USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay and Florida economies in 2001

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay and Florida economies in 2001
Running title:
Tampa Port Authority
Economic impact of the Port of Tampa
Physical Description:
1 online resource (162 p.) col. ill. : ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Moody, Andrew J
Colie, Dennis G
DeSalvo, Joseph S
Tampa Port Authority
Business Research & Economic Advisors
University of South Florida -- Center for Economic Development Research
Publisher:
Business Research & Economic Advisors
Place of Publication:
Exton, Pa
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Harbors -- Florida -- Tampa Bay Region   ( lcsh )
Harbors -- Economic aspects -- Florida -- Tampa Bay Region   ( lcsh )
Shipping -- Florida -- Tampa Bay Region   ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Tampa Bay Region (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for Tampa Port Authority.
General Note:
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Aug. 11, 2009).
General Note:
Project principals: Andrew J. Moody, prinicpal, Business Research & Economic Advisors; Dennis Colie, director, Center for Economic Development Research, University of South Florida; Joseph S. DeSalvo, chairman, Dept. of Economics, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"November 2002."

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:
aleph - 002023607
oclc - 430105292
usfldc doi - C63-00091
usfldc handle - c63.91
System ID:
SFS0000358:00001


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 2200409Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 002023607
005 20090928182914.0
006 m d
007 cr cn|||||||||
008 090811s2002 paua sbs 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C63-00091
035
(OCoLC)430105292
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HE554.T3 (ONLINE)
0 4 245
The contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay and Florida economies in 2001
h [electronic resource] /
prepared for Tampa Port Authority.
1 246
Tampa Port Authority
Economic impact of the Port of Tampa
260
Exton, Pa. :
b Business Research & Economic Advisors,
2002.
300
1 online resource (162 p.) : col. ill.
500
Title from PDF of cover (viewed Aug. 11, 2009).
Project principals: Andrew J. Moody, prinicpal, Business Research & Economic Advisors; Dennis Colie, director, Center for Economic Development Research, University of South Florida; Joseph S. DeSalvo, chairman, Dept. of Economics, University of South Florida.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
"November 2002."
650
Harbors
z Florida
Tampa Bay Region.
Harbors
x Economic aspects
Florida
Tampa Bay Region.
Shipping
Florida
Tampa Bay Region.
651
Tampa Bay Region (Fla.)
Economic conditions.
700
Moody, Andrew J.
Colie, Dennis G.
DeSalvo, Joseph S.
2 710
Tampa Port Authority.
Business Research & Economic Advisors.
University of South Florida.
Center for Economic Development Research.
8 773
t Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) Collection
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c63.91



PAGE 1

Business Research & Economic Advisors P.O. Box 955 Exton, PA 19341 The Contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay and Florida Economies in 2001 Prepared for: Tampa Port Authority November 2002 BREA Business Research & Economic Advisors

PAGE 2

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 1 November 2002 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................3 Introduction..................................................................................................4 Cargo and Cruise Activity at the Port of Tampa During 2001....................6 Direct Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa..................................7 Direct Contribution by Industry.............................................................11 Total Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa..................................13 Total Fiscal Contribution of the Port of Tampa........................................16 Total Contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Florida Economy............17 Introduction ..................................................................................................19 Data and Methodology .................................................................................22 Port Activity...............................................................................................23 Direct Economic Contribution...................................................................25 Economic Contribution of the Port Services Sector..............................27 Port Service Providers ........................................................................28 Cruise Service Providers ....................................................................34 Government Agencies .........................................................................40 Economic Contribution of the Export Sector.........................................42 Direct Economic Contribution of Locally Produced Export Goods ..44 Direct Economic Contribution of Export Goods Produced Outside of the Tampa Bay Region ........................................................................45 Economic Contribution of the Import Sector.........................................47 Economic Contribution of Inbound Cargo .........................................47 Economic Contribution of the Inland Transport Sector.........................59 Indirect, Induced and Total Economic Contribution.................................60 Fiscal Contribution....................................................................................61 Data Appendices ...........................................................................................63 APPENDIX III.A.......................................................................................64 APPENDIX III.B.......................................................................................67 BUNKERING SERVICES....................................................................67 SHIP CHANDLERING SERVICES.....................................................69 SHIP REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERVICES.................................71 GOVERNMENT SERVICES................................................................73 STEVEDORING SERVICES................................................................75 TERMINAL FACILITIES & WAREHOUSING..................................78 PILOTING/TOWING/TUGS/BARGE SERVICES..............................81 PORT SERVICES..................................................................................83 APPENDIX III.C.......................................................................................85

PAGE 3

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 2 November 2002 APPENDIX III.D.......................................................................................89 APPENDIX III.E.......................................................................................91 Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa ............................................94 Cargo and Cruise Activity at the Port of Tampa During 2001..................96 Direct Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa..............................100 Port Services Sector.............................................................................103 Export Sector........................................................................................106 Import Sector........................................................................................108 Inland Transportation Sector................................................................111 Direct Contribution by Industry...........................................................112 Indirect and Induced Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa.......114 Total Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa................................118 Total Fiscal Contribution of the Port of Tampa......................................120 Total Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa on the State of Florida .................................................................................................................122 Selected Industry Impacts ..........................................................................124 Economic Contribution of Cruise Activity at the Port of Tampa...........126 Economic Contribution of the Phosphate and Ag Chemical Industry....137 Economic Contribution of the Inland Transport Industry.......................146 Economic Contribution of the Tampa Bay Shipyard Industry................154 Project Principals .......................................................................................159

PAGE 4

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 3 November 2002 Executive Summary

PAGE 5

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 4 November 2002 Introduction Business Research and Economic Advisors (BREA) was engaged by the Tampa Port Authority (TPA) to conduct an analysis of the contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay regional economy1 and the state of Florida during 2001. Drs. Joseph DeSalvo, author of two previous studies of the Port of Tampa,2 and Dennis Colie, both of the University of South Florida, provided invaluable assistance throughout the project. Dr. Colie, who is also Director of the Center for Economic Development Research at USF, directed the estimation of the indirect economic impacts of the port using an econometric model of the Tampa Bay region and the state of Florida. The objective of the study was to quantify the state and regional employment, wages, output and taxes that were directly and indirectly related to the movement of goods and cruise passengers through the Port of Tampa. The major findings of this analysis included: !" The Port of Tampa moved 47.9 million tons of inbound and outbound cargo and handled 544,880 cruise passengers during 2001. !" Inbound cargo accounted for three-fourths (75 percent) of the total port tonnage. Petroleum and coal products, in turn, accounted for 70 percent of inbound tonnage. !" Phosphates were, by far, the most important outbound commodity accounting for 90 percent of the port’s outbound tonnage. !" The movement of goods and people through the Port of Tampa directly contributed $6.0 billion in output to the Tampa Bay regional economy. The production of this output in turn contributed to the direct employment of 34,658 workers who received $1.2 billion in wages. !" As a result of this direct contribution, the spending of businesses and employees in the Tampa Bay area was responsible for generating a total economic impact in the Tampa Bay region of $13 billion dollars in output, 107,900 jobs and $3.7 billion in wage income. 1 The Tampa Bay region is defined as the seven-county area composed of Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk and Sarasota counties. 2 The Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa, FY1985-86 with Debra L. Fuller and Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa, FY 1994-95

PAGE 6

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 5 November 2002 !" The total economic activity contributed by the Port of Tampa also generated tax revenues for the state and the local taxing authorities in the Tampa Bay area. Our analysis shows that this activity generated an estimated $380 million in state and local tax revenues. The total economic contribution of the port was the sum of the direct, indirect and induced impacts3 of cargo and passenger activity at the Port of Tampa. The direct economic contribution of the port consisted of the estimated output, jobs and wage income that occurred in the Tampa Bay region to: #" produce goods that were exported from the Port of Tampa; #" produce goods that utilized commodities that were imported through the port; #" transport commodities and passengers to and from port facilities and the Tampa Bay region; #" move, load, inspect and store commodities at the port; #" drydock and repair ships at the port; #" construct and maintain facilities at the Port of Tampa; and #" provide other business and financial services that were necessary to the functioning of the port. The indirect economic benefits associated with the Port of Tampa were generated through the spending by businesses that were directly impacted by the port. For example, terminal operators purchased equipment to move and store commodities, electricity and fuel to operate their facilities and equipment, and insurance for their property and employees. Thus, the indirect contribution measured the additional output, jobs and income that were generated elsewhere in the Tampa Bay economy in support of those firms and businesses directly impacted by the port. Finally, the induced impact of the port measured the economic activity that was generated by the spending of the employees whose jobs were directly and indirectly caused by the movement of cargo and passengers through the Port of Tampa. These workers spent their 3 The terms contribution, impact and benefit are used interchangeably throughout this report. While these terms can be interpreted somewhat differently, the approach taken in this study is one of economic contribution. In essence we statistically measure the flow of inbound and outbound cargo and passengers at the port, support activities in the region and the spending by port-impacted businesses and their employees during 2001 thro ugh the Tampa Bay regional economy.

PAGE 7

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 6 November 2002 incomes on household and consumer goods, including autos, groceries, education and so forth. This spending generated jobs in transportation, trade, services, government and even some local manufacturing. Thus, the induced contribution occurred throughout the economy, but primarily among consumer-based businesses and services. Cargo and Cruise Activity at the Port of Tampa During 2001 It was the movement of cargo and cruise passengers through the Port of Tampa that provided the base of activity that allowed the port to have an economic impact. Without the movement of commodities and people there was just a body of water. As shown in Table 1 47.9 million tons of cargo with an estimated value of $7.2 billion moved through the Port of Tampa during calendar year 2001. Inbound cargo accounted for 75 percent of the port’s total tonnage during the year with almost 60 percent of total tonnage having come from domestic inbound cargo. Table 1 – Port of Tampa Cargo Tonnage and Value – CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority & BREA Exports, or outbound cargo, accounted for one-fourth of the port’s tonnage and 31 percent of the value of all cargo. Unlike inbound cargo, foreign exports accounted for the bulk, approximately 70 percent, of the port’s tonnage and value of outbound cargo. Thus, most of the port’s outbound cargo was destined for foreign markets while the vast majority of the port’s inbound cargo arrived from other U.S. ports. Not surprisingly, the mix of commodities that made up inbound cargo was considerably different from the mix of commodities that were exported or shipped from the Port of Tampa. Having accounted for 90 percent of the port’s outbound cargo during 2001, TotalTotal YearDomesticForeignOutboundDomesticForeignInboundTotal Cargo Tonnage 20013,664,0518,266,11811,930,16927,970,5497,963,51935,934,06847,864,237 % of Total7.7%17.3%24.9%58.4%16.6%75.1% Cargo Value 2001668,990,137 $ 1,550,166,929 $ 2,219,157,066 $ 3,935,744,390 $ 1,056,492,803 $ 4,992,237,193 $ 7,211,394,259 $ % of Total9.3%21.5%30.8%54.6%14.7%69.2% OutboundInbound

PAGE 8

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 7 November 2002 phosphate products and related agricultural chemicals, including phosphate rock, were the most important outbound commodities. Over 10.7 million tons of phosphate products were exported through the Port of Tampa. Other outbound commodities included citrus and fruit products, scrap metal, vehicles and other chemical products. Inbound cargo was somewhat more diversified but petroleum and coal products combined accounted for 70 percent of the tonnage of inbound cargo. A total of 17.8 and 7.2 million tons of petroleum and coal products, respectively, were shipped into the Port of Tampa during 2001. Other major inbound cargo included sulphur and ammonia products, aggregates, steel, food products and other chemicals. The Port of Tampa is also a major cruise port. As shown in Table 2 the port handled 153 cruise ship calls and 544,880 cruise passengers during 2001. Table 2 – Cruise Activity at the Port of Tampa – CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority The vast majority of cruise ship calls, over 90 percent, were homeport turnaround calls, i.e., the cruise ships began and terminated their cruises at the Port of Tampa. The principal destination of the cruises that embarked from the port was the western Caribbean, including Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, Cozumel and Cancun. While the port is expanding its cruise base, Carnival cruise ships carried more than 95 percent of the cruise passengers during 2001. Direct Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa The direct economic contribution of the port was allocated among the following four major sectors: Port Services Export Import Inland Transport.Total Embarkations Disembarkations Intransit Passengers:544,880 270,853 272,186 1,841 Cruise Ship Calls:153 150 150 3 Passenger/Call3,561 1,806 1,815 614

PAGE 9

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 8 November 2002 The Port Services sector was defined as those firms that were immediately and directly involved in providing water transportation service for goods and passengers through the Port of Tampa, as well as those additional firms that directly provided support services to them. This included activities, such as chandlering, ship repair and maintenance, stevedoring, piloting and towing, terminal and warehousing services, cargo vessel operation and government services, such as those provided by the U.S. Coast Guard and Department of Agriculture. Activity generated by cruise passenger spending was also included in this sector, including lodging, retailing, dining, and entertainment. The Export sector included firms engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of goods exported through the Port of Tampa. Local industrial activity included in this sector consisted of the mining and manufacture of phosphates and other fertilizers, food processing, paper manufacturing, scrap metal processing and the wholesale trade of nonlocally produced export goods, such as autos and lumber. The Import sector included firms engaged in the sale and distribution of goods imported through the Port of Tampa and those local firms that directly used the imported goods in their production processes. By definition imported goods are not produced locally. Consequently, the economic contribution of the Import sector occurred through the local wholesale trade and distribution of the imported goods, as well as, the local output that was generated by the use of the imported commodities. All industries were directly impacted by imports to some degree but the major industries included electric utilities, food processors, metal fabricators and transportation services. Finally, the Inland Transport sector included those firms that moved both goods and cruise passengers to and from the port. The trucking and railroad industries were the primary industries in this sector, but it also included the air transportation and local transportation industries that transported cruise passengers to the area and port. As shown in Table 3 the flow of goods and passengers through the Port of Tampa contributed $6 billion in industry output to the Tampa Bay regional economy during 2001. This production generated an estimated 34,658 jobs throughout the Tampa Bay region paying an annual wage income of $1.25 billion.

PAGE 10

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 9 November 2002 Table 3 – Direct Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa by Sector Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As indicated in the table and Figure 1 the Export and Import sectors accounted for the bulk of the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa. Combined, these two sectors accounted for 86 percent of the output, 80 percent of the jobs and 77 percent of the wages contributed by the activity at the Port of Tampa. Figure 1 – Percentage Distribution of the Direct Output Contribution by Sector Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The Port Services sector, even with the smallest contribution, generated $521 million in industry output in the Tampa Bay region during 2001. The Tampa Bay businesses that produced this output employed 3,984 workers. These workers earned $162 million in an-Sector Out p ut ($ Million) Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Avg. Ann. Wage Port Services521 $ 3,984 162 $ 40,671 $ Export2,627 $ 6,787 332 $ 48,947 $ Import2,521 $ 21,079 634 $ 30,061 $ Inland Transport318 $ 2,808 123 $ 43,672 $ Total5,987 $ 34,658 1,251 $ 36,082 $ Direct Output Impact $6.0 BillionInland Transport 5% Port Services 9% Exports 44% Imports 42%

PAGE 11

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 10 November 2002 nual wages for an average annual wage of $40,671 per worker. Because this sector included the impact of non-transportation expenditures of cruise passengers, the direct contribution of this sector was spread across numerous industries beyond those involved in providing transportation services, including retailing, lodging and entertainment. The direct contribution of exports to the Tampa Bay regional economy primarily occurred through the production, sale and transportation to the port of locally produced goods. The volume and value of the export (outbound) commodities were shown earlier and totaled 11.9 million tons and $2.2 billion, respectively. It was determined that $2.1 billion of the outbound goods were produced in the Tampa Bay region and thus their production contributed to the regional economy. As indicated in Table 3, exports contributed $2.6 billion in industrial output, 6,787 jobs and $332 million in wage income to the Tampa Bay regional economy. Of the four sectors, exports contributed the largest share of output and because of its high concentration of mining and manufacturing jobs this sector also had the highest average annual wage, almost $49,000. As noted above, phosphates accounted for 90 percent of outbound tonnage; consequently, the phosphate industry accounted for slightly more than 80 percent of the direct economic contribution (output, employment and income) of the Export sector. In fact, the access to the waterborne commerce of the Port of Tampa is critical to the viability of the phosphate industry in the Tampa Bay area. While the contribution of imports also occurred through the production of goods and services, it is not the direct production of the imported goods that generated the economic contribution. Obviously, these goods were not produced locally and thus their production cannot contribute to the Tampa Bay economy. Rather their contribution was generated by their use in the production of other goods that were produced locally. For example, coal was used in the production of electricity and aggregates and lumber were used in construction.

PAGE 12

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 11 November 2002 As discussed previously, 35.9 million tons of inbound cargo with an estimated value of $5 billion moved through the Port of Tampa during 2001. As shown in Table 3, these imports supported the production of $2.5 billion in output in the Tampa Bay region during 2001. This output, in turn, provided for the employment of 21,079 workers who received wage income of $634 million. The Inland Transport sector’s direct contribution to the Tampa Bay regional economy occurred through the distribution of goods to and from the Port of Tampa. As noted previously, 47.9 million tons of goods were moved through the port during 2001. The distribution of these goods relied primarily upon the trucking and rail industries. As shown in Table 3, the inland transportation of these goods contributed $318 million in output, 2,808 jobs and $123 million in wages to the Tampa Bay regional economy during 2001. The trucking industry accounted for 75 percent of the Inland Transport sector’s direct output contribution. The railroad industry contributed another 13 percent primarily through the transportation of coal. The contribution of the air transportation and other transportation industries primarily occurred as a result of the travel of cruise passengers to and around the Tampa Bay area. Direct Contribution by Industry As the previous discussion makes clear, the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa is ultimately measured in terms of the output, jobs and wage income generated in the industrial sectors of the Tampa Bay regional economy. Table 4 shows these direct economic contributions for the major industrial sectors of the Tampa Bay region. Figure 2 shows the percentage distribution of the direct output contribution of the Port of Tampa by industry. The manufacturing sector accounted for the largest proportion, 59 percent, of the port’s direct output contribution. Due to the impact of phosphates and other agricultural chemicals, the manufacture of nondurable goods accounted for almost half of the total direct impact of the port. Within the durable goods manufacturing sector, the ship repair, fabricated metals and the machinery (electrical and nonelectrical) industries were the major beneficiaries of activity at the port.

PAGE 13

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 12 November 2002 The transportation industry accounted for 10 percent of the port’s direct output contribution. As discussed previously, the trucking industry, which moves goods to and from the port, accounted for about three-fourths of the overall transportation contribution. Table 4 – Direct Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa by Industry Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The trade industry, which includes both wholesale and retail trade, accounted for 9 percent of the port’s economic impact. Wholesale trade is by far the more important of the two having accounted for about 90 percent of the trade sector’s contribution. The retail trade contribution resulted from the cruise passenger expenditures for food and beverages, gifts and souvenirs and other general retail. Driven principally by the production of electric power, the communication and utilities industry accounted for 8 percent of the direct output contribution of the port. The services industry, including financial, business and personal services, accounted for 7 percent of the direct output contribution. The construction industry, which was impacted by new and maintenance construction at the port, accounted for 5 percent of the port’s direct output impact. And finally, 2 percent of the direct output contribution of the port was generated by the mining industry. Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Avg. Ann. Wage Mining100 $ 765 23 $ 30,010 $ Construction316 $ 3,298 110 $ 33,376 $ Manufacturing3,563 $ 9,882 451 $ 45,656 $ Mfg Nondurables2,830 $ 6,636 328 $ 49,463 $ Mfg Durables733 $ 3,247 123 $ 37,874 $ Transportation595 $ 5,481 242 $ 44,072 $ Communication & Utilities465 $ 1,060 58 $ 54,878 $ Trade532 $ 4,556 149 $ 32,738 $ Finance & Services398 $ 8,531 193 $ 22,618 $ Other17 $ 1,084 24 $ 22,544 $ Total5,987 $ 34,658 1,251 $ 36,082 $

PAGE 14

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 13 November 2002 Figure 2 – Percentage Distribution of the Direct Output Contribution of the Port of Tampa Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Total Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa The movement of cargo and cruise passengers through Port of Tampa was responsible for considerable economic activity in the Tampa Bay region. As noted previously this activity directly generated $6.0 billion in regional output. As shown in Table 5 this spending generated a total of $13 billion in regional output through the direct, indirect and induced spending of port-impacted businesses and their employees. This production, in turn, generated 107,903 jobs and $3.7 billion in wages and salaries throughout the Tampa Bay regional economy in 2001. The nondurable goods manufacturing sector was the most significantly impacted sector of the regional economy. Having generated $3.8 billion in output, 8,167 jobs and $384 million in wage income, it accounted for 28 percent of the port’s output impact (see Figure 3 ). As a result of its significant export volume, the agricultural chemical industry accounted for about half of this sector’s contribution. Other significant impacts were found in the food processing industry (9 percent), and the petroleum products and printing industries. Each accounted for about 4 percent of the output impact of this sector. Direct Output Contribution of the Port of Tampa $6.0 Billion Finance & Services 7% Trade 9% Communication & Utilities 8% Transportation 10% Mfg Durables 12% Mfg Nondurables 47% Construction 5% Mining 2%

PAGE 15

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 14 November 2002 Table 5 – Total Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa by Industry Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The largest employment impact occurred in the finance and services sector. This sector, with almost 33,000 jobs generated by port-related activity, accounted for 31 percent of the overall employment contribution of the port. This sector also generated $1.2 billion in wages and $2.1 billion in output. One-third of the impact occurred in financial services, 40 percent in business services and one-fourth in personal services. The impacts in the financial services component were generated primarily by the induced consumer spending and were concentrated in the real estate industry. The indirect impacts resulting from business spending generated employment in numerous business service sectors such as advertising, legal services and engineering consulting. Finally, the personal services were impacted by employee spending with the biggest impacts having occurred in the education and health sectors. The wholesale and retail trade sector accounted for 23 percent of the employment contribution and 15 percent of the output impact of the port. Just over half (55 percent) of this sector’s contribution occurred in the wholesale trade industry. Within the retail trade sector, one-fifth of the benefits occurred in eating and drinking establishments with the rest spread throughout the rest of retail. Sector Out p ut ($ Million) Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Avg. Ann. Wage Mining758 $ 4,152 138 $ 33,351 $ Construction1,509 $ 19,011 488 $ 25,656 $ Manufacturing4,936 $ 13,820 614 $ 44,428 $ Mfg Nondurables3,762 $ 8,167 384 $ 47,046 $ Mfg Durables1,173 $ 5,653 230 $ 40,647 $ Transportation876 $ 8,037 350 $ 43,600 $ Communication & Utilities795 $ 2,241 119 $ 52,954 $ Trade1,933 $ 24,352 707 $ 29,035 $ Finance & Services2,136 $ 32,980 1,224 $ 37,111 $ Other36 $ 3,310 95 $ 28,689 $ Total12,978 $ 107,903 3,735 $ 34,616 $

PAGE 16

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 15 November 2002 Figure 3 – Percentage Distribution of the Total Output Contribution Port of Tampa Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The construction sector added over 19,000 jobs with a total income of $488 million to the Tampa Bay regional economy as a result of the movement of goods and cruise passengers through the Port of Tampa. Eighty percent of the construction sector’s contribution was due to the indirect and induced impacts. The indirect and induced business and consumer spending generated by the port spurred $1.2 billion in nonresidential and residential construction output. The remaining sectors contributed $3.6 billion in output, 23,393 jobs and $932 million in wage income to the Tampa Bay regional economy during 2001 as a result of the operations at the Port of Tampa. Combined these sectors accounted for 28 percent of the total output contribution in the Tampa Bay region. Total Output Contribution of the Port of Tampa $13 Billion Finance & Services 17% Mining 6% Construction 12% Mfg Nondurables 28% Mfg Durables 9% Transportation 7% Communication & Utilities 6% Trade 15%

PAGE 17

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 16 November 2002 In summary, the Port of Tampa affected virtually all sectors of the Tampa Bay regional economy. The industries that were most significantly impacted included: #" Phosphate Mining #" Construction #" Food Processing #" Agricultural Chemicals #" Ship Maintenance and Repair #" Machinery and Computers #" Fabricated Metals #" Railroads #" Trucking #" Communications #" Utilities #" Wholesale & Retail Trade #" Banking #" Advertising #" Legal Services #" Health Services.Total Fiscal Contribution of the Port of Tampa The total fiscal contribution of the Port of Tampa was determined by the direct, indirect and induced contribution of each sector’s economic activity. In Florida, there are six principal state and local taxes: 1) the state sales tax; 2) the state corporate income tax; 3) the state motor fuels tax; 4) the local option sales tax; 5) local motor fuel taxes and 6) local property taxes. In addition, there are numerous smaller taxes and fees collected by state and local taxing authorities in the state. BREA’s fiscal impact analysis showed that the total economic contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay regional economy contributed a total of $380 million in state and local tax revenues in 2001 (see Table 6 ). These were state and local tax revenues that were generated by the economic contribution of the port that occurred within the Tampa Bay region. The analysis also showed that the state received an estimated $210 million in tax revenues from the total economic contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay regional economy. Sales tax revenues accounted for over two-thirds of the state tax collections. On the local level, taxing authorities received a total of $170 million, 92 percent from local property taxes, as a result of the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa.

PAGE 18

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 17 November 2002 Table 6 – State & Local Fiscal Contribution of the Port of Tampa Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Total Contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Florida Economy The economic contribution of the Port of Tampa to the state of Florida was about 15 per cent higher than its contribution to the Tampa Bay region. The larger impact was due to two principal reasons. First, the direct contribution to the state economy was slightly higher due to such factors as spending by Tampa cruise passengers in other Florida destinations, such as Orlando, and the use of inland transportation services in other regions in Florida to deliver or receive Port of Tampa cargo. Second, the indirect and induced impacts were larger because directly impacted Tampa businesses and consumers purchased goods and services that were produced in other parts of the state. As shown, in Table 7 we estimated that the movement of cargo and cruise passengers through the Port of Tampa during 2001 generated 124,600 jobs throughout the state of Florida. Approximately 15 percent of these jobs were outside of the Tampa Bay region. These workers produced an estimated $14.8 billion in output and received $4.4 billion in wages and salaries during the year. Categories Revenues $ Millions State Sales Tax147 $ State Corporate Income Tax15 $ State Fuel Tax16 $ Other State Taxes & Fees32 $ State Subtotal210 $ Local Sales Tax8 $ Local Property Tax155 $ Local Fuel Tax7 $ Local Subtotal170 $ State & Local Total380 $

PAGE 19

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 18 November 2002 Table 7 – Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay and Florida Economies – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Region Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) State and Local Taxes ($ Million) Florida14,812 $ 124,600 4,438 $ $451 Tampa Bay12,978 $ 107,903 3,735 $ $380 Share of FL Impacts87.6%86.6%84.2%84.2%

PAGE 20

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 19 November 2002 Introduction

PAGE 21

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 20 November 2002 The primary objectives of this study were to estimate the economic contribution or impact4 of the Port of Tampa during 2001: to the Tampa Bay region; to the state of Florida; and generated by four industry segments #" cruise, #" shipyards and drydocks, #" inland transportation, and #" phosphates and related agricultural chemicals. For the purposes of this study the Tampa Bay region includes the following seven counties: Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk and Sarasota. The economic contribution of the Port of Tampa was measured in terms of the annual employment, wage and salary distributions, industry output and state and local tax collections that resulted from the movement of goods and cruise passengers through the port and the Tampa area. The total economic contribution of the port is the sum of the following three categories of impacts: #" direct; #" indirect; and #" induced. Direct impacts were defined as that spending and activity that occurred as a necessary condition or result of the movement of cargo and cruise passengers through the port. This included such activities as: 4 The terms contribution, impact and benefit are used interchangeably throughout this report. While these terms can be interpreted somewhat differently, the approach taken in this study is one of economic contribution. In essence we statistically measure the flow of inbound and outbound cargo and passengers through the port, support activities in the region and the spending by port-impacted businesses and their employees during 2001 thro ugh the Tampa Bay regional economy.

PAGE 22

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 21 November 2002 #" local production of export goods; #" local spending by cruise passengers; #" handling, loading, storage and inspection of commodities at the port; and #" transportation of commodities and passengers to and from port facilities and the area. Indirect economic impacts can be described as business-to-business impacts. These occurred as the directly impacted businesses (shipyards, terminals, export manufacturers, government agencies, etc.) purchased supplies, materials and services from other businesses. These included such goods and services as: #" machinery and equipment; #" raw materials; #" utility services; and #" insurance. Induced economic impacts were derived from the spending by the employees of the directly and indirectly impacted firms for household and consumer goods. These included such goods and services as: #" groceries; #" furniture; #" housing; and #" medical services. Thus, the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa touched virtually every aspect of the Tampa Bay region.

