220.80%12.36% Manufacturing49,100 12.61%83,000 12.50%69.04%5.39% Transportation, Comm., and Utilities12,100 3.11%21,400 3.22%76.86%5.87% Trade79,700 20.47%149,700 22.55%87.83%6.51% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate24,100 6.19%33,000 4.97%36.93%3.19% Services97,800 25.12%198,000 29.82%102.45%7.31% Public Administration114,100 29.30%138,700 20.89%21.56%1.97% Totals389,400 100.00%663,900 100.00%70.49%5.48% Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

PAGE 20

Table 6 indicates that the number of unemployed workers in the Tampa Bay region steadily declined throughout the decade of the 1990s. By comparison, the number of unemployed workers in Florida went down by 28.06% in the 10-year span, while the decrease in unemployed workers in Tampa Bay was 37.63% over the same time span. See also Chart 6. See Appendix F for year-by-year unemployment trends for each of Tampa Bay's seven counties. Table M6 shows the number of unemployed labor force participants by MSA of residence and the percent change in unemployed workers over the period from April 1990 to April 2000. All MSAs experienced a decrease in the number of unemployed residents except the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA. In April 2000 the Atlanta, GA MSA was the only location among the comparison MSAs to have a larger number of unemployed residents than the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. However, between 1990 and 2000, the number of unemployed Tampa Bay residents decreased by 37.63%, or 27,760 persons. See Charts M6A and M6B. Among other selected MSAs the Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA (-39.33%) enjoyed the largest 10-year decrease in unemployed workers. The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate followed closely behind Austin-San Marcos with a 37.63% decrease in the number of its unemployed workers. See Chart M6C. 18TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 1 0-Year Annual Compound LocationApr-90Apr-00% Decrease% DecreaseApr-01*Apr-02* Hernando2,4411,459-40.23%-5.02%1,3101,149 Hillsborough20,33314,667-27.87%-3.21%13,89613,082 Manatee3,0862,304-25.34%-2.88%2,1912,070 Pasco5,9814,128-30.98%-3.64%3,8633,580 Pinellas17,59412,359-29.75%-3.47%11,73811,097 Polk20,2857,433-63.36%-9.55%6,0724,698 Sarasota4,0603,669-9.63%-1.01%3,6083,543 Tampa Bay73,78046,019-37.63%-4.61%42,52238,879 Florida360,000259,000-28.06%-3.24%246,682233,920*CEDR projection Source: Agency for Workforce Innovation, Office of Workforce Services, Labor Market Statistics -40.23% -27.87% -25.34% -30.98% -29.75% -63.36% -9.63% -37.63% -28.06%-80.00%-60.00%-40.00%-20.00% 0.00%Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Polk Sarasota Tampa Bay FloridaSource: Agency for Workforce Innovation, Office of Workforce Services, Labor Market Statistics SECTION 1TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCE UNEMPLOYED WORKERS Table 6 TAMPA BAY REGION UNEMPLOYED WORKERS Chart 6 TAMPA BAY REGION DECREASE OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS: April 1990 April 2000 CHART M6A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE-63.36% -16.41% -29.63% -37.63%-70.00%-60.00%-50.00%-40.00%-30.00%-20.00%-10.00%0.00%Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA TampaSource: Bureau of Labor Statistics Chart M6A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE DECREASE OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS: April 1990 April 2000

PAGE 21

2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 19 Annual Unemployed Workers 10-YearCompoundApr-01*Apr-02* LocationApr-90Apr-00% Change% Change Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA20,2857,433-63.36%-9.55%6,0724,698 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA7,1465,973-16.41%-1.78%5,8005,616 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA46,34932,614-29.63%-3.45%30,83228,965 Tampa Bay73,78046,020-37.63%-4.61%42,52338,880 Comparison Universe: Atlanta, GA MSA74,49763,491-14.77%-1.59%61,50659,322 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA50,98837,559-26.34%-3.01%35,51133,309 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA48,03531,034-35.39%-4.27%28,65626,135 Orlando, FL MSA35,48022,611-36.27%-4.41%20,74118,745 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA17,28920,28317.32%1.61%20,60620,934 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA21,81313,233-39.33%-4.88%11,6779,956* CEDR projection Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics -37.63% -14.77% -36.27% 17.32%-50.00% -40.00% -30.00% -20.00% -10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00%Tampa Bay Atlanta, GA MSAOrlando, FL MSA CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSASource: Bureau of Labor Statistics -37.63% -26.34% -35.39% -39.33%-45%-40%-35%-30%-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%Tampa Bay Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Denver-BoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSASource: Bureau of Labor Statistics Table M6 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE UNEMPLOYED WORKERS Chart M6C BENCHMARKS for SELECTED MSA DECREASE in UNEMPLOYED WORKERS: April 1990April 2000 Chart M6B BENCHMARKS for CHANGE in SOUTHEASTERN MSAs UNEMPLOYED WORKERS: April 1990 April 2000

PAGE 22

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Table 7 displays the change in unemployment rate for the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region between 1990 and 2000. During this time period, the region's unemployment rate was consistently lower and declined more than the rate for the state of Florida. During the last decade, Polk County enjoyed the greatest decline in its unemployment rate (63.96% decrease). Pinellas County's unemployment rate decreased the least (38.18% decrease), but still outpaced the state of Florida's unemployment rate decline (37.62% decrease). Since April of 1990, the Tampa Bay region's unemployment rate has been falling at an average of 0.25 of a percentage point per year (a 6.51% annual rate of decline over a previous year). At that rate of decline, the region's unemployment rate is expected to be about 2.31% by April 2002. For comparison, Florida's unemployment rate has been declining by an average 0.21 of a percentage point per year (a 4.61% annual rate of decline over a previous year) since April 1990, and the state's unemployment rate is expected to be 3.19% by April 2002. (As this report is being edited in November 2001, the U.S. economy is in decline. Nationally, the unemployment rate rose to 5.4% in October from 4.9% in September. In June 2001, the Tampa Bay region's unemployment rate jumped to about 3.6% from 3.1% the prior month. Subsequently through September 2001 the region's unemploy20TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 10-YearAnnual Compound LocationApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Hernando6.83%3.02%-55.76%-7.83%2.79%2.57% Hillsborough4.52%2.63%-41.86%-5.28%2.49%2.36% Manatee3.27%1.90%-41.97%-5.30%1.80%1.70% Pasco5.56%2.98%-46.28%-6.03%2.80%2.64% Pinellas4.23%2.61%-38.18%-4.70%2.49%2.37% Polk10.22%3.68%-63.96%-9.70%3.33%3.00% Sarasota3.31%1.82%-44.98%-5.80%1.71%1.61% Tampa Bay5.18%2.64%-48.99%-6.51%2.47%2.31% Florida5.62%3.50%-37.62%-4.61%3.34%3.19%Source: Agency for Workforce Innovation, *CEDR projection 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% Hernando HillsboroughM anateePascoPinellasPolkSarasotaT ampa BayFlo rida 2.00% April-00 April-01 April-02* Unemployment Rate10-YearAnnual Compound LocationApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr-01*Apr-02* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA10.22%3.68%-63.96%-9.70%3.33%3.00% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA3.29%2.18%-33.73%-4.03%2.09%2.01% Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA4.59%2.68%-41.67%-5.25%2.54%2.41% Tampa Bay5.18%2.72%-47.51%-6.24%2.55%2.39% Comparison Universe: Atlanta, GA MSA4.54%2.83%-37.74%-4.63%2.70%2.57% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA4.39%2.44%-44.40%-5.70%2.30%2.17% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA4.44%2.25%-49.42%-6.59%2.10%1.96% Orlando, FL MSA5.26%2.56%-51.33%-6.95%2.38%2.22% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA2.69%2.55%-5.19%-0.53%2.54%2.53% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA4.59%1.82%-60.28%-8.82%1.66%1.52%* CEDR projection Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics SECTION 1TAMPA BAY'S WORKFORCE Table 7 TAMPA BAY REGION UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 199 0-2000 Chart 7 TAMPA BAY REGION UNEMPLOYMENT RATES Table M7 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DECLINE

PAGE 23

ment rate has been trending slightly upwards to almost 3.8%. Florida's unemployment rate rose to 4.4% in June 2001 from 3.85% the prior month. In September, the state's rate was measured at 4.5%. CEDR's linear projections for declining unemployment through April 2002 do not reflect this changing trend to rising unemployment from the declining trend over past years.) See Chart 7. See Appendix G for year-by-year trends in unemployment rate for each of Tampa Bay's seven counties. Table M7 shows the unemployment rate decline for residents of Tampa Bay's MSAs as well as other selected MSAs of the comparison universe between April 1990 and April 2000 and projected to April 2002. Chart M7A reveals that the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's unemployment rate decline closely mirrors that of the TampaSt. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. This is to be expected, as the Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater MSA comprises the bulk of the area's population and labor force. This standard is projected to hold in the future, as well. The Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA had the highest rate of unemployment (3.68% as of April 2000), but enjoyed the highest annual rate of decrease during the decade, declining by 63.96%. Chart M7B compares the unemployment rate decline in three southeastern MSAs with that of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. The Orlando MSA and the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate enjoyed larger declines in the unemployment rate than did the two non-Florida MSAs during the past decade. Chart M7C compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's unemployment rate decline with three other selected MSAs. With the exception of the Austin-San Marcos MSA, the unemployment rate decline (a measurement of the workforce situation) of the other MSAs is quite similar during the past decade. In the case of the Austin-San Marcos MSA, the unemployment rate declined by 8.82% per annum between 1990 and 2000, and in addition the Austin-San Marcos MSA had the lowest unemployment rate among all compared MSAs (1.82% as of April 2000). 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 21 LakelandWinter Haven, FL MSA SarasotaBradenton, FL MSA Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA Tampa BaySource: Bureau of Labor Statistics 9.70% 4.03% 5.25% 6.24%0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% Tampa Bay Atlanta, GA MSA Orlando, FL MSA CharlotteGastoniaRock Hill, NC-SC MSA 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00%Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 3.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00%Tampa BayPhoenixMesa, AZ MSA DenverBoulderGreeley, CO CMSA Austin-San Marcos, TX MSASource: Bureau of Labor Statistics 6.24% 5.70% 6.59% 8.82% Chart M7A TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DECLINE: A pril 1990 April 2000 Chart M7B SOUTHEASTERN ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DECLINE: Ap ril 1990 April 2000 Chart M7C SELECTED MSA ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DECLINE: April 1990 April 2000

