[Because of the sensitivity of these discussions, and concerns that statements intended as inquiry or preliminary proposals might be interpreted otherwise, no effort is made to relate specific statements or ideas with individuals except for formal presentations. If you have questions about any portions of the meeting, we suggest that you contact a participant or Frank Dukes (804-824-2041).]

Welcome
Frank Dukes welcomed everyone to the sixth Southern Tobacco Communities Roundtable. He reviewed the agenda and noted that Karen Armstrong-Cummings was not able to come. He also offered a special welcome to Dallas Smith of the USDA. He asked people to share the limited time, as many have lots of information to share and thoughts to communicate. While confidentiality cannot be assured, he urged everyone to use discretion when sharing what is discussed during the meeting. He noted that there would be a summary of the meeting, but that in order to encourage open discussion we only attribute ideas to names when necessary for understanding.

Rebecca Reeve, Project Director of the Southern Tobacco Communities Project, welcomed everyone. She noted that we either have very good or very bad timing. It is - bad in the sense that there has been a substantial cut for the second year in a row in flue-cured quota for next year, a cut that one farmer called an "unnatural disaster." But the timing is good because there is a great and immediate need for collaborative planning and action. She hopes that we can share information with one another and determine together what we can do to make the best of what is a bad situation.
 

Understanding the Current Tobacco Farm Situation

Current Outlook for Tobacco Production
Tom Capehart, USDA
Tom Capehart, an economic analyst with the USDA, offered a review of several aspects of tobacco production and sales [see attachment for his full analysis]. Because of cutbacks, he is now the only tobacco analyst with the agency. He talked about the fundamentals of tobacco demand. American cigarettes today contain about 47% flu-cured, 40% burley, 1% Maryland, and 13% oriental (primarily imported from Turkey, Macedonia and a few other countries) tobacco. Domestic use for cigarettes represents about 62 percent of flue-cured use, and 48 percent of burley use (termed "disappearance").

Some $50.4 billion, or 94 percent of tobacco sales by value in 1997, are for cigarettes. U.S. consumption (2,423 pieces per person, the lowest in over 50 years) and exports both declined last year, with the 11% decline in exports reversing over a decade of nearly steady increases. Cigarette consumption is expected to continue declining for the next few years by about 2 percent annually. Rising prices, higher taxes, and greater regulation are expected to decrease consumption for the next few years by about 2% annually.

The Federal excise tax, 24 cents/pack since 1993, will rise by 10 cents/pack in 2000 and 5 cents/pack in 2002. Excise tax collections in 1997 totaled $5.9 billion at the federal level and $7.7 billion at the state level. State excise taxes have increased dramatically in the past few years; sixteen States currently impose taxes of 50 cents or more. The average state tax is 34.7 cents.

Prior to November of 1998, cigarette manufacturers had raised wholesale prices four times for a total increase of about 18 cents/pack, following 1997 increases of 12 cents/pack. The agreement reduced much of the uncertainty for manufacturers but has not yet resulted in a separate agreements to help growers. The price increase of 45 cents per pack, announced along with the agreement between the states and the companies, means cigarette prices increased 49 percent in 1998. Cigarette prices are expected to continue to increase. These price increases have not caused the discount share of total sales (27.5% in 1997) to rise.

1998 loan volume – the amount of marketed tobacco that did not meet the minimum purchase price – is expected to be about 82 million pounds, or about 10 percent of the crop, and somewhat less than half of last year’s nearly 200 million pounds.

Burley supplies are up by 4% with expected sales of 632 million pounds. Prices in the market are about the same as last year or slightly higher. 1999 burley quota will be announced February 1^st, with purchase intentions announced on January 15^th. It is expected that intentions will parallel those made for flue-cured tobacco.

Demand for tobacco in 1998/99 will likely be down due to lower export demand and declining domestic cigarette production.

For those interested in learning more, their internet site is www.Econ.ag.gov – go to "Tobacco Briefing Room." Mr. Capehart can also be reached by e-mail through the internet site.

Dallas Smith of USDA noted that even though the tariff above quota is quite high, about 500%, the companies are able to circumvent the tariff by importing foreign tobacco to create a finished product that is then exported. There is a higher amount of foreign-grown tobacco in domestically produced cigarettes than is commonly perceived. This import/export exception is not limited to tobacco, which means that it would be difficult to modify.

