Tampa Bay economy

Tampa Bay economy

Material Information

Tampa Bay economy
University of South Florida -- Center for Economic Development Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
University of South Florida, College of Business Administration, Center for Economic Development Research.


Subjects / Keywords:
Economic conditions -- Periodicals -- Tampa Bay Region (Fla.) ( lcsh )
Economic conditions -- Statistics -- Periodicals -- Tampa Bay Region (Fla.) ( lcsh )
Commerce -- Periodicals -- Tampa Bay Region (Fla.) ( lcsh )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

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:
C63-00071 ( USFLDC DOI )
c63.71 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 d20002006flu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C63-00071
0 245
Tampa Bay economy.
n Vol. 4, no. 1 (spring 2004).
Tampa, Fla. :
b University of South Florida, College of Business Administration, Center for Economic Development Research.
Corporate and Regional Headquarters in Tampa Bay -- From the Editor -- The Economic Contributions of Lowry Park Zoo to the Hillsborough County Economy -- Trends in Tampa Bay International Trade -- USF's Basic Economic Development Course -- Update on CEDR's Data Center
Tampa Bay Region (Fla.)
x Economic conditions
v Periodicals.
Tampa Bay Region (Fla.)
Economic conditions
Tampa Bay Region (Fla.)
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Economic Development Research.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c63.71


1 Volume 4, No. 1 Spring 2004 Corporate and Regional Headquarters in Tampa Bay By Davor Soldo, Economist with the Center for Economic Development Research According to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), there are 201 corporate or regional headquarters employing 17,984 workers in Tampa Bay. In order to gauge economic activity in the United States more accurately, the NAICS is gradually replacing the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system used since the 1930s and last updated in 1987. The NAICS addresses the diverse nature of the U.S. and global economies by increasing the ten SIC divisions of the economy to 20 N AICS industry sectors. In addition, NAICS industry codes consist of five or six digits, compared to a SIC codeÂ’s four digit length, providing for increased flexibility in the designation of subordinate subsectors, groups and industries. Comparison of Hierarchical Structures NAICS SIC XX Industry Sector X Division XXX Industry Sub Sector XX Major Group XXXX Industry Group XXX Industry Group XXXXX Industry XXXX Industry XXXXXX U.S., Canadian, or Mexican National specific NAICS differs from the SIC system in that NAICS codes combine industries that employ similar production processes; SIC codes group industries engaged in similar activities. See Table 1 on page 3 for a comparison between NAICS sectors and SIC divisions. NAICS sector 55 is Management of Companies and Enterprises, and includes industry number 551114. The NAICS manual reads: 551114 Corporate, Subsidiary, and Regional Managing Offices. This U.S. industry comprises establishments (except government establishments) primarily engaged in administering, overseeing, and managing other establishments of the company or enterprise. These establishments normally undertake the strategic or organizational planning and decision-making role of the company or enterprise. Establishments in this industry may hold the securities of the company or enterprise. NAICS sector 55 may consist of firms p reviously classified in any SIC division except Public Administration. For example, the headquarters of financial services firms listed in the SIC division for Finance, Insurance and Real Estate may now be in NAICS sector 55 along with the headquarters of manufacturing firms, retail trade firms, etc. We used the Florida Agency for Workforce InnovationÂ’s 4th quarter of 2002 Enhanced Quarterly Unemployment Insurance (EQUI) data set to find firms in Tampa Bay with NAICS code 551114. Then, we compared these firms with the previous quarterÂ’s data set, which is in SIC format, to determine the old industry divisions for these firms. (Continued on page 3)