PAGE 24

Table 8 reports average wages and wage growth in the Tampa Bay region from April 1990 to April 2000. The average annual wage weighted by percent of employment by industry division in April 1990 was $19,577. By April 2000, this weighted-average annual wage rose to $28,917, a 47.71% rate of growth over the decade. Panels A through G of Table 8 report average wages and wage growth for each of the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region. Table M8 reports average annual wages for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate for 1997 (the earliest year for which data is nationally available) through 2000. The average annual wage for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate has been calculated by weighting the annual average wage for each industry division by the division's percent of total employment. Note that the data upon which Table M8 is based does not include the industry division Public Administration. (Public Administration is included in the Florida ES202 data.) 22TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISION This section reports wages and income data for the Tampa Bay region by county and for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate by MSA. The MSA data compare Tampa Bay against metropolitan areas in the southeast Atlanta, Charlotte, and Orlando and other selected MSAs Austin, Denver, and Phoenix. Additionally, Florida's disposable income is benchmarked against Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas. Wages reported in this table are based on ES202 data released by the state of Florida and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (covering MSAs throughout the nation). By April 2000, the weighted-average annual wage in the Tampa Bay region had risen to $28,917 for a 47.71% growth rate since April 1990. The Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) industry division enjoyed the highest average wage at $38,881; the average wage in the Manufacturing industry division was $35,006, and the average wage in the Services industry division was $28,328. 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 residence. 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 owner-occupants of their homes). The data includes farming and non-farming, military and civilian, proprietorships (i.e., self-employment) and wage and salary employment and, therefore, is more comprehensive than ES202 data that covers non-farm, civilian employees only. Tampa Bay personal income, aggregated by MSA, grew 47.08% between 1990 and 1999. Among the comparison MSAs, the Austin-San Marcos MSA had the highest growth rate at 75.74% and the Orlando MSA had the slowest growth rate at 43.77%. Disposable personal income is personal income less certain tax and non-tax 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. Non-tax payments include passport fees, fines and penalties, donations, and tuitions 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. A disposable personal income factor is the percentage of personal income remaining after certain tax and non-tax payments, as delineated above, are subtracted from personal income. The greater the factor the more spending power for people of a geographic region relative to their personal incomes. In 1999 Florida's disposable income factor, personal income less certain tax and non-tax payments, was 0.864, having declined 0.53% since 1997. Florida's factor is comparable to that of Arizona, greater than that of North Carolina, and less than that of Texas. However, the people of Florida and North Carolina have seen their spending power measured by the disposable income factor shrink at a faster rate than have the residents of Texas and Arizona. Avg. Annual Percent of Total Avg. Annual Percent of Total Avg. Annual Avg. Annual DivisionWage: Apr. 90 EmploymentWage: Apr. 00 EmploymentWage: Apr. 01* Wage: Apr. 02* Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$12,276 2.88%$17,141 2.53%$17,723 $18,324 Mining & Construction$21,405 6.07%$31,149 5.49%$32,340 $33,576 Manufacturing $23,776 10.85%$35,006 8.33%$36,386 $37,821 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities$26,138 5.18%$37,831 4.91%$39,256 $40,735 Trade$15,098 27.48%$23,680 23.69%$24,770 $25,911 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$23,238 6.88%$38,881 6.58%$40,934 $43,096 Services$19,861 35.31%$28,328 43.03%$29,352 $30,413 Public Administration$22,983 5.35%$30,162 5.44%$30,993 $31,847 Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$19,577 100.00%$28,917 100.00%$30,067 $31,263 Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data.*CEDR Projection SECTION 2WAGES AND INCOME Table 8 TAMPA BAY REGION WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS

PAGE 25

2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 23 TABLE 8 PANELS Panel A HernandoAvg. AnnualAvg. AnnualAnnual Avg. AnnualAvg. Annual WageWage10-YearCompoundWageWage DivisionApr. 90Apr. 00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$15,228 $20,244 32.94%2.89%$20,829 $21,430 Mining & Construction$18,144 $24,072 32.67%2.87%$24,762 $25,472 Manufacturing $19,524 $37,440 91.76%6.73%$39,959 $42,647 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities$22,848 $31,224 36.66%3.17%$32,215 $33,237 Trade$11,292 $17,592 55.79%4.53%$18,389 $19,223 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$18,816 $34,212 81.82%6.16%$36,320 $38,557 Services$18,588 $24,660 32.67%2.87%$25,367 $26,094 Public Administration$21,036 $30,672 45.81%3.84%$31,851 $33,075 Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$16,969 $23,933 41.04%3.50%$24,770 $25,637 Panel B HillsboroughA vg. AnnualAvg. AnnualAnnual Avg. AnnualAvg. Annual WageWage10-YearCompoundWageWage DivisionApr. 90Apr. 00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$9,936 $16,080 61.84%4.93%$16,873 $17,705 Mining & Construction$22,224 $33,060 48.76%4.05%$34,399 $35,793 Manufacturing $22,284 $33,084 48.47%4.03%$34,418 $35,805 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities$28,008 $39,852 42.29%3.59%$41,283 $42,765 Trade$17,292 $25,740 48.85%4.06%$26,785 $27,872 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$24,708 $40,152 62.51%4.98%$42,150 $44,247 Services$20,112 $29,088 44.63%3.76%$30,181 $31,316 Public Administration$25,800 $30,768 19.26%1.78%$31,315 $31,871 Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$20,574 $30,168 46.63%3.90%$31,345 $32,569 Panel C ManateeAvg. AnnualAvg. AnnualAnnual Avg. AnnualAvg. Annual WageWage10-YearCompoundWageWage DivisionsApr. 90Apr. 00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$12,420 $14,292 15.07%1.41%$14,494 $14,699 Mining & Construction$21,792 $31,680 45.37%3.81%$32,888 $34,142 Manufacturing $24,180 $37,296 54.24%4.43%$38,948 $40,673 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities$25,740 $33,456 29.98%2.66%$34,345 $35,257 Trade$13,152 $21,156 60.86%4.87%$22,186 $23,266 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$20,412 $30,384 48.85%4.06%$31,617 $32,900 Services$18,672 $24,756 32.58%2.86%$25,464 $26,193 Public Administration$21,624 $29,964 38.57%3.32%$30,958 $31,984 Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$18,011 $25,675 42.56%3.61%$26,602 $27,562 Panel D PascoAvg. AnnualAvg. AnnualAnnual Avg. AnnualAvg. Annual WageWage10-YearCompoundWageWage DivisionApr. 90Apr. 00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$13,296 $18,288 37.55%3.24%$18,880 $19,492 Mining & Construction$17,184 $23,832 38.69%3.32%$24,624 $25,443 Manufacturing $18,348 $28,428 54.94%4.48%$29,700 $31,030 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities$22,116 $30,492 37.87%3.26%$31,487 $32,515 Trade$11,952 $16,908 41.47%3.53%$17,505 $18,123 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$18,948 $27,156 43.32%3.66%$28,151 $29,183 Services$19,428 $27,660 42.37%3.60%$28,655 $29,685 Public Administration$19,248 $28,560 48.38%4.02%$29,710 $30,905 Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$16,688 $24,107 44.46%3.75%$25,010 $25,947 Panel E PinellasAvg. AnnualAvg. AnnualAnnual Avg. AnnualAvg. Annual WageWage10-YearCompoundWageWage DivisionApr. 90Apr. 00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$14,724 $19,944 35.45%3.08%$20,558 $21,192 Mining & Construction$20,508 $30,276 47.63%3.97%$31,479 $32,729 Manufacturing $24,888 $35,904 44.26%3.73%$37,244 $38,634 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities$25,296 $38,736 53.13%4.35%$40,422 $42,182 Trade$14,340 $25,584 78.41%5.96%$27,109 $28,724 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$22,836 $38,712 69.52%5.42%$40,810 $43,022 Services$19,608 $29,196 48.90%4.06%$30,382 $31,616 Public Administration$23,724 $32,448 36.77%3.18%$33,480 $34,545 Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$19,505 $30,318 55.43%4.51%$31,685 $33,113 Panel F PolkAvg. AnnualAvg. AnnualAnnual Avg. AnnualAvg. Annual WageWage10-YearCompoundWageWage DivisionApr. 90Apr. 00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$14,616 $18,876 29.15%2.59%$19,365 $19,867 Mining & Construction$23,580 $33,816 43.41%3.67%$35,057 $36,344 Manufacturing $25,524 $35,712 39.92%3.42%$36,932 $38,193 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities$23,076 $34,356 48.88%4.06%$35,751 $37,202 Trade$14,820 $22,260 50.20%4.15%$23,184 $24,147 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$21,288 $33,672 58.17%4.69%$35,252 $36,906 Services$20,340 $26,796 31.74%2.79%$27,545 $28,315 Public Administration$22,968 $30,636 33.39%2.92%$31,531 $32,453 Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$19,943 $27,546 38.13%3.28%$28,450 $29,384 Panel G SarasotaAvg. AnnualAvg. AnnualAnnual Avg. AnnualAvg. Annual WageWage10-YearCompoundWageWage DivisionApr. 90Apr. 00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries13,08018,86444.22%3.73%$19,568 $20,297 Mining & Construction21,03629,73641.36%3.52%$30,783 $31,867 Manufacturing 22,83635,36454.86%4.47%$36,945 $38,597 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities25,33233,82833.54%2.93%$34,821 $35,842 Trade13,72820,49649.30%4.09%$21,334 $22,207 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate23,49645,61294.13%6.86%$48,740 $52,083 Services20,34028,03237.82%3.26%$28,946 $29,889 Public Administration13,51220,12448.93%4.06%$20,942 $21,793 Weighted Avg. Annual Wage$18,604 $27,431 47.44%3.96%$28,517 $29,646

