Tampa Bay Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)

July 2012

Tampa` --+--``-`+ Bay Z+ Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)

Update of the 2017-2021 CEDS Approved by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, August 14, 2017

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

Tampa Bay Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)

Update of the 2017-2021 CEDS Approved by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, August 14, 2017

Grant Period: January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 This document has been prepared with financial assistance from the U.S. Economic Development Administration

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 4000 Gateway Centre Boulevard, Suite 100 Pinellas Park, Florida 33782 727.570.5151

Table of Contents

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy ...... 3 A. Summary Background ...... 3 B. Overview ...... 6 C. Florida Chamber Six Pillars Matrix of Congruence (with corresponding CEDS Goals) ...... 6 D. Strategic Action Plan (CEDS Goals) ...... 9 E. Evaluation Framework ...... 12 F. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT Analysis) ...... 13 G. Resiliency in Economic Development ...... 19 H. The Case of Sea Level Rise: Resiliency in the Tampa Bay Area ...... 23 I. Data Tables ...... 32 J. Community and Private Sector Participation: The CEDS Steering Committee ...... 63

Tables

Table E-1 Evaluation Framework ...... 12 Table F-1 Six Pillar Qualitative Measures ...... 14 Table G-1 2017 Resiliency Metrics ...... 22 Table H-1 When Mean Sea Level Increases by 2.95 Feet ...... 24 Table H-2 Property Value and Tax Revenue Loss: Simulation 1 ...... 25 Table H-3 Property Vaue and Taxes ...... 26 Table H-4 Job Losses: Simulation 2 ...... 27 Table H-5 Job Losses: results ...... 27 Table H-6 Tourism Losses: Simulation 3 ...... 28 Table H-7 Composite Simulation ...... 29 Table H-8 Cumulative Effects of Composite Simulation ...... 35 Table H-9 Composite Effects as Percent of the Baseline ...... 35 Table I-1 Average Wages per Job (From highest to lowest by county) Tampa Bay Region and State 2006 to 2016 .. 32 Table I-2 High School Graduation Rates Tampa Bay Region and State School Years 2010/11 to 2015/16 (%) ...... 34 Table I-3 Gross Domestic Product Tampa Bay Region and State Billions of Fixed 2005 Dollars 2008 to 2016 ...... 35 Table I-5 Tourism Development Tax Collections Tampa Bay Region, Miami-Dade, Orange and Palm Beach Counties and State Thousands of Dollars 2006 to 2016...... 37 Table I-6 Trade Imports and Exports Tampa Bay Region and State Billions of Fixed 2015 Dollars 2008 to 2016 ...... 39 Table I-7 Population Counts, Estimates and Projections Tampa Bay Region and State 2000 to 2040 ...... 40 Table I-8 Annual Building Permits Tampa Bay Region and State Single Family Residential Units 2005 to 2016 ...... 43 Table I-9 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Tampa Bay Region and State Millions of Miles 2008 to 2015 ...... 45 Table I-10 Average Annual Unemployment Rates in the Tampa Bay Region and Florida 2005 to 2016 ...... 46 Table I-11 Employment by Largest Industries Tampa Bay Region 2007 to 2016 ...... 48 Table I-12 Average Annual Wages by Industry Tampa Bay Region Thousands of Current Dollars 2007 to 2016 ...... 50 Table I-13 Registered 501(c)3 Organizations Public and Private Foundation Charities Tampa Bay Region and State Number and Assets in 2013 ...... 51 Table I-14 Real Personal Per Capita Income Tampa Bay Region and State Nominal Dollars (Thousands) 2006 to 2015 ...... 52 Table I-15 Relative Housing Price Tampa Bay Region and State National Index = 1.0 2005 to 2015 ...... 53 Table I-16 Percent of Persons Living in Poverty Tampa Bay Region and State 1960 to 2010...... 54

Illustrations

IIllustration F-1 Talent Supply and Education ...... 15 Illustration F-1a “Salad Days” Population Growth (Ages 25-44) ...... 15 Illustration F-2 Innovation and Economic Development ...... 16 Illustration F-2a Patent Diversity among US Counties ...... 16 Illustration F-3 Infrastructure and Growth Leadership ...... 17 Illustration F-4 Business Climate and Competitiveness ...... 17 Illustration F-5 Income inequality among Florida Regions ...... 17 llustration I-1 Average Wages per Job Tampa Bay Region and State 2012 to 2016 ...... 33 Illustration I-2 Percent Change in Gross Regional Product, Tampa Bay Region and Florida ...... 36 Illustration I-3 Tourism Development Tax Collections ...... 31 Illustration I-4 Age dependencies in the Tampa Bay Region ...... 42 Illustration I-5 Percent Change in Permitted Residential Units ...... 44 Illustration I-6 Year over Year Percentage Change in VMT, 2008-2035 ...... 44 Illustration I-7 Average Annual Unemployment Rates Tampa Bay Region and Florida 2005 to 2015 ...... 47 Illustration I-8 Largest Employment Sectors, 2008-2016 ...... 47 Illustration I-9 Percent of Persons Living in Poverty Tampa Bay Region and State 1960 to 2010 ...... 55

vii

Executive Summary

The U.S. Economic Development Administration directs each designated Economic Development District to develop and maintain a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) with the assistance of public involvement. Economic Development Districts are require to fully update the CEDS every five years and may elect to update the CEDS on an annual basis.

Currently, the Tampa Bay Economic Development District’s CEDS expires in 2017. Because the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council’s geographic responsibilities recently expanded to include the counties of Citrus and Hernando, the Council has elected to update all of its data tables and its Goals.

All tables and graphics herein are current as of June 1, 2017.

viii

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2017-2021

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy

A. Summary Background

The U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) maintains geographic districts for its various programs. Called Economic Development Districts, in Florida the Districts are coterminous with the boundaries of each of the ten Florida regional planning councils. In the Tampa Bay Economic Development District, the Tampa Bay region is comprised of Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco and Pinellas Counties and all of their jurisdictions therein.

EDA directs each designated Economic Development District to develop and maintain a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) with the assistance of public involvement. Simply put, a CEDS is a strategy-driven plan for regional economic development. A CEDS is the result of a regionally-owned planning process designed to build capacity and guide the economic prosperity and resiliency of an area or region. Economic Development Districts are required to fully update the CEDS every five years and may elect to update the CEDS on an annual basis.

With this update, the Tampa Bay Economic Development District’s CEDS will expire in 2021. Because the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council’s geographic responsibilities recently expanded to include the Counties of Citrus and Hernando, the Council has elected to update all of its data tables and its Goals.

This update includes five major sections:

 Strategic Action Plan  Evaluation Framework  SWOT Analysis  Resiliency  All data tables in the CEDS  Updated Steering Committee Member List

The Tampa Bay Economy: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats The Tampa Bay is one of the largest economies in Florida and the 36th largest in the United States. Home to the largest concentration of medical device manufacturers outside of California, to thriving health care and finance cluster industries, among many others, the Tampa Bay Area provides more than 1.1 million jobs to its residents and to commuters from outside the region.

At $167 billion, the Tampa Bay Area economy is larger than Cleveland’s and about the same size as St. Louis. It is also a resilient economy, as show in the graphic below, when it suffered less than the state economy during the 2007-2009 recession.

Percent Change in Gross Regional Product 6% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%

0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -2%

-4% -4% -6% -6%

-8% Tampa Bay Florida

In recent years, however, the economy has not outpaced the state’s. With slowing per capita income growth, it is time to reflect on the region’s strengths and weaknesses in thinking about the way forward.

Out of 384 metropolitan regions in the United States. the Tampa Bay Area is third in the nation in the diversity of its patents, and it is a hot bed of new business formation—ranking tenth in the nation for new businesses to total employment and ninth in terms of the overall business dynamism of the nation’s business activity. Given the growing importance of technology to the economy, the region’s 35th ranking in residential high speed connections and its high concentration of STEM related occupations is reason for optimism as we plunge into the 21st century.

Innovation and Economic Development 1.85 1.8 1.75 1.7 1.65 1.6 1.55 Residential High- Patent Diversity Technology-Based Establishment High-Tech Industry Speed Connection Knowledge Formation Core Index Employment Share Density Occupation Clusters

Tampa Bay to US ratio

But there are some problems facing the region. In part, the region faces an image issue—we are not perceived to be a hot bed of technology, partly attested to by our middling ranking in attracting foreign investment and venture capital. Per capita income growth is slow, the industrial clusters we do have are not diverse. In fact, they are ranked near the bottom of all metro areas. Even the highest performing sectors of the economy leave their scars—income inequality in the region ranks us 337 out of 384 regions.

Moreover, all of these factors must contend with changes sweeping the American economy. Manufacturing employment has been in decline since 1977. Automation and productivity gains have hollowed out the employment multiplier effects of industrial supply chains—raising incomes for those with jobs but reducing opportunities for those who do not have jobs or whose jobs will be eventually phased out as automation continues.

While the Tampa Bay Area and Florida have had older than average populations compared to the US for decades, America is catching up. With the aging of the Baby Boom generation, there will be sweeping impacts to our labor force, to consumer profiles and to the nature of retirement.

As such, there are multiple challenges facing the region—some are characteristic of those facing the entire nation, others are directly the result of our own success—such as strain on our infrastructure and diminishing returns from further investment in much of it.

All tables and graphics herein are current as of June 1, 2017.

B. Overview

Much of the following analysis is framed by the Six Pillars, an approach to goal organization promulgated by the Florida Chamber. The Six Pillars, described in more detail in section C, classifies groupings of characteristics of economic growth—talent supply, innovation, infrastructure, business climate, governance and quality of life—to organize how the region and state approach both the subject of and accountability for economic development. By reference, the CEDS incorporates and is consistent with the policies of other regional plans including long- range transportation plans, hazard mitigation, emergency management, resource management, economic strategies and comprehensive plans.

In this document, the District uses the Six Pillars to elaborate on the region’s strengths and weaknesses, and to show how the CEDS Goals fit with state goals.

