2010_Spring_Indicator

IndIcaTorA PUBLICATION OF THE COCHISE COLLEGE CENTER FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH
County population grows less than 1 percent
In 2009, Cochise County’s population increased by 0.6 percent, from 139,434
to 140,263, according to estimates by the Arizona Department of Commerce.
This was down from growth of 1.6 percent in 2008 and likely reflects the
housing market slowdown and general economic downturn. ADOC figures are
based on estimates of the population as of July 1 each year, so figures for 2009
estimate growth from July 2008 to July 2009.
In 2009, Cochise County was the eighth fastest-growing of Arizona’s 15
counties, behind Graham, Pinal,Yuma, Santa Cruz, Maricopa, Coconino, and
Apache. From 2000 to 2009, Cochise County was also the eighth fastest-
growing county in the state.
At the city level, Benson’s population grew by 2.6 percent in 2009, from 5,030
to 5,162, making it the fastest growing of the county’s incorporated cities and
towns for the year.Benson has been the fastest-growing city in Cochise County
for the past 3 years due to a surge in residential construction, which, despite
the housing market downturn, remains well above historical levels.
Bisbee’s population grew by 0.5 percent in 2009, from 6,389 to 6,423,
according to ADOC.This was the second consecutive year of population
growth following 3 straight years of decline. In 2008, Bisbee’s population grew
by 1.6 percent, but from 2004 to 2007 the city’s population declined by 4.2
percent. Despite the increases in 2008 and 2009, Bisbee’s population
remains below 2004 levels.
The population of Douglas dropped by 2.5 percent in 2009,
from 18,207 to 17,758. Douglas was the only place of Cochise
County’s incorporated cities and towns to see a population
decline in 2009. From 2000 to 2008, Douglas saw the highest
overall rate of population growth in Cochise County, but most of
that growth occurred between 2000 and 2001 when the city
annexed the state prison complex, adding about 2,000 residents to the
city’s population.The decline in 2009 brought the Douglas population
below 2007 levels.
Huachuca City saw population growth of 0.2 percent in 2009, from 1,952 to
1,955.The town’s slow rate of growth followed a growth rate of 6.6 percent in
2008, the highest in Cochise County that year. Huachuca City had relatively
stagnant population growth from 2000 to 2007, which saw the town’s
population increase by only 4.6 percent overall.
Sierra Vista’s population grew by 1.5 percent in 2009, from 45,908 to 46,597.
INSIDE:
COST OF LIVING
•
HOUSING MARKET
•
THE INFLATION FACTOR
•
SIERRA VISTA ECONOMY
T H E
■
SPRING 2010
Mark your calendars for
the upcoming luncheons
Make plans to attend the
CER’s economic outlook
luncheons.
Benson
June 10, 2010
Douglas
September 2010
Bisbee
December 2010
Sierra Vista
April 2011
RESERVE YOUR SEAT!
To register, use the enclosed
registration form;
register online at
www.cochise.edu/cer;
email cer@cochise.edu;
or call
(520) 515-5486
Visa®, MasterCard®, Discover®,
or American Express®
accepted.
By Robert Carreira,Ph.D.
Director, Center for
Economic Research
...BENSON HAS
BEEN THE FASTEST-
GROWING CITY IN COCHISE
COUNTY FOR THE PAST 3
YEARS DUE TO A SURGE IN
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION,
WHICH, DESPITE THE HOUSING
MARKET DOWNTURN,
REMAINS WELL ABOVE
HISTORICAL LEVELS.

SPRING 2010
2
CENTER FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH
T H E
This was the second highest rate of growth in Cochise County in 2009
following Benson. If we control for the effects of Douglas’annexation of the
prison earlier in the decade, then Sierra Vista
saw the highest rate of population
growth in the county between 2000
and 2009 with growth of 23.4
percent.
Tombstone’s population
grew by 0.6 percent in 2009,
from 1,709 to 1,720.This was
down from 1.6 percent in 2008.
Willcox saw population
growth of 0.6 percent in 2009,
from 3,904 to 3,926.This followed a
population decline of 0.2 percent in 2008.
Statewide, Arizona’s population grew by 0.8
percent in 2009, from 6.6 to 6.7 million.This was the state’s slowest rate of
growth of the new millennium.
The slowdown in population growth in Cochise County and statewide is
largely related to the downturn
in the economy. Struggling
housing markets throughout
the nation make it difficult for
homeowners to sell their
homes in other states to
relocate. Declines in asset
values, including the values of
401K retirement accounts, may
also be leading many to
postpone retirement. Moreover,
declines in employment
statewide have resulted in
tighter labor markets, removing the lure of jobs as an incentive to relocate.
Once the economy is on a firm path of recovery, Cochise County and Arizona
are likely to see a resumption of the strong growth seen in earlier years,
particularly the growth tied to the influx of retirees and job seekers.
CONTINUED
COUNTY
POPULATION
GROWS LESS
THAN 1 PERCEN
On Jan. 5, CER director Robert Car-
reira met with members of the Bis-
bee Chamber of Commerce to dis-
cuss the CER’s Bisbee Economic
Outlook publication and how
chamber members could provide
input to enhance the publication’s
content.
On Jan.19,CER director Robert Car-
reira spoke to the Democratic
Women of Southeastern Arizona
about the outlook for the local,
state,and national economies.
Chuck Potucek
City Manager
City of Sierra Vista
2009 2008 Change % Change
Arizona 6,683,129 6,629,455 53,674 0.8%
Cochise County 140,263 139,434 829 0.6%
Benson 5,162 5,030 132 2.6%
Bisbee 6,423 6,389 34 0.5%
Douglas 17,758 18,207 -449 -2.5%
Huachuca City 1,955 1,952 3 0.2%
Sierra Vista 46,597 45,908 689 1.5%
Tombstone 1,720 1,709 11 0.6%
Willcox 3,926 3,904 22 0.6%
Unincorporated Areas 56,723 56,336 387 0.7%
Source: Arizona Department of Commerce.
Population Estimates
Let’s talk progress
Sierra Vista is moving forward on many fronts, and it’s time to talk about the
progress being made to reach the mayor and council’s goals and objectives.
The council’s strategic plan—“Our Future Vistas”—is a long-range plan with 2-
year objectives, most recently updated in 2009.
There are some impressive accomplishments to report even though we
aren’t quite a year into this iteration of the strategic plan. For starters, the city’s
new bandshell, Centennial Pavilion, is currently under construction in
Veterans’Memorial Park.The new pavilion will be just over 4,000 square feet
with 1,700 square feet of stage area.There’ll be abundant room for storage,
restrooms, dressing rooms, and other amenities to support high-quality