PAGE 23

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 22 November 2002 Data and Methodology

PAGE 24

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 23 November 2002 To accomplish the objectives of the project economic, cargo, and cruise data had to be collected from a variety sources, including: #" surveys of port service providers; #" State of Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation; #" U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; #" U.S. Department of Commerce; #" U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; #" Tampa Bay Convention & Visitors Bureau; #" Tampa Port Authority; #" Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS); and #" Center for Economic Development Research, Univ. of South Florida. These data formed the basis for estimating the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa. In the following sections, we discuss the methodology underlying this study, including the data sources and the calculations that were made to develop the various economic impacts. Port Activity Since the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa is derived from the movement of cargo and passengers through the port, the first phase of the project required us to: 1) collect and estimate data on the volume and value of cargo handled at the port, and 2) assemble cruise passenger statistics and data on cruise industry (passengers and cruise lines) spending during 2001. The Tampa Port Authority (TPA) provided cargo reports detailing the volume (tonnage) of inbound and outbound cargo by commodity for calendar year 2001. However, in order to estimate the economic contribution of the cargo, the value of both inbound and outbound cargo had to be estimated. A three-month sample (March, June and October of 2001) of the value and volume of all inbound and outbound cargo by commodity was obtained from PIERS.5 These data were aggregated into the same commodity categories as 5 PIERS maintains comprehensive statistics on global cargo movements transiting seaports in the United States, Mexico and South America to companies around the globe. PIERS reporters collect import and export information daily from over 25,000 bills of lading and vessel manifests. The data collected by PIERS

PAGE 25

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 24 November 2002 reported by the TPA and the average price per ton was calculated by dividing the total value of each commodity by the tonnage as reported by PIERS for each of the three months.6 The average commodity price per ton calculated from the PIERS data was then multiplied by the total commodity tonnage reported by the TPA to estimate the total value of inbound and outbound cargo handled at the Port of Tampa during 2001. Based upon these data, we estimated that 47.9 million tons of cargo with a value of $7.2 billion moved through the port in calendar year 2001 (see Table 8 ). The volume and estimated value of inbound and outbound commodities are shown in Appendix III.A Inbound cargo at 35.9 million tons accounted for three-fourths of the port’s total tonnage and 70 percent of the value of all cargo handled at the port during 2001. Most inbound cargo (78 percent) arrived from other U.S. ports while most outbound cargo (69 percent) was destined for foreign ports. Table 8 – Cargo Tonnage and Estimated Value – Port of Tampa – CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority & BREA The Port of Tampa is also an important and expanding cruise port. The TPA also provided data on cruise ship calls and passengers. As shown in Table 9 153 cruise ships called at the Port of Tampa and a total of 544,880 cruise passengers moved through the port during 2001 for average of 3,561 passengers per cruise ship call. include such items as volume, value, destination, origination and numerous other types of data by commodity. 6 It should also be noted that the PIERS data contained volume and value data for individual commodity shipments for both inbound and outbound cargo at the Port of Tampa. Thus, the average prices for commodity group were calculated from a sample that included more than 3,800 outbound and inbound commodity shipments. TotalTotal YearDomesticForeignOutboundDomesticForeignInboundTotal Cargo Tonnage 20013,664,0518,266,11811,930,16927,970,5497,963,51935,934,06847,864,237 % of Total7.7%17.3%24.9%58.4%16.6%75.1% Cargo Value 2001668,990,137 $ 1,550,166,929 $ 2,219,157,066 $ 3,935,744,390 $ 1,056,492,803 $ 4,992,237,193 $ 7,211,394,259 $ % of Total9.3%21.5%30.8%54.6%14.7%69.2% OutboundInbound

PAGE 26

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 25 November 2002 Table 9– Cruise Activity at the Port of Tampa – CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority & BREA The volume and value of cargo and the spending of the cruise passengers were the critical inputs for estimating the port’s direct economic contribution. The application of the cargo and passenger data in the development of the estimate of the port’s direct economic contribution is discussed next. Direct Economic Contribution The second phase of the project focused on estimating the direct contribution of the port and defining the industries or sectors in the Tampa Bay region that were directly impacted by the movement of cargo and passengers through the Port of Tampa. As discussed previously the direct contribution was defined as that spending and activity that occurred as a necessary condition or result of the movement of cargo and cruise passengers through the port. The businesses that were directly impacted by the activity at the port were grouped into four major sectors: #" Port Services; #" Export; #" Import; and #" Inland Transport. The Port Services sector was defined as those firms that were immediately and directly involved in providing water transportation service for goods and passengers through the Port of Tampa, as well as those firms that directly provided support services to them. Firms in this sector provided the following services: Total Embarkations Disembarkations Intransit Passengers:544,880 270,853 272,186 1,841 Cruise Ship Calls:153 150 150 3 Passenger/Call3,561 1,806 1,815 614

PAGE 27

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 26 November 2002 #" chandlering; #" ship repair and maintenance; #" stevedoring; #" piloting and towing; #" terminal and warehousing services; and #" cargo vessel operators and agents. Government services were also included in this sector, such as those provided by the Tampa Port Authority and federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Agriculture, U.S. Customs Service and others. Lastly, the businesses that benefit from the landside spending of the cruise lines and their passengers were included as well. Industries that benefited from the landside spending of the cruise lines and their passengers include: #" lodging; #" restaurants; #" general retail; #" entertainment and amusements; #" personal services; and #" business services. The Export sector included firms engaged in the manufacture and distribution of goods exported through the Port of Tampa. Export (outbound) commodities were identified from cargo reports published by the Tampa Port Authority. To be included in the direct economic contribution, the production and distribution activities had to have taken place by firms located in the seven-county Tampa Bay region. Industries included in this sector were: #" mining and manufacture of phosphates and other fertilizers; #" food processing; #" paper manufacturing; #" scrap metal processing; and #" wholesale trade of non-locally produced export goods, i.e., autos, lumber, etc.

PAGE 28

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 27 November 2002 The Import sector included firms engaged in the sale and distribution of goods imported through the Port of Tampa and those local firms that directly used the inbound commodities in their production processes. By definition imported (inbound) cargo were not produced locally; consequently, the economic contribution of the Import sector occurred through the local wholesale trade of the imported goods, as well as, the local output that was generated by the use of the inbound commodities. All major industries were directly impacted by imports to some degree but the major industries included: #" electric utilities; #" food processors; #" metal fabricators; and #" transportation services. Again, the distribution and manufacturing activity had to have taken among firms located in the seven-county Tampa Bay region. Finally, the Inland Transport sector included those firms that moved both goods and cruise passengers to and from the port. The trucking and railroad industries were the primary industries in this sector, but it also included the air transportation and local transportation industries that transported cruise passengers to the area and port. In the following sections, we describe the measurement of the direct economic contribution of each sector including a discussion of data collection and estimation techniques. Economic Contribution of the Port Services Sector The Port Services sector included port service providers (shipyards, cargo vessel operators and agents, ship chandlers, stevedores, terminal and warehouse operators and other firms that directly supported the movement of cargo through the Port of Tampa), cruise service providers (firms impacted by the spending of cruise lines and their passengers) and government agencies.

PAGE 29

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 28 November 2002 Port Service Providers Using the 2001 Tampa Port Authority Official Directory and a list of Port Authority tenants, 105 firms were identified as port service providers. A set of surveys, similar to those used in the 1988 Port of Tampa economic impact study,7 were distributed to each of these firms. The surveys were designed to collect data on employment, wages and benefits, revenues and other expenses for each of the firms that were directly dependent upon the Port of Tampa. Separate surveys (see Appendix III.B ) were designed for firms engaged in providing the following goods or services: #" bunker fuels; #" chandlering; #" drydock and ship repair; #" government; #" stevedoring; #" terminals and warehousing; #" piloting and towing; and #" other port service providers. Complete responses were received from 29 of these firms. These responses were then supplemented with employment and wage data from the U.S. Department of Labor.8 Employment and wage income data for 2001 were obtained for an additional 41 companies. As a result, we were able to identify employment and wages for 70 (66.7%) of the 105 firms in the Port Services sector. We refer to these 70 companies as “covered” companies or firms while the “uncovered” companies were those for which we lacked employment and wage data. Estimates for the “uncovered” firms were calculated from average employment and wages of the “covered” companies. 7 Joseph S. DeSalvo and Debra L. Fuller, The Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Center for Economic and Management Research, University of South Florida, 1988. 8 The Department of Labor’s ES-202 program collects monthly employment and quarterly wage income from each firm that is covered by state unemployment insurance programs. Company specific data was obtained while maintaining complete confidentiality.

PAGE 30

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 29 November 2002 Because the average size of firms and wages varied significantly across groups of companies, average employment per company and average annual wage per employee were estimated for the “covered “ companies in each of the following groups in the Port Services sector: #" Chandlers #" Shipyards and Drydocks #" Stevedores #" Ship Agents and Operators #" Pilots and Tugboats #" Terminal and Warehousing Services. Within the Terminal and Warehousing Services group, separate averages were calculated for food, petroleum, aggregates and other terminals and warehouses.9 Then for each group, the number of “uncovered” establishments was multiplied by the average employee size of “covered” establishments to estimate total employment among the “uncovered” firms. The employment estimate for “uncovered” firms was then multiplied by the average annual wage per employee of the “covered” firms in each group to estimate total annual wage income for the “uncovered” companies. The estimates of employment and wage income for the “uncovered” firms were then added to the “covered” totals for each group to arrive at the employment and wage income estimates reported in Table 10 for each group. Using firms providing chandler services as an example, the following procedure was used to estimate total employment, wages and output for each Port Services group. Nineteen firms were identified as providing chandlering services as their principal business activity. Surveys were sent to all nineteen. Six firms returned completed surveys and we obtained ES-202 employment and wage data for seven other firms. Thus we were able to obtain actual employment and wage data for 68% of the identified firms that provided chandlering services at the Port of Tampa during 2001. As shown in Table 10, the thirteen firms averaged 7.7 employees and paid an average annual wage (excluding benefits) 9 Phosphate and scrap metal terminals were excluded from this component of the analysis because they were included in the Export sector.

PAGE 31

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 30 November 2002 of $33,447 per worker. Using these averages we then estimated that all nineteen firms employed 146 (19 x 7.7) workers during 2001 and paid these workers total annual wages of $4.9 million (146 x $33,447). Table 10– Estimated Employment and Wages for Port Service Providers – 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Also shown in Table 10 is output. This is defined as the total value of goods and services produced by the workers employed in each group within the sector. We estimated each group’s output from data on industry output and wage and salary disbursements for the Tampa Bay region as provided by the Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) of the University of South Florida. Using these data we calculated the ratio of output to wage and salary disbursements at the two-digit SIC level. The appropriate industry ratio was then multiplied by the estimated wage and salary contribution for each group as shown in Table 10. Again, using the chandler group, which on an industry classification basis is considered to be in the wholesale trade industry, the ratio of output to wages and salaries was 3.36 [or wages accounted for 30% of output (the inverse of 3.36)]. Multiplying chandler wages ($4.9 million) by 3.36 we arrived at estimated chandler output of $16 million. These estimation techniques were used for each group shown in Table 10. An exception to this estimation technique was applied to the Piloting and Towing group. Pilots were employed to supervise the movement of cargo and cruise vessels into and out Port Service Number Average Number of Workers Average Ann. Wage per Worker Number Estimated Total Employees Estimted Total Wages Estimated Total Output Chandlers13 7.7 33,447 $ 19 146 4,883,289 $ 16,385,319 $ Ship Agents & Operators16 13.0 59,888 $ 26 339 20,302,137 $ 29,709,048 $ Shipyards & Drydocks4 183.6 36,458 $ 5 918 33,468,649 $ 257,343,664 $ Stevedores5 44.9 50,667 $ 8 359 18,189,556 $ 30,635,506 $ Piloting & Towing Services7 25.4 52,154 $ 10 254 13,247,235 $ 22,584,906 $ Terminal & Warehouses25 28.0 44,448 $ 37 1,035 46,004,131 $ 109,461,507 $ Food7 14.4 40,711 $ 9 130 5,292,372 $ 12,592,587 $ Aggregates6 78.9 47,751 $ 7 552 26,358,367 $ 62,716,685 $ Fuel9 20.9 41,020 $ 15 313 12,839,188 $ 30,549,362 $ Other3 6.7 37,855 $ 6 40 1,514,204 $ 3,602,873 $ Total70 105 3,051 136,094,997 $ 466,119,950 $ Covered FirmsAll Port Firms

PAGE 32

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 31 November 2002 of the Port of Tampa while firms engaged in towing services (including tugboats) towed barges and also positioned ships into and away from docks and through narrow channels. Pilots operate through the Tampa Bay Pilots Association (TBPA) which manages their assignments and interacts with and pays fees to the Florida Board of Professional Regulation. The board regulates and certifies pilots throughout the state. During 2001, pilots were assessed 0.6% of their revenue to be paid to the Board. The TBPA paid $52,547.28 to the Board on behalf of the Tampa Bay pilots. Thus, piloting output has been estimated to be $8.8 million ($52,547.28 0.006) during 2001. The board also reported that Tampa Bay pilots handled 4,886 vessels during 2001. The TBPA also reported that 24 pilots operated in Tampa Bay during 2001 and that the association, itself, had a staff of 19 employees. Based on the information provided by the TBPA, we estimated that the 43 individuals associated with piloting in Tampa Bay received total wages of $1.3 million, about 10 percent of total wages for the Piloting and Towing group. The estimates of employment, wages and output for the towing operations were estimated using the same procedure as discussed for chandlers. Overall, we estimated that the 105 firms in the Port Services sector employed 3,051 workers as a direct result of maritime activity at the Port of Tampa during 2001. These workers received an estimated annual wage income of $136 million. We also estimated that these firms produced $466 million in goods and services in support of the Tampa maritime industry. Following is a brief description of each group and its estimated direct economic contribution. Terminals and Warehouses The subgroups included within the Terminals and Warehouses group employed an estimated total of 1,035 workers during 2001. These workers received estimated annual wages of $46 million and had an output contribution of $109 million. For the group as a whole, employment and wage data were obtained for 25 of the 37 firms (67 percent)

PAGE 33

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 32 November 2002 identified as having facilities at the port. The average size of firms ranged from a high of 78.9 for terminals/warehouses handling Aggregates to a low of 6.7 for facilities in the Other category. These two subgroups also had the highest and lowest average annual wage per employee, $47,751 for Aggregates and $37,855 for the Other subgroup. The Aggregates subgroup, which includes the handling and storage of constructionrelated building materials, such as gypsum, asphalt, cement, sand and gravel, was responsible for the largest employment (552), wage ($26.4 million) and output ($62.7 million) impacts within the Terminal and Warehouse group. The Fuel subgroup, which is primarily petroleum terminals, contributed 313 jobs paying $12.8 million in wage income to the Tampa Bay region as a result of the movement of fuel oil through the Port of Tampa. The Food subgroup included storage and warehousing for a variety of food products, including fresh and frozen citrus products, edible oils, seafood, raw and processed grains and salt. Finally, the Other subgroup included storage facilities for a broad range of products, including chemicals (excluding phosphates and fertilizers), tallow and soap products. Combined the terminal and storage facilities of the Food and Other subgroups contributed 170 jobs paying $6.8 million in wage income to the Tampa Bay region during 2001. Shipyards and Drydocks The companies of the Shipyard and Drydock group provided maintenance and repair services for maritime vessels including cruise ships, cargo vessels, tugboats and barges. Employment and wage data were obtained for four of the five firms (80 percent) with drydock and maintenance facilities at the port. We have estimated that the Tampa shipyards serviced more than 200 vessels during 2001. While there were a small number of firms in this group, their average employment was significant during 2001 with 183.6 workers who received an average annual wage of $36,458. Thus, we estimated that the Shipyard and Drydock group was responsible for the creation of 918 jobs in the Tampa Bay region. These workers received annual wage income of $33.5 million and had an output impact estimated at $257 million.

PAGE 34

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 33 November 2002 Stevedores Stevedoring firms employed workers to load and unload goods from cargo and cruise vessels. Our analysis identified eight firms that were primarily involved in providing stevedoring services at the Port of Tampa and employment and wage data were obtained for five of them (62 percent). The average stevedoring firm employed 44.9 workers paid annual wages of $50,667 per worker. In total, these firms employed an estimated 359 workers and paid wage income of $18.2 million during 2001. The estimated output impact of this group was $30.6 million. Ship Agents and Operators Because cruise and cargo vessel operators do not necessarily maintain any operations in a particular port city, they hire agents to represent their interests in these port cities. Ship agents will arrange for a variety of services, including stevedoring, freight forwarding, storage, documentation and verification of cargo and financial services, such as insurance bonds. The Tampa Bay region is also home to a number of cargo vessel operators. Some of these have cargo ships that operate from the Port of Tampa and others do not. This analysis only included those companies whose ships operated from the Port of Tampa in 2001. Our analysis identified 26 companies that operated as agents or owners at the Port of Tampa during 2001. Most of these companies were small with only a few employees while a few had significantly higher employment. The average company size for the 16 companies for which employment data were obtained was 13 employees who received an average annual wage of $59,888. Based upon the averages calculated for the thirteen firms, we estimated that a total of 339 workers were employed in this group and were paid $20.3 million in wage income during 2001. This group had an estimated output impact of $29.7 million.

PAGE 35

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 34 November 2002 Piloting and Towing Services In total, we estimated that the 10 companies in the Piloting and Towing Service group employed 254 workers.10 These workers received $13.2 million in wage income during 2001 and had an estimated output contribution of $22.6 million. Excluding the pilots, employment and data were obtained for six of nine firms with towing or tugboat operations at the port. The tugboat operators accounted for about 85 percent of the employment and wage income of this sector. Chandlers Chandlers provided a variety of goods to cargo and cruise vessels. These included food and beverages for passengers and crew, maintenance supplies, safety and navigation equipment and other soft and hard goods for cargo and cruise vessels. Employment and wage data were obtained for 13 of the 19 of the firms (68 percent) with operations at the port. The average chandlering firm employed 7.7 workers had paid annual wages of $33,447 per worker. In total, chandlers employed an estimated 146 workers and paid them $4.9 million in wage income during 2001. The estimated output impact was $16.4 million. Cruise Service Providers The cruise sector has been one of the fastest growing sectors at the Port of Tampa. During 2001, 153 cruise ships made calls at the Port of Tampa, 150 of which were cruise embarkations from Tampa. Carnival Cruises was the major cruise company operating out of Tampa and accounted for approximately 90 percent of the cruise ship calls in 2001. Holland America was next with 6 percent of the calls. As shown in Table 11, 270,853 passengers embarked on cruises at the port during 2001. Total passenger movements at the port were 544,880. Passenger movements have been on a steady growth trend over the past decade having increased from 55,248 passengers in 1991. Thus, passenger movements have increased at an average annual rate of 26 percent since 1991. 10 For purposes of this report pilots and their association were treated as a single establishment. The employment figure also includes the staff of the Tampa Bay Pilots Association.

PAGE 36

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 35 November 2002 Table 11– Passenger Movement at the Port of Tampa – 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority Cruise Sector Expenditures The impact of the cruise sector on the Tampa Bay region was generated by the landside spending of the cruise lines and their passengers. Cruise lines purchased a variety of soft and hard goods, including food and beverages, fuel, hotel supplies, maintenance supplies, and services, such as security, entertainment and sanitary services, from Tampa Bay businesses. Cruise passengers purchased lodging services, food and beverages, entertainment services, such as visits to the Florida Aquarium, and gifts and souvenirs. Data on cruise line spending in Tampa Bay were obtained from BREA which tracks cruise industry spending by industry and location. Cruise passenger spending in Tampa was estimated from cruise passenger survey data collected by Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc. for the Tampa Bay Convention and Visitors Bureau (TBCVB).11 As shown in Table 12 just over half (56 percent) of cruise passengers arrived in Tampa on the day of the cruise during 2001. About one-fourth (28 percent) stayed at least one night in an area hotel while the remaining passengers (16 percent) stayed with friends, at a condo or at a campground. The average cruise party consisted of 3.1 persons and spent 1.17 days in the Tampa area. This implies that the 44 percent of passengers who stayed at hotels and other places stayed an average of 1.4 days in the Tampa area. The TBCVB study also indicated that the average cruise party spent $225.39 per day. Given the average size of a cruise party and their average length of stay, this implies that the average cruise passenger spent $72.00 per day and $84.25 per visit. 11 Dr. Mark Bonn, 2001 A nnual Visitor’s Study for Tampa/Hillsborough County Tampa Bay Convention and Visitors Bureau. Total Embarkations Disembarkations Intransit Passengers:544,880 270,853 272,186 1,841 Cruise Ship Calls:153 150 150 3 Passenger/Call3,561 1,806 1,815 614

PAGE 37

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 36 November 2002 Table 12– Major Cruise Passenger Spending Characteristics – 2001 Source: Bonn Market Research Group, Inc. As shown in Table 13 most cruise passengers (55 percent) arrived in Tampa by automobile with the remaining (45 percent) having arrived by air. Also, 11.9 percent of Tampa cruise passengers arrived from Orlando. Table 13– Transportation Characteristics of Cruise Passengers– 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The above cruise passenger characteristics and more detailed expenditure data by category and visitor type, i.e., hotel stay, no stay, campground, etc., were combined to develop the estimates of passenger spending by category as shown in Table 14 A few points are worth mentioning before proceeding with the discussion of passenger spending. First, intransit passengers and the difference between passenger embarkations and debarkations (see Table 11) were treated as 1-day visitors. There were 3,174 such passengers during 2001. Second, since passengers who arrived in Tampa via air obviously made use of the airport facilities, their arrival at the airport contributed to the cruise sector’s impact. We applied half of the estimated airfare expenditures to the air transportation sector in the Tampa region. Implicitly the other half would be applied to their origi-% Hotel Stay27.6% No Stay56.4% Family/Friends15.1% Condos0.7% Campgrounds0.3% Exp./Party/Day$225.39 Avg. Party Size3.13 Avg. # of Nights1.17 Travel Mode to Tampa Air44.6% Auto55.4% Arriving from Orlando11.9%

PAGE 38

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 37 November 2002 nation/home airport. Third, as indicated above 12 percent of cruise passengers arrived from Orlando. We assumed that their spending occurred in the Orlando market and not the Tampa area. Table 14– Cruise Passenger Spending by Category in the Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Our analysis indicated that cruise passengers spent an estimated $41.8 million in the Tampa Bay region during 2001 for an average of $154.13 per passenger. Airfares were the single largest category. Based upon an average air fare of $325 for Carnival and Holland America passengers,12 we have estimated that the 45 percent of cruise passengers who flew to Tampa spent a total of $39.2 million, half of which ($19.6 million) was allocated to the Tampa region. Excluding airfares, cruise passengers spent an estimated $22.1 million at Tampa area businesses. Based upon the TBCVB information, we estimated that cruise passengers spent almost $6 million at area restaurants, $6.1 million on entertainment and at area attractions, such as the Aquarium, MOSI/MAX, Busch Gardens and sporting and other events, $3.3 million at retail establishments and $2.5 million on ground transportation. Those passengers who stayed in area hotels spent an additional 12 The average airfare for the Carnival and Holland America passengers is a weighted average of airfares paid by the cruise lines on behalf of their passengers. These data were obtained by BREA from a survey of U.S.-based cruise lines for 2001. Category Annual Spending Restaurant5,934,258 $ Shopping3,321,169 $ Attractions4,418,790 $ Ground Transp.2,544,931 $ Special Events834,974 $ Entertainment574,414 $ Groceries1,081,447 $ Other1,014,271 $ Sporting Event318,464 $ Lodging2,092,569 $ Total Spending (ex. Transp.)22,135,286 $ Airfare (Tampa Share)19,634,877 $ Total Expenditures41,770,164 $ Per Passenger Expenditures154.13 $

PAGE 39

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 38 November 2002 $2.1 million on lodging. Detailed data on passenger spending are shown in Appendix III.C To estimate cruise line spending in the Tampa area, we utilized survey data maintained by BREA. BREA conducts a survey of the North American cruise industry on an annual basis for the International Council of Cruise Lines. Among other information, expenditure data by vendor and location were collected. Using these data we were able to estimate cruise line expenditures for goods and services in the Tampa Bay region. These estimates are shown in Table 8. Table 15– Cruise Industry Spending by Category in the Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Cruise lines spent an estimated $10.8 million with Tampa-based businesses in 2001. Just over half, $5.5 million, was spent with chandlers in the Tampa Bay region. These included expenditures for food, linens and other hotel goods, galley equipment and electrical motors and equipment. The lines also spent just over $100,000 with area shipyards for repair services. The $2.6 million in expenditures for business services included legal, computer, marketing and sanitary services while the $2.5 million in expenditures for personal services primarily included spending for entertainment and photographic services. Cruise lines were also required to pay wharfage and dockage fees. Wharfage fees are based upon the number of passengers. A fee of $5.25 was assessed to each passenger embarkation, disembarkation and intransit during 2001. Dockage fees are based upon the Chandlers5,528,308 $ Shipbuilding100,631 $ Transportation Services26,240 $ Business Services2,636,090 $ Personal Services2,514,070 $ Total (ex. Fees)10,805,541 $ Wharfage & Dockage Fees4,909,000 $ Total15,714,541 $ Passenger Expenditures41,770,164 $ Total Cruise Expenditures57,484,705 $ Total Per Passenger Exp.209.78 $

PAGE 40

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 39 November 2002 length of the vessel. As reported by the Tampa Port Authority, cruise lines paid $4.9 million in wharfage and dockage fees to the Authority during 2001. Combining theses fees with their other expenditures, the cruise lines spent an estimated $15.7 million with Tampa Bay businesses and the Port Authority. In total the cruise industry operating in Tampa, both the cruise lines and their passengers, spent a total of $57.5 million with Tampa Bay businesses and the Port Authority. On a per passenger basis, the cruise sector generated $209.78 in total expenditures in the Tampa Bay region. Cruise Sector Direct Economic Contribution To estimate the direct economic contribution of the cruise service providers, output was estimated from the spending estimates discussed above, then wage income was estimated from the output estimates using wage shares and finally employment was estimated from wages using average wages per worker. The spending estimates were treated as the estimated output contribution of the cruise service providers for the following expenditure categories: business services, personal services, air transportation, transportation services, lodging and entertainment/amusements. Output for passenger spending for restaurants, shopping, groceries and other retail was estimated as the retail trade margins associated with that spending. The details for these calculations are shown in Appendix III.C Finally, cruise lines expenditures with chandlers and shipyards were already captured in our analysis of Port Service Providers and thus have not been included in the economic contribution of the cruise service providers. Similarly, wharfage and dockage fees, which were collected by the Tampa Port Authority, support the Authority’s spending and were included in the analysis for the government sector to be discussed next. As shown in Table 16 the landside spending by the cruise lines and their passengers contributed 516 jobs paying $12.9 million in wages to the Tampa Bay regional economy. These jobs had an output contribution of $39.1 million. The largest contribution occurred

PAGE 41

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 40 November 2002 in the air transportation industry with 198 jobs and $6.6 million in wage income. The more than 120,000 cruise passengers that arrived at the Tampa International Airport generated these jobs. The retail sector, including restaurants and other retail establishments, contributed 90 jobs and $1.2 million in wage income. The entertainment and amusement industry contributed a similar number of jobs, 84, and wage income of $1.9 million. The service sector, including transportation, lodging, business and personal services, contributed 154 jobs and $3.2 million in wage income. Table 16– Employment, Wages and Output Generated by the Cruise Sector – 2001 Tampa Bay Region Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Government Agencies The government agencies that contributed to the economic impact of the port included federal and state agencies that were directly impacted by the maritime activity at the Port of Tampa. The principal agencies included: the Tampa Port Authority, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Customs Office and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Data for the Port Authority were obtained from its annual report and other financial records. All data were adjusted from a fiscal year basis to a calendar year basis. The economic contribution of the Port Authority was estimated as its direct labor and nonlabor Industr y Em p lo y mentWa g e IncomeOut p ut Transportation Services41 839,231 $ 2,571,170 $ Business Services45 1,126,665 $ 2,636,090 $ Personal Services34 623,490 $ 2,514,070 $ Air Transportation198 6,640,516 $ 19,634,877 $ Lodging34 629,236 $ 2,092,569 $ Restaurants47 568,672 $ 1,725,863 $ Retail Trade33 598,553 $ 1,816,549 $ Entertainment/Amusements84 1,918,982 $ 6,146,642 $ Total516 12,945,345 $ 39,137,832 $

PAGE 42

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 41 November 2002 expenses during 2001, including the value of construction work-in-progress during the year. Data for the government agencies were collected both from the surveys previously discussed and through conversations with agency and port representatives. The contribution of the U.S. Coast Guard was based on survey data and the Coast Guard’s assessment of the allocation of its resources to the Port of Tampa. The estimates for the remaining agencies were based upon their total staffing in the Tampa area and the average assignment of staff to cruise and cargo vessel calls. As shown in Table 17 a total of 656 jobs were generated in both the private and public sectors as a result of the maritime activity at the Port of Tampa. These workers received annual wage income of $23.9 million and had an output contribution of $37.9 million. The Public sector, government agencies and the Tampa Port Authority, accounted for about 40% of the total employment and wage contribution. Table 17– Employment, Wages and Output Generated by Government Agencies – 2001 Tampa Bay Region Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Within the private sector, the bulk of the employment contribution, 347 jobs, was generated in the construction sector. This figure was based upon an estimated $34 million worth of construction work-in-progress as reported by the Tampa Port Authority. The output contribution of the private sector industries was equal to the Port Authority’s reported annual expenses for the services provided by those industries. As was described IndustryEmploymentWage IncomeOutput Port Authority146 5,772,780 $ NA Pub. Rel. & Marketing10 420,546 $ 677,445 $ Utilities3 107,045 $ 1,352,892 $ Insurance4 156,122 $ 324,438 $ Business Services28 724,016 $ 1,368,962 $ Communications1 31,769 $ 210,302 $ Construction347 11,934,000 $ 34,000,000 $ Government Agencies117 4,728,510 $ NA Total656 23,874,788 $ 37,934,039 $

PAGE 43

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 42 November 2002 for the previous sectors, wage income was estimated by multiplying industry output by the appropriate wage share and the employment impact was estimated by dividing the wage contribution by the average annual wage for workers in that industry. The government agencies assign staff to the port to patrol the waterways and to inspect cargo and vessels. Based upon our survey and discussions with the government agencies, we have estimated that state and federal government agencies assigned 117 employees (full-time equivalent basis) to undertake their assigned tasks in the waterways of Tampa Bay and at the port. These employees received annual wages of $4.7 million. Because output data for the government sector is unreliable, we limited our analysis of the output contribution of the Port of Tampa to private sector output. The employment, wage and output impacts for the port service providers, cruise service providers and government agencies (excluding the impacts associated with the transportation sector) were summed to arrive at the economic contribution of the Port Services sector. Economic Contribution of the Export Sector As shown in Table 8, 11.9 million tons of outbound cargo were shipped from the Port of Tampa during 2001. Thirty percent was shipped to domestic destinations with the remaining 70 percent having been shipped to foreign destinations. Phosphates (chemical and rock) were, by far, the most important commodities shipped from Tampa, accounting for 90 percent of export13 tonnage. The next three largest commodities, citrus pellets, scrap metal and phosphoric acid, accounted for another 8 percent of total tonnage on a combined basis. Thus, the top five commodities accounted for 98 percent of the total tonnage exported through the Port of Tampa. As discussed previously, the outbound cargo had an estimated value of $2.2 billion during 2001. The tonnage and estimated value of the outbound cargo by commodity are shown in Table III.A.1 in Appendix III.A. 13 Exports and outbound cargo are used interchangeably. For purposes of this report exports may be destined for U.S. ports as well as foreign ports.

