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 - C63-00087
usfldc handle - c63.87
System ID:
SFS0000354:00001


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 C63-00087
0 245
Tampa Bay Region economic market report.
n 2002.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Tampa Bay Partnership.
c 2002
500
Prepared for the Tampa Bay Partnership by the USF Center for Economic Development Research.
505
Tampa Bay Market Report 2002 -- Executive Summary -- Tampa Bay's Workforce -- Wages and Income -- Business and Economic Conditions -- Education Indicators.
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/?c63.87



PAGE 2

The Tampa Bay Partnership is the regional organization that works with its partners to market the region nationally and internationally, to conduct regional re sea r ch and to coordinate efforts to influence business and government issues that impact economic growth and development.

PAGE 3

TAMPA BAY MARKET REPORT 2002.......................................................................2EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................3TAMPA BAYS WORKFORCE......................................................................................4 POPULATION..................................................................................................................... .....................6 MIGRATION...................................................................................................................... ......................8 L ABOR FORCE.................................................................................................................... ....................9 EM PLOYED WORKERS............................................................................................................... ........13 EM PLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS...................................................................................15 UNEMPLOYED WORKERS............................................................................................................. ...18 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.............................................................................................................. .....20 WAGES AND INCOME.................................................................................................22 WA GES BY INDUSTRY DIVISION....................................................................................................2 4 PE RS ONAL INCOME................................................................................................................ ...........26 DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME................................................................................................27 BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ...........................................................28 BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS........................................................................................................ ..30 GROSS SALES & TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY..........................................................................33 HOUSING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SPENDING.........................................................34 CO ST OF LIVING................................................................................................................. .................37 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BEFORE & AFTER 9/11..........................................................................38 EDUCATION INDICATORS.........................................................................................40 HI GH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES..........................................................................................42 HI GH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES.................................................................................................42 SCHOLASTIC ASSESSMENT TEST SCORES.................................................................................43 HI GH SCHOOL CLASS SIZES........................................................................................................ ...44 PE R-PUPIL EXPENDITURES FOR HIGH SCHOOL....................................................................45 TABLE OF CONTENTS Photo Courtesy of:Tampa Bay CVB

PAGE 4

The College of Business Administrations C enter for Economic 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 analysis of economic impact, industry clustering, community development opportunities, international trade and development patterns, w age parity, and demographics of the Tampa Bay region. CEDRs Geographic Information Sy stem capability enhances analysis 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 A ssociation. Dr. Dennis Colie is Director of CEDR. Other CEDR staff members include Dodson Tong, data manager; Nolan Kimball, coordinator of information and publications; Anand Shah, web designer; and research associates Alex McPherson and Danny Hughes. Helping on this project, under the direction of Dr. Colie, were David Sobush and Eduardo Drewnick, graduate re search assistants in the College of Business A dministrations MBA program. Fo r more information about CEDR, visit http://cedr.coba.usf.edu, or call 813-974CEDR (2337). The purpose of this report is to present information, primarily data and statistical indicators, about Tampa Bays workforce, w ages and income, business and economic conditions, and the education of residents. The available data is organized by county and by metrop olitan 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 seven-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 MSAaggregate. The Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA is defined by Polk County. The Tampa-St. Pe te rs burg-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-byMSA, as well as compute Tampa Bay MSAaggregate averages for benchmarking against a comparison universe. We have selected the following as a comparison universe: Atlanta MSA, Phoenix-Mesa MSA, Orlando MSA, Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA, Austin-San Marcos MSA, and the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). Tampa Bay Market Report 2002

PAGE 5

EXECUTIVESUMMARY3 ampa Bay's population will exceed 3,575,000 by the end of 2002. The U.S.Census Bureau estimated Tampa Bay's population at 3,517,000 in January 2001.Although Tampa Bay continues to experience a substantial population growth rate about 3.3% per year since 1999 other r egions,such as Orlando,Atlanta,and Austin,have been growing faster than Tampa Bay. N et migration into the Tampa Bay region accounts for 99+% of Tampa Bay's population growth.Between 1998 and 2001,Tampa Bay experienced net migration of 167,500 persons,or slightly more than 55,800 persons per year.The Ta mpa Bay region accounted for 21.6% of Florida's net migration between 1998 and 2001. Ta mpa Bay's workforce will exceed 1,800,000 by the end of 2002. The Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation estimated Ta mpa Bay's workforce at 1,740,000 in January 2001.The compound average rate of increase in the Tampa Bay r egion's workforce between January 1999 and January 2002 was 2.70%,which compares to a 2.35% average rate of growth for all of Florida.The U.S.Census Bureau estimated that 49.47% of T ampa Bay's residents were participating in the workforce in January 2001.Due to increasing weakness in the economy since January 2001,we project that the r egion's labor force participation rate declined to 49.16% by January 2002.Furthermore,with improving economic conditions,we project that Tampa Bay's labor force participation rate will reach 49.70% in 2003.In 2003,we project Florida's labor participation rate will be about 3% below the Tampa Bay rate.However,by comparison,the Tampa Bay's labor participation rate is projected to be lower than the rates of Atlanta,Orlando,and Charlotte (our three southeastern benchmark areas). Se rv ices remain the largest division within the employment structure of Tampa Bay's regional economy, increasing as a percent of total employment from 42.17% in January 1999 to 42.34% in January 2001. Manufacturing's share of the Tampa Bay region's employment structure slightly declined from 8.69% in January 1999 to 8.28% in January 2001,while the number of workers employed in manufacturing actually increased. A ccording to the State's Covered Employment and Wages data,manufacturing employment in Tampa Bay grew from 130,837 workers in January 1999 to 132,094 workers in January 2001. By January 2001,the weighted-average annual money wage in Tampa Bay had risen to $30,667 for a 13.39% gr owth rate since January 1999. In January 2001,the Finance,Insurance,and Real Estate (FIRE) division of the Tampa Bay regional economy enjoyed the highest average wage at $46,763 per annum for 107,981 employees,closely followed by the Tr ansportation,Communications,and Utilities division at $44,607 per annum.The average money wage in the Manufacturing division was $37,559 per annum for 132,094 employees,while the average in the Services division was only $28,895 per annum for 675,136 employees. Fr om 1999 through 2001,Tampa Bay regional business and economic activity enjoyed robust growth. Between January 1999 and January 2001,the number of business establishments in Tampa Bay increased by about 1.4% per year. Av erage monthly gross sales in the Tampa Bay region increased by 9.12% over the two-year period from 1999 through 2001. Ov er this same period,the growth in single-family housing permits was 22.04%,but multi-family housing permits declined by 22.50%.Construction spending,based on the number of permits issued,had a two-year 37.97% growth for single-family dwellings,but only a 2.55% growth for multi-family housing. Notwith standing the strong growth in business establishments,gross sales,and single-family housing,the cost of living in Tampa Bay remains favorable.According to the Florida Department of Education's relative cost of living index,Tampa Bay's costs declined from 99.78% of the statewide average to 98.95% of the statewide average in 2001. The national recession,which began in March 2001,and the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001 do not appear to have had a major impact on economic activity in Tampa Bay.Although,the unemployment rate has remained above the September 2001 level,gross sales and bed tax re venues measures of regional economic activity appear to have recovered by July 2002. P ublic secondary school outcomes for Tampa Bay continue to mirror the state of Florida. The Tampa Bay region's average high school class size has been smaller than the statewide size.Regional class size averaged between 24 and 27 pupils in 2001.In Tampa Bay, average per-pupil expenditures for all types of programs at the high school level increased from about $5,216 in 19981999 to about $5,832 in 2000-2001. T

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

5 his section reports workforce data for the Tampa Bay r egion by county and for the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate by MSA.The MSA data compare Tampa Bay against metropolitan areas in the southeast Atlanta, Charlotte,and Orlando and other selected MSAs Aus tin,Denver,and Phoenix. As of January 2001,Tampa Bay population (estimated at slightly over 3.5 million persons) represented 21.7% of Fl orida's population (estimated at slightly over 16.2 million persons). For both the Tampa Bay region and the state of Florida,increases in population were due primarily to migration,rather than an increase in births. L abor 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 January 2002 labor force in the Tampa Bay region has increased since 1999 at a rate (2.70% per annum) slightly greater to that of population growth (1.62% per annum). W ith the exception of the Austin-San Marcos MSA and the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA,the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate labor force growth led comparison MSAs.The labor force in the Austin-San Marcos MSA experienced the greatest growth (3.22% per annum) during this period.The workforce-to-population ratio in the Tampa Bay region decreased between 1999 and 2001 at an average compound rate of 0.29% per year.Among comparison MSAs,the Ph oenix-Mesa MSA experienced the greatest decline in workforce-to-population ratio,at a rate of 4.12% per year, whereas the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA enjoyed the greatest increase,at a rate of 0.41% per year. T he number of employed workers in the Tampa Bay region increased at an average annual compound rate of 2.84%, with the service industry division increasing by 3.05% per year between 1999 and 2001. Wh ile no industry division in the Tampa Bay region experienced a decline during this period,employment in the Manufacturing industry division was essentially stagnant,growing at an average annual compound rate of 0.48%.From 1999 to 2002,employment growth in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate (2.14% per annum) led that of all the comparison MSAs except for the Au stin-San Marcos,which saw its employment increase at an average annual compound rate of 2.27%. Between 1999 and 2002,unemployment in the Tampa Bay r egion increased at an average annual compound rate of 14.16%.This increase can be attributed to the recent r ecession and ongoing weak recovery.As expected,the unemployment rate also increased in the Tampa Bay region, with the regional unemployment rate increasing at an average annual compound rate of 11.56%.Despite these increases,the Tampa Bay region compared favorably to the comparison universe of MSAs,experiencing the smallest increases within the group.Within the comparison universe of MSAs,the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA saw the largest increase in unemployed workers (34.21% per annum) and also in the unemployment rate (30.54% per annum). T

PAGE 8

T able 1 depicts population estimates for the Tampa Bay region,aggregated by county,and estimates for Florida.The estimates were derived by the U.S.Census Bureau (except the Jan-02 and Jan-03 CEDR projections of the trend in Census Bureau estimates) based on the 2000 census enumeration. S ince 1999,Tampa Bay's population has been increasing by an average of 56,268 people per year and is expected to exceed 3,575,000 by the end of 2002.The compound average rate of increase in the r egion's population between January 1999 and January 2002 is estimated at 1.63% per year,compared to an average increase of 1.89% per year for the entire state of F lorida. The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate consists of three Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA):Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater MSA,Sarasota-Bradenton MSA,and the L akeland-Winter Haven MSA.Table M1 depicts population estimates for the three MSAs,for the aggregate of the three MSAs,and for a comparison universe composed of other selected areas.The U.S. Bureau of Census has suspended the r elease of MSA population estimates until 2003;therefore,MSA estimates were derived by summing the U.S.Bureau of the Census county estimates that comprise each MSA. 6 POPULATION T able 1 Tampa Bay Region Population LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02*Jan-03* Hernando128,449 130,380 133,624 136,289 139,008 Hillsborough975,030 993,972 1,015,166 1,035,849 1,056,953 Manatee256,610 262,425 270,160 277,201 284,425 Pa sc o3 34,280 342,522 355,084 365,967 377,183 Pinellas915,206 919,647 923,262 927,317 931,389 Po lk474,749 481,803 489,155 496,521 503,998 Sa ra so ta320,838 325,004 331,246 336,575 341,991 Ta mpa Bay3,405,162 3,455,753 3,517,697 3,575,719 3,634,947 Florida15,622,990 15,906,875 16,225,422 16,535,293 16,851,083 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program CEDR Projection T able M1 Tampa Bay Region Population LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02*Jan-03* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA454,998 471,453 489,155 500,177 515,029 Sa ra s ota-Bradenton, FL MSA546,524 571,521 601,406 622,022 646,374 Ta mpa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA2,266,287 2,341,052 2,427,136 2,486,015 2,557,371 Ta mpa Bay3,267,809 3,384,025 3,517,696 3,608,214 3,718,773 Co mparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA3,800,560 4,000,936 4,203,679 4,354,752 4,539,089 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA2,972,211 3,145,044 3,330,018 3,464,717 3,626,862 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO MSA2,390,370 2,507,279 2,625,063 2,706,010 2,811,078 Orlando, FL MSA1,518,921 1,595,485 1,681,571 1,743,874 1,817,272 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA1,399,883 1,462,634 1,526,497 1,573,845 1,631,647 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA1,125,331 1,204,805 1,288,395 1,350,400 1,424,736 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; CEDR Projection Photo Courtesy of:Tampa Bay CVB

PAGE 9

Chart M1A Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Population Chart M1B Southeastern Population Comparison Source: U.S. Census Bureau; CEDR Projection Source: U.S. Census Bureau; CEDR Projection Chart M1C Selected MSA Population Comparison Source: U.S. Census Bureau; CEDR Projection S ince 1999,Tampa Bay's population aggregated by MSA has been growing at an annual average rate of about 3.30%. This is a slower growth rate than any MSA in the comparison universe.The comparison universe includes three southeastern MSAs:Atlanta MSA, Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSA,and Orlando MSA,as well as three other selected MSAs:Phoenix-Mesa MSA, Au stin-San Marcos MSA,and the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). The Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA is comprised of the Boulder-Longmont Pr imary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA),Denver PMSA,and Greeley PMSA.The Austin-San Marcos MSA experienced the fastest growth,with a 6.08% average annual rate. Chart M1A depicts the population of the Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate and its three component MSAs.The Tampa-St. P etersburg-Clearwater 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. C hart M1B compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate population with the three selected southeastern MSAs of the comparison universe.The fastest growing MSA in the southeastern group from 1999 to 2002 was Orlando,FL (14.81%).The Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate experienced the slowest population growth (10.42%) among the southeastern comparisons. C hart M1C compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate population with the three other selected MSAs.The Austin-San Marcos,TX MSA experienced almost double the population growth (20.00%) of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and led all MSAs in the comparison universe. 7