SPRING 2010
3
T H E
reira met with Cochise County
Quality of Life Index partners from
Cochise County and the Cochise
Community Foundation to finalize
plans for the first-year update of
the Index.
community events and cultural performances.The Centennial Pavilion will be
complete in the summer of 2010 and is sure to be a venue for many
memorable events in coming years.
The expansion of the city’s police station is nearing completion and will
include expanded evidence storage, administrative and work areas, a vehicle
inspection bay, and, most importantly, the city’s first formal Emergency
Operations Center.When this project is complete later in 2010, the city’s police
station will encompass a total of more than 40,500 square feet.
Other infrastructure improvements are either complete or ready to get
underway.The largest project on the horizon is the completion of the
widening of Charleston Road from Colombo Avenue to Fighting Colt Drive.
This project will take approximately 8 to 12 months to complete and
construction costs are fully grant funded. On a smaller scale, in 2009 the city
was able to use surplus grant funding from another project to construct or
improve over 120 ADA ramps throughout the community.The priority order
for these improvements was determined by the city’s Commission on
Disability Issues.
Other initiatives we are pursuing fall under the goal of environmental
sustainability.We have received grant funding to install solar
panels at Fire Stations #1 and #2 and at the Nancy J. Brua
Animal Care Center.We have also received grant
funding to install an energy efficient heating and
cooling system at the Oscar Yrun Community
Center and to install solar-powered streetlights in
several locations in the city. Grant funds will also
pay for the installation of a biodiesel fueling
station at the city’s fuel facility and for the
purchase of three new 27-passenger Vista Transit
buses that will run on biodiesel fuel.
The city is proceeding with acquiring land to
expand the existing Domingo Paiz sports complex both
north and south of the existing ball fields, and will
eventually be able to add three softball fields, restrooms, and a
snack bar to that area.This project is still very much in the planning phase and
will depend on the availability of future funding, but the
mayor and council are well aware of the community’s
need for additional recreational facilities.
The council also set a 2-year objective to
increase the city’s general fund reserves by at
least 10 percent by 2011. I was somewhat
concerned this would be one objective we
might have trouble achieving. However, in
spite of an economy that continues to
struggle, we are on track to increase reserves
by 8 percent this year, putting us in a good
position to meet the 10 percent goal by 2011.
Of course, not unlike all other communities in
Arizona, we are now beginning to plan for the reduction in
state-shared revenues, which will inevitably hit us in the next fiscal year. For
Sierra Vista the reduction will be somewhere between $1.4 and $1.7 million.
CONTINUED
LET’S TALK
PROGRESS

S T U D E N T S P O T L I G H T
The Great Plains International Trade Corridor
By Polly Sue Webb
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented in 1994
to create a common market between the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
The goal was to gradually cut tariffs, eventually eliminating them altogether. It
was also intended to improve the welfare of the Mexican economy.
Now, the U.S. government is considering the Superhighway or what is now
known as the Great Plains International Trade Corridor (GPITC).The GPITC
proposes developing a unified trade corridor from three individual highway
systems: the Ports-to-Plains Corridor, the Heartland Expressway, and the
Theodore Roosevelt Expressway.The Ports-to-Plains corridor would run from
Laredo,TX to Denver, CO. In Denver, it would merge with the Heartland
Expressway, which would continue to Rapid City, SD where it would connect
to the Theodore Roosevelt Expressway, which would continue to Port
Raymond, MT.
Each segment of the Superhighway is a necessary part of the GPITC. If any
of these is not built, then the GPITC cannot be implemented. According to
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), federal money has been earmarked for expenditure
on construction but the individual states must first come up with a portion.
SPRING 2010
4
T H E
Polly Sue Webb is a
graduate of Cochise College
with an Associate of Applied
Science degree in
Intelligence Operations.She
currently attends Western
International University and
is working toward a
bachelor’s degree in
behavioral science.
Find out why more
and more people
are visiting the CER
website.
Visit our website at
www.cochise.edu/cer
to find statistics on the
local economy;
information on upcoming
events; sponsorship
information; CER
economic outlook
publications; PowerPoint
slides from CER
presentations; special
studies; press releases; the
Cochise County Economic
Update, a compilation of
links to online newspaper
stories of economic
interest from across
Cochise County; the CER’s
quarterly newsletter, The
Indicator; and links to
websites relevant to the
local, state, and national
economy.
That’s a significant loss of general fund revenue, especially in a time when our
budgets are already tight.
To meet the challenge of funding cuts, we continue to reduce staffing levels
through attrition and to shift workloads as necessary to maintain the service
levels our residents have come to expect.Whether we will be able to continue
to operate without some reduction in services remains to be seen, but the
next couple of years will clearly be a challenge financially for all Arizona cities
and towns.
As city manager of Sierra Vista, I feel fortunate that our community
continues to thrive, even in these difficult times.The presence of Fort
Huachuca is a great economic and cultural asset for Sierra Vista and, as always,
its presence gives Sierra Vista an advantage in weathering a difficult economy.
In addition, we haven’t seen the foreclosures or commercial failures that have
plagued some Arizona communities and, in fact, Sierra Vista saw an increase in
commercial development in 2009. Another good sign of our economic
stability is that our residential development held steady for the second
consecutive year.
We know times are difficult and we know we’ll need to stretch our budgets
even further to get through the next few years of declining state-shared
revenues. Although there are fewer employees providing city services, they
continue to do a great job and to step up to increased workloads and
responsibilities.Together, we will make sure Sierra Vista remains a great place
to live and do business, and we know we’ll see brighter economic times
ahead. In the meantime, we’ll continue to follow the strategic roadmap set
before us by our elected officials, and to take pride in our accomplishments as
a community.
CONTINUED
LET’S TALK
PROGRESS

SPRING 2010
5
T H E
Some states, such as Nebraska, are having difficulty with this.
To find out more, I conducted web research using keywords such as NAFTA,
GPITC, and economics. I also used resources at the Cochise College online
library. I found a wide range of news articles, case studies, and state reports.
These documents led me to the conclusion that the GPITC would be
beneficial to the United States, but there would be some drawbacks.
If the national government establishes this international corridor,
then it will open up trade for U.S. farmers to new areas
and markets. In the long run, this will improve the
economy.We have seen throughout history how
the improvement of transportation (e.g., planes,
trains, and ships) has improved the economy
and free trade. However, establishment of
the corridor will likely involve the use of
eminent domain or the government seizure
of private land for public purposes.While
the GPITC would undoubtedly improve
transportation and contribute to economic
growth, eminent domain seizures tend to be
politically unpopular and affect families’income,
heritage, and right to pursue happiness.
Increased vehicles on the road would also mean the
negative externalities of more pollution and traffic congestion, which would
affect those who live near or drive along the corridor.With regard to pollution,
the corridor would also be used by vehicles from south of the U.S. border,
which are not required to meet the same standards and regulations as
vehicles registered in the United States.
There might also be a risk to traffic safety.These new highways would
consist of four lanes of traffic in each direction, which makes accidents more
dangerous because there are more vehicles present. If the vehicles using the
corridor are not held to certain standards like driver hours and placards
marking the type of cargo, then the people driving on, or living near, these
roads might be more at risk of danger.
There’s also a risk of the corridor being used by nations other than the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. For example, China may begin using
ports outside the United States to export their goods overland into the
United States, taking advantage of trade expansion measures intended for
the three NAFTA nations but without being subject to the terms of the
agreement themselves.
While the corridor seems to be a beacon for a brighter tomorrow, it also
seems to come at a price. Americans may have to sacrifice portions of their
land if they live along the corridor and own the property that is needed for
the expansion.Traffic and pollution will increase.The economy would improve
but the improvement might be short lived and the long-term results might be
less privacy and less land for agriculture and hunting.
I see a potential for failure of the GPITC unless certain measures are
implemented. It would be wise to implement regulations governing drive
time of drivers, driver skills, and the safety of equipment entering from other
nations and used to transport goods.These measures would help deal with
the potential downsides of the proposed corridor.
CONTINUED
THE GREAT
PLAINS
INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
CORRIDOR
reira hosted The Friday Report on
KTAN 1420 AM. Dr. Carreira’s guest
was Frank Moro, owner of First
West Properties Corporation. Top-
ics of discussion included the state
of commercial real estate markets
at the local, state, and national lev-
els,as well as recent and upcoming
commercial development projects
in the local area.