PAGE 44

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 43 November 2002 The following procedures were followed to estimate the economic contribution of the Export sector. First, the commodities were aggregated into the following groups: phosphate chemicals; phosphate rock; gypsum rock; scrap metal and steel; food products; other chemicals; paper; coal; petroleum products; vehicles and boats; general cargo, incl. containerized cargo; machinery; and lumber. The tonnage of outbound cargo for each of these commodity groups is shown in Table 18 Following discussions with representatives of export companies, locally produced export goods were identified. Table 18– Outbound Cargo Tonnage by Commodity Group – 2001 Tampa Bay Region Source: Tampa Port Authority They included: phosphate chemicals, phosphate rock, scrap metal, food products, other chemicals and paper. Third, the economic contribution for these locally produced export Commodity Group Tonnage % Phosphate8,917,134 74.7% Phosphate Rock1,835,895 15.4% Food Products658,471 5.5% Scrap Metal283,954 2.4% Other Chemicals73,011 0.6% Coal46,125 0.4% General Cargo33,057 0.3% Paper30,751 0.3% Petroleum24,651 0.2% Machinery24,610 0.2% Vehicles & Boats1,582 0.0% Gypsum Rock905 0.0% Lumber23 0.0% Total11,930,169

PAGE 45

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 44 November 2002 commodities was estimated as the total production value of these goods. Fourth, for the remaining exports goods, which were not produced locally, only the wholesale trade and inland transportation margins were considered to contribute to the Tampa Bay regional economy.14 Direct Economic Contribution of Locally Produced Export Goods As the above data indicate the economic contribution of locally produced export goods was primarily related to the mining and manufacture of phosphates and related agricultural chemicals. Essentially all of phosphate chemical and rock production was produced for export from the region. Consequently, the entire production value, jobs and income of these commodities were directly related to the Port of Tampa. During 2001, the agricultural chemical industry and the phosphate mining industry in the Tampa Bay region had a combined employment and production value of 8,588 employees and $2.5 billion, respectively. As shown in Table 19 the local production of outbound commodities contributed 6,719 jobs to the Tampa Bay regional economy. The phosphate industry, both mining and chemical manufacturing, accounted for 5,544 of them or 83% of the total. We estimated that approximately two-thirds of the employment in the agricultural chemical and phosphate mining industry directly produced the exported commodities. These impacted workers received $282 million during the year. Table 19– Employment and Output Generated by Locally Produced Exports – 2001 Tampa Bay Region Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors 14 The trade and transportation margins associated with the locally produced exports were captured in the indirect impacts estimated with the REMI™ model. IndustryExport TonnageEmploymentWage Income Phosphates10,799,154 5,544 282,087,404 $ Scrap Metal & Steel283,954 293 11,083,527 $ Other Chemicals73,011 662 28,547,459 $ Food658,471 217 7,633,291 $ Paper1,582 3 78,910 $ Total11,816,172 6,719 329,430,591 $

PAGE 46

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 45 November 2002 The remaining employees and production were indirectly impacted, primarily in the mining industry, through the supply of materials required to produce the goods destined for markets outside of the Tampa area. For example, 8.9 million tons of phosphate chemicals were exported but only 1.8 million tons of phosphate rock were shipped from the Port of Tampa. The export of these specific commodities generated the direct employment impact. However, the 8.9 million tons of phosphate chemicals required phosphate rock. The production of this phosphate rock, which was not directly exported, generated indirect employment in the mining industry. Thus, the combined direct and indirect impacts within the agricultural chemical and phosphate mining industries accounted for the full production of these two industries in 2001.Within the scrap metal and steel industry, the employment and wage impacts were estimated from survey results. The survey data indicated that the 284 thousand tons of steel and scrap metal exports generated jobs for 293 workers among the metal processors and exporters and that these workers also received $11 million in wages during 2001. Finally, for the remaining industries, other chemicals, food and paper, only the export share of total production was considered in estimating the economic contribution of these exports. In the case of other chemicals, less than 10 percent of the industry’s total output was exported through the Port of Tampa, while less than 1 percent of the food and paper industries’ output was exported. Combined these three industries employed 882 workers that were directly impacted by exports through the Port of Tampa. These workers also received $36.2 million in wage income. The employment generated by the locally produced exports contributed $329.4 million in wage income to the Tampa Bay regional economy during 2001. The phosphate industry, with relatively high wages, accounted for 86% of the wage income with $282.1 million in wages. Direct Economic Contribution of Export Goods Produced Outside of the Tampa Bay Region With only $70.4 million in exports produced outside of the Tampa Bay region during 2001, these export industries had a much smaller impact on the regional economy. Their

PAGE 47

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 46 November 2002 contribution was limited to the jobs and income created through the wholesale distribution and inland transportation of these goods. The export values were multiplied by each industries wholesale trade and transportation margin to estimate the wholesale trade and transportation output associated with each non-locally produced export. Given this output, wage income was estimated by multiplying the trade and transportation output by wage income shares. Finally, employment was estimated by dividing wage income by average annual wage per worker in the trade and transportation industries in the Tampa Bay region. These calculations are shown in Table III.D.1 in Appendix III.D. As shown in Table 20, the export of 114 thousand tons of non-locally produced outbound cargo generated a total of 78 jobs in the wholesale trade and transportation sectors that, in turn, produced $3.3 million in wage income in the Tampa Bay regional economy. The direct economic contribution of locally produced exports and the wholesale trade contribution of nonlocally produced exports were summed to arrive at the total direct contribution of the Export sector. The transportation contribution was included in the Inland Transport sector and is discussed later in this report. Table 20– Employment and Output Generated by Non-Locally Produced Exports – 2001 Tampa Bay Region Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors IndustryExport TonnageEmploymentWage IncomeEmploymentWage Income Petroleum33,057 7 286,035 $ 2 109,975 $ Vehicles24,651 43 1,751,516 $ 7 385,554 $ General Cargo24,610 8 346,879 $ 0 22,949 $ Machinery30,751 7 291,244 $ 1 35,474 $ Coal905 2 85,739 $ 2 115,303 $ Lumber23 0 383 $ 0 112 $ Total113,997 68 2,761,797 $ 13 669,368 $ Wholesale TradeInland Trans p ortation

PAGE 48

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 47 November 2002 Economic Contribution of the Import Sector As shown in Table 8, the 35.9 million tons of inbound cargo at the Port of Tampa during 2001 was three times as large as outbound tonnage. Approximately three-fourths was received from domestic ports while one-fourth arrived from foreign ports. Petroleum was the most important inbound commodity moved through Tampa, having accounted for 49 percent of inbound tonnage. Coal was next with 7.2 million tons inbound or 20 percent of inbound tonnage. Almost all of these two commodities were inbound from domestic ports. The next three largest commodities, sulphur products, aggregates and ammonia products, accounted for another 26 percent of total tonnage on a combined basis. Thus, the top five commodities accounted for 95 percent of the total tonnage imported through the Port of Tampa. Import volume and value by commodity is shown in Table III.A.2 in Appendix III.A. Economic Contribution of Inbound Cargo The economic contribution of imports was generated by the wholesale distribution and inland transportation of these goods, as well as their use in the production of goods in the Tampa Bay region. Before estimating the economic contribution of the inbound commodities they were aggregated into the following groups: petroleum products; coal; other chemicals; food products; steel; vehicles; other minerals; general cargo; agriculture; paper; phosphate; glass; machinery; and lumber. The volume of inbound cargo for each of these commodity groups is shown in Table 21

PAGE 49

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 48 November 2002 Table 21– Inbound Cargo Tonnage by Commodity Group – 2001 Tampa Bay Region Source: Tampa Port Authority Next, we estimated the wholesale trade and transportation contribution of the inbound cargo. The methodology was essentially the same as for outbound cargo. One difference was that all inbound cargo utilized local transportation carriers to ship the commodities to their destination. The import values were multiplied by each industry’s wholesale trade and transportation margin to estimate the wholesale trade and transportation output associated with each inbound commodity. Given this output, wage income was estimated by multiplying the trade and transportation output by wage income shares. Finally, employment was estimated by dividing wage income by average annual wage per worker in the trade and transportation industries in the Tampa Bay region. These calculations are shown in Table III.D.2 in Appendix III.D. The analysis of wholesale trade and transportation margins showed that the inbound cargo at the Port of Tampa directly contributed 2,307 wholesale trade jobs and 2,556 inland transportation jobs (see Table 22 ). Consistent with their share of inbound cargo, petroleum and coal combined accounted for 46 percent of wholesale trade jobs and 79 Commodity Group Tonnage % Petroleum Products17,790,215 49.5% Coal7,170,784 20.0% Other Chemicals6,760,147 18.8% Aggregates2,685,087 7.5% Steel Products511,018 1.4% General Cargo482,777 1.3% Food Products306,108 0.9% Phosphates87,997 0.2% Agricultural Products53,174 0.1% Vehicles & Boats44,047 0.1% Lumber30,576 0.1% Paper and Paper Products11,280 0.0% Glass623 0.0% Machinery236 0.0% Total35,934,069

PAGE 50

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 49 November 2002 percent of inland transportation jobs. Combined all imports generated $94 million of wage income in the wholesale trade sector and $113 million in the inland transportation sectors. Table 22 – Employment and Income Generated by Inbound Cargo at Port of Tampa – 2001 Tampa Bay Region Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Finally, we estimated the contribution of the inbound cargo to local production. Using the national input-output table referenced previously, we estimated the input requirements for the $177 billion in output produced in the Tampa Bay region during 2001 and shown in Table 23 .15 15 The output estimates were obtained from the REMI™ model of the Tampa Bay economy. As noted previously, this model was used by the Center of Economic Development Research at USF to estimate the indirect and induced impacts of the Port of Tampa. Commodity GroupInbound TonnageEmploymentWage IncomeEmploymentWage Income Petroleum17,790,215 636 26,003,705 $ 979 43,325,441 $ Coal7,170,784 424 17,328,886 $ 1,042 46,098,043 $ Other Chemicals6,760,147 540 22,065,840 $ 264 11,656,163 $ Vehicles44,047 238 9,724,306 $ 74 3,255,015 $ Steel511,018 269 10,989,551 $ 104 4,591,322 $ Food306,108 106 4,313,619 $ 38 1,696,944 $ Other Mining2,685,087 14 569,540 $ 25 1,093,316 $ General Cargo482,777 38 1,550,936 $ 4 172,175 $ Agriculture53,174 8 335,530 $ 5 209,737 $ Paper11,280 7 287,464 $ 6 274,918 $ Lumber30,576 13 520,320 $ 7 289,094 $ Phosphate87,997 11 435,419 $ 6 263,932 $ Glass623 2 87,066 $ 2 101,183 $ Machinery236 2 67,344 $ 0 16,034 $ Total35,934,069 2,307 94,279,526 $ 2,556 113,043,317 $ Wholesale TradeInland Transportation

PAGE 51

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 50 November 2002 Table 23 – Output by Industry in the Tampa Bay Region in 2001 Source: REMI™ Model of the Tampa Bay Regional Economy The use matrix of the national input-output model shows for each industry its input requirements from other industries and its own contribution (value added) for its total production. An example for the Tampa Bay chemical industry is shown in Table 24. IndustryOutput ($1,000) Agricultural Services869,950 $ Forestry, etc.73,660 $ Metallic ores mining5,750 $ Coal mining41,400 $ Crude petroleum and natural gas78,200 $ Nonmetallic minerals mining573,850 $ Construction13,409,930 $ Food and kindred products6,690,700 $ Tobacco products601,450 $ Textiles 36,800 $ Apparel 678,500 $ Lumber and wood products1,000,500 $ Furniture and fixtures293,250 $ Paper and allied products, except containers824,550 $ Newspapers and periodicals2,335,650 $ Chemicals3,826,050 $ Petroleum refining and related products1,764,100 $ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products1,059,150 $ Footwear, leather, and leather products138,000 $ Stone, Clay & Glass868,250 $ Primary Metals488,750 $ Fabricated Metals1,461,650 $ Industrial machinery32,926,750 $ Electrical machinery3,893,900 $ Motor Vehicles200,100 $ Other Transportation Eq2,234,450 $ Instruments2,213,750 $ Miscellaneous manufacturing499,100 $ Railroads and related services; passenger ground transportation247,250 $ Motor freight transportation and warehousing2,884,200 $ Air transportation1,558,290 $ Transportation836,930 $ Communications, except radio and TV6,003,290 $ Utilities4,805,680 $ Wholesale trade12,273,950 $ Retail trade21,141,690 $ Finance7,556,500 $ Insurance4,518,660 $ Real estate and royalties15,732,760 $ Hotels and lodging places1,207,770 $ Personal and repair services (except auto)1,753,870 $ Misc. Bus. Serv.25,751,790 $ Eating and drinking places2,534,920 $ Automotive repair and services2,311,400 $ Amusements2,146,300 $ Health services11,685,270 $ Educational and social services, and membership organizations3,690,620 $ Total Output177,729,280 $

PAGE 52

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 51 November 2002 This table shows the estimated use of other industry outputs to produce the $3.8 billion in chemical industry output in the Tampa Bay region. The “use coefficient” was obtained from the national use matrix. The use coefficient implies that in the national economy a dollar of chemical industry output used $.00013 of livestock and livestock products. One of the largest input industries was industry number 27A (Industrial and Other Chemicals). Every $1 of chemical industry output consisted of $.18 of output from the Industrial and Other Chemicals industry. As shown in the Total Intermediate Inputs row, inputs from other industries accounted for $.58 of every dollar of chemical industry output. Using the national use coefficients and Tampa Bay output for the chemical industry ($3.8 billion), we estimated that the Tampa Bay chemical industry required $2.2 billion of inputs from other industries. These requirements by industry are shown in Table 17. As indicated in the table, the chemical industry required materials and services from most, but not all, industries. Our estimates show that the Tampa Bay chemical industry required $614 million of industrial and other chemicals output, $219 million of wholesale trade services and $102 million in advertising services to produce the $3.8 billion in chemical products. The chemical industry, itself, contributed $1.6 billion in value added. Similar calculations were made for each producing industry in the Tampa Bay regional economy.

PAGE 53

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 52 November 2002 Table 24 – Input Requirements for the Chemical Industry in the Tampa Bay Region in 2001 Source: Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors CodeInput Industry Input Requirements of the Chemical Ind. ($1,000) Use Coefficient 1Livestock and livestock products 502 $ 0.00013 2Other agricultural products 8,079 $ 0.00211 3Forestry and fishery products 1,252 $ 0.00033 4Agricultural, forestry, and fishery services 2,136 $ 0.00056 5+6 Metallic ores mining 11,849 $ 0.00310 7Coal mining 2,802 $ 0.00073 8Crude petroleum and natural gas 56,802 $ 0.01485 9+10 Nonmetallic minerals mining 21,604 $ 0.00565 12 Maintenance and repair construction 35,725 $ 0.00934 14 Food and kindred products 19,550 $ 0.00511 16 Broad and narrow fabrics, yarn and thread mills 117 $ 0.00003 17 Miscellaneous textile goods and floor coverings 278 $ 0.00007 18 Apparel 31 $ 0.00001 19 Miscellaneous fabricated textile products 78 $ 0.00002 20+21 Lumber and wood products 453 $ 0.00012 24 Paper and allied products, except containers 14,885 $ 0.00389 25 Paperboard containers and boxes 37,793 $ 0.00988 26A Newspapers and periodicals 73 $ 0.00002 26B Other printing and publishing 6,670 $ 0.00174 27A Industrial and other chemicals 614,311 $ 0.16056 27B Agricultural fertilizers and chemicals 41,104 $ 0.01074 28 Plastics and synthetic materials 50,776 $ 0.01327 29A Drugs 104,244 $ 0.02725 29B Cleaning and toilet preparations 30,004 $ 0.00784 30 Paints and allied products 11,798 $ 0.00308 31 Petroleum refining and related products 28,125 $ 0.00735 32 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 101,594 $ 0.02655 35 Glass and glass products 5,946 $ 0.00155 36 Stone and clay products 4,508 $ 0.00118 37 Primary iron and steel manufacturing 2,521 $ 0.00066 38 Primary nonferrous metals manufacturing 112 $ 0.00003 39 Metal containers 18,474 $ 0.00483 41 Screw machine products and stampings 1,687 $ 0.00044 42 Other fabricated metal products 10,934 $ 0.00286 47 Metalworking machinery and equipment 1,139 $ 0.00030 48 Special industry machinery and equipment 3,438 $ 0.00090 49 General industrial machinery and equipment 742 $ 0.00019 50 Miscellaneous machinery, except electrical 6,453 $ 0.00169 52 Service industry machinery 590 $ 0.00015 53 Electrical industrial equipment and apparatus 1,732 $ 0.00045 55 Electric lighting and wiring equipment 501 $ 0.00013 58 Miscellaneous electrical machinery and supplies 29 $ 0.00001 59B Truck and bus bodies, trailers, and motor vehicles parts 322 $ 0.00008 62 Scientific and controlling instruments 2,006 $ 0.00052 63 Ophthalmic and photographic equipment 346 $ 0.00009 64 Miscellaneous manufacturing 426 $ 0.00011 65A Railroads and related services; ground transportation 25,934 $ 0.00678 65B Motor freight transportation and warehousing 75,317 $ 0.01969 65C Water transportation 3,387 $ 0.00089 65D Air transportation 13,469 $ 0.00352 65E Pipelines, freight forwarders, and related services 2,099 $ 0.00055 66 Communications, except radio and TV 11,845 $ 0.00310 68A Electric services (utilities) 46,913 $ 0.01226 68B Gas production and distribution (utilities) 39,686 $ 0.01037 68C Water and sanitary services 18,550 $ 0.00485 69A Wholesale trade 218,836 $ 0.05720 69B Retail trade 3,666 $ 0.00096 70A Finance 30,400 $ 0.00795 70B Insurance 6,178 $ 0.00161 71B Real estate and royalties 30,294 $ 0.00792 72A Hotels and lodging places 11,143 $ 0.00291 72B Personal and repair services (except auto) 6,913 $ 0.00181 73A Computer and data processing services 13,551 $ 0.00354 73B Legal, engineering, accounting, and related services 89,062 $ 0.02328 73C Other business and professional services, ex medical 84,061 $ 0.02197 73D Advertising 102,438 $ 0.02677 74 Eating and drinking places 10,785 $ 0.00282 75 Automotive repair and services 17,106 $ 0.00447 76 Amusements 3,160 $ 0.00083 77B Educational and social services 4,297 $ 0.00112 78 Federal Government enterprises 1,921 $ 0.00050 79 State and local government enterprises 2,734 $ 0.00071 80 Noncomparable imports 68,337 $ 0.01786 81 Scrap, used and secondhand goods 67 $ 0.00002 ITotal intermediate inputs2,206,691 $ 0.57675 VA Value added 1,619,359 $ 0.42325 T Total Industry Output3,826,050 $

PAGE 54

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 53 November 2002 The aggregation of all the industry requirements is shown in Table 25 Based on the input requirements of each industry the production of $177 billion in Tampa Bay regional output used an estimated $1.1 billion in livestock products, $.6 billion of other agricultural products, $.2 billion of forestry and fishery products and so forth. In all, the $177 billion of Tampa Bay regional output required $76 billion in inputs from other industries. The remaining $102 billion was generated by the value added (labor, profits, etc.) of the Tampa Bay industries.

PAGE 55

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 54 November 2002 Table 25 – Input Requirements for All Industries in the Tampa Bay Region in 2001 Source: Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Input Requirements All Industries ($1,000) Implicit Total Use Coefficient CodeInput Industry 1Livestock and livestock products 1,114,077 $ 0.00627 2Other agricultural products 661,090 $ 0.00372 3Forestry and fishery products 190,350 $ 0.00107 4Agricultural, forestry, and fishery services 535,447 $ 0.00301 5+6 Metal lic ores mining 30,818 $ 0.00017 7Coal mining 218,037 $ 0.00123 8Crude petroleum and natural gas 1,441,033 $ 0.00811 9+10 Nonmeta llic minerals mining 188,124 $ 0.00106 11 New construction 3,614 $ 0.00002 12 Maintenance and repair construction 2,352,284 $ 0.01324 13 Ordnance and accessories 2,539 $ 0.00001 14 Food and kindred products 1,826,194 $ 0.01028 15 Tobacco products 45,669 $ 0.00026 16 Broad and narrow fabrics, yarn and thread mills 222,272 $ 0.00125 17 Miscellaneous textile goods and floor coverings 91,740 $ 0.00052 18 Apparel 136,319 $ 0.00077 19 Miscellaneous fabricated textile products 86,060 $ 0.00048 20+21 Lumber and wood products 1,213,311 $ 0.00683 22+23 Furniture and fixtures 55,631 $ 0.00031 24 Paper and allied products, except containers 1,052,360 $ 0.00592 25 Paperboard containers and boxes 462,014 $ 0.00260 26A Newspapers and periodicals 73,821 $ 0.00042 26B Other printing and publishing 849,044 $ 0.00478 27A Industrial and other chemicals 1,181,528 $ 0.00665 27B Agricultural fertilizers and chemicals 70,251 $ 0.00040 28 Plastics and synthetic materials 359,196 $ 0.00202 29A Drugs 452,532 $ 0.00255 29B Cleaning and toilet preparations 119,361 $ 0.00067 30 Paints and allied products 160,671 $ 0.00090 31 Petroleum refining and related products 900,475 $ 0.00507 32 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products 1,439,275 $ 0.00810 33+34 Footwear, leather, and leather products 65,395 $ 0.00037 35 Glass and glass products 216,046 $ 0.00122 36 Stone and clay products 829,810 $ 0.00467 37 Primary iron and steel manufacturing 803,987 $ 0.00452 38 Primary nonferrous metals manufacturing 652,531 $ 0.00367 39 Metal containers 165,207 $ 0.00093 40 Heating, plumbing, and fabricated structural metal products 835,283 $ 0.00470 41 Screw machine products and stampings 324,877 $ 0.00183 42 Other fabricated metal products 721,019 $ 0.00406 43 Engines and turbines 117,487 $ 0.00066 44+45 Farm, construction, and mining machinery 68,285 $ 0.00038 46 Materials handling machinery and equipment 71,284 $ 0.00040 47 Metalworking machinery and equipment 118,420 $ 0.00067 48 Special industry machinery and equipment 64,195 $ 0.00036 49 General industrial machinery and equipment 206,327 $ 0.00116 50 Miscellaneous machinery, except electrical 269,865 $ 0.00152 51 Computer and office equipment 647,556 $ 0.00364 52 Service industry machinery 233,240 $ 0.00131 53 Electrical industrial equipment and apparatus 322,166 $ 0.00181 54 Household appliances 58,362 $ 0.00033 55 Electric lighting and wiring equipment 319,173 $ 0.00180 56 Audio, video, and communication equipment 269,228 $ 0.00151 57 Electronic components and accessories 1,542,022 $ 0.00868 58 Miscellaneous electrical machinery and supplies 169,527 $ 0.00095 59A Motor vehicles (passenger cars and trucks) 17,871 $ 0.00010 59B Truck and bus bodies, trailers, and motor vehicles parts 639,134 $ 0.00360 60 Aircraft and parts 265,946 $ 0.00150 61 Other transportation equipment 36,744 $ 0.00021 62 Scientific and contro lling instruments 449,325 $ 0.00253 63 Ophthalmic and photographic equipment 111,590 $ 0.00063 64 Miscellaneous manufacturing 207,050 $ 0.00116 65A Railroads and related services; ground transportation 381,905 $ 0.00215 65B Motor freight transportation and warehousing 1,698,960 $ 0.00956 65C Water transportation 150,828 $ 0.00085 65D Air transportation 749,725 $ 0.00422 65E Pipelines, freight forwarders, and related services 370,218 $ 0.00208 66 Communications, except radio and TV 2,435,700 $ 0.01370 67 Radio and TV broadcasting 28,889 $ 0.00016 68A Electric services (utilities) 1,346,645 $ 0.00758 68B Gas production and distribution (utilities) 713,025 $ 0.00401 68C Water and sanitary services 406,731 $ 0.00229 69A Wholesale trade 3,927,435 $ 0.02210 69B Retail trade 807,219 $ 0.00454 70A Finance 3,993,674 $ 0.02247 70B Insurance 1,934,070 $ 0.01088 71A Owner-occupied dwellings $ 0.00000 71B Real estate and royalties 6,512,152 $ 0.03664 72A Hotels and lodging places 510,229 $ 0.00287 72B Personal and repair services (except auto) 424,431 $ 0.00239 73A Computer and data processing services 2,115,266 $ 0.01190 73B Legal, engineering, accounting, and related services 3,629,170 $ 0.02042 73C Other business and professional services, ex medical 7,361,309 $ 0.04142 73D Advertising 3,006,984 $ 0.01692 74 Eating and drinking places 596,557 $ 0.00336 75 Automotive repair and services 1,156,798 $ 0.00651 76 Amusements 880,685 $ 0.00496 77A Health services 233,655 $ 0.00131 77B Educational and social services 297,284 $ 0.00167 78 Federal Government enterprises 900,901 $ 0.00507 79 State and local government enterprises 101,663 $ 0.00057 80 Noncomparable imports 780,916 $ 0.00439 81 Scrap, used and secondhand goods 28,050 $ 0.00016 82 General government industry $ 0.00000 83 Rest of the world adjustment to final uses $ 0.00000 84 Household industry $ 0.00000 85 Inventory valuation adjustment $ 0.00000 ITotal intermediate inputs75,835,163 $ 0.42669 VA Value added 101,894,117 $ 0.57331 T Total Industry Output177,729,280 $

PAGE 56

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 55 November 2002 The $76 billion of inputs (also referred to as apparent consumption) were obtained from local businesses and businesses around the globe. As we noted in the beginning of this section, 35.9 million tons of inbound cargo with an estimated value of $5 billion was moved through the Port of Tampa. The value of the inbound cargo by commodity group is shown in Table III.A.2 in Appendix III.A. We have aggregated those commod ities into the industry categories of the use matrix. The value of the inbound cargo and the input requirements for those commodities are shown in Table 26 Table 26 – Value ($1,000) of Inbound Cargo and Estimated Input Requirements in the Tampa Bay Region in 2001 Excludes the value of inbound used vehicles and boats which were destined for personal consumption Source: Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As shown in the table, with the exception of coal and petroleum products the value of the inbound cargo was less than the overall production usage of those commodities. Thus, we have assumed that for those commodities where inbound value was less than the input requirements local firms used the full value of the inbound cargo. For example, we have assumed that the $13 million of inbound agricultural products were used by businesses in the Tampa Bay economy. With respect to coal and petroleum products, the input requirements were less than value of inbound cargo. Since neither coal nor petroleum was produced by the regional economy, we have assumed that the local usage of these prod-Input Requirements All Industries Value of Inbound Cargo Share of Input Requirements Tampa Bay Regional Output177,729,280 $ 2Other agricultural products 661,090 $ 13,049 $ 0.01974 7Coal and coal products 218,037 $ 1,925,881 $ 8.83282 8Petroleum and realted products 1,441,033 $ 1,810,048 $ 1.25608 9+10 Nonmetallic minerals mining 188,124 $ 45,676 $ 0.24280 14 Food and kindred products 1,826,194 $ 116,470 $ 0.06378 20+21 Lumber and wood products 1,213,311 $ 11,262 $ 0.00928 25 Paperboard containers and boxes 462,014 $ 9,638 $ 0.02086 27A Industrial and other chemicals 1,181,528 $ 486,289 $ 0.41158 35 Glass and glass products 216,046 $ 2,597 $ 0.01202 37 Primary iron and steel manufacturing 803,987 $ 294,846 $ 0.36673 49 General industrial machinery and equipment 206,327 $ 1,405 $ 0.00681 85 All Other Industries67,417,474 $ $ 0.37933 ITotal intermediate inputs75,835,163 $ 0.42669 VA Value added 101,894,117 $ 0.57331 TTotal Industry Output177,729,280 $

PAGE 57

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 56 November 2002 ucts was taken from the inbound cargo and the remaining “unused” portion of these products were left in inventory or exported from the region. Thus, we estimated that $2.6 billion (sum of the bolded values in Table 19) of the $5 billion of inbound cargo was used by Tampa Bay businesses. To estimate their contribution to production, we first calculated the share of the region’s total requirement for each commodity for each industry, i.e., the construction industry used 20 percent of the region’s total estimated usage of petroleum, chemical manufacturers used 3 percent, the air transportation industry used 10 percent, the retail trade industry used 9 percent, and so forth. The utilized inbound commodities were than allocated to each industry in the region based on those shares. The value of the allocated commodities was then multiplied by the appropriate requirement coefficient to estimate each commodity’s contribution to production in those industries in which a commodity was used. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 27 As shown in the table, the $2.6 billion in utilized imports contributed to the production of $2.2 billion in goods and services in the Tampa Bay regional economy. These impacts were spread across most industries primarily due to the contribution of coal and petroleum to energy inputs in almost all aspects of the economy. It should be noted that no impacts are shown for the nonmetallic mining, chemicals, railroad, freight and wholesale trade sectors to avoid double counting. In the process of estimating the impacts of the port in the Port Services, Export and Inland Transport sectors, the contribution of imports to these industries was implicitly captured through the direct and indirect impacts of these particular industries.