C. Florida Chamber Six Pillars Matrix of Congruence (with corresponding CEDS Goals)

Talent Supply & Education - Goals

 To maintain effective programs and create new programs that address the ongoing education and training needs of the region’s current and future workforce and business community. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 5)

 Develop opportunities for workers at every level to establish a career path to higher-skill, higher pay jobs within their workplace through career ladders, mentoring, and educational support.

 Data driven approach for determining workforce need and related solutions (baseline and evolving). (e.g. skill gaps and sector analysis)

 To encourage programs/tools that attract, retain, train, and retrain a qualified workforce to support the business community by implementing the Tampa Bay Targeted Industry and Workforce Competency Study, Tampa Bay Regional Business Plan, and other strategies. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 5)

Innovation & Economic Development - Goals

 To maintain effective programs and create new programs that address the ongoing education and training needs of the region’s workforce and business community. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 5)

 Develop a state vision for economic development that is coordinated, focused, prioritized, regionally implemented, and justifies investment.

 Develop a sustainable revenue stream dedicated to fund economic development of targeted industries.

 To maintain and expand food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry and related industries with an emphasis on local sourced food and products. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 9)

Infrastructure & Growth Leadership - Goals

 To plan, fund, build and maintain a superior network of public facilities, ensuring homeland security and public safety issues are addressed, and raise awareness of infrastructure and land use issues as they relate to economic development and business support. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 11)

 Develop, invest in, and maintain regional multimodal transportation systems to support a prosperous, globally competitive economy

 To promote a regional perspective on multi-modal transportation system for people, goods, and services that includes transit, highway, seaport, airport, rail, broadband, and multi-use trail planning and development. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 11)

 Improve regional coordination of economic development, land use, infrastructure, water, and natural resource decision-making

Business Climate & Competitiveness - Goals

 To improve the capacity of small businesses, disadvantaged businesses and businesses within distressed and redeveloping communities to participate fully in Tampa Bay's economic activities. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 3)

 Provide predictable, competitive, consistent, non-duplicative/contradictory tax, legal, and regulatory policies and messaging statewide.

 To educate government and businesses on continuity and recovery plans in the event of natural or man-made disasters to address workforce retention and ensure access to loan

and other assistance programs. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 12)

 Provide capacity to invest in statewide and regional economic development priorities.

Civic & Governance Systems - Goals

 To support programs and strategies which assist in the attraction, retention, and expansion of new and existing businesses. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 2)

 Make state policies for business development easy, efficient, and reflect a committed and sustained vision

 To promote the retention and continued improvement of existing partnerships (intergovernmental, public-private, interagency, etc), and the creation of new partnerships to meet Tampa Bay's economic challenges. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 4)

 Ensure state and local agencies provide collaborative seamless customer service to businesses with accountability

Quality of Life & Quality Places - Goals

 To promote a high quality of life and ensure a sustainable community offering an array of affordable housing, quality education and health care systems, historical and cultural facilities, tourist attractions and beaches, special events, festivals, and sports. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 7)

 Create and sustain vibrant, healthy communities that are distinctive and diverse

 To promote the sustainable use of the natural resources (especially water supply) and green building through sound economic development activities consistent with environmental management goals. (TBEDD CEDS Goal Number 8)

 Sustain Florida’s natural environment while encouraging quality growth and development

D. Strategic Action Plan (CEDS Goals)

The CEDS Goals were reviewed by the TBRPC CEDS Steering Committee in March and April of 2016, and reviewed again in April 2017. Based on the steering committee input the Goals were updated to improve their clarity and focus, and to include a new EDA requirement that CEDS explicitly address economic resiliency.

The Tampa Bay Economic Development District has 12 goals, as follows (and linked to each Chamber pillar in the parentheses).

Goal 1: To support the development of a diversified economy by expanding the quantity and quality of job opportunities. (Pillar 1)

Objective 1: Invest in STEM education, showing gains in total graduates in each higher education class Action 1: Recruit top-notch faculty to higher education institutions, market the region to relocating firms

Goal 2: To support programs and strategies, including international trade, which assist in the retention, expansion and the attraction of businesses. (Pillar 2)

Objective 2: Support organizations that increase international trade, achieve a positive trade balance with partners Action 2: Provide technical assistance to organizations such as CAMLS, Tampa Bay Export Alliance, Airport and Port

Goal 3: To improve the capacity of small businesses, disadvantaged businesses and businesses within distressed and redeveloping communities to participate fully in Tampa Bay's economic activities. (Pillars 3 and 4)

Objective 3: Invest in small business training and incubators Action 3: Support efforts by USF, HCC and others by providing technical support and support grant opportunities and the development of venture capital

Goal 4: To promote the retention and continued improvement of existing partnerships (intergovernmental, public-private, interagency, etc), and the creation of new partnerships to meet Tampa Bay's economic challenges. (Pillars 3 and 5)

Objective 4: Strengthen partnerships with existing regional organizations, look for opportunities for joint projects Action 4: Host regional roundtables around topics of mutual interest

Goal 5: To prepare a skilled workforce that supports the business community through programs and tools that address education, training and the attraction/retention of qualified workers. (Pillar 1)

Objective 5: Invest in apprenticeship programs to enhance the workforce Action 5: Support organizations such as Amskills in identifying the program’s impacts on the workforce

Goal 6: To ensure that there is a superior network of public infrastructure with supportive land use regulations to maintain the region as a competitive location for targeted industries and to provide for public safety and homeland security. (Pillar 3)

Objective 6: Invest in public infrastructure and retain industrial and developable parcels Action 6: Conduct regional land use inventories

Goal 7: To support complementary data collection and dissemination efforts among local jurisdictions, combining data on available “ready” sites and workforce characteristics. Encourage the development of a complete “ecosystem” of workforce training throughout the region (Pillar 4)

Objective 7: Coordinate activities regarding all Goals to enhance the workforce and employment opportunities Action 7: Coordinate data sharing, communication with partners regularly to ensure that data needs are met

Goal 8: To promote a high quality of life and ensure a sustainable community offering an array of affordable housing, quality education and health care systems, historical and cultural facilities, tourist attractions and beaches, special events, festivals, and sports. (Pillar 6)

Objective 8: Support local decision makers with regular data updates Action 8: Prepare annual data updates of the CEDS document, assist other organizations with data as needed

Goal 9: To promote the sustainable use of the natural resources (especially water resources and green building through sound economic development activities consistent with environmental management goals. (Pillar 6)

Objective 9: Maintain best practices regarding the natural environment and its interactions with the built environment Action 9: Maintain ongoing monitoring programs and prepare studies that shed light on ongoing activities

Goal 10: To maintain and expand agriculture, with an emphasis on local sourced food and products. (Pillar 2)

Objective 10: Maintain sufficient agricultural land to support local sourced food supply Action 10: Consider local food sources when making land use decisions

Goal 11: To educate government and businesses on continuity and recovery plans and to support plan implementation in the event of natural or man-made disasters. (Pillar 3)

Objective 11: Train government staff and disseminate information on plans and contingency actions before, during and after disasters Action 11: Maintain informational programs, update data and prepare studies to update future information

Goal 12: To promote a regional perspective on multi-modal transportation system for people, goods, and services that includes transit, highway, seaport, airport, rail, broadband, and multi-use trail planning and development. (Pillar 3)

Objective 12: Consider alternatives to projects that discourage multi-modalism, accounting for all users of the system Action 12: Encourage widespread use of design charrettes and other venues for public input into project development

Goal 13: To enhance the resilience of the Tampa Bay economy in the face of natural disasters and changes to the national and state economies through increased awareness and preparation by businesses for environmental risks. (Pillar 4)

Objective 13: Train government staff and disseminate information to the public on recovery plans and contingency actions before, during and after disasters Action 13: Maintain informational programs, update data and prepare studies to update future information

E. Evaluation Framework The Evaluation Framework table identifies the metrics used in the Data Tables section and which Pillar the metric is related to.

2017 Metrics 6 Pillars Correspondence Sources 1 Average Wages per Job Business Climate and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Competitiveness website

www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid= 70&step=1

2 High School Graduation Rates Talent Supply and Education Florida Department of Education, Data Publications and Reports: Students www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pubstud ent.asp 3 Eighth Grade Math Performance Talent Supply and Education http://fcat.fldoe.org/results/ 4 Gross Domestic Product Business Climate and REMI PI+ Competitiveness 5 Tourism Development Tax Innovation and Economic Florida Department of Revenue Collections Development website, Local Government Tax Receipts by County (Table http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/co lls_to_7_2003.html 6 Trade Imports and Exports Innovation and Economic REMI PI+ Development 7 Population Counts, Estimates Talent Supply and Education Florida Statistical Abstract, 2006-2015, and Projections Editions, Tables 1.20, 1.40; 8 Annual Building Permits Infrastructure and Growth https://socds.huduser.gov/permits/ind Leadership ex.html 9 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Infrastructure and Growth Florida Department of Transportation, Leadership Florida Highway Mileage and Travel Report, Summary since 1990. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/st atistics/mileage-rpts/public.shtm 10 Average Annual Unemployment Talent Supply and Education Florida Department of Economic Rates Opportunity Local Area Unemployment Statistics http://www.floridajobs.org/labor- market-information/data- center/statistical-programs/local-area- unemployment-statistics 11 Employment by Industry Talent Supply and Education REMI PI+ Business Climate and Competitiveness

12 Employment by Sector or Talent Supply and Education REMI PI+ Occupation Business Climate and Competitiveness

13 Average Annual Wages by Talent Supply and Education REMI PI+

Industry Business Climate and Competitiveness

14 Registered 501(c)3 Organizations Civic and Governance System Internal Revenue Service, Exempt Public and Private Foundation Quality of Life and Quality Organizations Business Master File, (501(c)(3) Charities, The Urban Charities Places Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics, http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/tablewiz /pc.php 15 Real Personal Per Capita Income Quality of Life and Quality REMI PI+ Places 16 Relative Housing Price Quality of Life and Quality REMI PI+ Places 17 Percent of Persons Living in Quality of Life and Quality http://www.census.gov/did/www/saip Poverty Places e/data/interactive/saipe.html?s_appNa me=saipe&map_yearSelector=2015&m ap_geoSelector=aa_c 18 Regional Purchase Coefficient Innovation and Economic REMI PI+ (RPC calculations) Development 19 Shift-Share Innovation and Economic REMI PI+ (RPC calculations) Development 20 Location Quotients Innovation and Economic REMI PI+ (RPC calculations) Development 21 Innovation Index Innovation and Economic http://statsamerica.org/ii2/over Development (multiple view.aspx measures)

F. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT Analysis)

The District conducted a survey of the CEDS Steering Committee in late 2016 to revisit the CEDS Goals and refine them. In April 2017, the District held a steering committee meeting in April 2017 to discuss the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) facing the region. The SWOT analysis is framed in this document within the context of the Florida Chamber’s Six Pillars. The Chamber’s Six Pillars are as follows:

1. Talent Supply and Education 2. Innovation and Economic Development 3. Infrastructure and Growth Leadership 4. Business Climate and Competitiveness 5. Civic and Governance Systems 6. Quality of Life and Places

Qualitative Measures of the Six Pillars SWOT analysis relies upon both quantitative and qualitative measures. Table F-1 identifies those activities currently undertaken in the region to demonstrate how the region is meeting the challenges presented by the Six Pillars in qualitative terms.