PAGE 26

24TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 In 2000 the annual average wage in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate was $29,225. This represented a 13.82% increase over the 1997 figure, and a 4.41% increase per annum. The data reflects the FIRE industry division enjoying the highest average wage during 2000 at $42,092. Panels A through C contain the three MSAs of the Tampa Bay aggregate. These panels report average annual wages and wage growth from 1997 to 2000. AverageAverage Annual % Annual Average Average Annual% of TotalAnnual% of TotalChangeCompoundAnnualAnnual DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 2000Employment1997-2000% GrowthWage: 2001*Wage: 2002* Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$15,262 2.76%$17,203 2.59%12.72%4.07%$17,904 $18,633 Mining and Construction$28,247 5.94%$32,336 6.19%14.47%4.61%$33,826 $35,385 Manufacturing$31,515 10.19%$36,332 9.51%15.28%4.85%$38,096 $39,945 Transportation and Public Utilities$35,194 4.71%$40,134 4.81%14.04%4.48%$41,930 $43,806 Trade$20,847 28.25%$24,075 26.95%15.48%4.92%$25,258 $26,500 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate$36,429 7.31%$42,092 7.46%15.54%4.93%$44,168 $46,347 Services^$24,870 40.84%$27,687 42.49%11.32%3.64%$28,695 $29,739 Weighted Average Annual Wage$25,677 $29,225 13.82%4.41%$30,513 $31,859 Source: ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics *CEDR projection ^2000 Data for services division for Sarasota-Bradenton MSA unavailable, CEDR interpolation applied PanelA LAKELAND-WINTER HAVEN MSA WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISON Average Annual% of TotalAverage Annual% of TotalAnnual % Annual CompoundAverage AnnualAverage Annual DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 2000EmploymentChange 1997-2000% GrowthWage: 2001*Wage: 2002* Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$16,115 6.62%$18,667 5.31%15.84%5.02%$19,605 $20,589 Mining and Construction$30,738 8.07%$34,096 7.96%10.92%3.52%$35,295 $36,536 Manufacturing$32,966 14.07%$36,476 12.63%10.65%3.43%$37,727 $39,020 Transportation and Public Utilities$31,212 5.65%$34,793 5.86%11.48%3.69%$36,076 $37,407 Trade$20,090 31.98%$22,956 32.90%14.26%4.54%$23,999 $25,090 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate$30,938 5.20%$34,591 5.58%11.81%3.79%$35,902 $37,263 Services$24,472 28.42%$26,932 29.77%10.05%3.24%$27,805 $28,708 Weighted Average Annual Wage$24,935 $27,848 11.69%3.75%$28,893 $29,978 PanelB SARASOTA-BRADENTON MSA WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISON Average Annual% of TotalAverage Annual% of TotalAnnual % Annual CompoundAverage AnnualAverage Annual DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 2000EmploymentChange 1997-2000% GrowthWage: 2001*Wage: 2002* Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$14,526 3.88%$15,527 3.65%6.89%2.25%$15,876 $16,232 Mining and Construction$26,416 5.72%$30,908 6.65%17.00%5.37%$32,568 $34,318 Manufacturing$31,894 9.51%$37,501 9.34%17.58%5.55%$39,581 $41,776 Transportation and Public Utilities$31,160 2.42%$34,828 2.23%11.77%3.78%$36,144 $37,510 Trade$18,266 26.93%$21,206 25.91%16.10%5.10%$22,288 $23,424 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate$37,089 5.26%$44,071 5.15%18.82%5.92%$46,678 $49,441 Services^$22,030 46.27%$21,910 47.07%-0.55%-0.18%$21,870 $21,830 Weighted Average Annual Wage$22,929 $24,979 8.94%2.90%$25,702 $26,447 PanelC TAMPA-ST. PETERSBURG-CLEARWATER MSA WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISON Average Annual% of TotalAverage Annual% of TotalAnnual % Annual CompoundAverage AnnualAverage Annual DivisionWage: 1997EmploymentWage: 2000EmploymentChange 1997-2000% GrowthWage: 2001*Wage: 2002* Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$15,134 1.87%$17,325 1.92%14.47%4.61%$18,123 $18,958 Mining and Construction$28,112 5.65%$32,346 5.81%15.06%4.79%$33,895 $35,517 Manufacturing$31,084 9.72%$36,015 9.06%15.87%5.03%$37,827 $39,731 Transportation and Public Utilities$36,372 5.10%$41,597 5.25%14.36%4.58%$43,500 $45,490 Trade$21,584 27.96%$24,962 26.27%15.65%4.97%$26,202 $27,504 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate$36,900 8.14%$42,588 8.30%15.42%4.89%$44,672 $46,859 Services$25,673 41.57%$29,250 43.39%13.93%4.44%$30,549 $31,907 Weighted Average Annual Wage$26,456 $30,444 15.07%4.79%$31,902 $33,431 Source: ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ^2000 Data for services division for Sarasota-Bradenton MSA unavailable, CEDR interpolation applied *CEDR projection SECTION 2WAGES AND INCOME Table M8 TAMPA BAY MSA-AGGREGATE WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISON

PAGE 27

Personal income and per capita personal income are reported in Table 9 In 1999, the latest year for which data is available, Pinellas County workers received 29.5% of the Tampa Bay region's aggregate personal income. Hillsborough County workers received 27.2%. Workers in the other Tampa Bay counties received smaller proportions of the aggregate personal income. Per capita personal income was highest in Sarasota County ($38,934) and lowest in Hernando County ($22,412). Between 1990 and 1999, the growth rate in per capita personal income was fastest for Manatee County (55.41%) and slowest for Sarasota County (38.41%). In 1990, aggregate personal income for the Tampa Bay region was slightly over $58.1 billion, and personal income grew to just under $94.4 billion in 1999. Per capita personal income in the Tampa Bay region, $19,535 in 1990, rose 47.08% to $28,731 in 1999. By comparison, the 1990 total personal income for Florida was slightly under $258.5 billion and grew to just over $419.8 billion in 1999. Per capita personal income in Florida was $19,855 in 1990, rising 39.92% to $27,781 in 1999. Table M9 reports 1990 and 1999 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 $58.1 billion in 1990 and slightly under $94.4 billion in 1999. The MSA with the highest per capita income in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate, as well as with the comparison MSAs, was SarasotaBradenton with $24,750 in 1990 and $35,679 in 1999. In 1999, the DenverBoulder-Greeley CMSA was a close second to the Sarasota-Bradenton MSA in per capita personal income at $35,318. 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 $15,997 in 1990 and $23,294 in 1999. The growth of the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate's personal income between 1990 and 1999 was 47.08%. Among the comparison MSAs, the Austin-San Marcos MSA had the highest growth rate with 75.74%, and the Orlando MSA had the slowest growth rate with 43.77% over the same time period. Differences in per capita personal income among the three MSAs of Tampa Bay were smaller in 1999 than they were in 1990. The decline in per capita personal income differences is partly because the MSA with the highest per capita personal income, SarasotaBradenton, experienced a slower growth rate than did the MSA with the lowest per capita personal income, Lakeland-Winter Haven. 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 25 Aggregate IncomePer Capita Income (Thousands of Dollars)Per Capita Income9-YearAnnual CompoundPer Capita Income Location1990199919901999% Change% Change2000*2001* Hernando$1,626,037 $2,879,475 $15,832 $22,412 41.56%3.94%$23,294 $24,212 Hillsborough$15,049,137 $25,679,135 $18,003 $27,304 51.66%4.74%$28,597 $29,952 Manatee$4,332,319 $7,691,292 $20,322 $31,582 55.41%5.02%$33,168 $34,833 Pasco$4,435,937 $7,750,031 $15,742 $23,435 48.87%4.52%$24,494 $25,602 Pinellas$18,306,493 $27,811,311 $21,407 $31,658 47.89%4.44%$33,065 $34,534 Polk$6,514,298 $10,653,442 $15,997 $23,294 45.61%4.26%$24,287 $25,323 Sarasota$7,857,197 $11,934,965 $28,130 $38,934 38.41%3.68%$40,366 $41,850 Tampa Bay$58,121,418 $94,399,651 $19,535 $28,731 47.08%4.38%$29,990 $31,303 Florida$258,479,049 $419,800,453 $19,855 $27,781 39.92%3.80%$28,837 $29,934 Source: Regional Economic Information System (REIS) of the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), *CEDR projection Note: 2000 Data Unavailable Aggregate IncomePer Capita Income (Thousands of Dollars)Per Capita Income9-YearAnnual CompoundPer Capita Income Location1990199919901999% Change% Change2000*2001* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA$6,514,298 $10,653,442 $15,997 $23,294 45.61%4.26%$24,287 $25,323 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA$12,189,516 $19,626,257 $24,750 $35,679 44.16%4.15%$37,159 $38,700 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA$39,417,604 $64,119,952 $18,991 $28,145 48.20%4.47%$29,403 $30,716 Tampa Bay$58,121,418 $94,399,651 $19,534 $28,731 47.08%4.38%$29,989 $31,303 Comparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA$62,723,053 $125,302,157 $21,063 $32,486 54.23%4.93%$34,088 $35,770 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA$42,363,841 $83,227,764 $18,864 $27,617 46.40%4.33%$28,812 $30,058 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA$43,003,166 $85,396,405 $21,649 $35,318 63.14%5.59%$37,292 $39,376 Orlando, FL MSA$22,898,415 $40,782,414 $18,480 $26,568 43.77%4.12%$27,662 $28,800 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA$23,037,089 $42,997,995 $19,724 $30,340 53.82%4.90%$31,827 $33,387 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA$15,389,742 $36,437,414 $18,092 $31,794 75.74%6.46%$33,849 $36,038 Source: Regional Economic Information System (REIS) of the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), *CEDR projection Note: 2000 Data Unavailable PERSONAL INCOME Table M9 TAMPA BAY MSA AGGREGATE PERSONAL INCOME Table 9 TAMPA BAY REGION PERSONAL INCOME