PAGE 58

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 57 November 2002 Table 27 – Contribution of Inbound Cargo to Production in the Tampa Bay Region in 2001 Source: Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Producing IndustryOutput ($1,000) Agricultural Services16,598 $ Forestry, etc. 797 $ Metallic ores mining349 $ Coal mining $ Crude petroleum and natural gas$ Nonmetallic minerals mining$ Construction282,300 $ Food and kindred products126,778 $ Tobacco products4,199 $ Textiles 394 $ Apparel 1,383 $ Lumber and wood products8,204 $ Furniture and fixtures7,806 $ Paper and allied products, except containers22,892 $ Newspapers and periodicals28,556 $ Chemicals $ Petroleum refining and related products138,910 $ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products27,906 $ Footwear, leather, and leather products3,588 $ Stone, Clay & Glass41,611 $ Primary Metals31,376 $ Fabricated Metals138,707 $ Industrial machinery394,699 $ Electrical machinery56,290 $ Motor Vehicles533 $ Other Transportation Eq62,125 $ Instruments23,330 $ Miscellaneous manufacturing10,699 $ Railroads and related services; passenger ground transportation$ Motor freight transportation and warehousing$ Air transportation85,891 $ Transportation $ Communications, except radio and TV5,242 $ Utilities 457,991 $ Wholesale trade$ Retail trade127,661 $ Finance 5,476 $ Insurance 1,488 $ Real estate and royalties14,251 $ Hotels and lodging places3,021 $ Personal and repair services (except auto)7,631 $ Misc. Bus. Serv.95,144 $ Eating and drinking places62,829 $ Automotive repair and services19,371 $ Amusements9,345 $ Health services147,404 $ Educational and social services, and membership organizations20,205 $ Total Output2,192,983 $

PAGE 59

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 58 November 2002 The wage contribution of the production generated by imports was estimated by multiplying the output contribution by each industry’s wage share. Then, we divided each industry’s wage contribution by its average annual wage per worker to estimate the employment impact by industry. These calculations are shown in Table 28 We estimated that the $5 billion in imports generated $2.2 billion in output, 18,773 jobs and $540 million in wage income in the Tampa Bay region in 2001. Table 28 Contribution of Inbound Cargo to Production in the Tampa Bay Region in 2001 Source: Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The direct economic contribution of the local production generated by imports and the wholesale trade contribution of these imports were summed to arrive at the total direct contribution of the Import sector. The transportation contribution was included in the Inland Transport sector and is discussed next. Producing IndustryOutput ($1,000) Wage Share Wage Income ($1,000) Avg. Ann. WageEmployment Agricultural Services16,598 $ 0.801 13,294 $ 16,974 $ 783 Forestry, etc.797 $ 0.801 638 $ 16,974 $ 38 Metallic ores mining349 $ 0.580 202 $ 86,957 $ 2 Construction282,300 $ 0.348 98,127 $ 33,256 $ 2,951 Food and kindred products126,778 $ 0.079 9,965 $ 35,426 $ 281 Tobacco products4,199 $ 0.045 188 $ 37,344 $ 5 Textiles 394 $ 0.223 88 $ 20,000 $ 4 Apparel 1,383 $ 0.216 298 $ 24,469 $ 12 Lumber and wood products8,204 $ 0.162 1,331 $ 26,726 $ 50 Furniture and fixtures7,806 $ 0.290 2,263 $ 27,778 $ 81 Paper and allied products, except containers22,892 $ 0.109 2,502 $ 39,548 $ 63 Newspapers and periodicals28,556 $ 0.305 8,701 $ 30,586 $ 284 Petroleum refining and related products138,910 $ 0.028 3,858 $ 40,429 $ 95 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products27,906 $ 0.252 7,032 $ 31,051 $ 226 Footwear, leather, and leather products3,588 $ $ Stone, Clay & Glass41,611 $ 0.302 12,565 $ 48,279 $ 260 Primary Metals31,376 $ 0.123 3,871 $ 40,698 $ 95 Fabricated Metals138,707 $ 0.211 29,303 $ 33,960 $ 863 Industrial machinery94,699 $ 0.126 11,913 $ 41,274 $ 289 Electrical machinery56,290 $ 0.172 9,678 $ 40,104 $ 241 Motor Vehicles533 $ 0.199 106 $ 32,258 $ 3 Other Transportation Eq62,125 $ 0.172 10,714 $ 48,346 $ 222 Instruments23,330 $ 0.216 5,037 $ 51,064 $ 99 Miscellaneous manufacturing10,699 $ 0.254 2,719 $ 21,615 $ 126 Air transportation85,891 $ 0.299 25,664 $ 37,391 $ 686 Communications, except radio and TV5,242 $ 0.236 1,235 $ 49,554 $ 25 Utilities 457,991 $ 0.124 56,791 $ 55,085 $ 1,031 Retail trade127,661 $ 0.269 34,315 $ 20,631 $ 1,663 Finance 5,476 $ 0.306 1,673 $ 32,341 $ 52 Insurance 1,488 $ 0.472 702 $ 38,268 $ 18 Real estate and royalties14,251 $ 0.049 703 $ 15,470 $ 45 Hotels and lodging places3,021 $ 0.439 1,327 $ 21,830 $ 61 Personal and repair services (except auto)7,631 $ 0.349 2,666 $ 12,077 $ 221 Misc. Bus. Serv.95,144 $ 0.470 44,670 $ 22,951 $ 1,946 Eating and drinking places62,829 $ 0.658 41,342 $ 14,553 $ 2,841 Automotive repair and services19,371 $ 0.200 3,872 $ 23,226 $ 167 Amusements9,345 $ 0.586 5,478 $ 28,358 $ 193 Health services147,404 $ 0.511 75,368 $ 33,006 $ 2,283 Educational and social services, and membership organizations20,205 $ 0.473 9,555 $ 20,571 $ 464 Total Output2,192,983 $ 539,757 $ 18,773

PAGE 60

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 59 November 2002 Economic Contribution of the Inland Transport Sector The contribution of the Inland Transport sector was measured as the utilization of rail, truck, air and other ground transportation to move goods and cruise passengers to and from the Port of Tampa and the area. The measurement of these impacts has actually been discussed in the previous subsections of the Data and Methodology section. The rail and truck impacts and their estimation were detailed in the Export and Import subsections, while the air and other ground transportation impacts were discussed in the cruise subsection. As shown in Table 29 the Export and Import sectors generated $59 million of output in the railroad industry and $236 million in the trucking industry. This production required the employment of 2,269 truckers and 300 railroad workers who received annual wage income of $94 million and $19 million, respectively (see Tables III.D.1 and III.D.2 in Appendix III.D for the details). The cruise industry generated the impacts in the air transportation and other ground transportation industries. Combined these two industries employed 239 workers who produced $23 million in output and received $9 million in wages (see Table III.C.2 in Appendix III.C for the details). Table 29 – Direct Economic Contribution of the Inland Transport Sector to the Tampa Bay Region in 2001 Source: Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Av g Ann. Wage Railroad59 $ 300 19 $ 64,915 $ Trucking236 $ 2,269 94 $ 41,531 $ Air Transportation20 $ 198 7 $ 33,538 $ Other Transport*3 $ 41 2 $ 55,635 $ Total318 $ 2,808 123 $ 43,672 $

PAGE 61

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 60 November 2002 Indirect, Induced and Total Economic Contribution The indirect and induced impacts were then estimated using the REMI™ models of the Tampa Bay and Florida economies. A description of these models is provided in Appendix III.E REMI™ models are used for both forecasting and impact analysis applications. Each regional model contains a baseline solution or forecast based upon a variety of national and regional economic assumptions. An impact analysis, such as this port impact analysis, is performed by changing one or more input or internal (endogenous) variables within the model, re-simulating the model and then comparing the “impact” solution to the baseline solution or forecast. The difference between the “impact” solution and the baseline solution is the economic impact of the changed variables. To estimate the total economic impact of the Port of Tampa, the estimated direct impacts were entered into the model as reductions in the baseline solution. For example, we estimated that the direct activity at the port supported 2,269 jobs in the trucking industry (see Table 29) and that these workers received $94 million in wage income. These impacts were entered into the REMI™ model as a reduction of 2,269 jobs and a $94 million reduction in wage and salary disbursements in the trucking industry. Similar adjustments were made for other industries that were directly impacted so that a total reduction of 34,658 jobs and $1.25 billion in wages were entered into the model for 2001. These were the sum of all the direct employment and wage impacts by sector (Port Services, Export, Import and Inland Transport). The model was then re-simulated (solved) and the “port impact” solution was compared to the baseline solution for 2001. The difference between the two solutions represented the total economic contribution or impact of the Port of Tampa. When the REMI™ model was solved, all internal variables were subject to change. In our analysis we focused on the changes in employment, wages and salaries and output. The indirect and induced contribution of the Port of Tampa was calculated by subtracting the direct contribution from the total contribution for employment, wages and output. Given this approach the indirect and induced impacts were not separable.

PAGE 62

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 61 November 2002 Several distinct impact analyses were performed. Individual industry impacts were estimated for the cruise, shipyard and phosphate and related agricultural chemicals industries. The direct impacts for each of these specific-industries were entered into the REMI™ models of the Tampa Bay and Florida economies. The estimation of these direct impacts for each industry was discussed previously. The estimation of the total economic impact for each of these industries was undertaken in isolation from other direct industry impacts. As a consequence, the impact analysis for any one of the industries may include indirect impacts for the other industries. The impacts reported for the Tampa Bay and Florida economies were estimated by including all direct impacts in a single solution or simulation. Fiscal Contribution The total fiscal contribution of the Port of Tampa was determined by the direct, indirect and induced contribution of each sector’s economic activity. In Florida, there are six principal state and local taxes: 1) the state sales tax; 2) the state corporate income tax; 3) the state motor fuels tax; 4) the local option sales tax; 5) local motor fuel taxes and 6) local property taxes. In addition, there are numerous smaller taxes and fees collected by state and local taxing authorities. Total revenues for each of the tax categories, including other fees and taxes, for FY 2001 were obtained from the State of Florida Department of Revenue. Implicit tax rates were estimated for each category by dividing total revenues by statewide personal income. These implicit rates are shown in Table 30 The implicit tax rates calculated for the local tax categories are based upon revenues collected among all local taxing jurisdictions throughout the state and not just those in the Tampa Bay region. The implicit tax rates were then multiplied by the direct and total wage income impacts to estimate the fiscal or tax contribution for the direct and total economic impact of the Port of Tampa.

PAGE 63

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 62 November 2002 Table 30– Value of Inbound Cargo and Input Requirements in the Tampa Bay Region in 2001 Source: Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Categories Im p licit Tax Rates State Sales Tax3.93% State Corporate Income Tax0.40% State Fuel Tax0.42% Other State Taxes & Fees0.85% Local Sales Tax0.21% Local Property Tax4.18% Local Fuel Tax0.17%

PAGE 64

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 63 November 2002 Data Appendices

PAGE 65

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 64 November 2002 APPENDIX III.A The value of outbound and inbound cargo by commodity was estimated by multiplying the tonnage of each commodity by the estimated average price per ton of that commodity. The average price per ton was estimated from data obtained from the Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS). A cargo shipments database containing data on the tonnage and value of individual commodity shipments, both inbound and outbound, for the months of March, June and October of 2001 was purchased from PIERS. The database contained data for more than 3,800 individual shipments for the three months. The volume and value of the shipments were aggregated into the commodity categories reported by the TPA (see Table III.A.1 and III.A.2 ). The average price per ton by commodity was calculated by dividing the total commodity value from the PIERS sample by the total commodity tonnage in the PIERS sample. To arrive at an estimate of the producer price, the prices estimated from the PIERS data required a further adjustment. Implicitly, the PIERS data includes the various trade and transportation margins associated with each commodity, i.e., transportation and wholesale trade costs. Using data from the 1998 I/O Table published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis,16 estimates of the trade and transportation margins were subtracted from the prices estimated from the PIERS data. For purposes of this study, the estimated PIERS prices were considered to be purchaser prices. Using the BEA data we were able to calculate the share of purchaser value for each of the following margins: #" railroads; #" trucking; #" water transportation; #" air transportation; #" oil and gas pipelines; #" wholesale trade; and #" retail trade. 16 Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Annual Input-Output Accounts of the U.S. Economy, 1998.

PAGE 66

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 65 November 2002 Using these shares, the producer prices were then estimated from the PIERS prices. As an example, trade and transportation margins accounted for 30 percent of the purchaser price for non-metallic minerals such as phosphates. The estimated average price per ton (on a producer basis) for each outbound commodity is shown in Table III.A .1. Table III.A.1 – Outbound Cargo Tonnage and Estimated Value Port of Tampa CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority & BREA Outbound cargo for calendar year 2001 as reported by the TPA totaled 11.9 million tons and, based upon the adjusted average prices calculated from the PIERS data, had a total estimated producer value of $2.2 billion. As indicated in the table, 10.7 million tons of phosphates (chemical and rock) were shipped or exported from the Port of Tampa and accounted for 90 percent of the port’s outbound tonnage. Phosphate chemicals had an estimated producer price of $138.35 per ton while phosphate rock had an estimated producer price of $66.58 per ton. As a consequence, we estimated that the 10.7 million tons of outbound phosphates had a producer value of $1.3 million or 60 percent of the value of all outbound cargo. T y pe Group Commodit y Domestic Forei g n Total $/Ton Value BulkPhosphatePHOSPHAT CHEMICAL, BULK1,605,828 7,311,306 8,917,134 138.35 $ 1,233,685,489 $ BulkPhosphatePHOSPHATE, ROCK, BULK1,831,426 4,469 1,835,895 36.29 $ 66,624,630 $ BulkFood BulkCITRUS PELLETS620,274 620,274 66.58 $ 41,295,382 $ GeneralScrap MetalSCRAP METAL170,124 113,477 283,601 2,164.30 $ 613,796,975 $ BulkPhosphatePHOSPHORIC ACID60,313 60,313 2,824.29 $ 170,341,371 $ BulkBldg RockGYPSUM ROCK46,125 46,125 5.65 $ 260,606 $ BulkPetroleumPETROLEUM PRODUCTS32,063 994 33,057 166.73 $ 5,511,484 $ GeneralContainerCOMMOD, CONTAINERIZED27,344 27,344 117.41 $ 3,210,434 $ BulkCoalCOAL24,610 24,610 276.99 $ 6,816,655 $ BulkOth. BulkTALLOW, BULK22,947 22,947 328.52 $ 7,538,477 $ GeneralVehiclesVEHICLES, MINIMUM22,420 22,420 1,858.75 $ 41,673,206 $ BulkSulphurSULPHURIC ACID/IN12,098 12,098 25.63 $ 310,066 $ GeneralPaperPAPER/PAPER PRO DUCTS1,582 1,582 295.15 $ 466,920 $ GeneralSeafoodSEAFOOD, FRESH/FROZEN12 12 4,929.92 $ 59,159 $ GeneralCommoditiesCOMMODITIES, NOS, PCKGD3,407 3,407 783.29 $ 2,668,658 $ BulkFood BulkCONCENTRATE, CITRS BULK10,438 10,438 337.54 $ 3,523,266 $ GeneralPoultryPOULTRY (FRESH OR FROZ)3,298 3,298 1,460.34 $ 4,816,196 $ GeneralTractorsTRACTORS, OTHER1,937 1,937 2,314.30 $ 4,482,797 $ GeneralMachineryMACHINERY905 905 5,406.28 $ 4,892,688 $ GeneralFertilizerFERTILIZER, BAGGED528 528 187.75 $ 99,133 $ GeneralFoodMEAT (FRESH OR FROZEN)853 853 2,085.48 $ 1,778,916 $ GeneralTrailersTRAILERS, OTHER262 262 3,188.20 $ 835,309 $ GeneralDry FoodFOOD,FRZN/CH,NOS477 477 8,054.47 $ 3,841,983 $ GeneralVegetablesVEGETABLES, FRESH159 159 103.87 $ 16,515 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, PLATES/SHEETS353 353 412.44 $ 145,591 $ GeneralInsecticideINSECT/FUNGICIDES, PKGD67 67 2,865.93 $ 192,017 $ GeneralLumberPLYWOOD23 23 348.41 $ 8,013 $ BulkChemicalsCHEMICALS, PACKAGED5 5 55.95 $ 280 $ GeneralYachtsYACHTS & BOATS >19'1132 32 8,048.67 $ 257,557 $ GeneralFruitFRUIT, FRESH, NOS9 9 690.11 $ 6,211 $ GeneralFoodEGGS, FRESH4 4 270.33 $ 1,081 $ Total3,664,051 8,266,118 11,930,169 2,219,157,066 $ Outbound Tonnage Outbound Value

PAGE 67

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 66 November 2002 Average prices for inbound commodities were estimated in the same manner as the prices for the outbound commodities and are shown in Table III.A .2. As shown in the table, inbound cargo for calendar year 2001 as reported by the TPA totaled 35.9 million tons and, based upon average prices calculated from the PIERS data, had a total estimated value of $5 billion. Over 24 million tons of coal and petroleum products were brought through the Port of Tampa during 2001 accounting for almost 70 percent of the port’s inbound tonnage. On a value basis, the $3.7 million of coal and petroleum products accounted for 74 percent of inbound commodities. Table III.A.2 – Inbound Cargo Tonnage and Estimated Value Port of Tampa CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority & BREA T yp e Grou p Commodit y Domestic Forei g n Total $/TonValue BulkAluminumALUMINUM1,093 1,093 1,419.03 $ 1,551,004 $ BulkAmmoniaAMMONIA, ANHYDROUS2,537,846 2,537,846 110.82 $ 281,239,518 $ BulkAmmoniaAMMONIUM SULFATE31,024 31,024 66.14 $ 2,052,008 $ BulkBldg RockCEMENT, BULK142,860 568,452 711,312 40.55 $ 28,845,936 $ BulkBldg RockCONCRETE PRODUCTS2,219 2,219 1,870.78 $ 4,151,258 $ BulkBldg RockGRANITE ROCK, BULK638,107 638,107 3.50 $ 2,230,902 $ BulkBldg RockGRAVEL, BULK5,532 5,532 3.14 $ 17,364 $ BulkBldg RockGYPSUM ROCK351,136 351,136 5.65 $ 1,983,920 $ BulkBldg RockLIMESTONE948,507 948,507 8.61 $ 8,163,055 $ BulkBldg RockPUMICE28,274 28,274 10.05 $ 284,016 $ GeneralChemicalsCALCIUM NITRATE, BAGGED770 770 216.80 $ 166,935 $ GeneralChemicalsCHEMICALS, PACKAGED1,577 1,577 55.95 $ 88,239 $ GeneralChemicalsNITRATE OF SODA, BAGGED1,327 1,327 216.80 $ 287,692 $ GeneralChemicalsPOTASH, BAGGED550 550 117.59 $ 64,673 $ GeneralChemicalsPOTASSIUM NITRATE,BAGGD769 769 110.97 $ 85,338 $ BulkCoalCOAL6,621,616 175,698 6,797,314 276.99 $ 1,882,768,891 $ BulkCoalCOKE325,141 48,329 373,470 115.44 $ 43,112,255 $ GeneralCommoditiesCOMMODITIES, NOS, PCKGD1,057 1,057 592.35 $ 626,111 $ GeneralContainerCOMMOD, CONTAINERIZED2,804 2,804 4,211.07 $ 11,807,831 $ GeneralFertilizerFERTILIZER, BAGGED1,998 1,998 187.75 $ 375,122 $ GeneralFertilizerFERTILIZER, BAGGED/CONT1,644 1,644 187.75 $ 308,659 $ BulkFood BulkCONCENTRATE, CITRS BULK56,488 56,488 716.54 $ 40,475,959 $ BulkFood BulkCORN SYRUP, BULK NOS77,043 77,043 570.68 $ 43,967,213 $ BulkFood BulkGRAINS, NOS, BULK141,288 28,297 169,585 105.13 $ 17,828,179 $ GeneralFruitFRUIT, FRESH, MELONS51,728 51,728 248.07 $ 12,832,089 $ GeneralGlassGLASS PRODUCTS623 623 4,167.77 $ 2,596,521 $ GeneralLumberCHIPBOARD2,428 2,428 317.41 $ 770,681 $ GeneralLumberLUMBER, PINE15,464 15,464 426.00 $ 6,587,609 $ GeneralLumberLUMBER, TOMATO STAKES11,806 11,806 295.78 $ 3,491,982 $ GeneralLumberPLYWOOD878 878 468.56 $ 411,394 $ GeneralMachineryMACHINERY236 236 5,954.66 $ 1,405,299 $ BulkOth. BulkBAUXITE, BULK3,638 3,638 48.97 $ 178,138 $ BulkOth. BulkCAUSTIC SODA67,254 67,254 55.95 $ 3,763,104 $ BulkOth. BulkIRON ORE6,029 14,217 20,246 10.67 $ 216,070 $ BulkOth. BulkKIESERITE16,890 16,890 47.80 $ 807,282 $ BulkOth. BulkMILLSCALE, BULK7,554 7,554 156.95 $ 1,185,567 $ BulkOth. BulkPOTASH, BULK12,493 35,308 47,801 100.44 $ 4,801,349 $ BulkOth. BulkSALT, BULK11,677 169,489 181,166 13.81 $ 2,502,106 $ BulkOth. BulkSLAG127,552 127,552 3.14 $ 400,372 $ BulkOth. Chem.CALCIUM NITRATE, DRY BULK14,752 14,752 216.80 $ 3,198,218 $ BulkOth. Chem.CALCIUM NITRATE, LIQ BULK29,333 29,333 216.80 $ 6,359,418 $ BulkOth. Chem.CHEMICALS, BULK1,373 7,715 9,088 55.95 $ 508,506 $ BulkOth. Chem.FERTILIZER MATERIALS, BLK14,079 14,079 152.10 $ 2,141,349 $ BulkOth. Chem.NITRATE OF SODA, BULK2,969 2,969 216.80 $ 643,676 $ BulkOth. Chem.POTASSIUM NITRATE, BULK31,437 31,437 110.97 $ 3,488,647 $ GeneralOtherPROJECT CARGO5,706 5,706 801.12 $ 4,571,189 $ GeneralOtherTILE1,109 1,109 539.26 $ 598,040 $ GeneralPaperPAPER/PAPER PRODUCTS11,280 11,280 854.48 $ 9,638,485 $ BulkPetroleumPETROLEUM PRODUCTS17,227,965 499,789 17,727,754 101.74 $ 1,803,692,528 $ BulkPetroleumPETROLEUM, BKRS, ALL OTHS62,461 62,461 101.74 $ 6,355,032 $ BulkPhosphatePHOSPHAT CHEMICAL, BULK49,543 49,543 138.35 $ 6,854,274 $ BulkPhosphatePHOSPHATE, ROCK, BULK34,812 34,812 36.29 $ 1,263,327 $ GeneralPoultryPOULTRY (FRESH OR FROZ)159 159 1,460.34 $ 232,194 $ GeneralSeafoodSEAFOOD, FRESH/FROZEN2,833 2,833 4,929.92 $ 13,966,472 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, ANGLES2,158 2,158 408.92 $ 882,449 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, BARS4,235 4,235 582.94 $ 2,468,764 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, BEAMS2,899 2,899 372.29 $ 1,079,276 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, CHANNEL2,748 2,748 1,290.21 $ 3,545,493 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, COILS4,318 118,433 122,751 641.89 $ 78,792,209 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, MISCELLANEOUS2,713 2,713 379.68 $ 1,030,060 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, PILINGS6,590 6,590 379.60 $ 2,501,571 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, PIPE1,477 70,577 72,054 457.82 $ 32,987,783 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, PLATES/SHEETS2,676 17,600 20,276 340.66 $ 6,907,156 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, REBAR8,548 8,548 527.58 $ 4,509,793 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, TUBING6,100 6,100 355.43 $ 2,168,097 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, WIRE IN COILS5,559 9,796 15,355 725.88 $ 11,145,904 $ GeneralSteelSTEEL, WIRE ROD199,121 44,377 243,498 596.62 $ 145,276,213 $ BulkSulphurSULPHATE, FERROUS6,745 6,745 36.75 $ 247,851 $ BulkSulphurSULPHUR, LIQUID3,054,666 628,571 3,683,237 36.75 $ 135,343,844 $ BulkSulphurSULPHURIC ACID/IN394,644 394,644 25.63 $ 10,114,527 $ GeneralVegetablesVEGETABLES, FRESH4 4 103.87 $ 415 $ GeneralVegetablesVEGETABLES, FRESH, CUKES1,442 1,442 150.13 $ 216,483 $ GeneralVehiclesAUTOMOBILE(S) <10M LBS1 1 6,245.10 $ 4,684 $ GeneralVehiclesVEHICLES, EACH42,755 42,755 6,245.10 $ 267,009,201 $ GeneralVehiclesVEHICLES, MINIMUM461 461 6,245.10 $ 2,878,991 $ GeneralVehiclesVEHICLES, OTHER830 830 6,245.10 $ 5,183,432 $ Total27,970,549 7,963,520 35,934,069 4,992,237,193 $ Inbound Tonna g eInbound Value

PAGE 68

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 67 November 2002 APPENDIX III.B BUNKERING SERVICES On behalf of the Tampa Port Authority, BREA is conducting a comprehensive analysis of the port’s contribution to the Tampa and Florida economies. Your company’s assistance is essential for the successful completion of this project. All data will be held in the strictest confidence. All data will be aggregated to and analyzed at an industry level. No firm-specific data will be released to any third party or published in the final report. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Andrew Moody of BREA at 610-524-5973. Completed surveys can be faxed to BREA at 610-363-9273 or mailed to BREA, P.O. Box 955, Exton PA 19341. Revenues and Charges 1. What were your firm’s gross sales revenues for your most recent full fiscal year? $_______________ Fiscal Year Beginning Period: Mo._____ Yr. 19____ 2. Approximately what percentage of your gross revenues were generated at or connected to the Port of Tampa? _________% 3. Did you provide bunkering services to passenger cruise ships? Yes No a. If yes, approximate the percentage of your gross revenues that were generated from serving cruise ships: _______% 4. Approximately what percentage of your firm’s revenues were generated from the following categories (must sum to 100%)? Bunkering: _____% Warehousing: _____% Importing: _____% Terminal Operations: _____% Other: _____% Describe: _______________________ Total: 100% Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on employment, wages and benefits.

PAGE 69

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 68 November 2002 5. Please provide the following for you firm’s full-time employees for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Annual Salary and Wages: $__________ c. Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) d. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% 6. Please provide the following for you firm’s part-time employees (including any contract employees) for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Average Weekly Hours: __________ c. Average Hourly Pay: $____________ d. Annual Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) e. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% Non-Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on the selected non-labor expenses during the most recent fiscal year. The value of capital purchases should represent the value of equipment and structures that were put-in-place or in development during 2001. 7. Please provide expenses in the most recent fiscal year for the following categories and your best estimate of the percentage of these expenses paid to firms located in Tampa and elsewhere in Florida. Category Expenses % to Tampa Firms % Elsewhere in Florida Insurance $___________ _______% ________% Telecomm $___________ _______% ________% Utilities $___________ _______% ________% Rent $___________ _______% ________% Capital Purchases Equipment $___________ _______% ________% Structures $___________ _______% ________%

PAGE 70

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 69 November 2002 SHIP CHANDLERING SERVICES On behalf of the Tampa Port Authority, BREA is conducting a comprehensive analysis of the port’s contribution to the Tampa and Florida economies. Your company’s assistance is essential for the successful completion of this project. All data will be held in the strictest confidence. All data will be aggregated to and analyzed at an industry level. No firm-specific data will be released to any third party or published in the final report. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Andrew Moody of BREA at 610-524-5973. Completed surveys can be faxed to BREA at 610-363-9273 or mailed to BREA, P.O. Box 955, Exton PA 19341. Revenues and Charges 1. What were your firm’s gross sales revenues for your most recent full fiscal year? $_______________ Fiscal Year Beginning Period: Mo._____ Yr. 19____ 2. Approximately what percentage of your gross sales revenues were generated at or connected to the Port of Tampa? _________% 3. Did you provide chandlering services to passenger cruise ships? Yes No a. If yes, approximate the percentage of your gross revenues that were generated from serving cruise ships: _______% 4. Approximately what percentage of your firm’s revenues were generated from the following categories (must sum to 100%)? Ship Agents/Owners: _____% Port Industry Firms: _____% (Stevedores, Terminal Operators, Etc.) Non-Port Industry Firms: _____% (Construction, Manufacturing, Etc.) Other: _____% Describe: _______________________ Total: 100% Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on employment, wages and benefits. 5. Please provide the following for you firm’s full-time employees for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Annual Salary and Wages: $__________ c. Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions)

PAGE 71

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 70 November 2002 d. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% 6. Please provide the following for you firm’s part-time employees (including any contract employees) for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Average Weekly Hours: __________ c. Average Hourly Pay: $____________ d. Annual Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) e. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% Non-Labor Expenses 7. Please provide expenses in the most recent fiscal year for the following categories and your best estimate of the percentage of these expenses paid to firms located in Tampa and elsewhere in Florida. Category Expenses % to Tampa Firms % Elsewhere in Florida Insurance $___________ _______% ________% Telecomm $___________ _______% ________% Utilities $___________ _______% ________% Rent $___________ _______% ________% Capital Purchases Equipment $___________ _______% ________% Structures $___________ _______% ________%

PAGE 72

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 71 November 2002 SHIP REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERVICES On behalf of the Tampa Port Authority, BREA is conducting a comprehensive analysis of the port’s contribution to the Tampa and Florida economies. Your company’s assistance is essential for the successful completion of this project. All data will be held in the strictest confidence. All data will be aggregated to and analyzed at an industry level. No firm-specific data will be released to any third party or published in the final report. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Andrew Moody of BREA at 610-524-5973. Completed surveys can be faxed to BREA at 610-363-9273 or mailed to BREA, P.O. Box 955, Exton PA 19341. Revenues and Charges 1. What were your firm’s gross sales revenues for your most recent full fiscal year? $_______________ Fiscal Year Beginning Period: Mo._____ Yr. 19____ 2. Approximately what percentage of your gross revenues were generated at or connected to the Port of Tampa? _________% 3. How many ships did your firm service during your most recent fiscal year? 4. Cargo Ships: _______ Passenger Ships: _________ Other: _________ 5. Approximate the percentage of your gross revenues that were generated from serving cruise ships: _______% Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on employment, wages and benefits. 6. Please provide the following for you firm’s full-time employees for your most recent fiscal year: b. Number of employees: _________ c. Annual Salary and Wages: $__________ d. Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) e. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% 7. Please provide the following for you firm’s part-time employees (including any contract employees) for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Average Weekly Hours: __________

PAGE 73

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 72 November 2002 c. Average Hourly Pay: $____________ d. Annual Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) e. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: f. Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% Non-Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on the selected non-labor expenses during the most recent fiscal year. The value of capital purchases should represent the value of equipment and structures that were put-in-place or in development during 2001. 8. Please provide expenses in the most recent fiscal year for the following categories and your best estimate of the percentage of these expenses paid to firms located in Tampa and elsewhere in Florida. Category Expenses % to Tampa Firms % Elsewhere in Florida Insurance $___________ _______% ________% Telecomm $___________ _______% ________% Utilities $___________ _______% ________% Rent $___________ _______% ________% Capital Purchases Equipment $___________ _______% ________% Structures $___________ _______% ________%

