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 - C63-00088
usfldc handle - c63.88
System ID:
SFS0000355:00001


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 C63-00088
0 245
Tampa Bay Region economic market report.
n 2004.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
b Tampa Bay Partnership.
c 2004
500
Prepared for the Tampa Bay Partnership by the USF Center for Economic Development Research.
505
Tampa Bay Market Report -- Changes from Previous Year -- 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/?c63.88



PAGE 1

Prepared for the T ampa Bay Partnership by the USF Center for Economic Development Research Cover 3 5/5/04, 11:21:44 PM

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 research and to coordinate efforts to influence business and government issues that impact economic growth and development. Tampa Bay Region of West Central Florida Counties of Hernando • Hillsborough •Manantee Pasco • Pinellas • Polk • Sarasota Intro Pages 2 5/6/04, 12:30:55 AM

PAGE 3

T ampa Bay Market Report .................................................................2Changes from Previous Year .........................................................3Executive Summary................................................................................4T ampa Bay’s Workforce.......................................................................6 Population...............................................................................................7 Migration.................................................................................................9 Labor Force...........................................................................................10 W orkforce-to-Population Ratio...........................................................12 Employed Workers................................................................................14 Employment by Industry Sectors.........................................................16 Unemployed Workers............................................................................19 Unemployment Rate...............................................................................21W ages and Income................................................................................22 W ages by industry Sector....................................................................24 Personal Income....................................................................................27 Disposable Personal Income................................................................28Business and Economic Conditions...........................................28 Business Establishments.....................................................................31 Gross Sales & Taxable Sales by County..............................................33 Housing Permits and Construction Spending.....................................35 Cost of Living........................................................................................37Education Indicators.........................................................................40 High School Graduation Rates............................................................39 Scholastic Assesment Test Scores......................................................41 High School Class Sizes.......................................................................42 Per-Pupil Expenditures for High School...........................................43 Degrees Awarded by Public Universities............................................44 1 Intro Pages 3 5/6/04, 12:32:23 AM

PAGE 4

The College of Business Administration’s Center 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 analyses of economic impact, industry clustering, community development opportunities, international trade and development patterns, wage parity, and demographics of the Tampa Bay region. CEDR’s Geographic Information System capability enhances analyses of demographic, business establishment, and employment patterns. Annually, CEDR offers Florida’s only basic economic development course, which is fully accredited by the International Economic Development Association. Dr. 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: Dave Sobush, Alex McPherson and Davor Soldo. Helping on this project, under the direction of Dr. Colie, was Louis Villanova, graduate research assistant in the College of Business Administration’s MBA program. For more information about CEDR, visit http://cedr.coba.usf.edu or call 813-905-5854 The purpose of this report is to present information, primarily data and statistical indicators about T ampa Bay’s workforce, wages and income, business and economic conditions, and the education of residents. We hope that Florida’s business and government leaders will use the Tampa Bay Region Economic Market Report to assess the progress of economic initiatives as well as guide future decision-making and investment. T ampa Bay Market Report The available data is organized by county and by metropolitan statistical area (MSA). When using by-county data, we refer to the group of seven counties Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk and Sarasota as the Tampa Bay region. The use of seven-county regional data allows us to compare statistics county-by-county, as well as compare Tampa Bay regional averages. 2 Intro Pages 4 5/6/04, 12:34:20 AM

PAGE 5

Change in the Comparison Universe Beginning with this year’s Tampa Bay Market Report, San Diego, MSA has replaced DenverBoulder-Greeley, MSA in the comparison universe. This is due to changes in the makeup of Colorado’s Statistical Areas. The DenverBoulder-Greeley Metropolitan Statistical Area has been split into the Denver, CO PMSA and the Boulder-Longmont, CO PMSA. San Diego was chosen to replace Denver because of its similar population and labor force characteristics. Change from SIC data to NAICS data Beginning with 2001 data, federal and local governments will now report industry data according to a new classification system: the North American Industry Classification System Structures of NAICS and SICNAICS SectorNAICS Titles SIC DivisionSIC Titles 11Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting A Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 21Mining B Mining 22Utilities C Construction 23Construction D Manufacturing 31-33 Manufacturing E Transportation, Communications, Electric, Gas, and Sanitary 42Wholesale Trade Svcs.F Wholesale Trade 44-45 Retail TradeG Retail Trade 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing H Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 51Information I Services 52Finance and Insurance J Public Admin. 53Real Estate and Rental and LeasingK Nonclassifiable Establishments 54Professional and Tech. Svcs. 55Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 56Admin. and Waste Svcs. 61Educational Svcs. 62Healthcare and Social Assistance 71Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 72Accommodation and Food Svcs. 81Other Svcs., Except Public Admin. 92Public Admin. (NAICS). Prior years’ data was reported in the Standard Industrial Classification system (SIC), which has been used since the 1930s and has not been updated since 1987. The NAICS addresses the diversity in the U.S. and global economy by breaking down what was previously ten industry divisions in SIC to twenty NAICS sectors. The change also allows for a more accurate gauge of economic activity. However, as a result of this process, some data prior to 2001 is not comparable with current data. From this point on, CEDR will report its industry data in the standardized NAICS format. This will eliminate future problems with the comparability of the data. All relevant federal agencies are planning on full conversion from SIC codes to the NAICS by 2004. For more information on the change from SIC to NAICS, please visit http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html.3 Intro Pages 5 5/6/04, 12:36:05 AM

PAGE 6

Tampa Bay’s population will exceed 3,637,000 by the end of 2003. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated Tampa Bay’s population at 3,581,043 in January 2002. Although T ampa Bay continues to experience a substantial population growth rate about 2.9% per year since 2000 other regions, such as Austin, Phoenix, Orlando, and Atlanta, have been growing faster than Tampa Bay. Net migration into the Tampa Bay region accounts for almost all of Tampa Bay’s population growth. Under the old Standard Industrial Classification system, Services was the largest division within the employment structure of Tampa Bay’s regional economy 42.34% in January 2001. W ith the advent of the new North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), Services is disaggregated into several NAICS sectors. Under NAICS, the largest sector of Tampa Bay’s year 2002 regional economy is Retail Trade (13.01%), followed by Administrative & Support & Waste Management & Remediation Services (12.40%) and Health Care & Social Assistance (11.60%). Manufacturing’s share of the Tampa Bay region’s employment structure slightly declined from 7.52% in January 2001 to 7.14% in January 2002. The number of workers employed in manufacturing decreased from 119,670 to 112,400 between January 2001 and January 2002. By January 2002, the weighted-average annual money wage in Tampa Bay had risen to $31,536 from $30,772 in January 2001. In January 2002, the Utilities sector, as defined by NAICS, of the Tampa Bay regional economy enjoyed the highest average wage at $56,752 per annum for 7,559 employees. The Utilities sector was closely followed by Management of Companies and Enterprises sector (a new sector under NAICS, encompassing corporate and regional headquarters regardless of the operational industry of the business) with the average annual wage at $53,345 for 20,632 employees. The average money wage in the Manufacturing sector was $38,295 per annum for 112,402 employees. From January 2001 through January 2002, Tampa Bay regional business and economic activity enjoyed robust growth. Between January 2001 and January 2002, the number of business establishments in Tampa Bay increased by about 6.4%. In January 2002, there were more Retail Trade businesses (14.09%) in Tampa Bay than establishments in any other NAICS sector. This was followed by the Professional, Scientific and T echnical Services sector at 12.71% of total regional establishments. Between January 2001 and January 2002, the Utilities sector reported the highest growth rate 10.32% of establishments in Tampa Bay. Growth in the Utilities sector was followed by the Accommodation and Food Services sector and the Arts, Entertainment and Recreation sector at 8.64% and 8.58%, respectively. Av erage monthly gross sales in the Tampa Bay region increased by 2.07% over the two-year period from 2000 through 2002. Florida’s increase over the same time was 1.56%. Average monthly taxable sales in the Tampa Bay region increased by 1.12% over the two-year period from 2000 through 2002. Florida’s increase in monthly taxable sales was 5.23% over the same period. From 2000 to 2002, the growth in single-family and multi-family housing permits was 27.17% and 17.04%, respectively. Construction spending, based on the number of permits issued, had a twoyear 49.25% growth for single-family dwellings and 8.99% growth for multi-family housing. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 do not Executive Summary4 Intro Pages 6 5/6/04, 12:37:52 AM

PAGE 7

appear to have had a major impact on economic activity in Tampa Bay as a region. However, Pinellas County’s average monthly gross sales declined by about $69.5 million in 2002. There was no marked decline in gross sales in Tampa Bay’s other counties. Also, from September 2001 to September 2002, monthly receipts from the T ourist Development Tax in Pinellas County showed negative year-over-year comparisons. We believe the numbers show that Pinellas County’s economy is relatively more dependent on tourism than the rest of Tampa Bay. Public secondary school outcomes for Tampa Bay continue to mirror the state of Florida. In academic year 2001-2002, Florida’s public universities awarded almost 38,000 Bachelor’s degrees. In November 2002, Florida’s citizens approved a constitutional amendment that would reduce class sizes for public schools. As result of the amendment, the Florida Department of Education estimates the cost of building additional classroom space at $9 billion. Additionally, the Department estimates an extra $2.5 billion of annual operating expenses. The Tampa Bay region’s average public high school class size has been less than the statewide size from 2000 to 2002. Regional class size averaged between 24 and 27 pupils in 2002. In T ampa Bay, average per-pupil expenditures for regular programs at the high school level increased from about $4,153 in 1999-2000 to about $4,264 in 2001-2002. 5 Intro Pages 7 5/6/04, 12:40:09 AM

PAGE 8

6This section reports workforce data for the T ampa Bay region by county and for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate. Tampa Bay’s MSAs are compared against Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the southeast Atlanta, Charlotte, and Orlando and other selected MSAs Austin, San Diego and Phoenix. These two MSA groups collectively make up a group referred to as the Comparison Universe. The population of Tampa Bay, as of January 2002 was estimated to be 3.57 million people. This represents about 21.6% of Florida’s total estimated population of 16.54 million. Population growth in the Tampa Bay Region has been typically due to migrations, rather than in births, and this is the case in 2002. Labor force, an indicator of economic potential, consists of employed persons and unemployed persons. A person is defined as unemployed if they sought work, were available for work, but were not employed. The labor force does not include persons not seeking employment, persons not available for work, full-time students, or incarcerated persons. The Tampa Bay region labor force has been growing at the rate of 2.95% (from January 2000 to January 2003). During this period, Tampa Bay added 154,199 workers to the labor force. Of all the MSAs in the comparison universe, Phoenix experienced the fastest annual growth in labor force (4.83%), while the slowest growth occurred in Atlanta (2.46%). W orkforce-to-population ratios in the Tampa Bay region have been increasing over the period from January 2000 (48.20%) to January T ampa Bay Region Workforce2002 (49.09%). The same ratio in Florida has increased from 45.82% in January 2000 to 46.43% in January 2002. Among the MSAs in the comparison universe the highest workforceto-population ratio in January 2002 belongs to Austin (57.11%) and the lowest is Phoenix (47.92%). All of the MSAs in the comparison universe experienced a decline in workforce-topopulation ratios from January 2000 to January 2002 with the exception of San Diego. The number of employed workers in the Tampa Bay region increased at an average annual compound rate of 2.37% (or by 117,722 workers) from January 2000 to January 2003. This was 21.1% of Florida’s total employment growth during the same period. Among the comparison universe MSAs Phoenix experienced the greatest growth in employed workers from January 2000 to January 2003 (4.02%) and Austin had the smallest growth rate (1.78%). Unemployment in the Tampa Bay region from January 2000 to January 2003 has been rising. This is attributed to the economic recession that has affected the entire nation since 2001. T otal unemployed workers rose from 51,099 in January 2000 to 87,602 in January 2003. The January 2003 number makes up 19.5% of the total number of unemployed workers in Florida. On an annual basis the total unemployment in the Tampa Bay region has been increasing by 19.6% since January 2000. This compares favorably with the other MSAs in the comparison universe. Only San Diego experienced slower growth in unemployed workers over the same period (16.5%). Austin’s unemployment grew by (39.4%) annually (the highest). Workforce 2 5/6/04, 1:01:36 AM

PAGE 9

7 Population Table 1 Tampa Bay Region PopulationLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03*Jan-04* Hernando 130,377 133,019 136,508 139,644 142,853 Hillsborough 994,105 1,015,325 1,040,617 1,064,408 1,088,743 Manatee 262,398 269,122 276,506 283,746 291,175 Pasco 342,445 352,974 364,918 376,515 388,480 Pinellas 919,790 923,555 925,813 928,834 931,865 Polk 481,763 488,665 495,286 502,142 509,092 Sarasota 324,928 330,190 336,494 342,379 348,366 Tampa Bay 3,455,806 3,512,848 3,576,140 3,637,343 3,699,593 Florida 15,906,875 16,213,829 16,543,240 16,867,703 17,198,531 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program CEDR Projection Table M1 Tampa Bay Region PopulationLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03*Jan-04* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 471,453489,155495,736505,920520,525 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 571,521601,406614,991632,526657,802 T ampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA 2,341,0522,427,1362,470,3162,527,2462,602,246 Tampa Bay3,384,0253,517,6963,581,0433,665,6923,780,573 Comparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA4,000,9364,203,6794,324,4574,480,3284,672,352 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA3,145,0443,330,0183,441,8983,587,4443,766,384 San Diego, CA MSA2,823,1692,847,6972,888,2802,921,1782,950,359 Orlando, FL MSA1,595,4851,681,5711,729,6841,790,8381,869,835 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 1,462,6341,526,4971,564,9211,614,4371,674,615 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA1,204,8051,288,3951,331,2611,386,0051,461,430 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; CEDR Projection Table 1 gives population estimates for the Tampa Bay region, by county and for the state of Florida. Prior year estimates were derived by the U.S. Census Bureau (January-03 and January04 are CEDR projections of the trend in Census Bureau estimates). Since January 2000, the population of Tampa Bay has been increasing at the average rate of 60,167 people per year and is expected to reach 3.7 million by January 2004. That translates into a 1.72% compound annual growth rate from January 2000 to January 2004. By comparison Florida’s projected compound annual growth rate during the same period is 1.97%. Table M1 gives population estimates for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and compares them to the MSAs in our comparison universe (Atlanta, Austin-San Marcos, Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, Orlando, PhoenixMesa, San Diego). Of the comparison MSAs, Austin-San Marcos is experiencing the fastest compound annual growth rate from 2000 to 2004 (4.95%). Workforce 3 5/6/04, 1:03:21 AM

PAGE 10

T ampaBay SarasotaBradenton,FL MSA T ampaSt.PetersburgClearwater,FL MSA LakelandW interHaven, FLMSA 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 ChartM1A-TampaBayMSA-AggregatePopulation Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**CEDRProjection Chart M1A depicts the population of the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its three component MSAs. Most of Tampa Bay’s residents live within the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. Chart M1B compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate population with the Southeastern MSAs of the comparison universe. From January 2000 to January 2002, the fastest growing MSA within our comparison universe was the Orlajdo, FL MSA (8.41%). Tampa Bay grew by 5.82% over the same period. Chart M1C compares the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate population with the MSAs (other than the Southeastern MSAs) in the comparison universe. Tampa Bay’s population is slightly larger than that of Phoenix, which has experienced rapid population growth in the past few years (9.44%). From January 2000 to January 2002, the fastest frowing MSA within our comparison universe was the Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA (10.50%). 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 T ampaBayAtlanta,GA MSA Orlando,FL MSA Charlotte, Gastonia,Rock Hill,NC-SCMSA ChartM1B-SoutheasternPopulationComparisionSource:BureauofLaborandStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04** CEDRProjection 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 T ampaBayPhoenix-Mesa, AZMSA SanDiego, CAMSA Austin-San Marcos,TXMSA ChartM1C-SelectedMSAPopulationComparision Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04** CEDRProjection 8 Workforce 4 5/6/04, 1:05:14 AM