PAGE 10

8 T able 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. Ov er the period from 1998 to 2001,net migration for the Tampa Bay region was positive.Over the three-year time period, Hernando County experienced the lowest amount of net migration,9,955. Hillsborough County experienced the greatest amount of net migration,42,355. As a region,Tampa Bay experienced net migration of 167,489 persons over the three-year period,or slightly more than 55,800 persons per year.The year-by-year figures are graphically presented in Chart 1X.The Tampa Bay region accounted for 21.6% of Florida's net migration figure of 774,554 persons between 1998 and 2001. The annual compound percentage growth in population is broken down into two c ategories: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.Pasco County enjoyed the highest growth rate due to migration (2.88% per annum),and the highest net growth rate (2.74% per annum) over the three-year period.Pinellas County experienced the lowest growth rate due to migration and the lowest net growth rate over the threeyear period,with rates of 0.64% per annum and 0.53% per annum,respectively. MIGRATION Chart 1X Tampa Bay Region Population Change due to Migration Source: US Census Bureau; State of Florida Department of Health T able 2 Tampa Bay Region Labor Force Annual Compound LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02% ChangeJan-03* Hernando46,475 47,720 50,197 50,251 2.60%51,559 Hillsborough527,621 547,740 571,542 577,233 3.00%594,525 Manatee115,773 119,587 125,466 128,828 3.56%133,416 Pa sc o 131,644 135,882 143,008 144,083 3.01%148,419 Pinellas456,490 464,621 485,432 491,705 2.48%503,885 Po lk196,484 199,579 208,734 204,784 1.38%207,608 Sa ra so ta146,571 150,433 155,921 160,924 3.11%165,935 Ta mpa Bay1,621,058 1,665,562 1,740,300 1,757,808 2.70%1,805,262 Florida7,162,000 7,288,879 7,562,000 7,686,000 2.35%7,866,906 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation CEDR estimate T able 1X TAMPA BAY REGION MIGRATIONSAnnual CompoundAnnual Compound Net Effect of Births and DeathsPopulation Change due to MigrationPopulation % GrowthP opulation % Growth Due to Location1998199920001998-19991999-20002000-20011998-2001Migration 1998-2001 Hernando(879)(953)(772)3,055 2,884 4,016 1.90%2.10% Hillsborough6,128 6,148 6,011 14,378 12,794 15,183 2.07%1.87% Manatee(394)(240)(120)6,171 6,055 7,855 2.51%2.52% Pa sc o( 1,601)(1,648)(1,437)8,441 9,890 13,999 2.74%2.88% Pinellas(3,168)(3,456)(2,964)9,576 7,897 6,579 0.53%0.64% Polk 1,395 1,339 1,596 5,870 5,715 5,756 1.52%1.41% Sa ra so ta(2,252)(2,106)(2,096)6,767 6,272 8,338 1.55%1.76% Ta mpa Bay(771)(916)218 54,256 51,507 61,726 1.62%1.62% Florida38,404 34,841 41,191 248,155 249,044 277,356 1.90%1.81% Source: US Census Bureau (with CEDR interpolation); State of Florida, Department of Health, Vital Statistics Reports of Live Bi rt hs and Deaths

PAGE 11

9 Chart 2 Tampa Bay Region Labor Force Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation Chart M2A Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Labor Force Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates The labor force consists of employed persons and unemployed persons who are actively seeking work.Table 2 and Chart 2 show the number of labor force participants by county of residence.CEDR projects the number of labor force participants in the Tampa Bay region to re ach 1,800,000 persons by January 2003. Concurrent with the Tampa Bay region's average three-year population increase of 56,268 people per year,its labor force has been growing by an average of 45,583 workers per year.This average growth in the region's labor force represents more than one-quarter (26.1%) of the average annual growth of Florida's labor force. We also estimate the compound average rate of increase in the Tampa Bay region's labor force between January 1999 and January 2002 to be 2.70% per year,which may be compared to an average increase of 2.35% per year for all of Florida.This average growth rate has been strongly affected by the continued weakness in the national economy.The labor force growth rate between January 2000 and January 2001 was 4.39% and 3.68% in Tampa Bay and Florida,respectively.However,from January 2001 to January 2002,the labor force in Tampa Bay grew only 1.00%,a drastic decline.The labor force in Florida grew only 1.63% during this period. T able M2 shows the number of labor force participants by MSA of residence from January 1999 and projected to January 2003.The Atlanta MSA has the largest labor force of the comparison universe, with over 2.3 million labor force participants projected for January 2003.In comparison,slightly over 1.8 million labor participants are projected to be residing within the three MSAs that comprise the Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate. The Austin-San Marcos MSA leads the comparison universe in labor force growth, with an annual average compound rate of 3.22% from January 1999 to January 2002. Ov er the same time span,the Tampa Bay MSA aggregate's average annual increase in its labor force has been 2.60% which, with the exception of the Austin-San Marcos and Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSAs,leads all other MSAs in the comparison universe. Chart M2A depicts the labor force of the Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate and its component MSAs from January 1999 and projected to January 2003.The Tampa-St. P etersburg-Clearwater MSA is the T able M2 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Labor Force LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA197,607 199,579 208,734 204,784 207,234 Sa ra s ota-Bradenton, FL MSA262,651 270,020 281,387 289,752 299,393 TampaSt. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA1,165,727 1,195,963 1,250,179 1,263,272 1,297,568 T ampa Bay1,625,985 1,665,562 1,740,300 1,757,808 1,804,083 C omparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA2,141,995 2,204,747 2,261,328 2,302,947 2,359,242 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA1,542,602 1,539,268 1,591,603 1,649,408 1,686,629 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA1,376,602 1,379,980 1,436,277 1,453,321 1,479,833 Orlando, FL MSA847,340 870,147 899,253 907,204 928,084 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA7 46,088 776,363 820,292 813,733 837,618 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA690,340 715,196 751,916 760,345 785,223 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics CEDR Estimates LABOR FORCE

PAGE 12

10 predominant labor market,with almost three times as many workers residing in that MSA as are residing in the other two Tam pa Bay MSAs combined.Despite its small size relative to the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate,the Sarasota-Bradenton MSA experienced the largest average annual rate of growth in the labor force at 3.27%.The L akeland-Winter Haven MSA saw the smallest average annual rate at 1.19% per year. C hart M2B compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's population with the three southeastern MSAs of the comparison universe.The relative re lationships of the size of the labor force of each area mirror the relative sizes of their populations. C hart M2C compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's population with the three other selected MSAs.The AustinS an Marcos MSA,the fastest growing labor force in the comparison universe,had a three-year increase in its labor force of 10.14% compared to Tampa Bay's 8.11%. Chart M2B Southeastern Labor Force Comparison Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates Chart M2C Selected MSA Labor Force Comparison Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates

PAGE 13

11 T able 3 r eflects the two-year change (J anuary 1999 to January 2001) in workforce-to-population ratios,as well as projected ratios for 2002 and 2003,for each Ta mpa Bay county.Pinellas County (2.64%) enjoyed the largest increases in the ratio.Overall,the region's workforce-topopulation ratio went up by 1.92% in the two-year period.As of January 2002, Hillsborough County had the highest workforce-to-population ratio;55.73% of the residents of the county were participating in the labor force.Hernando County had the lowest ratio (36.87%). T able M3 shows the workforce-topopulation ratio for the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate and its component MSAs,as well as the comparison MSAs.Due in large part to the weakness of the national economy, all MSAs in the comparison universe are projected to experience a decrease in the workforce-to-population ratio.Between January 1999 and January 2001,Tampa Bay's workforce-to-population ratio decreased 0.29%,so that by January 2001, approximately 49% of the area's residents were participating in the labor force. T able 3 Tampa Bay Region Workforce-to-Population Ratio LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02*Jan-03* Hernando36.18%36.60%37.57%36.87%37.10% Hillsborough54.11%55.11%56.30%55.73%56.27% Manatee45.12%45.57%46.44%46.47%46.94% Pasco39.38%3 9.67%40.27%39.37%39.37% Pinellas49.88%50.52%52.58%53.02%54.12% Polk4 1.39%41.42%42.67%41.24%41.20% Sarasota 45.68%46.29%47.07%47.81%48.54% Ta mpa Bay47.61%48.20%49.47%49.16%49.70% Florida45.84%45.82%46.61%46.48%46.70% Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division CEDR Projection Chart 3 Tampa Bay Region Workforce-to-Population Ratio Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Population Estimates Program, U.S. Census Bureau; CEDR Projection Ta ble M3 Tampa Bay Region Workforce-to-Population Ratio LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02 *Jan-03* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA43%42%43%41%40% Sa ra s ota-Bradenton, FL MSA48%47%47%47%46% TampaSt. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA51%51%52%51%51% Tam pa Bay50%49%49%49%49% Co mparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA56%55%54%53%52% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA52%49%48%48%47% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO MSA58%55%55%54%53% Orlando, FL MSA56%55%53%52%51% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA53%53%54 %52% 51% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA61%59%58%56%55% Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; CEDR Projection WORKFORCE-TO-POPULATION RATIO

PAGE 14

12 Chart M3A depicts the workforce-topopulation ratio for the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate and its component MSAs from January 1999 and projected to January 2003.In the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate, only the residents of the Tampa-St. P etersburg-Clearwater MSA registered an increase in workforce participation (0.14%) by January 2001.Although a reversal of this gain is projected in 2002,the Ta mpa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater MSA experiences the smallest decline in workforce participation within the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. Chart M3B re veals 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 Ta mpa Bay participation rate was slightly less than one-half. Chart M3C benchmarks the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate with other selected MSAs.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 (47.80% versus 49.47%) in January 2001. Chart M3C Selected MSA Workforce-to-Population Ratio Comparison Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; CEDR Projection Chart M3B Southeastern Workforce-to-Population Ratio Comparison Source: US Census Bureau; State of Florida Department of Health Chart M3A Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Workforce-to-Population Ratio Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; CEDR Projection

PAGE 15

13 T able 4 and Chart 4 show the number of employed workers residing in Tampa Bay from January 1999 and projected to 2003. Six out of 10 of Tampa Bay's nearly 1.68 million employed workers reside in either Hillsborough County or Pinellas County. T able M4 shows the number of employed workers for the Tampa Bay-aggregate and the comparison MSAs from 1999 and projected to 2003.The Tampa Bay fouryear percent change in its number of employed residents reflects a faster growth rate (6.63%) than any of the comparison MSAs with the exception of the AustinS an Marcos MSA (7.04%). Chart 4 Tampa Bay Region Employed Workers Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation T able 4 Tampa Bay Region Employed Workers LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03* Hernando44,509 45,855 47,927 47,665 48,766 Hillsborough512,656 531,599 555,612 552,578 566,565 Manatee113,209 117,111 121,518 124,212 128,112 Pa sc o1 26,923 131,425 137,361 136,611 140,002 Pinellas441,897 450,953 471,323 468,749 478,057 Po lk187,448 190,998 198,682 193,101 195,023 Sa ra so ta142,436 146,522 152,036 155,406 159,987 Ta mpa Bay1,569,078 1,614,463 1,684,459 1,678,322 1,716,401 Florida6,851,000 7,005,446 7,258,000 7,254,000 7,393,534 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation CEDR estimate EMPLOYED WORKERS T able M4 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Employed Workers LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA188,567 190,998 198,682 193,101 194,636 Sa ra s ota-Bradenton, FL MSA255,953 263,633 273,554 279,618 287,983 Ta mpa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA1,129,469 1,159,832 1,212,223 1,205,603 1,232,105 Ta mpa Bay1,573,989 1,614,463 1,684,459 1,678,322 1,714,614 Co mparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA2,081,179 2,141,978 2,199,720 2,202,533 2,244,537 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA1,497,106 1,494,507 1,548,637 1,559,425 1,580,769 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA1,336,353 1,344,386 1,403,406 1,366,516 1,376,721 Orlando, FL MSA821,413 846,392 873,012 853,584 864,585 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA727,022 753,032 785,894 760,522 772,028 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA672,180 698,775 736,224 719,493 735,993 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics CEDR Estimates

PAGE 16

14 Chart M4A depicts the number of employed workers for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its component MSAs. In January 2002,just over 71% of Tampa Bay's employed persons resided in the Ta mpa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. C hart M4B compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's population with the three southeastern MSAs of the comparison universe.The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate experienced the largest percent increase (6.63%) in employed re sidents among the southeastern group ov er the January 1999 to January 2002 period. Chart M4C benchmarks employed workers in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate against other selected MSAs.Austin-San Marcos,TX MSA experienced the largest increase in employed workers (7.04%) since January 1999 among MSAs in the comparison universe. Chart M4A Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Employed Workers Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates Chart M4B Southeastern Employed Workers Comparison Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates Chart M4C Selected MSA Employed Workers Comparison Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates

PAGE 17

15 T able 5 ,T ampa 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 January 1999 and January 2001.Also shown is the rate of increase for each division during the January 1999 to January 2001 period.As an official State of Florida DataRepository,CEDR has available the E S202 data.This data set is a Bureau of L abor 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) r eflect the place of work of the employees. Fo r 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.Se rv ices remains the biggest division within the Tampa Bay regional economy, increasing as a percent of total employmentfrom 42.17% of the structure in January 1999to 42.34% in January 2001.This represents a 6.29% increase in service employment ov er the period.Manufacturing's share of the Tampa Bay region's employment structure slightly declined from 8.69% in January 1999 to 8.28% in January 2001, while the number of workers employed in manufacturing actually increased 0.96% from January 1999 to January 2001.The r eason for manufacturing's decline in share of the employment structure is that all other employment divisions were growing more rapidly than manufacturing. Panels A through G of Table 5 on the next page describe the structure of employment by industry division for each of the seven counties of Tampa Bay,based on the E S202 data. EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY DIVISIONS T able 5 Tampa Bay Region Employment by Industry DivisionsEmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries41,3612.75%45,1562.83%9.18% Mining and Construction82,1885.46%87,3205.48%6.24% Manufacturing130,8378.69%132,0948.28%0.96% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities77,0285.11%82,9455.20%7.68% Tr ade360,63923.94%384,33824.10%6.57% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate101,3736.73%107,9816.77%6.52% Services635,20942.17%675,13642.34%6.29% Public Administration77,8055.16%79,5454.99%2.24% To tals1,506,440100.00%1,594,515100.00%5.85% Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data T able M5 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Employment by Industry DivisionsEmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Mining and Construction81,5005.24%87,4005.20%7.24% Manufacturing130,8008.42%132,7007.90%1.45% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities67,3004.33%73,9004.40%9.81% Trade369 90023.80%393,00023.40%6.24% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate104,0006.69%113,0006.73%8.65% Services616,60039.68%682,80040.65%10.74% Public Administration184,00011.84%196,70011.71%6.90% To tals1,554,100100.00%1,679,500100.00%8.07% Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

PAGE 18

16 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 ov er 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, Fo r estry,and Fisheries division.) Broadly viewed,the employment structure described by CES data (Table M5) is consistent with the structure revealed by ES202 data (Table 5).Additionally,using CES data,we can compare the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's structure of employment with other areas of the country. P anels A through C of Table M5 describe the structure of employment of the three MSAs that make up the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate.As with the MSA-aggregate, services is the dominant employment division.However,while services comprise ov er 40% of the employment structure in the Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater MSA and in the Sarasota-Bradenton MSA, services are only 28.93% of the employment structure of the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA.The Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA is the only Tampa Bay MSA in which services do not make up the largest division of employment,with trade representing slightly more of the employment structure (28.99% as opposed to 28.93% for services). P anels D through F of Table M5 describe the employment structure 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 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 7.90% of employment is slightly larger than the Orlando MSA at 6.15%.CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill has the highest manufacturing employment among the southeastern comparisons at 16.67% of its total employment structure followed by Atlanta at 9.88%.The only declines between January 1999 and January 2001,in size of industry divisions,are a drop of 4.58% and 5.26% in manufacturing for the Atlanta and Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill MSAs,respectively,and a drop of 4.83% in finance,insurance,and real estate for the Orlando MSA. P anel A Hernando County EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries5081.80%5521.82%8.66% Mining and Construction2,1507.61%2,6538.75%23.40% Manufacturing1,3214.68%1,3494.45%2.12% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities1,1624.11%1,0813.57%-6.97% Trade9,6 6734.23% 10,11233.36%4.60% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate1,1804.18%1,3194.35%11.78% Services9,72334.43%10,63735.09%9.40% Public Administration2,5308.96%2,6088.60%3.08% Tota ls28,241100.00%30,311100.00%7.33% P anel B Hillsborough County EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries14,4152.55%16,8652.83%17.00% Mining and Construction27,9244.94%28,7054.82%2.80% Manufacturing37,0626.56%38,1576.41%2.95% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities37,1286.57%40,5706.81%9.27% Trade1 24,72422.07%134,04722.51%7.47% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate47,0968.33%49,8118.36%5.76% Services250,68344.36%260,27843.71%3.83% Public Administration26,0894.62%27,0474.54%3.67% To tals565,121100.00%595,480100.00%5.37% P anel C Manatee County EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries7,0186.69%7,7456.57%10.36% Mining and Construction4,7574.53%5,3044.50%11.50% Manufacturing13,45212.82%13,00611.03%-3.32% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities2,8132.68%2,7702.35%-1.53% Trade22,9192 1.84%25,29421.45%10.36% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate3,0792.93%3,3412.83%8.51% Services45,60943.47%55,10246.73%20.81% Public Administration5,2745.03%5,3624.55%1.67% Tota ls104,921100.00%117,924100.00%12.39% Pa nel D Pasco County EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries3,0244.16%2,8443.76%-5.95% Mining and Construction5,1227.05%6,2368.24%21.75% Manufacturing3,6945.08%3,0774.07%-16.70% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities2,8783.96%2,5423.36%-11.67% Trade 20,70128.48%21,91828.97%5.88% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate3,1434.32%3,2554.30%3.56% Services29,38240.42%30,77240.68%4.73% Public Administration4,7456.53%5,0026.61%5.42% Tota ls72,689100.00%75,646100.00%4.07% P anel E Pinellas County EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries3,1800.77%3,2080.72%0.88% Mining and Construction19,8104.81%20,5494.63%3.73% Manufacturing46,51011.30%48,60910.96%4.51% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities18,6994.54%20,6704.66%10.54% Trade 98,63923.97%103,02723.23%4.45% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate30,3037.37%32,2007.26%6.26% Services173,72042.22%194,21143.79%11.80% Public Administration20,5835.00%21,0524.75%2.28% Tota ls411,444100.00%443,526100.00%7.80% P anel F Polk County EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries10,9476.09%11,8486.33%8.23% Mining and Construction13,2537.37%13,2687.08%0.11% Manufacturing20,89011.62%18,81910.05%-9.91% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities9,8985.51%10,7385.73%8.49% Trade 48,26426.86%52,18627.86%8.13% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate8,0544.48%9,0984.86%12.96% Services56,05631.19%59,06331.53%5.36% Public Administration12,3576.88%12,2746.55%-0.67% Tota ls179,719100.00%187,294100.00%4.21% P anel G Sarasota County EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries2,2691.57%2,0941.45%-7.71% Mining and Construction9,1726.36%10,6057.35%15.62% Manufacturing7,9085.48%9,0776.29%14.78% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities4,4503.08%4,5743.17%2.79% Trade35, 72524.76%37,75426.16%5.68% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate8,5185.90%8,9576.21%5.15% Services70,03648.53%65,07345.09%-7.09% Public Administration6,2274.32%6,2004.30%-0.43% Tota ls144,305100.00%144,334100.00%0.02% T able 5

PAGE 19

17 P anels G and H of Table M5 describe the employment structure of the PhoenixMesa MSA and the Austin-San Marcos MSA.(Complete data necessary to depict the employment structure of the DenverBoulder-Greeley CMSA was not available.) Services is the largest employment division in the Phoenix area and in the Austin area,comprising 32.25% and 29.82% of total employment, r espectively.By comparison,the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's services division is 40.65% of total employment.Between January 1999 and January 2001,the fastest growing industry divisions were transportation,communication,and utilities (14.30%) in the Phoenix-Mesa MSA and trade (15.62%) in the AustinSa n Marcos MSA.Divisions with the slowest growth rates were manufacturing (0.36%) in the Phoenix-Mesa MSA and public administration (3.80%) in the Au stin-San Marcos MSA. P anel A Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Mining and Construction12,4007.01%12,9006.98%4.03% Manufacturing20,90011.81%18,90010.22%-9.57% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities9,1005.14%10,4005.62%14.29% Trade50, 00028.26%53,60028.99%7.20% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate8,4004.75%9,4005.08%11.90% Services49,90028.21%53,50028.93%7.21% Public Administration26,20014.81%26,20014.17%0.00% Tota ls176,900100.00%184,900100.00%4.52% P anel B Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Mining and Construction13,9005.47%16,1005.86%15.83% Manufacturing21,4008.42%22,2008.08%3.74% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities5,5002.16%5,7002.08%3.64% Trade59, 80023.52%64,50023.49%7.86% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate11,8004.64%12,9004.70%9.32% Services117,80046.32%128,80046.90%9.34% Public Administration24,1009.48%24,4008.89%1.24% To tals254,300100.00%274,600100.00%7.98% P anel C Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Mining and Construction55,2004.92%58,4004.79%5.80% Manufacturing88,5007.88%91,6007.51%3.50% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities52,7004.69%57,8004.74%9.68% Trade 260,10023.16%274,90022.53%5.69% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate83,8007.46%90,7007.43%8.23% Services448,90039.98%500,50041.02%11.49% Public Administration133,70011.91%146,10011.98%9.27% Tota ls1,122,900100.00%1,220,000100.00%8.65% Panel D Atlanta, GA MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Mining and Construction107,3005.19%118,7005.46%10.62% Manufacturing225,10010.89%214,8009.88%-4.58% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities178,7008.65%192,5008.85%7.72% Tr ade542,00026.23%563,10025.90%3.89% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate135,4006.55%140,3006.45%3.62% Services615,10029.76%675,10031.05%9.75% Public Administration263,00012.73%270,00012.42%2.66% To tals2,066,600100.00%2,174,500100.00%5.22% P anel E Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Mining and ConstructionN/AN/A Manufacturing138,90018.65%131,60016.67%-5.26% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities52,6007.06%56,3007.13%7.03% Trade1 90,00025.51%201,30025.49%5.95% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate65,0008.73%68,3008.65%5.08% Services204,20027.41%232,20029.41%13.71% Public Administration94,20012.65%99,90012.65%6.05% Tota ls744,900100.00%789,600100.00%6.00% Pa nel F Orlando, FL MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Mining and Construction46,9005.54%50,8005.60%8.32% Manufacturing53,9006.36%55,8006.15%3.53% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities43,6005.15%46,6005.13%6.88% Tr ade209,30024.71%220,80024.33%5.49% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate53,8006.35%51,2005.64%-4.83% Services351,30041.48%389,80042.95%10.96% Public Administration88,20010.41%92,60010.20%4.99% Tota ls847,000100.00%907,600100.00%7.15% Pa nel G Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Mining and Construction1128007.62%1193007.54%5.76% Manufacturing16470011.13%16530010.45%0.36% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities762005.15%871005.51%14.30% Trade357 00024.13%38190024.14%6.97% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate1150007.77%1232007.79%7.13% Services47010031.77%51020032.25%8.53% Public Administration18370012.42%19480012.32%6.04% Tota ls1,479,500100.00%1,581,800100.00%6.91% P anel H Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA EmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Mining and Construction35,1005.75%40,3005.96%14.81% Manufacturing79,10012.97%87,10012.88%10.11% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities20,2003.31%22,0003.25%8.91% Tr ade133,80021.93%154,70022.88%15.62% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate32,3005.29%33,7004.99%4.33% Services178,00029.18%201,60029.82%13.26% Public Administration131,60021.57%136,60020.21%3.80% Tota ls610,100100.00%676,000100.00%10.80%% T able M5

PAGE 20

18 T able 6 depicts the number of unemployed workers in the Tampa Bay region from January 1999 and projected to 2003. Indicative of the recent national recession and subsequent weak recovery,the number of unemployed workers in Florida has increased by 38.91% since 1999,with the increase in unemployed in Tampa Bay at 52.92% over the same time span.On average,the number of unemployed labor force participants in the region has been increasing by just over 9,000 per year since 1999.See also Chart 6. T able M6 shows the number of unemployedlabor force participants by MSA of r esidence over the period from January 1999 and projected to 2003.Again, r eflecting the current weak national economy,all MSAs saw an increase in the number of unemployed residents.The Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate experienced the smallest increase in unemployment from January 1999 to January 2002,at 52.92%.In comparison,the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill MSA was the hardest hit by the current economic conditions, experiencing a 179.09% increase in the number unemployed residents. UNEMPLOYED WORKERS Chart 6 Tampa Bay Region Unemployed Workers Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation Ta ble M6 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Unemployed Workers LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA9,040 8,581 10,052 11,683 12,726 Sa ra s ota-Bradenton, FL MSA6,698 6,387 7,833 10,134 11,634 Ta mpa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA36,258 36,131 37,956 57,699 67,363 Ta mpa Bay51,996 51,099 55,841 79,516 91,611 Co mparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA60,816 62,769 61,608 100,414 118,682 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA45,496 44,761 42,966 89,983 112,951 Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA40,249 35,594 32,871 86,805 112,152 Orlando, FL MSA25,927 23,755 26,241 53,620 68,315 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA19,066 23,331 34,398 53,211 74,917 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA18,160 16,421 15,692 40,852 53,528 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics CEDR Estimates T able 6 Tampa Bay Region Unemployed Workers LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03* Hernando1,966 1,865 2,270 2,586 2,833 Hillsborough14,965 16,141 15,930 24,655 29,119 Manatee2,564 2,476 3,948 4,616 5,615 Pasco4, 721 4,457 5,647 7,472 8,708 Pinellas14,593 13,668 14,109 22,956 26,698 Po lk9,036 8,581 10,052 11,683 12,728 Sa ra so ta4,135 3,911 3,885 5,518 6,075 Ta mpa Bay51,980 51,099 55,841 79,486 91,575 Florida311,000 283,433 304,000 432,000 482,012 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation CEDR estimate