PAGE 74

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 73 November 2002 GOVERNMENT SERVICES On behalf of the Tampa Port Authority, BREA is conducting a comprehensive analysis of the port’s contribution to the Tampa and Florida economies. Your company’s assistance is essential for the successful completion of this project. All data will be held in the strictest confidence. All data will be aggregated to and analyzed at an industry level. No firm-specific data will be released to any third party or published in the final report. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Andrew Moody of BREA at 610-524-5973. Completed surveys can be faxed to BREA at 610-363-9273 or mailed to BREA, P.O. Box 955, Exton PA 19341. Revenues and Charges 1. Which best describes your jurisdictional authority? Federal State and/or Local Other: _______________ 2. What were your agency’s total collection of taxes, charges and fees (excluding intergovernmental transfers, personal & corporate income taxes) for your most recent full fiscal year? $_______________ Fiscal Year Beginning Period: Mo._____ Yr. 19____ 3. Approximately what percentage of these gross taxes, charges and fees were generated at or connected to the Port of Tampa? _________% 4. Approximately what percentage of your gross collections were obtained through User fees: ____% Tax Assessments: _____% Fines: _____% Other (Describe: ________________________________________): ______% Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on employment, wages and benefits of those employees that provide services and support to port-related businesses and activity. 5. Please provide the following for you agency’s full-time employees for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Annual Salary and Wages: $__________ c. Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, pension contributions) d. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: e. Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______%

PAGE 75

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 74 November 2002 6. Please provide the following for you agency’s part-time employees (including any contract employees) for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Average Weekly Hours: __________ c. Average Hourly Pay: $____________ d. Annual Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, pension contributions) e. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% Non-Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on the selected non-labor expenses during the most recent fiscal year. The value of capital purchases should represent the value of equipment and structures that were put-in-place or in development during 2001. 7. Please provide expenses in the most recent fiscal year for the following categories and your best estimate of the percentage of these expenses paid to firms located in Tampa and elsewhere in Florida. Category Expenses % to Tampa Firms % Elsewhere in Florida Insurance $___________ _______% ________% Telecomm $___________ _______% ________% Utilities $___________ _______% ________% Rent $___________ _______% ________% Capital Purchases Equipment $___________ _______% ________% Structures $___________ _______% ________%

PAGE 76

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 75 November 2002 STEVEDORING SERVICES On behalf of the Tampa Port Authority, BREA is conducting a comprehensive analysis of the port’s contribution to the Tampa and Florida economies. Your company’s assistance is essential for the successful completion of this project. All data will be held in the strictest confidence. All data will be aggregated to and analyzed at an industry level. No firm-specific data will be released to any third party or published in the final report. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Andrew Moody of BREA at 610-524-5973. Completed surveys can be faxed to BREA at 610-363-9273 or mailed to BREA, P.O. Box 955, Exton PA 19341. Revenues and Charges 1. What percentage of your firm’s gross revenues are generated by stevedoring services? _________% 2. What were your firm’s gross revenues for your most recent full fiscal year? 3. $_______________ Fiscal Year Beginning Period: Mo._____ Yr. 19____ 4. Approximately what percentage of your gross revenues were generated at or connected to the Port of Tampa? _________% 5. How many of tons of cargo did you stevedore during your most recent full fiscal year? Tons:_________________ 6. Did you provide stevedoring services to passenger cruise ships? Yes No a. If yes, approximate the percentage of your gross revenues that were generated from serving cruise ships: _______%

PAGE 77

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 76 November 2002 7. To the best of your ability please approximate the percentage of your revenues and the average charge per ton your firm generated during your most recent fiscal year for the following cargo categories: Category % of Rev. Rate/Ton Category % of Rev. Rate/Ton Phosphate Coal _______% $_______ Rock _______% $_______ Gypsum _______% $_______ Chemicals _______% $_______ Other Dry Bulk _______% $_______ Ammonia _______% $_______ Other Chemicals _______% $_______ Petroleum _______% $_______ Other Liq. Bulk _______% $_______ Grains _______% $_______ Bananas _______% $_______ Livestock _______% $_______ Other Ag. Prod. _______% $_______ Automobiles _______% $_______ Scrap Metal _______% $_______ Other Metals _______% $_______ Oth Gen Cargo _______% $_______ Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on employment, wages and benefits. 8. How many man-hours of stevedoring services did your firm provide in your most recent fiscal year? _________ Man-hours 9. Please provide the following for you firm’s part-time employees (including any contract employees) for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Annual Salary and Wages: $__________ c. Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) d. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% We recognize that contracts might be offered on a basis other than a per ton basis. We ask that you estimate the per ton charge to the best of your ability.

PAGE 78

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 77 November 2002 10. Please provide the following for you firm’s part-time employees (including any contract employees) for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Average Weekly Hours: __________ c. Average Hourly Pay: $____________ d. Annual Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) e. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% Non-Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on the selected non-labor expenses during the most recent fiscal year. The value of capital purchases should represent the value of equipment and structures that were put-in-place or in development during 2001. 11. Please provide expenses in the most recent fiscal year for the following categories and your best estimate of the percentage of these expenses paid to firms located in Tampa and elsewhere in Florida. Category Expenses % to Tampa Firms % Elsewhere in Florida Insurance $___________ _______% ________% Telecomm $___________ _______% ________% Utilities $___________ _______% ________% Rent $___________ _______% ________% Capital Purchases Equipment $___________ _______% ________% Structures $___________ _______% ________%

PAGE 79

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 78 November 2002 TERMINAL FACILITIES & WAREHOUSING On behalf of the Tampa Port Authority, BREA is conducting a comprehensive analysis of the port’s contribution to the Tampa and Florida economies. Your company’s assistance is essential for the successful completion of this project. All data will be held in the strictest confidence. All data will be aggregated to and analyzed at an industry level. No firm-specific data will be released to any third party or published in the final report. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Andrew Moody of BREA at 610-524-5973. Completed surveys can be faxed to BREA at 610-363-9273 or mailed to BREA, P.O. Box 955, Exton PA 19341. Revenues and Charges 1. Which of the following represents your principal business activity? (Check only one) Terminal Operations Warehousing Other (describe): _____________________________ 2. What were your firm’s gross sales revenues for your most recent full fiscal year? $_______________ Fiscal Year Beginning Period: Mo._____ Yr. 19____ 3. Approximately what percentage of your gross sales revenues was generated by products/commodities processed at the Port of Tampa? _________% 4. Did you provide terminal or warehousing services for passenger cruise ships? Yes No If yes, approximate the percentage of your gross revenues that were generated from serving cruise ships: _______% 5. Approximately what percentage of your firm’s revenues was generated from the following categories (must sum to 100%)? Terminal Operations: _____% Warehousing: _____% Importing: _____% Exporting: _____% Other: _____% Describe: _______________________ Total: 100% Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on employment, wages and benefits.

PAGE 80

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 79 November 2002 6. Please provide the following for you firm’s full-time employees for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Annual Salary and Wages: $__________ c. Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) d. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% 7. Please provide the following for you firm’s part-time employees (including any contract employees) for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Average Weekly Hours: __________ c. Average Hourly Pay: $____________ d. Annual Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) e. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% Non-Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on the selected non-labor expenses during the most recent fiscal year. The value of capital purchases should represent the value of equipment and structures that were put-in-place or in development during 2001. 8. Please provide expenses in the most recent fiscal year for the following categories and your best estimate of the percentage of these expenses paid to firms located in Tampa and elsewhere in Florida. Category Expenses % to Tampa Firms % Elsewhere in Florida Insurance $___________ _______% ________% Telecomm $___________ _______% ________% Utilities $___________ _______% ________% Rent $___________ _______% ________% Cost of Materials $___________ _______% ________% Capital Purchases Equipment $___________ _______% ________%

PAGE 81

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 80 November 2002 Structures $___________ _______% ________% 9. To the best of your ability please approximate the percentage of your gross sales revenues and the average charge per ton for handling (terminal operations) or average charge per ton per month for storage (warehousing) that your firm generated during your most recent fiscal year for the following cargo categories: Category % of Rev. Rate/Ton Category % of Rev. Rate/Ton Phosphate Coal _______% $_______ Rock _______% $_______ Gypsum _______% $_______ Chemicals _______% $_______ Other Dry Bulk _______% $_______ Ammonia _______% $_______ Sulphur _______% $_______ Other Chemicals ______% $_______ Petroleum _______% $_______ Other Liq. Bulk _______% $_______ Grains _______% $_______ Fruits & Vegs. _______% $_______ Livestock _______% $_______ Other Ag. Prod. _______% $_______ Steel Prod. _______% $_______ Automobiles _______% $_______ Scrap Metal _______% $_______ Other Metals _______% $_______ Oth Gen Cargo _______% $______ We recognize that contracts might be offered on a basis other than a per ton basis. We ask that you estimate the per ton charge to the best of your ability.

PAGE 82

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 81 November 2002 PILOTING/TOWING/TUGS/BARGE SERVICES On behalf of the Tampa Port Authority, BREA is conducting a comprehensive analysis of the port’s contribution to the Tampa and Florida economies. Your company’s assistance is essential for the successful completion of this project. All data will be held in the strictest confidence. All data will be aggregated to and analyzed at an industry level. No firm-specific data will be released to any third party or published in the final report. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Andrew Moody of BREA at 610-524-5973. Completed surveys can be faxed to BREA at 610-363-9273 or mailed to BREA, P.O. Box 955, Exton PA 19341. Revenues and Charges 1. What were your firm’s gross sales revenues for your most recent full fiscal year? $_______________ Fiscal Year Beginning Period: Mo._____ Yr. 19____ 2. Approximately what percentage of your gross revenues were generated at or connected to the Port of Tampa? _________% 3. Did you provide services to passenger cruise ships? Yes No If yes, approximate the percentage of your gross revenues that were generated from serving cruise ships: _______% 4. Approximately what percentage of your firm’s revenues were generated from the following categories (must sum to 100%)? Ship Agents/Owners: _____% Port Industry Firms: _____% (Stevedores, Terminal Operators, Etc.) Non-Port Industry Firms: _____% (Construction, Manufacturing, Etc.) Other: _____% Describe: ____________________ Total: 100% Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on employment, wages and benefits. 5. Please provide the following for you firm’s full-time employees for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Annual Salary and Wages: $__________

PAGE 83

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 82 November 2002 c. Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) d. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% 6. Please provide the following for you firm’s part-time employees (including any contract employees) for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Average Weekly Hours: __________ c. Average Hourly Pay: $____________ d. Annual Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) e. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% Non-Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on the selected non-labor expenses during the most recent fiscal year. The value of capital purchases should represent the value of equipment and structures that were put-in-place or in development during 2001. 7. Please provide expenses in the most recent fiscal year for the following categories and your best estimate of the percentage of these expenses paid to firms located in Tampa and elsewhere in Florida Category Expenses % to Tampa Firms % Elsewhere in Florida Insurance $___________ _______% ________% Telecomm $___________ _______% ________% Utilities $___________ _______% ________% Rent $___________ _______% ________% Capital Purchases Equipment $___________ _______% ________% Structures $___________ _______% ________%

PAGE 84

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 83 November 2002 PORT SERVICES On behalf of the Tampa Port Authority, BREA is conducting a comprehensive analysis of the port’s contribution to the Tampa and Florida economies. Your company’s assistance is essential for the successful completion of this project. All data will be held in the strictest confidence. All data will be aggregated to and analyzed at an industry level. No firm-specific data will be released to any third party or published in the final report. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Andrew Moody of BREA at 610-524-5973. Completed surveys can be faxed to BREA at 610-363-9273 or mailed to BREA, P.O. Box 955, Exton PA 19341. Revenues and Charges 1. Which of the following represents your principal business activity? (Check only one) Stevedoring Ship Agent Customhouse Broker Freight Forwarder Port Services Terminal Operator & Warehouser Legal Piloting Shipyard/Drydock/Repairs Towing/Tugs/Barges Other: Describe ___________________________ 2. To which types of ships do you provide services? (Check all that apply) Cruise Ships Bulk Cargo Ships General Cargo Ships 3. What were your firm’s gross sales revenues for your most recent full fiscal year? $_______________ Fiscal Year Beginning Period: Mo._____ Yr. 19____ 4. Please approximate the percentage of your firms gross revenues accounted by providing services to: Cruise Ships: ______% Bulk Cargo Ships: ______% 5. Approximately what percentage of your gross revenues were generated at or connected to the Port of Tampa? _________% Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on employment, wages and benefits. 6. Please provide the following for you firm’s full-time employees for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________

PAGE 85

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 84 November 2002 b. Annual Salary and Wages: $__________ c. Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) d. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% 7. Please provide the following for you firm’s part-time employees (including any contract employees) for your most recent fiscal year: a. Number of employees: _________ b. Average Weekly Hours: __________ c. Average Hourly Pay: $____________ d. Annual Value of Benefits: $__________ (including insurance, 401k and pension contributions) e. Approximate percentage of these employees living in: Tampa: _____% Elsewhere in Florida: ______% Non-Labor Expenses Please provide the following information on the selected non-labor expenses during the most recent fiscal year. The value of capital purchases should represent the value of equipment and structures that were put-in-place or in development during 2001. 8. Please provide expenses in the most recent fiscal year for the following categories and your best estimate of the percentage of these expenses paid to firms located in Tampa and elsewhere in Florida. Category Expenses % to Tampa Firms % Elsewhere in Florida Insurance $___________ _______% ________% Telecomm $___________ _______% ________% Utilities $___________ _______% ________% Rent $___________ _______% ________% Capital Purchases Equipment $___________ _______% ________% Structures $___________ _______% ________%

PAGE 86

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 85 November 2002 APPENDIX III.C Estimates of cruise passenger spending were derived from statistics on the average spending per type of visitor, i.e., day tripper, hotel/motel stay, condo stay, etc., for each of the categories as reported by Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc. and published by the Tampa Bay Convention and Visitors Bureau (TBCVB). Since these were averages for all visitors, not just cruise visitors, they were adjusted to reflect the type of stay of cruise passengers and their average length of stay as reported in the TBCVB report. The TBCVB reported total expenditures for five groups of visitors: #" Hotel/Motel Stays #" Visitors to Friend and Family (VFR) #" Campground Stays #" Condo Stays #" Day-trippers Visitor spending was estimated for the following ten categories: #" Restaurants #" Lodging #" Shopping #" Attractions #" Ground Transportation #" Special Events #" Evening Entertainment #" Groceries #" Sport Events #" Other The TBCVB study also reported the distribution of cruise passengers by type of visitor (see Table 12). Based upon the average expenditure per cruise party per day of $225.39, a total of 274,027 cruise visitors, an average cruise party of 3.13 passengers and an average length of stay of 1.17 days, we estimated that during 2001 cruise passengers spent $23.1 million in the Tampa and Orlando areas. $23.1 million = ($225.39 3.13 x 274,027 x 1.17) These total expenditures were allocated to each of the five visitor types and each of the ten categories based upon the percentage of cruise passengers in each of the five visitor types. We assumed that cruise passengers in each visitor group spread their spending across the ten spending categories in the same fashion as all visitors to the Tampa area.

PAGE 87

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 86 November 2002 The estimated total spending for cruise passengers by category for all overnight stays (hotel, VFR, campgrounds and condos) and day trippers (intransit passengers, day of cruise arrivals and difference between embarkations and disembarkations) are shown in Table III.C.1 The 274,028 cruise passengers (embarkations plus visits) spent an estimated $22.1 million in the Tampa area during 2001 for an average of $80.78 per passenger. Those passengers who stayed one or more nights in the Tampa area spent an estimated $10 million while day-trippers spent an estimated $12.2 million. The Tampa area spending is $22.1 million rather than $23.1 million because 11.9 percent of cruise passengers arrived from Orlando. It was assumed that their spending took place in Orlando rather than Tampa. Table III.C.1 – Cruise Passenger Spending by Category Tampa CY 2001 Source: Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc. & BREA Category All Cruise Passengers Avg. Exp per Passenger Overnight Stays Day Trippers & Intransit Hotel2,092,569 $ 7.64 $ 2,092,569 $ Restaurant5,934,258 $ 21.66 $ 2,355,808 $ 3,578,450 $ Shopping3,321,169 $ 12.12 $ 1,274,148 $ 2,047,021 $ Attractions4,418,790 $ 16.13 $ 1,650,555 $ 2,768,235 $ Ground Transit2,544,931 $ 9.29 $ 1,111,710 $ 1,433,221 $ Special Events834,974 $ 3.05 $ 307,106 $ 527,867 $ Entertainment574,414 $ 2.10 $ 298,205 $ 276,210 $ Groceries1,081,447 $ 3.95 $ 384,784 $ 696,662 $ Other1,014,271 $ 3.70 $ 360,574 $ 653,696 $ Sporting Event318,464 $ 1.16 $ 128,186 $ 190,278 $ Total22,135,286 $ 80.78 $ 9,963,646 $ 12,171,640 $

PAGE 88

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 87 November 2002 The following table shows the estimates of the output, wage income and employment impact of cruise industry (cruise lines and their passengers) spending in the Tampa Bay region during 2001. The spending estimates were treated as the estimated output contribution of the cruise service providers for the following expenditure categories: business services, personal services, air transportation, transportation services, lodging and entertainment/amusements (see Table 16). Output for passenger spending for restaurants, shopping, groceries and other retail was estimated as retail trade margins associated with that spending. The trade margin data were obtained from the 1998 U.S. Input-Output Accounts.17 These margins represent the value created by local businesses. For example, the trade margin for restaurants is .29. Thus, we have estimated restaurant output to be $1.7 million [.29 x $5.9 million (passenger spending at restaurants)]. Similarly, passenger spending for shopping, groceries and other retail were summed to $5.4 and multiplied by the average retail trade margin of .335 to arrive at estimated retail output of $1.8 million. Table III.C.2 – Estimated Output, Wages and Employment Generated by Cruise Industry Spending Tampa CY 2001* Excludes cruise line expenditures for chandlers and shipbuilding which were captured by the port service providers and wharfage and dockage fees which were captured by government agencies. Source: Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc. & BREA Wage income was estimated by multiplying output by the appropriate wage share. And finally, the employment contribution was estimated by dividing the wage impact by the average wage per worker for that industry. Thus, we estimated that the $46.9 million (ex17 Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Annual Input-Output Accounts of the U.S. Economy, 1998. IndustryOutputWage ShareWage Income Avera g e Annual Wage per WorkerEmployment Transportation Services2,571,170 $ 32.6%839,231 $ 20,469 $ 41 Business Services2,636,090 $ 42.7%1,126,665 $ 25,037 $ 45 Personal Services2,514,070 $ 24.8%623,490 $ 18,338 $ 34 Air Transportation19,634,877 $ 33.8%6,640,516 $ 33,538 $ 198 Lodging2,092,569 $ 30.1%629,236 $ 18,507 $ 34 Restaurants1,725,863 $ 33.0%568,672 $ 12,099 $ 47 Retail Trade1,816,549 $ 33.0%598,553 $ 18,138 $ 33 Entertainment/Amusements6,146,642 $ 31.2%1,918,982 $ 22,845 $ 84 Total39,137,832 $ 12,945,345 $ 516

PAGE 89

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 88 November 2002 cludes chandlering, shipbuilding, and port fees which were captured elsewhere) in spending by the cruise lines and their passengers in the Tampa Bay area generated $39.1 million in output, $12.9 million in wages and 516 jobs.

PAGE 90

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 89 November 2002 APPENDIX III.D To estimate the contribution of the non-locally produced exports, each export value was first multiplied by the wholesale trade and the two transportation margins that were appropriate for the commodity. The results of that multiplication are shown as the implied trade, truck and railroad output for each commodity. Only half of the export value was included in the calculation of the transportation output based on discussions with transporters that indicated that only about half of these exports used local transportation companies. The outputs were then summed to generate the total wholesale trade, truck and railroad output. These totals were then multiplied by their corresponding wage share to generate wage income in each industry. Finally, the wage income was divided by each industry’s average annual wage to estimate the corresponding employment. Table III.D.1 – Estimated Output, Wages and Employment Generated in the Wholesale Trade and Inland Transportation Industries by Non-Locally Produced Exports Tampa CY 2001 Source: Business Research and Economic Advisors The results show that the $70 million in non-locally produced exports generated $8.2 million in wholesale trade output in the Tampa Bay region and $1.9 million in transportation output. This production required 68 wholesale trade workers, 6 truckers and 7 railroad employees (annualized). These workers received wages of $2.8 million in the trade sector, $.2 million in the trucking industry and $.5 million in the railroad industry. Estimated Export Value Wholesale Trade Margin Trucking Margin Other Transport Margins Implied Trade Output Implied Truck Output Implied Other Transp. Output (Railroad)Transp. Total Petroleum5,511,484 $ 15.4%5.6%3.1%848,769 $ 139,881 $ 173,061 $ 312,942 $ Vehicles47,248,870 $ 11.0%1.4%1.7%5,197,376 $ 289,163 $ 807,956 $ 1,097,119 $ General Cargo6,816,655 $ 15.1%0.8%0.6%1,029,315 $ 25,767 $ 39,537 $ 65,304 $ Machinery5,879,092 $ 14.7%2.3%0.7%864,227 $ 59,790 $ 41,154 $ 100,944 $ Coal4,892,688 $ 5.2%3.5%5.1%254,420 $ 76,619 $ 251,484 $ 328,104 $ Lumber8,013 $ 14.2%4.9%1.8%1,138 $ 176 $ 143 $ 319 $ 70,356,801 $ Total Output8,195,243 $ 591,397 $ 1,313,333 $ 1,904,731 $ Wage Share33.7%39.9%33.0%35.1% Estimated Wages2,761,797 $ 235,968 $ 433,400 $ 669,368 $ Annual Wage40,867 $ 41,550 $ 65,000 $ 52,104 $ Estimated Empl.68 6 7 13

PAGE 91

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 90 November 2002 To estimate the contribution of inbound cargo, each import value was first multiplied by the wholesale trade and the two transportation margins that were appropriate for the commodity. The results of that multiplication are shown as the implied trade, truck and railroad output for each commodity. The outputs were then summed to generate the total wholesale trade, truck and railroad output. These totals were then multiplied by their corresponding wage shares to generate wage income in each industry. Finally, the wage income was divided by each industry’s average annual wage to estimate the corresponding employment. Table III.D.2 – Estimated Output, Wages and Employment Generated in the Wholesale Trade and Inland Transportation Industries by Inbound Cargo Tampa CY 2001 Source: Business Research and Economic Advisors The results show that the $5 billion of inbound cargo generated $329 million in wholesale trade output in the Tampa Bay region and $293 million in transportation output. This production required 2,307 wholesale trade workers, 2,263 truckers and 293 railroad employees. These workers received wages of $94 million in the trade sector, $94 million in the trucking industry and $19 million in the railroad industry. Value of Inbound Cargo Wholesale Trade Margin Trucking Margin Other Transport Margins Implied Trade Output Implied Truck Output Implied Other Transp. Output (Railroad)Transp. Output $ 4,369,971,081 Petroleum1,810,047,560 $ 7.0%5.2%1.0%126,386,571 $ 94,122,473 $ 18,281,480 $ 112,403,953 $ 1,571,257,036 $ Coal1,925,881,146 $ 2.7%5.2%1.0%51,421,027 $ 100,145,820 $ 19,451,400 $ 119,597,219 $ 1,754,862,900 $ Other Chemicals446,030,439 $ 14.7%4.6%2.1%65,477,268 $ 20,695,812 $ 9,545,051 $ 30,240,864 $ 350,312,307 $ Vehicles275,076,308 $ 10.5%1.4%1.7%28,855,505 $ 3,741,038 $ 4,703,805 $ 8,444,843 $ 237,775,960 $ Steel294,845,771 $ 11.1%3.1%0.9%32,609,942 $ 9,228,673 $ 2,683,097 $ 11,911,769 $ 250,324,060 $ Food116,470,017 $ 11.0%2.6%1.2%12,800,055 $ 2,993,279 $ 1,409,287 $ 4,402,567 $ 99,267,395 $ Other Mining45,676,452 $ 3.7%5.2%1.0%1,690,029 $ 2,375,175 $ 461,332 $ 2,836,508 $ 41,149,915 $ General Cargo31,457,159 $ 14.6%0.8%0.6%4,602,182 $ 264,240 $ 182,452 $ 446,692 $ 26,408,285 $ Agriculture13,048,987 $ 7.6%2.5%1.7%995,638 $ 327,530 $ 216,613 $ 544,143 $ 11,509,207 $ Paper9,638,485 $ 8.9%5.9%1.5%853,006 $ 570,598 $ 142,650 $ 713,248 $ 8,072,232 $ Lumber11,261,667 $ 13.7%4.9%1.8%1,543,975 $ 549,569 $ 200,458 $ 750,027 $ 8,967,665 $ Phosphate8,801,383 $ 14.7%4.6%3.1%1,292,043 $ 408,384 $ 276,363 $ 684,748 $ 6,824,592 $ Glass2,596,521 $ 10.0%8.0%2.1%258,354 $ 207,722 $ 54,787 $ 262,508 $ 2,075,659 $ Machinery1,405,299 $ 14.2%2.3%0.7%199,834 $ 31,760 $ 9,837 $ 41,597 $ 1,163,869 $ 4,992,237,193 $ Total Output328,985,427 $ 235,662,073 $ 57,618,611 $ 293,280,685 $ Wage Share28.7%39.9%33.0%38.5% Estimated Wages94,279,519 $ 94,029,167 $ 19,014,142 $ 113,043,309 $ Annual Wage40,867 $ 41,550 $ 65,000 $ 44,234 $ Estimated Empl.2,307 2,263 293 2,556

PAGE 92

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 91 November 2002 APPENDIX III.E Founded in 1980, Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) constructs models that reveal the economic and demographic effects that policy initiatives or external events may cause on a local economy. REMITM Policy Insight model users include national, regional, state, and city governments, as well as universities, nonprofit organizations, public utilities and private consulting firms. REMITM users in Florida include the State of Florida (Legislature, Governor’s Office, Agency for Workforce Innovation), Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and the University of South Florida, Florida State University, City of Jacksonville, Florida’s Space Coast Economic Development Commission, and the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council. REMITM is a dynamic model that predicts how changes in an economy will occur on a year-by-year basis. The model is sensitive to a wide range of policy and project alternatives as well as interactions between regional economies and the national economy. The model uses data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of Energy, the Census Bureau and other public sources. The model’s dynamic property means that it forecasts not only what will happen but also when it will happen. This results in long-term predictions that have general equilibrium properties. This means that the long-term properties of general equilibrium models are preserved without sacrificing the accuracy of event timing predictions and without simply taking elasticity estimates from secondary sources. REMITM is a structural model, meaning that it clearly includes cause and effect relationships. The model shares two key underlying assumptions with mainstream economic theory: households maximize utility and producers maximize profits. Because these assumptions make sense to most people, the model can be understood by intelligent lay people as well as trained economists. In the model, businesses produce goods to sell to other firms, consumers, investors, governments and purchasers outside of the region. The output is produced using labor, capital, fuel and intermediate inputs. The demand for labor, capital and fuel per unit of output depends on their relative costs, because an increase in the price of any one of these inputs

PAGE 93

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 92 November 2002 leads to substitution away from that input to other inputs. The supply of labor in the model depends on the number of people in the population and the proportion of those people who participate in the labor force. Economic migration affects the population size. People will move into an area if the real after-tax wage rates or the likelihood of being employed increases in a region. Supply and demand for labor in the model determines the wage rates. These wage rates, along with other prices and productivity, determine the cost of doing business for every industry in the model. An increase in the cost of doing business causes either an increase in price or a cut in profits depending on the market for the product. In either case, an increase in cost would decrease the share of the local and US market supplied by local firms. This market share combined with the demand described above determines the amount of local output. There are also many other feedback loops in the model such as the feedback from changes in wages and employment to income and consumption, the feedback of economic expansion to investment, and the feedback of population to government spending. The model brings together the fundamental economic elements mentioned in the previous two paragraphs to determine a baseline forecast for each year The model includes all the inter-industry relationships that are in an input-output model, like IMPLAN Professional™, and goes beyond the input-output model by including added relationships with population, labor supply, wages, prices, profits, and market shares. A feature, which distinguishes the REMITM model from other economic simulation models, is the way REMITM handles the labor market. In the basic REMITM model, the general equilibrium demand for labor slopes downward and the general equilibrium supply of labor slopes upward. The wage responds to derived labor demand and there is an inverse relationship between the wage and market share. Thus, as the demand for labor rises, the wage rises and market share falls. Also, migration responds directly (positively) to a change in the wage, thereby increasing the labor supply.

PAGE 94

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 93 November 2002 In contrast with REMITM, a basic input-output model suppresses the labor intensity response to wage rates, market shares responses to regional competitiveness, and migration response to real after-tax wage rates and relative employment rates. The result is a horizontal labor supply curve and a vertical labor demand curve. Employment is a fixed proportion of output. Thus, a basic input-output model is linear with respect to a change in output or employment. Labor is immobile, i.e. migration is not an alternative to unemployment. Following from labor immobility, an implied assumption is that there are unemployed workers in the region if the number of jobs is to increase. Labor immobility is the assumption of Type I (without household sector) and Type II (with household sector) input-output models.