PAGE 28

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, 1998, and 1999, per capita disposable income for the Tampa Bay region exceeded that of Florida as well as each of the selected comparison states. Table 11 and Chart 11 show the disposable personal income factors for Florida and the comparison states of Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas from 1997 to 1999. Florida's factor is comparable with Arizona's and higher than that of North Carolina, but in Texas people retain about 1% more of personal income than in the other states including Florida. From 1997 through 1999 Florida's disposable personal income experienced a 0.53% per annum decline, greater than the declines of both Arizona and Texas. 26TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 Aggregate Disposable IncomePer Capita (thousands of dollars)Disposable Income Annual Growth Location1997199819991997199819991997-19992000^2001^ Tampa Bay*$73,589,722 $77,762,910 $81,525,978 $22,947 $23,927 $24,813 3.99%$25,802 $26,831 Florida$328,706,000 $346,602,000 $365,711,000 $22,386 $23,249 $24,201 3.97%$25,163 $26,163 Arizona$90,496,000 $97,740,000 $104,430,000 $19,880 $20,942 $21,855 4.85%$22,915 $24,026 North Carolina$155,509,000 $163,045,000 $171,564,000 $20,934 $21,607 $22,424 3.50%$23,208 $24,020 Texas$409,803,000 $438,293,000 $465,480,000 $21,172 $22,234 $23,223 4.73%$24,322 $25,473 CEDR Estimate based on Florida's disposable income factor^ CEDR projection Source: Table 5.08, "Florida Statistical Abstract 2000," Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida; U.S. Burea u of Economic Analysis Annual Compound Location199719981999% Change 2000*2001* 1997-1999 Florida0.873 0.866 0.864 -0.53%0.859 0.854 Arizona0.870 0.865 0.864 -0.39%0.860 0.857 North Carolina0.865 0.858 0.855 -0.55%0.851 0.846 Texas0.882 0.876 0.875 -0.38%0.872 0.869 Source: Tables 5.05 and 5.08 "Florida Statistical Abstract 2000," Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida; *CEDR projection SECTION 2WAGES AND INCOME DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME Table 10 TAMPA BAY REGION DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME Table 11 DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME FACTORS FOR SELECTED STATES 1999 Source:Tables 5.05 and 5.08, "Florida Statistical Abstract 2000," Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida *CEDR projection 0.890 0.880 0.870 0.860 0.850 0.840 0.830 0.820 Florida Arizona N. Carolina Texas 1997 1998 2000* 2001* Chart 11 DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME FACTORS FOR SELECTED STATES

PAGE 29

In this section, statistics that reflect the state of the Tampa Bay regional economy are examined. Since April 1990 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 10-year span from April 1990 to April 2000, the region experienced a net gain of 98 manufacturing businesses, but manufacturing's percentage of the industry structure shrunk from 5.27% to 4.36%. Regional economic activity, as measured by gross and taxable sales, indicates robust growth. Average monthly gross sales in the Tampa Bay region increased 42.14% over the 5-year period from 1995 to 2000. Additionally, there was a 3-year growth in single family construction spending in the Tampa Bay region of 39.10% and a 3-year growth rate for multi-family construction spending of 22.14%. The annual 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 2000 the cost of living in Hernando County was 6% lower than the regional cost of living. On the other hand, Pinellas County was the most expensive with a 2000 cost of living about 2.5% above the Tampa Bay region's average cost of living. 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 27 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 April 1990 and in April 2000. There were 68,613 businesses in Tampa Bay in April 1990, and that number rose to 85,333 businesses in April 2000, a 24.37% increase over the decade. The most numerous type of establishment is a service business. Service businesses comprised 38.21% of Tampa Bay's regional industry structure in April 1990. In April 1990, the number of service establishments in the Tampa Bay region was 26,218, and by April 2000 the number had grown to 34,281, a 30.75% increase. No industry in the Tampa Bay region experienced a net loss of establishments in the past decade. Manufacturing experienced the slowest growth in the time period, posting a 2.71% increase. Panels A through G of Table G1 on the following page depict business establishments by industry division for each of the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region. Table M10 reports the number of businesses (participating in a state's unemployed insurance program) by industry division in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate in 1997 (the earliest year for which data is nationally available) and 2000. Business establishments reported in this table are based on ES202 data released Annual EstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercent10-YearCompoundEstablishmentsEstablishments DivisionApr-90of TotalApr-00of Total% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02* Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries2,550 3.72%2,968 3.48%16.39%1.53%3,013 3,059 Mining & Construction8,197 11.95%9,116 10.68%11.21%1.07%9,213 9,312 Manufacturing 3,619 5.27%3,717 4.36%2.71%0.27%3,727 3,737 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities2,102 3.06%2,984 3.50%41.96%3.57%3,090 3,201 Trade19,080 27.81%23,316 27.32%22.20%2.03%23,788 24,270 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate6,311 9.20%8,264 9.68%30.95%2.73%8,490 8,722 Services26,218 38.21%34,281 40.17%30.75%2.72%35,213 36,170 Public Administration536 0.78%687 0.81%28.17%2.51%704 722 Totals68,613 100.00%85,333 100.00%24.37%2.20%87,214 89,137Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data SECTION 3BUSINESS & ECONOMIC CONDITIONS BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS Table G1 TAMPA BAY BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS BY DIVISION Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data Services 41% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 10% Public Administration 1% Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries 3% Mining & Construction 11% Manufacturing 4% Transportation, Comm. & Utilities 3% Trade 27% Chart G1 TAMPA BAY REGION BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS BY DIVISION April 2000

PAGE 30

by the U.S. 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, P ublic Administration. Public Administration is included in the FloridaES202 data.) There were 80,707 business establishments in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate in 28TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 EstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth RateAnnual Compound Division1997of Total2000of Total1997-2000% Change Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing2,793 3.46%2,925 3.46%4.51%1.48% Construction7,883 9.77%9,023 10.67%12.63%4.05% Manufacturing3,625 4.49%3,674 4.35%1.33%0.44% Transportation and Public Utilities2,812 3.48%2,965 3.51%5.16%1.69% Trade23,585 29.22%23,262 27.52%-1.39%-0.47% Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate7,901 9.79%8,244 9.75%4.16%1.37% Services*32,108 39.78%34,442 40.74%6.78%2.21% Totals80,707 100.00%84,535 100.00%4.53%1.49%Source: ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2000 data for Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA unavailable, CEDR interpolation SECTION 3BUSINESS & ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Table M10 MSA AGGREGATE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS BY DIVISION Table G1 Panels BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS BY INDUSTRY DIVISION 1990-2000 Panel A Hernando CountyAnnual EstablishmentsEstablishments10-YearCompoundEstablisnm.Establishm. DivisionApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries65 84 29.23%2.60%86 88 Mining & Construction320 422 31.88%2.81%434 446 Manufacturing 64 86 34.38%3.00%89 91 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities55 96 74.55%5.73%101 107 Trade457 633 38.51%3.31%654 676 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate122 195 59.84%4.80%204 214 Services506 814 60.87%4.87%854 895 Public Administration32 47 46.88%3.92%49 51 Totals1,621 2,377 46.64%3.90%2,470 2,566 Panel B Hillsborough CountyAnnual EstablishmentsEstablishments10-YearCompoundEstablisnm.Establishm. DivisionApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$766 $826 7.83%0.76%$832 $839 Mining & Construction$2,238 $2,343 4.69%0.46%$2,354 $2,365 Manufacturing $1,014 $1,001 -1.28%-0.13%$1,000 $998 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities$710 $990 39.44%3.38%$1,023 $1,058 Trade$5,885 $7,161 21.68%1.98%$7,303 $7,448 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$1,954 $2,641 35.16%3.06%$2,722 $2,805 Services$7,799 $10,771 38.11%3.28%$11,124 $11,489 Public Administration$130 $166 27.69%2.47%$170 $174 Totals$20,496 $25,899 26.36%2.37%$26,512 $27,140 Panel C Manatee CountyAnnual EstablishmentsEstablishments10-YearCompoundEstablisnm.Establishm. DivisionApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$225 $279 24.00%2.17%$285 $291 Mining & Construction$425 $722 69.88%5.44%$761 $803 Manufacturing $212 $293 38.21%3.29%$303 $313 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities$110 $186 69.09%5.39%$196 $207 Trade$1,075 $1,580 46.98%3.93%$1,642 $1,707 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate$362 $511 41.16%3.51%$529 $547 Services$1,467 $2,063 40.63%3.47%$2,135 $2,209 Public Administration$57 $71 24.56%2.22%$73 $74 Totals$3,933 $5,705 45.05%3.79%$5,921 $6,146 Panel D Pasco CountyAnnual EstablishmentsEstablishments10-YearCompoundEstablisnm.Establishm. DivisionApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries226 280 23.89%2.17%286 292 Mining & Construction715 872 21.96%2.00%889 907 Manufacturing 156 188 20.51%1.88%192 195 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities164 243 48.17%4.01%253 263 Trade1,234 1,617 31.04%2.74%1,661 1,707 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate361 528 46.26%3.88%548 570 Services1,581 2,209 39.72%3.40%2,284 2,362 Public Administration45 64 42.22%3.58%66 69 Totals4,482 6,001 33.89%2.96%6,179 6,362 Panel E Pinellas CountyAnnual EstablishmentsEstablishments10-YearCompoundEstablisnm.Establishm. DivisionApr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries457 562 22.98%2.09%574 586 Mining & Construction2,152 2,229 3.58%0.35%2,237 2,245 Manufacturing 1,280 1,273 -0.55%-0.05%1,272 1,272 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities503 721 43.34%3.67%747 775 Trade5,746 6,821 18.71%1.73%6,939 7,059 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate1,995 2,540 27.32%2.44%2,602 2,666 Services8,533 10,566 23.83%2.16%10,794 11,027 Public Administration111 150 35.14%3.06%155 159 Totals20,777 24,862 19.66%1.81%25,312 25,771 Panel F -Polk CountyAnnual EstablishmentsEstablishments10-YearCompoundEstablisnm.Establishm. Divisions-Apr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries584 590 1.03%0.10%591 591 Mining & Construction1,036 1,048 1.16%0.12%1,049 1,050 Manufacturing 490 477 -2.65%-0.27%476 474 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities332 451 35.84%3.11%465 479 Trade2,290 2,712 18.43%1.71%2,758 2,805 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate651 770 18.28%1.69%783 796 Services2,709 3,133 15.65%1.46%3,179 3,225 Public Administration97 116 19.59%1.80%118 120 Totals8,189 9,297 13.53%1.28%9,416 9,536 Panel G Sarasota CountyAnnual EstablishmentsEstablishments10-YearCompoundEstablisnm.Establishm. Divisions-Apr-90Apr-00% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02*Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries22734752.86%4.34%$362 $378 Mining & Construction1,3111,48012.89%1.22%$1,498 $1,516 Manufacturing 403399-0.99%-0.10%$399 $398 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities22829730.26%2.68%$305 $313 Trade2,3932,79216.67%1.55%$2,835 $2,879 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate8661,07924.60%2.22%$1,103 $1,128 Services3,6234,72530.42%2.69%$4,852 $4,983 Public Administration647314.06%1.32%$74 $75 Totals$9,115 $11,192 22.79%2.07%$11,424 $11,661 Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data, *CEDR projection