Table F-1 Six Pillar Qualitative Measures Tampa Bay Examples 1. Talent Supply and Education Active workforce programs, in partnership with USF, HCC, and other colleges to develop the workforce. 2. Innovation and Economic Development Incubator initiatives, small business programs 3. Infrastructure and Growth Leadership Ongoing investment in infrastructure, state and local projects. Active involvement by utilities 4. Business Climate and Competitiveness Highly active economic development organizations 5. Civic and Governance Systems High relative share of state charitable funds 6. Quality of Life and Places Waterfront development, improving parks and recreation

SWOT Analysis of Tampa Bay Indicators The following illustrations depict results from sixteen different indicators comparing the Tampa Bay Area to either Florida or the US. While the illustrations below are drawn from either the Innovation Index or are expanded upon the Data Tables section, all absolute numbers are converted to ratios comparing the Tampa Bay Area to Florida or the United States. Which comparator is used is specified in the legend of each illustration.

A “1.0” indicator shows that the Tampa Bay Area is no different from the United States or Florida. If the indicator is above 1.0, then the region has a comparative advantage. If it is below 1.0, the region is at a comparative disadvantage.

Illustration F-1 Talent Supply and Education Talent Supply and Education 1.55 1.5 1.45 1.4 1.35 1.3 1.25 1.2 Bachelor’s Degree STEM Education Graduate Degree Associate Degree (Age 25+) and Occupations (Age 25+) (Age 25+) Core Index

Tampa Bay to US ratio

Source: http://www.statsamerica.org/ii2/comparison.aspx

Illustration D-1a “Salad Days” Population Growth (Ages 25-44), darker shades indicates more 25- 44 Year Old growth

Source: http://www.statsamerica.org/ii2/map.aspx

Illustration F-2 Innovation and Economic Development* Innovation and Economic Development 1.85 1.8 1.75 1.7 1.65 1.6 1.55 Residential High- Patent Diversity Technology-Based Establishment High-Tech Industry Speed Connection Knowledge Formation Core Index Employment Share Density Occupation Clusters

Tampa Bay to US ratio

Source: http://www.statsamerica.org/ii2/comparison.aspx *Patent Diversity—comparison of the diversity of patent making among other regions *Establishment Formation Core Index—new business formation

Illustration F-2a Patent Diversity among US Counties (darker shades equals more diversity)

Source: http://www.statsamerica.org/ii2/map.aspx

Illustration F-3 Infrastructure and Growth Leadership Infrastructure and Growth Leadership 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Per Capita VMT 10-yr building activity

Tampa Bay to Florida Ratio

Source: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/mileage-rpts/public.shtm; https://socds.huduser.gov/permits/index.html

While per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is lower than the national average, Tampa Bay residents face congestion worse than Boston’s, ranking 11th worst in the United States and 84th in the world.1 Illustration F-4 Business Climate and Competitiveness Business Climate and Competitiveness Ratios 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.02 1 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.9 Average Wages per Job Per Capita GDP GDP Growth

Tampa Bay to Florida Ratio

Source: REMI PI+ 2.06

1 http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/tampa-bay-traffic-congestion-is-even-worse-than-boston-study- finds/2224039

Civic and Governance Systems (See Qualitative Measures above)

Illustration F-5 Quality of Life and Places Income Inequality among Florida Regions 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Income Inequality (Higher is more unequal)

While all Florida regions rank among the highest income inequality areas in the state, the Tampa Bay Area is ranked 337th out of 384 metropolitan areas for income inequality. Palm Beach (Treasure Coast) is the most unequal in the United States.

Conclusions of the SWOT Analysis

While not all indicators are shown here, there are several clear conclusions the District takes from the data. These are:

Strengths The Tampa Bay Area has multiple strengths in scientific innovation, business formation, and the presence of high tech industries in the employment base. Population growth, especially growth in the prime working ages, works to the region’s advantage. Broadband coverage in the region is good and there are multiple venues for higher education and a variety of efforts to increase the skill level of the workforce.

Weaknesses Despite rapid job growth, per capita income growth is slow, perhaps as a result of significant migration from other parts of the United States and thereby lowering competition for skilled labor. This in turn has exacerbated one of the worse income inequality economies in the country.

While the region is highly innovative, there is a real dearth of venture capital, leaving many opportunities unexploited. At the same time, there is insufficient investment in the transportation system, making the Tampa Bay area the 11th most congested in the United States. Just as time is money for industry, congestion costs the region over a billion dollars a year in lost productivity.

While there is a higher than average concentration of high tech employment in the region, the existing industry clusters may be too narrowly focused to survive some potential turmoil in the economy.

Opportunities Continued investment in workforce training will have significant pay-offs to the region, provided that there are jobs here to incentivize the trained workforce to stay in the area. The US population, especially working aged adults, continue to move south to take advantage of new employment opportunities created by the impressive rate of business formation.

While transportation infrastructure and educational investment are expensive, there is plenty of opportunity to leverage both our existing physical and intellectual assets in providing for current demand, while pending investments need regional champions to secure funding and public consent.

Threats The pace of innovation and the availability of venture funding are unequally distributed in the United States. The Tampa Bay Area and many other regions have strengths in innovation but without access to venture capital, growth will lag its potential.

In the face of potential natural and climatic events, the region’s weaknesses in the lack of diversity in the economic base, low income growth, lack of venture capital investment and inadequate infrastructure investment could forestall future growth. Moreover, those threats will be magnified if the region is focused on recovering from a disaster.

G. Resiliency in Economic Development

EDA has expanded the range of topics that Districts must consider in their CEDS to include resiliency in the economy. Resiliency takes on many forms but its critical definition entails how flexible and ‘tough’ a region’s economy is under adverse conditions. As with the relatively quick recovery from the 2008 recession, the Tampa Bay economy produces a wide enough range of services and goods that any one event is unlikely to inflict unrecoverable damage in the event of an environmental disaster. However, there many potential risks that require more attention to the issue in the Tampa Bay CEDS.

What is Economic Resiliency An economy that is based on a single agricultural crop is highly vulnerable to disease and changing climatic conditions. Economies that are broad based, on the other hand, can spring back from changes in consumer tastes or changes in technology or even from a changing environment.

A resilient economy is, therefore, one where pre-existing economic conditions or vulnerability to natural disasters does not create a situation where a major adverse event can cause irreversible damage. For example, New Orleans is a city that has not yet recovered from Hurricane Katrina. The reasons why New Orleans has not returned to its pre-hurricane population are manifold, but an economy that is over-dependent upon tourism, where a significant share of its displaced population lacked transportation access, skills and personal resources to return to the city and rebuild are fundamental causes in the city’s overall population decline since 2006. Facing the Gulf Coast and susceptible to hurricanes and flooding events, the Tampa Bay Area shares some of the characteristics of an environmentally vulnerable region. As such, the region could face devastating damage should a powerful hurricane score a direct hit on the area.

When regions become over reliant upon a single industry, changes in that industry can have devastating effects upon the local economy. Automobile manufacturing centers, such as Detroit and other Midwestern cities, have declined at least partly because American manufacturing of vehicles is no longer the major world force it once was. The same can be said of towns that once depended upon coal mining for jobs. Demand for coal has shrunk, doing the same to employment in the towns that provided the labor force for the mines.

Of course, a resilient economy is one that is based upon well managed infrastructure, functioning insurance markets and capable emergency response measures as key elements of a region’s ability to recover from natural disaster. But there are specifically economic characteristics of resiliency. A resilient economy is one which can withstand long-term changes to industry, can manage the impacts of disaster through a combination of self-supply of key goods and with access to key goods when self-supply sources are limited by circumstances.

Generally, EDA identifies three primary attributes of a resilient economy: the ability to recover quickly from a shock, the ability to withstand a shock, and the ability to avoid the shock altogether.