PAGE 11

people migrating to the Tampa Bay region. The estimates are based on population changes reported by the Census Bureau and adjusted by the net effect of births and deaths on that population change. From 1999 to 2002, total net migration for the T ampa Bay region was 176,907, or almost 59,000 people per year. The county with the highest net migration is Hillsborough (47,294), 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 51,505 61,727 63,6752000-20012001-2002 1999-2000 Chart1X-TampaBayRegionPopulationchangeduetoMigrationSource:USCensusBureau(withCEDRintrepolation):FLDept.ofHealth,VitalStatisticsReportsofLiveBirthsandDeaths Migration Table 1XTAMPA BAY REGION MIGRATIONSAnnual Compound Population Net Effect of Births and DeathsPopulation Change due to Migration* Location1999200020011999-002000-012001-021999-02Migration 1999-02 Hernando (953) (772)(940) 2,884 4,016 4,427 2.20%2.43% Hillsborough 6,148 6,011 6,108 12,794 15,183 19,318 2.19%1.99% Manatee (240) (120)(128) 6,055 7,855 7,485 2.65%2.66% Pasco (1,648) (1,437)(1,494) 9,890 14,000 13,362 3.16%3.30% Pinellas (3,456) (2,964)(3,597) 7,897 6,580 5,998 0.38%0.51% Polk 1,339 1,596 1,660 5,715 5,756 4,922 1.45%1.34% Sarasota (2,106) (2,096)(1,936) 6,272 8,338 8,165 1.70%1.89% Tampa Bay (916) 218 (327) 51,505 61,727 63,675 1.69%1.69% Florida 34,841 41,191 38,619 249,044 277,356 290,792 1.95%1.87%Source: US Census Bureau (with CEDR interpolation); Florida Department of Health, Vital Statistics Reports of Live Births and D eaths *Population changes are for the January to January periods % Growth % Growth Due to while Hernando had the lowest net migration number (11,327). During this time period, Tampa Bay represented 21.65% of Florida’s total net migration. The annual compound percentage growth in population is broken down into two categories: annual compound percentage growth due to migration and net annual compound percentage growth. Differences between the two figures are attributable to the net effect of births and deaths within an area. In areas where deaths outnumbered births, growth due to migration exceeded population growth, and vice versa. Pasco County enjoyed the highest growth rate due to migration (3.30%) annually. Chart 1X graphs the population change in T ampa Bay due to migration. This figure has been increasing, and is 63,675 for the 2001-2002 period. 9 Workforce 5 5/6/04, 1:07:10 AM

PAGE 12

Table 2 gives the size of the Tampa Bay region labor force by county of residence. The labor force consists of employed persons and unemployed persons who are actively seeking work. By January 2004, CEDR projects the number of persons in the T ampa Bay labor force will be about 1,873,000. From January 2000 to January 2003 Tampa Bay’s annual compound growth in labor force has been 2.95%. This translates to 51,400 persons per year. Florida’s labor force growth is 3.16% over the same period, or 241,374 persons per year. The Tampa Bay region makes up just over 21% of the total labor force growth in the state of Florida. The county with the fastest labor force growth from January 2000 to January 2003 was Pasco (3.81%). The lowest growth rate in labor force was Sarasota County with 1.96% annually. Chart 2 graphs the Tampa Bay region’s labor force growth from January 2000 and projected by CEDR through January 2004. During this period, Tampa Bay will add 207,908 persons to the labor force. Labor Table 2 Tampa Bay Region Labor ForceLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03 Annual Compound % ChangeJan-04* Hernando 47,720 50,197 50,251 51,1012.28% 52,267 Hillsborough 547,740 571,542 577,233 607,7233.46% 628,774 Manatee 119,587 125,466 128,828 131,9433.28% 136,267 Pasco 135,882 143,008 144,083 152,3303.81% 158,132 Pinellas 464,621 485,432 491,705 498,3182.33% 509,948 Polk 199,579 208,734 204,784 218,7943.06% 225,498 Sarasota 150,433 155,921 160,924 159,5521.96% 162,682 Tampa Bay 1,665,562 1,740,300 1,757,808 1,819,7612.95% 1,873,470 Florida 7,288,879 7,562,000 7,686,000 8,013,0003.16% 8,265,985 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation CEDR estimate Jan.2003 Jan.2001Jan.2002 Jan.2000 Char t2TampaBayRegionLaborForceSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,FloridaAgencyforWorkforceInnovation *CEDREstimate 1,500,000 1,550,000 1,600,000 1,650,000 1,700,000 1,750,000 1,800,000 1,850,000 1,900,000 1,950,000 2,000,000 Jan.2004* 1,665,562 1,740,300 1,757,808 1,819,761 1,873,470 Table M2 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Labor ForceLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03Jan-04* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 199,579 208,734 204,784 218,797 225,606 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 270,020 281,387 289,752 291,631 299,212 T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 1,195,963 1,250,179 1,263,272 1,308,843 1,348,789 Tampa Bay 1,665,562 1,740,300 1,757,808 1,819,271 1,873,597 Comparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA 2,204,747 2,261,328 2,302,947 2,371,794 2,430,243 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 1,539,268 1,591,603 1,649,408 1,773,762 1,859,612 San Diego, CA MSA 1,368,275 1,404,147 1,452,117 1,485,782 1,527,152 Orlando, FL MSA 870,147 899,253 907,204 944,574 970,772 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NCSC MSA 776,363 820,292 813,733 858,238 887,405 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 715,196 751,916 760,345 781,378 804,773 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation; CEDR estimate 10 Workforce 6 5/6/04, 1:09:05 AM

PAGE 13

T ampaBay SarasotaBradenton,FL MSA T ampaSt.PetersburgClearwater,FL MSA LakelandW interHaven, FLMSA ChartM2A-SelectedMSALaborForceComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**CEDRProjection Ta mpaBayAtlanta,GA MSA Orlando,FL MSA Charlotte, Gastonia,Rock Hill,NC-SCMSA ChartM2B-SoutheasternLaborForceComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**CEDRProjection Table M2 shows the number of persons in the labor force by MSA of residence from January 2000 and projected through January 2004. Tampa Bay has been increasing its labor force by 2.95% annually and is expected to have about 1,873,000 workers by January 2004. This would be an increase of 54,326 workers over January 2003. The majority (about 73.5%) of the increase in Tampa Bay area labor force growth is predicted to be in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. Of the MSAs in the comparison universe Atlanta has the largest labor force (2.3 million in January 2003) and Austin-San Marcos has the smallest (781,378 in January 2003). Phoenix, the fastest growing (by compound annual rate) MSA added 234,494 workers during the three-year period. That is the most in total by any MSA in the comparison universe. Chart M2A graphs labor force figures for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its components. The graph illustrates that workers in Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA comprise the vast majority of labor force participants in the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate. Chart M2B compares Tampa Bay with the Southeastern MSAs in the comparison universe. Tampa Bay’s labor force is twice as big as both Orlando and Charlotte. Only Atlanta has a larger number of workers in its labor force. Chart M2C compares Tampa Bay with the MSAs (other than the Southeastern MSAs) in the comparison universe. 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 T ampaBayPhoenix-Mesa, AZMSA SanDiego, CAMSA Austin-San Marcos,TXMSA ChartM2C-SelectedMSALaborForceComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**CEDRProjection 11 Workforce 7 5/6/04, 1:11:05 AM

PAGE 14

W orkforce to Population Ratio Table 3 Tampa Bay Region Workforce-to-Population RatioLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03*Jan-04* Hernando36.60%37.57%36.65%36.68%37.10% Hillsborough55.11%56.30%55.47%55.85%56.27% Manatee45.57%46.44%46.42%46.77%46.94% Pasco39.67%40.27%39.26%39.10%39.37% Pinellas50.52%52.58%53.12%54.26%54.12% Polk41.42%42.67%41.31%41.29%41.20% Sarasota46.29%47.07%47.68%48.26%48.54% Tampa Bay48.20%49.47%49.09%49.53%49.70% Florida45.82%46.61%46.43%46.59%46.70%Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Division CEDR Projection Table M3 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Workforce-to-Population RatioLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03*Jan-04* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA42.33%42.67%41.31%43.25%43.34% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA47.25%46.79%47.11%46.11%45.49% T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA51.09%51.51%51.14%51.79%51.83% Tampa Bay49.22%49.47%49.09%49.63%49.56% Comparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA55.11%53.79%53.25%52.94%52.01% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA48.94%47.80%47.92%49.44%49.37% San Diego, CA MSA48.47%49.31%50.28%50.86%51.76% Orlando, FL MSA54.54%53.48%52.45%52.74%51.92% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA53.08%53.74%52.00%53.16%52.99% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA59.36%58.36%57.11%56.38%55.07%Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; CEDR Projection Table 3 gives the workforce-topopulation numbers by county for the seven-county Tampa Bay Region. The biggest increase over the three-year period was in Pinellas County (2.60%). Most counties experienced growth in workforce-topopulation ratios from January 2000 to January 2002; the two exceptions are Pasco and Polk counties. When compared to Florida, Hillsborough, Pinellas and Sarasota counties have higher workforce-to-population ratios meaning that a greater percentage of the population contributes to the workforce. Looking at projections for the next two years, Manatee is expected to join that group by January 2004. Chart 3 graphically depicts workforce-topopulation ratio for the Tampa Bay region. Table M3 shows the workforce-topopulation ratio for the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate and its component MSAs, as well as the comparison MSAs. From January 2000 to January 2002 Tampa Bay’s workforce-to-population ratio has remained around 49%, meaning that about half of Tampa Bay’s residents are participating in the labor force. This number is projected to rise slightly over the next couple years as the economy recovers. Jan.2003* Jan.2001Jan.2002 Jan.2000 Char t3TampaBayWorkforce-to-PopulationRatioSource:BureauofLaborandStatistics,FloridaAgencyforWorkforceInnovation;*CEDRProjection 47.0% 47.5% 48.0% 48.5% 49.0% 49.5% 50.0% Jan.2004* 12 Workforce 8 5/6/04, 1:13:05 AM

PAGE 15

T ampaBay SarasotaBradenton,FL MSA T ampaSt.PetersburgClearwater,FL MSA LakelandW interHaven, FLMSA ChartM3A-TampaBayMSA-AggregateWorkforce-to-PopulationRatioSource:BureauofLaborStatistics 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**CEDRProjection Ta mpaBayAtlanta,GA MSA Orlando,FL MSA Charlotte, Gastonia,Rock Hill,NC-SCMSA ChartM3B-SoutheasternWorkforce-to-PopulationRatioComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics 46% 47% 48% 49% 50% 51% 52% 53% 54% 55% 56% Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04** CEDRProjection Chart M3A depicts the workforce-topopulation ratio for the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate and its component MSAs from January 2000 through January 2002 and projected through January 2004. Of the three component MSAs within the T ampa Bay region, Tampa-St.PetersburgClearwater MSA has the highest workforce-to-population ratio (51.14% in January 2002). This is projected to grow to 51.83% by January 2004. Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA has the lowest workforce-topopulation ratio (41.31%). However, this is projected to grow by 2.03% to 43.34% by January 2004. Chart M3B benchmarks the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate with the Southeastern MSAs in the comparison universe. Over the next two years, Atlanta and Orlando are expected to experience declines in the workforce-to-population ratio while Charlotte and Tampa Bay are expected to experience increases. Chart M3C compares the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate with the MSAs (other than the Southeastern MSAs) in the comparison universe. Tampa Bay, Phoenix and San Diego all have similar workforce-topopulation ratios, but Austin’s ratio remains about 8%-10% higher. 13 T ampaBayPhoenix-Mesa, AZMSA SanDiego, CAMSA Austin-San Marcos,TXMSA ChartM3C-SelectedMSAWorkforce-to-PopulationRatioComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04** CEDRProjection Workforce 9 5/6/04, 1:15:03 AM

PAGE 16

Table M4 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Employed WorkersLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03Jan-04* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 190,998 198,682 193,101 206,391 211,793 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 263,633 273,554 279,618 280,397 286,219 Ta mpa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 1,159,832 1,212,223 1,205,603 1,244,882 1,274,596 Tampa Bay 1,614,463 1,684,459 1,678,322 1,731,670 1,772,600 Comparison UniverseAtlanta, GA MSA 2,141,978 2,199,720 2,202,533 2,259,297 2,299,814 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 1,494,507 1,548,637 1,559,425 1,682,420 1,750,169 San Diego, CA MSA 1,326,516 1,363,610 1,391,795 1,419,628 1,452,096 Orlando, FL MSA 846,392 873,012 853,584 893,360 909,588 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 753,032 785,894 760,522 805,201 823,382 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 698,775 736,224 719,493 736,842 749,986 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics ; CEDR Projection Jan.2003 Jan.2001Jan.2002 Jan.2000 Char t4TampaBayRegionEmployedWorkersSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,FloridaAgencyforWorkforceInnovation;*CEDRProjection 1,500,000 1,550,000 1,600,000 1,650,000 1,700,000 1,750,000 1,800,000 Jan.2004* 1,614,463 1,684,459 1,678,322 1,732,185 1,773,303 Table 4 Tampa Bay Region Employed WorkersLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03Jan-04* Hernando 45,855 47,927 47,665 48,357 49,221 Hillsborough 531,599 555,612 552,578 579,579 596,516 Manatee 117,111 121,518 124,212 126,593 129,921 Pasco 131,425 137,361 136,611 143,849 148,246 Pinellas 450,953 471,323 468,749 473,722 481,564 Polk 190,998 198,682 193,101 206,392 211,794 Sarasota 146,522 152,036 155,406 153,693 156,160 Tampa Bay 1,614,463 1,684,459 1,678,322 1,732,185 1,773,303 Florida 7,005,446 7,258,000 7,254,000 7,564,000 7,759,911 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation; CEDR Projection Table 4 reports the number of employed workers residing in Tampa Bay from January 2000 to January 2003 with a projection for January 2004. In January 2003, 60% of all employed workers within Tampa Bay resided in either Hillsborough County or Pinellas County. Chart 4 illustrates the growth in employed workers over the three years ended January 2003. The graph clearly shows the effects of the recession that occurred in 2001 and the rebound that has begun and is projected to continue into the year 2004. Employed Workers14 Workforce 10 5/6/04, 1:33:54 AM

PAGE 17

T ampaBay SarasotaBradenton,FL MSA T ampaSt.PetersburgClearwater,FL MSA LakelandW interHaven, FLMSA ChartM4A-TampaBayMSA-AggregateEmployedWorkersSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**CEDRProjection Ta mpaBayAtlanta,GA MSA Orlando,FL MSA Charlotte, Gastonia,Rock Hill,NC-SCMSA ChartM4B-SoutheasternEmployedWorkersComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04** CEDRProjection T ampaBayPhoenix-Mesa, AZMSA SanDiego, CAMSA Austin-San Marcos,TXMSA ChartM4C-SelectedMSAEmployedWorkersComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**C EDRProjection Table M4 compares number of employed workers for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate with the MSAs in the comparison universe. January 2004 employment is projected to rise in Tampa Bay and all of the other comparison MSAs over their January 2003 levels. This is attributed to a recovering economy with continued job growth. Chart M4A depicts the Tampa Bay region and its component MSAs. As of January 2003, 71.9% of employed workers in Tampa Bay reside within the Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater MSA. By contrast, 11.9% live within the Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA. Chart M4B and Chart M4C benchmark the T ampa Bay MSA-aggregate with other MSAs in the comparison universe. The Ta mpa Bay MSA-aggregate is expected to add 40,930 jobs from January 2003 to January 2004.15 Workforce 11 5/6/04, 1:35:52 AM

PAGE 18

Table 5 distributes employment in the Tampa Bay region by NAICS Sector. We collect data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Covered Employment and Wages (ES202) published by the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation. The ES202 data set is a Bureau of Labor Statisticssponsored 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. CEDR used the last two years of NAICS data (2001 and 2002) to provide a basis of comparison. Data prior to 2001 was reported in SIC codes, making comparisons to future NAICS years problematic. (For more on the conversion from SIC Divisions to NAICS Sectors, see appendix A). An examination of the NAICS data reveals where there has been employment growth or decline. For example, instead of just reporting that employment in Tampa Bay was on the decline from 2001 to 2002, it is more valuable to know that while employment in Manufacturing was down 6.08%, employment in Real Estate, pinpoint where in the Tampa Bay economy growth is occurring and what sectors are contracting. In January 2001, NAICS Sector 56 (“Administrative Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services”) was the largest employer in the Tampa Bay region. Companies in this sector perform routine support activities for the day-to-day operations of other organizations. By January 2002, this was replaced with NAICS Sector 44-45 (“Retail T rade”). Eleven out of the twenty-one NAICS Sectors experienced growth from January 2001 to January 2002; however, total employment in T ampa Bay declined by 1.01%. Employment by Industry Sectors Table 5 Tampa Bay Region Employment by NAICS Sector NAICS Employees Percent Employees Percent Growth Sector code Jan-01of Total Jan-02 of Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 11 33,0572.08% 34,771 2.21% 5.18% Mining 21 2,6610.17% 2,255 0.14% -15.26% Utilities 22 7,8980.50% 7,559 0.48% -4.29% Construction 23 86,4585.44% 90,155 5.73% 4.28% Manufacturing 31-33 119,6737.52% 112,402 7.14% -6.08% Wholesale Trade 42 64,2004.04% 63,079 4.01% -1.75% Retail Trade 44-45 205,44412.92% 204,893 13.01% -0.27% T ransportation & Warehousing 48-49 51,5343.24% 50,390 3.20% -2.22% Information 51 45,2152.84% 42,196 2.68% -6.68% Finance & Insurance 52 84,0465.28% 84,588 5.37% 0.64% Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 53 24,6671.55% 25,982 1.65% 5.33% Professional, Scientific & Technical Svcs. 54 83,7355.26% 81,648 5.19% -2.49% Mgmt. of Companies & Enterprises 55 18,9541.19% 20,632 1.31% 8.85% Administrative & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 225,40314.17% 195,258 12.40% -13.37% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 102,1556.42% 103,529 6.57% 1.35% Health Care & Social Assistance 62 173,17410.89% 182,599 11.60% 5.44% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 71 25,7421.62% 26,628 1.69% 3.44% Accommodation & Food Svcs. 72 113,6337.14% 119,125 7.57% 4.83% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 43,9462.76% 47,423 3.01% 7.91% Public Admin. 92 77,7474.89% 79,019 5.02% 1.64% Unclassified 99 1,2780.08% 493 0.03% -61.42% Totals 1,590,620100.00% 1,574,624 100.00% -1.01%Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment & Wages) data16 Workforce 12 5/6/04, 1:37:56 AM