During general discussion, it was reported that the Flue-Cured Stabilization Board authorized a discount of up to 18% to sell the whole of the 1997 stocks. That offer was not accepted; negotiations eventually resulted in a combination of a 15% discount guaranteed only with continued purchases over the next several years, and some allowance for the leaf dealers to pick the grades of tobacco they desired.

It was affirmed that this sale did not encumber the no net-cost program to the point of needing an increase in the assessment used to pay for the program. Prior to 1982, if the tobacco were sold at a loss, the loan would have been forgiven at a cost to the taxpayers. The law changed in 1985 and a no net-cost assessment instituted that is split between the producer and purchaser. If tobacco that has been taken under loan has to be sold at a discount, then money is transferred from the no net-cost fund to cover the losses.

One participant noted that President Clinton has offered his support for the tobacco program. He wondered, given the two years of substantial quota cuts, whether there was an imminent threat to the price support program. In response, it was noted that a 33% cut, which some people thought possible, would have resulted in the farmers themselves voting the program out. Given the current situation, with the 18% cut, but also with a commitment by the companies to purchase into the future, there is some stability for the program.

There is a penalty if companies do not actually meet their purchase intentions, but participants argued that the penalty is too small to have much effect. If the penalty is too high, the companies will simply lower purchase intentions. If the companies do not live up to their purchase intentions, they will lose some of the discount allowed to them for the purchase of the 1997 stocks. If they lost their discount, they could still buy foreign tobacco to replace that which they would have bought otherwise, as long as that tobacco was for export.

The Roundtable participants discussed the impact of the two years of 17% and 18% cuts in flue-cured quota. A quick analogy is to say that you’ve lost 35% of your income, and any family would be hurting with that. A number of farmers have invested in capital equipment that they simply won’t be able to pay off with this cut in quota. Many farmers will simply be unable to stay in business.

There was considerable interest in how the market operates with just five companies, and five who are not equal in their buying power. When you look at similar situations – if they move from a concentrated focus on tobacco to a concentration on pork or something else – the situation is very serious. This is something that the President is concerned about and he is looking policy-wise to find ways to change the concentration issue. The farm economy overall is in bad shape, even when the rest of the economy is doing well. With the end of various support programs, farmers have lost their historical safety nets, and they are at risk in all commodities.

Status of Industry Proposals for Phase II of the Attorneys-General Settlement

Burley tobacco farmers are still selling their 1998 crop and will be through March. So they have to be careful about how these decisions continue to affect their sales. Prices are close to what they were last year. Perhaps 125 million pounds – a considerable amount – will go into the pool. About January 15 they’ll have to decide what they’re going to offer the companies. Some of this may be decided during the Dec. 18 meeting with the companies and state political leaders, or at least some things will be thrown out on the table. Burley producers are not in as great difficulty as flue-cured producers, because there’s not as much competition globally.

Their position all along in regards to a settlement has been the same: they don’t want the companies’ money as a gift. They want the companies to keep buying their tobacco. They don’t want to be the person on the street with the tin cup. There are some, however, who want to get out of growing tobacco, and for them the Phase II figure of about $5 billion would help, although it won’t be close to being able to pay $8 per pound of quota. They want stability – the same thing the companies have wanted.

Kentucky farm leadership met two weeks ago and came out with a resolution about the master settlement with the Attorneys-General that says that 50% of that master settlement should go into agriculture – not necessarily tobacco, and not necessarily to rural development. They say that because if tobacco producers do get relief under Phase II, then they need to help all of agriculture from Phase I. Agriculture is in a tough situation now everywhere, not just tobacco, and people need to be talking about national food policy.

There was some concern expressed that there would not be any negotiations in Phase II; the politicians will sit down on Dec. 18 with the companies in North Carolina, and an offer will be laid on the table, take it or leave it. Judge Carlton, the chief negotiator for the companies, has said that tobacco farmers will be involved, but there has been no involvement of farmers. Furthermore, R. J. Reynolds cannot afford to ante up money for this, or they will be put out of business. Some people believe that Phillip Morris is using their competitive advantage to create confusion out of the settlement to increase their market share and drive R. J. Reynolds out of business.