As such, economic resiliency should be characterized by:

 Widespread knowledge of how to respond to emergency situations  A flexible intellectual and creative economic base that can respond to long term economic trends  A highly trained workforce that can retrain to other industries  A broad range of robust industries that are independent of each other

 Adequate transportation facilities and communication networks that can adapt to temporary changes in the supply chain

Supporting economic resiliency in a CEDS context

CEDS establishes a process to bring public and private stakeholders together to plan for economic resilience by identifying the issues, setting goals and actionable responses. As EDA notes on its website, these actionable responses include (regional responses are in blue):

1. Undertaking efforts to broaden the industrial base with diversification initiatives, such as targeting the development of emerging clusters or industries that (a) build on the region’s unique assets and competitive strengths; and (b) provide stability during downturns that disproportionately impact any single cluster or industry; a. Undertaken by Tampa Bay Economic Development Organizations 2. Adapting business retention and expansion programs (e.g., economic gardening or other enterprise supports) to assist firms with economic recovery post-disruption; a. Undertaken by Tampa Bay Economic Development Organizations 3. Building a resilient workforce that can better shift between jobs or industries when their core employment is threatened through job-driven skills strategies and support organizations; a. Undertaken by Tampa Bay Economic Development Organizations 4. Maintaining geographic information systems (GIS) that link with municipal business licenses, tax information, and other business establishment data bases to track local and regional “churn” and available development sites. GIS can also be integrated with hazard information to make rapid post-incident impact assessments; a. Partly undertaken by Tampa Bay Economic Development Organizations and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 5. Ensuring redundancy in telecommunications and broadband networks to protect commerce and public safety in the event of natural or manmade disasters; a. Emergency Services 6. Promoting business continuity and preparedness (i.e., ensuring businesses understand their vulnerabilities—including supply chains—in the face of disruptions and are prepared to take actions to resume operations after an event); a. Promoted by utilities and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 7. Employing safe development practices in business districts and surrounding communities. Strategies may include locating structures outside of floodplains, preserving natural lands that act as buffers from storms, and protecting downtowns and other existing development from the impacts of extreme weather. a. Local government responsibility, varying levels of success 8. Conducting pre-disaster recovery planning to define key stakeholders, roles, responsibilities, and key actions; a. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

Source: https://www.eda.gov/ceds/content/economic-resilience.htm

Resiliency in the Tampa Bay CEDS

Currently, there is a robust communication process within the Tampa Bay Area with regard to emergency planning and management. While items related to building a resilient workforce and encouraging a wider economic base are already subsumed under other Goals in the CEDS, the CEDS Steering Committee felt there was a need for a Goal that met the needs of economic resiliency. Since the substance of building the economy is outside of the Council’s purview, Goal 13 focuses on activities that can be undertaken by the District and its public sector partners. Goal 13 is reproduced below.

Measures of Resiliency

The Evaluation Framework in Section F identifies the measures used in the CEDS to track progress toward the region’s goals. The same measures in the Framework are also used to track progress toward building a resilient economy. Those are identified below.

Table G-1 Measures of Resiliency 2017 Resiliency Metrics Relationship to Resiliency Location Quotients Industry cluster diversity and Robust Economy Employment by Occupation Industry cluster diversity and Robust Economy Employment by Industry Industry cluster diversity and Robust Economy Shift-Share Industry cluster diversity and Robust Economy Relative Housing Price Robust Economy Trade Imports and Exports Self-Supply and Dependence on Trade Regional Purchase Coefficient Self-Supply and Dependence on Trade Average Annual Unemployment Rates Work Force Quality/Fit with Market Needs Percent of Persons Living in Poverty Work Force Quality/Fit with Market Needs Average Annual Wages by Industry Work Force Quality/Fit with Market Needs

H. The Case of Sea Level Rise: Resiliency in the Tampa Bay Area

Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Area will challenge regional planning assumptions about how the region reacts to changes in the environment and how those changes impact industry. How much damage does sea level rise inflict on an economy built on development and tourism? How quickly does the region bounce back?

Introduction Sea levels are rising around the world. In recent years, groups of concerned scientists and economists have convened to study the potential impacts of sea level rise and other climate events and to recommend that governments and industry take action to prevent or mitigate those impacts. Those efforts have resulted in studies such as the Risky Business Project and the American Climate Prospectus which have raised awareness of the potential risks the American economy and the economies of the fifty states face in the coming years.

As one of the states most affected by sea level rise, Florida’s economic outlook is particularly important given its population size and importance to the national economy. Focusing on the Tampa Bay Area, one of the most populous metropolitan areas in Florida in 2060, we ask “what economic impacts are anticipated to occur if nothing is done to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise on the Tampa Bay Area?”

Study Focus: Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Area

Based upon the NOAA High sea level rise projection from the Recommended Projection of Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region, developed by the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel (CSAP), the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) developed maps depicting a 2.95 foot rise in sea level by 2060. Because of the low resolution that is inherent in portrait formatted standard sized reports, no map is included in this CEDS report due to the potential for misreading such a map. Instead, we note that many coastal areas in Pinellas and Manatee and parts of Hillsborough will inundated but inundation will not threaten inland areas.

While sea levels will continue to rise, 2060 was chosen as the forecast horizon as this is the last year in the Council’s economic impact model, REMI PI+. Since this study was conducted prior to Citrus and Hernando Counties joining the Council, those Counties were not included in the analysis.

There are numerous potential areas of analysis in studying the impacts of sea level rise. The Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has already investigated the effects of sea level rise on parts of the transportation network. That study found that disruptions would result in the loss of $109 million in Gross Regional Product by 2035 just from increased travel delays during storm events.

Of course, travel delays are just one of many potential negative outcomes of sea level rise. Changes in the cost of homeowner insurance, physical damage to utility and transportation infrastructure, exacerbated nuisance flooding and an increased threat from polluted storm- water run-off into Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico are just a few examples.

Quantifying Sea Level Rise Impacts

With many potential areas of analysis, the TBRPC narrowed the study’s focus to model three different aspects of the key sea level rise impact, submerged lands. These three aspects are the loss of property value and consequent loss in government property tax revenue, the loss of jobs on those lands, and the loss of tourism dollars stemming from the loss of beachfront property. Using County property assessor data and geocoded employment data from Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, TBRPC identified the key quantitative inputs of the modeling process resulting from a mean sea level increase of 2.95 feet by 2060. Those inputs are summarized below.

Table H-1: When Mean Sea Level Increases by 2.95 Feet When Mean Sea Level Increases by 2.95 Feet Estimate Value of Submerged Residential Property in 2015 $14.9 Billion* Value of Submerged Commercial Property in 2015 $1.3 Billion* Cumulative loss of Property Taxes (2020-2060) $5.4 Billion* Job Losses in submerged areas 17,184 *all currency figures are fixed and local 2015 dollars

A REMI PI+ Model

TBRPC maintains economic impact analysis software to help estimate the impacts of various conjectural policy questions—what would happen if taxes were to increase, or if a new industry began in the Tampa Bay Area—in order to see how those events would affect the regional economy. One of those models, REMI PI+, is a powerful desktop economic simulation tool that can forecast the impacts of thousands of variables across a fifty year time horizon. Its outputs, however, are based on the assumption that inputs are firm when in fact new information will help refine our understanding of future sea level rise. As such, the unambiguous numbers (and maps) that TBRPC presents should be understood as estimates and that actual outcomes will vary.

Assessing the Costs of Inundated Land in the Tampa Bay Area

TBRPC segregated the potential impacts of inundated land in the region into three separate simulations on the regional economy2. Under each of the following scenarios, sea levels will be 2.95 feet over 1992 levels. The scenarios are:

1. Simulation 1(Property Value and Tax Revenue Loss) is the impact of the economy from the economic losses stemming from submerged property. In this case 31,800 parcels lose all economic value. 2. Simulation 2 (Direct Job Loss) refers to the combined effects of direct and indirect job loss to sea level rise on the rest of the economy. 3. Simulation 3 (Tourism Loss) is the loss of tourism spending to the economy.

Property Value and Tax Revenue Loss: Simulation 1

Property Value and Tax Revenue loss in the Tampa Bay Area will be gradual in the coming decades and its impacts subtle until higher sea levels inundate coastal lands. The following table summarizes the impacts to submerged land in Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco and Pinellas County.

Table H-2: Property Value and Tax Revenue Loss: Simulation 1 Land Use Acres Parcels Value Est. 2015 Taxes Residential 72,048 29,297 $14.9 Bil $241,8 Mil Commercial 4,226 2,316 $1.2 Bil $20.3 Mil Industrial 296 186 $94.5 Mil $2.1 Mil Total 76,570 31,799 $16.2 Bil $264.2 Mil

The economic impact of submerged lands was modeled in Policy Insight by simulating the loss of land in the model. As there is no direct way to do this in the model, TBPRC created a simulation where land costs for residential and commercial land uses increase by the same percentage that the acreage lost represents of all land. If eight percent of the land is submerged by 2060 according to the GIS model, the Council modeled an increase in housing and land costs by eight percent in the REMI PI+ model.

Without compensating increases to residential and commercial capital stock, increasing costs of land and housing will induce out-migration, increasing job-loss and the loss of personal income and Gross Regional Product. In addition to increases to the cost of existing land, government

1Due to the timing of the original grant terms, the region refers to Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco and Pinellas Counties.

spending is reduced by the amount of taxes paid by owners of the affected properties. This impact alone represents a cumulative loss of $5.4 billion through 2060.

The following table summarizes the impacts of the simulation. Twelve thousand jobs are lost from the region, while nearly 40,000 people leave the region from the loss of land and the taxes paid on it alone. Because of the gap between optimal residential capital stock and actual residential capital stock grows due to the loss of land when demand for it is on the rise, this is the only simulation with a positive impact on the Price Index.

Table H-3: Property Value and Taxes Property Value and Taxes Hills Manatee Pasco Pinellas Tampa Bay Category Units In 2060 for all counties Thousands Total Employment -1.292 -2.240 -0.545 -8.404 -12.481 (Jobs) Population Thousands -2.400 -9.634 -3.262 -24.461 -39.757 Labor Force Thousands -0.787 -4.120 -1.564 -12.522 -18.993 Billions of Gross Regional Fixed -0.302 -0.304 -0.070 -1.355 -2.031 Product (2009) Dollars Billions of Personal Income Current 0.300 -1.436 -0.386 -3.996 -5.518 Dollars 2009=100 PCE-Price Index 0.180 0.352 0.136 0.587 0.323 (Nation)

Job Losses: Simulation 2

17,184 jobs currently exist on properties anticipated to be submerged by 2060. Assuming existing job densities and the spatial distribution of employment by industry persists through 2060, that many jobs were modeled as being removed from the economy.

The following table estimates the number of jobs lost by industry in areas that are submerged by 2060.

Table H-4 Job Losses: Simulation 2 Industry Jobs Accommodation/Food 5,568 Health Care 4,344 Financial Services 2,221 Professional Services 1,674 Retail 1,479 Construction 548 Wholesale/Transportation 539 Education 82 Manufacturing 51 Other 678 Total 17,184

For this simulation, the Council modeled the loss of the jobs in the table above from the regional economy. Because jobs in the accommodation and food services industries are so closely tied to tourism spending, Simulation 2 does not account for the loss of those jobs. Instead, in order to avoid double counting, those job losses and their secondary effects are modeled in the third simulation.