PAGE 21

19 C hart M6A re veals that the preponderanceof the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's unemployed workers resides in the TampaSt .P etersburg-Clearwater MSA.This is not surprising,given that just over 70% of Ta mpa Bay's population reside within the Ta mpa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater area. However,it illustrates that an effort to increase the labor force by reducing unemployment would have more potential for success in the Tampa-St.PetersburgClearwater MSA than in the other two smaller MSAs. C hart M6B compares the number of unemployed workers in the southeastern MSAs of the comparison universe with the Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate.In January 2002,the Atlanta MSA was the only location among the comparison MSAs to have a larger number of unemployed r esidents than the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate.However,the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate experienced the smallest increase in unemployed residents from January 1999 to January 2002 at 52.92%, or 27,520 persons. C hart M6C compares the number of unemployed workers in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate with the other selected MSAs in the comparison universe.Among other selected MSAs,the Austin-San Marcos MSA (124.96) experienced the largest three-year increase in unemployed workers.Of the selected MSAs,only the Au stin-San Marcos MSA had fewer unemployed persons (40,852) than the Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate (91,611) in January 2002. Chart M6B Southeastern Unemployed Workers Comparison Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates Chart M6A Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Unemployed Workers Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates Chart M6C Selected MSA Unemployed Workers Comparison Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates

PAGE 22

T able M7 Tampa Bay MSAAggregate Chart 7 Tampa Bay Region Unemployment Rate 20 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE T able 7 displays the change in unemployment rate for the seven counties of the Ta mpa Bay region between January 1999 and projected to 2003.During this time period,the region's unemployment rate was consistently lower than the rate for the state of Florida.Sarasota County has experienced the lowest rate (3.43% in January 2002),while Polk County had the highest rate (5.71% in January 2002). S ee Chart 7. T able M7 shows the unemployment rate for residents of Tampa Bay's MSAs as well as other selected MSAs of the comparison universe between January 1999 and January 2002 and projected to January 2003. T able 7 Tampa Bay Region Unemployment Rate LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03* Hernando4.23%3.91%4.52%5.15%5.49% Hillsborough2.84%2.95%2.79%4.27%4.90% Manatee2.21%2.07%3.15%3.58%4.21% Pasco3.59% 3.28%3.95%5.19%5.86% Pinellas3.20%2.94%2.91%4.67%5.30% Polk4. 60%4.30%4.82%5.71%6.13% Sarasota2.82 %2. 60%2.49%3.43%3.66% Ta mpa Bay3.21%3.07%3.21%4.52%5.07% Florida4.34%3.89%4.02%5.62%6.13% Source: CEDR calculation based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Wo rkforce Innovation data;* CEDR estimate Chart 7 Tampa Bay Region Unemployment Rate Source: CEDR calculation based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation data T able M7 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Unemployment Rate LocationJan-99Jan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA4.6%4.3%4.8%5.7%6.1% Sa ra s ota-Bradenton, FL MSA2.6%2.4%2.8%3.5%3.9% Ta mpa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA3.1%3.0%3.0%4.6%5.2% Ta mpa Bay3.2%3.1%3.2%4.5%5.1% Co mparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA2.8%2.8%2.7%4.4%5.1% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA2.9%2.9%2.7%5.5%6.8% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA2.9%2.6%2.3%6.0%7.6% Orlando, FL MSA3.1%2.7%2.9%5.9%7.3% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA2.6%3.0%4.2%6.5%8.8% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA2.6%2.3%2.1%5.4%6.9% Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics CEDR Estimates Photo Courtesy of:Tampa Bay CVB

PAGE 23

21 Chart M7A re veals that the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's unemployment rate c losely mirrors that of the Tampa-St. P etersburg-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 (5.70% as of January 2002), but enjoyed the lowest increase since January 1999,rising by 23.91%. Chart M7B compares the unemployment rate in three southeastern MSAs with that of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate.The Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate experienced the smallest increase in the unemployment rate over the 3-year period ending January 2002,increasing 41.46%.The CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill MSA unemployment rate rose 150.00% over this same period to lead all MSAs in the comparison universe. Chart M7C compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's unemployment rate decline with three other selected MSAs. The unemployment rate increase in each of these MSAs was more than twice that of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate.In January 2002,the Denver-BoulderGreeley MSA had the highest unemployment rate at 5.97%,while the A ustin-San Marcos MSA had the lowest rate of the other selected comparison MSAs,at 5.40%.In comparison,the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate unemployment rate was 4.52%. Chart M7C Selected MSA Unemployment Rate Comparison Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates Chart M7B Southeastern Unemployment Rate Comparison Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates Chart M7A Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Unemployment Rate Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics; CEDR Estimates

PAGE 25

23 his section reports wages and income data for the Ta mpa Bay region by county and for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate by MSA.The MSA data compare Ta mpa 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. By January 2001,the weighted-average annual wage in the Ta mpa Bay region had risen to $30,667 for a 13.39% gr owth rate since January 1999. The Finance,Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) industry division enjoyed the highest average wage at $46,763,the average wage in the Manufacturing industry division was $37,559,and the average wage in the Services industry division was $28,895. P ersonal 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 nonpaycheck 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. Tam pa Bay personal income, aggregated by MSA,grew 6.97% between 1998 and 2000. Among the comparison MSAs,the Denver-BoulderGreeley CMSA had the highest growth rate at 13.84% and the Orlando MSA had the slowest growth rate at 8.22%. 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 tuition and fees paid to government schools and hospitals.Disposable personal income is generally associated with spending power and household consumption of private sector goods and services.A disposable personal income factor is the percentage of personal income re maining 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 2000,Florida's disposable income factor (personal income less certain tax and non-tax payments) was 0.856,having declined 1.29% since 1998.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 Texas have seen their spending power measured by the disposable income factor shrink at a faster rate than have the residents of North Carolina and Arizona. T

PAGE 26

24 WAGES BY INDUSTRY DIVISION T able 8 r eports average wages and wage growth in the Tampa Bay region from January 1999 to January 2001.The average annual wage weighted by percent of employment by industry division in January 1999 was $27,047.By January 2001,this weighted-average annual wage rose to $30,667,a two-year 13.39% rate of growth. P anels A through G below reports average wages and wage growth for each of the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region. T able M8 r eports average annual wages for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate for 1999 through 2000.The average annual wage for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate has been ca lculated by weighting the annual averagewage for each industry division by the division's percent of total employment. No te that the data upon which Table M8 is based does not include the industry division Public Administration.(Public Ad ministration is included in the Florida E S202 data.) T able 8 Tampa Bay Region Wages by Industry DivisionsAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalAverage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-01Employment99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$15,065 2.75%$16,074 2.83%6.70% Mining and Construction$28,529 5.46%$32,229 5.48%12.97% Manufacturing$32,732 8.69%$37,559 8.28%14.75% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$36,899 5.11%$44,607 5.20%20.89% Tr ade$21,876 23.94%$24,433 24.10%11.69% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$42,160 6.73%$46,763 6.77%10.92% Services$25,524 42.17%$28,895 42.34%13.21% Public Administration$29,246 5.16%$34,572 4.99%18.21% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$27,047 $30,667 13.39% Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data P anel A Hernando County Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-01Employment99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$17,496 1.80%$19,296 1.82%10.29% Mining and Construction$23,124 7.61%$24,228 8.75%4.77% Manufacturing$28,273 4.68%$29,317 4.45%3.70% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$29,148 4.11%$35,880 3.57%23.10% Tr ade$16,848 34.23%$19,080 33.36%13.25% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$32,172 4.18%$31,860 4.35%-0.97% Services$21,143 34.43%$23,852 35.09%12.81% Public Administration$28,164 8.96%$33,456 8.60%18.79% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$21,511 100.00%$24,057 100.00%11.84% P anel B Hillsborough County Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-01Employment99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$13,824 2.55%$15,384 2.83%11.28% Mining and Construction$30,360 4.94%$35,124 4.82%15.69% Manufacturing$31,452 6.56%$35,288 6.41%12.20% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$39,228 6.57%$47,664 6.81%21.51% Tr ade$24,528 22.07%$26,376 22.51%7.53% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$44,868 8.33%$49,200 8.36%9.65% Services$27,394 44.36%$31,708 43.71%15.75% Public Administration$30,984 4.62%$35,700 4.54%15.22% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$29,227 100.00%$33,171 100.00%13.49% P anel C Manatee County Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-01Employment99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$13,512 6.69%$13,200 6.57%-2.31% Mining and Construction$26,352 4.53%$29,820 4.50%13.16% Manufacturing$34,919 12.82%$44,943 11.03%28.71% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$32,616 2.68%$38,400 2.35%17.73% Tr ade$19,020 21.84%$21,624 21.45%13.69% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$31,728 2.93%$34,464 2.83%8.62% Services$22,338 43.47%$23,907 46.73%7.02% Public Administration$27,288 5.03%$31,932 4.55%17.02% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$23,618 100.00%$26,305 100.00%11.38% Pa nel D Pasco County Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-01Employment99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$14,868 4.16%$17,628 3.76%18.56% Mining and Construction$20,988 7.05%$24,372 8.24%16.12% Manufacturing$24,353 5.08%$28,030 4.07%15.10% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$29,832 3.96%$35,340 3.36%18.46% Tr ade$15,492 28.48%$17,592 28.97%13.56% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$25,584 4.32%$28,776 4.30%12.48% Services$23,533 40.42%$24,952 40.68%6.03% Public Administration$25,452 6.53%$30,684 6.61%20.56% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$21,208 100.00%$23,514 100.00%10.87% P anel E Pinellas County Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-01Employment99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$17,760 0.77%$19,560 0.72%10.14% Mining and Construction$27,480 4.81%$31,272 4.63%13.80% Manufacturing$33,619 11.30%$38,597 10.96%14.81% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$37,728 4.54%$46,284 4.66%22.68% Tr ade$22,416 23.97%$25,992 23.23%15.95% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$42,060 7.37%$48,636 7.26%15.63% Services$26,045 42.22%$28,658 43.79%10.04% Public Administration$30,144 5.00%$36,840 4.75%22.21% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$27,952 100.00%$31,844 100.00%13.92% P anel F Polk County Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-01Employment99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$16,416 6.09%$16,704 6.33%1.75% Mining and Construction$30,456 7.37%$33,480 7.08%9.93% Manufacturing$33,861 11.62%$37,447 10.05%10.59% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$32,028 5.51%$36,792 5.73%14.87% Tr ade$21,480 26.86%$23,904 27.86%11.28% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$32,760 4.48%$35,460 4.86%8.24% Services$23,504 31.19%$27,098 31.53%15.29% Public Administration$26,460 6.88%$30,744 6.55%16.19% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$25,333 100.00%$28,244 100.00%11.49% P anel G Sarasota County Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-01Employment99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$17,172 1.57%$20,400 1.45%18.80% Mining and Construction$29,040 6.36%$32,508 7.35%11.94% Manufacturing$31,474 5.48%$35,658 6.29%13.29% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$34,116 3.08%$39,240 3.17%15.02% Tr ade$18,552 24.76%$21,300 26.16%14.81% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$47,700 5.90%$51,276 6.21%7.50% Services$22,673 48.53%$26,892 45.09%18.61% Public Administration$29,508 4.32%$35,424 4.30%20.05% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$24,578 100.00%$28,570 100.00%16.24%

PAGE 27

25 In 2000,the annual average wage in the Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate was $29,521. This represented a 4.41% increase over the 1999 figure.The data reflects the FIRE industry division enjoying the highest average wage during 2000 at $42,183. P anels A through C below contains the three MSAs of the Tampa Bay aggregate. P anels D through H below contains the MSAs of the comparison universe (except for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA for which data was unavailable).These panels r eport average annual wages and wage growth from 1999 to 2000.Among the comparison MSAs,the Austin-San Marcos MSA had the highest 2000 average wage of $43,169,while the Orlando MSA had the lowest 2000 average wage of $29,785. T able M8 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Wages by Industry DivisionsAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalAverage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-00Employment99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$16,636 2.60%$17,097 2.65%2.77% Mining and Construction$30,670 6.15%$32,340 6.29%5.44% Manufacturing$34,609 9.86%$36,341 9.66%5.00% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$38,054 4.84%$40,145 4.89%5.49% Tr ade$22,999 27.33%$24,100 27.39%4.79% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$39,897 7.62%$42,183 7.51%5.73% Services$27,344 41.58%$28,336 41.61%3.63% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$28,274 100.00%$29,521 100.00%4.41% Source: ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages), US Bureau of Labor Statistics P anel A Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-00Employment99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$18,096 5.24%$18,356 5.40%1.44% Mining and Construction$32,830 8.23%$34,070 7.96%3.78% Manufacturing$35,204 13.41%$36,452 12.63%3.55% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$33,852 5.80%$34,840 5.85%2.92% Tr ade$22,162 32.47%$22,963 32.88%3.61% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$33,332 5.33%$34,632 5.57%3.90% Services$25,792 29.52%$26,988 29.70%4.64% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$26,920 100.00%$27,842 100.00%3.42% P anel B Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-00Employment99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$15,392 3.94%$15,496 3.65%0.68% C onstruction$28,704 6.59%$30,888 6.64%7.61% Manufacturing$35,672 9.94%$37,492 9.35%5.10% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$34,008 2.42%$34,840 2.23%2.45% Tr ade$20,031 26.77%$21,239 25.91%6.03% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$41,964 5.35%$44,148 5.15%5.20% Services$24,752 44.99%$25,220 47.06%1.89% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$25,611 100.00%$26,547 100.00%3.66% P anel C Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-00Employment99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$16,588 1.88%$17,264 1.96%4.08% Mining and Construction$30,696 5.73%$32,361 5.94%5.42% Manufacturing$34,216 9.29%$36,036 9.27%5.32% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$39,208 5.24%$41,600 5.37%6.10% Tr ade$23,835 26.66%$24,989 26.86%4.84% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$40,248 8.50%$42,692 8.39%6.07% Services$28,132 42.70%$29,328 42.19%4.25% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$29,091 100.00%$30,508 100.00%4.87% Panel D Atlanta, GA MSA Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-00Employment99-00 Mining and Construction$36,821 6.33%$38,482 6.52%4.51% Manufacturing$43,472 12.41%$47,008 11.85%8.13% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$51,428 9.95%$54,288 10.15%5.56% Tr ade$29,918 30.67%$31,417 30.62%5.01% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$52,520 7.40%$56,992 7.30%8.51% Services$36,140 33.25%$39,052 33.55%8.06% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$37,918 100.00%$40,477 100.00%6.75% Pa nel E Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-00Employment99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$18,876 1.88%$19,916 1.86%5.51% Mining and Construction$33,840 8.78%$35,070 8.80%3.63% Manufacturing$45,656 12.26%$50,336 11.94%10.25% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$39,416 5.93%$41,756 6.08%5.94% Tr ade$25,838 27.23%$27,235 27.16%5.41% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$40,352 8.83%$43,004 8.67%6.57% Services$29,588 35.09%$33,384 35.48%12.83% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$32,241 100.00%$34,979 100.00%8.49% Pa nel F Orlando, FL MSA Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-00Employment99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$20,332 1.88%$21,112 1.92%3.84% C onstruction$31,460 6.38%$33,124 6.59%5.29% Manufacturing$40,716 7.24%$42,172 7.07%3.58% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$37,024 5.77%$38,636 5.64%4.35% Tr ade$22,731 28.11%$24,034 27.64%5.73% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$36,764 7.03%$40,352 6.13%9.76% Services$27,508 43.59%$28,704 45.01%4.35% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$28,439 100.00%$29,785 100.00%4.73% P anel G Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-00Employment99-00 Mining and Construction$33,384 8.25%$34,735 8.29%4.04% Manufacturing$36,920 21.70%$38,948 20.61%5.49% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$47,164 8.50%$49,036 8.61%3.97% Tr ade$25,991 31.00%$26,717 31.46%2.79% Services$32,032 30.54%$33,436 31.03%4.38% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$32,618 100.00%$33,909 100.00%3.96% P anel H Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA Av erage Annual Wage% of TotalAv erage Annual Wage% of TotalGrowth DivisionJan-99EmploymentJan-00Employment99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries$21,008 0.97%$22,620 0.96%7.67% C onstruction$33,696 7.62%$36,296 7.50%7.72% Manufacturing$61,568 16.15%$64,376 16.27%4.56% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities$42,068 4.20%$46,904 4.17%11.50% Tr ade$40,033 28.94%$39,647 28.95%-0.96% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate$40,976 6.55%$44,148 6.10%7.74% Services$34,372 35.58%$37,804 36.04%9.98% We ighted Avg. Annual Wage$40,977 100.00%$43,169 100.00%5.35%