PAGE 19

Table 5, Panels A through D describe Hernando, Hillsborough Manatee and Pasco counties employment by NAICS Sector. Looking at the January 2002 data, the largest Sector in Hernando is NAICS 44-45 (Retail Trade), which makes up 18.53% of total employment. In Hillsborough and Manatee counties NAICS Sector 56 (Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services) makes up the highest percentage of total employment. In Pasco County the largest sector in January 2002 was Retail Trade, with 18.93% of total employment. Table 5, Panels E through G reports the NAICS Sector employment for Pinellas, Polk and Sarasota counties. In Pinellas County, NAICS Sector 62 (Health Care and Social Assistance) Panel A Hern&o County NAICSEmployed PercentEmployedPercentGrowth Sector codeJan-01of Total Jan-02 of Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 112160.71%2890.92%33.80% Mining 213481.15%3421.09%-1.72% Utilities 221760.58%1850.59%5.11% Construction 232,4037.93%2,2887.26%-4.79% Manufacturing 31-331,2954.27%1,2363.92%-4.56% Wholesale Trade 425961.97%6602.09%10.74% Retail Trade 44-455,67218.71%5,84018.53%2.96% T ransportation & Warehousing 48-492,0376.72%2,1006.66%3.09% Information 512350.78%2300.73%-2.13% Finance & Insurance 529983.29%1,0123.21%1.40% Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 532820.93%3171.01%12.41% Professional, Scientific & Tech. Svcs. 547022.32%8282.63%17.95% Mgmt. of Companies & Enterprises 5520.01%100.03%400.00% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. 561,3194.35%1,5124.80%14.63% & Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 612,7248.99%2,7888.85%2.35% Health Care & Social Assistance 624,60315.19%5,10616.20%10.93% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 715151.70%5791.84%12.43% Accommodation & Food Svcs. 722,5678.47%2,7648.77%7.67% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 811,0113.34%9503.02%-6.03% Public Admin. 922,5898.54%2,4617.81%-4.94% Unclassified 99210.07%120.04%-42.86% Totals 30,311100.00%31,509100.00%3.95% Panel B Hillsborough County NAICSEmployed PercentEmployedPercentGrowth Sector codeJan-01of Total Jan-02 of Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 1113,1702.23%14,6422.46%11.18% Mining 21540.01%770.01%42.59% Utilities 223,3830.57%3,4720.58%2.63% Construction 2329,5334.99%30,6695.15%3.85% Manufacturing 31-3332,8855.56%31,0145.21%-5.69% Wholesale Trade 4229,9395.06%29,0174.87%-3.08% Retail Trade 44-4564,88310.97%66,46811.16%2.44% T ransportation & Warehousing 48-4924,3754.12%23,7053.98%-2.75% Information 5123,3333.94%23,8744.01%2.32% Finance & Insurance 5242,3517.16%42,0097.05%-0.81% Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 5310,3611.75%10,0731.69%-2.78% Professional, Scientific & Tech. Svcs. 5439,1926.63%36,5186.13%-6.82% Mgmt. of Companies & Enterprises 553,2960.56%3,9860.67%20.93% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. 5692,33815.61%93,41115.68%1.16% & Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 6140,3126.81%40,9476.87%1.58% Health Care & Social Assistance 6250,9568.61%53,2268.94%4.45% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 7110,1401.71%9,3441.57%-7.85% Accommodation & Food Svcs. 7239,9966.76%40,6476.82%1.63% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 8114,1972.40%15,7252.64%10.76% Public Admin. 9226,2734.44%26,6444.47%1.41% Unclassified 995540.09%2070.03%-62.64% Totals 591,521100.00%595,675100.00%0.70% Panel C Manatee County NAICS Employed Percent Employed Percent Growth Sector code Jan-01 of Total Jan-02 of Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 6,682 5.66% 6,544 6.23% -2.07% Mining 21 2 0.00% 8 0.01% 300.00% Utilities 22 159 0.13% 163 0.16% 2.52% Construction 23 5,485 4.64% 6,159 5.87% 12.29% Manufacturing 31-33 12,286 10.40% 11,406 10.86% -7.16% Wholesale Trade 42 2,816 2.38% 2,993 2.85% 6.29% Retail Trade 44-45 15,124 12.81% 15,652 14.91% 3.49% Tr ansportation & Warehousing 48-49 1,935 1.64% 1,884 1.79% -2.64% Information 51 1,149 0.97% 1,235 1.18% 7.48% Finance & Insurance 52 1,979 1.68% 2,067 1.97% 4.45% Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 53 1,285 1.09% 1,489 1.42% 15.88% Professional, Scientific & Tech. Svcs. 54 2,612 2.21% 2,740 2.61% 4.90% Mgmt. of Companies & Enterprises 55 1,431 1.21% 1,403 1.34% -1.96% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. 56 31,268 26.48% 16,065 15.30% -48.62% & Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 6,262 5.30% 6,492 6.18% 3.67% Health Care & Social Assistance 62 11,499 9.74% 10,819 10.30% -5.91% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 71 1,284 1.09% 1,714 1.63% 33.49% Accommodation & Food Svcs. 72 6,733 5.70% 7,525 7.17% 11.76% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 2,769 2.34% 3,090 2.94% 11.59% Public Admin. 92 5,302 4.49% 5,487 5.23% 3.49% Unclassified 99 41 0.03% 63 0.06% 53.66% Totals 118,103 100.00% 104,998 100.00% -11.10% Panel D Pasco County NAICS Employed Percent Employed Percent Growth Sector code Jan-01 of Total Jan-02 of Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 1,795 2.37% 1,890 2.42% 5.29% Mining 21 45 0.06% 33 0.04% -26.67% Utilities 22 629 0.83% 713 0.91% 13.35% Construction 23 6,169 8.15% 6,301 8.06% 2.14% Manufacturing 31-33 3,013 3.98% 3,263 4.18% 8.30% Wholesale Trade 42 1,551 2.05% 1,678 2.15% 8.19% Retail Trade 44-45 14,682 19.39% 14,798 18.93% 0.79% Tr ansportation & Warehousing 48-49 1,438 1.90% 1,398 1.79% -2.78% Information 51 741 0.98% 663 0.85% -10.53% Finance & Insurance 52 2,208 2.92% 1,992 2.55% -9.78% Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 53 1,170 1.55% 1,155 1.48% -1.28% Professional, Scientific & Tech. Svcs. 54 2,554 3.37% 2,666 3.41% 4.39% Mgmt. of Companies & Enterprises 55 132 0.17% 164 0.21% 24.24% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. 56 3,622 4.78% 3,504 4.48% -3.26% & Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 8,453 11.16% 9,006 11.52% 6.54% Health Care & Social Assistance 62 12,003 15.85% 12,348 15.80% 2.87% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 71 893 1.18% 1,149 1.47% 28.67% Accommodation & Food Svcs. 72 6,822 9.01% 7,487 9.58% 9.75% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 2,841 3.75% 2,902 3.71% 2.15% Public Admin. 92 4,930 6.51% 4,992 6.39% 1.26% Unclassified 99 35 0.05% 52 0.07% 48.57% Totals 75,726 100.00% 78,154 100.00% 3.21%Table 5 (Panels A through D) has the largest percentage of total employment at 13.95%. Polk County experienced a 19.19% decline in NAICS Sector 21 (Mining). It’s largest employment growth came in NAICS Sector 71 (Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation). Sarasota’s largest employment growth came from NAICS Sector 56 (Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services), which is now the county’s largest sector at 15.74% of total employment. Table M5 shows Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate employment by NAICS Sector. In January 2002, the largest percentage of employment came from the Retail Trade Sector (13.02%). The smallest was Mining (0.03%). 17 Workforce 13 5/6/04, 1:39:41 AM

PAGE 20

18 Table M5 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Employment by Industry Sectors NAICSEmployeesPercentEmployeesPercentGrowth Sector codeJan-01of TotalJan-02of Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 1133,0572.08%34,7342.21%5.07% Mining 212,6610.17%4820.03%-81.89% Utilities 227,8980.50%7,6030.48%-3.74% Construction 2386,4585.44%89,7015.71%3.75% Manufacturing 31-33119,6737.52%112,2917.15%-6.17% Wholesale Trade 4264,2004.04%63,0974.02%-1.72% Retail Trade 44-45205,44412.92%204,33513.02%-0.54% T ransportation & Warehousing 48-4951,5343.24%50,2603.20%-2.47% Information 5145,2152.84%42,2782.69%-6.50% Finance & Insurance 5284,0465.28%85,2985.43%1.49% Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 5324,6671.55%25,9401.65%5.16% Professional, Scientific & Technical Svcs. 5483,7355.26%81,9255.22%-2.16% Mgmt. of Companies & Enterprises 5518,9541.19%20,6311.31%8.85% Administrative & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56225,40314.17%194,83312.41%-13.56% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61102,1556.42%103,4196.59%1.24% Health Care & Social Assistance 62173,17410.89%181,05311.53%4.55% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 7125,7421.62%26,3471.68%2.35% Accommodation & Food Svcs. 72113,6337.14%118,9797.58%4.70% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 8143,9462.76%47,2483.01%7.51% Public Admin. 9277,7474.89%79,0195.03%1.64% Unclassified 991,2780.08%4930.03%-61.42% Totals 1,590,620100.00%1,569,966100.00%-1.30%Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment & Wages) data Panel E Pinellas County NAICS Employed Percent Employed Percent Growth Sector code Jan-01 of Total Jan-02 of Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 321 0.07% 498 0.12% 55.14% Mining 21 5 0.00% 6 0.00% 20.00% Utilities 22 2,420 0.55% 1,957 0.46% -19.13% Construction 23 20,910 4.72% 21,648 5.14% 3.53% Manufacturing 31-33 44,222 9.98% 40,157 9.53% -9.19% Wholesale Trade 42 17,799 4.02% 16,819 3.99% -5.51% Retail Trade 44-45 55,943 12.62% 54,301 12.88% -2.94% T ransportation & Warehousing 48-49 8,085 1.82% 7,154 1.70% -11.52% Information 51 14,272 3.22% 10,785 2.56% -24.43% Finance & Insurance 52 22,532 5.08% 22,830 5.42% 1.32% Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 53 6,844 1.54% 7,694 1.83% 12.42% Professional, Scientific & Tech. Svcs. 54 25,135 5.67% 25,274 6.00% 0.55% Mgmt. of Companies & Enterprises 55 8,325 1.88% 9,241 2.19% 11.00% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. 56 66,174 14.93% 45,242 10.73% -31.63% & Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 23,378 5.28% 23,351 5.54% -0.12% Health Care & Social Assistance 62 54,622 12.33% 58,826 13.95% 7.70% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 71 5,962 1.35% 6,330 1.50% 6.17% Accommodation & Food Svcs. 72 32,474 7.33% 34,583 8.20% 6.49% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 12,887 2.91% 14,073 3.34% 9.20% Public Admin. 92 20,416 4.61% 20,676 4.90% 1.27% Unclassified 99 409 0.09% 130 0.03% -68.22% Totals 443,135 100.00% 421,575 100.00% -4.87% Panel F Polk County NAICS Employed Percent Employed Percent Growth Sector code Jan-01 of Total Jan-02 of Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 10,556 5.63% 10,549 5.55% -0.07% Mining 21 2,194 1.17% 1,773 0.93% -19.19% Utilities 22 528 0.28% 488 0.26% -7.58% Construction 23 11,124 5.93% 11,349 5.97% 2.02% Manufacturing 31-33 17,710 9.44% 16,914 8.90% -4.49% Wholesale Trade 42 8,086 4.31% 8,207 4.32% 1.50% Retail Trade 44-45 26,869 14.32% 25,832 13.60% -3.86% Tr ansportation & Warehousing 48-49 11,348 6.05% 11,796 6.21% 3.95% Information 51 2,368 1.26% 2,510 1.32% 6.00% Finance & Insurance 52 7,378 3.93% 7,856 4.14% 6.48% Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 53 2,235 1.19% 2,472 1.30% 10.60% Professional, Scientific & Tech. Svcs. 54 6,030 3.21% 5,529 2.91% -8.31% Mgmt. of Companies & Enterprises 55 5,558 2.96% 5,579 2.94% 0.38% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. 56 11,212 5.98% 11,489 6.05% 2.47% & Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 14,523 7.74% 14,048 7.39% -3.27% Health Care & Social Assistance 62 19,353 10.32% 21,163 11.14% 9.35% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 71 2,706 1.44% 3,141 1.65% 16.08% Accommodation & Food Svcs. 72 11,410 6.08% 12,440 6.55% 9.03% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 4,171 2.22% 4,391 2.31% 5.27% Public Admin. 92 12,194 6.50% 12,430 6.54% 1.94% Unclassified 99 66 0.04% 20 0.01% -69.70% Totals 187,619 100.00% 189,976 100.00% 1.26%Table 5 (Panels E through G) NAICS Employed Percent Employed Percent Growth Sector code Jan-01 of Total Jan-02 of Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 317 0.22% 359 0.24% 13.25% Mining 21 13 0.01% 16 0.01% 23.08% Utilities 22 603 0.42% 581 0.38% -3.65% Construction 23 10,834 7.51% 11,741 7.69% 8.37% Manufacturing 31-33 8,262 5.73% 8,412 5.51% 1.82% Wholesale Trade 42 3,413 2.37% 3,705 2.43% 8.56% Retail Trade 44-45 22,271 15.44% 22,002 14.41% -1.21% T ransportation & Warehousing 48-49 2,316 1.61% 2,353 1.54% 1.60% Information 51 3,117 2.16% 2,899 1.90% -6.99% Finance & Insurance 52 6,600 4.58% 6,822 4.47% 3.36% Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 53 2,490 1.73% 2,782 1.82% 11.73% Professional, Scientific & Tech. Svcs. 54 7,510 5.21% 8,093 5.30% 7.76% NAICS Employed Percent Employed Percent Growth Sector code Jan-01 of Total Jan-02 of Total 01-02 Mgmt. of Companies & Enterprises 55 210 0.15% 249 0.16% 18.57% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. 56 19,470 13.50% 24,035 15.74% 23.45% & Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 6,503 4.51% 6,897 4.52% 6.06% Health Care & Social Assistance 62 20,138 13.96% 21,111 13.82% 4.83% Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 71 4,242 2.94% 4,371 2.86% 3.04% Accommodation & Food Svcs. 72 13,631 9.45% 13,679 8.96% 0.35% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 6,070 4.21% 6,292 4.12% 3.66% Public Admin. 92 6,043 4.19% 6,329 4.14% 4.73% Unclassified 99 152 0.11% 9 0.01% -94.08% Totals 144,205 100.00% 152,737 100.00% 5.92% Panel G Sarasota County Workforce 14 5/6/04, 1:41:37 AM

PAGE 21

Unemployed Workers Table 6 Tampa Bay Region Unemployed WorkersLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03Jan-04* Hernando 1,865 2,270 2,586 2,750 3,130 Hillsborough 16,141 15,930 24,655 28,131 33,853 Manatee 2,476 3,948 4,616 5,370 6,951 Pasco 4,457 5,647 7,472 8,482 10,511 Pinellas 13,668 14,109 22,956 24,599 29,922 Polk 8,581 10,052 11,683 12,406 14,028 Sarasota 3,911 3,885 5,518 5,864 6,712 Tampa Bay 51,099 55,841 79,486 87,602 104,845 Florida 283,433 304,000 432,000 448,808 523,115 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation CEDR Projection Table M6 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Unemployed WorkersLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03Jan-04* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 8,581 10,052 11,683 12,406 14,028 Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 6,387 7,833 10,134 11,234 13,561 T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 36,131 37,956 57,699 63,961 77,374 Tampa Bay 51,099 55,841 79,516 87,601 104,843 Comparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA 62,769 61,608 100,414 112,497 136,649 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 44,761 42,966 89,983 91,342 115,858 San Diego, CA MSA 41,759 40,537 60,322 66,154 77,118 Orlando, FL MSA 23,755 26,241 53,620 51,214 66,161 Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 23,331 34,398 53,211 53,037 69,737 Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 16,421 15,692 40,852 44,536 62,108 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics CEDR Projection Jan.2003 Jan.2001Jan.2002 Jan.2000 Char t6TampaBayRegionUnemployedWorkersSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,FloridaAgencyforWorkforceInnovation;*CEDRProjection 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 Jan.2004* 51,099 55,841 79,486 87,602 104,845 Table 6 reports the number of unemployed workers in the Tampa Bay region from January 2000 to January 2003 and projected for January 2004. Indicative of the recent national recession, the number of unemployed workers has risen in T ampa Bay by 71.4% from January 2000 to January 2003. This includes a 42.3% spike from January 2001 to January 2002. During January 2003 Tampa Bay region unemployment made up 19.5% of total unemployment in Florida. Chart 6 graphs the number of unemployed workers in the Tampa Bay region from January 2000 and projected through January 2004. CEDR projects that by 19 Workforce 15 5/6/04, 1:43:35 AM