2 Table 1 The Tampa Bay Economy Volume 4, No. 1 Spring 2004 Table of Contests Corporate and Regional Headquarters in Tampa Bay………………………...1 From the Editor…………………………….….….....2 The Economic Contributions of Lowry Park Zoo to the Hillsborough County Economy………………………………...….7 Trends in Tampa Bay International Trade…………..9 USF’s Basic Economic Development Course……………………………….10 Update On CEDR’s Data Center…………………...11 CEDR Staff Dr. Dennis Colie………………………..……Director Dodson Tong…………………………..Data Manager Nolan Kimball………………………...Coordinator of Information/Publications Alex McPherson…………….……….….…Economist David Sobush……………………………...Economist Davor Soldo……………………………….Economist Anand Shah……………………………Web Designer From the Editor… This is the first issue of The Tampa Bay Economy (TBE) since Fall 2002. It is completely accessible via downloading from the web. To conserve resources, we will no longer be mailing printed copies of the TBE. “Corporate and Regional Headquarters in Tampa Bay” is the lead report in this issue. The report quantifies business headquarters in Tampa Bay as reflected by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Also in this issues is “Trends in Tampa Bay International Trade,” based upon a recent report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. “The Economic Contributions of Lowry Park Zoo to the Hillsborough County Economy” is a synopsis of a study published by CEDR in May of last year. CEDR conducted the 27th annual USF Basic Economic Development Course in November 2003. This issue of TBE also includes a brief report about the course. This issue of the TBE concludes with an “Update of CEDR’s Data Center, written by Dodson Tong, CEDR’s Data Manager. CEDR’s on-line data center houses several regional and national time-series in support of economic development research. To help us make the journal add even more value to Tampa Bay’s economic development community, we ask you, the journal’s reader to send us your comments at: cedr@coba.usf.edu with subject line “Journal Comments.” University of South Florida


3 Table 1 Comparison of NAICS with SIC NAICS Code NAICS SectorsSIC Divisions 11Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and HuntingAgriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 21MiningMining 23ConstructionConstruction 31-33ManufacturingManufacturing 22Utilities 48-49Transportation and Warehousing 42Wholesale TradeWholesale Trade 44-45Retail Trade 72Accommodation and Food Services 52Finance and Insurance 53Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing 51Information 54Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 56 Remediation Services 61Educational Services 62Health Care and Social Assistance 71Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 81Other Services (except Public Administration) 92Public AdministrationPublic Administration 55Management of Companies and Enterprises(parts of all divisions) Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Services Table 2 Number of Corporate and Regional Headquarters in Tampa Bay (4th quarter 2002) SIC DivisionA. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing00.0%21.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%73.5%00.0%94.5% B. Mining00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%10.5%00.0%00.0%10.5% C. Construction00.0%10.5%00.0%00.0%31.5%10.5%00.0%52.5% D. Manufacturing00.0%126.0%31.5%21.0%84.0%21.0%10.5%2813.9% E. Transportation and Public Ut ilities00.0%31.5%10.5%10.5%00.0%10.5%00.0%63.0% F. Wholesale Trade00.0%115.5%10.5%00.0%42.0%31.5%10.5%2010.0% G. Retail Trade10.5%2010.0%31.5%10.5%126.0%73.5%52.5%4924.4% H. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate00.0%52.5%10.5%10.5%42.0%00.0%42.0%157.5% I. Services00.0%189.0%42.0%31.5%2512.4%42.0%94.5%6331.3% Nonclassifiable Establishments00.0%00.0%10.5%00.0%31.5%00.0%10.5%52.5% Total10.5%7235.8%147.0%84.0%6029.9%2512.4%2110.4%201100.0% Pasco Manatee Hillsborough Hernando SarasotaTotal Polk Pinellas Source: Enhanced Quarterly Unemployment Insurance File 2002 In the 4t h quarter of 2002, there were 201 corporate or regional headquarters in Tampa Bay. In these headquarters there were, on average, 17,984 people employed per month. The average annualized wage for an employee working in one of the headquarters was $61,865, while the Tampa Bay regional average for all jobs was only $31,536. Table 2 shows the grouping of headquarters in Tampa Bay by its old industry division and by county. Out of 201 headquarters in Tampa Bay, Hillsborough County and Pinellas County have 72 and 60 establishments, respectively. That is, 65.7% of all the headquarters in Tampa Bay are located in either Hillsborough or Pinellas counties