PAGE 31

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 five-year period between 1995 and 2000. Chart G2 (see page 32) displays the average monthly gross and taxable sales for the same time period on a regional basis. Average monthly gross sales in the Tampa Bay region increased by 42.14% (7.29% per annum) over the 5-year period from 1995 to 2000. Average monthly taxable sales in the Tampa Bay region increased by 38.36% (6.71% per annum) over the same time period. Both of these statistics are indicative of robust economic growth between 1995 and 2000. And, both statistics are comparable to Florida's 41.98% 5-year gain in average monthly gross sales and 41.38% 5-year gain in average monthly taxable sales. Measured by gross sales, most economic activity ($3.6 billion per month out of the Tampa Bay region's $9.3 billion per month in 2000) takes place in Hillsborough County, followed by Pinellas County with $2.4 billion per month and Polk County with $1.2 billion per month. 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 29 SALESAnnual 5-YearCompound Location19952000% Change% Change2001*2002* Hernando$268,763,076 $327,256,069 21.76%4.02%$340,401,395 $354,074,746 Hillsborough$2,533,474,428 $3,609,879,872 42.49%7.34%$3,874,788,436 $4,159,137,132 Manatee$397,909,172 $558,040,242 40.24%7.00%$597,092,797 $638,878,312 Pasco$317,951,797 $457,977,239 44.04%7.57%$492,652,189 $529,952,492 Pinellas$1,709,253,543 $2,386,215,655 39.61%6.90%$2,550,881,776 $2,726,911,048 Polk$813,393,280 $1,229,711,129 51.18%8.62%$1,335,683,644 $1,450,788,528 Sarasota$534,886,330 $777,423,553 45.34%7.77%$837,793,396 $902,851,184 Tampa Bay$6,575,631,625 $9,346,503,759 42.14%7.29%$10,027,473,591 $10,758,057,687 Florida$35,198,662,684 $49,973,527,439 41.98%7.26%$53,602,219,662 $57,494,399,533 Source: Florida Department of Revenue, *CEDR projection SALES Annual 5-YearCompound Location19952000% Change% Change2001*2002* Hernando$55,996,920 $79,746,248 42.41%7.33%$85,589,301 $91,860,479 Hillsborough$1,021,979,524 $1,458,453,130 42.71%7.37%$1,565,966,739 $1,681,405,989 Manatee$191,393,583 $260,819,447 36.27%6.39%$277,474,124 $295,192,289 Pasco$169,762,565 $241,648,263 42.34%7.32%$259,329,562 $278,304,595 Pinellas$766,896,057 $1,013,609,864 32.17%5.74%$1,071,760,367 $1,133,246,946 Polk$366,219,685 $479,260,735 30.87%5.53%$505,752,319 $533,708,249 Sarasota$299,396,016 $439,707,157 46.86%7.99%$474,839,718 $512,779,367 Tampa Bay$2,871,644,351 $3,973,244,844 38.36%6.71%$4,239,828,246 $4,524,297,962 Florida$14,787,335,557 $20,906,129,751 41.38%7.17%$22,405,280,436 $24,011,933,217 Source: Florida Department of Revenue, *CEDR projection 1997 and 84,535 in 2000 for a 4.53% rate of growth (1.49% per annum). Service businesses were the most common comprising slightly over 40% of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate industry structure in 2000. That same year manufacturing businesses accounted for 4.35% of the structure. Panels A through C of Table M10 report the number of business establishments in each of the three MSAs of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate for 1997 and 2000. GROSS SALES & TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY Table G2 TAMPA BAY REGION AVERAGE MONTHLY GROSS SALES BY COUNTY Table G3 TAMPA BAY REGION AVERAGE MONTHLY TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY TABLE M10 PANELS Panel A Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA EstablishmentsEstablishments3-YearAnnual CompoundEstablishmentsEstablishments Division19972000% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02* Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries589 576 -2.21%-0.74%572 567 Construction930 1,014 9.03%2.92%1,044 1,074 Manufacturing 482 472 -2.07%-0.70%469 465 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities453 448 -1.10%-0.37%446 445 Trade2,767 2,718 -1.77%-0.59%2,702 2,686 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate766 766 0.00%0.00%766 766 Services3,066 3,117 1.66%0.55%3,134 3,151 Totals9,053 9,111 0.64%0.21%9,130 9,150 Panel B Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA EstablishmentsEstablishments3-YearAnnual CompoundEstablishmentsEstablishments Division19972000% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02* Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries592 622 5.07%1.66%632 643 Construction1,819 2,186 20.18%6.32%2,324 2,471 Manufacturing 672 676 0.60%0.20%677 679 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities446 479 7.40%2.41%491 502 Trade4,429 4,338 -2.05%-0.69%4,308 4,278 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate1,558 1,589 1.99%0.66%1,599 1,610 Services^6,394 6,944 8.60%2.79%7,138 7,337 Totals15,910 16,834 5.81%1.90%17,154 17,480 Panel C Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA EstablishmentsEstablishments3-YearAnnual CompoundEstablishmentsEstablishments Division19972000% Change% ChangeApr. 01*Apr. 02* Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries1,612 1,727 7.13%2.32%1,767 1,808 Construction5,134 5,823 13.42%4.29%6,073 6,333 Manufacturing 2,471 2,526 2.23%0.74%2,545 2,563 Transportation, Comm. & Utilities1,913 2,038 6.53%2.13%2,081 2,126 Trade16,389 16,206 -1.12%-0.37%16,145 16,085 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate5,577 5,889 5.59%1.83%5,997 6,107 Services22,648 24,381 7.65%2.49%24,988 25,609 Totals55,744 58,590 5.11%1.67%59,571 60,568 Source: ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; *CEDR projection ^ 2000 data for Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA unavailable, CEDR interpolation

PAGE 32

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 (for years 1997 and 2000) 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 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 reveals a 3-year growth rate in single family housing permits in the Tampa Bay region of 28.03%. However, during this same period permits issued for multi-family housing declined by 2.86%. By comparison, Florida's 3-year growth rate in single family housing permits was 17.87% and the state's 3-year growth rate for multi-family housing permits was 17.62%. 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. Manatee County experienced the biggest growth in the region for single family housing permits with a 3-year 37.12% rate. Hernando County was the only county to experience a decline in single family housing permits, with a 3-year 4.96% decrease. Furthermore, while three counties of Tampa Bay experienced a decline in the number of multi-family permits issued from 1997 to 2000, Hernando (309.30%) more than quadrupled the number of permits issued over the same 3-year period. Table G5 reports the construction spending associated with the housing permits discussed above. There was a 3-year (1997 to 2000) growth in single family construction spending in the Tampa Bay region of 39.10%, and a 3-year growth rate for multi-family construction of 22.14%. By comparison, the growth rates for the entire state of Florida over the same time span were 38.66% for single family construction spending and 39.15% for multifamily construction spending. In Pinellas County there was little growth in construction spending between 1997 and 2000. Manatee and Pasco counties experienced over 50% growth in single 30TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 % Change% Change 19971997200020001997-20001997-2000Annual % ChangeAnnual % Change LocationSingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-Family Hernando1,210 43 1,150176-4.96%309.30%-1.68%59.96% Hillsborough5,400 3,659 7,3284,32835.70%18.28%10.71%5.76% Manatee2,077 615 2,84860437.12%-1.79%11.10%-0.60% Pasco2,278 302 3,02146532.62%53.97%9.87%15.47% Pinellas1,718 2,029 1,7949824.42%-51.60%1.45%-21.49% Polk2,664 734 3,5201,22632.13%67.03%9.73%18.65% Sarasota2,385 1,263 3,04161727.51%-51.15%8.44%-21.24% Tampa Bay17,732 8,645 22,7028,39828.03%-2.86%8.58%-0.96% Florida90,309 43,681 106,44751,37617.87%17.62%5.63%5.56%Source: US Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division % Change% Change 19971997200020001997-20001997-2000Annual % ChangeAnnual % Change LocationSingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-Family Hernando$101,940$2,001$131,044$6,88028.55%243.83%8.73%50.93% Hillsborough$477,256$206,199$655,550$339,68637.36%64.74%11.16%18.10% Manatee$02,776$26,324$380,633$31,24187.71%18.68%23.36%5.87% Pasco$190,996$17,344$310,336$27,04862.48%55.95%17.56%15.97% Pinellas$304,260$107,741$312,987$97,9542.87%-9.08%0.95%-3.12% Polk$221,268$30,695$276,665$54,01525.04%75.97%7.73%20.73% Sarasota$301,612$101,213$436,757$43,51744.81%-57.00%13.14%-24.52% Tampa Bay$1,800,108$491,517$2,503,972$600,34139.10%22.14%11.63%6.89% Florida9,550,594$2,654,856$13,243,1483,694,30938.66%39.15%11.51%11.64%Source: US Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division SECTION 3BUSINESS & ECONOMIC CONDITIONS HOUSING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SPENDING Table G5 TAMPA BAY REGION CONSTRUCTION SPENDING (in thousands of dollars) Table G4 TAMPA BAY REGION HOUSING PERMITS