SPRING 2010
6
T H E
According to the ACCRA Cost of Living Index, the cost of living in Cochise
County was slightly below the national average in 2009.The report, released
in January, provides comparative data for 322 urban areas in all 50 states.
The Council for Community and Economic Research in Arlington,VA
administers the ACCRA Cost of Living Index, which measures relative price
levels for consumer goods and services in participating areas.The average for
all participating places nationwide equals 100 and each participant’s index is
read as a percentage of the average for all places.The ACCRA index includes
separate weighted sub-indices for grocery items, housing, utilities,
transportation, healthcare, and miscellaneous goods and services.
The Cost of Living Index data indicate Cochise County’s average annual cost
of living in 2009 was 0.8 percent lower than the average for all participating
places nationwide.This was down from 2008, when the cost of living locally
was 0.2 percent above the national average.
The cost of living in Cochise County in 2009 was slightly higher than in
Tucson—a continuation of the trend that began in 2008.The cost of living in
Cochise County was also higher than in Phoenix, a reversal of the trend from
previous years. In 2009, the cost of living locally was 0.1 percent higher than
Tucson and 0.8 percent higher than Phoenix.
Although Cochise County’s cost of living was below the national average in
2009, some categories of cost were higher.This was most evident in housing
costs, which include both home prices and rental rates. As home prices have
held relatively steady locally, markets in other areas of the state and nation
have seen steep declines. In 2007, the cost of housing in Cochise County was
5.4 percent below the national average.This rose to 3.1 percent above the
national average in 2008 and 4.1 percent above the national average in 2009.
Transportation costs in Cochise County, which include gasoline and
automobile maintenance, were also higher in 2009, relative to the rest of the
nation. In 2008, transportations costs locally were only 0.9 percent higher
than the national average.This rose to 2.6 percent above the national
average last year.
Another area where local costs were higher was grocery items, which
were 0.3 percent above the national average in 2009. Although grocery
items were higher locally than nationally,
the gap has narrowed considerably in
recent years. In 2007 groceries in Cochise
County were 5.5 percent above the
national average.This fell to 4.9 percent in
2008 and 0.3 percent last year.
All other components of the cost of living
index showed local costs below the national
average last year. Healthcare costs in
Cochise County were 2.6 percent below the
national average.This was a reversal of
2008, which saw local costs 0.5 percent
higher than nationally.
The local cost of miscellaneous goods and services was 5.3 percent below
the national average in 2009. In 2008, miscellaneous goods and services were
priced only 3.6 percent below national averages.
The cost of utilities in Cochise County was 5.7 percent below the national
Local cost of
living below
national
average in
2009
reira participated in a panel discus-
sion on job creation as part of the
Project CENTRL rural leadership de-
velopment program at the Univer-
sity of Arizona in Tucson.
reira participated in the Cochise
County Board of Supervisors’“Mak-
ing Cochise County Small Business
Friendly”work session.
On Feb. 8, CER director Robert Car-
reira attended a briefing of U.S.
government officials on the pro-
posed expansion of the Douglas
Land Port of Entry in Douglas.
Composite Grocery Trans- Health Misc. Goods
Area Index Items Housing Utilities portation Care & Services
Flagstaff Metro 114.1 104.7 154.5 93.0 101.9 100.2 94.4
Lake Havasu City-Kingman Micro 109.7 113.2 139.4 98.5 96.5 93.9 91.9
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Metro 98.4 105.6 94.6 88.5 101.3 97.7 100.9
Prescott Metro 105.3 98.6 120.6 92.5 101.4 97.1 100.6
Sierra Vista-Douglas Micro* 99.2 100.3 104.1 94.3 102.6 97.4 94.7
Tucson Metro 99.1 99.8 95.4 92.6 101.5 99.0 103.4
Yuma Metro 103.2 109.3 103.5 104.9 103.4 100.9 100.0
*The Sierra Vista-Douglas Micropolitan Area is a statistical area designation for all of Cochise County. Sierra Vista and Douglas
are included in the title since they are the principal cities that meet the criteria for establishing Cochise County as a Micropolitan
Statistical Area. Note: The average for all participating places nationwide equals 100; each participant’s index is read as a
percentage of the average for all places. Source: The Council for Community and Economic Research, ACCRA Cost of Living Index.
ACCRA Cost of Living Index, 2009

SPRING 2010
7
T H E
average in 2009.This represents a considerable drop from 2008, which saw
local costs only 2.3 percent lower than nationally.
Statewide, there were seven places participating in the ACCRA Cost of
Living Index in 2009. In addition to Cochise County, other participating areas
included Flagstaff, Lake Havasu City, Phoenix, Prescott-Prescott Valley,Tucson,
and Yuma. Of these, only Tucson and Phoenix had an overall cost of living that
was lower than Cochise County.The highest cost of living in Arizona was in
Flagstaff, which was 14.1 percent above the national average.
ACCRA Cost of Living Index data for Cochise County are listed under the
Sierra Vista-Douglas Micropolitan Area, which is a statistical designation for all
of Cochise County. Sierra Vista and Douglas are included in the title since they
are the principal cities that meet the criteria for establishing Cochise County
as a micropolitan statistical area.To qualify as a micropolitan statistical area, a
location must be economically integrated and have at least one urban area
with a population of at least 10,000, but less than 50,000.
Locations with an urban area having a population of at least 50,000 are
classified as metropolitan statistical areas. According to projections by the
Arizona Department of Commerce, Cochise County will qualify as a
metropolitan statistical area in 2011, when Sierra Vista’s population is
projected to reach 50,000.When this occurs, the Sierra Vista-Douglas
Micropolitan Statistical Area will become the Sierra Vista Metropolitan
Statistical Area.
The ACCRA Cost of Living Index data for Cochise County are collected by
the Cochise College Center for Economic Research and submitted quarterly to
the Council for Community and Economic Research for inclusion in the index.
Cochise County’s participation is sponsored by the Sierra Vista
Economic Development Foundation, which covers the cost of
data collection.
CONTINUED
LOCAL COST OF
LIVING BELOW
NATIONAL
AVERAGE IN
2009
On Feb.18,CER director Robert Car-
reira attended the “Complete Cen-
sus Count Committee” meeting at
the county complex in Bisbee.
On Feb. 24, CER director Robert
Carreira presented a lecture on
“The Great Recession” at the
Cochise College Douglas Campus
as part of the Cochise College Cen-
ter for Lifelong Learning’s Lunch
Lecture Series.
In 2009, the pace of decline in existing home sales in
Cochise County slowed considerably, and some areas of
the county saw improvement, according to data on the
Southeast Arizona Multiple Listing Service. Overall, home
sales countywide dropped 2.7 percent in 2009, following
declines of 20.7 percent in 2006, 10.6 percent in 2007, and
20 percent in 2008.The volume of homes sold throughout
Cochise County in 2009 was 44.8 percent below the housing
market peak reached in 2005.
Although home sales overall were down in 2009, the annual decline
was due to slow sales in the first half of the year. In the first 6 months of 2009,
sales were down 9.1 percent compared to the first half of 2008. However, the
second half of the year saw sales climb 3.4 percent compared to the second
half of 2008. Even more promising, sales in the fourth quarter of 2009 were
23.9 percent higher than in the fourth quarter of 2008. Much of that activity,
however, was due to a surge in sales as the new homebuyer tax credit was
scheduled to expire in November.The credit was later extended through April
of this year.
While annual home sales were down countywide in 2009, sales in Sierra
Vista were up 4.1 percent. Sierra Vista is the largest market in the county
accounting for nearly two-thirds of all home sales. As with the countywide
Housing
decline
slows,
improves in
some areas