4 Table 3 Number of Employees Working in Tampa Bay Corporate and Regional Headquarters (4th quarter 2002) SIC Division A. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing00.0%200.1%00.0%00.0%00.0%840.5%00.0%1040.6% B. Mining00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%2NM00.0%00.0%2NM C. Construction00.0%4NM00.0%00.0%160.1%1NM00.0%210.1% D. Manufacturing00.0%4892.7%990.6%230.1%6813.8%180.1%4NM13147.3% E. Transportation and Public Utilities00.0%2921.6%1NM190.1%00.0%8294.6%00.0% 11416.3% F. Wholesale Trade00.0%3431.9%110.1%00.0%120.1%2131.2%7NM5863.3% G. Retail Trade8NM9545.3%12036.7%6NM185510.3%357919.9%290.2%763442.5% H. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate00.0%2591.4%440.2%6NM297016.5%00.0%230.1%330218.4% I. Services00.0%11656.5%8NM910.5%235613.1%690.4%1550.9%384421.4% Nonclassifiable Establishments00.0%00.0%1NM00.0%340.2%00.0%1NM360.2% Total8NM352619.6%13677.6%1450.8%792644.1%479326.7%2191.2%17984100.0% PinellasPolkSarasotaTotal HernandoH illsbor oughManateePasco Source: Enhanced Quarterly Unemployment Insurance File 2002 NM=Not Meaningful Table 4 Number of Headquarters in Tampa Bay with 95+ Workers (4th quarter 2002) SIC Division D. Manufacturing311.1%00.0%311.1%00.0%622.2% E. Transportation and Public Utilities13.7%00.0%00.0%13.7%27.4% F. Wholesale Trade13.7%00.0%00.0%00.0%13.7% G. Retail Trade27.4%27.4%27.4%27.4%829.6% H. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate13.7%00.0%13.7%00.0%27.4% I. Services414.8%00.0%414.8%00.0%829.6% Total1244.4%27.4%1037.0%311.1%27100.0% Total HillsboroughManateePinellasPolk Source: Enhanced Quarterly Unemployment Insurance File 2002 Table 3 reports employment for the 201 headquarters in the Tampa Bay region. It also shows the percentage employment in those corporate and regional headquarters. Pinellas County and Polk County have the most people employed in headquarters at 7,926 and 4,793, respectively. About 70.7% of the 17,984 workers are located in these two counties. Old SIC divisions for Retail Trade, Services and Finance, Insurance and Real Estate represent 82.2% of the total workforce in NAICS industry 551114. Table 4 shows the location of headquarters that employ at least 95 workers in Tampa Bay by its old industry division and by county. There are 27 headquarters in Tampa Bay that employ 95 or more workers. Old SIC divisions for Services, Retail Trade, and Manufacturin g re p resent 81.4% of the total number of these headquarters. Out of these headquarters, Hillsborough County has 12 and Pinellas County has 10. That is, 81.4% of all Tampa Bay headquarters that employ 95+ workers are located in either Hillsborough County or Pinellas County.