Table H-5: Job Losses Results Jobs Hills Manatee Pasco Pinellas Tampa Bay Category Units In 2060 for all counties Total Employment Thousands -6.365 -2.803 -1.108 -16.041 -26.318 (Jobs) Population Thousands -8.491 -3.657 -0.837 -21.456 -34.442 Labor Force Thousands -4.998 -2.086 -0.644 -12.335 -20.064 Gross Regional Billions of Product Fixed -1.365 -0.502 -0.17 -2.371 -4.408 (2009) Dollars Personal Income Billions of Current -1.934 -0.933 -0.504 -4.717 -8.088 Dollars PCE-Price Index 2009=100 -0.21 -0.307 -0.187 -0.617 -0.34 (Nation)

As with the first simulation, thousands of jobs are lost, and 34,442 people move out of the region. Of the three simulations, direct and secondary job losses are the most impactful to the economy.

Tourism Losses: Simulation 3

Tourism is one of the pillars of the region’s economy and with much of the region’s attractive beaches modeled to be underwater, the impact to the recreation economy could be enormous. Since there are no prior region specific studies of the loss of coastal land to sea rise, staff made several assumptions about changes to existing conditions for the purposes of the simulation.

Visitors to the region spent about $12 billion a year between 2013 to 2015. Using industry standards for revenue per hotel employee, the Council modeled the loss of tourism spending by the estimated number of hotel employees in inundated areas, proportionately scaled over 40 years to reflect the slow increase in mean sea level. While this approach likely underestimates the true amenity value of the beach front property, those values are highly subjective in comparison to more directly estimated revenue losses.

Table H-6: Tourism Losses Tourism Losses Hills Manatee Pasco Pinellas Tampa Bay Category Units In 2060 for all counties Total Employment Thousands -3.934 -2.306 -1.969 -8.727 -16.937 (Jobs) Population Thousands -5.060 -4.176 -5.538 -12.300 -27.074 Labor Force Thousands -2.900 -2.129 -2.908 -6.959 -14.896 Gross Regional Billions of Product Fixed -0.584 -0.223 -0.176 -0.898 -1.881 (2009) Dollars Personal Income Billions of Current -0.811 -0.715 -0.831 -2.227 -4.584 Dollars PCE-Price Index 2009=100 -0.113 -0.215 -0.190 -0.312 -0.202 (Nation)

Composite Simulation

The final step in the REMI PI+ analysis was re-running all three simulations as a single set of events in a Composite Simulation. That Composite Simulation is not the sum of all of the other simulations. Instead, some factors cancel each other out or represent the same kinds of effects which REMI PI+ accounts. For example, Price Index increases due to the loss of land are overwhelmed by the impacts of the loss of jobs and tourism dollars, leading to an overall decline in the Price Index through the forecast. In other cases, the figures reported in the table below are similar to the sum of all of the other simulations, but not necessarily the same because of interaction effects between the different variables of each simulation.

Table H-7: Composite Simulation All Simulations Hills Manatee Pasco Pinellas Tampa Bay Category Units In 2060 for all counties Total Employment Thousands -11.579 -7.332 -3.609 -33.065 -55.585 (Jobs) Population Thousands -15.974 -17.355 -9.605 -57.746 -100.68 Labor Force Thousands -8.69 -8.297 -5.102 -31.578 -53.666 Gross Regional Billions of Product Fixed -2.472 -1.128 -0.455 -5.057 -9.112 (2009) Dollars Personal Income Billions of Current -1.102 -1.35 -0.731 -4.902 -8.084 Dollars PCE-Price Index 2009=100 -0.15 -0.176 -0.246 -0.355 -0.214 (Nation)

As such, the Composite Simulation is a useful means to compare different simulations. For example, the following graphic compares how each aspect of submerged lands influences change in Personal Income. In this case, job losses are the biggest drag on personal income (48%), followed by submerged property values (28%) and then the effects of lost tourism dollars (24%). Simulation Comparisons on Personal Income in 2060 0 Property Values Jobs Tourism -2

-4

-6

-8 Billiions of current Dollars current of Billiions

-10

Cumulative Effects of Composite Simulation

In any given year of the slow increase in the mean sea level, economic impacts on the region are significant but not overwhelming. In this table, the Council presents 40 years of cumulative pecuniary impacts to the Tampa Bay region’s economy.

Table H-8 Cumulative Effects of Composite Simulation All Simulations Hills Manatee Pasco Pinellas Tampa Bay Category Units Cumulative 2020-2060 Gross Regional Billions of Product Fixed -43.115 -20.244 -8.219 -88.926 -160.503 (2009) Dollars Personal Income Billions of Current -19.009 -22.103 -12.411 -80.755 -134.28 Dollars

Conclusion

This report considers the economic implications of the unlikely event that rising sea levels will be ignored by policymakers. Some Florida communities, such as Miami Beach, are already investing millions of dollars to retrofit existing buildings and infrastructure to handle sea level rise. Instead, we ask what would happen if no action is taken to prepare for sea level rise. With a sense of the scale of costs, individual communities or the region as a whole can weigh the benefits of acting and investing early or waiting to see what happens and adjust later.

Besides calculating direct and indirect costs, parsing and comparing the different categories of potential impacts of sea level rise is helpful in defining the dimensions of the challenges facing policymakers. For example, a public policy approach that rests on a principle that the primary beneficiary of mitigation pays the most to cover mitigation costs might result in higher taxes on commercial property but levies fewer taxes on residential property owners, and fewer still on accommodation establishments. Analyses such as these can be useful in staking out potential mitigation strategies, while in the private sector insurance premiums will influence future decision making on residential and commercial investment.

Because the problems posed by sea level rise are incremental and grow slowly over time, any discussion of mitigation needs to consider the role of scale in defining the problem. Leaving aside the vast costs of doing nothing over forty years--$161 Billion of lost Gross Regional Product in 2015 dollars—in each year the impact is relatively small compared to the size of the region’s economy. Even in the peak year of sea level impacts, 2060, the region’s Gross Product is reduced

by less than three percent. The benefit of relatively small damage to the economy is that sea level rise will not have catastrophic consequences for the entire region in 2060.

Table H-9 Composite Effects as Percent of the Baseline Category Units Baseline 2060 Data Percent Impact of Composite Simulation on Baseline Total Employment Thousands (Jobs) 2320 -2.55% Population Thousands 4400 -2.50% Labor Force Thousands 2141 -3.16% Gross Regional Product Billions of Fixed 371.51 -2.32% (2009) Dollars Personal Income Billions of Current 893.7 -2.17% Dollars PCE-Price Index 2009=100 (Nation) 247.63 -0.09%

However, the worst case scenario is not a foregone conclusion. The actual results of sea level rise may be different than 2.95 feet, and it may be even less by 2060. But even lower sea level rise estimates may carry risks for property and infrastructure. The first step in understanding those risks occurs through modeling exercises like this study.

In terms of lessons learned for resiliency planning, economic analysis can be instrumental in fully scoping out the issues around Sea Level Rise. Most importantly, resiliency planning will require thinking about the challenges of any potential danger from many different angles—along with difficult choices about priorities.

I. Data Tables

Talent Supply & Education

Average Annual Wages

The region’s average annual wages are greater than the state average. Hillsborough and Pinellas County have the two highest averages and exceed the state average. Hernando is the lowest but Citrus, Manatee and Pasco are also below the state average.

Table I-1

Average Wages per Job (From highest to lowest by county) Tampa Bay Region and State 2006 to 2016

County 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Citrus $30,315 $29,739 $30,357 $31,669 $33,536 $33,068 $33,546 $33,634 $33,071 $33,898 $34,593 Hernan $28,909 $27,535 $27,170 $27,244 $28,097 $28,646 $29,614 $30,181 $30,921 $31,626 $32,184 Hills $46,925 $47,221 $48,263 $48,438 $49,963 $50,577 $52,380 $52,865 $53,817 $54,951 $55,760 Manatee $37,110 $36,994 $36,915 $35,373 $35,941 $35,867 $36,352 $36,251 $36,916 $37,700 $38,277 Pasco $32,285 $32,320 $33,170 $32,612 $33,607 $34,021 $34,935 $35,809 $36,621 $37,491 $38,172 Pinellas $39,919 $40,214 $41,936 $41,033 $42,485 $43,147 $44,795 $44,614 $45,787 $46,837 $47,556 TB Region $41,486 $41,677 $42,809 $42,376 $43,758 $44,300 $45,837 $46,117 $47,063 $48,113 $48,848 Florida $41,940 $41,978 $42,350 $41,716 $42,423 $42,804 $44,219 $44,703 $45,969 $47,127 $47,922

Source: REMI Policy Insight

Illustration I-1

Average Wages per Job Tampa Bay Region and State 2012 to 2016

Average Wages, 2012-2016 $60,000

$50,000

$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$0 Citrus Hernan Hills Manatee Pasco Pinellas TB Region Florida

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

High School Graduation Rates

The region’s graduation rates are comparable to the state average. Pasco leads the region with a nearly 80% graduation rate. Hillsborough has the lowest rate at 76%.

Table I-2

High School Graduation Rates Tampa Bay Region and State School Years 2010/11 to 2015/16 (%)

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/2015 2015/2016 Citrus 74.5 80.1 80.1 77 77 77 Hernando 71.5 74.1 74.1 76.7 77 78 Hillsborough 69.3 72.6 74.1 73.5 73 76 Manatee 64.7 76.2 76 75.2 76 78 Pasco 71 76.6 75.7 79.4 79 79 Pinellas 65 72 71.9 76.2 76 78 State of Florida 70.6 74.5 75.6 76.1 76 78

Source: Florida Department of Education, Data Publications and Reports: Students www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pubstudent.asp

Innovation & Economic Development

Gross Domestic Product

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced. Since 2005, the region has represented roughly 17-18% of the state’s total GDP.