PAGE 28

26 PERSONAL INCOME T able 9 Tampa Bay Region Personal Income19982000% Growth in LocationAggregate Income*Per Capita IncomeAggregate Income*Per Capita IncomePer Capita Income Hernando$2,780,392 $21,784 $3,014,099 $22,921 5.22% Hillsborough$24,667,034 $25,558 $27,541,096 $27,458 7.43% Manatee$7,464,963 $29,370 $8,256,780 $31,064 5.77% Pa sc o$ 7, 255,721 $21,919 $8,393,310 $24,153 10.19% Pinellas$26,515,267 $29,041 $28,875,630 $31,321 7.85% Po lk$10,121,517 $21,469 $11,306,380 $23,285 8.46% Sa ra so ta$11,626,741 $36,466 $12,245,998 $37,430 2.64% Ta mpa Bay$90,431,635 $26,745 $99,633,293 $28,610 6.97% Florida$405,146,187 $26,161 $445,739,968 $27,764 6.13% Source: Regional Economic Information System (REIS) of the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Note: Expressed in thousands of Dollars Ta ble M9 Tampa Bay Region Personal Income19982000% Growth in LocationAggregate Income*Per Capita IncomeAggregate Income*Per Capita IncomePer Capita Income Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA$10,121,517 $21,469 $11,306,380 $23,285 8.46% Sa ra s ota-Bradenton, FL MSA$19,091,704 $33,319 $20,502,778 $34,577 3.78% Tam pa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA$61,218,414 $26,197 $67,824,135 $28,214 7.70% Ta mpa Bay$90,431,635 $26,745 $99,633,293 $28,610 6.97% Co mparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA$116,795,660 $30,121 $136,832,483 $33,013 9.60% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA$77,874,169 $25,329 $90,308,896 $27,564 8.82% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA$78,606,354 $31,947 $94,440,297 $36,370 13.84% Orlando, FL MSA$38,426,208 $24,508 $43,921,185 $26,523 8.22% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA$40,358,859 $28,212 $46,599,513 $30,901 9.53% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA$32,797,474 $28,382 $40,483,241 $32,039 12.88% Source: Regional Economic Information System (REIS) of the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); Note: Expressed in thou sands of Dollars P ersonal income and per capita personal income are reported in Table 9.In 2000, the latest year for which data is available, Pi nellas County workers received 28.98% of the Tampa Bay region's aggregate personal income.Hillsborough County workers received 27.64%.Workers in the other Tampa Bay counties received smaller proportions of the aggregate personal income.Per capita personal income was highest in Sarasota County ($37,430) and lowest in Hernando County ($22,921). Between 1998 and 2000,the growth rate in per capita personal income was fastest for P asco County (10.19%) and slowest for Saraso ta County (2.64%).In 1998,aggregate personal income for the Ta mpa Bay region was slightly over $90.4 billion,and personal income grew to just under $99.7 billion in 2000.Per capita personal income in the Tampa Bay region, $26,745 in 1998,rose 6.97% to $28,610 in 2000.By comparison,the 1998 total personal income for Florida was slightly ov er $405.1 billion and grew to just over $445.7 billion in 2000.Per capita personal income in Florida was $26,161 in 1998, r ising 6.13% to $27,764 in 2000. Table M9 re ports 1998 and 2000 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 ov er $90.4 billion in 1998 and slightly over $99.6 billion in 2000.The MSA with the highest per capita income in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate was Sarasota-Bradenton with $33,319 in 1998 and $34,577 in 2000.In 2000,the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA had the highest per capita personal income at $36,370.The lowest per capita income in the Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate and among the comparison MSAs was recorded in the La keland-Winter Haven MSA at $21,469 in 1998 and $23,285 in 2000.The growth of the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate's personal income between 1998 and 2000 was 6.97%.Among the comparison MSAs,the Denver-BoulderGreeley CMSA had the highest growth rate with 13.84%,and the Orlando MSA had the slowest growth rate with 8.22% over the same time period. Differences in per capita personal income among the three MSAs of Tampa Bay were smaller in 2000 than they were in 1998.The decline in per capita personal income differences is partly because the MSA with the highest per capita personal income, Sa r asota-Bradenton,experienced a slower growth rate than did the MSA with the lowest per capita personal income, L akeland-Winter Haven.

PAGE 29

27 DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME T able 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 1998,1999,and 2000,per c apita disposable income for the Tampa Bay region exceeded that of Florida as well as each of the selected comparison states. T able 11 and Chart 11 show the disposable personal income factors for Florida and the comparison states of Arizona,North Carolina,and Texas from 1998 to 2000. F lorida's factor is comparable with Arizona's and higher than that of North Carolina,but in Texas people retain about 1.5% more of personal income than in the other states including Florida.From 1998 through 2000,Florida's disposable personal income experienced a 1.29% decline, greater than the declines of Arizona,North Carolina,and Texas. T able 10 Tampa Bay Region Disposable Personal IncomePe r CapitaAggregate Disposable Income Disposable Income(millions of dollars) Annual Growth Location1998199920001998199920001998-20002001^2002^ Ta mpa Bay*$23,188 $23,758 $24,490 $78,404 $81,467 $85,286 4.30%$88,950 $92,772 Florida$22,481 $22,995 $23,983 $348,156 $362,384 $385,023 5.16%$404,896 $425,794 Arizona$19,937 $20,645 $21,800 $97,359 $103,716 $112,603 7.54%$121,098 $130,234 North Carolina$21,162 $21,791 $23,138 $165,258 $173,222 $186,893 6.34%$198,751 $211,360 Te xa s $22,164 $22,931 $24,139 $446,767 $471,422 $505,622 6.38%$537,896 $572,230 Source: Table 5.08, "Florida Statistical Abstract 2000," Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida; U.S. Burea u of Economic Analysis^ CEDR projection CEDR Estimate based on Florida's disposable income factor Chart 11 Disposable Personal Income Factors for Selected States Source: Tables 5.05 and 5.08, "Florida Statistical Abstract 2000," Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida T able 11 Disposable Personal Income Factors for Selected States1998-2000 Location199819992000% Change Florida0.8670.8630.856-1.29% Arizona0.8640.8620.858-0.73% North Carolina0.8600.8570.854-0.77% Texas0. 8790.8760.870-0.99% Source: Tables 5.05 and 5.08, "Florida Statistical Abstract 2000," Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida

PAGE 30

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

PAGE 31

29 n this section,statistics that reflect the state of the T ampa Bay regional economy are examined. S ince January 1999,the number of businesses in the region has been growing by about 1.4% per annum. Se r vice businesses continue to be the largest industry division within the structure of the Tampa Bay regional economy, comprising roughly 40% of all businesses.Over the twoyear span from January 1999 to January 2001,the region experienced a net gain of 12 manufacturing businesses,but manufacturing's percentage of the industry structure shrunk from 4.36% to 4.24%.Regional economic activity,as measured by gross and taxable sales,indicates robust growth.Average monthly gross sales in the Tampa Bay region increased 9.12% ov er the two-year period from 1999 to 2001. Additionally,there was a two-year growth in singlefamily construction spending in the Tampa Bay region of 22.04%. The annual cost-of-living index,which is prepared by the Fl orida Department of Education,reveals that the Tampa Bay region's cost of living is slightly lower than Floridawide costs.However,there is a varied cost-of-living structure when the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region are considered separately.In 2001,the cost of living in Hernando County was 6.42% lower than the regional cost of living.On the other hand,Pinellas County was the most expensive,with a 2001 cost of living about 3% above the T ampa Bay region's average cost of living. I

PAGE 32

30 BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS T able G1 and Chart G1 show the number of businesses (participating in Florida's unemployment insurance program) by industry division in the seven-county Ta mpa Bay region in January 1999 and in January 2001.There were 85,217 businesses in Tampa Bay in January 1999, and that number rose to 87,996 businesses in January 2001,a 3.26% increase over the time period. The most numerous type of establishment is a service business.Service businesses comprised 39.65% of Tampa Bay's regional industry structure in January 1999.In January 1999,the number of service establishments in the Tampa Bay region was 33,789,and by January 2001 the number had grown to 35,038,a 3.7% increase. No industries in the Tampa Bay region, except for the agriculture,forestry, and fisheries and public administration industries,experienced a net loss of establishments in the past decade. Manufacturing experienced the slowest growth in the time period,posting a 0.32% increase. P anels A through G of Table G1 on page 31 depict business establishments by industry division for each of the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region. Chart G1 Tampa Bay Region Business Establishments by Division T able G1 Tampa Bay Region Business Establishments by DivisionEstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries2,930 3.44%2,919 3.32%-0.38% Mining and Construction8,572 10.06%8,932 10.15%4.20% Manufacturing3,715 4.36%3,727 4.24%0.32% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities2,930 3.44%3,173 3.61%8.29% Tr ade23,101 27.11%23,580 26.80%2.07% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate8,034 9.43%8,929 10.15%11.14% Services33,789 39.65%35,038 39.82%3.70% Public Administration*2,146 2.52%1,698 1.93%-20.88% To tals85,217 100.00%87,996 100.00%3.26% Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data Public Administration includes Major Group 99 Nonclassifiable Establishments. Photo Courtesy of:Tampa Bay CVB

PAGE 33

31 T able G1P anel A Hernando County EstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries83 3.69%90 3.68%8.43 Mining and Construction371 16.48%417 17.05%12.40% Manufacturing72 3.20%77 3.15%6.94% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities88 3.91%101 4.13%14.77% Tr ade606 26.92%635 25.96%4.79% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate179 7.95%209 8.54%16.76% Services778 34.56%852 34.83%9.51% Public Administration74 3.29%65 2.66%-12.16% To tals2,251 100.00%2,446 100.00%8.66% P anel B Hillsborough County EstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries799 3.11%840 3.11%5.13% Mining and Construction2,217 8.64%2,283 8.46%2.98% Manufacturing997 3.89%1,040 3.86%4.31% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities961 3.74%1,046 3.88%8.84% Trade7,053 27.49%7,330 27.18%3.93% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate2,575 10.03%2,848 10.56%10.60% Services10,427 40.63%10,982 40.72%5.32% Public Administration632 2.46%603 2.24%-4.59% Tota ls25,661 100.00%26,972 100.00%5.11% P anel C Manatee County EstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries289 5.06%264 4.56%-8.65% Mining and Construction657 11.51%669 11.55%1.83% Manufacturing302 5.29%279 4.82%-7.62% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities173 3.03%195 3.37%12.72% Tr ade1,559 27.32%1,546 26.68%-0.83% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate515 9.02%541 9.34%5.05% Services2,056 36.03%2,187 37.75%6.37% Public Administration156 2.73%113 1.95%-27.56% To tals5,707 100.00%5,794 100.00%1.52% Pa nel D Pasco County EstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries275.00 4.69%273.00 4.37%-0.73% Mining and Construction798.00 13.60%889.00 14.23%11.40% Manufacturing182.00 3.10%197.00 3.15%8.24%Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities227.00 3.87%253.00 4.05%11.45% Tr ade1,547.00 26.36%1,686.00 26.98%8.99%Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate502.00 8.55%573.00 9.17%14.14% Services2,188.00 37.28%2,255.00 36.09%3.06% Public Administration150.00 2.56%123.00 1.97%-18.00% Tota ls5,869.00 100.00%6,249.00 100.00%6.47% P anel E Pinellas County EstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries551 2.19%541 2.12%-1.81% Mining and Construction2,132 8.48%2,202 8.63%3.28% Manufacturing1,281 5.09%1,275 5.00%-0.47% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities712 2.83%776 3.04%8.99% Tr ade6,846 27.23%6,834 26.77%-0.18% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate2,446 9.73%2,672 10.47%9.24% Services10,555 41.98%10,782 42.24%2.15% Public Administration622 2.47%442 1.73%-28.94% Tota ls25,145 100.00%25,524 100.00%1.51% P anel F Polk County EstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries594 6.35%573 6.00%-3.54% Mining and Construction1,020 10.90%1,018 10.67%-0.20% Manufacturing463 4.95%471 4.93%1.73% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities460 4.91%482 5.05%4.78% Tr ade2,683 28.66%2,779 29.11%3.58% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate747 7.98%864 9.05%15.66% Services3,157 33.73%3,191 33.43%1.08% Public Administration236 2.52%167 1.75%-29.24% To tals9,360 100.00%9,545 100.00%1.98% P anel G Sarasota County EstablishmentsPercentEstablishmentsPercentGrowth DivisionJan-99of TotalJan-01of Total99-01 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries339 3.02%338 2.95%-0.29% Mining and Construction1,377 12.27%1,454 12.68%5.59% Manufacturing418 3.72%388 3.38%-7.18% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities309 2.75%320 2.79%3.56% Trade2 ,807 25.01%2,770 24.16%-1.32% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate1,070 9.53%1,222 10.66%14.21% Services4,628 41.23%4,789 41.77%3.48% Public Administration276 2.46%185 1.61%-32.97% To tals11,224 100.00%11,466 100.00%2.16%