PAGE 33

family construction spending from 1997 to 2000, while Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Polk counties all experienced over 50% growth in multi-family construction spending over the same time. Table M11 compares the growth rate in the number of housing permits issued in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate from 1990 to 2000 with the growth rate in the number of permits issued in the MSAs of the comparison universe. The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's annual compound growth rate for the past decade for single family permits was 5.15%. By comparison over the same time span, the Austin-San Marcos MSA experienced the fastest growth rate in single family permits at 21.14% and the slowest growth rate was 3.09% in the Orlando MSA. For multi-family housing permits issued, the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's annual compound growth rate was 0.46%. Among the comparison universe, the fastest rate of growth in multi-family housing permits issued was the Austin-San Marcos MSA's 69.19% per annum and the slowest rate (outside of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate) was the 2.46% annual growth in the Orlando MSA. Table M12 reports the construction spending associated with the housing permits shown in Table M11. In the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate, single family construction spending grew by 132.20% (8.79% per annum) and multi-family spending grew by 71.27% (5.53% per annum) over the past decade. By comparison over the same time span, the AustinSan Marcos MSA had the highest growth rate, 22.00% per year, for single family construction spending and the Orlando MSA had the lowest growth rate at 6.46% per year for single family construction spending. For multi-family construction spending among the MSAs of the comparison universe, the Austin-San Marcos MSA had the highest growth rate at 71.55% per year, and the lowest rate was 8.53% annual compound growth in the Orlando MSA. 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 31 Annual Annual Growth RateGrowth RateCompoundCompound 19901990200020001990-20001990-2000% Change% Change LocationSingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-Family Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA$124,254 $26,721 $276,665 $54,015 122.66%102.14%8.33%7.29% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA$321,107 $94,284 $817,390 $74,758 154.55%-20.71%9.79%-2.29% Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clw., FL MSA$633,020 $229,514 $1,409,916 $471,570 122.73%105.46%8.34%7.47% Tampa Bay$1,078,381 $350,519 $2,503,971 $600,343 132.20%71.27%8.79%5.53% Comparison Universe: Atlanta, GA MSA$1,622,094 $259,644 $5,149,752 $922,236 217.48%255.19%12.25%13.51% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA$1,185,631 $99,888 $4,592,708 $705,108 287.36%605.90%14.50%21.58% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA$626,967 $21,890 $3,048,045 $754,971 386.16%3348.93%17.13%42.48% Orlando, FL MSA$1,010,599 $226,018 $1,889,849 $512,220 87.00%126.63%6.46%8.53% Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA$615,462 $79,305 $2,046,710 $370,873 232.55%367.65%12.77%16.68% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA$225,997 $1,698 $1,650,506 $374,836 630.32%21975.15%22.00%71.55%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, C40 Building Permits Annual Annual Growth RateGrowth RateCompoundCompound 19901990200020001990-20001990-2000% Change% Change LocationSingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-Family Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA1,988 797 3,520 1,226 77.06%53.83%5.88%4.40% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA3,901 1,967 5,889 1,221 50.96%-37.93%4.20%-4.66% Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA7,850 5,255 13,293 5,951 69.34%13.24%5.41%1.25% Tampa Bay13,739 8,019 22,702 8,398 65.24%4.73%5.15%0.46% Comparison Universe: Atlanta, GA MSA20,654 5,982 46,747 17,469 126.33%192.03%8.51%11.31% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA10,909 2,041 34,232 11,078 213.80%442.77%12.12%18.43% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA5,643 584 21,672 12,156 284.05%1981.51%14.40%35.47% Orlando, FL MSA11,360 7,471 15,400 9,524 35.56%27.48%3.09%2.46% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA7,675 3,077 16,380 7,548 113.42%145.30%7.88%9.39% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA1,900 46 12,932 8,842 580.63%19121.74%21.14%69.19%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, C-40 Building Permits Table M12 TAMPA BAY MSA AGGREGATE CONSTRUCTION SPENDING (in thousands of dollars) Table M11 TAMPA BAY MSA AGGREGATE HOUSING PERMITS

PAGE 34

Table G6 provides relative costs of living and county rankings for 1998, 1999, and 2000. 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 1999 Hernando County's relative cost of living was 91.71% of the average, or 8.29% below average. The county's rank is also shown. In the example, Hernando County ranked 47th in 1999. That is, only 20 other counties had a lower cost of living in 1999 than Hernando. From 1998 through 2000 the weighted average cost of living index for the Tampa Bay region has been slightly above or slightly below 100% indicating that Tampa Bay's cost of living is on 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 40 in 1998 to 49 in 2000. 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 6th in the state with a relative index of 101.41% in 2000. From 1998 through 2000 both Manatee County and Pasco County have seen dramatic increases in their cost of living rankings, each rising ten spots during that period. 32TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 Location1998Rank1999Rank2000Rank Hernando93.26%4091.71%4792.93%49 Hillsborough100.86%8100.48%7100.32%7 Manatee99.22%1099.27%1096.93%16 Pasco95.44%2696.36%1796.38%20 Pinellas103.74%4103.34%5101.41%6 Polk94.98%3095.93%1995.24%26 Sarasota102.90%5100.57%6100.20%8 Tampa Bay*100.05%99.78%98.96%* Tampa Bay is the 7-county average weighted by population for each county Source: Florida Department of Education SECTION 3BUSINESS & ECONOMIC CONDITIONS COST OF LIVING 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 2000 $3,018,004,285 1996 1995$2,871,644,351$6,575,631,625$6,883,607,868$9,346,503,759$3,973,244,844 Chart G2 TAMPA BAY REGION AVERAGE MONTHLY SALES(see page 29) Table G6 TAMPA BAY REGION RELATIVE COST OF LIVING INDEX

PAGE 35

Table G7 reports public high school graduation rates for the Tampa Bay region. In the academic years ending 1998, 1999, and 2000 the region's graduation rates were 71.9%, 64.0%, and 65.1%, 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 school graduation rates to track individuals by student identification number, beginning with their first time enrollment in 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 and 2000 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 1998 the Tampa Bay region has met or exceeded the statewide graduation rate. Table G8 reports public high school dropout rates for 1998 through 2000 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 the academic year ending in 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 1998 and 1999, the Tampa Bay region's public high school dropout rate has been just over 5%. The Tampa Bay region's dropout rate for the academic year ending in 2000 was 3.8%. For the three years examined, the Tampa Bay region's public high school average dropout rate has been approximately the same as the statewide rate. 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 33 This 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 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 2000 graduation rate was 65.1%. Additionally, for the academic year ending in 2000 the Tampa Bay region's public high school dropout rate was 3.8%, almost a full point below that of the state of Florida. Between 1998 and 2000, average SAT scores in the Tampa Bay region have been in the 1013 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 size. Overall, regional class size averaged between 24 and 26 pupils in 2000. In Tampa Bay, average per-pupil expenditures for all types of educational programs at the high school level increased from about $4,450 in 1997-1998 to about $4,900 in 1999-2000. Academic Year Ending Location199819992000 Hernando66.2%68.7%67.4% Hillsborough72.8%69.5%71.4% Manatee59.6%56.2%61.4% Pasco73.6%63.5%64.8% Pinellas72.4%65.3%64.3% Polk78.4%53.3%55.3% Sarasota69.0%63.0%63.4% Tampa Bay71.9%64.0%65.1% Florida71.9%60.2%62.3%Source: Florida Department of Education SECTION 4EDUCATION INDICATORS HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES Table G7 TAMPA BAY REGION HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES 80.0%Source: Florida Department of EducationFlorida Tampa Bay 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%2000 1998 1999 71.9% 71.9% 64.0% 60.2% 65.1% 62.3% ChartG7 TAMPA BAY REGION HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES COMPARISON

PAGE 36

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 7-county averages to represent the Tampa Bay region. Average class sizes are listed by acaIn Table G9 average Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores for students in Tampa Bay are reported for each county for academic years 1998 through 2000. The table includes weighted average (by student population) test scores for the Tampa Bay region. The region's weighted average test scores have been in the 1013 to 1021 range as compared to Florida's range of 997 to 993 over the same time span. See Chart G9, below. For additional comparisons, we note that national average test scores were 1017 and 1016 in 1998 and 1999, respectively (reference 2000 Statistical Abstract of the United States, published by the U.S. Census Bureau, Economics and Statistics Administration). 34TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 SECTION 3EDUCATION INDICATORS Academic Year Ending Location199819992000 Hernando4.7%6.1%2.9% Hillsborough6.4%4.2%2.6% Manatee3.5%7.4%6.3% Pasco5.1%5.5%4.4% Pinellas3.0%3.7%3.1% Polk7.2%8.7%5.9% Sarasota4.2%7.6%3.6% Tampa Bay5.1%5.4%3.8% Florida4.8%5.4%4.6%Source: Florida Department of Education Table G8 HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES SCHOLASTIC ASSESSMENT TEST SCORES Academic Year Ending Location199819992000 Hernando10109971008 Hillsborough102110121011 Manatee10051007988 Pasco101410191010 Pinellas103910281029 Polk988985984 Sarasota105510601053 Tampa Bay102110151013 Florida997993995Source: Florida Department of Education Table G9 TAMPA BAY REGION AVERAGE SAT SCORES HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZES 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 98 00 00 00 00 98 99 99 98 99 ChartG10 TAMPA BAY REGION HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZE 2000 1998 199960.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Source: Florida Department of EducationFlorida Tampa Bay5.1% 4.8% 5.4% 5.4% 3.8% 4.6% ChartG8 TAMPA BAY REGION HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES COMPARISON 1025 1020 1015 1010 1005 1000 985 995 990 975 980 2000 1998 1999 Source: Florida Department of EducationFlorida Tampa Bay995 1013 993 1015 997 1021 Chart G9 TAMPA BAY REGION SAT SCORES