PAGE 22

January 2004 Tampa Bay will have more than double the number of unemployed workers than it did in January 2000. Table M6 shows the number of unemployed persons for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and the other MSAs in the comparison universe. The 2001 and 2002 unemployment data provides further evidence of the 2001 national recession. For that period (January 2001-January 2002) the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate had the lowest growth in total unemployment at 42.40%. Austin-San Marcos experienced the largest jump in unemployment at 160.34%. Chart M6A illustrates the changes in unemployment in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate and its components. Of the three component MSAs, Lakeland-Winter Haven saw the lowest growth in unemployed persons from January 2000 to January 2003 (44.58%). T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater saw the largest (77.03%). Chart M6B graphs the number of unemployed persons for the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate and other selected MSAs in the comparison universe. While the economy has begun to recover, the selected MSAs are still projected to lose more jobs by January 2004. Chart M6C compares the Tampa Bay region with Phoenix, San Diego and Austin in terms of unemployed workers. Phoenix has slightly more unemployed workers than Tampa Bay, despite Tampa Bay’s larger labor force and population. T ampaBay SarasotaBradenton,FL MSA T ampaSt.PetersburgClearwater,FL MSA LakelandW interHaven, FLMSA ChartM6A-TampaBayMSA-AggregateUnemployedWorkersSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**CEDRProjection Ta mpaBayAtlanta,GA MSA Orlando,FL MSA Charlotte, Gastonia,Rock Hill,NC-SCMSA ChartM6B-SoutheasternUnemployedWorkersComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04** CEDRProjection T ampaBayPhoenix-Mesa, AZMSA SanDiego, CAMSA Austin-San Marcos,TXMSA ChartM6C-SelectedMSAUnemployedWorkersComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**C EDRProjection 20 Workforce 16 5/6/04, 1:45:31 AM

PAGE 23

Table 7 reports the change in unemployment rate for the seven counties of the T ampa Bay region between January 2000 and January 2003 with projections for January 2004. Over this time period, Tampa Bay’s unemployment rate has remained consistently lower than the unemployment rate for Florida. This is expected to continue into 2004. As of January 2003, Sarasota County had the lowest unemployment rate in T ampa Bay (3.68%) and Polk County had the highest (5.67%). Chart 7 graphically depicts unemployment rate for the Tampa Bay region. Table M7 gives unemployment rates for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate as well as other MSAs in the comparison universe. T ampa Bay’s unemployment rate compares favorably with the other MSAs, with only San Diego and Atlanta having slightly lower unemployment rates as of January 2003. The highest rate is in Charlotte (6.2%) where unemployment rates have more than doubled since January 2000. Table 7 Tampa Bay Region Unemployment RateLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03Jan-04* Hernando3.91%4.52%5.15%5.38%5.98% Hillsborough2.95%2.79%4.27%4.63%5.38% Manatee2.07%3.15%3.58%4.07%5.10% Pasco3.28%3.95%5.19%5.57%6.65% Pinellas2.94%2.91%4.67%4.94%5.87% Polk4.30%4.82%5.71%5.67%6.22% Sarasota2.60%2.49%3.43%3.68%4.13% Tampa Bay3.07%3.21%4.52%4.81%5.59% Florida3.89%4.02%5.62%5.60%6.32%Source: CEDR calculation based on Bureau of Labor Statistics, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation data; *CEDR Projection Table M7 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Unemployment RateLocationJan-00Jan-01Jan-02Jan-03Jan-04* Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA4.3%4.8%5.7%5.7%6.3% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA2.4%2.8%3.5%3.9%4.6% T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA3.0%3.0%4.6%4.9%5.8% Tampa Bay3.1%3.2%4.5%4.8%5.6% Comparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA2.8%2.7%4.4%4.7%5.6% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA2.9%2.7%5.5%5.2%6.3% San Diego, CA MSA3.1%2.9%4.2%4.5%5.1% Orlando, FL MSA2.7%2.9%5.9%5.4%6.8% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA3.0%4.2%6.5%6.2%7.9% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA2.3%2.1%5.4%5.7%7.7%Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered Employment Statistics *CEDR Projection Jan.2003 Jan.2001Jan.2002 Jan.2000 Char t7TampaBayRegionUnemploymentRateSource:CEDRcalculationbasedonBureauofLaborStatistics,FloridaAgencyforWorkforceInnovationdata CEDRProjection 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Jan.2004* 3.07% 3.21% 4.52% 4.81% 5.59%A verage7-Countyincreaseis084%peryear. A verageFloridaincreaseis0.57%peryear. 21 Unemployment Rate Workforce 17 5/6/04, 1:47:30 AM

PAGE 24

Ta mpaBayAtlanta,GA MSA Orlando,FL MSA Charlotte, Gastonia,Rock Hill,NC-SCMSA ChartM7B-SoutheasternUnemploymentRateComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**C EDRProjection T ampaBay SarasotaBradenton,FL MSA T ampaSt.PetersburgClearwater,FL MSA LakelandW interHaven, FLMSA ChartM7A-TampaBayMSA-AggregateUnemploymentRateSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**CEDRProjection T ampaBayPhoenix-Mesa, AZMSA SanDiego, CAMSA Austin-San Marcos,TXMSA ChartM7C-SelectedMSAUnemploymentRateComparisionSource:BureauofLaborStatistics,CoveredEmploymentStatistics 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% Jan'00 Jan'01 Jan'02 Jan'03 Jan'04**CEDRPro jection Chart M7A shows the three MSAs of the T ampa Bay region and their corresponding unemployment rates. Unemployment rates in Tampa Bay closely follow the rise in unemployment rates in Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater. Chart M7B compares the Tampa Bay MSAaggregate unemployment rate with that of the Southeastern MSAs in the comparison universe. In January 2003, Tampa Bay’s unemployment rate was 4.8%, an increase of 1.7% from January 2000 levels. Chart M7C benchmarks Tampa Bay against the MSAs (other than the Southeastern MSAs) in the comparison universe. As of January 2003, only San Diego had a lower unemployment rate (4.5%) than Tampa Bay. 22 Workforce 18 5/6/04, 1:49:23 AM

PAGE 25

2 3 23 T ampa Bay Region Wages & IncomeThis section reports wages and income data for the Tampa Bay region by county and for the T ampa Bay MSA-aggregate by MSA. The MSA data compare Tampa Bay against metropolitan areas in the southeast Atlanta, Charlotte, and Orlando and other selected MSAs Austin, San Diego, and Phoenix. Additionally, Florida’s disposable income is benchmarked against Arizona, North Carolina and Texas. As of January 2002 the weighted-average annual wage in the Tampa Bay region had risen to $31,536 for a 2.48% growth rate from January 2001. The highest average annual wage is earned in the Utilities Sector (NAICS 22) at $56,762. The Manufacturing Sector had average annual wages of $38,295, while the Accommodation and Food Services Sector had average annual wages of $13,483 (the lowest). Personal income is the current income received by persons from all sources, including investment income and transfer payments, minus their personal contributions for social insurance. The data is based on place of residence. Personal income includes both monetary income (including non-paycheck income, such as employer contributions to pensions) and non-monetary income (such as food stamps and net rental value to owneroccupants 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 only covers non-farm, civilian employees. Per capita personal income in the Tampa Bay region grew by 8.32% from 1999 to 2001. Looking at the MSAs in the comparison universe, San Diego had the highest growth in per capita personal income (11.74%) and Austin had the lowest (3.11%). 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. Tampa Bay’s disposable personal income grew by 5.69% annually from 1999 to 2001. A disposable personal income factor is the percentage of personal income remaining after certain tax and non-tax payments, as delineated above, are subtracted from personal income. The greater the factor, the more spending power for people of a geographic region relative to their personal incomes. In 2001, Florida’s personal income factor was .864 a decline of 0.30% from 1999. Of our comparison states, Texas has the highest disposable personal income factor (.878) and North Carolina has the lowest (.862). Wages & Income 1 5/6/04, 2:10:20 AM

PAGE 26

W ages by Industry SectorTable 8 reports average annual wages in the T ampa Bay region by NAICS Sector for January 2001 and January 2002. Only three NAICS sectors experienced a decline in average annual wage (NAICS 11, 71 and 81). Panels A through G breakdown wages by county for each NAICS Sector. Each county experienced an increase in average annual wages, T able 8 Tampa Bay Region Wages by NAICS SectorSector NAICS code A vg. Annual Wa ge Jan-01 % of Total Employed A vg. Annual Wa ge Jan-02 % of Total Employed Growth 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting11$15,5682.08%$15,3092.21%-1.66% Mining21$46,1010.17%$47,2190.14%2.43% Utilities22$55,5470.50%$56,7620.48%2.19% Construction23$33,0215.44%$33,2305.73%0.63% Manufacturing31-33$36,8757.52%$38,2957.14%3.85% Wholesale Trade42$43,4764.04%$43,8754.01%0.92% Retail Trade44-45$22,93112.92%$23,73413.01%3.50% T ransportation and Warehousing48-49$34,6033.24%$36,0753.20%4.25% Information 51$45,5892.84%$46,4672.68%1.93% Finance and Insurance52$44,7375.28%$46,7725.37%4.55% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing53$28,9661.55%$29,9231.65%3.30% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs.54$47,4965.26%$47,7825.19%0.60% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises55$53,3451.19%$54,9371.31%2.98% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & Remediation Svcs. 56$22,55514.17%$22,72012.40%0.73% Educational Svcs.61$30,0086.42%$30,6386.57%2.10% Health Care and Social Assistance62$33,72110.89%$34,90011.60%3.50% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation71$22,6971.62%$22,3371.69%-1.59% Accommodation and Food Svcs.72$13,2377.14%$13,4837.57%1.86% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.)81$21,8872.76%$21,8233.01%-0.29% Public Admin.92$34,9684.89%$36,4435.02%4.22% Unclassified99$28,2600.08%$30,2730.03%7.12% T otals$30,772100.00%$31,536100.00%2.48% Source: State of Florida ES202 (Covered Employment and Wages) data A vg. annual wages for Tampa Bay are the weighted Avg. (by population) of all 7 counties Panel A Hernando County NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employed Wage Jan-02 Employed 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $22,634 0.71% $21,540 0.92% -4.83% Mining 21 $37,040 1.15% $38,372 1.09% 3.60% Utilities 22 $39,843 0.58% $38,649 0.59% -3.00% Construction 23 $23,822 7.93% $22,739 7.26% -4.55% Manufacturing 31-33 $30,386 4.27% $35,821 3.92% 17.89% Wholesale Trade 42 $29,849 1.97% $30,977 2.09% 3.78% Retail Trade 44-45 $18,063 18.71% $18,330 18.53% 1.48% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $32,107 6.72% $33,051 6.66% 2.94% Information 51 $31,626 0.78% $33,292 0.73% 5.27% Finance and Insurance 52 $35,926 3.29% $38,648 3.21% 7.58% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $18,926 0.93% $18,304 1.01% -3.29% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $30,160 2.32% $27,801 2.63% -7.82% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $21,500 0.01% $44,185 0.03% 105.51% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $16,655 4.35% $19,424 4.80% 16.63% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 $28,115 8.99% $27,481 8.85% -2.26% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $31,518 15.19% $31,505 16.20% -0.04% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $13,420 1.70% $11,380 1.84% -15.20% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $9,708 8.47% $10,196 8.77% 5.03% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $15,326 3.34% $15,646 3.02% 2.09% Public Admin. 92 $33,652 8.54% $34,241 7.81% 1.75% Unclassified 99 $25,148 0.07% $38,905 0.04% 54.70% Totals $24,924 100.00% $25,293 100.00% 1.48% Panel B Hillsborough County NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employed Wage Jan-02 Employed 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $14,520 2.23% $14,061 2.46% -3.16% Mining 21 $55,518 0.01% $48,759 0.01% -12.17% Utilities 22 $60,771 0.57% $63,042 0.58% 3.74% Construction 23 $36,321 4.99% $35,858 5.15% -1.27% Manufacturing 31-33 $35,403 5.56% $36,652 5.21% 3.53% Wholesale Trade 42 $45,184 5.06% $45,647 4.87% 1.02% Retail Trade 44-45 $24,119 10.97% $25,195 11.16% 4.46% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $37,044 4.12% $38,662 3.98% 4.37% Information 51 $51,315 3.94% $53,234 4.01% 3.74% Finance and Insurance 52 $45,089 7.16% $46,316 7.05% 2.72% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $33,848 1.75% $36,051 1.69% 6.51% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $52,522 6.63% $54,500 6.13% 3.77% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $60,468 0.56% $70,011 0.67% 15.78% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $21,897 15.61% $24,023 15.68% 9.71% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 $30,538 6.81% $30,897 6.87% 1.18% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $36,215 8.61% $37,602 8.94% 3.83% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $30,167 1.71% $30,789 1.57% 2.06% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $14,186 6.76% $13,987 6.82% -1.40% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $24,949 2.40% $23,934 2.64% -4.07% Public Admin. 92 $36,357 4.44% $37,948 4.47% 4.38% Unclassified 99 $27,656 0.09% $30,602 0.03% 10.65% Totals $32,914 100.00% $33,895 100.00% 2.98% 24with Manatee experiencing the fastest growth (7.29%) and Pinellas experiencing the slowest growth (1.04%). As of January 2002, the highest wages in the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate are paid in the Utilities Sector (NAICS 22) at $56,762 annually. By contrast, the lowest average annual wages are paid in the Accomodation and Food Services Sector (NAICS 72) at $13,483. Wages & Income 2 5/6/04, 2:12:19 AM