PAGE 34

32 P anel A Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSAEstablishmentsPercent ofEstablishmentsPercent ofGrowthDivision1999Total2000Total99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries586 6.45%575 6.29%-1.88% Mining and Construction1,030 11.34%1,035 11.32%0.49% Manufacturing466 5.13%471 5.15%1.07% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities453 4.99%450 4.92%-0.66% Tr ade2,679 29.49%2,724 29.78%1.68% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate740 8.15%769 8.41%3.92% Services3,130 34.46%3,123 34.14%-0.22% Tota ls9,084 100.00%9,147 100.00%0.69% P anel B Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSAEstablishmentsPercent ofEstablishmentsPercent ofGrowthDivision1999Total2000Total99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries640 3.84%622 3.73%-2.81% C onstruction2,127 12.75%2,186 13.10%2.77% Manufacturing724 4.34%676 4.05%-6.63% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities481 2.88%481 2.88%0.00% Tr ade4,363 26.15%4,345 26.03%-0.41% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate1,590 9.53%1,594 9.55%0.25% Services6,762 40.52%6,789 40.67%0.40% Tota ls16,687 100.00%16,693 100.00%0.04% P anel C Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSAEstablishmentsPercent ofEstablishmentsPercent ofGrowthDivision1999Total2000Total99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries1,710 2.98%1,726 2.95%0.94% Mining and Construction5,572 9.70%5,845 9.98%4.90% Manufacturing2,530 4.40%2,525 4.31%-0.20% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities1,982 3.45%2,037 3.48%2.77% Tr ade15,965 27.78%16,190 27.64%1.41% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate5,747 10.00%5,882 10.04%2.35% Services23,961 41.70%24,377 41.61%1.74% To tals57,467 100.00%58,582 100.00%1.94% Panel D Atlanta, GA MSAEstablishmentsPercent ofEstablishmentsPercent ofGrowthDivision1999Total2000Total99-00 Mining and Construction11,692 10.70%11,692 10.79%0.00% Manufacturing4,899 4.48%4,792 4.42%-2.18% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities4,616 4.22%4,685 4.33%1.49% Tr ade32,897 30.09%32,224 29.75%-2.05% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate11,345 10.38%11,817 10.91%4.16% Services43,873 40.13%43,109 39.80%-1.74% Tota ls109,322 100.00%108,319 100.00%-0.92% P anel E Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSAEstablishmentsPercent ofEstablishmentsPercent ofGrowthDivision1999Total2000Total99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries1,946 2.74%2,003 2.76%2.93% Mining and Construction7,144 10.05%7,388 10.18%3.42% Manufacturing3,467 4.88%3,473 4.78%0.17% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities2,534 3.56%2,615 3.60%3.20% Tr ade20,555 28.92%20,569 28.33%0.07% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate7,609 10.70%7,912 10.90%3.98% Services27,831 39.15%28,649 39.46%2.94% To tals71,086 100.00%72,609 100.00%2.14% Pa nel F Orlando, FL MSAEstablishmentsPercent ofEstablishmentsPercent ofGrowthDivision1999Total2000Total99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries1,320 3.30%1,355 3.30%2.65% C onstruction3,944 9.85%4,139 10.07%4.94% Manufacturing1,547 3.86%1,544 3.76%-0.19% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities1,613 4.03%1,632 3.97%1.18% Tr ade11,976 29.92%12,135 29.53%1.33% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate3,859 9.64%3,992 9.71%3.45% Services15,771 39.40%16,302 39.67%3.37% To tals40,030 100.00%41,099 100.00%2.67% P anel G Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSAEstablishmentsPercent ofEstablishmentsPercent ofGrowthDivision1999Total2000Total99-00 Mining and Construction5,321 14.02%5,546 14.10%4.23% Manufacturing2,619 6.90%2,670 6.79%1.95% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities1,619 4.26%1,696 4.31%4.76% Tr ade13,807 36.37%14,077 35.79%1.96% Services14,597 38.45%15,341 39.01%5.10% To tals37,963 100.00%39,330 100.00%3.60% P anel H Austin-San Marcos, TX MSAEstablishmentsPercent ofEstablishmentsPercent ofGrowthDivision1999Total2000Total99-00 Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries575 2.01%604 2.03%5.04% C onstruction2,799 9.77%2,919 9.82%4.29% Manufacturing1,419 4.95%1,447 4.87%1.97% Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities954 3.33%1,007 3.39%5.56% Tr ade7,342 25.63%7,523 25.31%2.47% Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate3,006 10.49%3,151 10.60%4.82% Services12,553 43.82%13,068 43.97%4.10% To tals28,648 100.00%29,719 100.00%3.74% T able M10 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Business Establishments by Industry DivisionsEstablishmentsPercent ofEstablishmentsPercent ofGrowthEstablishmentsEstablishments Division1999Total2000Total99-002001*2002* Agriculture, Forestry, & Fisheries2, 936 3.53%2,923 3.46%-0.44%2,910 2,897 Mining and Construction8,729 10.49%9,066 10.74%3.86%9,416 9,780 Manufacturing3,720 4.47%3,672 4.35%-1.29%3,625 3,578 Tr ansportation, Comm., & Utilities2,916 3.50%2,968 3.52%1.78%3,021 3,075 Trade2 3,007 27.64%23,259 27.55%1.10%23,514 23,771 Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate8,077 9.70%8,245 9.77%2.08%8,416 8,592 Services33,853 40.67%34,289 40.62%1.29%34,731 35,178 To tals83,238 100.00%84,422 100.00%1.42%85,623 86,841 Source: ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages), US Bureau of Labor Statistics CEDR Estimate T able M10 r eports the number of businesses (participating in a State's unemployment insurance program) by industry division in the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate in 1999 (the earliest year for which data is nationally available) and 2000.Business establishments reported in this table are based on ES202 data released by the U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics covering MSAs throughout the nation. (Note that the national data upon which T able M10 is based does not include industry division,Public Administration. P ublic Administration is included in the Fl orida-ES202 data.) There were 83,238 business establishments in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate in 1999 and 84,422 in 2000,for a 1.42% growth rate.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. P anels A through C of Table M10 r eport the number of business establishments in each of the three MSAs of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate for 1999 and 2000.

PAGE 35

33 GROSS SALES & TAXABLE SALES BY COUNTY 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. T ables G2 and G3 contain average monthly gross sales and average monthly taxable sales,respectively,by each county of the Tampa Bay region,for the two-year period between 1999 and 2001.Chart G2 displays the average monthly gross and taxable sales for the same time period on a r egional basis. Av erage monthly gross sales in the Tampa Bay region increased by 9.12% over the two-year period from 1999 to 2001. Av erage monthly taxable sales in the Ta mpa Bay region increased by 8.91% over the same time period.Both of these statistics are indicative of robust economic growth between 1999 and 2001.And,both statistics are comparable to Florida's 15.00% two-year gain in average monthly gross sales and 9.53% two-year gain in average monthly taxable sales. Measured by gross sales,most economic activity ($3.6 billion per month out of the Ta mpa Bay region's $9.4 billion per month in 2001) takes place in Hillsborough County,followed by Pinellas County with $2.4 billion per month and Polk County with $1.2 billion per month. Chart G2 Tampa Bay Region Average Monthly Sales Source: Florida Department of Revenue Ta ble G2 Tampa Bay Region Average Monthly Gross Sales by County % Growth in Location1999200020011999-2001 Hernando$324,007,192 $327,256,069 $345,758,194 6.71% Hillsborough$3,322,405,495 $3,609,879,872 $3,618,298,372 8.91% Manatee$510,504,004 $558,040,242 $601,744,023 17.87% Pa sc o $500,704,526 $457,977,239 $482,363,740 -3.66% Pinellas$2,161,604,748 $2,386,215,655 $2,398,891,765 10.98% Po lk$1,148,649,696 $1,229,711,129 $1,229,802,503 7.07% Sa ra so ta$708,076,282 $777,423,553 $789,929,162 11.56% Ta mpa Bay$8,675,951,944 $9,346,503,759 $9,466,787,759 9.12% Florida$44,915,553,365 $49,973,527,439 $51,652,699,425 15.00% T able G3 Tampa Bay Region Average Monthly Taxable Sales by County % Growth in Location1999200020011999-2001 Hernando$75,533,591 $79,746,248 $83,636,382 10.73% Hillsborough$1,383,156,899 $1,458,453,130 $1,504,908,853 8.80% Manatee$240,827,158 $260,819,447 $282,626,516 17.36% Pa sc o $225,043,612 $241,648,263 $256,683,245 14.06% Pinellas$958,690,294 $1,013,609,864 $1,026,141,584 7.04% Po lk$465,269,688 $479,260,735 $482,516,550 3.71% Sa ra so ta$401,414,912 $439,707,157 $447,400,551 11.46% Ta mpa Bay$3,749,936,154 $3,973,244,844 $4,083,913,680 8.91% Florida$19,535,190,309 $20,906,129,751 $21,396,717,339 9.53% Source: Florida Department of Revenue

PAGE 36

34 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 re port annual data (for years 1999 through 2001) for housing permits and construction spending,respectively,for the seven-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 re ports 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. Tab le G4 re veals a two-year growth rate in single family housing permits in the Tampa Ba y region of 22.04%.However, during this same period permits issued for mu lti-family housing declined by 22.50%.By comparison,Florida's two-year growth rate in single-family housing permits was 11.39%,and the number of multi-family housing permits issued statewide during the same period declined by 16.89%. However,the growth in the number of permits issued,particularly for multifamily housing,was not evenly distributed among the Tampa Bay region's counties. P olk County experienced the biggest growth in the region for single-family housing permits,with a two-year 29.39% rate.Hernando County experienced the slowest growth in single-family housing permits,with a two-year 9.78% increase. Fu rt hermore,while four counties of Tampa Bay experienced a decline in the number of m ulti-family permits issued from 1999 to 2001,Manatee (509.24%) experienced a six-fold increase in the number of permits issued over the same two-year period. Chart G4 Tampa Bay Region Housing Permits Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division T able G4 Tampa Bay Region Housing Permits199920002001% Growth 1999-2001 LocationSingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-Family Hernando1,217 37 1,150 176 1,336 211 9.78%470.27% Hillsborough7,152 7,513 7,328 4,328 8,508 2,463 18.96%-67.22% Manatee2,625 238 2,848 604 3,214 1,450 22.44%509.24% Pa sc o3 115 709 3,021 465 3,976 915 27.64%29.06% Pinellas1,825 1,412 1,794 982 2,006 2,399 9.92%69.90% Po lk2,967 912 3,520 1,226 3,839 682 29.39%-25.22% Sa ra so ta2,959 1,186 3,041 617 3,799 1,185 28.39%-0.08% Ta mpa Bay21,860 12,007 22,702 8,398 26,678 9,305 22.04%-22.50% Florida106,569 58,153 106,447 48,822 118,702 48,333 11.39%-16.89% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division HOUSING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SPENDING

PAGE 37

35 Tab le G5 re ports the construction spending associated with the housing permits discussed above.There was a twoyear (1999 to 2001) growth in singlefamily construction spending in the Tampa Bay region of 37.97%,and a two-year growth rate for multi-family construction of 2.55%.By comparison,the growth rates for the entire state of Florida over the same time span were 27.23% for single-family construction spending and 0.67% for mu lti-family construction spending. In Pinellas County,there was little growth in single-family construction spending between 1999 and 2001.Sarasota and Pa sco counties experienced over 50% growth in single-family construction spending from 1999 to 2001,while Hernando,Hillsborough,Pinellas,and Sa r asota counties all experienced over 100% growth in multi-family construction spending over the same time. T able G5 Tampa Bay Region Construction Spending (in thousands)199920002001% Growth 1999-2001 LocationSingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-Family Hernando$110,358 $1,584 $131,044 $6,880 $161,857 $6,958 46.67%339.12% Hillsborough$624,080 $470,151 $655,550 $339,686 $765,702 $203,047 22.69%-56.81% Manatee$313,316 $17,197 $380,633 $31,241 $466,705 $88,005 48.96%411.73% Pa sc o $287,185 $44,074 $310,336 $27,048 $439,063 $52,709 52.89%19.59% Pinellas$315,037 $110,835 $312,987 $97,955 $364,278 $229,965 15.63%107.48% Po lk$243,358 $41,444 $276,665 $54,015 $300,911 $26,173 23.65%-36.85% Sa ra so ta$382,918 $56,002 $436,757 $43,517 $642,040 $153,342 67.67%173.82% Ta mpa Bay$2,276,251 $741,288 $2,503,971 $600,342 $3,140,556 $760,198 37.97%2.55% Florida$12,259,133 $3,842,846 $13,539,656 $3,922,756 $15,596,898 $3,868,502 27.23%0.67% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division Chart G5 Tampa Bay Region Construction Spending Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division