Table I-3

Gross Domestic Product Tampa Bay Region and State Billions of Fixed 2005 Dollars 2008 to 2016

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Citrus 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.4 Hernando 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 Hillsborough 78.8 75.8 76.5 78.7 81.6 86.5 89.1 92.1 94.4 Manatee 13.1 12.5 12.3 12.1 12.0 12.8 13.0 13.4 13.7 Pasco 9.0 8.5 8.8 8.9 9.1 9.4 9.7 10.0 10.3 Pinellas 45.1 43.2 43.7 44.0 45.1 46.9 48.5 49.9 51.0 Tampa Bay 152.3 146.1 147.7 150.1 154.3 162.1 166.8 172.2 176.3 Florida 881.9 830.1 854.3 860.3 878.6 916.9 944.1 975.1 998.8

Source:Regional Economic Models, Inc. Policy Insight Plus, Florida Counties v2.06, Historical Data

Illustration I-2

Percent Change in Gross Regional Product, Tampa Bay Region and Florida 2009-2016, annual change over previous year

Percent Change in Gross Regional Product 6% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%

0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -2%

-4% -4% -6% -6%

-8% Tampa Bay Florida

Tourism Development Tax Collections

The region and local economy experience a vibrant tourism industry and enjoy the impacts from the employment and local businesses that ripple through the economy. While the region did not experience direct on shore oil pollution from the BP oil spill, the disaster did cause considerable damage to the tourism and accommodation industry in the region.

Table I-5

Tourism Development Tax Collections Tampa Bay Region, Miami-Dade, Orange and Palm Beach Counties and State Thousands of Dollars 2006 to 2016

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Citrus* 629 605 645 566 596 631 704 837 949 Hernando 378 345 317 323 323 361 405 690 828 Hills 21,627 19,339 17,130 17,133 20,303 21,942 22,574 26,687 28,844 Manatee 5,142 4,971 6,348 6,764 7,987 8,738 10,256 11,399 12,725 Pasco 835 664 632 665 742 785 798 946 1,051 Pinellas 25,961 23,806 22,755 23,894 27,364 30,055 33,802 38,217 46,433 TB Region 54,571 49,729 47,828 49,345 57,315 62,511 68,540 78,777 90,830 Miami- 28,065 24,755 24,852 28,916 30,290 32,389 35,104 37,999 39.163 Dade Orange 169,584 145,645 142,285 164,145 181,570 183,543 195,914 218,585 235,431 Palm Beach 27,757 22,794 22,954 25,301 26,175 30,120 33,504 41,612 46.900 Florida 524,341 466,657 466,707 513,530 570,043 605,844 653,573 740,482 813,112

Source: Florida Department of Revenue website, Local Government Tax Receipts by County http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/colls_to_7_2003.html ; *Occupancy tax in Citrus County has been raised to 5%. Note: Values presented in thousands of dollars.

Illustration I-3

Tourism Development Tax Collections Tampa Bay Region Thousands of Dollars 2011 to 2016

Tourism Development Tax Collections ($ thousands) $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Citrus Hernando Hills Manatee Pasco Pinellas

Trade Exports and Imports

Exports are essential for a robust economy. The region represents roughly 18% of the state’s total export activity.

Table I-6

Trade Imports and Exports Tampa Bay Region and State Billions of Fixed 2015 Dollars 2008 to 2016

Units 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015* 2016* Imports from 18.6 15.6 17.4 18.3 18.2 18.3 19 20.1 20.4 World Imports 28.4 26.2 27.9 29.4 28.6 28.9 29.3 30.1 30.5 from US Total $47.00 $41.80 $45.30 $47.70 $46.80 $47.20 $48.30 $50.20 50.9

Exports 11.2 10.1 11 11.7 12 12.3 12.5 12.7 12.8 to World Exports 31.9 29.2 28.7 28.9 32.7 35.2 35.8 36.9 37.8 to US Total $43.10 $39.30 $39.70 $40.60 $44.70 $47.50 $48.30 $49.60 50.6 Balance ($3.90) ($2.50) ($5.60) ($7.10) ($2.10) $0.30 $0.00 ($0.60) ($0.30)

*forecasted Source: Regional Economic Models, Inc. PI+, Florida Counties V. 2.06 Historical Data.

Infrastructure & Growth Leadership

Population Counts, Estimates and Projections - Florida Statistical Abstract Table 1.20, 1.40 (Medium Estimate).

One of Florida’s biggest economic drivers is its growing population. Even with the Great Recession’s outsized impact on Florida housing markets, Florida is now the Country’s third largest state by population, after California and Texas.

Table I-7

Population Counts, Estimates and Projections Tampa Bay Region and State 2000 to 2040

Census Estimate Census Projections

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040

Citrus 118,085 132,635 141,236 141,501 156,200 167,500 175,500 176,819 Hernando 130,802 150,784 172,778 193,600 223,400 249,200

Hillsborough 998,948 1,131,546 1,229,226 1,325,563 1,466,000 1,710,200 1,913,800

Manatee 264,002 304,364 322,833 349,334 385,700 447,200 496,900 487,588 Pasco 344,765 406,898 464,697 540,400 635,300 718,900

Pinellas 922,150 929,426 916,220 944,971 956,500 972,500 982,200

Region 2,660,667 2,923,018 3,105,754 3,425,776 3,691,500 4,150,700 4,532,700

Florida 15,982,400 17,865,737 18,801,310 19,815,183 21,372,200 24,071,000 26,252,100

Source:Florida Statistical Abstract, 2006-2015, Editions, Tables 1.20, 1.40;

Age Cohorts and the Dependency Ratio

Population growth is only part of the story of the region’s economy. Facing an aging population, the competitiveness of the US economy will increasingly be influenced by the size of its labor force compared to those who are dependent upon it.

When there are too few workers in the economy compared to those who are not, more public resources must be devoted to care—local programs for the elderly, some types of emergency and medical support—and fewer discretionary resources may be available for labor force needs. The table below reports a “pension” dependency ratio—how many working age people (aged 15-64) must support older Americans. While this ratio is most relevant in an international context, it is useful to consider in thinking about the limits of population growth as an engine of future economic growth.

Cohort in 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 thousands Ages 0-4 182 192 201 205 206 Ages 5-9 189 190 199 206 210 Ages 10-14 190 195 196 205 211 Ages 15-19 196 191 196 197 205 Ages 20-24 197 207 202 206 206 Ages 25-29 217 222 231 225 229 Ages 30-34 206 232 237 245 238 Ages 35-39 197 218 244 247 255 Ages 40-44 206 204 225 250 253 Ages 45-49 220 210 208 228 252 Ages 50-54 244 220 210 208 228 Ages 55-59 239 241 218 208 206 Ages 60-64 218 233 235 213 204 Ages 65-69 220 225 242 245 224 Ages 70-74 170 221 229 248 253 Ages 75-79 125 156 203 213 232 Ages 80-84 91 102 128 168 177 Ages 85+ 98 104 115 141 185 Total 3,405 3,563 3,719 3,858 3,974 Regional “Pension” 3.04 2.70 2.41 2.19 2.13 Dependency Ratio US “Pension” Dependency 4.29 3.57 3.21 2.86 2.78 Ratio

Illustration I-4

Age dependencies in the Tampa Bay Region Young residents (0-19 years old), Working Age, Retirement Age residents (65+)

2015 to 2035

While the trend is subtle, the bar representing retirement age is fast growing compared to the other segments.

Tampa Bay Age Dependencies, 2015-2035 (thousands) 2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Ages 0-19 Ages 20-64 Ages 65+

Since 2005, the region has accounted for about 19 percent of all of the state’s residential building permits.

Table I-8

Annual Building Permits Tampa Bay Region and State Single Family Residential Units 2005 to 2016

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Citrus 964 770 48 199 142 176 201 233 378 371 Hernando 939 391 194 242 405 168 251 378 431 627 Hillsborough 7,434 6,200 3,745 3,950 4,181 7,095 6,872 7,490 9,482 6,308 Manatee 1,447 1,270 1,227 1,247 1,641 1,860 3,608 3,565 3,619 2,957 Pasco 2,777 2,370 1,801 1,612 1,401 1,337 1,974 2,785 2,639 2,750 Pinellas 1,099 652 1,222 697 355 1,561 3,055 1,733 3,097 2,398 Tampa Bay 14,660 11,653 8,237 7,947 8,125 12,197 15,961 16,184 19,646 12,661 Region Florida 102,551 61,042 35,329 38,679 42,360 64,810 86,752 84,084 67,670 75,146

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits, Total Units, for Counties in Florida. http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/bldgprmt.shtml.

Illustration I-5

Percent Change in Permitted Residential Units Tampa Bay Region and State 2006 to 2016 (over previous year)

Percent Change in Permitted Residential Units, 2006-2016 60.0%

40.0%

20.0%

0.0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -20.0%

-40.0%

-60.0%

-80.0%

Tampa Bay Region Florida

Vehicle Miles Traveled

The region constitutes almost 15% of the total state vehicles miles traveled. Hillsborough and Pinellas made up nearly 75% of the total 79 million miles traveled in 2014.

Table I-6

Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Tampa Bay Region and State Millions of Miles 2008 to 2015

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Citrus 4.19 4.39 4.31 4.33 4.12 4.29 4.41 4.15 4.18 4.12 4.56 4.70 Hernando 5.01 5.03 5.04 5.19 4.99 4.91 4.90 4.79 4.72 4.67 4.76 4.87 Hillsborough 35.01 34.87 35.59 36.77 34.80 34.95 34.75 34.35 34.06 34.61 35.71 36.70 Manatee 8.22 8.88 8.94 9.55 9.12 8.96 9.05 9.01 8.98 9.16 9.39 9.83 Pasco 9.90 10.57 10.84 11.19 10.88 10.72 10.68 10.86 11.07 11.13 11.83 12.12 Pinellas 23.48 23.82 24.24 23.60 23.18 23.01 23.14 21.39 21.39 21.46 21.96 22.47 Region 76.60 78.14 79.62 81.10 77.98 77.63 77.62 75.61 75.50 76.36 78.89 90.79 Florida 537.49 550.61 558.31 562.80 542.33 538.09 536.32 525.63 522.88 527.95 550.80 566.36

Source:Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Highway Mileage and Travel Report, Summary since 1990.http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/mileage-rpts/public.shtm.