5 Table 5 Percent of Total Number of Employees Working in Tampa Bay Corporate and Regional Headquarters with 95+ Workers (4th quarter 2002) SIC Division D. Manufacturing4312.8%00.0%5753.8%00.0%10066.6% E. Transportation and Public Utilities2621.7%00.0%00.0%8295.5%10917.2% F. Wholesale Trade950.6%00.0%00.0%00.0%950.6% G. Retail Trade6564.3%11977.9%239415.8%352223.2%776951.3% H. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate1761.2%00.0%228415.1%00.0%246016.2% I. Services8755.8%00.0%185712.3%00.0%273218.0% Total249516.5%11977.9%711046.9%435128.7%15153100.0% Total HillsboroughManateePinellasPolk Source: Enhanced Quarterly Unemployment Insurance File 2002 Table 5 shows the number of people employed in the 27 headquarters in Tampa Bay that employ 95+ workers. There are 15,153 employees working in the 27 largest headquarters in Tampa Bay. Pinellas County and Polk County have the most people employed: 7,110 and 4,351 or 46.9% and 28.7% of the total, respectively. Old SIC divisions for Retail Trade, Services, and Finance, Insurance and Real Estate represent 85.5% of the total workforce in these 27 headquarters. The average annualized wage for an employee working in one of these 27 headquarters in Tampa Bay was $62,974. The map on page 6 shows the corporate and regional headquarters in Tampa Bay with at least 95 workers. CEDR grouped these headquarters into seven geographic clusters. The Clearwater-Largo-Seminole cluster has 6 headquarters. The Gateway, West Shore, and downtown Tampa clusters have 4, 6, and 3 headquarters, respectively. The Hillsborough County and Polk County clusters have 3 each. Bradenton cluster has 2 headquarters. The presence of these clusters generally indicates that the areas where they are located also have available a wide range of business and professional support services. From an economic development perspective the attraction of corporate and regional headquarters to a region is a sign of an area with high quality of life amenities and a business friendly governmental structure. Benefits of corporate and regional headquarters in the Tampa Bay region include: Corporate and regional headquarters can attract other new businesses to the area. People working in corporate or regional headquarters tend to have wages above the regional average wage. Corporate headquarters are often the main location for a firmÂ’s research, entrepreneurial and philanthropic activities. Corporate headquarters tend to have strong community ties. Also, areas with a high number of corporate or regional headquarters project positive economic signals to other companies looking to relocate into the area.




7 The Economic Contributions of Lowry Park Zoo to the Hillsborough County Economy By Dennis G. Colie, Director of the Center for Economic Development Research, and Alex McPherson, Economist with the Center for Economic Development Research In May 2003, CEDR completed a study of the economic contributions of the Lowry Park Zoo to the Hillsborough County economy. The Lowry Park Zoological Society of Tampa, Inc. commissioned the study. The purpose of the study was to quantify the ZooÂ’s economic contributions to Hillsborough County. We based this study on the activities of the Lowry Park Zoo in Hillsborough County during fiscal year (FY) 2001-02, which began October 1, 2001 and ended September 30, 2002. The Society provided information that formed the basis for the analysis. The information included Combined Financial Statements and Independent AuditorsÂ’ Reports for the Lowry Park Zoological Society of Tampa, Inc. and Affiliate, dated September 30, 2002 and copies of internal capital budget and attendance reports. We also used the State of FloridaÂ’s Enhanced Quarterly Unemployment Insurance (EQUI) database to look up employment and payroll data from State unemployment insurance records. The conceptual foundation of the analysis is the understanding that job creation in one industry begets additional jobs in related industries. In addition, further jobs are created to support an increased level of aggregate household income and spending resulting from the inter-industry job creation. This phenomenon of job creation, with concomitant increased levels of income and production, is called the multiplier or ripple effect. For the analysis, the economic effect of the Lowry Park Zoological Society, as it ripples through the economy, is estimated using the REMITM Policy Insight regional economic model. We examined the economic contribution of Lowry Park Zoo through direct and indirect effects. To quantify direct effects we used the Expenditure Approach for continuing operations. For a non-profit organization, like the Lowry Park Zoological Society, the Expenditure Approach assumes that the value of the ZooÂ’s output equals the cost to produce that output. We also considered capital expenses by the Zoo as well as certain spending by visitors attracted by the Zoo to Hillsborough County. In addition, we use sales as a measure of the direct effect for an independently owned eating place on the ZooÂ’s premises. We virtually remove the direct effects from Hillsborough CountyÂ’s economy using the REMITM model. We obtained expenditure data of continuing operations from financial statements. To this amount, we add the estimated value of volunteer effort, obtained by the following method: We used the Enhanced Quarterly Unemployment Insurance (EQUI) records to determine the Lowry Park Zoological SocietyÂ’s average employment for FY 200102. The EQUI data are based on information provided to the State of Florida with unemployment insurance premiums paid by employers. From the EQUI data, we determine an annual average number of employees, though actual employment fluctuates from month to month. Then, based on payroll costs shown in the Lowry Park Zoological SocietyÂ’s financial statements, we determined the average wage paid to full-time employees at the Zoo. This average wage was then used to determine the value of volunteer effort. Total expenditures for FY 2001-02 were over $9.7 million. The $9.7 million spent by Lowry Park Zoo is virtually removed in application of the REMITM model to determine the economic contribution of continuing operations to the Hillsborough County economy.