PAGE 38

T able M11 compares the growth rate in the number of housing permits issued in the Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate from 1999 to 2001 with the growth rate in the number of permits issued in the MSAs of the comparison universe. The Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate's growth rate for the time period 1999-2001 for single-family permits was 22.04%,the highest rate of any of the comparison MSAs.By comparison,over the same time span,the Austin-San Marcos MSA experienced the greatest rate of decline in single-family permits at 22.12%.Multifamily housing permits issued in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate declined by 22.50%. Among the comparison universe,the fastest rate of growth in multi-family housing permits issued was the Denver-BoulderGreeley CMSA's 101.51% and the greatest decline in multi-family permit growth was the 49.95% decline experienced by the Orlando MSA. T able M12 r eports the construction spending associated with the housing permits shown in T able M11.In the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate,single-family construction spending grew by 37.97% and multi-family spending grew by 2.55% between 1999 and 2001.By comparison,over the same time span,the Austin-San Marcos MSA experienced the greatest decline,17.68%,for single-family construction spending,and the Orlando MSA had the highest growth rate (exclusive of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate) of 16.45% for single-family construction spending.For multi-family construction spending among the MSAs of the comparison universe,the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA had the highest growth rate at 112.50%,and the lowest rate was the 42.76% decline experienced by the Orlando MSA. T able M11 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Housing Permits19992001% Growth 1999-2001 LocationSingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-Family Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA2,967 912 3,839 682 29.39%-25.22% Sa ra s ota-Bradenton, FL MSA5,584 1,424 7,013 2,635 25.59%85.04% Ta mpa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA13,309 9,671 15,826 5,988 18.91%-38.08% Ta mpa Bay21,860 12,007 26,678 9,305 22.04%-22.50% Co mparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA48,275 12,771 48,423 16,845 0.31%31.90% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA38,448 9,265 37,170 8,930 -3.32%-3.62% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA22,363 7,021 20,358 14,148 -8.97%101.51% Orlando, FL MSA16,368 13,225 16,700 6,619 2.03%-49.95% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA17,944 6,531 16,831 5,588 -6.20%-14.44% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA11,704 8,193 9,115 8,699 -22.12%6.18% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division 36 T able M12 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Construction Spending (in thousands)19992001% Growth 1999-2001 LocationSingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-FamilySingle FamilyMulti-Family Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA$243,358 $41,444 $300,906 $26,171 23.65%-36.85% Sa ra s ota-Bradenton, FL MSA$696,234 $73,199 $1,108,740 $241,341 59.25%229.71% T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA$1,336,659 $626,644 $1,730,892 $492,669 29.49%-21.38% Ta mpa Bay$2,276,251 $741,287 $3,140,538 $760,181 37.97%2.55% Co mparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA$5,456,758 $667,734 $5,638,625 $993,180 3.33%48.74% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA$4,963,226 $507,501 $5,334,407 $521,454 7.48%2.75% Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA$2,990,877 $447,761 $2,923,467 $951,499 -2.25%112.50% Orlando, FL MSA$1,927,168 $685,104 $2,244,175 $391,922 16.45%-42.79% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA$1,930,804 $291,029 $2,117,859 $327,295 9.69%12.46% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA$1,398,732 $342,138 $1,151,447 $325,311 -17.68%-4.92% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division

PAGE 39

COST OF LIVING Table G6 provides relative costs of living and county rankings for 1999,2000,and 2001.The relative cost-of-living index is prepared and released annually by the Flor ida 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.Fr om 1999 through 2001,the weighted average cost-of-living index for the Tampa Bay region has been slightly below 100% indicating that Tampa Bay's cost of living is lower than 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 47 in 1999 to 55 in 2001.On the other hand,counties with above-average re lative costs of living are Sarasota and P inellas.Pinellas is the most expensive county in Tampa Bay,ranking 5th in the state with a relative index of 101.94% in 2001.From 1999 through 2001,both Polk County and Pasco County have seen dramatic decreases in their cost-of-living rankings,both declining by at least 18 spots during that period.Pu tting these figures into a larger perspective,according to the American Fe deration of Teachers Interstate Cost of Living Index,Florida ranked 29th in 2000,meaning that only 22 states (including the District of Columbia) had a lower cost of living. 37 T able G6 Tampa Bay Region Relative Cost of Living Index Location1999Rank2000Rank2001Rank Hernando91.71%4792.93%4992.53%55 Hillsborough100.48%7100.31%799.86%8 Manatee99.27%1096.93%1698.49%9 Pasco 96.36%1796.38%2095.06%35 Pinellas103.34%5101.41%6101.94%5 Polk 95.93%1995.24%2695.44%29 Sa ra so ta100.57%6100.20%8100.10%7 Tam pa Bay*99.78%98.96%98.95% Source: Florida Department of Education Tampa Bay is the 7-county average weighted by population for each county. Photo Courtesy of:Tampa Bay CVB

PAGE 40

38 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BEFORE & AFTER 9/11 It is widely accepted that the terrorist attacks of September 11,2001 had significant impacts on the U.S.economy.We examine selected measures of the region's economic activity before and after the terrorist attacks. Wh en interpreting these measures,we c aution that it is difficult,at best,to separate the 9/11 impacts from the effects of a national recession that is generally r ecognized to have begun in March 2001. Appendix A:Selected Economic Indicators for Tampa Bay before September 11,2001 shows labor market measures as well as gross sales,bed tax revenues,and housing permits. The monthly measurements shown are for A ugust,September,and October in the years 1999,2000,and 2001.Notably,the unemployment rate increased to 4.06% in October 2001 from 3.86% in September 2001.In both 1999 and 2000,the unemployment rate declined in October from the previous September.Gross sales fell to $8.5 billion in October 2001 from almost $8.9 billion in September 2001.Bed tax re venues also fell to $2.25 million in October 2001 from $2.50 million in September 2001. APPENDIX B: Selected Economic Indicators For Tampa Bay After September 11, 2001 P eriodLabor Force% ChangeEmployment% ChangeUnemployment% ChangeUnemployment Rate% Change Aug-011,807,692 1,740,644 67,048 3.71% Sep-011,797,437 -0.57%1,728,042 -0.72%69,395 3.50%3.86%4.09% Oct-011,798,665 0.07%1,725,556 -0.14%73,109 5.35%4.06%5.28% Nov-011,799,733 0.06%1,725,894 0.02%73,839 1.00%4.10%0.94% Dec-011,798,718 -0.06%1,725,473 -0.02%73,235 -0.82%4.07%-0.76% Jan-021,757,947 -2.27%1,676,877 -2.82%81,070 10.70%4.61%13.27% F eb-021,763,459 0.31%1,687,325 0.62%76,134 -6.09%4.32%-6.38% Mar-021,769,150 0.32%1,695,550 0.49%73,600 -3.33%4.16%-3.64% Apr-021,772,046 0.16%1,695,683 0.01%76,273 3.63%4.30%3.46% May-021,783,901 0.67%1,708,109 0.73%75,792 -0.63%4.25%-1.29% Jun-021,785,238 0.07%1,701,196 -0.40%84,042 10.89%4.71%10.80% Jul-021,806,106 1.17%1,722,360 1.24%83,746 -0.35%4.64%-1.50% Aug-021,811,225 0.28%1,724,207 0.11%87,018 3.91%4.80%3.61% Sep-021,787,939 -1.29%1,701,913 -1.29%85,306 -1.97%4.77%-0.69% Oct-021,786,093 -0.10%1,705,044 0.18%81,049 -4.99%4.54%-4.89% P eriodGross Sales% ChangeTourism-Bed Tax% ChangeHousing Permits% Change Aug-01$8,554,599,592 3,181,379 2,844 Sep-01$8,878,204,880 3.78%2,503,693 -21.30%2,751 -3.27% Oct-01$8,502,341,527 -4.23%2,353,028 -6.02%2,461 -10.54% Nov-01$8,570,851,140 0.81%2,678,601 13.84%3,145 27.79% Dec-01$8,273,677,721 -3.47%2,706,130 1.03%3,026 -3.78% Jan-02$12,706,386,386 53.58%3,361,695 24.23%3,810 25.91% F eb-02$9,073,167,994 -28.59%4,773,364 41.99%3,130 -17.85% Mar-02$8,492,423,676 -6.40%5,831,055 22.16%2,865 -8.47% Apr-02$10,259,305,538 20.81%4,856,061 -16.72%3,252 13.51% May-02$8,169,398,912 -20.37%3,862,988 -20.45%3,031 -6.80% Jun-02$7,872,974,696 -3.63%3,186,800 -17.50%3,226 6.43% Jul-02$8,005,034,374 1.68%3,299,550 3.54%3,841 19.06% Aug-02$8,896,414,995 11.14%4,207 9.53% Sep-02 2,3 82 -43.38% Oct-02 Source: Compiled from CEDR Databases. Series reflect most recent data available at publication. APPENDIX A: Selected Economic Indicators For Tampa Bay Before September 11, 2001 P eriodLabor Force% ChangeEmployment% ChangeUnemployment% ChangeUnemployment Rate% Change Aug-991,692,963 1,642,317 50,646 2.99% Sep-991,691,404 -0.09%1,638,911 -0.21%52,493 3.65%3.10%3.74% Oct-991,702,508 0.66%1,652,159 0.81%50,349 -4.08%2.96%-4.71% Aug-001,726,417 1,676,385 50,032 2.90% Sep-001,726,060 -0.02%1,674,020 -0.14%52,040 4.01%3.01%4.03% Oct-001,741,432 0.89%1,692,602 1.11%48,830 -6.17%2.80%-7.00% Aug-011,807,692 1,740,644 67,048 3.71% Sep-011,797,437 -0.57%1,728,042 -0.72%69,395 3.50%3.86%4.09% Oct-011,798,665 0.07%1,725,556 -0.14%73,109 5.35%4.06%5.28% P eriodGross Sales% ChangeTourism-Bed Tax% ChangeHousing Permits% Change Aug-99$8,000,177,229 $2,969,575 3,919 Sep-99$8,267,901,858 3.35%$2,554,513 -13.98%2,456 -37.33% Oct-99$8,560,931,374 3.54%$2,793,191 9.34%2,893 17.79% Aug-00$8,250,374,961 $3,149,386 2,374 Sep-00$8,553,502,499 3.67%$2,825,765 -10.28%3,045 28.26% Oct-00$9,410,973,384 10.02%$2,910,149 2.99%2,034 -33.20% Aug-01$8,554,599,591 $3,181,379 2,844 Sep-01$8,878,204,880 3.78%$2,503,693 -21.30%2,751 -3.27% Oct-01$8,502,341,527 -4.23%$2,353,028 -6.02%2,461 -10.54% Source: Compiled from CEDR Databases.