PAGE 27

Panel C Manatee County NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employment Wage Jan-02 Employment 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $13,088 5.66% $13,340 6.23% 1.93% Mining 21 $19,488 0.00% $18,874 0.01% -3.15% Utilities 22 $52,484 0.13% $57,106 0.16% 8.81% Construction 23 $32,694 4.64% $34,769 5.87% 6.35% Manufacturing 31-33 $39,371 10.40% $41,928 10.86% 6.49% Wholesale Trade 42 $40,768 2.38% $43,542 2.85% 6.80% Retail Trade 44-45 $20,652 12.81% $21,424 14.91% 3.74% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $35,425 1.64% $37,685 1.79% 6.38% Information 51 $34,888 0.97% $36,409 1.18% 4.36% Finance and Insurance 52 $38,729 1.68% $39,953 1.97% 3.16% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $22,912 1.09% $24,491 1.42% 6.89% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $38,709 2.21% $38,824 2.61% 0.30% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $51,264 1.21% $52,295 1.34% 2.01% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $21,886 26.48% $24,529 15.30% 12.08% Remediation Svcs Educational Svcs. 61 $30,270 5.30% $30,614 6.18% 1.14% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $30,110 9.74% $32,335 10.30% 7.39% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $22,162 1.09% $21,580 1.63% -2.63% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $12,747 5.70% $12,813 7.17% 0.52% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $21,018 2.34% $20,601 2.94% -1.98% Public Admin. 92 $32,786 4.49% $33,972 5.23% 3.62% Unclassified 99 $25,587 0.03% $30,769 0.06% 20.25% Totals $26,610 100.00% $28,549 100.00% 7.29% Panel D Pasco County NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employment Wage Jan-02 Employment 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $18,726 2.37% $18,103 2.42% -3.33% Mining 21 $27,901 0.06% $29,434 0.04% 5.49% Utilities 22 $46,154 0.83% $44,693 0.91% -3.17% Construction 23 $25,265 8.15% $25,867 8.06% 2.38% Manufacturing 31-33 $28,688 3.98% $31,410 4.18% 9.49% Wholesale Trade 42 $30,357 2.05% $29,852 2.15% -1.66% Retail Trade 44-45 $19,173 19.39% $20,301 18.93% 5.88% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $28,909 1.90% $30,846 1.79% 6.70% Information 51 $31,666 0.98% $32,851 0.85% 3.74% Finance and Insurance 52 $31,211 2.92% $35,373 2.55% 13.34% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $19,728 1.55% $20,323 1.48% 3.02% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $29,136 3.37% $29,990 3.41% 2.93% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $35,081 0.17% $40,215 0.21% 14.63% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $17,949 4.78% $18,551 4.48% 3.35% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 $26,984 11.16% $29,648 11.52% 9.87% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $32,716 15.85% $33,955 15.80% 3.79% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $11,693 1.18% $11,083 1.47% -5.22% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $11,744 9.01% $11,696 9.58% -0.41% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $19,112 3.75% $19,663 3.71% 2.88% Public Admin. 92 $31,489 6.51% $32,679 6.39% 3.78% Unclassified 99 $20,017 0.05% $25,436 0.07% 27.07% Totals $24,529 100.00% $25,610 100.00% 4.41% Panel E Pinellas County NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employment Wage Jan-02 Employment 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $23,430 0.07% $18,961 0.12% -19.07% Mining 21 $29,424 0.00% $36,135 0.00% 22.81% Utilities 22 $56,103 0.55% $55,414 0.46% -1.23% Construction 23 $32,552 4.72% $33,661 5.14% 3.41% Manufacturing 31-33 $38,461 9.98% $39,780 9.53% 3.43% Wholesale Trade 42 $47,561 4.02% $47,459 3.99% -0.21% Retail Trade 44-45 $23,782 12.62% $24,321 12.88% 2.27% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $32,859 1.82% $34,133 1.70% 3.88% Information 51 $40,804 3.22% $36,245 2.56% -11.17% Finance and Insurance 52 $46,672 5.08% $49,973 5.42% 7.07% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $27,575 1.54% $27,916 1.83% 1.24% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $46,193 5.67% $44,088 6.00% -4.56% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $59,691 1.88% $57,382 2.19% -3.87% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $24,244 14.93% $21,776 10.73% -10.18% Remediation Svcs Educational Svcs. 61 $30,702 5.28% $31,157 5.54% 1.48% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $33,045 12.33% $33,614 13.95% 1.72% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $18,396 1.35% $18,235 1.50% -0.88% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $13,196 7.33% $14,244 8.20% 7.94% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $20,953 2.91% $21,584 3.34% 3.01% Public Admin. 92 $36,311 4.61% $37,995 4.90% 4.64% Unclassified 99 $32,853 0.09% $31,723 0.03% -3.44% Totals $31,905 100.00% $32,236 100.00% 1.04%Panel F Polk County NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employment Wage Jan-02 Employment 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $17,360 5.63% $17,199 5.55% -0.93% Mining 21 $47,761 1.17% $49,462 0.93% 3.56% Utilities 22 $50,910 0.28% $56,170 0.26% 10.33% Construction 23 $32,206 5.93% $31,763 5.97% -1.38% Manufacturing 31-33 $37,140 9.44% $38,595 8.90% 3.92% Wholesale Trade 42 $33,933 4.31% $35,092 4.32% 3.42% Retail Trade 44-45 $22,542 14.32% $23,307 13.60% 3.39% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $32,076 6.05% $33,707 6.21% 5.08% Information 51 $35,959 1.26% $39,562 1.32% 10.02% Finance and Insurance 52 $36,466 3.93% $37,702 4.14% 3.39% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $24,567 1.19% $25,640 1.30% 4.37% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $39,268 3.21% $41,324 2.91% 5.24% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $39,736 2.96% $41,199 2.94% 3.68% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $25,248 5.98% $19,906 6.05% -21.16% Remediation Svcs Educational Svcs. 61 $26,913 7.74% $27,536 7.39% 2.31% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $31,841 10.32% $35,168 11.14% 10.45% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $17,768 1.44% $18,204 1.65% 2.45% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $10,903 6.08% $10,785 6.55% -1.08% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $20,873 2.22% $20,726 2.31% -0.70% Public Admin. 92 $31,943 6.50% $33,494 6.54% 4.86% Unclassified 99 $26,569 0.04% $26,575 0.01% 0.02% Totals $28,690 100.00% $29,339 100.00% 2.26% Panel G Sarasota County NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employment Wage Jan-02 Employment 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $21,100 0.22% $21,799 0.24% 3.31% Mining 21 $42,795 0.01% $35,342 0.01% -17.42% Utilities 22 $43,259 0.42% $44,751 0.38% 3.45% Construction 23 $32,389 7.51% $32,178 7.69% -0.65% Manufacturing 31-33 $33,968 5.73% $34,762 5.51% 2.34% Wholesale Trade 42 $40,376 2.37% $42,101 2.43% 4.27% Retail Trade 44-45 $23,064 15.44% $23,757 14.41% 3.00% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $32,419 1.61% $32,311 1.54% -0.33% Information 51 $40,258 2.16% $43,190 1.90% 7.28% Finance and Insurance 52 $52,783 4.58% $55,917 4.47% 5.94% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $25,028 1.73% $25,306 1.82% 1.11% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $43,154 5.21% $44,355 5.30% 2.78% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $76,155 0.15% $55,737 0.16% -26.81% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. &. 56 $20,719 13.50% $20,388 15.74% -1.60% Remediation Svcs Educational Svcs. 61 $35,610 4.51% $36,253 4.52% 1.81% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $34,217 13.96% $34,095 13.82% -0.36% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $17,632 2.94% $17,884 2.86% 1.43% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $14,157 9.45% $14,523 8.96% 2.59% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $20,190 4.21% $20,377 4.12% 0.93% Public Admin. 92 $35,808 4.19% $36,796 4.14% 2.76% Unclassified 99 $21,890 0.11% $22,932 0.01% 4.76% Totals $29,137 100.00% $29,510 100.00% 1.28% 25 Wages & Income 3 5/6/04, 2:14:35 AM

PAGE 28

26 Panel A Atlanta, GA MSA NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employed Wage Jan-02 Employed 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $29,081 0.14% ND ND ND Mining 21 $41,108 0.08% ND ND ND Utilities 22 $72,590 5.62% ND ND ND Construction 23 $40,237 8.55% ND ND ND Manufacturing 31-33 $44,616 6.68% $45,116 8.00% 1.12% Wholesale Trade 42 $57,053 11.85% ND ND ND Retail Trade 44-45 $24,870 5.03% $25,033 11.65% 0.66% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $47,741 0.48% ND ND ND Information 51 ND ND $62,577 4.85% ND Finance and Insurance 52 $62,352 4.75% $64,164 4.81% 2.91% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $39,521 1.79% $40,711 1.87% 3.01% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $61,826 6.82% ND ND ND Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 ND ND ND ND ND Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 ND ND ND ND ND Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 $31,775 1.04% ND ND ND Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $36,809 7.23% ND ND ND Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $32,058 1.06% $35,278 1.06% 10.04% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $15,184 7.89% $15,326 8.00% 0.94% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $26,503 2.71% $27,141 2.79% 2.41% Public Admin. 92 $36,820 12.70% ND ND ND Unclassified 99 ND ND $37,754 0.33% ND Totals $40,559 100.00% $41,116 100.00% 1.37% Panel B Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employed Wage Jan-02 Employed 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $19,310 0.09% $19,918 0.10% 3.15% Mining 21 $52,096 0.25% $47,818 0.27% -8.21% Utilities 22 $56,449 0.19% $54,541 0.21% -3.38% Construction 23 $37,402 6.00% $37,678 5.65% 0.74% Manufacturing 31-33 $64,188 11.46% $64,351 9.72% 0.25% Wholesale Trade 42 $91,552 5.34% $68,633 5.19% -25.03% Retail Trade 44-45 $24,143 10.56% $24,212 10.58% 0.29% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $31,450 1.44% $31,576 1.47% 0.40% Information 51 $62,338 3.44% $60,969 3.50% -2.20% Finance and Insurance 52 $49,349 3.78% $51,028 4.03% 3.40% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $31,663 1.56% $31,516 1.64% -0.46% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 ND ND $62,635 6.73% ND Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $43,199 0.43% ND ND ND Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 ND ND ND ND ND Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 ND ND ND ND ND Health Care and Social Assistance 62 ND ND ND ND ND Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $19,021 1.11% $19,969 1.12% 4.98% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $14,055 8.13% $14,220 8.41% 1.17% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $28,158 3.18% $28,592 3.32% 1.54% Public Admin. 92 $40,902 1.53% ND ND ND Unclassified 99 $37,290 0.08% $37,891 0.11% 1.61% Totals $40,831 100.00% $39,538 100.00% -3.17% Panel C Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employed Wage Jan-02 Employed 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $28,666 0.22% ND ND ND Mining 21 $43,001 0.09% ND ND ND Utilities 22 ND ND ND ND ND Construction 23 $36,081 6.60% $36,766 6.54% 1.90% Manufacturing 31-33 $39,984 14.82% $41,879 14.30% 4.74% Wholesale Trade 42 ND ND $45,396 6.03% ND Retail Trade 44-45 $23,406 11.13% $23,610 10.98% 0.87% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $43,612 4.22% ND ND ND Information 51 ND ND $51,873 3.03% ND Finance and Insurance 52 $64,993 4.89% $68,526 6.35% 5.44% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $36,748 1.54% $37,332 1.58% 1.59% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 ND ND ND ND ND Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 ND ND ND ND ND Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $22,378 7.08% $24,055 6.90% 7.49% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 $28,683 0.83% $28,885 0.86% 0.70% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $36,124 6.42% $36,652 6.83% 1.46% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $31,362 1.54% $33,080 1.47% 5.48% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $13,027 7.07% $13,114 7.14% 0.67% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 ND ND $24,151 2.94% ND Public Admin. 92 $34,484 12.16% ND ND ND Unclassified 99 ND ND $28,867 0.05% ND Totals $37,267 100.00% $38,382 100.00% 2.99% Panel D Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employed Wage Jan-02 Employed 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $17,360 5.63% $17,192 5.61% -0.97% Mining 21 $47,761 1.17% ND ND ND Utilities 22 $50,910 0.28% $56,115 0.26% 10.22% Construction 23 $32,206 5.93% $31,885 6.05% -1.00% Manufacturing 31-33 $37,140 9.44% $38,592 9.00% 3.91% Wholesale Trade 42 $33,933 4.31% $35,080 4.37% 3.38% Retail Trade 44-45 $22,542 14.32% $23,285 13.74% 3.30% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $32,076 6.05% $33,695 6.24% 5.05% Information 51 $35,959 1.26% $39,562 1.34% 10.02% Finance and Insurance 52 $36,466 3.93% $37,755 4.17% 3.53% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $24,567 1.19% $25,642 1.32% 4.38% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $39,268 3.21% $41,322 2.94% 5.23% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $39,736 2.96% $41,209 2.97% 3.71% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $25,248 5.98% $19,930 6.11% -21.06% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 $26,913 7.74% $27,536 7.47% 2.31% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $31,841 10.32% $35,221 11.18% 10.62% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $17,768 1.44% $18,210 1.67% 2.49% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $10,903 6.08% $10,813 6.60% -0.83% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $20,873 2.22% $20,738 2.33% -0.65% Public Admin. 92 $31,972 6.50% $33,494 6.61% 4.76% Unclassified 99 $26,569 0.04% $28,279 0.01% 6.44% Totals $28,691 100.00% $29,160 100.00% 1.63% Panel E Orlando, FL MSA NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employed Wage Jan-02 Employed 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $19,790 0.91% $20,927 0.93% 5.75% Mining 21 $36,797 0.04% $30,699 0.05% -16.57% Utilities 22 $53,805 0.32% $52,767 0.37% -1.93% Construction 23 $34,741 6.23% $35,356 6.37% 1.77% Manufacturing 31-33 $42,240 5.74% $43,573 5.32% 3.16% Wholesale Trade 42 $45,522 4.78% $45,902 4.62% 0.83% Retail Trade 44-45 $22,404 12.20% $23,264 12.22% 3.84% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $34,536 4.05% $36,339 3.67% 5.22% Information 51 $46,397 2.82% $47,499 2.86% 2.38% Finance and Insurance 52 $46,998 3.27% $48,875 3.58% 3.99% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $32,992 2.48% $36,211 2.53% 9.76% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $51,624 5.36% $51,677 5.63% 0.10% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $58,001 0.90% $56,203 1.22% -3.10% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $21,695 9.33% $24,705 8.59% 13.87% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 $27,688 6.26% $28,580 6.98% 3.22% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $35,892 8.70% $36,919 9.22% 2.86% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $25,303 7.24% $26,624 6.38% 5.22% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $16,616 12.25% $16,901 11.98% 1.72% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $22,807 2.77% $23,341 2.89% 2.34% Public Admin. 92 $36,792 4.30% $38,262 4.57% 4.00% Unclassified 99 $26,798 0.05% $28,595 0.03% 6.71% Totals $31,189 100.00% $32,565 100.00% 4.41% Panel F Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employed Wage Jan-02 Employed 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $19,427 0.64% $20,537 0.60% 5.71% Mining 21 $55,720 0.15% $55,260 0.14% -0.83% Utilities 22 $69,406 0.48% $72,984 0.49% 5.16% Construction 23 $36,140 8.01% $36,599 7.94% 1.27% Manufacturing 31-33 $49,316 9.58% $49,956 8.71% 1.30% Wholesale Trade 42 $50,998 4.98% $50,986 4.89% -0.02% Retail Trade 44-45 $25,899 11.67% $26,094 11.83% 0.75% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $37,269 3.16% $37,627 3.20% 0.96% Information 51 $44,426 2.60% $43,733 2.47% -1.56% Finance and Insurance 52 $47,252 5.98% $48,133 6.08% 1.86% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $33,004 2.07% $34,233 2.10% 3.72% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 ND ND ND ND ND Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 ND ND ND ND ND Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $24,022 10.10% $25,036 9.80% 4.22% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 $31,676 1.01% $31,852 1.14% 0.56% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $36,708 7.75% $38,453 8.16% 4.75% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $34,374 1.24% $35,229 1.27% 2.49% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $14,337 8.30% $14,745 8.42% 2.85% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $24,488 2.84% $24,599 2.91% 0.45% Public Admin. 92 $36,200 13.06% ND ND ND Unclassified 99 $33,373 0.14% $33,962 0.08% 1.76% Totals $35,514 100.00% $36,042 100.00% 1.49% Panel G Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employed Wage Jan-02 Employed 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $13,557 2.67% $13,910 2.68% 2.60% Mining 21 $39,687 0.01% $30,836 0.01% -22.30% Utilities 22 $45,284 0.29% $47,401 0.29% 4.67% Construction 23 $32,492 6.22% $33,184 6.93% 2.13% Manufacturing 31-33 $37,173 7.83% $38,930 7.69% 4.73% Wholesale Trade 42 $40,565 2.37% $42,728 2.60% 5.33% Retail Trade 44-45 $22,075 14.26% $22,831 14.61% 3.42% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $33,783 1.62% $34,660 1.65% 2.60% Information 51 $38,761 1.63% $41,217 1.61% 6.34% Finance and Insurance 52 $49,588 3.27% $52,079 3.46% 5.02% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $24,314 1.44% $25,062 1.67% 3.08% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $42,006 3.86% $42,987 4.20% 2.34% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $54,481 0.63% $52,861 0.64% -2.97% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $21,416 19.34% $21,610 15.57% 0.91% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 $32,844 4.87% $33,483 5.20% 1.95% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $32,765 12.06% $33,464 12.42% 2.13% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $18,699 2.11% $19,706 2.28% 5.39% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $13,686 7.76% $13,921 8.23% 1.72% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $20,458 3.37% $20,452 3.65% -0.03% Public Admin. 92 $34,390 4.33% $35,499 4.59% 3.22% Unclassified 99 $23,289 0.07% $28,805 0.03% 23.69% Totals $27,994 100.00% $29,092 100.00% 3.92% Panel H Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA NAICS Avg. Annual % of Total Avg. Annual % of Total Growth Sector code Wage Jan-01 Employed Wage Jan-02 Employed 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 $15,280 1.36% $14,789 1.54% -3.21% Mining 21 $38,137 0.04% $39,474 0.04% 3.51% Utilities 22 $57,157 0.58% $58,244 0.57% 1.90% Construction 23 $33,350 5.17% $33,710 5.38% 1.08% Manufacturing 31-33 $36,703 7.14% $38,086 6.72% 3.77% Wholesale Trade 42 $45,361 4.37% $45,513 4.28% 0.34% Retail Trade 44-45 $23,233 12.38% $24,121 12.53% 3.82% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 $35,531 3.15% $37,137 3.05% 4.52% Information 51 $46,934 3.38% $47,527 3.17% 1.26% Finance and Insurance 52 $45,013 5.97% $47,102 6.10% 4.64% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 $30,377 1.64% $31,582 1.71% 3.97% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 $49,038 5.92% $49,166 5.83% 0.26% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 $59,603 1.03% $60,908 1.19% 2.19% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 $22,755 14.33% $23,147 12.74% 1.72% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 $30,108 6.56% $30,717 6.76% 2.02% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 $34,279 10.71% $35,466 11.39% 3.46% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 $25,010 1.54% $25,012 1.54% 0.01% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 $13,452 7.18% $13,775 7.59% 2.40% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 $22,476 2.71% $22,397 2.97% -0.35% Public Admin. 92 $35,658 4.75% $37,314 4.87% 4.64% Unclassified 99 $29,251 0.09% $29,857 0.04% 2.07% Totals $31,756 100.00% $32,549 100.00% 2.50% Wages & Income 4 5/6/04, 2:16:54 AM