8 We also obtained expenditure data of capital improvements for model input from the financial statements. Almost $7.4 million of capital improvement in various categories was expensed in FY 2001-02. We also included construction in progress valued at over $1.2 million at the end of the fiscal year. The $8.6 million of total capital expenditures in FY 2001-02 is virtually removed using the REMITM model to determine the contribution of the capital investment activity to the Hillsborough County economy. The value of visitor spending while attending Lowry Park Zoo is captured in the above expenditure data. However, visitors to Hillsborough County may spend additional amounts before and after attending the Zoo. Visitor classifications include locals, daytrippers and overnighters. Local visitors are excluded from the analysis due to their choice to substitute spending in one area of Hillsborough County over another. Spending by daytrippers is different than spending by overnighters, hence the separation for analysis. Daytrippers, who by definition commute to shortterm activities, likely attend the Zoo the same day as returning home and therefore spend little outside their primary target destination – in this case, the Zoo. Daily spending by overnighters, for example, includes meals, hotel, and transportation. While it is likely that other area activities are the primary destination attracting overnight visitors to Hillsborough County, we presume that these visitors spend a day at the Zoo. Thus, we conservatively allocate overnighter spending for a single night’s stay to the Zoo’s economic contribution to Hillsborough County. The number of daytrippers and overnighters is virtually removed using the REMITM model to determine the contribution of the additional visitor spending to the Hillsborough County economy. The only independent vendor at Lowry Park Zoo is an onsite eating establishment. We estimated sales data for model input from notes to the Zoo’s financial statements. The value of these sales is aggregated with all economic activities and virtually removed using the REMITM model to determine the total economic contribution of all activities to the Hillsborough County economy. Our findings indicate the following economic contributions to Hillsborough County: During FY 2001-02, continuing operations at the Zoo contributed 257 jobs (including an approximate 10 full-time equivalent volunteer jobs), which paid money wages totaling just over $7.07 million or an average of $27,500 each for the year. The workers in these jobs produced an output valued at about $16.53 million. During FY 2001-02, spending for capital improvements at the Zoo was about $8.61 million. This spending rippled through Hillsborough County’s economy resulting in total output valued at $19.22 million, and providing, on average, 181 jobs throughout the year. The workers in these jobs received money wages totaling $5,526,000 or an average of $30,530 each for the year. During FY 2001-02, attendance at the Zoo was 683,301 persons. Of these attendees we estimate that 100,223 were daytrippers and 247,295 had a single night’s stay in Hillsborough County associated with their attendance at the Zoo. The remaining attendees were locals. The visitors – daytrippers and overnighters -generated 427 jobs, on average throughout the year, in Hillsborough County. The workers in these jobs produced output valued at slightly over $34.5 million and earned money wages totaling about $11.2 million or an average of $26,295 each for the year. Visitors generated more jobs than continuing operations or capital improvements. However, capital improvements – primarily construction projects -added more value to the economy in terms of output that was p roduced.