PAGE 95

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 94 November 2002 Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa

PAGE 96

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 95 November 2002 During 2001 more than 5,000 cargo vessels and cruise ships called at the Port of Tampa representing an average of more than 13 ships per day. Cargo ships transported goods throughout the globe. Foreign imports included orange juice from Costa Rica, wood products from Honduras, stone products from Mexico, seafood from Guyana, calcium nitrates from Norway and ammonia from Russia. Phosphate products were the dominant exports with product shipments delivered to 39 countries around the globe. China was the major export destination accounting for about 15 percent of phosphate exports. Other foreign destinations included Australia, Japan and Brazil. While the majority of the cruises originating at the Port of Tampa sailed throughout the western Caribbean, other cruises visited ports in the eastern and southern Caribbean as well. Thus, the Port of Tampa is certainly a global gateway for goods and people. The economic contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay regional economy originates from the movement of cargo and cruise passengers through the port. Ships arriving or leaving the port require piloting and towing services, bunker fuels, maintenance and repair services and chandler services. The cargo being carried by these ships requires terminals and warehouses for storage, stevedores and equipment operators to load and unload commodities, inspectors to document and verify cargo and rail and trucking services to move the inbound and outbound cargo to and from the port. Cruise ships require many of the same services as cargo ships. They require piloting services and bunker fuels, and stevedoring services are required to load and unload passenger baggage and provisions for each cruise. In addition, cruise passengers purchase food, lodging, entertainment and other goods and services during their preand post-cruise visits to the Tampa area. Thus, almost on a daily basis all of these activities are taking place at the Port of Tampa. As these activities take place income is generated among businesses and workers throughout the Tampa Bay area. This income supports further spending by these businesses and workers spreading the contribution of the Port of Tampa deeper into the Tampa Bay economy. For example, terminal operators must purchase equipment from local dealers for moving and storing goods; insurance is required for property and employees; and utility and communication services must be procured so that the terminals

PAGE 97

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 96 November 2002 can function. Meanwhile, the pilots and stevedores use their income to purchase a variety of household goods and services, including housing, groceries, utilities and health services to name a few. This spending by business and workers supports income among other businesses and workers spreading the impact of the port throughout the regional economy. This income multiplier process underlies the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay region and the state of Florida. In this chapter we describe and quantify the activities that took place at the port and the resulting direct, indirect and induced impacts that were generated during 2001 in the Tampa Bay region and the state of Florida. The derivation of the data and the methods employed for this analysis were described in Section III. Cargo and Cruise Activity at the Port of Tampa During 2001 The economic impact of the Port of Tampa during 2001 began with the inbound and outbound movement of cargo through the port. As shown in Table 31 the Port of Tampa, Florida’s largest port in terms of cargo tonnage, moved 47.9 million tons of cargo with an estimated value of $7.2 billion during calendar year 2001. Table 31Port of Tampa Cargo Tonnage and Value – CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority & BREA Inbound cargo accounted for 75% of the port’s total tonnage during the year with almost 60 percent of total tonnage coming from domestic inbound cargo. Inbound cargo had an estimated value of $5.0 billion with about 80 percent of this value, $3.9 billion, generated by domestic inbound cargo. TotalTotal YearDomesticForeignOutboundDomesticForeignInboundTotal Cargo Tonnage 20013,664,0518,266,11811,930,16927,970,5497,963,51935,934,06847,864,237 % of Total7.7%17.3%24.9%58.4%16.6%75.1% Cargo Value 2001668,990,137 $ 1,550,166,929 $ 2,219,157,066 $ 3,935,744,390 $ 1,056,492,803 $ 4,992,237,193 $ 7,211,394,259 $ % of Total9.3%21.5%30.8%54.6%14.7%69.2% OutboundInbound

PAGE 98

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 97 November 2002 Exports, or outbound cargo, accounted for one-fourth of the port’s tonnage and 31 percent of the value of all cargo. Unlike inbound cargo, foreign exports accounted for the bulk, approximately 70 percent, of the port’s tonnage and value of outbound commodities. Thus, most of the port’s outbound cargo was destined for foreign markets while the vast majority of the port’s inbound cargo arrived from other U.S. ports. Not surprisingly, the mix of commodities that made up inbound cargo is considerably different from the mix of commodities that were exported or shipped from the Port of Tampa. Accounting for 90 percent of the port’s outbound cargo during 2001, phosphates, including phosphate rock, were the most important outbound commodities (see Table 32 ). Over 10.7 million tons of phosphate products were exported through the Port of Tampa. Approximately two-thirds of outbound phosphate cargo was destined for foreign destinations. While some phosphate rock was exported, processed phosphate, primarily in the form of phosphate chemicals, accounted for 99 percent of all phosphate products shipped through the port. Table 32 – Tonnage of Outbound Commodities at the Port of Tampa – CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority Citrus and other fruit products were the next most important outbound commodity group. During 2001, almost 631 thousand tons of citrus and fruit products, 5.3 percent of outbound tonnage, were shipped through the Port of Tampa. All of these products were des-Commodity GroupDomesticForeignTotal% of TotalPhosphates3,437,254 7,315,775 10,753,029 90.1%Citrus & Other Fruit Products630,721 630,721 5.3%Scrap Metal170,124 113,477 283,601 2.4%Other Chemicals73,011 73,011 0.6%Petroleum & Coal Products56,673 994 57,666 0.5%Containerized Cargo27,344 27,344 0.2%Vehicles24,652 24,652 0.2%Other Food Products4,803 4,803 0.0%Other Outbound Cargo75,342 75,342 0.6% Total3,664,051 8,266,118 11,930,169 Outbound Cargo

PAGE 99

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 98 November 2002 tined for foreign ports. Over 98 percent of these citrus and fruit exports were in the form of citrus pellets. Approximately 283 thousand tons of scrap metal, accounting for 2.4% of the tonnage of outbound cargo, were shipped from the Port of Tampa during 2001. In fact, the volume of scrap metal moved through the port has increased in each of the last two years. Unlike the previous two commodity groups, most of the scrap metal, 60 percent, was shipped to U.S. domestic locations. Each of the remaining commodity groups accounted for less than one percent of the outbound cargo tonnage. A total of 263 thousand tons of these commodities were shipped from the Port of Tampa during 2001, accounting for 2.2 percent of the port’s tonnage of outbound cargo. With the exception of petroleum and coal products, all of these commodities were destined for foreign ports. Inbound cargo was somewhat more diversified but petroleum and coal products combined accounted for 70 percent of the tonnage of inbound cargo. Both petroleum and coal were delivered from other U.S. ports which explains the dominance of the domestic component of all inbound cargo (see Table 33 ). Coal was used principally in the generation of electric power while petroleum products, which included all forms of fuel from bunker fuel to jet fuels, were used primarily in the transportation industry. Sulphur and ammonia products accounted for about 20 percent of inbound cargo. Interestingly, both of these products were primarily used in the production of agricultural chemicals, the major export of the Tampa Bay region, and thus, were ultimately processed and then exported in the form of fertilizers. Sulphur, which accounted for 11 percent of inbound tonnage, was delivered from other U.S. ports, while ammonia, 7 percent of inbound tonnage, arrived from foreign markets, such as Russia. Aggregates, which were primarily delivered from other U.S. ports and Mexico, accounted for 7 percent of the tonnage of inbound commodities. Limestone, cement, granite and gypsum were the major inbound aggregates and were primarily used in local construction projects.

PAGE 100

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 99 November 2002 Table 33 – Tonnage of Inbound Commodities at the Port of Tampa – CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority The remaining inbound commodities accounted for about 5 percent of the inbound tonnage and consisted of a variety products including structural steel products, miscellaneous chemicals, poultry, seafood, vehicles and machinery to name a few. The Port of Tampa is also a major cruise port. As shown in Table 34 the port handled 153 cruise ship calls and 544,880 cruise passengers during 2001. The vast majority of cruise ship calls, over 90 percent, are turnarounds, i.e., the cruise ships begin and terminate their cruises at the Port of Tampa. The principal destination of cruises that embarked Table 34 – Cruise Activity at the Port of Tampa – CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority from the port during 2001 was the western Caribbean, including Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, Cozumel and Cancun. While the port is expanding its cruise base, Carnival cruise ships carried more than 95 percent of the 2001 cruise passengers. Commodity Group Domestic Foreign Total % of Total Petroleum Products17,290,426 499,789 17,790,215 49.5%Coal6,946,757 224,027 7,170,784 20.0%Sulphur Products3,054,666 1,029,960 4,084,626 11.4%Aggregates148,392 2,536,695 2,685,087 7.5%Ammonia Products2,568,870 2,568,870 7.1%Steel Products213,151 296,774 509,925 1.4%Food Products218,331 84,785 303,116 0.8%Other Chemicals1,373 105,278 106,651 0.3%Other Inbound Cargo97,453 617,342 714,795 2.0% Total27,970,549 7,963,520 35,934,069 Inbound Cargo Total Embarkations Disembarkations Intransit Passengers:544,880 270,853 272,186 1,841 Cruise Ship Calls:153 150 150 3 Passenger/Call3,561 1,806 1,815 614

PAGE 101

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 100 November 2002 Direct Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa The exporting and importing of cargo and the flow of cruise passengers generated the direct economic contribution of the Port of Tampa during 2001. The direct economic contribution was measured as the employment, output and wages that were generated as a direct or immediate consequence of the cargo and cruise passenger activity at the port and throughout the Tampa Bay region. This economic activity was allocated among the following four port sectors: Port Services; Export; Import; and Inland Transport. The Port Services sector was defined as those firms that were immediately and directly involved in providing water transportation service for goods and passengers through the Port of Tampa, as well as firms that directly provided support services to them. The following services were among those that were provided by firms included in this sector: #" chandlering; #" ship repair and maintenance; #" stevedoring; #" piloting and towing; #" terminal and warehousing services; #" cargo vessel operation; and #" government services, such as those provided by the U.S. Coast Guard and Department of Agriculture. Economic activity generated by passenger spending was also included in this sector and included expenditures for: #" lodging; #" general retailing; #" transportation services; #" dining; and #" entertainment.

PAGE 102

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 101 November 2002 The Export sector included firms engaged in the local manufacture and wholesale distribution of goods exported through the Port of Tampa. Local economic activity included in this sector consisted of: #" mining and manufacture of phosphates and other agricultural chemicals; #" food processing; #" paper manufacturing; #" scrap metal processing; and #" wholesale trade of non-locally produced export goods such as autos and lumber. The Import sector included firms engaged in the sale and distribution of goods imported through the Port of Tampa and those local firms that directly used the imported goods in their production processes. By definition imported goods were not produced locally; consequently, the economic contribution of the Import sector occurred through the local wholesale trade and distribution of the imported goods, as well as the local output that was generated by the use of the imported commodities. All major industries were directly impacted by imports to some degree but the major industries included: #" electric utilities; #" food processors; #" metal fabricators; #" transportation services; and #" wholesale trade of the imported commodities. Finally, the Inland Transport sector included those firms that moved both goods and passengers to and from the port. The trucking and railroad industries were the primary industries in this sector, but it also included the air transportation and local transportation industries that transported cruise passengers to the area and port. As shown in Table 35 the flow of goods and passengers through the Port of Tampa in 2001 contributed $6 billion in industry output to the Tampa Bay regional economy. The production of this $6 billion in goods and services generated an estimated 34,658 jobs throughout the Tampa Bay region paying an annual wage income of $1.25 billion. The

PAGE 103

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 102 November 2002 impacted businesses and workers also paid an estimated $126 million in state and local taxes. Table 35 – Direct Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa by Sector Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As indicated in the table and Figure 4 the Export and Import sectors accounted for the bulk of the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa. Combined, these two sectors accounted for 86 percent of the output, 80 percent of the jobs and 77 percent of the wages directly generated in the Tampa Bay region by the activity at the Port of Tampa. Figure 4 – Percentage Distribution of the Direct Output Contribution by Sector Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) State & Local Taxes ($ Million)Port Services521 $ 3,984 162 $ $16Export2,627 $ 6,787 332 $ $34Import2,521 $ 21,079 634 $ $64Inland Transport318 $ 2,808 123 $ $12Total5,987 $ 34,658 1,251 $ $126 Direct Output Impact $6.0 Billion Inland Transport 5% Port Services 9% Export 44% Import 42%

PAGE 104

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 103 November 2002 Port Services Sector Accounting for 9 percent of the port’s direct economic contribution, the Port Services sector generated $521 million in industry output in the Tampa Bay region during 2001. The Tampa Bay businesses that produced this output employed 3,984 workers and paid annual wages of $164 million. The impacted businesses and workers also paid an estimated $16 million in state and local taxes. Table 36 shows these impacts for the major sub-sectors that make up the Port Services sector. Table 36 – Direct Economic Contribution of the Port Services Sector Tampa Bay Regional Economy – 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Shipyards and Terminal & Warehouses were the most significantly impacted sub-sectors. Shipyards generated the most output, $257 million, within this sector while terminal and warehouses generated the most jobs, 1,035. The shipyards located at the port repaired more than 200 vessels during 2001 and in the process employed 918 workers and paid wages of $33 million. As shown in Figure 5 shipyards accounted for half of the output impact generated by the Port of Tampa in the Port Services sector. Terminals and warehouses provided cargo storage and handling services at the port. These businesses essentially provide temporary storage and intermodal transfer services for inbound and outbound commodities. For example, inbound petroleum products were offloaded from tankers and stored in tank farms (terminals) at the port. These fuels were Port Service Out p ut ($ Million) Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Chandlers16 $ 146 5 $ Ship Agents & Operators30 $ 339 20 $ Shipyards & Drydocks257 $ 918 33 $ Stevedores31 $ 359 18 $ Piloting & Towing Services23 $ 254 13 $ Terminal & Warehouses109 $ 1,035 46 $ Cruise Services17 $ 277 5 $ Government38 $ 656 24 $ Total521 $ 3,984 164 $

PAGE 105

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 104 November 2002 then shipped via pipelines elsewhere in Florida or trucked to local distributors and retailers. In addition to petroleum products, firms in this sub-sector stored and handled food products, aggregates, and other chemical products.18 The businesses in this sub-sector generated $109 million in direct output, 21 percent of the port-related output generated by the Port Services sector. In the process 1,035 workers were hired and paid $46 million in wages during 2001. Figure 5 – Percentage Distribution of the Direct Output Impact of the Port Services Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Chandlers provided a variety of goods to cargo and cruise vessels. Chandlers are essentially wholesalers of durable and nondurable goods. These included food and beverages for passengers and crew, maintenance supplies, safety and navigation equipment and other soft and hard goods for cargo and cruise vessels. As a result of these sales, chandlers directly employed 146 workers and paid annual wages of $5 million. The chandler sub-sector accounted for 3 percent, $16 million, of the port-related direct output of the Port Services sector. Because owners/operators of cruise and cargo vessels do not necessarily maintain any operations in a particular port city, they hire agents to represent their interests in these 18 Phosphate and scrap metal terminals were excluded from this component of the analysis because they were included in the Export sector. Direct Output Contribution of the Port Services Sector $521 MillionGovernment 7% Cruise Services 3% Terminal & Warehouses 21% Pilotin g & Towing Services 4% Stevedores 6% Ship y ards & Drydocks 50% Ship A g ents & Operators 6% Chandlers 3%

PAGE 106

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 105 November 2002 port cities. Ship agents arranged for a variety of services, including stevedoring, freight forwarding, storage, documentation and verification of cargo and financial services, such as insurance bonds. This sub-sector also included the few companies that were located in Tampa and whose ships operated from the Port of Tampa in 2001. Ship agents and operators produced $30 million in port-related output and accounted for 6 percent of the direct output impact of the Port Services sector. Businesses in this sub-sector directly employed 339 workers and paid out $20 million in wages. Stevedoring firms employed workers to load and unload goods from cargo and cruise vessels. During 2001, an estimated 359 stevedores were employed and paid $18 million in wages. These workers directly produced $31 million of output and accounted for 6 percent of port-related direct output of the Port Services sector. Pilots were employed to direct the movement of cargo and cruise vessels into and out of the Port of Tampa while firms engaged in towing services (including tugboats) towed barges and also positioned ships into and away from docks and through narrow channels. This sub-sector accounted for 4 percent, $23 million, of the port-related direct output of the Port Services sector, employed 254 workers and paid annual wages of $13 million during 2001. The remaining 10 percent of the direct contribution of the Port Services sector was generated by the government and cruise industry. The Cruise Services sub-sector accounted for 3 percent of the port-related direct output of the Port Services sector. The cruise industry’s contribution was produced by the spending of the cruise lines for support services at the port, including stevedores, ship stores and maintenance supplies and bunker fuels, which have already been captured, but also for business, legal and personal services that support cruise activities in Tampa. Cruise passengers, in turn, purchased local goods and services ranging from food and lodging to transportation and entertainment. Thus, the cruise sector’s impact occurred primarily among non-maritime industries, such as retailing, lodging, transportation and services. In all, the cruise sector directly generated $17 million in output, 277 jobs and $5 million wage income in the Tampa area during 2001.

PAGE 107

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 106 November 2002 Finally, the two primary sources of economic contribution from the government sector were the Tampa Port Authority and the U.S. Coast Guard. Combined, these two agencies accounted for approximately 85 percent of the government sector’s contribution. The Port Authority’s contribution was generated through its direct employment of personnel, construction and maintenance of facilities at the port and its purchase of support services, such as communications, insurance and legal services. The U.S. Coast Guard’s direct contribution consisted of the assignment of staff and ships to patrol, monitor and control shipping activity into and from the port. Other federal government agencies that had a direct contribution to the Tampa Bay economy included: the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Customs Agency, the U.S. Border Patrol, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Overall, the government sector directly generated $38 million in output, 656 jobs and $24 million in wages in the Tampa Bay region during 2001. Export Sector The Export sector’s direct contribution to the Tampa Bay regional economy occurred through the production and the wholesale distribution of locally produced outbound commodities and the wholesale distribution of export commodities produced outside of the Tampa Bay area. The volume and value of the export commodities were shown earlier and totaled 11.9 million tons and $2.2 billion, respectively. It was determined that 99 percent of the outbound commodities, 11.8 million tons with an estimated value of $2.1 billion, were produced in the Tampa Bay region and thus their production contributed to the regional economy. Table 37 shows the economic impact of the Export sector for the major commodity groups. These values also include the wholesale trade contribution for each commodity group. The Export sector contributed the largest share of the direct output impact of the four sectors generating $2.6 billion in industrial output, 6,787 jobs and $332 million in wage income to the Tampa Bay regional economy during 2001.

PAGE 108

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 107 November 2002 Table 37 Direct Economic Contribution of the Export Sector Tampa Bay Regional Economy – 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The importance of the phosphate industry to the direct contribution of the Exports sector is clearly shown in the above table and Figure 6 The phosphate industry, including the mining of phosphate rock, accounted for over 81 percent of the output contribution of the Export sector. Other chemicals accounted for 12 percent while food, scrap metal and other commodities accounted for 7 percent of the output impact. Figure 6 – Percentage Distribution of the Value of Outbound Cargo Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The economic contribution of these commodities is the result of their production or processing in the Tampa Bay region and their subsequent export through the Port of Tampa. Phosphates were exported in bulk and included phosphate rock and processed phosphate Commodity Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Phosphates2,135 $ 5,544 282 $ Scrap Metal42 $ 293 11 $ Other Chemicals313 $ 662 29 $ Food & Other137 $ 288 10 $ Total2,627 $ 6,787 332 $ Direct Output Contribution of the Export Sector $2.6 Billion Food & Other 5% Other Chemicals 12% Scrap Metal 2% Phosphates 81%

PAGE 109

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 108 November 2002 chemicals. Approximately 75 percent of phosphate products were destined for foreign ports. Phosphoric and sulphur acids were the principal outbound commodities included in the Other Chemicals group. All of these commodities were destined for foreign destinations. Outbound food products consisted primarily of citrus pellets but also included some seafood, poultry, vegetables and meat products. Again, all of these products were destined for foreign markets. Finally, outbound processed scrap metal was split almost evenly between foreign and U.S. destinations. Import Sector While the contribution of the Import sector also occurred through the production of goods and services, it was not the direct production of the imported goods that generated the economic contribution. Obviously, these goods were not produced locally and thus their production could not contribute to the Tampa Bay economy. Rather their contribution was generated by their use in the production of other goods that were produced locally. For example, coal was used in the production of electricity and stone aggregates and lumber were used in construction. In addition, the wholesale distribution of these commodities in the Tampa Bay area contributed to their direct economic impact. As discussed previously, 35.9 million tons of inbound cargo with an estimated value of $5 billion moved through the Port of Tampa during 2001. Coal and petroleum products accounted for 70 percent of the inbound commodities and were primarily used in the support of energy production and transportation services. As a result, the direct economic impact of the Import sector spread throughout the Tampa Bay region. As shown in Table 38 these imports directly supported the production of $2.5 billion in output in the Tampa Bay region during 2001. This output, in turn, provided for the employment of 21,079 workers who received wage income of $634 million. These impacts were spread throughout the Tampa Bay economy but were concentrated in the manufacturing and utilities industries.

PAGE 110

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 109 November 2002 Table 38 – Direct Economic Contribution of the Import Sector Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As shown in Figure 7 33 percent of the Import sector’s output contribution occurred within the manufacturing sector. Local manufacturing industries produced an estimated $830 million in output and employed 3,301 workers with total annual wages of $122 million as a result of the use of commodities imported through the Port of Tampa. The manufacturing contribution was concentrated in the petroleum products, fabricated metals, industrial machinery and food processing industries. Combined these four industries accounted for 60 percent of the manufacturing output attributed to imported goods in the Tampa Bay region. The complete industry detail is shown in the Data and Methodology chapter. The Transportation, Communications and Utilities industry accounted for an additional 22 percent of the Import sector’s direct output contribution with $549 million in output. The utility industry, principally the generation of electric power, accounted for more than 80 percent of the output contribution of this industry. In all, 1,742 jobs were directly related to the use of imported commodities that, in turn, generated $84 million in wage income. Sector Out p ut ($ Million) Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Av g Ann. Wage Agriculture & Mining18 $ 823 14 $ 17,011 $ Mining & Construction282 $ 2,951 98 $ 33,321 $ Manufacturing830 $ 3,301 122 $ 36,995 $ Nondurable Goods355 $ 973 33 $ 33,916 $ Durable Goods475 $ 2,328 89 $ 38,281 $ Trans., Comm., & Util.549 $ 1,742 84 $ 48,035 $ Trade456 $ 3,971 129 $ 32,534 $ Finance21 $ 115 3 $ 26,087 $ Services365 $ 8,176 184 $ 22,505 $ Total2,521 $ 21,079 634 $ 30,094 $

PAGE 111

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 110 November 2002 Figure 7 – Percentage Distribution of the Direct Output Impact of the Imports Sector Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The Services industry, which is a broadly defined industry that includes business, personal, education, social and health services, was impacted primarily through the use of energy-related products and services, such as heating and cooling and transportation. But other commodities also had a significant economic impact. Imported food products contributed to the restaurant and retail industry; machinery imports provided an economic impact to the business service sector; and paper imports contributed to the health services sector. As a result, the Services industry directly employed 8,176 workers as a result of the use of imported commodities. These workers received $184 million in wage income and produced $365 million in services output, 14 percent of the direct output impact of the Import sector. Over 80 percent of the Service industry impacts were generated among providers of business services (such as advertising, building maintenance and consulting services), restaurants and health services. As noted previously, imported aggregates, steel and lumber products supported construction throughout the Tampa Bay region. It was estimated that these imported contributed $282 million of output, 11 percent of the Import sector’s direct output contribution, to the construction industry that, in turn, generated 2,951 jobs and $98 million in wages. Direct Output Contribution of the Import Sector $2.5 Billion Mining & Construction 11% A g riculture & Mining 1% Trade 18% Trans., Comm., & Util. 22% Durable Goods 19% Nondurable Goods 14% Finance 1% Services 14%

PAGE 112

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 111 November 2002 The remaining sectors accounted for 20 percent of the economic impact of the Import sector, most, of which, occurred among wholesale and retail establishments. Inland Transportation Sector The Inland Transportation sector’s direct contribution to the Tampa Bay regional economy occurred through the distribution of goods to and from the Port of Tampa. The distribution of the 47.9 million tons of goods that moved through the port during 2001 relied primarily upon the trucking and rail industries. As shown in Table 39 the inland transportation of these goods contributed $318 million in output, 2,808 jobs and $123 million in wages to the Tampa Bay regional economy during 2001. Table 39– Direct Economic Contribution of the Inland Transport Sector Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The trucking industry accounted for 75 percent of the Inland Transportation sector’s direct output contribution (see Figure 8 ). The railroad industry contributed another 18 percent primarily through the transportation of coal and phosphates. The contribution of the air transportation and other transportation industries primarily occurred as a result of the travel of cruise passengers to and around the Tampa Bay area. Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Railroad59 $ 300 19 $ Trucking236 $ 2,269 94 $ Air Transportation20 $ 198 7 $ Other Transport3 $ 41 2 $ Total318 $ 2,808 123 $

PAGE 113

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 112 November 2002 Figure 8 – Percentage Distribution of the Direct Output Impact Inland Tansportation Sector Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Direct Contribution by Industry As the previous discussion makes clear, the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa is ultimately measured in terms of the output, jobs and wage income generated in the industrial sectors of the Tampa Bay regional economy rather than the port sectors. Table 40 shows these same direct economic contributions for the major industrial sectors of the Tampa Bay region. Figure 9 shows the percentage distribution of the direct output contribution of the Port of Tampa by industry. The manufacturing sector accounted for the largest proportion, 59 percent, of the port’s direct output contribution. Due to the impact of phosphates and other agricultural chemicals, the manufacture of nondurable goods accounted for almost half of the total direct impact of the port. Within the durable goods manufacturing sector, the ship repair, fabricated metals and the machinery (electrical and nonelectrical) industries were the other major beneficiaries of activity at the port. The transportation industry accounted for 10 percent of the port’s direct output contribution. As discussed previously, the trucking industry, which moved goods to and from the port, accounted for about three-fourths of the overall transportation contribution. Direct Output Contribution of the Inland Transport Sector $318 Million Air Transportation 6% Other Transport 1% Railroad 18% Trucking 75%

PAGE 114

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 113 November 2002 Table 40 – Direct Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa by Industry Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The trade industry, which included both wholesale and retail trade, accounted for 9 percent of the port’s economic impact. Wholesale trade is by far the more important of the two accounting for about 90 percent of the trade sector’s contribution. The retail trade contribution resulted from the cruise passenger expenditures for food and beverages, gifts and souvenirs and other general retail. Driven principally by the production of electric power, the communication and utilities industry accounted for 8 percent of the direct output contribution of the port. The services industry, which included financial, business and personal services, accounted for 7 percent of the direct output contribution. The construction industry, primarily through the use of imported commodities, contributed 5 percent of the port’s output impact. And finally, the mining sector produced 2 percent of the port’s direct output contribution through the mining of exported phosphate rock. Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) State & Local Taxes ($ Million)Mining100 $ 765 23 $ $2Construction316 $ 3,298 110 $ $11Manufacturing3,564 $ 13,271 452 $ $45 Mfg Nondurables2,831 $ 6,636 329 $ $33 Mfg Durables733 $ 3,247 123 $ $13Transportation595 $ 5,481 242 $ $25Communication & Utilities465 $ 1,060 58 $ $6Trade532 $ 4,556 149 $ $15Finance & Services398 $ 8,531 193 $ $20Other17 $ 1,084 24 $ $2Total5,987 $ 34,658 1,251 $ $126

PAGE 115

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 114 November 2002 Figure 9 – Percentage Distribution of the Direct Output Contribution Port of Tampa Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Indirect and Induced Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa The indirect economic benefits derived from the Port of Tampa resulted in part from the additional spending by the suppliers to those businesses directly influenced by activity at the port. For example, the shipyards purchased tools and equipment; fabricated metal products; utility services, such as, electricity and water, to run equipment; paid for transportation services for materials shipped to the yard; insurance for property and employees and so forth. To estimate the indirect contribution of the Port of Tampa an econometric model of the Tampa Bay regional economy19 was utilized. An econometric model is a statistical representation of the economy being analyzed. The structure of the Tampa Bay regional model reflects the specific economic structure of each county in the region. The Tampa Bay regional model provided estimates of the additional economic impacts that 19 This model was developed and maintained by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). The Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) at USF has a contract with REMI to use this model. Dr. Dennis Colie of CEDR directed the use of the model for this project. A description of the model is included in the Data and Methodology chapter. Direct Output Contribution of the Port of Tampa $6.0 Billion Finance & Services 7% Trade 9% Communication & Utilities 8% Transportation 10% Manufacturin g Durables 12% Manufacturin g Nondurables 47% Construction 5% Mining 2%

PAGE 116

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 115 November 2002 the direct contribution of the Port of Tampa had on all other industries in the Tampa Bay region. In addition to this indirect contribution, the employees of the directly and indirectly impacted business generated induced economic benefits through their purchases of consumer goods and services, including such goods as autos, food, clothing, furniture, health care and so forth. The value of these induced contributions were also estimated with the Tampa Bay econometric model. The contribution analysis for the Tampa Bay region showed that the direct economic contribution of the Port of Tampa generated another $7 billion in output in the Tampa Bay region. The production of these goods and services contributed an additional 73,245 jobs in the region through the indirect and induced spending by businesses and employees. In addition, these jobs generated $2.5 billion in wage income for these workers. Furthermore, these businesses and workers paid an estimated $254 million in state and local taxes. As shown in Table 41 the indirect and induced economic contribution touched virtually all sectors in the region. Table 41 – Indirect & Induced Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa by Industry Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) State & Local Taxes ($ Million)Mining658 $ 3,387 115 $ $ 12Construction1,193 $ 15,713 378 $ $ 39Manufacturing1,371 $ 3,937 162 $ $ 17 Mfg Nondurables931 $ 1,531 55 $ $ 6 Mfg Durables440 $ 2,406 107 $ $ 11Transportation281 $ 2,556 108 $ $ 11Communication & Utilities330 $ 1,181 61 $ $ 6Trade1,401 $ 19,796 558 $ $ 57Finance & Services1,738 $ 24,449 1,031 $ $ 104Other19 $ 2,226 71 $ $ 8Total6,991 $ 73,245 2,484 $ $ 254

PAGE 117

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 116 November 2002 The Finance & Services sector was the most significantly impacted sector within the region as a result of the indirect and induced impacts of the port. This sector added $1.7 billion in output, 24,449 jobs and $1 billion in wage income during 2001. This contribution resulted from the demand for a variety of business and personal services, including accounting, consulting services, especially computer consulting, equipment rental, manpower services, and security and building maintenance services. Business and employee spending also contributed to the impacts in financial services such as, banking, insurance and real estate. As shown in Figure 10 the services sector accounted for one-quarter of the indirect and induced output contribution in the region. Figure 10 – Percentage Distribution of the Indirect & Induced Output Contribution Port of Tampa Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Approximately $1.4 billion in output and 19,796 jobs with an annual income of $558 million were contributed by the wholesale and retail trade sectors as a result of the movement of cargo and passengers through the Port of Tampa during 2001. The wholesale trade sector was the more important of the two sectors having accounted for about 85 percent of the indirect and induced output contribution of the trade sector throughout the Indirect & Induced Output Contribution of the Port of Tampa $7 Billion Finance & Services 25% Trade 20% Communications & Utilities 5% Transportation 4% Manufacturing 20% Construction 17% Mining 9%

PAGE 118

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 117 November 2002 Tampa Bay area. The wholesale trade impacts resulted from both business and household demand for goods throughout the region while the retail trade impacts were primarily generated by the purchase of consumer goods and services by impacted employees. The trade sector accounted for 20 percent of the indirect and induced contribution generated by the port. The indirect and induced contribution of the Port of Tampa also generated $1.4 billion in manufacturing output in the Tampa Bay region during 2001. The manufacturing production in turn created an estimated 3,937 jobs paying $162 million in wage income. While the manufacturing sector accounted for more than half of the port’s direct impact (see Figure 9), it only accounted for 20 percent of the indirect and induced contribution in the Tampa Bay region. This was reflective of the fact that much of the business equipment and consumer goods, such as autos, that are purchased by Tampa Bay businesses and employees are produced outside of the Tampa Bay region. The construction sector accounted for 17 percent of the port’s indirect and induced impact. Construction activity contributed $1.2 billion in output, 15,713 jobs and $378 million in wage income. Within the construction sector the indirect and induced contribution resulted from both residential and nonresidential building linked to the production and income generated throughout the region. The mining sector accounted for 9 percent of the combined indirect and induced impacts of all sectors of the Tampa Bay regional economy. The indirect and induced contribution in the mining sector primarily reflected the mining of phosphate rock that was required for production of exported agricultural chemicals and fertilizers.20 Combined the transportation, communications and utilities sectors contributed $611 million in output, 3,737 jobs and $169 million in wage income to the Tampa Bay regional economy during 2001 as a result of the operations at the Port of Tampa. Combined these 20 The indirect and induced contribution is distinct from the direct contribution associated with the direct export of phosphate rock. Our analysis indicates that approximately 20 percent of the total contribution of the phosphate mining contribution is direct export related and 80 percent is an indirect contribution.