PAGE 37

2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 35 demic subjects: language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The Tampa Bay region's average public high school size has been less than the statewide average class size in Florida from 1998 to 2000. See Chart G10 on page 34. 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 through 1999-2000. 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 those of the state of Florida. The chart depicts increased average spending per pupil from 1997-1998 to 1999-2000 for all educational programs in both the region and statewide. The largest year-to-year increase in the Tampa Bay region was for "exceptional" education, and the largest year-to-year increase for the state of Florida was for "at-risk" education. In academic year 1999-2000 the Tampa Bay region's per-pupil expenditures exceeded Florida's per-pupil expenditures for all program types except "regular" education. Language ArtsMathScienceSocial Studies Location199819992000199819992000199819992000199819992000 Hernando23.422.821.623.322.922.324.025.123.925.925.525.4 Hillsborough23.522.722.724.825.624.826.726.826.027.628.527.4 Manatee24.525.927.125.525.526.227.226.826.925.627.927.4 Pasco21.621.922.522.722.923.623.122.924.123.223.323.1 Pinellas27.327.125.627.827.225.527.728.026.928.628.128.1 Polk21.721.921.924.325.023.324.124.523.525.124.524.1 Sarasota23.722.223.223.223.125.326.223.725.226.223.424.6 Tampa Bay24.023.823.625.125.324.726.126.125.626.726.726.3 Florida25.625.725.326.426.625.826.927.126.727.527.727.5Source: Florida Department of Education ExceptionalRegularAt-RiskVocational Location1997-19981998-19991999-20001997-19981998-19991999-20001997-19981998-19991999-20001997-19981998-19991999-2000 Hernando$5,550 $5,646 $6,158 $3,458 $3,873 $3,904 $5,322 $5,517 $9,719 $4,327 $4,730 $4,519 Hillsborough$6,253 $7,326 $7,669 $3,742 $3,840 $4,052 $4,247 $4,695 $4,602 $4,836 $5,015 $5,072 Manatee$6,599 $6,473 $6,617 $3,800 $4,088 $4,297 $5,208 $5,256 $4,450 $4,206 $4,536 $4,499 Pasco$7,123 $7,341 $7,810 $3,689 $3,917 $4,017 $5,924 $6,191 $8,098 $4,886 $5,136 $5,946 Pinellas$6,218 $6,724 $7,303 $3,712 $3,865 $3,987 $5,000 $5,103 $5,326 $3,862 $4,199 $4,420 Polk$6,276 $6,460 $6,834 $3,796 $4,042 $4,287 $5,219 $5,211 $6,657 $5,408 $5,368 $7,198 Sarasota$5,980 $7,491 $7,751 $4,885 $4,686 $5,030 $5,491 $5,257 $5,430 $5,148 $4,881 $6,059 Tampa Bay$6,308 $6,939 $7,341 $3,814 $3,965 $4,153 $4,943 $5,134 $5,703 $4,649 $4,827 $5,344 Florida$6,555 $6,880 $7,092 $3,902 $4,024 $4,247 $4,827 $5,081 $5,383 $4,422 $4,714 $4,879 Source: Florida Department of Education PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES FOR HIGH SCHOOL Table G10 TAMPA BAY REGION HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZE (average number of students per class) Table G11 TAMPA BAY REGION PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $Exceptional RegularFlorida Tampa Bay$5,000 $1,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 At-Risk Vocational97-98 97-'98 97-'98 97-98' "98-'99 "98-'99 "98-'99 "98-'99 "99-'00 "99-'00 "99-'00 "99-'00Source: Florida Department of Education ChartG11 TAMPA BAY REGION PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES

PAGE 38

Appendix A Metropolitan Area Standards Review Project (MASRP) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has completed its review of the 1990 metropolitan area standards. This review, which began early in the 1990s and continued through the fourth quarter of 2000, has culminated in the publication of new standards for the coming decade. The December 27, 2000 Federal Register includes a notice announcing OMB's adoption of "Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas." These new standards replace the 1990 standards for defining metropolitan areas. OMB will announce definitions based on these standards in 2003. However, for the present time the Census Bureau tabulates and publishes data from Census 2000 for all metropolitan areas in existence at the time of the census, i.e., for those areas defined as of April 1, 2000. The proposed standards revolve around Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs), which will include counties, or groups of counties, designated as metropolitan or micropolitan areas. Micropolitan areas need at least one core, urbanized area of between 10,000 and 49,999 residents. Metropolitan areas need at least one core, urbanized area with 50,000 residents or more. Outlying counties may be included in a micropolitan or metropolitan area if commuting connections are significant. Further, micropolitan or metropolitan areas with moderate commuting connections may also be aggregated into Combined Areas (CAs), while still retaining their separate designations. Reference http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/masrp.html. Appendix B Tampa Bay Population Trends by County The population numbers in this appendix reflect trends by county for each half of the past decade. Because the numbers are derived from Census Bureau estimates and CEDR interpolations to obtain month of January numbers, the numbers may vary from those reported in Table 2. (Table 2 is based on actual 1990 and 2000 enumeration.) Tampa Bay regional population growth accelerated during the second half of the last decade from 1.15% annual compound growth to 1.61% annual compound growth. In both halves of the previous decade, Tampa Bay's population growth rate trailed that of the state of Florida as a whole. During the first half of the last decade, the fastest growing location was Hernando County (3.53% annual compound rate of growth); the second half leader in population growth was Manatee County (2.42% annual compound rate of growth). Throughout the past decade, Pinellas County experienced the slowest annual compound rate of growth among Tampa Bay's seven counties. Appendix C Tampa Bay Labor Force Trends by County The numbers of residents participating in the labor force shown in this appendix reflect trends by county for each half of the past decade. These numbers may vary from those reported in Table 3, because they were presumably based on earlier population estimates. The actual count of Census 2000 revealed that the earlier population estimates were too low. The growth of Tampa Bay's labor force accelerated during the second half of the last decade to 2.35% annual compound growth from 1.18% annual compound growth. While trailing the growth rate of the labor force throughout Florida during the first half of the 1990s, Tampa Bay's 2.35% rate substantially exceeded Florida's 1.61% rate during the second half of the decade. During the first half of the 1990s, Hernando County's 3.55% annual compound rate of growth of its labor force was the fastest among Tampa Bay's seven counties. The second-half leader in labor force growth was Manatee County, which enjoyed a 4.14% growth rate. (Note that the patterns of growth in the labor force are in large part consistent with the patterns of population growth. See Appendix B for population trends by county.) Polk County's labor force contracted during the first half of the prior decade and expanded at a low annual compound rate of 0.90% during the second half. Appendix D Tampa Bay Workforce-to-Population Trends by County The workforce-to-population ratios shown in this appendix reflect trends by county for each half of the past decade. Because the ratios are derived from Census Bureau estimates and CEDR interpolations to obtain month of January numbers, the ratios may slightly differ from those reported in Table 4. The actual count of Census 2000 revealed that the earlier population estimates were too low. For the Tampa Bay region, the percentage of the population who participate in the workforce remained consistent throughout the decade of the 1990s. The percentage ranged from 46.66% in 1993 to 48.75% in 1999. In contrast, the statewide labor participation ratio declined during the 1990s, from 49.08% in 1990 to end the decade at 45.62% in January 2000. During the first half of the past decade, Hillsborough County experienced the fastest increase in labor force participation, increasing from 52.95% in 1990 to 54.95% by 1995. On the other hand, during the 1990 to 1995 span, Manatee County, Polk County, and Sarasota County had decreasing labor force participation ratios. In the second half of the past decade, Manatee County reversed its first-half trend of decreasing workforce participation and exhibited the fastest growth rate in workforce participation among Tampa Bay's seven counties. However, Manatee County's workforce-to-population ratio of 44.97% in January 2000 was still well below the regional average of 47.56%. Over the 1995 to 2000 span, Hillsborough County and Pasco County had a reversal of their positive trends and experienced small decreases in their ratios. Polk County continued to experience a declining workforce-to-population ratio into the second half of the previous decade. Appendix E Tampa Bay Trends in Employed Workers by County The numbers of employed workers shown in this appendix reflect trends by county for each half of the past decade. This data, obtained from the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, displays the estimates of total monthly employment by place of residence of the workers. Tampa Bay regional employment growth increased in the second half of the last decade from 1.23% annual compound growth to 2.78% annual compound growth. The state of Florida, however, experienced higher growth rates in both halves of the last decade than did Tampa Bay. During the first half of the previous decade, Hernando County enjoyed the greatest growth in employment (3.70% annual compound rate of growth); the second-half leader in employment growth was Manatee County (4.54% annual compound rate of growth). Interestingly, these statistics are consistent with those of population growth. Among Tampa Bay's seven counties, Polk County experienced the slowest annual compound rate of employment growth throughout the last decade, and was the only county to have a decline in employment (-0.63% annual compound rate of growth for January 1990 to January 1995) in either half of the previous ten years. Appendix F Tampa Bay Trends in Unemployed Workers by County The numbers of unemployed workers shown in this appendix reflect trends by county for each half of the past decade. This data, obtained from the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, displays the estimates of total monthly unemployment by place of residence of the workers. Tampa Bay regional unemployment decreased in the second half of the last decade, from 0.40% annual compound growth to -7.62% annual compound growth. In both halves of the last decade, the state of Florida experienced higher growth rates in the number of unemployed workers than did Tampa Bay. During the first half of the previous decade, Hillsborough County experienced the greatest growth in unemployed workers (1.70% per annum), while Polk County enjoyed the greatest decline in the number of unemployed workers (-3.15% per annum). All counties in the Tampa Bay region saw their unemployment numbers fall in the second half of the last decade, and Manatee County saw its unemployment numbers fall the most, at a rate of 8.25% per year. Compared to statewide figures, the Tampa Bay region saw its number of unemployed workers grow slower and decline faster, respectively, in the first and second halves of the previous decade. 36TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 2001 Table B TAMPA BAY REGION POPULATIONJan-90-Jan-95 Annual Compound LocationJan-90Jan-91Jan-92Jan-93Jan-94Jan-95% Change Hernando99,006104,767108,254111,442114,981117,7513.53% Hillsborough831,658840,355849,841859,696868,468877,4851.08% Manatee209,068215,031217,833220,594224,110227,3401.69% Pasco278,768283,345285,747289,150295,163301,7931.60% Pinellas848,015858,629862,254862,902864,813867,6010.46% Polk402,727409,816415,308420,106425,466432,0701.42% Sarasota275,298281,681284,463286,204289,679293,2071.27% Tampa Bay2,944,5392,993,6233,023,6993,050,0913,082,6783,117,2451.15% Florida12,828,04213,153,93113,397,13613,609,18413,837,69614,073,6011.87% Jan-95-Jan-00 Annual Compound LocationJan-95Jan-96Jan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00% Change Hernando117,751119,926122,550125,291127,536130,0361.63% Hillsborough877,485887,978901,509917,496932,949980,0661.99% Manatee227,340230,429233,498237,316241,580257,4652.24% Pasco301,793308,357315,089321,784327,917340,1781.98% Pinellas867,601868,981870,988875,133877,886907,5050.87% Polk432,070437,653443,406301,808454,998475,3221.67% Sarasota293,207295,754298,600301,808304,944319,6921.57% Tampa Bay3,117,2453,149,0773,185,6393,228,5113,267,8093,410,1741.61% Florida14,073,60114,306,15714,555,13114,795,79015,009,73715,700,3701.88% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census with CEDR interpolations Table CTAMPA BAY REGION LABOR FORCE Jan-90-Jan-95 Annual Compound LocationJan-90Jan-91Jan-92Jan-93Jan-94Jan-95% Change Hernando35,03036,65037,16838,23040,61041,6983.55% Hillsborough440,402442,916447,266454,150472,082482,1831.83% Manatee91,91895,45798,23093,90695,95297,6131.21% Pasco105,945107,127107,316109,716115,143117,3792.07% Pinellas407,294411,032408,527410,991423,881428,8011.03% Polk198,709197,720195,367195,986194,068190,810-0.81% Sarasota119,305124,126127,454120,130124,152124,7700.90% Tampa Bay1,398,6031,415,0281,421,3281,423,1091,465,8881,483,2541.18% Florida6,296,0006,380,0006,431,0006,489,0006,655,0006,730,0001.34% Jan-95-Jan-00 Annual Compound LocationJan-95Jan-96Jan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00% Change Hernando41,69842,46843,46345,60846,47547,7202.73% Hillsborough482,183487,296499,342519,568527,621547,7402.58% Manatee97,613102,995111,675112,258115,773119,5874.14% Pasco117,379120,949123,863129,679131,644135,8822.97% Pinellas428,801427,780436,046449,052456,490464,6211.62% Polk190,810192,639194,747195,142197,607199,5790.90% Sarasota124,770130,665141,789141,595146,389150,4333.81% Tampa Bay1,483,2541,504,7921,550,9251,592,9021,621,9991,665,5622.35% Florida6,730,0006,778,0006,941,0007,076,0007,162,0007,288,8791.61% Source: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation

PAGE 39

Appendix G Tampa Bay Trends in Unemployment Rate by County The rates of unemployment shown in this appendix reflect trends by county for each half of the past decade. This data, obtained from the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, displays the estimates of monthly unemployment rate by place of residence of the workers. The Tampa Bay region enjoyed decreasing unemployment rates in both halves of the previous decade. Additionally, statewide unemployment rates were consistently higher than the Tampa Bay regional rates during the previous decade. During the first half of the previous decade, Pasco County enjoyed the greatest decline in its unemployment rate (-3.39% per annum), while Pinellas County experienced the greatest increase in its unemployment rate (0.89% per annum). In the second half of the previous decade, all seven counties of the Tampa Bay region saw their unemployment rates drop, and none more so than Manatee County (-11.90% per annum). A comparison of unemployment rates as of January 2000 shows that Polk County had the highest and Manatee County the lowest, at 4.30% and 2.07%, respectively. 2001 TAMPA BAY ECONOMIC MARKET REPORT 37 Table D TAMPA BAY REGION WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIOS Jan-90-Jan-95 Annual Compound LocationJan-90Jan-91Jan-92Jan-93Jan-94Jan-95% Change Hernando35.38%34.98%34.33%34.30%35.32%35.41%0.02% Hillsborough52.95%52.71%52.63%52.83%54.36%54.95%0.74% Manatee43.97%44.39%45.09%42.57%42.81%42.94%-0.47% Pasco38.00%37.81%37.56%37.94%39.01%38.89%0.46% Pinellas48.03%47.87%47.38%47.63%49.01%49.42%0.57% Polk49.34%48.25%47.04%46.65%45.61%44.16%-2.19% Sarasota43.34%44.07%44.81%41.97%42.86%42.55%-0.36% Tampa Bay47.50%47.27%47.01%46.66%47.55%47.58%0.04% Florida49.08%48.50%48.00%47.68%48.09%47.82%-0.52% Jan-95-Jan-00 Annual Compound LocationJan-95Jan-96Jan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00% Change Hernando35.41%34.77%34.65%34.69%35.76%35.74%0.18% Hillsborough54.95%54.30%54.05%54.42%55.69%53.84%-0.41% Manatee42.94%42.36%44.11%47.06%46.47%44.97%0.93% Pasco38.89%38.07%38.39%38.49%39.55%38.70%-0.10% Pinellas49.42%49.35%49.11%49.83%51.15%50.30%0.35% Polk44.16%43.60%43.45%64.53%42.89%41.57%-1.20% Sarasota42.55%42.19%43.76%46.98%46.43%45.79%1.48% Tampa Bay47.58%47.10%47.24%48.04%48.75%47.56%-0.01% Florida47.82%47.04%46.57%46.91%47.14%45.62%-0.94% Table E TAMPA BAY REGION EMPLOYED WORKERSJan-90-Jan-95 Annual Compound LocationJan-90Jan-91Jan-92Jan-93Jan-94Jan-95% Change Hernando32,43733,3303,49934,90137,49338,9033.70% Hillsborough418,124417,579413,791422,633442,491457,9431.84% Manatee87,93091,17192,55988,14791,26993,8051.30% Pasco99,09999,02497,543100,284106,280110,9952.29% Pinellas388,403386,932378,820383,040398,580408,0130.99% Polk183,621180,599176,331177,135176,557177,951-0.63% Sarasota114,531118,691119,858113,455117,420119,6760.88% Tampa Bay1,324,1451,327,3261,282,4011,319,5951,370,0901,407,2861.23% Florida5,907,0005,940,0005,866,0005,984,0006,167,0006,314,0001.34% Jan-95-Jan-00 Annual Compound LocationJan-95Jan-96Jan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00% Change Hernando38,90340,13241,49143,87444,50945,8553.34% Hillsborough457,943464,229480,399502,304512,656531,5993.03% Manatee93,80599,079108,158108,930113,209117,1114.54% Pasco110,995114,194118,353124,078126,923131,4253.44% Pinellas408,013409,107419,137432,439441,897450,9532.02% Polk177,951180,767182,982184,926187,448190,9981.43% Sarasota119,676125,457137,337137,056142,436146,5224.13% Tampa Bay1,407,2861,432,9651,487,8571,533,6071,569,0781,614,4632.78% Florida6,314,0006,397,0006,579,0006,738,0006,851,0007,005,4462.10% Source: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation Table F TAMPA BAY UNEMPLOYED WORKERSJan-90-Jan-95 Annual Compound LocationJan-90Jan-91Jan-92Jan-93Jan-94Jan-95% Change Hernando2,593 3,320 3,669 3,329 3,117 2,795 1.51% Hillsborough22,278 25,337 33,475 31,517 29,591 24,240 1.70% Manatee3,988 4,286 5,671 5,759 4,683 3,808 -0.92% Pasco6,846 8,103 9,773 9,432 8,863 6,384 -1.39% Pinellas18,891 24,100 29,707 27,951 25,301 20,788 1.93% Polk15,088 17,121 19,036 18,851 17,511 12,859 -3.15% Sarasota4,774 5,435 7,596 6,675 6,732 5,094 1.31% Tampa Bay74,458 87,702 108,927 103,514 95,798 75,968 0.40% Florida389,000 440,000 565,000 504,000 489,000 412,000 1.16% Jan-95-Jan-00 Annual Compound LocationJan-95Jan-96Jan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00% Change Hernando2,795 2,336 1,972 2,223 1,967 1,865 -7.77% Hillsborough24,240 23,067 18,943 17,264 14,970 16,141 -7.81% Manatee3,808 3,916 3,517 3,328 2,563 2,476 -8.25% Pasco6,384 6,755 5,510 5,601 4,723 4,457 -6.93% Pinellas20,788 18,673 16,909 16,613 14,599 13,668 -8.04% Polk12,859 11,872 11,765 10,216 9,040 8,581 -7.77% Sarasota5,094 5,208 4,452 4,539 4,135 3,911 -5.15% Tampa Bay75,968 71,827 63,068 59,784 51,997 51,099 -7.62% Florida412,000 381,000 362,000 339,000 312,000 283,000 -7.24% Source: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation Table G TAMPA BAY UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Jan-90-Jan-95 Annual Compound LocationJan-90Jan-91Jan-92Jan-93Jan-94Jan-95% Change Hernando7.40%9.06%9.87%8.71%7.68%6.70%-1.97% Hillsborough5.06%5.72%7.48%6.94%6.27%5.03%-0.12% Manatee4.34%4.49%5.77%6.13%4.88%3.90%-2.10% Pasco6.46%7.56%9.11%8.60%7.70%5.44%-3.39% Pinellas4.64%5.86%7.27%6.80%5.97%4.85%0.89% Polk7.59%8.66%9.74%9.62%9.02%6.74%-2.36% Sarasota4.00%4.38%5.96%5.56%5.42%4.08%0.40% Tampa Bay5.32%6.20%7.66%7.27%6.54%5.12%-0.77% Florida6.18%6.90%8.79%7.77%7.35%6.12%-0.18% Jan-95-Jan-00 Annual Compound LocationJan-95Jan-96Jan-97Jan-98Jan-99Jan-00% Change Hernando6.70%5.50%4.54%4.87%4.23%3.91%-10.23% Hillsborough5.03%4.73%3.79%3.32%2.84%2.95%-10.13% Manatee3.90%3.80%3.15%2.96%2.21%2.07%-11.90% Pasco5.44%5.58%4.45%4.32%3.59%3.28%-9.62% Pinellas4.85%4.37%3.88%3.70%3.20%2.94%-9.51% Polk6.74%6.16%6.04%5.24%4.57%4.30%-8.60% Sarasota4.08%3.99%3.14%3.21%2.82%2.60%-8.63% Tampa Bay5.12%4.77%4.07%3.75%3.21%3.07%-9.74% Florida6.12%5.62%5.22%4.79%4.36%3.88%-8.70% Source: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation

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¨