9 Trends in Tampa Bay International Trade The simultaneous effects of continuing operations, capital improvements and visitors during its FY 2001-02 motivate the total economic contribution of Lowry Park Zoo for Hillsborough County’s economy. The Zoo contributed, on average, 888.5 jobs throughout the year. The workers in these jobs produced goods and services valued at $71.67 million and earned money wages equal to $24.28 million. We also examined the anticipated economic contributions to Hillsborough County during fiscal years 2002-03 through 2005-06. During fiscal years 2002-03 through 2005-06, on average, we anticipate that the Lowry Park Zoo will contribute 802.4 jobs to Hillsborough County’s economy. The workers in these jobs will annually produce output valued at $64.46 million and for their work receive money wages totaling $24.32 million. This average economic contribution is slightly below the FY 2001-02 contribution mainly due to a projected decrease in the Zoo’s annual capital budgets. On January 29, 2004, Dr. Colie presented the Lowry Park Zoo study at the REMI Southeast Policy Analysis and Users’ Conference in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The full text of the report is available for view at CEDR’s website, http://cedr.coba.usf.edu, under “Research Projects.” By David Sobush, Economist with the Center for Economic Development Research In their article, “Estimating U.S. metropolitan area export and import competition,” authors William Testa, Thomas Klier, and Alexei Zelenev of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago examined the 25 most populous metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) to estimate the level of competition from foreign producers of manufactured goods. While the authors were motivated by further analysis of this data, the import estimates derived and export data reported for the local metropolitan area may be of interest to readers of this journal. Locally, the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA, the 21st-most populous MSA, imported $3.5 b illion worth of manufactured goods in 1999, ranking 46th nationwide, according to the authors’ calculations. The dollar value of these imports equaled 6.0% of the area’s $59 billion gross metropolitan product (GMP). The authors estimated import penetration (the percentage of imported sales of a product to total domestic sales of that product) growth within the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA at 70% between 1989 and 1999, from 9.5% to 16.2%. In 1999, the Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA exported $2.4 billion worth of manufactured goods and commodities. The dollar value of these exports equaled 4.1% of GMP. Adjusting for inflation, exports from this MSA grew 2.3% from 1993-1999. The article appeared in the fourth quarter 2003 issue of Economic Perspectives the quarterly journal of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The article is available for download at http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_d ata/research_publications.cfm


10 USF’s Basic Economic Development Course By Nolan Kimball, Coordinator of Information/Publications with the Center for Economic Development Research The Center for Economic Development Research (CEDR) conducted the 27th annual USF Basic Economic Development Course during the week of November 2 7, 2003. The course was held at the Hilton Garden Inn in Ybor City, a historic neighborhood in Tampa, Florida. Thirty students from ten states participated in the 2003 course. CEDR is a unit of the College of Business Administration. Dennis G. Colie, Director of CEDR was the Course Director and the Course Coordinator was Nolan Kimball, Coordinator of Information/Publications for CEDR. The International Economic Development Council (IEDC) accredits the course. The Course Director received valuable input from the Advisory Committee, whose members are economic development practitioners. The 2003 Course Advisory Committee members are: Beatriz Bare Director of Corporate Recruitment and Expansion, Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, Committee of One Hundred Richard “Buzz” David Director, Pinellas County Economic Development and Chairman of the Florida Economic Development Council Marilyn Hett, Business Development Administrator, Hillsborough County Economic Development Department Bill McDermott, Director, Seminole County Economic Development Mary Jane Stanley Executive Director, Pasco Economic Development Council. CEDR structured the 2003 USF Basic Economic Development Course around the core topics established by IEDC. Those topics are Marketing/Attraction, Business Retention and Expansion, Entrepreneurship/Small Business Development, Economic Development Finance, Real Estate Development Reuse, Workforce Development, Strategic Planning and Community/Neighborhood Development. Field trips also highlighted urban redevelopment and environmental issues in economic development. Thirteen of the 22 presenters are IEDC members. The presenters were drawn from diverse working environments: Twelve from not-for-profit economic development organizations Six from private-sector businesses Two from academia Two from economic development consulting firms. Tuition for this year’s course was $755. The tuition included expenses for instruction, course materials, refreshments, field trips, a group photo and two luncheons. Progress Energy provided scholarships to two qualified course participants. The Florida Economic Development Council (FEDC) sponsored the Opening Night Networking Dinner as well as providing one scholarship for a qualified participant. Cargill Crop Nutrition, Inc. served box lunches during the environmental field trip. CEDR will hold the 28th Annual USF Basic Economic Development Course during the week of October 24 29, 2004 at a location (to be determined) in Tampa Bay.