PAGE 119

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 118 November 2002 sectors accounted for 9 percent of the total indirect and induced output contribution in the Tampa Bay region. Total Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa The total economic contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay regional economy is the sum of the direct, indirect and induced impacts. As shown in Table 42 this study found that the movement of cargo and cruise passengers through Port of Tampa was responsible for considerable economic activity in the Tampa Bay region. Table 42 Total Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa by Industry Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As noted previously, this activity directly generated $6.0 billion in regional output and more than 34,500 jobs that paid wage income of $1.25 billion throughout Tampa Bay in 2001. This spending, in turn, generated a total of $13 billion in regional output. The $13 billion in regional output resulted in the employment of an estimated 107,903 workers and $3.7 billion in wages and salaries throughout the Tampa Bay regional economy in 2001. The impacted businesses and workers also paid an estimated $380 million in state and local taxes. Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) State & Local Taxes ($ Million)Mining758 $ 4,152 138 $ $14Construction1,509 $ 19,011 488 $ $50Manufacturing4,935 $ 13,820 614 $ $62 Mfg Nondurables3,762 $ 8,167 384 $ $39 Mfg Durables1,173 $ 5,653 230 $ $23Transportation876 $ 8,037 350 $ $36Communication & Utilities795 $ 2,241 119 $ $12Trade1,933 $ 24,352 707 $ $72Finance & Services2,136 $ 32,980 1,224 $ $125Other36 $ 3,310 95 $ $10Total12,978 $ 107,903 3,735 $ $380

PAGE 120

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 119 November 2002 The Port of Tampa affected virtually all sectors of the Tampa Bay regional economy. The industries that were most significantly affected included: #" Phosphate Mining; #" Agricultural Chemicals; #" Ship Maintenance and Repair; #" Food Processing; #" Construction; #" Trucking; #" Wholesale Trade; #" Utilities; and #" Business Services. However, many other industries were affected in some form, including lodging, insurance, telecommunications, retail trade and many others. The $13 billion in regional output generated by the Port of Tampa during 2001 was 7 percent of the total Tampa Bay regional output of $177 billion. However, as shown in Table 43 the port-related share of regional output varied considerably by sector. Due to the importance of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers, port-related output accounted for Table 43 – Port-Related and Total Regional Output in the Tampa Bay Region, CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors & Center for Economic Development Research 21 percent of the output of the region’s nondurable goods manufacturing industry and 15 percent of the region’s output produced in the agriculture, mining and construction indus-Sector PortRelated Out p ut ($ Million) Total Regional Out p ut ($ Million)Share Ag, Mining & Construction2,303 $ 15,053 $ 15.3% Manufacturing4,935 $ 34,035 $ 14.5% Mfg Nondurables3,762 $ 17,955 $ 21.0% Mfg Durables1,173 $ 16,080 $ 7.3% Transportation876 $ 5,527 $ 15.8% Communication & Utilities795 $ 10,809 $ 7.4% Trade1,933 $ 33,416 $ 5.8% Finance & Services2,136 $ 78,890 $ 2.7% Total12,978 $ 177,729 $ 7.3%

PAGE 121

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 120 November 2002 tries. The remaining double-digit share was found in the transportation industry in which port-related output accounted for almost 16 percent of transportation output in the region. As shown in Figure 11 the manufacturing sector accounted for 37 percent of the total output contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay regional economy during 2001. The manufacturing sector was followed by the Finance & Services sector with 17 percent of the total output contribution. The trade sector generated 15 percent of the port’s total output contribution. Twelve percent of the total output contribution was generated by the construction sector. The remaining sectors accounted for about one-fifth of the total output contribution of the Port of Tampa. Figure 11 – Percentage Distribution of the Total Output Contribution Port of Tampa Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Total Fiscal Contribution of the Port of Tampa The total fiscal contribution of the Port of Tampa was determined by the direct, indirect and induced contribution of each sector’s economic activity. In Florida, there are six principal state and local taxes: 1) the state sales tax; 2) the state corporate income tax; 3) the state motor fuels tax; 4) the local option sales tax; 5) local motor fuel taxes and 6) local property taxes. In addition, there are numerous smaller taxes and fees collected by state and local taxing authorities in the state. Total Output Contribution of the Port of Tampa $13 Billion Finance & Services 17% Trade 15% Communications & Utilities 6% Transportation 7% Manufacturing 37% Construction 12% Mining 6%

PAGE 122

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 121 November 2002 In order to estimate the annual fiscal impact of the Port of Tampa, state personal income was used as a proxy for the state’s tax base with the following effective rates21: state sales tax at 3.93%; state corporate income tax at 0.40%; state motor fuel tax at 0.42%; local sales tax at 0.21%; local motor fuel tax at 0.17%, local property taxes at 4.2%; and all other state and local taxes and fees at 0.85%. BREA’s fiscal impact analysis showed that the total economic contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay regional economy generated a total of $380 million in state and local tax revenues in 2001 (see Table 44 ). These consisted of state and local tax revenues that were generated by the economic contribution of the port that occurred only within the Tampa Bay region. The study showed that the state received an estimated $210 million in tax revenues from the total economic contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay regional economy. Sales tax revenues accounted for 70 percent of the state tax collections. On the local level, taxing authorities received a total of $170 million, 92 percent from local property taxes, as a result of the economic contribution of the Port. Table 44 – State & Local Fiscal Contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors 21 The effective tax rates are calculated as the ratio of total state and local tax collections for each tax category divided by total state personal income. The state tax data and local tax data were obtained from the Florida Dept. of Revenue for fiscal year 2001. Categories Revenues $ Millions State Sales Tax147 $ State Corporate Income Tax15 $ State Fuel Tax16 $ Other State Taxes & Fees32 $ State Subtotal210 $ Local Sales Tax8 $ Local Property Tax155 $ Local Fuel Tax7 $ Local Subtotal170 $ State & Local Total380 $

PAGE 123

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 122 November 2002 Total Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa on the State of Florida BREA also analyzed the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa to the state of Florida. The port’s contribution to the state is larger for two reasons. First, the contribution to the state includes all of the contribution of the Port to the Tampa Bay region, as well as contributions of the port to other areas in the state. For example, approximately 12% of the cruise passengers who traveled by air to Florida for their cruise stayed overnight in Orlando. Thus, the contribution associated with the overnight spending by these passengers affected the Orlando area and not the Tampa Bay region. Second, the indirect and induced effect per dollar of direct effect (the multiplier) was higher for the state than for the Tampa Bay region. This was because some of the indirect contribution that was generated by direct Port activity occurred in parts of Florida that were not in the Tampa Bay region. The process by which the direct, indirect and induced contributions were generated for the state was identical to that discussed for the Tampa Bay region. The only difference is that Florida economy is larger in dollar and geographic size. Table 45 – Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa to the Tampa Bay and Florida Economies – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As shown in Table 45 the Port of Tampa contributed $14.8 billion of output to the state’s economy. This output impact of the Port of Tampa on the state of Florida was 14 per cent higher than its contribution to the Tampa Bay region. This, in turn, contributed 124,600 jobs paying an estimated $4.4 million in wages to Florida’s economy. The spending by Region Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) State and Local Taxes ($ Million) Florida14,812 $ 124,600 4,438 $ $451 Tampa Bay12,978 $ 107,903 3,735 $ $380 Share of FL Impacts87.6%86.6%84.2%84.2%

PAGE 124

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 123 November 2002 the impacted businesses and employees in Florida also generated $451 million in state and local tax revenues throughout the state. The ports’ statewide impact by industry is shown in Table 46 The distribution of the economic impacts by industry at the state level shown in Figure 12 is similar to that found at the regional level. Table 46 – Total Economic Contribution of the Port of Tampa State of Florida Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As with the Tampa Bay region, the manufacturing sector contributed the largest share of output to the state’s economy, while the mining and construction sector contributed the largest share of jobs and the services sector contributed the largest share of wage income. Figure 12 – Percentage Distribution of the Total Output Contribution Port of Tampa Tampa Bay Regional Economy – CY 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) State & Local Taxes ($ Million) Mining865 $ 4,794 165 $ $17 Construction1,722 $ 21,953 580 $ $59 Manufacturing5,633 $ 15,959 730 $ $74 Mfg Nondurables4,294 $ 9,431 457 $ $46 Mfg Durables1,339 $ 6,528 273 $ $28 Transportation999 $ 9,280 416 $ $42 Communications & Utilities908 $ 2,587 141 $ $14 Trade2,206 $ 28,120 840 $ $85 Finance & Services2,438 $ 38,084 1,454 $ $148 Other41 $ 3,822 113 $ $11 Total14,812 $ 124,600 4,438 $ $451 Total Output Contribution of the Port of Tampa $14.8 Billion Finance & Services 17% Trade 15% Communication & Utilities 6% Transportation 7% Manufacturing 37% Construction 12% Mining 6%

PAGE 125

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 124 November 2002 Selected Industry Impacts

PAGE 126

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 125 November 2002 While the economic contribution of the Port of Tampa touched virtually every industry in the Tampa Bay region, four industries were at the core of the port’s impact: #" cruise; #" phosphates and related agricultural chemicals; #" inland transport; and #" shipyards and drydocks. Each of these port-related industries contributed to the local and state economies in distinct ways. The cruise industry’s impact was primarily generated by passenger spending on a variety of vacation-related services. Phosphates and related agricultural chemicals were the principal exports of the Port of Tampa and contributed to the local and state economies through the mining and manufacturing of the phosphate products. All modes of inland transportation services were required to move goods and passengers to and from the port and the Tampa area. Finally, shipyards and drydocks provided ship maintenance and repair services to cargo vessels, cruise ships, barges and tugboats that operated in Tampa Bay. In the following sections we discuss and quantify the independent impact of each of these industries on the Tampa Bay and Florida economies.

PAGE 127

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 126 November 2002 Economic Contribution of Cruise Activity at the Port of Tampa

PAGE 128

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 127 November 2002 The cruise sector has been one of the most rapidly growing segments of activity at the port. As indicated in Table 47 passenger volumes and cruise ship sailings have increased dramatically since 1991. While cruise activity declined over the 1995-1997 period, it has steadily increased since and in FY 2001, cruise passenger volume22 at 517,235 was almost 10 times higher than in 1991. Since 1997, passenger volume has increased at an average annual rate of 175 percent or an average of more than 82,000 additional passengers each year. The growth in cruise passenger volume has been generated by an increase in the number of cruises as indicated by the number of sailings; but, of equal importance has been the increase in the average number of passengers per sailing. This has almost doubled from an average of 1,980 passengers in FY1991 to 3,748 in FY2001 and reflects the introduction of increasingly larger ships by the cruise lines. Table 47 Passenger Volume Port of Tampa – FY1991 to FY2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority The Port of Tampa’s location on Florida’s Gulf coats has also played a significant role in its growth. The western Caribbean and Mexico have been among the fastest growing destination markets in the cruise industry and Tampa’s location has allowed it to increase its share of the cruise market by offering cruises to these and other destinations. In addition, the cruise lines have positioned some of their largest ships at the port as illustrated by 22 Passenger volume includes embarking, disembarking and intransit passengers. Fiscal Year Number of PassengersSa ilings Average Passengers per Sailing 199155,428 281,980 199272,988 471,553 1993200,185 1171,711 1994304,345 2101,449 1995281,484 1831,538 1996192,230 1151,672 1997187,851 842,236 1998244,968 1042,355 1999413,618 1562,651 2000459,803 1513,045 2001517,235 1383,748

PAGE 129

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 128 November 2002 Carnival’s Sensation with a capacity of more than 2,000 passengers. With the introduction of additional Caribbean cruises by Celebrity and Royal Caribbean in 2002 and 2003, Tampa’s growth will continue into the foreseeable future. During calendar year 2001, the focus of our analysis, the port handled 153 cruise ship calls and 544,880 cruise passengers (see Table 48 ). The vast majority of cruise ship calls, over 90 percent, were turnarounds, i.e., the cruise ships began and terminated their cruises at the Port of Tampa. As noted above, the principal destination of cruises that embarked from the port during 2001 was the western Caribbean, including Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, Cozumel and Cancun. While the port is expanding its cruise base, Carnival cruise ships carried more than 95 percent of the 2001 cruise passengers. Holland America accounted for another 3 percent of cruise passengers. The remaining passengers sailed upon ships operated by Regal Cruises, Costa and Radisson Seven Seas. Table 48 – Cruise Activity at the Port of Tampa – CY 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority The impact of the cruise sector on the Tampa Bay region was generated by the landside spending of the cruise lines and their passengers and fees paid to the Tampa Port Authority (TPA). Cruise lines purchased a variety of soft and hard goods, including food and beverages, fuel, hotel supplies, maintenance supplies, and services, such as security, entertainment and sanitary services, from Tampa Bay businesses. Cruise passengers purchased lodging services, food and beverages, entertainment services, such as visits to the Florida Aquarium, and gifts and souvenirs.23 In addition, cruise lines pay wharfage and dockage fees to the TPA for the use of the port’s dock and terminal facilities. As shown 23 Data on cruise line spending in Tampa Bay were obtained from BREA which tracks cruise industry spending by industry and location. Cruise passenger spending in Tampa was estimated from cruise passenger survey data collected by Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc. for the Tampa Bay Convention and Visitors Bureau (TBCVB). Total Embarkations Disembarkations Intransit Passengers:544,880 270,853 272,186 1,841 Cruise Ship Calls:153 150 150 3 Passenger/Call3,561 1,806 1,815 614

PAGE 130

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 129 November 2002 in Table 49 these expenditures totaled $57.5 million in 2001 and represented an average of $210 per passenger. Table 49 – Direct Cruise Industry Spending in Tampa Bay – 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As indicated in the table, cruise passengers were the most important source of spending in the Tampa Bay area, accounting for 73 percent of the cruise industry’s direct spending in the region. Cruise passengers purchased a variety of goods and services both prior to and following their cruise. According to the TBCVB study prepared by Bonn Marketing Research Group, 44 percent of cruise passengers spent one or more preor post-cruise nights in the Tampa Bay area.24 Of these overnight stays almost two-thirds were at area hotels. The average length of stay of an overnight cruise visitor was 1.4 days, i.e. about 50% spent one night and 50% spent two nights in the Tampa Bay area. As shown in Figure 13 Tampa cruise passengers came from around the globe. Eleven percent of cruise passengers arrived from Canada and England. New York was the state of residence for 10.5 percent of Tampa cruise passengers while 14.8 percent of the cruise passengers came from the midwestern states of Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Florida residents of Orlando, St Pete and Sarasota accounted for 15.5 percent of cruise passengers. 24 It should also be noted that 11.9% of cruise passengers visited Orlando prior to their cruise from Tampa. Thus, about one-fourth of cruise passengers who arrived in Tampa on the day of their cruise had a precruise stay in Orlando. Category Annual Spending Cruise Passengers41,770,164 $ Cruise Lines10,805,541 $ Port Fees4,909,000 $ Total57,484,705 $ Per Passenger Expenditures209.78 $

PAGE 131

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 130 November 2002 Figure 13 – Top 10 Cruise Visitor Places of Residence 2001 Source: Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc. Thus, for a great many of the cruise passengers, Tampa is more than just a port of embarkation. It has a climate that is distinctly different than their place of residence and Tampa is, in fact, a part of their vacation experience. This is borne out by the variety of noncruise activities undertaken by cruise passengers. As shown in Figure 14 almost 30 percent of cruise passengers visited Busch Gardens, 24 percent went to the Florida Aquarium, almost 20 percent visited Lowry Park Zoo and 32 percent visited historical/cultural/performing arts venues. Over 40 percent shopped at local retail and eating establishments. Figure 14 – Major Non-cruise Activities of Cruise Passengers 2001 Source: Bonn Marketing Research Group, Inc. Wisconsin 3.7% Orlando 3.5% En g land 2.8% New Hamshire 2.8% Ohio 3.8% Sarasota 3.8% St. Pete 8.2% Canada 7.2% Michigan 7.3% New York 10.5% Fine/ Performin g Arts 14.8% Historical/ Cultural Sites 17.3% Lowr y Park Zoo 19% Florida A q uarium 24.1% Busch Gardens 29.8% Dining 41.8% Sho pp in g 43.8%

PAGE 132

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 131 November 2002 It was these and other activities that generated the $41.8 million in cruise passenger spending during 2001 that is detailed in Table 50 Excluding airfares, cruise passengers spent an estimated $22.1 million at Tampa area businesses. Based upon the TBCVB information, it was estimated that cruise passengers spent almost $6 million at area restaurants, $6.1 million on entertainment and recreation at area attractions, such as the Florida Aquarium, MOSI/MAX, Busch Gardens and sporting and other events, $3.3 million at retail establishments and $2.5 million on ground transportation. Those passengers who stayed in area hotels spent an additional $2.1 million on lodging. Based upon an average airfare of $325 for Carnival and Holland America passengers,25 it was estimated that the 45 percent of cruise passengers who flew to Tampa spent a total of $39.2 million, half of which ($19.6 million) was allocated to the Tampa region. Thus, cruise passengers spent an estimated $154.13 per passenger on local goods and services prior to and after their cruise. Table 50 – Cruise Passenger Spending by Category in the Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors 25 The average airfare for the Carnival and Holland America passengers is a weighted average of airfares paid by the cruise lines on behalf of their passengers. These data were obtained by BREA from a survey of U.S.-based cruise lines for 2001. Category Annual Spending Restaurant5,934,258 $ Shopping3,321,169 $ Attractions4,418,790 $ Ground Transp.2,544,931 $ Special Events834,974 $ Entertainment574,414 $ Groceries1,081,447 $ Other1,014,271 $ Sporting Event318,464 $ Lodging2,092,569 $ Total Spending (ex. Transp.)22,135,286 $ Airfare (Tampa Share)19,634,877 $ Total Expenditures41,770,164 $ Per Passenger Expenditures154.13 $

PAGE 133

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 132 November 2002 As shown in Table 51 cruise lines spent an estimated $10.8 million with Tampa-based businesses in 2001. Just over half, $5.5 million, was spent with chandlers in the Tampa Bay region. These included expenditures for food, linens and other hotel goods, galley equipment and electrical motors and equipment. The lines also spent just over $100,000 with area shipyards for repair services. The $2.6 million in expenditures for business services included legal, computer, marketing and sanitary services while the $2.5 million in expenditures for personal services primarily included spending for entertainment and photographic services. Table 51 – Cruise Industry Spending by Category in the Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Cruise lines were also required to pay wharfage and dockage fees. Wharfage fees are based upon the number of passengers. A fee of $5.25 was assessed to each passenger embarkation, disembarkation and intransit during 2001. Dockage fees are based upon the length of the vessel. As reported by the Tampa Port Authority, cruise lines paid $4.9 million in wharfage and dockage fees to the Authority during 2001. Combining theses fees with their other expenditures, the cruise lines spent an estimated $15.7 million with Tampa Bay businesses and the Port Authority. In total the cruise industry operating in Tampa, both the cruise lines and their passengers, spent a total of $57.5 million with Tampa Bay businesses and the Port Authority. On a per passenger basis, the cruise sector generated $209.78 in total expenditures in the Tampa Bay region. Chandlers5,528,308 $ Shipbuilding100,631 $ Transportation Services26,240 $ Business Services2,636,090 $ Personal Services2,514,070 $ Total (ex. Fees)10,805,541 $ Wharfage & Dockage Fees4,909,000 $ Total15,714,541 $ Passenger Expenditures41,770,164 $ Total Cruise Expenditures57,484,705 $ Total Per Passenger Exp.209.78 $

PAGE 134

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 133 November 2002 As shown in Table 52 the landside spending by the cruise lines and their passengers contributed 530 jobs paying $13.5 million in wages to the Tampa Bay regional economy. These jobs had an output contribution of $41.3 million. The largest contribution occurred in the air transportation industry with 198 jobs and $6.6 million in wage income. The more than 120,000 cruise passengers who arrived and/or departed from at the Tampa International Airport generated these jobs. Table 52 – Direct Economic Impact of the Cruise Industry – 2001 Tampa Bay Region Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Cruise passengers spent over $10 million during 2001 at retail and eating and drinking establishments (se Table 50). This spending was responsible for the employment of 80 retail and restaurant workers who earned $1.2 million in wage income. In addition to retail, cruise passengers spent another $6 million at entertainment and recreation venues. As a result, the entertainment and amusement industry provided jobs to a similar number of employees, 84, and wage income of $1.9 million. The service sector, including transportation, lodging, business and personal services, generated a total 154 jobs and $3.2 million in wage income as a result of the approximately $10 million spent by the cruise lines and their passengers for these services. The wholesale trade sector, which primarily consisted of chandlering services for the cruise lines, generated 13 jobs that paid $529 thousand in wage income during 2001. Industr y Em p lo y mentWa g e IncomeOut p ut Transportation Services41 839,231 $ 2,571,170 $ Business Services45 1,126,665 $ 2,636,090 $ Personal Services34 623,490 $ 2,514,070 $ Air Transportation198 6,640,516 $ 19,634,877 $ Lodging34 629,236 $ 2,092,569 $ Restaurants47 568,672 $ 1,725,863 $ Wholesale Trade13 528,990 $ 1,849,616 $ Retail Trade33 598,553 $ 1,816,549 $ Entertainment/Amusements84 1,918,982 $ 6,146,642 $ Ship Maintenance1 36,443 $ 280,331 $ Total530 13,510,778 $ 41,267,779 $

PAGE 135

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 134 November 2002 The spending by these directly impacted businesses and workers generated additional employment and income throughout the Tampa Bay region. For example, hotels purchased linens and personal care items for their rooms, food and beverages for their restaurants and insurance for their property and employees. As a result of their employment, the directly impacted workers purchased household goods and services, such as food, clothing, utilities and health care. Combining the impacts of this spending with the direct economic impacts, the cruise sector generated a total of 1,140 jobs throughout the Tampa Bay region with wages of $41 million. These impacts are shown by industry in Table 53 Table 53 – Total Economic Impact of the Cruise Industry – 2001 Tampa Bay Region Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Just under 40 percent of the cruise sector’s total economic impact occurred in the Services sector. A total of 429 jobs and income of $15.9 million were generated in this sector during 2001. The cruise sector’s direct spending generated approximately 50 percent of the total impact for the lodging, business and personal services described above. The remaining 50 percent were generated by the indirect and induced business and employee spending and occurred throughout the service sector, including accounting, consulting and healthcare services to name a few. An even greater percentage, 80 percent, of the economic impacts in the Transportation, Communications and Utilities (TCPU) sector was generated by the cruise sector’s direct Industr y Em p lo y mentWa g e IncomeOut p ut Mining & Construction81 3,114,560 $ 7,904,594 $ Manufacturing23 1,392,300 $ 4,381,500 $ Transportation, Comm. & Utilities291 10,050,000 $ 35,914,500 $ Trade248 6,468,000 $ 14,070,250 $ Finance, Insurance & Real Estate48 2,191,000 $ 7,095,500 $ Services429 15,890,000 $ 21,045,000 $ Government & Other20 1,914,140 $ 128,225 $ Total1,140 41,020,000 $ 90,539,569 $

PAGE 136

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 135 November 2002 expenditures for transportation services. A total of 291 jobs and $10 million in income were generated throughout the Tampa Bay area by cruise-related spending, one-fourth of the cruise sector’s total economic impact. Business and worker spending for communications and utility services generated the remaining 20 percent of the cruise sector’s impact on the TCPU sector. The cruise sector generated 248 jobs and $6.5 million in wages in the Trade sector which includes both wholesale and retail trade. Cruise line and passenger spending generated about one-third of the total economic impact in the trade sector. The Trade sector accounted for about 20 percent of the cruise industry’s total economic contribution to the Tampa Bay regional economy. The spending by the cruise lines and their passengers generated another 172 jobs and $8.6 million in wages in the remaining sectors of the Tampa Bay economy. Combined these sectors accounted for approximately 15 percent of the cruise-related economic impacts. As shown in Table 54 the economic contribution of Tampa’s cruise sector to the state of Florida was about 40 per cent higher than its contribution to the Tampa Bay region. The larger impact was due to two principal reasons. First, the direct contribution to the state economy was higher due to spending by the 12 percent of Tampa cruise passengers who visited and stayed in Orlando prior to their cruise. Second, the indirect and induced impacts were larger because directly impacted Tampa businesses and consumers purchased goods and services that were produced in other parts of the state. Table 54 – Total Economic Impact of the Cruise Industry – 2001 Tampa Bay Region and the State of Florida Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Region Em p lo y mentWa g e IncomeOut p ut Florida1,622 58,110,000 $ 135,815,000 $ Tampa Bay1,140 41,020,000 $ 90,539,569 $ Share of FL Impacts70.3%70.6%66.7%

PAGE 137

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 136 November 2002 In total, the cruise sector generated over 1,600 jobs and $58 million in wage income throughout the state of Florida. The direct spending by the cruise lines and their Tampa passengers accounted for approximately 40 percent of the sector’s total economic contribution to the state’s economy with the remaining 60 percent generated by the indirect and induced spending of the directly impacted businesses and employees.