PAGE 29

27 Personal IncomeTable 9 reports personal income (in aggregate and per capita) for the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region. We show the years 1999 and 2001 in order to track growth across each county and for the region as a whole. For the year 2001, Tampa Bay s aggregate personal income was slightly over $106 billion. About 56% of this income went to residents of Hillsborough and Pinellas County. In 2001, Tampa Bay s regional per capita income was $29,694. Sarasota had the highest per capita income ($40,230) while Polk County had the lowest at ($23,825). The seven counties experienced increases in per capita income from 1999 to 2001, with Pasco having the greatest increase (10.95%) and Hillsborough having the lowest at (7.30%). When compared to Florida, Tampa Bay has a higher per capita income and experienced faster per capita income growth from 1999 to 2001. T able 9 Tampa Bay Region Personal Income By County1999 Income2001 Income LocationAggregate*Per CapitaAggregate*Per Capita% Growth in Per Capita Income Hernando $2,894,636 $22,202 $3,277,824 $24,012 8.15% Hillsborough $26,327,735 $26,484 $29,572,107 $28,418 7.30% Manatee $7,903,712 $30,121 $9,008,306 $32,579 8.16% Pasco $7,627,938 $22,275 $9,018,468 $24,714 10.95% Pinellas $27,354,337 $29,740 $29,974,856 $32,377 8.87% Polk $10,599,899 $22,002 $11,800,139 $23,825 8.28% Sarasota $12,024,527 $37,007 $13,537,087 $40,230 8.71% Tampa Bay $94,732,784 $27,413 $106,188,787 $29,694 8.32% Florida $425,156,546 $26,728 $475,606,702 $28,749 7.56%Source: Regional Economic Information System (REIS) of the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Note: Expressed in thousands of Dollars T able M9 Tampa Bay Region Personal Income By MSA19992001 % Growth in Per Capita Income Location Aggregate Income* Per Capita Income Aggregate Income* Per Capita Income Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA $10,599,899 $22,483 $11,800,139 $23,803 5.87% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA $19,928,239 $34,869 $22,545,393 $36,660 5.14% T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA $64,204,646 $27,426 $67,824,135 $27,456 0.11% T ampa Bay $94,732,784 $27,994 $102,169,667 $28,531 1.92% Comparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA $126,445,894 $31,534 $144,477,239 $33,769 7.09% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA $83,346,792 $26,223 $96,047,218 $28,337 8.06% San Diego, CA MSA $84,585,445 $30,322 $97,240,725 $33,883 11.74% Orlando, FL MSA $41,312,920 $25,692 $46,064,157 $27,003 5.10% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA $43,384,255 $29,481 $48,815,472 $31,526 6.94% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA $36,851,811 $30,560 $41,672,581 $31,511 3.11%Source: Regional Economic Information System (REIS) of the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Note: Expressed in thousands of Dollars Wages & Income 5 5/6/04, 2:19:19 AM

PAGE 30

T able 10 Tampa Bay Region Disposable Personal IncomePer Capita Disposable IncomeAggregate Disposable Income (millions of dollars) Location199920002001199920002001 Annual Growth 1999-20012002*2003* T ampa Bay $23,952 $25,224 $25,894 $82,133 $87,843 $91,747 5.69% $96,968 $102,486 Florida $23,391 $24,455 $25,109 $368,621 $392,530 $411,117 5.61% $434,168 $458,512 Arizona $20,658 $21,871 $22,428 $103,783 $113,010 $119,024 7.09% $127,464 $136,503 North Carolina $21,879 $23,122 $23,531 $173,925 $186,877 $193,094 5.37% $203,457 $214,376 T exas $23,082 $24,475 $24,987 $474,525 $512,874 $533,999 6.08% $566,475 $600,927 Source: Table 5.08, “Florida Statistical Abstract 2002,” Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida; U.S. Burea u of Economic Analysis CEDR projection;Tampa Bay was estimated using Florida s disposable income factor Table M9 compares Tampa Bay regional personal income by MSA to other selected MSAs in the comparison universe. In 1999, aggregate personal income for the Tampa Bay region was $94.7 billion. In 2001 this grew to $102.1 billion, a gain of 7.85%. Per capita income for the Tampa Bay MSA-aggregate grew by 1.92% from 1999 to 2001. The Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA was flat to slightly higher, but the SarasotaBradenton MSA and Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA both grew in excess of 5%. The comparison MSAs all grew per capita personal income with San Diego showing the strongest growth (11.74%) and Austin-San Marcos having the slowest growth (3.11%).28 Disposable Personal IncomeTable 10 reports 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 selected other states (Arizona, North Carolina and Texas). For all three years (1999, 2000 and 2001) per capita disposable income in the Tampa Bay region was higher than Florida or any of the comparison states. Aggregate disposable income grew annually at a rate of 5.69%, which was higher than Florida’s growth rate of 5.61% over the same period. Wages & Income 6 5/6/04, 2:21:34 AM

PAGE 31

T able 11 Disposable Personal Income Factors for Selected StatesLocation199920002001 1999-2001 % Change Florida0.8670.8620.864-0.30% Arizona0.8630.8620.8670.43% North Carolina0.8590.8580.8620.30% T exas0.8800.8740.878-0.22%Source: Tables 5.05 and 5.08, “Florida Statistical Abstract 2002,” Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Florida 20002001 1999 Chart11-DisposablePersonalIncomeFactorsforSelectedStatesSource:Tables5.05and5.08,"FloridaStatisticalAbsract2002" BureauofEconomicandBusinessResearch,Univ.ofFlorida 0.845 0.850 0.855 0.860 0.865 0.870 0.875 0.880 0.885 29Table 11 reports the disposable personal income factors for Florida and the other comparison states from 1999 to 2001. This measures the percentage of personal income that is classified as disposable personal income. For example, Texas’ disposable personal income factor in 2001 was 0.878. This means that residents of Texas retained about 1.4% more of their income than did residents of Florida (disposable personal income factor of 0.864) in 2001. From 1999 to 2001 Arizona and North Carolina residents retained slightly more of their personal income as evidenced by increasing disposable personal income factors. Residents of Florida and Texas retained slightly less personal income over the same period. Chart 11 graphs disposable personal income factors for Florida, Arizona, North Carolina and T exas. After a decline in Florida’s disposable personal income factor in 2000, the graph shows a rebound in 2001. Wages & Income 7 5/6/04, 2:23:32 AM

PAGE 32

This section reports statistics that reflect the state of the Tampa Bay regional economy. From January 2001 to January 2002 the number of businesses in the Tampa Bay region grew by 6.39%. As of January 2002, the largest NAICS Sector by establishment in Tampa Bay is Retail Trade (14.09% of total establishments). The Manufacturing Sector declined by 60 establishments and now comprises only 4.00% of total establishments. Gross and Taxable Sales, a measure of regional economic activity, between 2000 and 2002 have been increasing. Gross Sales in Tampa Bay increased by 2.07% annually Another measure of economic activity, spending on construction for single-family housing units, increased by 49.25% in the Tampa Bay region from 2000 to 2002. The annual cost-of-living index, which is prepared by the Florida Department of Education, reveals that the Tampa Bay region’s cost of living is slightly below the Florida-wide cost-of-living. Of the seven counties of Tampa Bay, only Pinellas County has a higher cost of living than the statewide average (which is set to 100%). Business and Economic Conditions30 Business Conditions 2 5/6/04, 2:30:00 AM

PAGE 33

Business EstablishmentsTable G1 reports the number of establishments in T ampa Bay by NAICS Sector. While 19 of the 21 NAICS Sectors grew in number of establishments, both NAICS 11 and 31-33 declined. The fastest growing sector was Utilities (NAICS 22), which added 13 new establishments (a growth rate of 10.32%). Table G1, Panels A through C report the data for Hernando, Hillsborough and Manatee counties. Manatee County saw a 15.60% rise in number of business establishments, with the fastest growth coming in Wholesale Trade (NAICS 42). Hillsborough County businesses grew at 6.00%, partly by adding 263 establishments in the Retail T rade sector. Table G1 Tampa Bay Region Business Establishments by SectorSector NAICS code Establishments Jan 2001 Percent of Total Establishments Jan 2002 Percent of Total Growth 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 119961.11%9811.03%-1.51% Mining21410.05%440.05%7.32% Utilities221260.14%1390.15%10.32% Construction239,37210.46%10,13910.63%8.18% Manufacturing31-333,8734.32%3,8134.00%-1.55% Wholesale Trade426,1246.83%6,6286.95%8.23% Retail Trade44-4512,74414.22%13,43414.09%5.41% T ransportation and Warehousing48-491,9722.20%1,9892.09%0.86% Information 511,5101.68%1,5711.65%4.04% Finance and Insurance525,2115.81%5,4435.71%4.45% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing534,4124.92%4,7044.93%6.62% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs.5411,52812.86%12,11612.71%5.10% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises553430.38%3550.37%3.50% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & Remediation Svcs. 566,1316.84%6,4906.81%5.86% Educational Svcs.618890.99%8900.93%0.11% Health Care and Social Assistance628,1329.07%8,5648.98%5.31% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation711,1891.33%1,2911.35%8.58% Accommodation and Food Svcs.725,5776.22%6,0596.35%8.64% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.)818,2439.20%8,4668.88%2.71% Public Admin.926820.76%7020.74%2.93% Unclassified995340.60%1,5371.61%187.83% Totals89,629100.00%95,355100.00%6.39% Table G1, Panels D and E compile the establishment growth in Pasco and Pinellas counties. Both Pasco and Pinellas counties saw a decline in the number of manufacturing establishments from January 2001 to January 2002. Pinellas County has 29 fewer manufacturing firms than it did in January 2001. Table G1, Panels F and G report that further manufacturing declines have occurred in Polk County, which has 8 fewer establishments. Sarasota County saw large increases in Construction, Retail Trade, and Professional, Scientific and Technical Services.31Source: State of Florida ES 202 (Covered Employment & Wages) data Business Conditions 3 5/6/04, 2:31:39 AM

PAGE 34

Panel A Hernando County NAICS Establishments % of Establishments % of Growth Sector code Jan 2001 Total Jan 2002 Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 23 0.93% 24 0.88% 4.35% Mining 21 5 0.20% 6 0.22% 20.00% Utilities 22 5 0.20% 5 0.18% 0.00% Construction 23 402 16.30% 461 16.95% 14.68% Manufacturing 31-33 85 3.45% 85 3.13% 0.00% Wholesale Trade 42 118 4.79% 128 4.71% 8.47% Retail Trade 44-45 362 14.68% 398 14.64% 9.94% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 73 2.96% 74 2.72% 1.37% Information 51 26 1.05% 31 1.14% 19.23% Finance and Insurance 52 134 5.43% 139 5.11% 3.73% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 98 3.97% 108 3.97% 10.20% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 189 7.66% 213 7.83% 12.70% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 ND ND ND ND ND Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 181 7.34% 196 7.21% 8.29% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 17 0.69% 18 0.66% 5.88% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 271 10.99% 296 10.89% 9.23% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 32 1.30% 44 1.62% 37.50% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 164 6.65% 190 6.99% 15.85% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 221 8.96% 235 8.64% 6.33% Public Admin. 92 52 2.11% 52 1.91% 0.00% Unclassified 99 8 0.32% 16 0.59% 100.00% Totals 2,466 100.00% 2,719 100.00% 10.26% Panel B Hillsborough County NAICS Establishments % of Establishments % of Growth Sector code Jan 2001 Total Jan 2002 Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 335 1.21% 328 1.12% -2.09% Mining 21 9 0.03% 12 0.04% 33.33% Utilities 22 38 0.14% 44 0.15% 15.79% Construction 23 2,452 8.87% 2,632 8.98% 7.34% Manufacturing 31-33 1,074 3.88% 1,041 3.55% -3.07% Wholesale Trade 42 2,339 8.46% 2,362 8.06% 0.98% Retail Trade 44-45 3,721 13.45% 3,984 13.59% 7.07% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 694 2.51% 688 2.35% -0.86% Information 51 568 2.05% 605 2.06% 6.51% Finance and Insurance 52 1,826 6.60% 1,901 6.48% 4.11% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 1,296 4.69% 1,380 4.71% 6.48% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 4,170 15.08% 4,325 14.75% 3.72% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 119 0.43% 118 0.40% -0.84% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 1,832 6.62% 1,927 6.57% 5.19% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 302 1.09% 303 1.03% 0.33% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 2,301 8.32% 2,424 8.27% 5.35% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 338 1.22% 350 1.19% 3.55% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 1,546 5.59% 1,689 5.76% 9.25% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 2,344 8.47% 2,415 8.24% 3.03% Public Admin. 92 159 0.57% 163 0.56% 2.52% Unclassified 99 195 0.71% 626 2.14% 221.03% Totals 27,658 100.00% 29,317 100.00% 6.00% Panel C Manatee County NAICS Establishments % of Establishments % of Growth Sector code Jan 2001 Total Jan 2002 Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 94 1.60% 91 1.34% -3.19% Mining 21 ND ND ND ND ND Utilities 22 7 0.12% 6 0.09% -14.29% Construction 23 664 11.30% 747 10.99% 12.50% Manufacturing 31-33 291 4.95% 294 4.33% 1.03% Wholesale Trade 42 307 5.22% 624 9.18% 103.26% Retail Trade 44-45 904 15.38% 972 14.31% 7.52% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 117 1.99% 111 1.63% -5.13% Information 51 74 1.26% 83 1.22% 12.16% Finance and Insurance 52 266 4.53% 277 4.08% 4.14% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 293 4.99% 366 5.39% 24.91% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 597 10.16% 690 10.16% 15.58% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 20 0.34% 24 0.35% 20.00% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 451 7.67% 546 8.04% 21.06% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 52 0.88% 55 0.81% 5.77% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 528 8.98% 573 8.43% 8.52% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 78 1.33% 83 1.22% 6.41% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 419 7.13% 473 6.96% 12.89% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 594 10.11% 624 9.18% 5.05% Public Admin. 92 69 1.17% 72 1.06% 4.35% Unclassified 99 52 0.88% 83 1.22% 59.62% Totals 5,877 100.00% 6,794 100.00% 15.60% Panel D Pasco County NAICS Establishments % of Establishments % of Growth Sector code Jan 2001 Total Jan 2002 Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 101 1.57% 103 1.47% 1.98% Mining 21 4 0.06% 4 0.06% 0.00% Utilities 22 25 0.39% 26 0.37% 4.00% Construction 23 943 14.63% 1,049 15.01% 11.24% Manufacturing 31-33 215 3.34% 207 2.96% -3.72% Wholesale Trade 42 314 4.87% 341 4.88% 8.60% Retail Trade 44-45 1,007 15.62% 1,050 15.02% 4.27% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 143 2.22% 141 2.02% -1.40% Information 51 83 1.29% 80 1.14% -3.61% Finance and Insurance 52 308 4.78% 338 4.84% 9.74% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 321 4.98% 351 5.02% 9.35% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 569 8.83% 625 8.94% 9.84% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 13 0.20% 14 0.20% 7.69% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 430 6.67% 470 6.72% 9.30% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 48 0.74% 51 0.73% 6.25% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 709 11.00% 740 10.59% 4.37% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 74 1.15% 87 1.24% 17.57% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 436 6.76% 483 6.91% 10.78% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 614 9.53% 682 9.76% 11.07% Public Admin. 92 64 0.99% 66 0.94% 3.13% Unclassified 99 25 0.39% 81 1.16% 224.00% Totals 6,446 100.00% 6,989 100.00% 8.42% Panel E Pinellas County NAICS Establishments % of Establishments % of Growth Sector code Jan 2001 Total Jan 2002 Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 50 0.19% 45 0.17% -10.00% Mining 21 ND ND ND ND ND Utilities 22 15 0.06% 22 0.08% 46.67% Construction 23 2,350 9.11% 2,480 9.14% 5.53% Manufacturing 31-33 1,317 5.10% 1,288 4.75% -2.20% Wholesale Trade 42 1,726 6.69% 1,783 6.57% 3.30% Retail Trade 44-45 3,613 14.00% 3,734 13.76% 3.35% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 417 1.62% 434 1.60% 4.08% Information 51 456 1.77% 471 1.74% 3.29% Finance and Insurance 52 1,509 5.85% 1,596 5.88% 5.77% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 1,333 5.17% 1,368 5.04% 2.63% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 3,588 13.91% 3,747 13.81% 4.43% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 98 0.38% 102 0.38% 4.08% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 1,749 6.78% 1,784 6.58% 2.00% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 292 1.13% 290 1.07% -0.68% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 2,463 9.55% 2,593 9.56% 5.28% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 361 1.40% 404 1.49% 11.91% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 1,738 6.74% 1,891 6.97% 8.80% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 2,353 9.12% 2,406 8.87% 2.25% Public Admin. 92 144 0.56% 143 0.53% -0.69% Unclassified 99 228 0.88% 547 2.02% 139.91% Totals 25,800 100.00% 27,128 100.00% 5.15% Panel F Polk County NAICS Establishments % of Establishments % of Growth Sector code Jan 2001 Total Jan 2002 Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 347 3.61% 342 3.42% -1.44% Mining 21 16 0.17% 13 0.13% -18.75% Utilities 22 23 0.24% 22 0.22% -4.35% Construction 23 1,031 10.72% 1,105 11.07% 7.18% Manufacturing 31-33 465 4.83% 457 4.58% -1.72% Wholesale Trade 42 703 7.31% 732 7.33% 4.13% Retail Trade 44-45 1,558 16.19% 1,617 16.19% 3.79% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 363 3.77% 373 3.74% 2.75% Information 51 118 1.23% 123 1.23% 4.24% Finance and Insurance 52 491 5.10% 501 5.02% 2.04% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 461 4.79% 491 4.92% 6.51% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 872 9.06% 896 8.97% 2.75% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 45 0.47% 44 0.44% -2.22% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 585 6.08% 610 6.11% 4.27% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 83 0.86% 73 0.73% -12.05% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 703 7.31% 732 7.33% 4.13% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 97 1.01% 108 1.08% 11.34% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 605 6.29% 633 6.34% 4.63% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 912 9.48% 919 9.20% 0.77% Public Admin. 92 122 1.27% 128 1.28% 4.92% Unclassified 99 21 0.22% 67 0.67% 219.05% Totals 9,621 100.00% 9,986 100.00% 3.79% Panel G Sarasota County NAICS Establishments % of Establishments % of Growth Sector code Jan 2001 Total Jan 2002 Total 01-02 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing/Hunting 11 46 0.39% 48 0.39% 4.35% Mining 21 ND ND ND ND ND Utilities 22 13 0.11% 14 0.11% 7.69% Construction 23 1,530 13.02% 1,665 13.42% 8.82% Manufacturing 31-33 426 3.62% 441 3.55% 3.52% Wholesale Trade 42 617 5.25% 658 5.30% 6.65% Retail Trade 44-45 1,579 13.43% 1,679 13.53% 6.33% T ransportation and Warehousing 48-49 165 1.40% 168 1.35% 1.82% Information 51 185 1.57% 178 1.43% -3.78% Finance and Insurance 52 677 5.76% 691 5.57% 2.07% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 53 610 5.19% 640 5.16% 4.92% Professional, Scientific and Tech. Svcs. 54 1,543 13.13% 1,620 13.05% 4.99% Mgmt. of Companies and Enterprises 55 47 0.40% 50 0.40% 6.38% Admin. & Support & Waste Mgmt. & 56 903 7.68% 957 7.71% 5.98% Remediation Svcs. Educational Svcs. 61 95 0.81% 100 0.81% 5.26% Health Care and Social Assistance 62 1,157 9.84% 1,206 9.72% 4.24% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 71 209 1.78% 215 1.73% 2.87% Accommodation and Food Svcs. 72 669 5.69% 700 5.64% 4.63% Other Svcs. (except Public Admin.) 81 1,205 10.25% 1,185 9.55% -1.66% Public Admin. 92 72 0.61% 78 0.63% 8.33% Unclassified 99 5 0.04% 117 0.94% 2240.00% Totals 11,753 100.00% 12,410 100.00% 5.59% Table G1 Tampa Bay Region Business Establishments by Sector32 Business Conditions 4 5/6/04, 2:33:46 AM