11 Update on CEDR’s Data Center By Dodson Tong, Data Manager of the Center for Economic Development Research CEDR’s on-line Data Center has recently updated its databases with the most currently available data and will continue to update these datasets as they are released throughout year 2004. One of the Data Center’s largest challenges has been the implementation of industry classification codes in its databases. The inception of the Standardized Industrial Classification System (SICs), which began in the early 1930’s was last revised in 1987. The reclassification of industries from this (SICs) system to the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) began in 1997 and has recently been updated under the 2002 NAICS system. Not all of CEDR’s databases are expressed in NAICS codes; however, Florida's unemployment insurance program, otherwise known as ES202 data contains these codes. Most of these 2002 revisions from the 1997 NAICS codes were mainly focused at attempting to capture the creation of new industries in the Construction and Wholesale Trade Sectors, modifications to national industries for the department stores and non-store retailers, and corrections to the 1997 NAICS manual that were identified since its implementation. The main reason for such a quick revision (only 5 years) is due to our rapidly changing economy, so in order to create an accurate depiction of the economy, the system has to be revised more frequently. Due to these 2002 NAICS revisions, CEDR’s on-line Data Center has recently added another database to its web site. This ES202 data allows one to view 20 NAICS 2-digit industry sectors by Florida counties for the average monthly employment, average monthly wages, and the total wages paid out each quarter. This information can be accessed by going to CEDR’s website at http://cedr.coba.usf.edu and selecting “Data Center” from the menu and “Query CEDR Databases.” Under the Regional and State Database section of the menu, “BY COUNTY (QUARTER NAICS)” is one of three options under “ES202”. In addition to the ES202 by NAICS code data, the Regional and State database section continues to make available the following: Cost of Living This data set provides relative costs of living for Florida's 67 counties and is released annually by the Florida Department of Education. The average cost of living in a given year starting with the period of 19931994 among Florida’s 67 counties is set at 100% and then each Florida county's cost of living is expressed relative to 100%. Education Indicators. The indicators in the data set are graduation rates, drop out rates, SAT scores, average class size, and per pupil expenditures for Florida’s public high schools. The Florida Department of Education distributes the data. CEDR presents the data organized by county and covering four academic years beginning with 1996-1997. ES202 This data set is a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored collection of job and wage data from all employers participating in Florida's unemployment insurance program. It is organized by 1-digit level Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes (and totals for all SIC codes), and describes the number of units (i.e. an establishment designated as a single reporting unit for the unemployment insurance system), the number of covered employees, total wages of those employees, and average wages. The data set is partitioned for each Florida county and provides monthly data (by quarter) from first quarter 1988 to second quarter 2001. A version with annual data from 1988 to 2001 is also available. Beginning with year 2001, these datasets will soon be available by 2-digit NAICS code. Note that there is not an exact bridge from the previous SIC system to the new NAICS system due in to part the newer industries that NAICS now tracks.