SPRING 2010
8
T H E
trend, sales were much stronger in the second half of the year, particularly in
the fourth quarter. In the first half of 2009, sales in Sierra Vista were down 6.7
percent compared to the same period of 2008. In the second half of the year,
sales were up 15.6 percent and in the fourth quarter were up by 33 percent.
While Sierra Vista saw a rebound in existing home sales in 2009, other areas
of the county continued to struggle. Benson, Douglas, and Tombstone all saw
sales for the year fall more than 20 percent
compared to 2008. Huachuca City saw a
comparatively milder decline at 2
percent.
The median price of homes
sold countywide was down 0.8
percent in 2009, from $184,000
to $182,500.This includes site-
built, manufactured, and mobile
homes, as well as townhouses
and condominiums. From 2004
through 2007, the median price of
homes sold in Cochise County increased
39.4 percent, and since 2007 has fallen 6.4 percent.
Countywide, the average price per square foot (heated/cooled) for homes
sold in 2009 was down 4.1 percent, from $109.95 to $105.44.The price-per-
square-foot measure takes into account price differences based on home size.
The relatively larger decline in the average price per square foot suggests the
milder drop in the median price was due in part to larger homes being sold in
2009 than in 2008.
The average price per square foot for homes sold in Cochise County
increased 36.6 percent from 2004 to 2006, and since 2007 has fallen 12
percent.This suggests a larger drop in home values than revealed by the
median home price comparisons.
Countywide, the largest drop in home prices in 2009 was in Tombstone.The
median home price in Tombstone was down 47.7 percent in 2009,
from $131,000 to $68,500.The drop in the average price per
square foot was relatively milder at 21.6 percent,
suggesting much of the drop in the median price
was due to smaller homes being sold. Nonetheless,
the drop in home prices in Tombstone in 2009
was the largest in the county by both measures.
Part of the reason for the steeper price declines
in Tombstone was the city also saw higher
increases during the housing boom years. From
2004 to 2006, the median home price in Tombstone
increased by 67 percent, while countywide prices
increased only 37.6 percent.The average price per square
foot in Tombstone increased 82.4 percent from 2004 to 2006;
while countywide the increase was only 36.6 percent.
The silver lining in Tombstone’s declining housing market is that homes in
Tombstone are now at their most affordable level since before the housing
boom, which is good news for those looking to buy a home there. In 2009, the
median home price in Tombstone was the lowest in the county.The average
CER Services
The CER provides eco-
nomic and demographic in-
formation,analysis,and fore-
casting to help community
leaders in the public,private,
and nonprofit sectors make
informed decisions.The CER
hosts economic outlook
luncheons each year in Ben-
son,Bisbee,Douglas,and
Sierra Vista.The center also
produces four major publi-
cations annually as part of
its Cochise County Economic
Outlook Publication Series:
Benson Economic Outlook,
Bisbee Economic Outlook,
Douglas Economic Outlook,
and Sierra Vista Economic
Outlook.The CER director
serves on community proj-
ects,committees,and task
forces,providing technical
expertise in research
methodology and serving as
a community resource.The
CER also prepares weekly
press releases that are pub-
lished in newspapers coun-
tywide providing insight
into issues affecting Cochise
County.The CER also pro-
duces the Cochise County
Economic Update,a biweekly
compilation of links to on-
line newspaper articles rele-
vant to the local economy,
which is emailed to every-
one on the CER’s distribution
list.The CER’s website
(www.cochise.edu/cer) pro-
vides economic news,infor-
mation,analyses,forecasts,
and studies.In addition,the
CER is a state data center af-
filiate,receiving and dissemi-
nating U.S.Census Bureau
data to users at no charge or
on a cost-recovery or reim-
bursable basis.
CONTINUED
HOUSING
DECLINE
SLOWS,
IMPROVES IN
SOME AREAS

SPRING 2010
9
T H E
In March, the CER’s official Face-
book group reached 330 members.
To follow the CER on Facebook,log-
in at www.facebook.com and type
‘Cochise College Center for Eco-
nomic Research’ in the Facebook
search box.
CONTINUED
HOUSING
DECLINE
SLOWS,
IMPROVES IN
SOME AREAS
price per square foot was lower only in Douglas.
Countywide, homes that sold in 2009 went for 95.3 percent of the asking
price, which was virtually unchanged from 2008.The area with the highest
selling-to-asking price ratio was Benson, where the average home sold for 97
percent of the asking price.The lowest was Tombstone at 85.1 percent.
The average home that sold countywide in 2009 was on the market for 149
days, down only slightly from 151 in 2008. Homes sold the quickest in Sierra
Vista at 137 days.The slowest selling homes in 2009 were in Bisbee where it
took an average of 230 days.
Center for Economic
Research Staff
Robert Carreira, Ph.D.
Director
Iris Routhieaux
Information Specialist
Roy Bever
Administrative Assistant,Sr.
Daniel Chung
Office Assistant
The inflation factor
Now that most economists agree the recovery is underway, although it will
likely be a slow and painful one, talk about inflation is once again emerging.
Recessions and inflation tend to be opposite concerns—that is, when one’s a
problem the other usually is not.That’s because most inflation tends to be
what economists call demand-pull inflation. In short, this means too many
dollars chasing too few goods.
We often think of money as having its own intrinsic value, but the
fact is it doesn’t.The value of money depends on the goods and
services it’ll buy. Consider this thought experiment: Suppose I
created my own nation on a desert island.Then, I decided to print
my own currency.Who would want it? The answer is it would
depend on what it could buy.
Let’s suppose now I produced two coconuts in a single year, and I printed
two one-dollar bills (not U.S. dollars—but Isle of Robert dollars). So two
coconuts are my production, and two Isle of Robert dollars are my money
supply. How much would each coconut cost? If you answered one dollar, you
are correct.
Let’s suppose now that the next year I decided to increase the money
supply to four one-dollar bills, but my production remained the same—two
coconuts. Now how much would each coconut cost? If you answered two
…SUPPOSE I
CREATED MY OWN
NATION ON A DESERT
ISLAND. THEN, I DECIDED
TO PRINT MY OWN
CURRENCY. WHO WOULD
WANT IT?
Annual Annual Average Average Annual Average
Change Median Median Sold/Ask Price per Average Price Days on
Area Volume in Volume Price Price Change Price Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Change Market
Cochise County 1,090 -2.7% $182,500 -0.8% 95.3% $105.44 -4.1% 149
NW Cochise County 35 -30.0% $175,000 9.4% 95.6% $92.96 -6.7% 159
SW Cochise County 894 1.5% $191,000 -4.5% 96.0% $109.89 -9.9% 143
NE Cochise County 7 -53.3% $115,000 4.5% 90.6% $94.04 16.0% 198
SE Cochise County 153 -15.9% $100,000 -2.4% 91.6% $82.31 0.7% 184
Benson 29 -25.6% $175,940 7.9% 97.0% $90.25 -14.6% 157
Bisbee 54 -22.9% $115,000 -4.2% 90.2% $106.98 -2.0% 230
Douglas 79 -22.5% $99,000 10.3% 93.0% $68.02 4.7% 157
Huachuca City 49 -2.0% $127,000 -3.6% 96.6% $92.17 1.5% 162
Sierra Vista 714 4.1% $195,722 -5.2% 96.4% $112.93 -9.9% 137
Tombstone 20 -23.1% $68,500 -47.7% 85.1% $76.12 -21.6% 147
Note: Includes site-built, manufactured, and mobile homes, as well as townhouses and condominiums. Includes only those homes
listed on the Southeast Arizona Multiple Listing Service. Home sales in Benson, Willcox, and Northern Cochise County are
underrepresented due to many realtors in those areas listing properties exclusively on the Tucson Areas MLS or other listing
services. Source: Southeast Arizona Multiple Listing Service and Cochise College Center for Economic Research.
Cochise County Home Sales, 2009

