All major apple producing states, except Michigan, have approved a proposal to increase funding to the U.S. Apple Association (USApple) so it can intensify its public relations program and bolster legislative and crisis communications efforts.

The Michigan Apple Committee (MAC) tabled discussion of the USApple proposal to double member contribution to the national organization over the next five years from four-tenths of a cent per bushel to eight-tenths at its Feb. 13 meeting.

MAC has indicated the board will not revisit the issue and cited three reasons for tabling the proposal.

“Each year’s fiscal budget needs to be reviewed and approved by then current boards, according to MAC’s Michigan Department of Agriculture ex-officio board member,” Tom Erwin, MAC chairman, noted in a letter announcing the decision to USApple.

“The board indicated that there is no room for additional funding for USApple from the Michigan Apple Committee’s current budget,” wrote Erwin. “Discussions among board members prior to and following the meeting confirmed that there was not enough sufficient support to approve the increase proposed. Nor was there support for a referendum to fund the increase,” wrote Erwin.

The New York Apple Association, Ohio Apple Operating Committee, Pennsylvania Apple Marketing Board, Washington Apple Commission and the California Apple Commission have all endorsed the funding increase proposal, according to USApple.

“They have all endorsed it and our board will determine, based on the input we’ve received from these groups, whether to proceed forward with the funding proposal at our board meeting February 22-24,” said Kraig Naasz, USApple president.

USApple plans to use the revenue from the funding proposal to continue to fully support the nutrition research and promotion efforts it is undertaking in partnership with the Processed Apple Institute, which is a $250,000-a-year program, according to Naasz.

“The funding increase would allow us to restore the position of government affairs director which was lost to earlier budget cuts, so that we can maintain and enhance our government affairs efforts,” said Naasz. “It would also provide us with funding to maintain and enhance our crisis communication capabilities. The proposal was crafted by a strategic planning committee put in place, which include representatives from all of the groups mentioned, with the exception of Ohio,” said Naasz.

“Mark Arney, for example, was the representative of the Michigan apple industry on the strategic planning committee that came up with the proposal. What our board decided to do at our most recent board meeting was to distribute the proposal to all of our state and regional organizations to seek their input as to whether or not we should proceed. Most of the major state producer organizations have indicated their support for it. The board will take the decisions into account at its meeting when deciding whether or not to proceed forward.”

Arney, MAC secretary-manager said his board suggested several other options for USApple to find more money. These suggestions included pursuing grants, securing a grant writer, pursuit of a membership drive and funds from the U.S. Farm Bill.

Arney stressed that the tabling was not an indication of a lack of support for USApple.

“I support and I feel that the board supports the mission of the U.S. Apple Association,” Arney said. “They have done a lot of good things for our growers, and we can’t let that be down played. This decision doesn’t mean that we don’t support USApple. It is just that we have problems coming up with the funding from our existing budget. The other thing to remember to tell our growers is that we are already sending USApple $100,000 and that is a significant portion of our budget.”

MAC’s annual budget stands at $1.6 million, according to Arney. USApple’s last assessment increase occurred in 1988.
USApple committee representation is related to regional support.

“Our board representation and our committee representation is determined based on the level of support we get from each of the regions,” said Naasz. “Obviously, the support has an influence on decisions made by the organization.”

According to Naasz, about 75% of the association’s $1.2 million annual budget comes from 40 state and regional association members. Members are assessed on their fresh and processed production at a rate of four-tenths of a cent ($.004) per bushel. The remaining 25% of the budget comes from individual and corporate members.

A USApple task force recently recommended that the assessment rate be doubled during the next five years. The rate would increase to six and a half tenths ($.0065) at the start of the next fiscal year, on July 1, 2001. Then, the increase would continue by increments of $.0005 each year following, resulting in an eight-tenths of a cent total increase by 2004. The assessment is paid on five-year average production.

Public affairs issues that USApple is currently working on include: ensuring the enforcement of the anti-dumping rulings against Chinese apple concentrate; delay of Chinese apple imports; maintaining adequate pest control tools in the face of changing regulations; reform of the H-2A guest worker program to improve labor supply; expanded exports; cumbersome, unscientific food safety regulations; and government financial assistance for the apple industry.