PAGE 41

39 In 1999 and 2000,both gross sales and the bed tax revenues increased in October from the previous September. Appendix B:Selected Economic Indicators for Tampa Bay after September 11,2001 depicts the same measures as shown in Appendix A.The monthly measurements r un from August 2001 to the most recent month for which data is available in 2002. Si nce the unemployment rate was 4.06% in October 2001,it increased to 4.54% by October 2002.However,gross sales appear to have quickly recovered,so that August 2002 sales of nearly $8.9 billion exceed any single month in the August to December 2001 period.Bed tax revenues have similarly re sponded.July 2002 revenues of $3.3 million are higher than any single month in the August to December 2001 period. Appendix C:Selected Economic Indicators for Tampa Bay by County after September 11,2001 re ports the unemployment rate, gross sales,and bed tax revenues by county from August 2001 to the most recent month for which data is available in 2002.From S eptember 2001 to October 2001,Pinellas County experienced the biggest jump,among Ta mpa Bay counties,in its unemployment rate.In Pinellas County,the unemployment rate increased to 3.94% in October 2001 from 3.51% in September 2001.In Polk and Sa ra sota counties,unemployment declined between September and October 2001.All Ta mpa Bay counties had higher unemployment rates in September 2002 than in September 2001.Year over year,August 2001 to August 2002,only Pinellas County re ports a decline in gross sales.For all counties,except Hernando and Pasco,there is a drop in bed tax revenues from August 2001 to September 2001.The biggest change was a $342,490 decline in Pinellas County. The data indicate that by March 2002 bed, tax revenues for all counties were above the A ugust 2001 levels. APPENDIX C: Selected Economic Indicators for Tampa Bay by County After September 11, 2001P anel A: Unemployment Rate P eriodHernandoHillsboroughManateePascoPinellasPolkSarasotaTampa Bay Aug-013.42%3.36%3.25%3.72%3.34%6.88%2.45%3.71% Sep-013.76%3.47%3.27%3.76%3.51%6.78%3.18%3.86% Oct-014.05%3.71%3.65%4.14%3.94%6.28%3.11%4.06% Nov-014.31%3.89%3.44%4.45%4.15%5.59%2.92%4.10% Dec-014.29%3.86%3.26%4.41%4.08%5.78%2.83%4.07% Jan-025.31%4.38%3.61%5.31%4.75%5.80%3.47%4.61% F eb-024.83%4.15%3.42%4.88%4.57%5.33%2.90%4.32% Mar-024.91%3.97%3.36%4.74%4.36%5.17%2.80%4.16% Apr-025.38%4.11%3.46%5.02%4.43%5.17%3.21%4.30% May-025.37%4.16%3.42%4.90%4.27%5.24%2.99%4.25% Jun-025.94%4.58%3.82%5.40%4.47%6.54%3.27%4.71% Jul-025.57%4.38%4.04%5.02%4.24%7.17%3.43%4.64% Aug-025.52%4.56%4.45%5.06%4.42%7.54%3.22%4.80% Sep-025.24%4.49%4.40%4.99%4.46%7.11%3.70%4.77% Oct-024.78%4.31%4.27%4.79%4.41%6.30%3.41%4.54% P anel B: Gross Sales P eriodHernandoHillsboroughManateePascoPinellasPolkSarasotaTampa Bay Aug-01$335,726,551 $3,242,318,096 $517,443,287 $448,409,700 $2,210,143,640 $1,122,361,013 $678,197,304 $8,554,599,592 Sep-01$345,967,150 $3,622,326,825 $512,984,211 $444,974,478 $2,104,094,622 $1,125,261,904 $722,595,690 $8,878,204,880 Oct-01$317,702,442 $3,274,217,842 $537,561,363 $450,379,822 $2,125,921,176 $1,107,983,541 $688,575,341 $8,502,341,527 Nov-01$342,439,149 $3,291,428,810 $529,978,541 $446,509,966 $2,112,943,222 $1,148,359,256 $699,192,197 $8,570,851,140 Dec-01$368,233,391 $3,104,403,129 $559,397,072 $444,911,378 $1,963,890,299 $1,111,142,029 $721,700,422 $8,273,677,721 Jan-02$380,431,481 $4,643,576,736 $835,944,813 $594,749,670 $3,650,825,477 $1,527,395,593 $1,073,462,614 $12,706,386,386 F eb-02$322,702,770 $3,533,605,027 $619,820,217 $495,202,201 $2,231,964,421 $1,070,845,420 $799,027,937 $9,073,167,994 Mar-02$326,137,684 $3,186,631,418 $555,168,259 $478,676,143 $2,107,419,413 $1,051,604,804 $786,785,954 $8,492,423,676 Apr-02$356,669,690 $3,804,794,554 $695,080,777 $544,285,524 $2,412,793,641 $1,460,883,942 $984,797,409 $10,259,305,538 May-02$367,594,534 $3,705,891,365 $595,732,732 $501,620,110 $2,172,868,714 $1,199,594,621 $814,168,140 $9,357,470,217 Jun-02$363,977,230 $3,567,243,429 $596,042,218 $493,335,367 $2,270,760,634 $1,254,659,142 $783,549,170 $9,329,567,190 Jul-02$330,677,553 $3,686,141,894 $604,906,990 $516,653,571 $2,508,940,990 $1,290,818,105 $792,287,090 $9,730,426,194 Aug-02$358,611,344 $3,589,346,690 $519,697,907 $472,070,283 $2,051,924,233 $1,185,185,225 $719,579,314 $8,896,414,995 Source: Compiled from CEDR Databases. Series reflect most recent data available at publication. P anel C: Tourism-Bed Tax P eriodHernandoHillsboroughManateePascoPinellasPolkSarasotaTampa Bay Aug-01$14,498 $1,162,925 $158,149 $43,878 $1,052,369 $349,445 $400,115 $3,181,379 Sep-01$17,466 $1,011,684 $109,250 $45,585 $709,879 $310,062 $299,767 $2,503,693 Oct-01$17,356 $858,465 $126,426 $30,931 $924,042 $201,612 $194,196 $2,353,028 Nov-01$20,709 $1,105,828 $140,610 $27,545 $888,680 $239,675 $255,554 $2,678,601 Dec-01$19,981 $1,006,436 $188,164 $38,265 $870,331 $267,139 $315,814 $2,706,130 Jan-02$26,537 $984,715 $334,008 $61,166 $1,306,008 $244,714 $404,547 $3,361,695 F eb-02$30,448 $1,387,040 $413,275 $73,204 $1,780,592 $283,111 $805,694 $4,773,364 Mar-02$35,528 $1,656,656 $461,512 $84,993 $2,318,746 $379,757 $893,863 $5,831,055 Apr-02$23,174 $1,806,432 $249,182 $79,701 $1,626,057 $ $1,071,515 $4,856,061 May-02$21,129 $1,385,812 $173,920 $65,958 $1,265,703 $369,036 $581,430 $3,862,988 Jun-02$19,271 $1,050,369 $204,041 $60,086 $1,253,646 $246,732 $352,655 $3,186,800 Jul-02$20,672 $1,077,315 $213,562 $40,212 $1,309,730 $256,809 $381,250 $3,299,550 Source: Florida Department of Revenue. Series reflect most recent data available at publication. Po lk County April 2002 data had not been posted by publication.

PAGE 42

Photo taken by Jason Marsh of USFPhoto Courtesy of:Tampa Bay CVB Photo Courtesy of:Tampa Bay CVB

PAGE 43

41 his 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. Fo r the academic year ending in 2001,the Tampa Bay r egion's graduation rate was 66.6%.Additionally,the region's public high school dropout rate was 3.8%,mirroring that of the state of Florida. Between 1999 and 2001,average SAT scores in the Tampa Bay region have been in the 1013 to 1015 range,out of 1600 maximum possible points. On average,the Tampa Bay regi on's average high school class size has been smaller than the statewide size.Overall, r egional class size averaged between 24 and 27 pupils in 2001. In Tampa Bay,average per-pupil expenditures for all ty pes of educational programs at the high school level increased from about $5,216 in 1998-1999 to about $5,832 in 2000-2001. T

PAGE 44

42 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES Tab le G7 re ports public high school graduation rates for the Tampa Bay region. In the academic years ending 1999,2000, and 2001 the region's graduation rates were 64.0%,65.1%,and 66.6%,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 r egion. Chart G7 compares the Tampa Bay r egion's public high school graduation rates with state of Florida rates.The chart shows that since 1999,the Tampa Bay region has exceeded the statewide graduation rate. Tab le G8 re ports public high school dropout rates for 1999 through 2001 in the Ta mpa 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. F or the academic year ending in 1999,the Ta mpa Bay region's public high school dropout rate was just over 5%.The Tampa Bay region's dropout rate for the academic years ending in 2000 and 2001 was 3.8%. F or the three years examined,the Tampa Bay region's public high school average dropout rate has been approximately the same as the statewide rate. Ta ble G7 Tampa Bay Region High School Graduation RatesAcademic Year Ending Location199920002001 Hernando68.7%67.4%67.8% Hillsborough69.5%71.4%74.4% Manatee56.2%61.4%65.2% Pasco 63.5%64.8%65.9% Pinellas65.3%64.3%64.4% Po lk53.3%55.3%52.6% Sarasota 63.0%63.4%70.3% Tam pa Bay64.0%65.1%66.6% Florida60.2%62.3%63.8% Source: Florida Department of Education T able G8 Tampa Bay Region High School Dropout RatesAcademic Year Ending Location199920002001 Hernando6.1%2.9%2.0% Hillsborough4.2%2.6%2.7% Manatee7.4%6.3%4.5% Pasco5.5%4.4%4.3% Pinellas3.7%3.1%4.2% Polk8.7% 5.9%5.8% Sarasota7. 6%3.6%3.1% Tam pa Bay5.4%3.8%3.8% Florida5.4%4.6%3.8% Source: Florida Department of Education Chart G7 Tampa Bay Region High School Graduation Rates Comparison Source: Florida Department of Education HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES Photo taken by Jason Marsh of USF

PAGE 45

43 SCHOLASTIC ASSESSMENT TEST SCORES In Table G9 average Scholastic Assessment T est (SAT) scores for students in Tampa Bay are reported for each county foracademic years 1999 through 2001.The table includes weighted average (by student population) test scores for the Ta mpa Bay region. The region's weighted average test scores have been in the 1013 to 1015 range as compared to Florida's range of 993 to 995 ov er the same time span.See Chart G9 below.For additional comparisons,we note that national average test scores were 1016 and 1019 in 1999 and 2000, r espectively (reference 2001 Statistical Abstract of the United States,published by the U.S.Census Bureau,Economics and St atistics Administration). T able G9 Tampa Bay Region SAT ScoresAcademic Year Ending Location199920002001 Hernando99710081004 Hillsborough101210111005 Manatee1007988996 Pa sc o1 01910101008 Pinellas102810291038 Polk 985984980 Sarasota1 06010531065 Tam pa Bay101510131015 Florida993995993 Source: Florida Department of Education Chart G8 Tampa Bay Region High School Dropout Rates Comparison Source: Florida Department of Education Chart G9 Tampa Bay Region SAT Scores Source: Florida Department of Education Photo Courtesy of:Tampa Bay CVB

PAGE 46

44 HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZES T able G10 lists average public high school cl ass sizes for the seven counties of the Ta mpa Bay region and a weighted average (by student population) of the seven county averages to represent the Tampa Bay region.Average class sizes are listed by academic subjects:language arts, mathematics,science,and social studies. The Tampa Bay region's average public high school size has been less than the statewide average class size in Florida from 1999 to 2001.See Chart G10 below. The Tampa Bay region's per-pupil expenditures for high school by type of educational program are in T able G11 The table covers academic years 19981999 through 2000-2001.The regional expenditures are computed as a weighted average,by student population,of each of the seven counties of Tampa Bay. Chart G10 Tampa Bay Region High School Class Size Source: Florida Department of Education T able G10 Tampa Bay Region High School Class Size(a ve ra ge number of students per class) Language ArtsMathScienceSocial Studies Location199920002001199920002001199920002001199920002001 Hernando22.821.622.322.922.323.425.123.924.825.525.424.6 Hillsborough22.722.722.825.624.825.226.826.026.028.527.428.5 Manatee25.927.123.725.526.224.326.826.926.427.927.426.2 Pa sc o2 1.922.522.322.923.622.822.924.123.223.323.123.1 Pinellas27.125.625.827.225.525.328.026.927.228.128.128.2 Po lk21.921.922.225.023.325.124.523.525.024.524.124.9 Sa ra so ta22.223.224.923.125.326.923.725.226.923.424.626.9 Tam pa Bay23.823.623.625.324.725.026.125.625.926.726.326.9 Florida25.725.325.426.625.825.727.126.726.927.727.527.8 Source: Florida Department of Education

PAGE 47

45 PER-PUPIL EXPENDITURES FOR HIGH SCHOOL Chart G11 compares the Tampa Bay r egion's average per pupil expenditures for high school with those of the state of F lorida.The chart depicts increased average spending per pupil from 1998-1999 to 2000-2001,for all educational programs in both the region and statewide.The largest year-to-year increase in the Tampa Bay r egion and also for the state of Florida was for "exceptional"education.In academic year 2000-2001,the Tampa Bay region's per pupil expenditures exceeded Florida's per pupil expenditures for "at-risk"and vocational"education. T able G11 Tampa Bay Region Per-Pupil Expeditures ExceptionalRegularAt-RiskVocational Location1998-19991999-20002000-20011998-19991999-20002000-20011998-19991999-20002000-20011998-19991999-20002000-2001 Hernando$5,646 $6,158 $6,664 $3,873 $3,904 $4,181 $5,517 $9,719 $8,864 $4,730 $4,519 $4,873 Hillsborough$7,326 $7,669 $7,947 $3,840 $4,052 $4,254 $4,695 $4,602 $4,620 $5,015 $5,072 $5,324 Manatee$6,473 $6,617 $7,339 $4,088 $4,297 $4,324 $5,256 $4,450 $4,436 $4,536 $4,499 $4,910 Pa sc o$ 7 ,341 $7,810 $7,496 $3,917 $4,017 $4,332 $6,191 $8,098 $8,794 $5,136 $5,946 $4,791 Pinellas$6,724 $7,303 $7,880 $3,865 $3,987 $4,402 $5,103 $5,326 $5,319 $4,199 $4,420 $4,912 Po lk$6,460 $6,834 $7,433 $4,042 $4,287 $4,332 $5,211 $6,657 $6,381 $5,368 $7,198 $7,360 Sa ra so ta$7,491 $7,751 $7,884 $4,686 $5,030 $4,912 $5,257 $5,430 $5,681 $4,881 $6,059 $6,979 Ta mpa Bay$6,939 $7,341 $7,711 $3,965 $4,153 $4,362 $5,134 $5,703 $5,694 $4,827 $5,344 $5,561 Florida$6,880 $7,092 $7,726 $4,024 $4,247 $4,441 $5,081 $5,383 $5,424 $4,714 $4,879 $4,982 Source: Florida Department of Education Chart G11 Tampa Bay Region Per-Pupil Expenditures Source: Florida Department of Education

PAGE 48

Tampa B ay Partnership 4300 W.Cypress Street,Suite 250 Ta mpa,FL 33607 (813) 878-2208 Fax:(813) 872-9356 The Tampa Bay Economic Market Report is sponsored by the Tampa Bay Partnerships C ouncil of Governors: BayCare Health System City of Clearwater City of St. Petersburg City of Tampa Florida High Tech Corridor Council HCA, Inc. Hillsborough County Outback Steakhouse, Inc. Pinellas County Progress Energy Florida Publix Super Markets, Inc. St. Petersburg Times The Tampa Tribune TECO Energy University of South Florida Veriz on Florida AN ENTERPRISE FLORIDA PA R TNER