PAGE 35

Gross Sales and Taxable SalesWe obtained data on Gross and Taxable sales in the seven-county Tampa Bay region from the Florida Department of Revenue. The data measure economic activity, that is increased (decreased) sales are an indication of increased (decreased) economic activity. Because most services are exempt from the sales tax, CEDR reports both gross and taxable sales separately. Gross sales are the sum of taxable and nontaxable sales reported by business on a monthly basis to the Florida Department of Revenue. Table G2 reports at Average Monthly Gross Sales in the Tampa Bay region by county. In the three years from 2000 to 2002, growth in average monthly gross sales was slightly higher in Tampa Bay (2.07%) than Florida as a whole (1.56%). Pasco County experienced the biggest gain in gross sales at 11.29%, while Pinellas County experienced a negative growth rate of 2.38%. T able G2 reveals that Pinellas County’s Average Gross Monthly Sales declined by $69,521,276 in 2002. CEDR further examined the numbers to better understand the decline. We believe the numbers show that Pinellas County is relatively Table G2 Tampa Bay Region Average Monthly Gross Sales by CountyLocation200020012002% Growth 2000-02 Hernando $327,256,069 $345,758,194 $355,214,072 8.54% Hillsborough $3,609,879,872 $3,618,298,372 $3,662,059,465 1.45% Manatee $558,040,242 $601,744,023 $613,325,061 9.91% Pasco $457,977,239 $482,363,740 $509,688,082 11.29% Pinellas $2,386,215,655 $2,398,891,765 $2,329,370,489 -2.38% Polk $1,229,711,129 $1,229,802,503 $1,266,010,333 2.95% Sarasota $777,423,553 $789,929,162 $803,939,570 3.41% Tampa Bay $9,346,503,759 $9,466,787,759 $9,539,607,072 2.07% Florida $49,973,527,439 $51,652,699,425 $50,754,311,900 1.56%Table G3 Tampa Bay Region Average Monthly Taxable Sales by CountyLocation200020012002% Growth 2000-02 Hernando $79,746,248 $83,636,382 $86,853,509 8.91% Hillsborough $1,458,453,130 $1,504,908,853 $1,459,502,369 0.07% Manatee $260,819,447 $282,626,516 $290,008,554 11.19% Pasco $241,648,263 $256,683,245 $265,574,598 9.90% Pinellas $1,013,609,864 $1,026,141,584 $985,842,291 -2.74% Polk $479,260,735 $482,516,550 $475,519,630 -0.78% Sarasota $439,707,157 $447,400,551 $454,356,868 3.33% Tampa Bay $3,973,244,844 $4,083,913,680 $4,017,657,819 1.12% Florida $20,906,129,751 $21,532,958,944 $21,998,958,709 5.23% Source: Florida Department of Revenue more dependent on tourism than the rest of the Tampa Bay region and therefore was more adversely impacted by the decline in tourism following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. The coincident decline in Pinellas County’s Tourist Development Tax supports our belief. In the year from September 2001 to September 2002, monthly receipts from the Tourist Development Tax in Pinellas County showed negative year-over-year comparisons. A small decline in the Tourist Development Tax translates into a larger decline in gross sales tax receipts, as there are fewer tourists spending their money at Pinellas County businesses. On average, the Tampa Bay region reported just over $9.5 billion per month in gross sales during 2002. This comprised 18.79% of Florida’s total gross sales. Within the Tampa Bay region, Hillsborough County had the highest average monthly gross sales at $3.6 billion per month, followed by Pinellas County ($2.3 billion per month) and Polk ($1.2 billion per month). Hillsborough County’s average monthly gross sales comprised 38.6% of Tampa Bay’s total. 33 Business Conditions 5 5/6/04, 2:36:14 AM

PAGE 36

20012002 2000 ChartG2-TampaBayRegionAverageMonthlySalesSource:FloridaDepartmentofRevenue 0 2 Billion 4 Billion 6 Billion 8 Billion 10Billion 12Billion GrossSales T axableSales3,973,244,844 4,083,913,680 4,017,657,819 9,346,503,759 9,466,503,759 9,539,607,072 Table G4 Tampa Bay Region Housing Permits200020012002% Growth 2000-2002 Location Single FamilyMulti-Family Single FamilyMulti-Family Single FamilyMulti-Family Single FamilyMulti-Family Hernando 1,150 176 1,336 211 1,779 68 54.70%-61.36% Hillsborough 7,328 4,328 8,508 2,463 9,256 4,325 26.31%-0.07% Manatee 2,848 604 3,214 1,450 3,034 1,830 6.53%202.98% Pasco 3,021 465 3,976 915 4,872 906 61.27%94.84% Pinellas 1,794 982 2,006 2,399 1,639 697 -8.64%-29.02% Polk 3,520 1,226 3,839 682 4,422 550 25.63%-55.14% Sarasota 3,041 617 3,799 1,185 3,869 1,453 27.23%135.49% Tampa Bay 22,702 8,398 26,678 9,305 28,871 9,829 27.17%17.04% Florida 106,447 48,822 118,702 48,333 128,719 56,712 20.92%16.16%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division Table G5 Tampa Bay Region Construction Spending (in thousands)200020012002% Growth 2000-2002 Location Single FamilyMulti-Family Single FamilyMulti-Family Single FamilyMulti-Family Single FamilyMulti-Family Hernando $131,044 $6,880 $161,857 $6,958 $221,082 $3,544 68.71%-48.49% Hillsborough $655,550 $339,686 $765,702 $203,047 $1,090,438 $250,525 66.34%-26.25% Manatee $380,633 $31,241 $466,705 $88,005 $490,470 $99,986 28.86%220.05% Pasco $310,336 $27,048 $439,063 $52,709 $569,944 $63,987 83.65%136.57% Pinellas $312,987 $97,955 $364,278 $229,965 $315,325 $53,930 0.75%-44.94% Polk $276,665 $54,015 $300,911 $26,173 $370,260 $27,316 33.83%-49.43% Sarasota $436,757 $43,517 $642,040 $153,342 $679,705 $155,001 55.63%256.18% Tampa Bay $2,503,972 $600,342 $3,140,556 $760,199 $3,737,224 $654,289 49.25%8.99% Florida$13,539,656 $3,922,756 $15,596,898 $3,868,502 $17,912,711 $4,555,091 32.30%16.12%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division 34Chart G2 gives the average monthly gross and taxable sales for the Tampa Bay region. For 2002, average gross monthly sales were $9.5 billion and average monthly taxable sales were $4.0 billion. Both gross and taxable sales were slightly higher in 2002 than in 2000. Table G3 (previous page) shows the A verage Monthly Taxable Sales in Tampa Bay. From 2000 to 2002 the Tampa Bay region increased its monthly taxable sales by 1.12%. Manatee County saw the highest percentage increase in taxable sales at 11.19% while Pinellas County had a decrease of 2.74%. Business Conditions 6 5/6/04, 2:37:41 AM

PAGE 37

Housing Permits & Construction SpendingThe U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division, reports housing permits issued by county authorities and aggregate construction spending (as measured by aggregate value of issued permits). The data set is primarily based on reports submitted to the Bureau by local building permit officials in response to a mail survey, although some data may be generated by Census Bureau interviewers or imputed from past data. The data is another indicator of regional economic activity. Table G4 depicts the rapid growth in housing permits since 2000 in Tampa Bay. From 2000 to 2002 single family and multi-family housing permits increased by 27.17% and 17.04% respectively. This outpaces Florida’s growth rates in single family and multi-family housing permits of 20.92% and 16.16%, respectively. 20012002 2000 ChartG4-TampaBayRegionHousingPermitsSource:U.S.CensusBureau,ManufacturingandConstructionDivision 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 SingleFamily Multi-Family22,702 26,678 28,871 8,398 9,305 9,829 20012002 2000 ChartG5-TampaBayRegionConstructionSpending(inthousands)Source:U.S.CensusBureau,ManufacturingandConstructionDivision $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 SingleFamily Multi-Family$600,342 $760,199 $654,289 $2,503,972 $3,140,556 $3,737,224 Growth in housing permits for multi-family units has been fastest in Manatee County (202%) and Sarasota County (135%) and fastest in single-family units in Pasco (61%) and Hernando (54%). Pinellas County was the only county that experienced a decline in both single and multifamily housing permits. Chart G4 reports Tampa Bay region housing permits for 2000 through 2002. Housing permits have been increasing every year for both single and multi-family houses. Permits for singlefamily houses increased by more than 6,000 and permits for multi-family houses increased by about 1,500. Table G5 reports construction spending associated with the housing permits in Table G4. Spending on single-family units was higher in all seven counties, with Pasco experiencing an 83.65% increase (the highest growth rate) and Pinellas experiencing the lowest growth rate at 0.75%. Overall, the Tampa Bay region’s spending on single-family housing was up 49.25% from 2000 to 2002. This exceeded Florida’s increase of 32.30% during the same period. Spending on multi-family housing was lower in four of the seven counties (Hernando, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Polk) but sharply higher in the other three (Manatee, Pasco and Sarasota). This translated into an 8.99% increase in spending on multi-family housing in Tampa Bay from 2000 to 2002. Chart G5 graphs construction spending for the T ampa Bay region on single and multi-family housing. From 2000 to 2002, spending on singlefamily housing increased by slightly more than $1.2 billion. Spending on multi-family housing increased by $50 million. Table M11 compares the number of housing permits (and corresponding growth rates) issued in the three Tampa Bay MSAs from 2000 to 2002 with other MSAs in the comparison universe. While Tampa Bay experienced growth in both single and multi-family housing permits, all of the other comparison MSAs experienced a decline in either one or both numbers. Single-family housing permits grew in the three Tampa Bay MSAs by 27.17%. The fastest growth among the comparison MSAs was in Phoenix-Mesa, AZ, with a 16.86% increase. Austin-San Marcos, TX declined to 14.62%. 35 Business Conditions 7 5/6/04, 2:38:52 AM

PAGE 38

Table M11 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Housing Permits20002002% Growth 2000-2002 Location Single FamilyMulti-Family Single FamilyMulti-Family Single FamilyMulti-Family Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA 3,520 1,226 4,422 550 25.63%-55.14% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA 5,889 1,221 6,903 3,283 17.22%168.88% T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 13,293 5,951 17,546 5,996 31.99%0.76% Tampa Bay 22,702 8,398 28,871 9,829 27.17%17.04% Comparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA 46,747 17,469 50,151 16,400 7.28%-6.12% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 34,232 11,078 40,002 7,897 16.86%-28.71% San Diego, CA MSA 9,287 6,305 8,880 4,804 -4.38%-23.81% Orlando, FL MSA 15,400 9,524 17,306 8,902 12.38%-6.53% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 16,380 7,548 17,311 3,371 5.68%-55.34% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 12,932 8,842 11,041 6,160 -14.62%-30.33%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division Multi-family housing permits in the Tampa Bay region also grew faster than that of any other comparison MSAs (17.04%). All of the comparison MSAs saw a decline in the number of housing permits issued for multi-family units, with Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill being the weakest at -55.34%. Atlanta and Orlando experienced only modest pullbacks in multifamily housing permits with declines of 6.12% and 6.53% respectively. Table M12 compares the aggregate construction spending among the three Tampa Bay MSAs with the same comparison MSAs in the previous table. Spending on single-family units in Tampa Bay remained strong, growing by 49.25%. Among the comparison MSAs PhoenixMesa and Orlando both grew rapidly from 2000 to 2002 (28.37% and 29.51% respectively). Austin-San Marcos was the only comparison MSA that saw a decline in construction spending on single-family units (-11.45%). In the Tampa Bay Region construction spending on multi-family units grew at 8.99%, while five of the six comparison MSAs saw declines. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill experienced the worst decline (48.61%). Atlanta was the only comparison MSA to show positive growth in construction spending on multi-family units (3.97%).36 Business Conditions 8 5/6/04, 2:40:05 AM

PAGE 39

Table M12 Tampa Bay MSA-Aggregate Construction Spending (in thousands)20002002% Growth 2000-2002 Location Single FamilyMulti-Family Single FamilyMulti-Family Single FamilyMulti-Family Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA $276,665 $54,015 $370,260 $27,316 33.83%-49.43% Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA $817,390 $74,758 $1,170,176 $254,987 43.16%241.08% T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA $1,409,916 $471,570 $2,196,789 $371,986 55.81%-21.12% Tampa Bay $2,503,971 $600,343 $3,737,225 $654,289 49.25%8.99% Comparison Universe Atlanta, GA MSA $5,149,742 $922,236 $5,890,496 $958,847 14.38%3.97% Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA $4,592,708 $705,108 $5,895,670 $473,473 28.37%-32.85% San Diego, CA MSA $2,138,315 $594,214 $2,073,638 $425,901 -3.02%-28.33% Orlando, FL MSA $1,889,849 $512,220 $2,447,614 $509,052 29.51%-0.62% Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA $2,046,710 $370,873 $2,223,852 $190,583 8.65%-48.61% Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA $1,650,506 $374,836 $1,461,478 $246,612 -11.45%-34.21%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division Table G6 gives the relative cost of living and county rankings for 2000, 2001 and 2002. The index is prepared and released every year by the Florida Department of Education. For a given year the average cost of living in Florida is set at 100 and a county’s relative cost of living is expressed as a percentage of the average. For example, in 2002 Hernando County’s relative cost of living was 91.74% of the average, or 8.26% below the state average. Out of 67 counties in Florida, Hernando ranked 46th. That is, 21 other counties had a lower cost of living in 2002 than Hernando. Table G6 Tampa Bay Region Relative Cost of Living IndexLocation2000Rank2001Rank2002Rank Hernando92.93%4992.53%5591.74%46 Hillsborough100.32%799.86%899.53%8 Manatee96.93%1698.49%997.31%11 Pasco96.38%2095.06%3595.51%23 Pinellas101.41%6101.94%5101.95%6 Polk95.24%2695.44%2994.85%28 Sarasota100.20%8100.10%799.60%7 Tampa Bay*98.96%98.93%98.93%Source: Florida Department of Education Tampa Bay is the 7-county average wieghted by population for each county From 2000 to 2002 Tampa Bay’s cost of living has remained lower than the state average. Hernando has enjoyed the lowest cost of living among the seven counties, while Pinellas has remained the most costly county in the region and one of the most expensive counties in the state in which to live. During 2002, Pinellas’ cost of living was 101.95% (or 1.95% higher than Florida’s average). Only five other counties in the state had a higher cost of living. In fact, Pinellas County was the only county in Tampa Bay during 2002 with a higher cost of living than the Florida average of 100%. 37 Cost of Living Business Conditions 9 5/6/04, 2:41:06 AM