SPRING 2010
10
T H E
dollars, you are correct.
That is inflation.We normally think of inflation as an increase in prices,
because that’s what we see. In our example, the price of coconuts increased
from one to two dollars.The more technical definition is an increase in the
money supply that is greater than an increase in production. Remember—the
value of money is determined by what it will buy. If I had increased my money
supply to four one-dollar bills, and increased my output to four coconuts, then
the price would not have changed. Four one-dollar bills and four coconuts
means one dollar per coconut.
The main job of the U.S. Federal Reserve is to ensure our dollars don’t
increase appreciably faster than our coconuts—that is, that
increases in the money supply are in line with increases in
production.They generally aim to have the money supply
increase at a rate of about 2 to 3 percent faster than
production because this encourages businesses to
expand production. If they aimed for zero percent
inflation, they’d run the risk of deflation—or prices going
down—if not all the money was spent. Declining prices
discourage businesses from expanding production, which
means less job creation.
The Fed uses monetary policies to help fight recessions or
inflation. During recessions, the Fed typically increases the money
supply at a faster rate than production in the hopes that the increased
money will lead to higher levels of spending, which in turn will lead to higher
production and job gains. During periods of high inflation, the Fed restricts
the money supply to correct for the problem of too many dollars chasing too
few goods. Unlike the Isle of Robert coconut dollars, the money supply the
Fed monitors includes not only currency but short and long-term deposits
and the availability of credit.
During the Great Recession of 2007-2009, the Fed implemented an
unprecedented increase in the supply of money.To lower the federal funds
rate (the interest rate banks charge each other for overnight loans to meet
their federal funds requirements) from 5.25 to effectively zero percent, the Fed
purchased securities from the banks pushing $300 billion into the banking
system.They also purchased $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities—
CONTINUED
THE
INFLATION
FACTOR
Are you a CER
sponsor?
If you have not made your
tax-deductible
contribution to the CER,
and wish to do so, please
contact our office, or use
the enclosed pledge form
to sponsor.
PLATINUM
$5,000
GOLD
$2,000
SILVER
$1,000
BRONZE
$500
INDIVIDUAL
$100
FRIEND OF THE CER
UNDER $100
To find out more about
becoming a CER sponsor
and the benefits
associated with each level
of sponsorship,
please contact us or refer
to the enclosed
sponsorship form.
As an auxiliary department
of Cochise College, the CER
is charged with raising its
own operating budget,
independent of the
college’s budget, through
sponsorships, gifts,
donations, contract
research, and other
sources.
THANKYOUTO ALLWHO
HAVE SUPPORTEDTHE CER.

SPRING 2010
11
T H E
again, this is money pushed into the banking system increasing the supply of
money.They also purchased about $175 billion in agency debt.These actions
were designed to increase the flow of credit; however, many of the banks
simply horded the money still wary of the risks of lending.
Since the beginning of the crisis, the amount of bank reserves has
increased by about 150 percent. Moreover, the amount of
money in circulation has increased by more than 25
percent. All the while, production had been
down—so we’ve been producing more dollars
and fewer coconuts.
Here’s the problem: As the economy
recovers, all that money that was pushed
into the banking system is still there. As
banks begin to feel better about lending,
there is a danger that all the excess money will
be loaned, while at the same time people will
begin spending the money currently in circulation,
resulting in the inflationary problem of too many dollars
chasing too few goods, which drives up prices.
To stave off inflation, the Fed will need to withdraw this money from the
financial system.There are a few tools available to accomplish this. One is they
can sell the previously purchased treasury and mortgage-backed securities
back to the banks—so money flows from the banks to the Fed. Another tool at
the Fed’s disposal is the reserve ratio—the Fed can require banks to keep a
larger portion of their checkable deposits either in the vault or on balance
with the Fed.
In any case, the amount of money that will need to be withdrawn is
unprecedented and it will take careful and precise action to withdraw it
properly. If withdrawn too quickly, it’ll dampen the economic recovery. If the
Fed moves too slowly, inflation will be a problem. And with the amount of
money that needs to be withdrawn, inflation could become a big problem.
CONTINUED
THE
INFLATION
FACTOR
Contact the Center for
Economic Research:
Cochise College
Center for Economic Research
901 North Colombo Ave.
Sierra Vista,AZ 85635
Phone 520-515-5486
Fax 520-515-5343
www.cochise.edu/cer
cer@cochise.edu
Sierra Vista Economic Outlook
On Apr. 8, the Cochise College Center for Economic Research hosted the 16th
Annual Sierra Vista Economic Outlook Luncheon at the Windemere Hotel and
Conference Center.The following is a condensed version of the economic
outlook presentation.
The big question these days is whether the recession is over. And the
answer is probably. But that doesn’t mean everything’s back to where it was
before the recession started.There’s still what’ll probably be a long slow
recovery ahead.
A recession is a decline in economic activity, or Gross Domestic Product,
which is the value of all goods and services produced in the economy. GDP
was down in 5 of 6 quarters from the beginning of 2008 through the first half
of 2009, but was up 2.2 and 5.6 percent, respectively, in the third and fourth
quarters of 2009. If that sustains, then the recession is probably over.The
recent growth, however, is due largely to government stimulus efforts, so the