Illustration H-6 20.0% Year over Year Percent Change in VMT, 2008-2015

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

-5.0%

Region Florida

Business Climate & Competitiveness

Average Annual Unemployment Rates

Prior to the Great Recession, the Tampa Bay Bay Area’s unemployment rate varied around 4%. Unemployment peaked in the region in 2010, and since then has shrunk to state average unemployment level.

Table I-10

Average Annual Unemployment Rates in the Tampa Bay Region and Florida 2005 to 2016

Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Citrus 4.9% 8.0% 11.7% 12.7% 12.5% 10.8% 9.7% 8.6% 7.4% 6.8% Hernando 5.6% 8.4% 12.9% 14.2% 12.5% 10.6% 9.0% 7.9% 6.8% 6.1% Hillsborough 4.0% 6.2% 10.3% 11.4% 9.6% 7.9% 6.6% 5.8% 5.0% 4.5% Manatee 4.0% 6.8% 11.2% 12.1% 10.0% 8.2% 6.7% 5.7% 5.0% 4.6% Pasco 4.8% 7.3% 11.6% 13.0% 10.8% 9.1% 7.7% 6.7% 5.8% 5.2% Pinellas 4.0% 6.3% 10.5% 11.5% 9.7% 8.0% 6.7% 5.8% 4.9% 4.4% Region 4.2% 6.6% 10.8% 11.9% 12.5% 10.8% 9.7% 8.6% 7.4% 4.9% Florida 6.2% 10.2% 11.3% 10.5% 12.5% 10.6% 9.0% 7.9% 6.8% 4.9%

Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Local Area Unemployment Statistics Updated June 2017

Illustration I-7

Average Annual Unemployment Rates Tampa Bay Region and Florida 2005 to 2015

Annual Unemployment Rate, 2007-2016 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Region Florida

Updated June 2017

Employment by Industry

In 2010, the largest employment sectors were Administrative and Waste Management, Retail Trade and Healthcare. Healthcare, Retail Trade, and Professional Services were the largest private employment sectors by industry in 2015.

Table I-11

Employment by Largest Industries Tampa Bay Region 2007 to 2016

Category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Health Care and Social 191,210 197,880 200,290 204,210 208,730 211,570 214,920 220,970 226,110 236,020 Assistance Retail Trade 206,280 196,500 185,950 184,780 191,370 194,710 199,140 204,450 208,380 219,188 Professional, Scientific, and 130,300 127,980 124,480 123,830 126,040 129,830 135,140 140,490 143,700 146,436 Technical Services Administrative and Waste 208,190 163,810 151,230 143,210 133,200 134,680 133,450 137,600 141,040 142,772 Management Services Accommodation and Food 124,660 123,630 118,040 117,910 120,900 128,080 134,030 136,930 139,960 150,638 Services

Source: Regional Economic Models, Inc., PI+, Florida Counties v1.7.7, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Data. Updated June 2017

Illustration I-8

Change in Employment by Largest Industries Tampa Bay Region 2008 to 2016

Largest Employment Sectors, 2008-2016 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Health Care and Social Assistance Retail Trade Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Administrative and Waste Management Services Accommodation and Food Services

Wages by Industry

Companies within the Management of Corporations, Utilities, Wholesale Trade, and Information Technology paid the highest wages in 2015 while Mining, Real Estate, Forestry, and Farm paid the least.

Table I-12

Average Annual Wages by Industry Tampa Bay Region Thousands of Current Dollars 2007 to 2016

Category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Management of Companies and 71.09 69.31 70.22 73.17 76.87 91.47 81.36 85.58 89.53 86.41 Enterprises Utilities 61.39 65.24 72.97 71.36 77.2 75.31 78.04 81.84 85.34 92.09 Wholesale 53.04 54.27 53.98 56.17 58.26 60.61 62.57 65.32 67.8 67.33 Trade Information 52.75 54.57 55.67 56.32 59.6 60.72 61.05 64.51 67.74 65.31 Manufacturing 45.5 46.44 47.95 49.81 50.31 51.2 51.44 53.81 56.05 55.40 Professional, Scientific, and 42.06 44.33 44.5 45.86 46.71 48.36 49.84 51.26 52.43 53.49 Technical Services

Source: Regional Economic Models, Inc., PI+ V 1.7.7. Bureau of Economic Analysis Data. Updated June 2016

Registered Nonprofit Organizations

Nonprofit Organizations are essential to every community, the region’s 2,918 organizations represent roughly 16% of the state’s total nonprofits and 19% of the state’s net charitable assets. Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties are home to almost 77% of the region’s nonprofits. Hernando County has the least nonprofits.

Table I-13

Registered 501(c)3 Organizations Public and Private Foundation Charities Tampa Bay Region and State Number and Assets in 2013

Number of Registered County/Area Organizations Assets Citrus County, FL 545 232,038,244 Hernando County, FL 514 59,853,731 Hillsborough County, FL 5,172 21,952,123,071 Manatee County, FL 1,305 1,205,817,794 Pasco County, FL 1,309 1,814,255,402 Pinellas County, FL 3,951 11,431,696,946 Tampa Bay, FL 12,796 36,695,785,188 Florida 79,254 192,895,097,192

Quality of Life & Quality Places

Per Capita Income

Pinellas County has the highest average per capita income in the region while Hernando and Pasco Counties have lower per capita income than the state average.

Table I-14

Real Personal Per Capita Income Tampa Bay Region and State Nominal Dollars (Thousands) 2006 to 2015

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Citrus 32.187 31.798 31.373 31.819 32.871 32.918 32.96 34.278 35.541 34.161 Hernando 31.562 30.652 30.303 31.029 31.394 30.775 30.931 32.011 33.126 33.276 Hillsborough 41.535 40.339 39.002 40.656 40.762 41.410 41.709 42.607 43.743 44.792 Manatee 45.273 43.072 40.534 41.627 43.992 42.729 42.458 43.569 44.923 42.667 Pasco 31.867 31.250 30.731 31.648 32.646 32.009 32.333 33.303 34.441 34.774 Pinellas 48.624 46.987 44.299 46.153 48.257 46.569 46.879 48.336 49.910 49.536 Tampa Bay 41.629 40.304 38.673 40.117 41.194 40.730 40.964 42.080 43.367 43.417 Florida 41.658 40.655 38.522 39.34 40.512 40.784 40.732 41.672 42.892 43.659 Source: Regional Economic Models, Inc., PI+, Florida Counties, v1.7.7, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Data

House Price Cost Index

Housing still remains affordable compared to the national average, which is a competitive advantage in attracting labor force to the region.

Table I-15

Relative Housing Price Tampa Bay Region and State National Index = 1.0 2005 to 2015

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Citrus 0.510 0.516 0.521 0.563 0.543 0.486 0.455 0.473 0.443 0.454 0.448 0.447 Hernando 0.459 0.505 0.493 0.482 0.437 0.404 0.383 0.382 0.383 0.386 0.382 0.381 Hillsborough 0.402 0.428 0.489 0.477 0.453 0.441 0.356 0.365 0.332 0.315 0.319 0.321 Manatee 0.421 0.463 0.452 0.442 0.400 0.370 0.351 0.350 0.352 0.354 0.354 0.355 Pasco 0.570 0.625 0.597 0.600 0.558 0.502 0.481 0.456 0.468 0.484 0.485 0.488 Pinellas 0.663 0.740 0.721 0.706 0.667 0.626 0.599 0.604 0.568 0.589 0.586 0.584 Tampa Bay 0.510 0.557 0.571 0.562 0.528 0.498 0.450 0.452 0.429 0.431 0.432 0.432 Florida 0.809 0.876 0.840 0.790 0.731 0.658 0.639 0.625 0.633 0.645 0.647 0.649

Source: Regional Economic Models, Inc., PI+ V 1.7.7. Updated June 2016

Persons Living in Poverty

The Tampa Bay Region’s Poverty Rate has improved considerably since 1960. By 1970 most of the counties now part of the region compared favorably to the rest of the state with consistently lower poverty rates. While the Great Recession of 2007 clearly brought the rate up in the region, that rate was still lower than the rest of Florida in 2010.

Table I-16

Percent of Persons Living in Poverty Tampa Bay Region and State 1960 to 2010

Poverty Rate in 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Citrus 44.9 24.0 13.6 12.6 11.7 16.5 Hernando 44.0 25.3 13.4 11.0 10.3 14.8 Hillsborough 28.0 16.1 14.0 13.3 12.5 16.5 Manatee 32.1 17.3 11.0 10.2 10.1 14.5 Pasco 39.7 21.4 10.9 11.6 10.7 13.7 Pinellas 24.5 13.0 9.8 9.5 10.0 13.1 Tampa Bay 27.7 15.5 11.7 11.3 11.1 14.8 Florida 28.4 16.4 13.5 12.7 12.5 15.6 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/. Updated June 2017

Illustration I-9

Percent of Persons Living in Poverty Tampa Bay Region and State 1960 to 2010

Poverty Rate 1960-2010 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Citrus Hernando Hillsborough Manatee Pasco Pinellas Tampa Bay Florida

Shift-Share Analysis

A shift share analysis decomposes employment growth/decline of a specific industry in the region over a multi-year time period into three categories, Share Change, Mix Change, and Shift Change. Share Change is the change due to general national growth, or the growth rate of the region compared to the growth rate of the nation. Mix Change is attributed to the industry growth, or the difference in the industry growth in the region compared to the industry growth that would have occurred at the national growth rate for that industry. Shift Change is the competitiveness of the region, or the difference between the regional industry change in employment compared to the employment change, if the region’s industries had grown at the rate of the nation.

The equation is a follows:

The top six industries in terms of total shift share change over the next 20 years (2015-2035) are shown below in the chart, their respective gains in the various mixes of employment are noted.

Share Change, Mix Change, Shift Change, Shift Share 2015-2035 80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

(20,000)

Share Change Mix Change Shift Change Shift Share

As shown the graph above, the largest gains in employment will be from the Healthcare, Construction, Professional and Technical, and the Administrative and Waste services. These industries net positive gains over the next 20 years in share, mix, and shift change categories to combine for over 360,000 estimated jobs.