12 Gross Sales This data series, provided by the Florida Department of Revenue measures economic activity. Gross sales are the sum of taxable and non-taxable sales as reported by businesses to the Florida Department of Revenue. The Florida Department of Revenue reports gross sales and taxable sales to CEDR by ninety-nine "kind" codes. In order to protect the confidentiality of this data, CEDR has aggregated certain kind codes and converted the aggregations into 8 categories. The data set is partitioned by Florida county and provides monthly data beginning in 1994. Housing Permits This data set of construction authorized by building permits is distributed by the Manufacturing and Construction Division, Bureau of the Census. The data set is primarily based on reports submitted to the Bureau by local building permit officials in response to a mail survey, although some data may be generated by Census Bureau interviewers or imputed from past data. The data on CEDR's web site is organized by state, by county, and by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for each month of a year from January 1996 to December 2003. The data describes the number of units and aggregate value for which building permits have been issued by: single-family, 2-family, 3&4-family, and 5family units. Note that beginning with January 2004 data, the Residential Construction Branch will begin using the new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area definitions that were released in June 2003. This change will affect the layout of the current Place and MSA level certain MSA/CMSA, PMSA and MSA Name column headings to reflect the new Combined Statistical Area (CSA) and Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) names and/or codes. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS). This labor force data set is prepared monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and describes labor force participation, employment, unemployment, and the unemployment rate by county of residence. (Data is also included by Florida MSA.) The self-employed are counted as employed persons in the LAUS data. The LAUS estimates are based on a combination of data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), unemployment insurance claim data, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey of establishments, and ES202 data. Statewide and Florida counties' data are available. The data can be displayed by month from January 1990 to December 2003. Annual averages are also available. Personal Income per Capita Personal Income, and Population These three data sets are organized by county, or by MSA, per year and are released annually through the Regional Economic Information System (REIS) of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The data is based on place of employment and reflect annual averages. In producing REIS, BEA makes use of data that are byproducts of the administration of various federal and state programs, including unemployment insurance, Social Security, federal income taxes, veterans benefits, and military payroll. Hence, the REIS data series, which includes farming and non-farming, military and civilian, proprietorships (i.e. selfemployment) and wage and salary employment, is more comprehensive than ES202. ES202 data covers non-farming and salary employment only. BEA defines Personal Income as the current income received by persons from all sources (including investment income and transfer payments) minus their personal contributions for social insurance. Personal income includes both monetary income (including nonpaycheck income such as employer


13 contributions to pensions) and non-monetary income (such as food stamps and net rental value to owner-occupants of their homes). The REIS county and MSA data are issued about 16 months after the year in which the observations were made. Currently CEDR’s data center has this information from 1969 to 2002. Zip Code Business Patterns This dataset contains the number of business establishments located within a postal ZIP code area throughout Florida. The database also reports the number of employees by industry. CEDR has ZIP code business pattern data from 1997 to year 2000. For each year, drop-down menus allow the researcher to specify a ZIP code area by name (ordered alphabetically) or by ZIP code (ordered numerically). Additionally, the researcher can specify a ZIP code and a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for the 1997 data. Beginning in 1998, the data is organized by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, so the researcher may specify a ZIP code and a NAICS code. Most economic activity is covered by this data set. However, data are excluded for self-employed persons, domestic service workers, railroad employees, farm workers, most government employees, maritime workers on oceangoing vessels, and persons working outside the U.S. ZIP Code Business Patterns data items are extracted from the Standard Statistical Establishments List, a file of all known single and multi-establishment firms. The List is maintained and updated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. CEDR has developed and provided ZIP code maps for each of Florida's counties that will help the researcher identify and define a local area of interest. ZIP Code Business Pattern maps are available from 1997, which are a graphical representation of the data. In conjunction to this ZIP Code Business Patterns data, maps from 1999 ZIP code boundaries are also made available. Due to limited demand, the Migration database will not be extended at this time. If there is a need for the more current data, please contact CEDR’s data manager. CEDR has also recently received from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Dept. of Commerce) State Personal Income, 1929 2000. There are tables with annual measures for each of the states in the U.S. Although the State Personal Income, 1929 2000 tables are not available on line, you can go to CEDR’s home page and click on “Request Data from CEDR” to e-mail your individualized data need request. Tables include: personal income by major source and earning by industry, wage and salary disbursements by industry, total fulland part-time salary employment by industry, state economic profiles, transfer payments, farm income and expenses, and personal tax and non-tax payments. Reports of research projects, previous issues of the Tampa Bay Economy and links to other sites of interest in economic development can be found on CEDR’s website. CEDR’s on-line data center continues to garner wide interest. In 2003, annual web hits reached 188,279 (excluding CEDR staff hits) and averaged a monthly count of 15,689. Since CEDR began putting its research reports online, the number of downloads have increased. In 2003 there were 27,602 CEDR research report downloads. During the most recent month, users remained at the site for an average of 15.2 minutes per visit. Check CEDR's web site at http://cedr.coba.usf.edu for new projects and continuous updated data sources.


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.