SPRING 2010
12
T H E
big question is whether it’ll continue once those efforts are withdrawn.
Most indicators point to an improving economy.The stock market is up
and the price of treasuries is falling—a sign of investor confidence. Oil and
copper are trading at their highest levels in more than 18 months. In March,
the U.S. service sector grew at the fastest pace since May 2006. In February,
pending home sales saw strong growth. Consumer spending has been up for
5 straight months, and consumer confidence is up, though it’s still not where
we’d like it to be.
Toyota and Ford’s U.S. sales were up more than 40 percent in March, and
GM saw a 40 percent increase in sales for its lines that aren’t being
discontinued. Manufacturing is booming and has been up for 6 consecutive
months. In March, U.S. factories saw their best month in nearly 6 years. Private-
sector hiring was up in March for the fourth time
in 5 months, and the unemployment rate
seems to have stabilized. March saw
162,000 new jobs created, the
biggest one-month gain in the
past 3 years, but a lot of that
was due to census workers.
But it’s not all good news
nationally. New construction
is still struggling nationwide
and unemployment remains
high and isn’t likely to come
down appreciably until next year.
Locally, monthly retail sales
growth was mostly negative last year but
began to turn around in the fourth quarter.
Overall, retail sales in Sierra Vista were down 1.4 percent last year, while sales
at the county level were down 3.2 percent, after adjusting for inflation. In
January this year, sales were up 15.6 percent in Sierra Vista and 3 percent
countywide, continuing an upward trend that began in the fourth quarter of
last year.
Restaurant and bar sales in Sierra Vista were up 2.1 percent last year, and
were up 0.3 percent at the county level. In January, however, sales were down
6.8 percent in Sierra Vista and 15.4 percent countywide continuing a
downward trend that began in the closing months of last year.
Accommodation sales, which include hotel, motel, and other temporary
lodging stays of less than 30 days, were down 2 percent last year in Sierra
Vista and 9 percent countywide.
We can expect to see growth in retail sales at both the county and city level
this year.The National Association of Retailers is predicting about 2.5 percent
growth nationwide, and that seems to be a reasonable prediction for the local
area as well, although there are still many uncertainties.
There’s been a recent downward trend in local restaurant and bar sales but
that should change as consumer confidence improves this year.The downward
trend in accommodation receipts seems likely to continue, especially at the city
level coming off 2 years of strong growth in 2007 and 2008.
Since the recession began, unemployment at the state and national levels
has increased much more sharply than at the county level. Cochise County
CONTINUED
SIERRA VISTA
ECONOMIC
OUTLOOK
On Mar 4, CER director Robert Car-
reira spoke to the Cochise County
Women’s Council of Realtors about
the outlook for the local, state, and
national economies.
On Mar. 8, CER director Robert Car-
reira gave a presentation to the
Willcox School Board’s planning
committee on demographic infor-
mation available to assist in the
planning process.
On Mar. 12, CER director Robert
Carreira was a guest reader at Val-
ley View Elementary School as part
of the school’s “Reading Week” ac-
tivities.

SPRING 2010
13
T H E
has had the lowest unemployment rate of Arizona’s 15 counties since May of
last year.
National unemployment has leveled off at about 9.7 percent. Arizona’s
unemployment rate declined somewhat in the second half of last year, but
saw an uptick from January to February and now sits at 9.5 percent. Cochise
County saw a severe uptick in February, with the unemployment rate jumping
from 7.3 to 8.3 percent—but still the lowest in the state.
Although the recession began in December 2007, Cochise County didn’t
begin losing jobs until January 2009. If recent
trends continue, job losses will persist
through about June of this year, with
growth in the second half.
Although new home permits
countywide were down 11.6
percent last year, compared to
2008, the decline was isolated
to the first half of the year.
Permits in the first half of 2009
were down 43.8 percent
compared to the first half of
2008. In the second half of the
year, permits were up 60 percent
compared to the same period a year prior.
In Sierra Vista, new home permits were actually
up 11.8 percent in 2008 and were down only 1 percent last year. In the first
quarter of this year, new home permits in the city were more than double the
number from the first quarter of last year.
Countywide, the number of new home permits in 2009 was down 68
percent from the peak in 2005. In Sierra Vista, the bottom of the market was
2007 with permits down by nearly 75 percent from the peak in 2004.
At the county level, new residential construction seems to be on a path of
recovery.The strong increase in the second half of last year seems likely to
continue. At the city level, new home
construction in Sierra Vista seems to be
on a solid path of recovery.
Countywide, existing home
sales were down 1.9 percent
last year and 4.7 percent in
January and February of this
year.The picture was
different in the Sierra Vista
area (Sierra Vista, Huachuca
City,Tombstone,Whetstone,
Hereford, and Palominas) with
sales up 1.5 percent last year and
4.2 percent in January and
February.
The local area saw significant home price
increases from 2004 through 2007, but since then prices have come down
moderately. In the first 2 months of 2010, the countywide median home price
CONTINUED
SIERRA VISTA
ECONOMIC
OUTLOOK
Carreira participated in the quar-
terly meeting of Freeport-Mc-
MoRan’s Bisbee Community Part-
nership Panel.
Carreira participated in the Cochise
County Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy (CEDS)
committee meeting hosted by the
SouthEastern Arizona Govern-
ments Organization (SEAGO).
On April 2,CER director Robert Car-
reira hosted The Friday Report on
KTAN 1420 AM. Dr. Carreira’s guest
was Kevin Rasch,project director of
the upcoming Solar Park in Benson.
Topics included the solar park proj-
ect, the recently established Solar
Park Foundation, the foundation’s
small business center in Benson,
and the economics of solar and
other renewable energy.