PAGE 138

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 137 November 2002 Economic Contribution of the Phosphate and Ag Chemical Industry

PAGE 139

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 138 November 2002 Phosphates and related agricultural chemicals are the leading export commodities of the Port of Tampa. The Tampa Port Authority (TPA) reported that just over 10.7 million tons of these commodities26 were shipped from the port during 2001. These phosphate-based commodities accounted for 90 percent of the total outbound tonnage of the port for the year.27 Over 8.9 million tons of these outbound commodities were bulk phosphate and agricultural chemicals and 1.8 million tons were phosphate rock. As also shown in Table 55 over two-thirds of phosphate exports were destined for foreign markets. According to the TPA phosphate exports were destined for 39 countries, including China, Australia, Japan and Brazil. Table 55 Outbound Cargo Tonnage at the Port of Tampa – 2001 Source: Tampa Port Authority The exports of phosphates through the Port of Tampa also accounted for a significant percentage of the industry’s total production in the state of Florida. The industry reported that 22.8 million metric tons of phosphate rock were mined in the state and that 11.1 million tons of diammonium, monoammonium and triple super phosphate were available for shipment during 2001.28 Thus, the 8.9 million tons of bulk phosphate chemicals that were exported through the Port of Tampa accounted for 80 percent of the phosphate chemicals available for shipment. During 2001, the exports of phosphates and agricultural chemicals directly supported the employment of 8,588 workers in the mining and chemical manufacturing industries of the 26 These commodities consisted of phosphate rock, processed bulk phosphate, such as diammonium and monoammonium phosphates, animal feed supplements and other phosphate-based fertilizers. 27 Total (inbound plus outbound) cargo tonnage for the port during 2001 was 47.9 million tons. Thus, phosphate exports accounted for 22 percent of total port tonnage 28 2001 Florida Phosphate Facts Florida Phosphate Council. Commodity Group Domestic Foreign Total Phosphates3,437,254 7,315,775 10,753,029 Share of Total93.8%88.5%90.1%Other Outbound Cargo226,797 950,343 1,177,140 Total3,664,051 8,266,118 11,930,169 Outbound Cargo

PAGE 140

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 139 November 2002 Tampa Bay region.29 Approximately 44 percent of these workers were employed in mining operations and 56 percent in manufacturing. Seventy percent of the total employment in the regional phosphate industry occurred at establishments located in Polk County and 15 percent in establishments in Hillsborough County. The remaining 15 percent were spread throughout the other five counties in the Tampa Bay region. As shown in Table 56 these 8,588 impacted workers received an estimated $373 million in wages during the year. This represented an average annual wage of $43,432 per employee. This is approximately 25 percent higher than the average annual wage of all workers in the Tampa Bay region. Phosphate mining workers received an estimated $114 million in wage income while those employed in manufacturing operations received $259 million. Finally, the mined phosphate rock and manufactured agricultural chemicals had a combined output or production value of $2.5 billion. Table 56 – Direct Economic Impact of the Phosphate Mining and Manufacturing Industry Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As shown in Table 57 overall activity at the Port of Tampa was estimated to have had a direct economic impact in the Tampa Bay region of $6 billion in output, 34,658 jobs and $1.25 billion in wage income during 2001. Thus, the phosphate industry accounted for approximately 40 percent of the direct output impact, 25 percent of the direct employment impact and 30 percent of the wage impact of the Port of Tampa. The fact that the phosphate industry’s share of the employment impact is lower than both the output and wage impacts reflects the relatively high productivity of the mining and agricultural 29 The Tampa Bay region is defined as the seven-county area composed of Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk and Sarasota counties. Jobs Wa g e Income ($ Million) Avera g e Annual Wage Out p ut ($ Million) Phosphate Mining3,807 114 $ 29,836 $ 499 $ Ag Chemicals Mfg.4,781 259 $ 54,241 $ 2,035 $ Total8,588 373 $ 43,422 $ 2,534 $

PAGE 141

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 140 November 2002 chemical industries which results in higher output per worker and consequently, higher average wages per worker. As also indicated in the table, impacted phosphate industry workers received 20 percent more in average annual wage income than the average worker directly impacted by all port activity. Table 57 – Direct Economic Impact of the Phosphate Industry and Total Port Activity Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The spending by phosphate industry and its workers generated additional employment and income throughout the Tampa Bay region. For example, the phosphate industry purchased mining and manufacturing equipment, trucking services to move material between the mine and the chemical plant and then to the port, utility services to operate its facilities, terminal and warehousing services at the port, insurance for its facilities and workers and numerous other materials and services. As a result of their employment, the directly impacted phosphate workers purchased household goods and services, such as food, clothing, utilities and health care. The impacts generated by the industry spending are referred to as the indirect economic impacts of the industry while the impacts related to the spending of the industry’s employees are the induced economic impacts. As indicated in Table 58 the combined indirect and induced impacts were significant and spread throughout the Tampa Bay regional economy. The export activity of the phosphate industry generated an additional $3.3 billion in industry output, 32,687 jobs and $1.05 billion in wage income due to the spending of the industry and its employees. The largest indirect and induced output impact, $959 million, was generated in the Manufacturing sector while the largest indirect and induced employment impact, 9,302 jobs, occurred in the Services sector. Even though the Services sector had only an average annual wage of $33,327, the large employment impact also resulted in the largest indirect Jobs Wa g e Income ($ Million) Avera g e Annual Wage Out p ut ($ Million) Phosphate Industry8,588 373 43,422 $ 2,534 Share of Port Direct Impact24.8%29.8%1.2042.3% Port Direct Impact34,658 1,251 $ 36,082 $ 5,987 $

PAGE 142

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 141 November 2002 and induced wage impact. Combined, these two sectors accounted for 42 percent of the phosphate industry’s indirect and induced output, 34 percent of the employment and 38 percent of the wage impacts. Table 58 – Indirect & Induced Economic Impact of the Phosphate Industry Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The impacts within the Manufacturing sector were primarily generated by purchases of material and equipment by the phosphate industry and its suppliers. Four industries, nonelectrical machinery, electrical equipment, instruments and stone, clay and glass, accounted for half of the phosphate industry’s impact on the manufacturing sector. As shown in Figure 15 26 percent of the phosphate industry’s indirect and induced output impact in the manufacturing sector occurred in the non-electrical machinery industry. Businesses in this industry manufacture mining machinery, such as pulverizers, drills, loaders and mining trucks, material handling equipment, such as conveyors, and specialized equipment for processing phosphates and other chemicals. Combined the electrical equipment and instruments industries accounted for 14 percent of the phosphate industry’s manufacturing output impact. Manufacturers in these indus-Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Avera g e Annual Wage Mining243 $ 3,604 70 $ $ 19,526Construction633 $ 6,582 188 $ $ 28,578Manufacturing959 $ 1,884 90 $ $ 48,028 Mfg Nondurables747 $ 799 34 $ $ 42,565 Mfg Durables212 $ 1,086 55 $ $ 51,084Transportation134 $ 1,241 40 $ $ 32,146Communication & Utilities149 $ 465 32 $ $ 68,051Trade573 $ 7,157 206 $ $ 28,839Finance205 $ 1,597 56 $ $ 35,098Services463 $ 9,302 310 $ $ 33,317Other7 $ 855 58 $ $ 67,758Total3,366 $ 32,687 1,051 $ $ 32,148

PAGE 143

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 142 November 2002 tries produce industrial lighting equipment, power generation equipment and controls and process monitoring equipment. Figure 15 – Phosphate Industry Impact in the Manufacturing Sector 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The impacts on the stone, clay and glass industry were generated by both constructionrelated and chemical processing requirements. The chemical processing requirements included the purchase of processed non-metallic minerals as additives to agricultural chemical products. As shown in Figure 16 the indirect and induced impacts within the Services sector were concentrated in two services categories, business and professional services. Combined, these two sectors accounted for three-fourths of the phosphate industry’s indirect and induced employment impact within the Services sector. Businesses in these sectors provide a broad range of services including accounting, manpower, building maintenance, security, equipment leasing, logistics consulting, management consulting and engineering services. These types of services are primarily sold directly to businesses and thus are the result of the indirect impacts generated by industry spending. The induced spending of the employees of the phosphate industry and its suppliers generated the remaining 25 percent of the industry’s impact in the Services sector. Since emPhosphate Industry Output Impact in the Manufacturing Sector $959 Million Electrical Eq. 7% Lumber 6% Trans p ortation Eq. 3% Other Mfg. Ind. 32% Instruments 7% Fabricated Metals 8% Stone Cla y & Glass 11% Non-electrical Mach 26%

PAGE 144

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 143 November 2002 ployee spending generates these impacts they include such services as education, health, recreation and amusement, personal care and automotive repair services. Figure 16 – Phosphate Industry Impact in the Services Sector 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Other significant impacts occurred in the Mining, Construction, Transportation and Trade sectors. The spending of the phosphate industry, its suppliers and their employees generated over 3,600 jobs paying $70 million in wages and producing $243 million in output within the Mining sector. These impacts occurred primarily among other non-metallic and mineral mining operations, including limestone, gypsum and other stone aggregates. The 6,582 jobs, $188 million in wage income and $633 million in output generated in the Construction sector resulted from the indirect and induced residential and nonresidential construction activity created by the export activity of the phosphate industry. Within the Transportation sector 1,241 jobs paying $40 million in wages and creating $134 million in output were generated. The trucking industry accounted for 80 percent of these impacts principally as a result of the transportation of phosphates and other agricultural chemicals to and from the Port of Tampa. Finally, over 7,150 jobs paying $206 million in wages and producing $573 million in output were generated in the Trade sector. Approximately 70 percent of these indirect and induced impacts occurred among retail trade establishments and were the result of the Phosphate Industry Employment Impact in the Services Sector 9,302 JobsAutomotive Repair 3% Amusements 3% Education & Health 5% Personal Services 10% Other Services 11% Professional Services 23% Business Services 45%

PAGE 145

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 144 November 2002 induced spending of the employees of the phosphate industry and its suppliers. The remaining 30 percent of the indirect and induced impacts took place among wholesale trade businesses. Combining the direct, indirect and induced impacts, the export of phosphates and related agricultural chemicals had a total economic contribution of 41,275 jobs paying $1.4 billion in wages and producing $5.9 billion in output. As shown in Table 59 phosphate exports accounted for 45 percent of the Port of Tampa’s total output impact and 38 percent of the port’s total impact on employment and wages in the Tampa Bay region. Given the pervasive impact of the phosphate industry and its large share of the total impact of the port, the average wage of all workers impacted by the export of phosphates and agricultural chemicals was essentially the same as the average for all workers impacted by the Port of Tampa. Table 59 – Total Economic Impact of the Phosphate Industry and Total Port Activity Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As shown in Table 60 the economic contribution to the state of Florida of Tampa’s phosphate exports was about 20 per cent higher than its contribution to the Tampa Bay region. The larger impact was primarily due to the larger statewide indirect and induced impacts. The statewide impacts were larger because directly impacted Tampa businesses and consumers purchased goods and services that were produced in other parts of the state. In total, the export of phosphates and related agricultural chemicals through the Port of Tampa generated over 49,700 jobs, $1.7 billion in wage income and $6.9 billion in output Jobs Wa g e Income ($ Million) Avera g e Annual Wage Out p ut ($ Million) Phosphate Industry41,275 1,424 34,493 $ 5,900 Share of Total Port Impact38.3%38.1%1.0045.5% Total Port Impact107,903 3,735 $ 34,616 $ 12,978 $

PAGE 146

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 145 November 2002 throughout the state of Florida. The direct production of phosphates and agricultural chemicals for export accounted for approximately 35 percent of the sector’s total economic contribution to the state’s economy with the remaining 65 percent generated by the indirect and induced spending of the directly impacted businesses and employees. Table 60 – Total Economic Impact of the Phosphate Industry and Total Port Activity State of Florida 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Jobs Wa g e Income ($ Million) Avera g e Annual Wage Out p ut ($ Million) Total Impact on Tampa Bay41,275 1,424 34,493 $ 5,900 Share of Florida Impact83.0%85.5%1.0386.0% Total Impact on Florida49,740 1,665 $ 33,474 $ 6,859 $

PAGE 147

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 146 November 2002 Economic Contribution of the Inland Transport Industry

PAGE 148

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 147 November 2002 The inland transport industry, which includes rail, trucking, air, pipeline and local transportation, is an essential component of the port-related network of industries. The rail, trucking and pipeline industries moved the 47.9 million tons of inbound and outbound cargo to and from the port and the Tampa Bay region. The air and local transportation industries were responsible for transporting cruise passengers to and from the Tampa Bay region and the port’s cruise terminal. Obviously, without these industries, the Port of Tampa could not function as a cargo or cruise port. During 2001 several unit trains per day moved through the various terminals at the port transporting phosphate-related chemicals, coal and agricultural products. Thousands of trucks also visited the port on a daily basis carrying petroleum, refrigerated food products, fertilizers, stone, other minerals, scrap metal and the many other goods shipped into and from the Port of Tampa. In addition to the petroleum tank trucks, pipelines were used to transport the 17.8 million tons of inbound petroleum products to destinations throughout Florida, including the Tampa International Airport and central Florida. In fact, the Tampa Port Authority (TPA) has estimated that approximately 850 rail cars and 11,200 trucks access port facilities on a daily basis.30 The TPA’s intermodal transportation plan also indicates that trucks hauled about 80 percent of the non-phosphate cargo and 58 percent of the phosphate-related cargo, rail carried about 1 percent of the non-phosphate cargo and 41 percent of the phosphate cargo and pipelines moved approximately 19 percent of the phosphate cargo and 1 percent of the non-phosphate cargo. Based upon these percentages, trucks hauled an estimated 36 million tons, rail carried 4.8 million tons and pipelines 7.1 million tons of cargo to and from the port of Tampa during 2001 (see Table 61 ). The air transportation and local transportation industry have been crucial to the growth of the port’s cruise activity. During 2001, 45 percent of Tampa’s cruise passengers, or about 121,000 passengers, arrived in Tampa via air. These passengers then utilized local transportation services, i.e., buses, taxis and limousines, to reach the cruise terminal. The remaining passengers primarily arrived via automobiles. The TPA has estimated that each 30 Tampa Port Authority Intermodal Transportation Plan

PAGE 149

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 148 November 2002 cruise sailing brings 300 to 400 automobiles and 40 to 50 buses to the port carrying cruise passengers. With 150 cruises during 2001, the port generated over 50,000 auto trips and 6,500 bus trips to the port during the year. Table 61 – Volume of Cargo Carried by Mode of Transportation – 2001 Millions of Tons Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Thus, all modes of transportation were impacted by and contributed to the movement of cargo and cruise passengers throughout the Tampa Bay region and, as a result, generated significant employment opportunities in the area. As shown in Table 62 the inland transport industry generated over 2,800 jobs in the Tampa Bay region as a result of the direct transportation of cargo and cruise passengers. These workers earned $123 million in wages and generated $318 million in transportation industry output. As also shown in the table, the average impacted transportation worker earned annual wages of $43,672 during 2001. Table 62 – Direct Economic Contribution of the Inland Transport Industry Tampa Bay Region 2001 Includes local and intraurban and pipeline transportation. Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Av g Ann. Wage Railroad59 $ 300 19 $ 64,915 $ Trucking236 $ 2,269 94 $ 41,531 $ Air Transportation20 $ 198 7 $ 33,538 $ Other Transport*3 $ 41 2 $ 55,635 $ Total318 $ 2,808 123 $ 43,672 $ TrucksRailPipelinesTotal Phosphate-related6.3 4.4 0.1 10.8 Non-phosphates29.7 0.4 7.0 37.1 Total36.0 4.8 7.1 47.9

PAGE 150

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 149 November 2002 As shown in Figure 17 and the previous table, the trucking industry accounted for 81 percent of the inland transport sector’s direct employment contribution. An estimated 2,269 workers were employed by the trucking industry to haul 36 million tons of inbound and outbound cargo at the port. These workers received an average annual wage of $41,531 generating a total wage income of $94 million. Figure 17 – Direct Employment Contribution by Mode of Transportation – 2001 Includes local and intraurban and pipeline transportation. Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The railroad industry employed an estimated 300 employees, 11 percent of the inland transport sector’s employment contribution, to carry 4.8 million tons of cargo to and from the Port of Tampa. The average impacted rail worker earned almost $65,000 in annual wages resulting in total wages of $19 million for the 300 directly impacted rail workers. The transportation of cruise passengers and the movement of petroleum products through local pipelines generated the remaining 8 percent of the employment contribution of the inland transport sector. Combined the air transportation and other transport industries generated 239 jobs and $9 million in wage income through the direct transportation of cruise passengers and petroleum products. Direct Employment Contribution of the Inland Transport Sector 2,808 Jobs Trucking 81% Railroad 11% Other Transport* 1% Air Transportation 7%

PAGE 151

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 150 November 2002 As shown in Table 63 overall activity at the Port of Tampa was estimated to have had a direct economic impact in the Tampa Bay region of $6 billion in output, 34,658 jobs and $1.25 billion in wage income during 2001. Thus, the inland transport industry accounted for approximately 5 percent of the direct output impact, 8 percent of the direct employment impact and 10 percent of the wage impact of the Port of Tampa. As also indicated in the table, impacted transportation industry workers received 21 percent more in average annual wage income than the average worker among all industries that were directly impacted by port activity. Table 63 – Direct Economic Impact of the Inland Transport Industry and Total Port Activity Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The inland transport sector was also impacted by the indirect and induced impacts of overall activity at the port. The directly impacted port businesses purchased equipment, fuel and other goods that required transportation services. Also, impacted employees purchased household goods, such as food, furniture and clothing that also had to be transported within the Tampa Bay region. Adding the impacts of the indirect and induced impacts of the port on the inland transport industry to the direct impacts we arrived at the total contribution of the inland transport sector generated by port-related activity. As indicated in Table 64 the inland transport generated a total of $876 million in industry output, 8,073 jobs and $325 million in wage income due to port-related activity. As shown in the table and Figure 18 the total contribution of the inland transport sector, like the direct contribution, was concentrated in the trucking industry although to a smaller degree. The total economic contribution of the Port of Tampa generated over 5,100 jobs in the trucking industry. These jobs accounted for 63 percent of the employment impact Jobs Wa g e Income ( $ Million ) Avera g e Annual Wage Out p ut ( $ Million ) Inland Transportation Industry2,808 123 $ 43,672 $ 318 $ Share of Port Direct Impact8.1%9.8%1.215.3% Port Direct Impact34,658 1,251 $ 36,082 $ 5,987 $

PAGE 152

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 151 November 2002 within the inland transport sector compared to the 81 percent share of the direct employment impact (see Figure 17). Table 64 – Total Economic Contribution of the Inland Transport Industry Tampa Bay Region 2001 Includes local and intraurban and pipeline transportation. Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The relative decline in the share of the trucking industry was shifted to the air transportation and other transport industries which showed a combined increase in share from 8 percent for the direct employment impact to 32 percent for the total impact. This increase was due to the more diverse nature of the indirect and induced impacts of the Port of Tampa. The movement of goods to and from the port primarily generated the direct impacts. In contrast, the indirect and induced impacts within the inland transport sector are principally generated by the movement of people to, from and around the Tampa Bay region. A total of 2,574 jobs paying $114 million in wages were generated in the air transportation and other transport industries as a result of the total economic impact of the Port of Tampa. The railroad industry generated a total of 382 jobs and $26 million in wages, all as a result of the movement of goods and people through the Port of Tampa during 2001. Sector Out p ut ($ Million) Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Av g Ann. Wage Railroad75 $ 382 26 $ 68,090 $ Trucking536 $ 5,117 185 $ 36,154 $ Air Transportation143 $ 1,144 47 $ 41,364 $ Other Transport*121 $ 1,430 67 $ 46,782 $ Total876 $ 8,073 325 $ 40,285 $

PAGE 153

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 152 November 2002 Figure 18 – Total Employment Contribution by Mode of Transportation – 2001 Includes local and intraurban and pipeline transportation. Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The importance of the transportation industry is illustrated by the share of the total economic contribution of the Port of Tampa that is generated within the inland transport sector. As discussed above the inland transport sector accounted for just under 10 percent of the port’s direct economic impact, however, as shown in Table 65 the inland transport industry accounted for more than 15 percent of the total economic impact of the port. Specifically, the inland transport industry accounted for 13 percent of the Port of Tampa’s total output impact and 16 percent of the port’s total impact on employment and 19 percent of the port’s impact on wages in the Tampa Bay region. As shown in Table 66 the Port of Tampa’s economic contribution to the state of Florida generated significantly more jobs and income in the inland transport sector throughout the state. The larger impact was primarily due to the larger statewide indirect and induced impacts. The statewide impacts were larger because directly impacted Tampa businesses and consumers purchased goods and services that were produced in and shipped from other parts of the state. Direct Employment Contribution of the Inland Transport Sector 8,073 Jobs Trucking 63% Railroad 5% Other Transport* 18% Air Transportation 14%

PAGE 154

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 153 November 2002 Table 65 – Total Economic Impact of the Inland Transport Industry and Total Port Activity Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors In total, the Port of Tampa generated over 9,300 jobs, $393 million in wage income and $1 billion in output in the inland transport sector throughout the state of Florida. The direct impacts of the port in the Tampa Bay region accounted for about 31 percent of the total statewide impacts of the Port of Tampa on the inland transport industry during 2001. Table 66 – Total Economic Impact of the Phosphate Industry Tampa Bay Region and State of Florida 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors Jobs Wa g e Income ( $ Million ) Avera g e Annual Wage Out p ut ( $ Million ) Total Impact on Tampa Bay8,073 325 $ 40,285 $ 876 $ Share of Florida Impact86.6%82.8%0.9687.6% Total Impact on Florida9,322 393 $ 42,158 $ 1,000 $ Jobs Wa g e Income ( $ Million ) Avera g e Annual Wage Out p ut ( $ Million ) Inland Transportation Industry8,073 325 $ 40,285 $ 876 $ Share of Total Port Impact16.2%19.5%1.2012.8% Total Port Impact49,740 1,665 $ 33,474 $ 6,859 $

PAGE 155

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 154 November 2002 Economic Contribution of the Tampa Bay Shipyard Industry

PAGE 156

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 155 November 2002 While Tampa Bay’s shipyards were not directly involved in the movement of cargo and cruise passengers, they are an excellent example of the nontransportation support services that developed as a result of the trade activity at the port and, in fact, provide the type of services that are critical to the long term success of the port. For the Port of Tampa to continue to grow, cargo and cruise ships must have access to timely repair and maintenance services that will promote the free and prompt movement of cargo and cruise passengers to and from Tampa Bay. The Tampa Port Authority (TPA) 2001 Directory indicated that five shipyards operated at the Port of Tampa during 2001. A survey of these shipyards indicated that the five yards provided maintenance and repair services to over 200 vessel during 2001 including, cargo ships, tankers, barges, tug boats and cruise ships. These yards provided a broad range of services including drydock repair, blasting and coating, piping and machinery repair, installation and repair of marine electronics, metal fabrication and welding. With respect to the analysis of the economic impact of the Port of Tampa, the Tampa area shipyards were considered to be part of the Port Services sector. The Port Services sector was defined as those firms that were immediately and directly involved in providing water transportation service for goods and passengers through the Port of Tampa, as well as firms that directly provided support services to them. In addition to shipyards, this included such services as chandlering, stevedoring, piloting and towing, ships agents and government and cruise operations. As shown in Table 67 Tampa’s shipyards accounted for almost half of the output and slightly less than one-fourth of the employment and income that was produced by the Port Services sector in support of trade activity at the port during 2001. Specifically, the shipyards employed over 900 workers and paid them an estimated $33 million in wages during 2001. These workers were employed to repair the more than 200 vessels serviced by the yards. Combined, the five yards generated over $250 million in industrial output during the year. In addition to the direct economic impact of the shipyards, their activity also generated indirect and induced economic impacts. The indirect economic benefits were derived from the purchases of the shipyards in support of their maintenance and repair services.

PAGE 157

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 156 November 2002 Table 67 – Direct Economic Contribution of the Shipyard Industry Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors For example, the shipyards purchased tools and equipment, fabricated metal products; utility services, such as, electricity and water, to run equipment; paid for transportation services for materials shipped to the yard; insurance for property and employees and so forth. In addition to this indirect contribution, the employees of the shipyards and their suppliers generated induced economic benefits through their purchases of consumer goods and services, including such goods as autos, food, clothing, furniture, health care and so forth. To estimate the indirect and induced economic contribution of Tampa’s shipyards, in addition to the other industries affected by the Port of Tampa, an econometric model of the Tampa Bay regional economy31 was utilized. The contribution analysis for the Tampa Bay shipyards showed that the direct economic contribution of the yards generated another $147 million in output in the Tampa Bay region (see Table 68 ). The production of these goods and services contributed an additional 1,612 jobs in the region through the indirect and induced spending by businesses and employees. In addition, these jobs generated $68 million in wage income for these workers. 31 This model was developed and maintained by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). The Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) at USF has a contract with REMI to use this model. Dr. Dennis Colie of CEDR directed the use of the model for this project. A description of the model is included in the Data and Methodology chapter. Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Av g Ann. Wage Shipyards257 $ 918 33 $ 36,458 $ Share of All Port Services49.4%23.0%20.4%0.88 All Port Services521 $ 3,984 164 $ 41,272 $

PAGE 158

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 157 November 2002 Table 68 – Total Economic Contribution of the Shipyard Industry Tampa Bay Region 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors As shown in Figure 19 these additional jobs generated by the indirect and induced impacts of the shipyard industry were spread throughout Tampa Bay regional economy. The manufacturing sector benefited from the purchases of equipment by the shipyard industry and accounted for 8 percent (126 jobs) of the indirect and induced employment impacts. Figure 19 – Indirect and Induced Employment Contribution of the Shipyard Industry Tampa Bay Region – 2001 Transportation, Communications and Public Utilities. Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors The largest impacts were in the Finance and Services sector which accounted for 43 percent (694 jobs) of the indirect and induced impacts during 2001. These included finan-Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Av g Ann. Wage Direct Economic Impact257 $ 918 33 $ 36,458 $ Indirect & Induced Economic Impact147 $ 1,612 68 $ 42,451 $ Total Economic Impact404 $ 2,530 102 $ 40,277 $ Indirect and Induced Employment Impact 1,612 Jobs Mining & Construction 14% Manufacturing 8% TCPU* 4% Trade 28% Finance & Services 43% All Other 3%

PAGE 159

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 158 November 2002 cial, business and personal services such as insurance, real estate, business consulting, accounting, education and health services. These impacts were generated by both the spending by the shipyards and their suppliers (indirect impacts) and employee expenditures (induced impacts). The Trade sector accounted for 28 percent (447 jobs) of the indirect and induced impacts and were primarily generated by employee purchases of household goods. Combining the direct, indirect and induced impacts, the maintenance and repair services of the shipyards at the Port of Tampa were responsible for the generation of 2,530 jobs throughout the Tampa Bay region during 2001 (see Table 69 ). These workers produced over $400 million in output and received $102 million in wages and salaries. As also shown in the table, the shipyards’ economic contribution to the state of Florida generated even more jobs and income throughout the state. The larger impact was primarily due to the larger statewide indirect and induced impacts. The statewide impacts were larger because directly impacted Tampa businesses and consumers purchased goods and services that were produced in and shipped from other parts of the state. Table 69 – Total Economic Impact of the Shipyard Industry Tampa Bay Region and State of Florida 2001 Source: Business Research & Economic Advisors In total, the Tampa shipyard industry generated 2,867 jobs, $109 million in wage income and $442 million in output throughout the state of Florida. The total impacts of the shipyards in the Tampa Bay region accounted for about 90 percent of the total statewide impacts of the industry during 2001. Sector Out p ut ($ Million)Jobs Wa g es ($ Million) Av g Ann. Wage Total Impact on Tampa Bay404 $ 2,530 102 $ 40,277 $ Share of Florida Impact91.4%88.2%93.3%1.06 Total Impact on Florida442 $ 2,867 109 $ 38,089 $

PAGE 160

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 159 November 2002 Project Principals

PAGE 161

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 160 November 2002 Andrew J. Moody Principal, Business Research & Economic Advisors P.O. Box 955 Exton, PA 19341 BREA specializes in custom market analyses for clients throughout the private and public sectors. These unique market analyses integrate economic, financial, and demographic trends with primary market research, proprietary client data, and advanced statistical and modeling techniques. This approach results in comprehensive and actionable analysis, databases and models, designed to support planning, sales and marketing, and education within client organizations. Dr. Moody, Principal of BREA, has more than twenty-five years of experience in consulting and forecasting with a wide range of international product and service companies, including consumer products, leisure, retailing, gaming, business services, telecommunications, and utility and financial services. Typical consulting assignments provide critical analysis and insight into market dynamics, product demand, economic trends, consumer behavior and public policy. BREA’s approach to market analysis focuses on determining market or product characteristics that can be summarized by three attributes: size, share, and growth. Since studies are designed to meet the specific needs of each client, they can incorporate many dimensions of the market and include a variety of ancillary services. To carry out this market analysis BREA provides the following services: Market Research : design and implementation of primary market research instruments using telephone, mail, and intercept surveys. Test instruments are designed to collect information on product demand, attributes of consumers and users, perceived product attributes, and customer satisfaction. Segmentation Analyses: segmenting demand attributes by product line, consumer demographics (age, income, region, etc.) and business characteristics using market research, government statistics and proprietary databases. Statistical and Econometric Modeling: developing quantitative models relating market and product demand to key economic factors and demographic market/consumer attributes. Models can be used for forecasting, trend analysis and divergence/convergence analysis. Market Studies and Trend Analyses: detailed descriptions of markets (defined as products, regions, industries, consumer segments, etc.) and comprehensive analyses of underlying market forces (such as economic and financial conditions, competitive environment, technology, etc.). Economic Impact Studies: thorough analysis of industries and consumption behavior and their contribution to or impact on national and regional (state, metropolitan areas, counties, etc.) economies.

PAGE 162

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 161 November 2002 Dennis Colie Director, Center for Economic Development Research College of Business Administration University of South Florida In May 1994, Dr. Dennis Colie became the first graduate from USF's Ph.D. program in finance. He also holds an MBA from Sul Ross State University in Alpine, TX, and a bachelor's degree in mathematics from Hofstra University on Long Island in NY. Dr. Colie came to USF in 1987 following a successful 23-year career in the U.S. Army, during which he served in leadership and management positions in the U.S. and abroad. His international experience includes six years as a NATO tactical evaluation team chief, as well as spending one year as advisor to the Saudi Arabian Air Defense School. In the U.S. his activities encompassed logistics planning, training supervision, and personnel management. Before joining CEDR in May 1998, Dr. Colie taught undergraduate and graduate courses for the Finance Department in the College of Business Administration at USF. CEDR undertakes research projects on which its contribution is substantive and recognized, and that confer significant benefits on the region. While CEDR must attract outside funding to support some activities, the Center does not actively compete with private consulting groups. CEDR provides the College of Business Administration, the University, local communities, and in particular, the Region’s economic development professionals with information and analysis on a wide range of urban, regional, and international issues affecting the 7-county Region. The Center also maintains a data center focusing on the measurement of variables, which pertain to the demographics and business activity in the University’s service area, and conducts analysis of the data. CEDR cooperates with the Office of Corporate Development and the Small Business Development Center in the College of Business Administration on issues of business growth and development. It also works with development agencies and with community organizations interested in regional economic and employment growth and the factors influencing business location. CEDR provides information, technical support and research to agencies dealing with the development of physical and human resources. The Center facilitates the coordination of private and public policies and programs in development of physical infrastructure and of human and natural resources.

PAGE 163

Tampa Port Authority Economic Impact of the Port of Tampa Business Research & Economic Advisors Page 162 November 2002 Joseph S. DeSalvo Chairman, Department of Economics College of Business Administration University of South Florida Joseph S. DeSalvo has been Professor of Economics in the College of Business Administration at the University of South Florida since 1983. He served as Director of the Center for Economic and Management Research at USF from 1984 to 1989 and has been serving as Chairman of the Department of Economics since 1998. Dr. DeSalvo earned the Ph.D. in economics from Northwestern University in 1968 and holds M.A. and B.A. degrees, also in economics, from the University of Florida. While a graduate student at the University of Florida, Dr. DeSalvo served as a research assistant in the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. After earning his master's degree from the University of Florida, he taught for two years at the Virginia Military Institute. From VMI, Dr. DeSalvo attended graduate school at Northwestern University. While at Northwestern, he taught in the Evening Division and served as a research assistant in the Transportation C enter and the Econometrics Research Center. After leaving Northwestern, Dr. DeSalvo worked as a research economist at the Rand Corporation from 1967 to 1971. He was associated with the Department of Economics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee from 1971 to 1983. At UW-Milwaukee, he served as Associate Professor, Professor, and Department Chairman. During the academic year 1974-75, Dr. DeSalvo served as Visiting Research Professor at the Facult Universitaire Catholique de Mons in Mons, Belgium. Dr. DeSalvo has authored or co-authored fourteen grant-funded research monographs in the general area of urban and regional economics for a variety of sponsors, including the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, the Tampa Port Authority, the City of New York, the State of Wisconsin, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. He has acted as principal investigator on twenty grant-funded projects. He has edited a book on regional transportation planning and co-authored a study guide and an instructor's manual to accompany a widely used macroeconomics textbook. Dr. DeSalvo has published over thirty articles in professional journals and books in the areas of urban, regional, housing, and transportation economics. Dr. DeSalvo has published over fifty articles in magazines, newspapers, and newsletters. He has given numerous interviews for newspaper and magazine articles and has appeared often on local TV news and business shows.