The chart below shows all 22 industries and how they react to each element. The industries are sorted by Shift Share Change (column to far right)

Industry Share Change Mix Change Shift Change Shift Share Change Health Care, Social Asst 20,278 52,590 (3,456) 69,413 Construction 8,991 54,314 1,706 65,010 Profess, Tech Services 12,887 32,415 2,170 47,472 Admin, Waste Services 12,648 17,943 1,028 31,620 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 8,928 (985) 1,461 9,404 Accom, Food Services 12,552 (4,025) (638) 7,889 Educational Services 3,058 807 521 4,386 State & Local Gov 12,725 (12,609) 2,311 2,427 Arts, Enter, Rec 4,269 (1,646) (1,101) 1,522 Mining 356 321 (486) 191 Forestry, Fishing, Other 623 (2,047.52) 549.50 (875.00) Federal Military 1,146 (2,593) (0) (1,447) Transp, Warehousing 3,724 (5,606) 338 (1,543) Retail Trade 18,688 (23,496) 2,860 (1,948) Utilities 541 (2,509) (39) (2,007) Wholesale Trade 5,578 (8,106) 436 (2,092) Federal Civilian 2,016 (4,782) (0) (2,766) Other Services (excl Gov) 9,748 (14,413) 1,356 (3,309) Finance, Insurance 11,960 (12,806) (3,001) (3,847) Mngmt of Co, Enter 2,532 (7,480) 42 (4,906) Information 2,971 (10,153) (1,240) (8,422) Manufacturing 6,747 (20,693) 462 (13,484) Total 162,968 24,441 5,279 192,688

The next few pages depict the differences in detail of the shift share formula. The Share, Mix, and Shift Changes are looked at individually to showcase why each industry is growing or shrinking in the forecast.

Share Change - Change of Industry Due to National Growth

When looking at the extended time period, the biggest total employment changes occur in the Administrative and Support Services, Healthcare Services, Government, Professional/Tech Services, and Food and Drinking places. This is indicated in the ranked table below.

Industry Share Change Health Care, Social Asst 20,278 Retail Trade 18,688 Profess, Tech Services 12,887 State & Local Gov 12,725 Admin, Waste Services 12,648 Accom, Food Services 12,552 Finance, Insurance 11,960 Other Services (excl Gov) 9,748 Construction 8,991 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 8,928 Manufacturing 6,747 Wholesale Trade 5,578 Arts, Enter, Rec 4,269 Transp, Warehousing 3,724 Educational Services 3,058 Information 2,971 Mngmt of Co, Enter 2,532 Federal Civilian 2,016 Federal Military 1,146 Forestry, Fishing, Other 623 Utilities 541 Mining 356

Mix Change - Actual Industry Growth

The middle part of the shift share formula depicts the growth due to the industry. The table below sorts each industry by the growth in the employees due to the industry from 2015 – 2035. The manufacturing industry is forecasted to be the weakest industry in terms of job growth over the next two decades. This is due to the availability of cheaper labor overseas and the automation of the manufacturing process. The Healthcare, Construction, and Professional/Technical Services Industries are expected to grow the most over the same time frame.

Industry Mix Change Construction 54,314 Health Care, Social Asst 52,590 Profess, Tech Services 32,415 Admin, Waste Services 17,943 Educational Services 807 Mining 321 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing (985) Arts, Enter, Rec (1,646) Forestry, Fishing, Other (2,048) Utilities (2,509) Federal Military (2,593) Accom, Food Services (4,025) Federal Civilian (4,782) Transp, Warehousing (5,606) Mngmt of Co, Enter (7,480) Wholesale Trade (8,106) Information (10,153) State & Local Gov (12,609) Finance, Insurance (12,806) Other Services (excl Gov) (14,413) Manufacturing (20,693) Retail Trade (23,496)

Shift Change - Regional Competitiveness

The Shift Change depicts the competitiveness of the region. Due to the region’s high growth rate, it will typically be more competitive than the nation. Only two industries indicate the region is less competitive than the nation – the Information and Forestry, Fishing, and Other Related Activities. State and Local Government, Healthcare, Professional and Technical Services, Construction, and Retail Trade lead the region for the next two decades.

Industry Shift Change Retail Trade 2,860 State & Local Gov 2,311 Profess, Tech Services 2,170 Construction 1,706 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 1,461 Other Services (excl Gov) 1,356 Admin, Waste Services 1,028 Forestry, Fishing, Other 550 Educational Services 521 Manufacturing 462 Wholesale Trade 436 Transp, Warehousing 338 Mngmt of Co, Enter 42 Federal Military (0) Federal Civilian (0) Utilities (39) Mining (486) Accom, Food Services (638) Arts, Enter, Rec (1,101) Information (1,240) Finance, Insurance (3,001) Health Care, Social Asst (3,456)

Location Quotient Analysis

Location Quotient analysis is a useful method for quantifying how similar the makeup of a region’s economy is to some reference—usually a state or national—economy. A location quotient and a shift share analyses were performed in order to determine the most important economic clusters in the region. The location quotient and shift share analyses were performed at several different time periods (current, immediate, and future). This will enable the region to show trends and expectations in order to plan accordingly.

A location quotient analysis looks at the concentration of a specific industry in the region compared to the concentration of that same industry in the nation. If the concentration of workers in the specified industry is identical in the region in comparison to the nation, then the location quotient would be 1. If the region was more concentrated then the nation in the specific industry, then the location quotient would be greater than 1. If the region was less concentrated in a specific industry, then the location quotient would be less than 1. The analysis was done with industries along with occupations based on the 22 sector NAICS codes.

The location quotient formula is as follows:

Where: ei = Local employment in industry i e = Total local employment Ei = Reference area employment in industry i E = Total reference area employment

The table below showcases the Location Quotients ranked by competitive strength. The table is color coded; light blue is above average (above 1.1), white indicates on par (.8 to 1.08), and light yellow indicates below average (below .75) The list below highlights the industries where the region is much stronger than the national average.

Industry 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Finance, Insurance 1.32 1.30 1.29 1.28 1.27 Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 1.25 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 Mngmt of Co, Enter 1.25 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.24 Admin, Waste Services 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.20 Arts, Enter, Rec 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.12 1.12 Retail Trade 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 Profess, Tech Services 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 Utilities 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.07 Health Care, Social Asst 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.04 Information 1.06 1.04 1.03 1.01 0.99 Accom, Food Services 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.03 Other Services (excl Gov) 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Construction 1.01 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.01 Wholesale Trade 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 Federal Civilian 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Educational Services 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Forestry, Fishing, Other 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.83 State & Local Gov 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Transp, Warehousing 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 Federal Military 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Manufacturing 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.59 Mining 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20

As shown above, the Tampa Bay Region has a very strong concentration of Administrative and Waste Services, Financial and Insurance, Management of Corporations, and Real Estate employees. The Manufacturing, Mining, and Education Services are relatively weak compared to the nation as a whole. There are very few Government workers per person compared to the national average.

Analyzing the trends, the majority of the sectors are gradually trending towards the average, which is an indication of the overall Tampa Bay area population growing and employment becoming more diverse.

J. Community and Private Sector Participation: The CEDS Steering Committee

The CEDS Steering Committee is composed of a diverse and focused group of interested citizens who shaped this CEDS as how they want to see the region grow. Their work is greatly appreciated and the Tampa Bay Economic Development District looks forward to a continued partnership with the committee in the future. The majority of CEDS Steering Committee members come from the private sector.

The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and the Tampa Bay Economic Development District wish to thank the following members for their participation.

Member Representing Sector Paul Ziegler BB&T Bank Private Lauren Kratsch Bradenton Area Economic Development Private Corp Kenneth W. Russ Career Source Pasco Hernando Private Ardath Prendergast/ Josh Wooten Citrus County Chamber of Commerce Private Ginger Clark Hillsborough County Community College Public Gary Leskun Crossboarder Partners Private Danielle Ruiz Duke Energy Private Doug Driggers Teco Energy Private Don Taylor Economic Development Authority for Private Citrus Robert Rohrlack, Jr. Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce Private Carl Flanagan Drummond Bank Private Geary Havran NDH Medical / Medical MFG Assn Private David Hood Northwestern Mutual Private Lisa Hood Northwestern Mutual Private John Walsh Pasco Econ Dev Council Private J. Todd Timmerman Shumaker, Loop, & Kendrick Private Grant Palmer SRI Private Dave Sobush TB Partnership Private Rick Homans TB Partnership Private Doug Driggers TECO Energy Private Ann Kulig Westshore Alliance Private Jenette Collins/Joana Coutou Citrus Co. Planning and Development Public Patrick Roff City of Bradenton Public Zack Thorn City of Clearwater Chamber Public Sophia Sorolis City of St. Petersburg Public Chris Steinocher City of St. Petersburg Public Valerie Pianta Hernando Office of Business Public Development Sarah Abbatiello Hillsborough Econ Dev Public Melanie Kendrick Pasco County Government Public Kristin Dailey Pinellas and Hillborough Workforce Public Board Cindy Margiotta Pinellas Econ Dev Public

Conclusion

This CEDS is a roadmap to economic prosperity in the Tampa Bay Area. It represents years of collaboration between the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and private and public partners around the region. As such, its intent is to provide general guidance on the topic of economic development and to offer a range of updated tracking data points to help the document’s users to assess how the region is doing as an economic unit.

In brief, the region’s economy is strong and growing. Unemployment is near record lows, the economy is diversifying and shifting toward a heavier emphasis on services even as the state continues to struggle with maintaining a high quality of secondary education. Without a more competitive labor force, the region along with the rest of the state, will face hurdles in attracting the highest paying service jobs.

While there are issues that cannot be resolved in the near term, such as significant income inequality, there are several organizations in the Tampa Bay Area that are actively involved in recruiting new business, seeking assistance to help incentivize new investment and programs to improve the skill levels of the workforce. The region is making progress towards its goals.

As a center for excellence in applied planning research, the Tampa Bay Economic Development District will continue to support the work of its member agencies with the latest available data and analysis.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

4000 Gateway Centre Boulevard, Suite 100, Pinellas Park, FL 33782