SPRING 2010
14
T H E
MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
UNITED STATES UNEMP.RATE (SA) 8.6% 8.9% 9.4% 9.5% 9.4% 9.7% 9.8% 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7%
ARIZONA LABOR FORCE* 3,130.3 3,135.8 3,134.1 3,155.2 3,160.0 3,149.4 3,147.3 3,145.6 3,145.8 3,128.3 3,138.2 3,156.0 3,157.4
UNEMPLOYMENT* 271.5 264.9 278.7 303.7 312.3 306.6 301.1 297.2 279.3 276.0 305.3 308.5 296.4
UNEMP.RATE 8.7% 8.4% 8.9% 9.6% 9.9% 9.7% 9.6% 9.4% 8.9% 8.8% 9.7% 9.8% 9.4%
UNEMP.RATE (SA) 8.7% 9.0% 9.2% 9.3% 9.4% 9.5% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 9.2% 9.5% 9.6%
EMPLOYMENT* 2,858.8 2,870.9 2,855.4 2,851.5 2,847.8 2,842.7 2,846.2 2,848.4 2,866.4 2,852.4 2,832.9 2,847.6 2,861.0
COCHISE COUNTY LABOR FORCE 62,475 62,400 62,725 64,350 64,400 64,375 63,900 63,525 63,400 62,975 63,575 63,375 63,175
UNEMPLOYMENT 4,600 4,300 4,400 5,025 5,025 4,825 4,825 4,700 4,500 4,525 5,100 5,325 5,075
UNEMP.RATE 7.4% 6.9% 7.0% 7.8% 7.8% 7.5% 7.6% 7.4% 7.1% 7.2% 8.0% 8.4% 8.0%
UNEMP.RATE (SA) 7.5% 7.4% 7.6% 7.7% 7.3% 7.4% 7.6% 7.5% 7.3% 7.1% 7.3% 8.3% 8.2%
EMPLOYMENT 57,875 58,100 58,325 59,325 59,400 59,550 59,075 58,825 58,900 58,450 58,475 58,050 58,100
BENSON LABOR FORCE 2,643 2,630 2,647 2,733 2,735 2,728 2,708 2,689 2,678 2,661 2,704 2,705 2,687
EMPLOYMENT 2,303 2,312 2,321 2,360 2,363 2,370 2,350 2,341 2,344 2,326 2,327 2,310 2,312
UNEMPLOYMENT 340 318 326 373 372 358 358 348 334 335 377 395 375
UNEMP.RATE 12.9% 12.1% 12.3% 13.6% 13.6% 13.1% 13.2% 12.9% 12.5% 12.6% 13.9% 14.6% 14.0%
UNEMP.RATE (SA) 13.1% 13.0% 13.4% 13.4% 12.7% 12.9% 13.2% 13.1% 12.9% 12.4% 12.7% 14.4% 14.4%
BISBEE LABOR FORCE 3,619 3,612 3,632 3,730 3,733 3,730 3,702 3,681 3,672 3,647 3,685 3,676 3,662
EMPLOYMENT 3,325 3,338 3,351 3,408 3,412 3,421 3,393 3,380 3,384 3,358 3,359 3,335 3,338
UNEMPLOYMENT 294 274 281 322 321 309 309 301 288 289 326 341 324
UNEMP.RATE 8.1% 7.6% 7.7% 8.6% 8.6% 8.3% 8.3% 8.2% 7.8% 7.9% 8.8% 9.3% 8.8%
UNEMP.RATE (SA) 8.2% 8.2% 8.4% 8.5% 8.0% 8.2% 8.3% 8.3% 8.0% 7.8% 8.0% 9.2% 9.0%
DOUGLAS LABOR FORCE 6,754 6,728 6,770 6,975 6,981 6,967 6,916 6,871 6,847 6,802 6,899 6,893 6,855
EMPLOYMENT 5,996 6,020 6,044 6,145 6,153 6,169 6,119 6,096 6,103 6,056 6,058 6,014 6,020
UNEMPLOYMENT 758 708 726 830 828 798 797 775 744 746 841 879 835
UNEMP.RATE 11.2% 10.5% 10.7% 11.9% 11.9% 11.5% 11.5% 11.3% 10.9% 11.0% 12.2% 12.8% 12.2%
UNEMP.RATE (SA) 11.4% 11.3% 11.6% 11.7% 11.1% 11.3% 11.5% 11.5% 11.2% 10.8% 11.1% 12.6% 12.5%
HUACHUCA CITY LABOR FORCE 1,021 1,018 1,024 1,055 1,055 1,053 1,046 1,039 1,035 1,029 1,042 1,042 1,036
EMPLOYMENT 913 917 920 936 937 939 932 928 929 922 922 916 917
UNEMPLOYMENT 108 101 104 119 118 114 114 111 106 107 120 126 119
UNEMP.RATE 10.6% 9.9% 10.2% 11.3% 11.2% 10.8% 10.9% 10.7% 10.2% 10.4% 11.5% 12.1% 11.5%
UNEMP.RATE (SA) 10.7% 10.6% 11.1% 11.2% 10.5% 10.7% 10.9% 10.8% 10.5% 10.3% 10.5% 12.0% 11.8%
SIERRA VISTA LABOR FORCE 19,497 19,512 19,605 20,042 20,062 20,079 19,922 19,824 19,809 19,667 19,782 19,688 19,657
EMPLOYMENT 18,630 18,703 18,776 19,093 19,116 19,167 19,011 18,938 18,959 18,814 18,821 18,683 18,702
UNEMPLOYMENT 867 809 829 949 946 912 911 886 850 853 961 1,005 955
UNEMP.RATE 4.4% 4.1% 4.2% 4.7% 4.7% 4.5% 4.6% 4.5% 4.3% 4.3% 4.9% 5.1% 4.9%
UNEMP.RATE (SA) 4.5% 4.4% 4.6% 4.6% 4.4% 4.4% 4.6% 4.6% 4.4% 4.2% 4.5% 5.0% 5.0%
TOMBSTONE LABOR FORCE 932 932 937 959 960 960 953 947 948 941 946 942 940
EMPLOYMENT 886 889 893 908 909 911 904 900 902 895 895 888 889
UNEMPLOYMENT 46 43 44 51 51 49 49 47 46 46 51 54 51
UNEMP.RATE 4.9% 4.6% 4.7% 5.3% 5.3% 5.1% 5.1% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 5.4% 5.7% 5.4%
UNEMP.RATE (SA) 5.0% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2% 5.0% 5.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.0% 4.8% 4.9% 5.6% 5.5%
WILLCOX LABOR FORCE 2,085 2,078 2,090 2,153 2,155 2,151 2,135 2,121 2,114 2,100 2,129 2,128 2,117
EMPLOYMENT 1,853 1,861 1,868 1,899 1,902 1,907 1,891 1,884 1,886 1,872 1,872 1,859 1,861
UNEMPLOYMENT 232 217 222 254 253 244 244 237 228 228 257 269 256
UNEMP.RATE 11.1% 10.4% 10.6% 11.8% 11.7% 11.3% 11.4% 11.2% 10.8% 10.9% 12.1% 12.6% 12.1%
UNEMP.RATE (SA) 11.3% 11.2% 11.5% 11.6% 11.0% 11.1% 11.4% 11.4% 11.1% 10.7% 11.0% 12.5% 12.4%
SA = Seasonally Adjusted *Data in thousands.Source:The State of Arizona Department of Commerce,Research Administration (DES/RA),Arizona
Workforce Informer website, www.workforce.az.gov, and Cochise College Center for Economic Research. Determined by monthly household
surveys in the LAUS program. County estimates are independently calculated. Sub-county figures are calculated by DES using a census share
methodology;sub-county SA rates calculated by the Cochise College Center for Economic Research.Employment and unemployment estimates
for cities,towns,and areas are a fixed ratio,derived from the 2000 Census of the county figures.Note:In cases where the year-end average does
not equal the average of the 12 months shown,or when seasonally adjusted averages do not equal unadjusted averages,discrepancies are due
to rounding.
2009-2010 Cochise County Employment and Unemployment Statistics
of $171,000 was still 22 percent higher than in 2004. In the Sierra Vista area it
was $181,000, about 20 percent higher than 2004.
Existing home sales seem to have bottomed out at both the city and
county levels. Home prices should continue to hold, though another moderate
decline can’t be ruled out. Locally, we’re not likely to see the same steep drops
that the rest of the state and much of the nation have seen, with the worst of
the downturn seemingly behind us.
Although commercial construction in Sierra Vista has been down since
peaking in 2006, it remains high from an historical perspective. Last year there
were 15 new projects that totaled nearly $45 million. With several major
projects on the horizon it seems that’s likely to continue.
CONTINUED
SIERRA VISTA
ECONOMIC
OUTLOOK
On April 8,the CER hosted the 16th
Annual Sierra Vista Economic Out-
look Luncheon at the Windemere
Hotel and Conference Center.