PAGE 40

The Education Indicators section includes key statistics on Florida’s public schools. We report high school graduation rates, dropout rates, SAT scores, class size and per-pupil expenditures. an addition to this year’s section is degrees awarded from Florida’s public universities. All data are from the Florida Department of Education. Because the Department of Education reports by county, CEDR calculated regional averages that are weighted by the student population of each county. For the academic year ending in 2002, Tampa Bay’s high school graduation rate was 71.5%, compared to the state of Florida’s graduation rate of 67.9%. The dropout rate was 3.3%, which is in line with the state of Florida’s dropout rate. From 2000 to 2002, average SAT scores in the Tampa Bay region have been slightly above 1000, with an average of 1009 in 2002. This is slightly above Florida’s average of 991 in 2002. (SAT scores have a maximum of 1600 points). The Tampa Bay Region’s average high school class size has been smaller than the Florida average over the past three years. Overall, regional class size averaged between 24 and 27 pupils in 2002. In Tampa Bay, average perpupil expenditures for all types of educational programs at the high school level increased from about $5,635 in 1999-2000 to about $5,829 in 2001-2002. In November 2002, Florida citizens approved a constitutional amendment that would reduce class sizes for public schools. The amendment places caps on the number of students in each public school classroom by grade level. From pre-kindergarten to third grade there can be no more than 18 children, from fourth grade to eighth grade no more than 22 children, and no more than 25 children in each classroom at the high school level. However, these limits are not required until 2010. The amendment was a highly-debated issue in the 2002 elections and since then some legislators have called for its repeal. The main argument cited against the class-size amendment has been high costs. More teachers would have to be hired and more schools built or classrooms added to existing schools. Funds would most likely come from either tax increases, cuts in state services, or both. The Florida Department of Education estimates the cost of building additional classroom space to be $9 billion. In addition, FLDOE estimates an extra $2.5 billion of annual operating expenses related to paying more teachers and running schools. Regional Education Indicators38 Florida Constitutional Class-Size Amendment Education Indicators 2 5/6/04, 5:17:31 AM

PAGE 41

High School Graduation RatesTable G7 reports public high school graduation rates for the Tampa Bay region. In the academic years ending 2000, 2001 and 2002 graduation rates for the Tampa Bay region were 65.1%, 66.6% and 71.5%, respectively. To calculate the Tampa Bay region’s average, CEDR took the county graduation rates and weighted them by the number of students in each county. Chart G7 graphs Tampa Bay’s public high school graduation rates next to the state of Florida’s rates. From 2000 to 2002 the Tampa Bay region maintained higher high school graduation rates than the state as a whole. Table G8 compares Tampa Bay’s dropout rates with those of the entire state of Florida. Like graduation rates, the region’s dropout rates were computed by CEDR as a weighted average by student population. Table G7 Tampa Bay Region High School Graduation RatesAcademic Year Ending Location200020012002 Hernando67.4%67.8%74.0% Hillsborough71.4%74.4%77.5% Manatee61.4%65.2%68.9% Pasco64.8%65.9%71.7% Pinellas64.3%64.4%66.4% Polk55.3%52.6%66.9% Sarasota63.4%70.3%71.8% Tampa Bay65.1%66.6%71.5% Florida62.3%63.8%67.9%Source: Florida Department of Education Table G8 Tampa Bay Region High School Dropout RatesAcademic Year Ending Location200020012002 Hernando2.9%2.0%2.1% Hillsborough2.6%2.7%2.2% Manatee6.3%4.5%3.0% Pasco4.4%4.3%3.4% Pinellas3.1%4.2%5.2% Polk5.9%5.8%2.9% Sarasota3.6%3.1%3.1% T ampa Bay3.8%3.8%3.3% Florida4.6%3.8%3.2%Source: Florida Department of Education 20012002 2000 ChartG7-TampaBayRegionHighSchoolGraduationRatesComparison 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% T ampaBay Florida62.3% 65.1% 66.6% 63.8% 71.5% 67.9% 39Source: Florida Department of Education Education Indicators 3 5/6/04, 5:19:20 AM

PAGE 42

Scholastic Assessment Test Scores Below are excerpts from an article by Marilyn Brown that appeared in the METRO Section of The T ampa Tribune on August 27, 2003. Nation’s SAT Scores Rise; State’s Don’t Hillsborough Improves, Ending Its 5-year DeclineThe nation’s high school senior class of 2003 boosted its greatest gains in more than a decade on the SAT college entrance exam as Florida’s scores remained flat, an average of 30 points behind the nation. Gov. Jeb Bush and state Education Commissioner Jim Horne stressed the number of students taking the SAT – a 10% increase to nearly 83,400 – while downplaying the results… Not so in Hillsborough County, which broke its 5-year slide of declining scores with a gain of 5 points. That despite a 17% increase in the number of students taking the test, to 5,071 ... Hillsborough students averaged a score of 499 on verbal skills and 504 on math. … Polk County also had a 5-point jump in the combined score with basically no increase in the number of students tested. Pinellas slipped 2 points, and Pasco dropped 6 points. Chart G8 For the academic year ending in 2000, the public high school dropout rate in the Tampa Bay region was 3.8%. This has since declined to its current level of 3.3% in the academic year ending in 2002. When compared to Florida, Tampa Bay has approximately the same dropout rates from 2000 to 2002. 20012002 2000 ChartG8-TampaBayRegionHighSchoolDropoutRatesComparison 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% T ampaBay Florida4.6% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.3% 3.2% Score Comparisons200120022003 VerbalMathVerbalMathVerbalMath Hillsborough501504495503499504 Pasco 503504498500496496 Pinellas 516522510518511515 Polk490490484489488490 State498499496499498498 Nation506514504516507519T ribune graphic; Sources: Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinellas and Polk school districts. 40Source: Florida Department of Education Education Indicators 4 5/6/04, 5:21:23 AM

PAGE 43

SCORES AT FLORIDA UNIVERSITIESCombined SAT scores (verbal plus math) for freshmen entering selected Florida colleges and universities in 2003: • Univ. of Florida: 1,290 (verbal and math breakdown not available) • Florida State Univ: 1,210* (verbal 601, math 609) • Univ. of Central Florida: 1,174 (verbal 582, math 592) • Univ. of Tampa: 1,092 (verbal 545, math 547) • Univ. of South Florida: 1,083 (verbal 538, math 545) • Saint Leo Univ.: 1,002 (verbal 501, math 501) Includes all admitted freshmen, whether or not they enrolled.T ribune graphic; Sources: Individual colleges and universities. Table G9 shows the average Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores for students in the T ampa Bay region. The Florida Department of Education releases these scores by county and CEDR has calculated the Tampa Bay average by weighting the county scores by student population. A verage SAT scores in Tampa Bay have remained slightly above 1000, with scores of 1013, 1015 and 1009 in 2000, 2001 and 2002, respectively. This compares with average scores of 995, 993 and 991 statewide during the same years. For additional comparisons, we note that the national average SAT scores were 1019 and 1020 in 2000 and 2001 respectively for collegebound seniors (U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2002). Table G9 Tampa Bay Region SAT ScoresAcademic Year Ending Location200020012002 Hernando10081004991 Hillsborough10111005998 Manatee988996994 Pasco10101008998 Pinellas102910381028 Polk984980973 Sarasota105310651069 Tampa Bay101310151009 Florida995993991 Source: Florida Department of Education 41 Scholastic Assessment Test Scores Education Indicators 5 5/6/04, 5:23:28 AM

PAGE 44

High School Class SizesTable G10 lists average public high school class sizes for the seven counties of the Tampa Bay region and a weighted average (by student population) of the seven county averages to represent the Tampa Bay region. Average class size is listed by the following academic subjects: Table G10 Tampa Bay Region High School Class Size(average number of students per class)Language ArtsMathScienceSocial Studies Location200020012002200020012002200020012002200020012002 Hernando21.622.321.622.323.422.323.924.824.225.424.625.7 Hillsborough22.722.823.324.825.225.726.026.026.027.428.527.1 Manatee27.123.725.326.224.325.226.926.427.327.426.228.0 Pasco22.522.322.823.622.823.024.123.224.223.123.123.7 Pinellas25.625.825.525.525.325.726.927.227.128.128.228.4 Polk21.922.223.223.325.125.823.525.024.724.124.926.3 Sarasota23.224.925.625.326.926.425.226.927.224.626.928.4 Tampa Bay23.623.624.024.724.025.325.625.326.026.326.027.0 Florida25.325.425.125.825.725.626.726.926.527.527.827.3Source: Florida Department of Education 20012002 2000ChartG10-TampaBayRegionHighSchoolClassSize 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 T ampaBay FloridaLanguageArtsMathScienceSocialStudies20012002 2000 20012002 200020012002 2000 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 2000 to 2002. See Chart G10. 42Source: Florida Department of Education Education Indicators 6 5/6/04, 5:25:25 AM

PAGE 45

High School Per -Pupil Expenditure Table G11 Tampa Bay Region Per Pupil ExpendituresExceptionalRegularAt-Risk Vocational Location19992000 20002001 20012002 19992000 20002001 20012002 19992000 20002001 20012002 19992000 20002001 20012002 Hernando $6,158 $6,664 $6,671 $3,904 $4,181 $4,232 $9,719 $8,864 $7,523 $4,519 $4,873 $5,087 Hillsborough $7,669 $7,947 $8,468 $4,052 $4,254 $4,080 $4,602 $4,620 $4,421 $5,072 $5,324 $5,340 Manatee $6,617 $7,339 $7,993 $4,297 $4,324 $4,343 $4,450 $4,436 $5,390 $4,499 $4,910 $5,242 Pasco $7,810 $7,496 $7,841 $4,017 $4,332 $4,246 $8,098 $8,794 $4,684 $5,946 $4,791 $4,665 Pinellas $7,303 $7,880 $8,224 $3,987 $4,402 $4,279 $5,326 $5,319 $5,621 $4,420 $4,912 $4,701 Polk $6,834 $7,433 $7,968 $4,287 $4,332 $4,192 $6,657 $6,381 $6,994 $7,198 $7,360 $7,321 Sarasota $7,751 $7,884 $7,455 $5,030 $4,912 $5,091 $5,430 $5,681 $6,271 $6,059 $6,979 $6,960 Tampa Bay $7,341 $7,711 $8,087 $4,153 $4,362 $4,264 $5,703 $5,694 $5,450 $5,344 $5,561 $5,515 Florida $7,092 $7,726 $7,791 $4,247 $4,441 $4,378 $5,383 $5,424 $5,644 $4,879 $4,982 $4,979 Source: Florida Department of Education 00-0101-02 99-00ChartG11-TampaBayRegionPer-PupilExpenditures $0 $1000 $2000 $3000 $4000 $5000 $6000 $7000 $8000 $9000 Tamp a Bay Florida00-0101-02 99-0000-0101-02 99-0000-0101-02 99-00ExceptionalRegularAtRiskVocational Per-pupil expenditures for public high schools by type of educational program are in Table G11. We again calculate Tampa Bay regional expenditures by a weighted average (by student population) of the seven counties. The table lists expenditures from academic year 2000 to 2002. Chart G11 shows a comparison of per-pupil expenditures in the Tampa Bay region and statewide. We depict four categories of educational programs: exceptional, regular, at-risk and vocational. From academic year 2000 to 2002 per-pupil expenditures increased in every program except in the at-risk program, which declined from $5,703 to $5,450. The biggest increase came in the exceptional program, which saw an increase from $7,341 to $8,087 in per-pupil expenditures from 2000 to 2002. Florida shows a similar pattern, with exceptional programs receiving the largest increase in perpupil expenditures from 2000 to 2002. Both Florida and the Tampa Bay region spend more money (per-pupil) on exceptional programs than any of the other three categories.43 Education Indicators 7 5/6/04, 5:27:33 AM

PAGE 46

Public Universitiy Degrees AwardedTable G12 indicates that total Bachelor’s degrees awarded by the Florida State University System (SUS) in academic year 2001-2002 equaled almost 38,000. Chart G12 graphically depicts Bachelor’s degrees awarded by Forida State University System from 1999 to 2002. Panels A through F of Table G12 tracks degrees awarded in the Florida SUS for selected disciplines. We report Bachelor’s degrees awarded for Education, Business Administration, Engineering and Engineering Technologies, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences and Computer and Information Sciences for the past three academic years ending 2001-2002. For the academic year ending 2001-2002, every discipline except Computer and Information Sciences saw an increase in degrees awarded from the prior year. The fastest growing disciplines (in degrees awarded) are Business Administration and Computer and Information Sciences, with gains of 16.34% and 15.49% over the past three years, respectively. Charts G12A through G12F show the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by the Florida State University System (SUS) by selected discipline. The numbers are from the Florida Department of Education’s Factbook and include all eleven Florida Public State Universities. Table G12 Bachelor’s Dregrees Awarded by Florida’s State University System1999-20002000-20012001-2002 University of Florida7,6557,6637,776 Florida State University5,3425,4705,912 Florida A&M University1,4661,4041,414 University of South Florida4,7344,8125,048 Florida Atlantic University3,1943,1933,511 University of West Florida1,2661,1791,365 University of Central Florida5,4175,7666,116 Florida International University4,1274,0004,311 University of North Florida1,8811,8032,022 Florida Gulf Coast University355434490 T otals35,43735,72437,965Source: Florida Department of Education Factbook for Academic Years: ‘99-’00, ‘00-’01, ‘01-’02 2000-2001 2001-2002 1999-2000ChartG12-Bachelor'sDegreesAwardedbyFlorida'sStateUniversitySystem 34,000 34,500 35,000 35,500 36,000 36,500 37,000 37,500 38,000 38,500 44 Source: FL Dept. of Education Factbook for Academic Years: ‘99-’00, ‘00-’01, ‘01-’02 Education Indicators 8 5/6/04, 5:29:53 AM

PAGE 47

Panel A Education 99-00 00-01 01-02 University of Florida 504 278 288 Florida State University 476 432 486 Florida A&M University 242 185 162 University of South Florida 704 627 799 Florida Atlantic University 468 393 394 University of West Florida 157 156 145 University of Central Florida 676 697 639 Florida International University 392 346 404 University of North Florida 321 264 297 Florida Gulf Coast University 110 111 113 T otals 4,050 3,489 3,727 Panel B Business Administration 99-00 00-01 01-02 University of Florida 1,526 1,595 1,644 Florida State University 1,254 1,288 1,354 Florida A&M University 215 243 273 University of South Florida 1,119 1,252 1,283 Florida Atlantic University 785 802 930 University of West Florida 276 227 263 University of Central Florida 1,287 1,462 1,618 Florida International University 1,173 1,159 1,485 University of North Florida 355 351 431 Florida Gulf Coast University 90 108 119 T otals 8,080 8,487 9,400 Panel C Engineering and Engineering Technologies 99-00 00-01 01-02 University of Florida 931 888 873 Florida State University 144 134 147 Florida A&M University 182 126 125 University of South Florida 305 283 326 Florida Atlantic University 120 100 114 University of West Florida 22 17 25 University of Central Florida 362 370 394 Florida International University 245 229 250 University of North Florida 57 48 53 Florida Gulf Coast University 0 0 0 T otals 2,368 2,195 2,307 Panel D Physical Sciences 99-00 00-01 01-02 University of Florida 62 74 75 Florida State University 83 65 62 Florida A&M University 19 16 20 University of South Florida 51 65 53 Florida Atlantic University 58 56 48 University of West Florida 13 13 6 University of Central Florida 15 10 25 Florida International University 36 37 44 University of North Florida 20 6 13 Florida Gulf Coast University 0 0 0 To tals 357 342 346 Panel E Life Sciences 99-00 00-01 01-02 University of Florida 370 374 328 Florida State University 150 132 140 Florida A&M University 48 47 58 University of South Florida 223 185 219 Florida Atlantic University 126 141 176 University of West Florida 67 49 59 University of Central Florida 143 176 172 Florida International University 107 98 96 University of North Florida 53 60 73 Florida Gulf Coast University 0 0 0 To tals 1,287 1,262 1,321 Panel F Computer and Information Sciences 99-00 00-01 01-02 University of Florida 75 109 103 Florida State University 63 189 261 Florida A&M University 58 66 67 University of South Florida 81 105 96 Florida Atlantic University 189 187 160 University of West Florida 68 91 111 University of Central Florida 115 140 145 Florida International University 259 228 86 University of North Florida 99 119 134 Florida Gulf Coast University 0 0 0 To tals 1,007 1,234 1,163Table G12 (Panels A through F) Degrees Awarded by Selected DisciplineSource: Florida Department of Education Factbook for Academic Years: ‘99-’00, ‘00-’01, ‘01-’02 45 Education Indicators 9 5/6/04, 5:31:58 AM

PAGE 48

AN ENTERPRISE FLORIDA PARTNERThe Tampa Bay Economic Market Report is sponsored by the Tampa Bay Partnership’s Council of Governors: T ampa Bay Partnership • 4300 W. Cypress Street, Suite 250 • Tampa, FL 33607 TEL: 813.878.2208 • FAX: 813.872.9356 • www.TampaBay.org Cover 2 5/5/04, 11:19:42 PM