North Carolina Meeting Notes

Checkoff – Marketing Order Study
North Carolina Meeting
June 17, 2008
Boone United Methodist Church

Attendance: 90

Presiding: Cline Church, NC National Board of Directors Member

The recommended outline for the meeting from the National Task Force was followed.

Board Membership Breakout Group: The consensus was for an odd number of board members – most liked the 9 member with three regions. The staggering of terms was recommended so that continuity would be there and three year terms were suggested. Imports should be included and have a member on board. This group also liked having a public director to maybe provide insight when there is a tough decision or have some advisors to the board from the public sector (this was the preference). They also felt that alternates should be in place to make sure representation is there from all regions. There should be a cap on administrative costs – 5% and 10% talked about. They wanted the board to be able to have the authority to enter into contracts with no restrictions placed on them.

Referenda Breakout Group: The first referendum should be delayed up to 3 years to see what it generates before a vote and they had no recommendation for subsequent referenda except to say they would be expensive – maybe every 5-6 years. Approval for an order should be by majority of those growers voting who represent the majority of the production. The voting for an order is recommended to be done by both mail and in person. ***The big talking point here was about the number of people who have not attended in NC and Michigan. Will they be able to see this before it goes to USDA? Will there be another meeting to go over what the task force writes into the order before it gets USDA approval and goes into effect? How can we get more growers to realize the importance of this or is their absence a statement? If the ones here today feel positive about this order, is there another opportunity for input or is this the final to go ahead? The people expressing these comments were invited to come to Des Moines in August and give input.

Exemptions Breakout Group: At what level is cost of collection/assessed amount at the breakeven point? Set minimum based on break even point. Suggested: 2000 trees or $50,000 sales. (Later, it was mentioned to even lower that number of trees.) There was consensus that wreaths and greenery not be included but could be voluntary. Research must be funded (first discussed a minimum 10% up to __% and then changed to have a range from 5% to 30% so that an immediate problem might be addressed). Research monies should be included and “research” needs to be defined. Multi-year research projects should be allowed with an annual review and money set aside for those projects. A multi-year project should not exceed three years and a cap on how much money for a multi-year project. To approve a multi-year research, the board vote should be 2/3 majority for the project.

Assessments Breakout Group: The consensus was to include imports in the assessment. Discussion held about first handler of the trees paying the assessment (many large growers purchase from smaller growers – capital gains discussed). Some did not want to pay per tree but most in the group did. Assessing at the seedling sale was mentioned but grower has no income until the product is sold. Is this a Christmas tree checkoff or a seedling checkoff? A no was given to seedling assessment – still much discussion. Hugh said an assessment could be made every time a tree is sold from seedling to market. But is it realistic for box stores to pay? The quick vote went for first handler paying the assessment and paying the same amount for all trees no matter size or grade. The majority voted for paying per tree not by gross sales. It was decided that states should get funds from the assessment. The board should also be allowed to raise rate within guidelines.

Other Comments after Meeting form some attending meeting but has further thoughts after going home:
One call that came to the NCCTA office after the meeting was to ask that the Task Force reconsider having the assessment made at the seedling producer time of sale. This would get both large and small growers and fewer collection points. (Does this mean that only seedling producers would vote in the referendum?) The suggestion was made to increase the price of seedlings going to line-out beds by $5 per hundred and the price of field-ready seedlings by $10 per hundred and then pass that increase along to the buyer.
Another call asked the Task Force to consider an assessment per acre for those growers not yet selling trees but have them in the ground. They also have a vested interest in marketing and promotion.

What NC did to prepare for the meeting:
Some members of the NC Task Force team have been to 3 meetings in counties to talk about a possible checkoff and have distributed materials at these meetings. There are three more planned during July and one more the last week of June. The NC office mailed 2200+ invitations and a map to the June 17 meeting. These were sent to NCCTA members, drop-out members, names on county ag lists, Virginia Christmas Tree Growers Assn, Mount Rogers Christmas Tree Growers Assn, the Eastern NC Christmas Tree Growers Assn, and e-mails went to SC and TN. The www.checkoffstudy.com site has been on the NC website (www.NCchristmastrees.com) for over a month. In addition many calls have been voluntarily made to some growers. The quarterly magazine of NCCTA (Limbs & Needles) had articles and the meeting date highlighted on the front cover. Much effort has gone in to awareness of the meeting and education about a checkoff.