COCHISE COLLEGE
economic
outlook
luncheon
2010
• An Economic Overview of Benson
• Thursday, June10, 11:30 a.m. Doors open at 11 a.m.
• Dining Auditorium, Benson Unified School District
360 S. Patagonia Street, Benson, AZ
Speakers:
NEWLOCATION!
CochiseCollegeCenterforEconomicResearch
13thAnnualBensonEconomicOutlookLuncheon BENSON
BENSON ECONOMIC OUTLOOK LUNCHEON 2010 REGISTRATION FORM
NEB NSOCochiseCollegeCenterforEconomicResearch
OcimonocEnA•
June10,Thursday,•
13thAnnualBensonEconomicOutlookLuncheon
nosneBfoweivrev
neposrooD.m.a03:11June10,
.m.a11tan
economic
N13thAnnualBensonEconomicOutlookLuncheon EB
economic
NSO
irotiduAgniniD•
nogataP.S063
gleolhise Ccohe CT
usiness and cr bon ffooheuncl
am wrgorhe pTlic.pub
n the ecus ooith a ffow
koutloonomic OcE pub,
ohcSdefiinUnosneB,mui
ZA,nosneB,teertSain
h wcesearmic RResearnoor Ecor ffoentee Cg
udsts,redy leaunitmmousiness and c
thff the natw oievreve an oidvorl pilam w
es wendettAn.nsoeBff By ommy onoocn the e
or Ecor ffoentey the Cd blishepub
cast oerow and ffoievees a ridvorp
fo hourf
tcirtsiDloo
oktlomic ounoocl host an eilh w
rneethe gff the gs oremband ments,eud
nooccal eand loe,statnal,iothe nat
the 2010ff the 2010y opoe a cviecel riles w B
niolicathe pubTh.cesearmic Reno
ificattreC.yy.mnooccal ethe loff the locast o
ffdnal ef
TION!AOCCAWLNE economic
outlook
luncheon
alr
,yy,mmyno
onnseB
n
esificat
d in
TION! economic
outlook
luncheon
.H.DP,ARIARRECTBEROR
uing pinntocff cs oo hourr twoffo
aeas:ing arwloolthe ffolff the fh ocea
e.eal estatr
Speakers:
.h.DPa,irerart CreboR Dir,, Dir
vee a ridvol prilwh,, wcesearR
earming yor the cocast ffoeroa ffo
hols,icnn NleG y Mitn CnsoeB
od prnt and planneern curo
erefffee on arioucatdnal eessioffessiooruing p
and,financial planning,ingountcca
micnoor Ecor ffoentethe Cff the Cr ootceDir
ymmy andnoocs eear’the past yff the past yw oiev
.ear
ntatesee a prviivl gilw,reanagy M
.yy.ithin the citts wcjeo
luncheon
2010
d ine
and
mic
y and
niontat
luncheon
2010
HOLSCINNNEGL
Al
ostC $315 fn,sorer peis $45 p
e-pan and prioatristgee-rrP
nsioatvreseRRese d betpecce aar
VroFfax at (520) 515-5343.
nts,meyess® paayrxpican ErmeA
l meals arlA(520) 515-5486.
y rtarcial dieer spy othee anar
.yy.essarcne
ht.igght.ing ele seatr a tabo5 ffo
d.euirqee rnt armeyaay
dhise.ecor@cemail at cey mail,d b
r®,evveoiscDd®,arrCeastMisa®,VVisa®,
lr calw oloem brouse ffonts,
te iff theplease indicatian;taregee vvel meals ar
nsiodatmmooccr ans oioticresty r HISE COLLEGECCO
rou,d
ro
erthe
ns HISE COLLEGE
vreser roline ffoadeD
MIONCON ESONEB
ame:N
ame:NusinessB
ess:ddrAailingM
elephone:TTelephone:
2010une 3,Jns:ioatvvat
N 2010 REOHCNUK LUTLOOOCMI ORN FOISTRATGIEN 2010 R
t:enerdiffif,ttaconcoftoinP
:yitC
editcrymbillleaseP
MOR
e:ttaS
d:arc M/CVIAMEX
accanneedingoneynA
taconcshouldendttaot
515-5337(520),efficO
SA
ip:Z
VEROSCDI
derorintiondaommoacc
esvicerSyisabilitDthettac
.eancvadinhours72leastta515-5337
elephone:
Email:
eveserR
eveserR
$tseaa$45tat(s)sea
$$315teighorftable(s)
otalTTotal $
y
)NTIEASE PR(PLARDCNOAMEN
AC #RD
ARDR CFOADDRESSGNBILLI
NSIG TAAT REU
NIOTAATRIXPE
PZI
pacheckseakM
ollegeCchiseoC
egistrrmailleaseP
ollegeCchiseoC
oolombCN.901
izrAista,VarierS
o:tableypa
CERollege
o:ttymenpawithmorftionaegistr
chesearRonomiccEorfertenCollege
.evAo
85635onaiz

T H E
Center for Economic Research
SPONSOR FORM
PLATINUM $5,000
• Recognition of sponsoring organization in
all sponsored luncheon ads and press
releases
• A five-minute introduction from the
podium by representative of the
sponsoring organization
• Recognition in the Economic Outlook
publication
• Recognition on the projection screen at
the luncheon
• Recognition of sponsoring organization
from the podium at the luncheon
• Reserved table at the luncheon with
sponsorship designation on the table
• 6-foot table provided to set up
organizational display
• Copy of the Economic Outlook
presentation on DVD
• Inclusion of organizational brochure in Eco-
nomic Outlook publication at the luncheon
GOLD $2,000
publication
the luncheon
• 6-foot table provided to set up
organizational display
presentation on DVD
• Inclusion of organizational brochure in
Economic Outlook publication at the
luncheon
SILVER $1,000
publication
the luncheon
presentation on DVD
BRONZE $500
publication
the luncheon
• Two complimentary general seating seats
at the luncheon
INDIVIDUAL $100
publication
• One complimentary general seating seat
at the luncheon
FRIEND OF THE CER UNDER $100
publication
Please detach and return form below to: Cochise College – CER
901 North Colombo Avenue • Sierra Vista, AZ 85635-2317
Please select your sponsor level:
Platinum Gold Silver Bronze Individual Friend of the CER
Please select the luncheon you will be sponsoring:
Benson (June 2010) Douglas (September 2010) Bisbee (December 2010) Sierra Vista (April 2011)
Publication Information
Please list exactly as you would like the information listed in the publication (please print)
Name _____________________________________________________________
Address ___________________________________________________________
City _______________________________ State ______ Zip_________________
Phone ( ______ )_________________ Fax ( ______ ) _______________________
Website ___________________________________________________________
Please email a digital logo to cer@cochise.edu if you are sponsoring at the Bronze level or
higher. Point of Contact Information (will not be listed in publication)
Name ____________________________ Phone ( ______ ) __________________
Email___________________________ Fax ( ______ ) __________________
Billing Information
Check enclosed (Make checks payable to Cochise College CER)
Bill my credit card
In the amount of $______________ AMEX VISA M/C DISCOVER
Name on card (please print)___________________________________________
Card # ____________________________________________________________
Exp. date __________________________________________________________
Billing Address _____________________________________________________
City _______________________________ State ______ Zip_________________
Signature__________________________________________________________
SPONSORING INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION

2010_Spring_Indicator

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to 2010_Spring_Indicator

Similar to 2010_Spring_Indicator (20)

2010_Spring_Indicator