The only way to fairly compensate those who will be hurt by a reduction in quota, or to allow for those who want to get out to do so and receive fair compensation for their quota, is to get everyone working together. It cannot be done on a state-by-state basis. Each state has its own issues – how many of the producers own quota, how many rent, how many quota holders produce. If you look at differences among flue-cured states, and look at differences between flue-cured and burley states, there are unreconcilable issues and a unified approach on a state-by-state basis is impossible without substantially more money than has been suggested. Some people argue that the companies have known this, and have used this to try to create the confusion that is currently here.

Since its inception last March, the National Tobacco Growers Association has been attempting to unite growers and reach consensus on the issues. They represent state tobacco growers associations from all over the United States and for all makes of tobacco. The initial proposal for Phase II payments [$5.1 million to be split among the states] divided everybody. They tried to draw on the best of all other proposals, and have floated their proposal to all the parties involved. They have not received any outright rejections, but have received a lot of concerns. They feel that it is better to have a proposal on the table than none at all.

They suggest paying quota owners for quota using an average amount of the past 5 years (1994-98). This would enable a reduction in price by some 40 cents/lb. for flue-cured tobacco. The quota would be attached to the individual, not the farm, and could not be sold or rented. This kind of change in quota would have to be approved by Congress.

The price tag for this is about $14.29 billion with about $9 billion up front; however, the reduced price would mean eventual recovery of the up-front investment. This proposal would put the control in the hands of the producers and would allow new growers to enter the business. Funding would come from Phase II, as well as portions of Phase I money.

The proposal has been criticized as "asking for welfare" and "a demand from the growers." They believe that neither is true; rather, their idea is just a proposal put on the table for discussion.

Others options for the states were suggested. Some of the states, such as Indiana, could buy out all the quotas with their state settlement money and without requiring federal legislation. One participant argued that it is possible to take the limited moneys from Phase II and do some interesting things.
 

National Legislative Prospects

Potential Federal Farm Legislation,
Ridge Schuyler, legislative aid to Senator Robb
Mr. Schuyler observed that if there were sufficient funding to provide compensation for existing quota, a consensus along the lines of what was outlined earlier would be possible. He addressed several options that had been mentioned for national solutions to the decline of tobacco production and the harm that would cause for tobacco growing communities, including the following:

1. Increased excise tax – possible, but not very likely.

2. Industry payment – this would be hard to accomplish without industry support.

3. Master settlement, Phase I: any funding that actually is paid is going to the states rather than to any federal program.

4. Phase II: Originally proposed at $5.1 billion, R. J. Reynolds has announced that it doesn’t want to participate, so the suggested amount has gone down to $3.9 billion. That won’t be enough money for all states to accomplish their objectives. Kentucky and North Carolina, with their large numbers of growers, will not get enough of this money to pay asset holders for their quota.

During discussion, it was noted that the federal share of Medicaid costs varies by states; for instance, in Kentucky the portion is about 70%. One participant observed that even if the federal government doesn’t pursue any claim to the settlement funding, they could just decrease the percentage they currently contribute to a state for Medicaid and in effect negate the state settlement funding entirely.

It was also noted that as things now stand, any money coming to the states under Phase I can be used for any purpose. However, if the health and tobacco grower interests come together to create pressure to use this money for specific purposes, it would create a different dynamic.

Tom Friedman, Executive Branch
Mr. Friedman stated that he would very much like to continue the relationship with the participants in the Southern Tobacco Communities Project, as it has been very helpful to hear the concerns and ideas of this group. He could not offer any specific strategies to assist tobacco-farming communities, but observed that long-term policy solutions are better than short-term bailouts, as occurred last year with the $6.1 billion disaster relief bill.

One farmer asserted that the quota cuts have led to an "unnatural disaster." If it were a natural disaster, Congress would be looking at ways to address it. They need to get the quota out of the hands of the manufacturer and into the hands of the producer. They are going to be driven to the "public trough" unless something is done to help communities get on their feet. They need to offer options to the farmers so that those who want to get out, can, and those who wish to stay in during a declining economy, can have a "soft landing."

Other farmers observed that Phase II funding, like Phase I funding, is very uncertain. What is likely is the loss of 30% of growers based on the quota cuts in the last 2 years. The competition for quota and fear of the unknown is pulling entire communities apart. Last year, when they went to their bankers for loans, they used the potential for a settlement and buy-out as a way to get loans. Now that the settlement and buy-out is gone, the banks won’t be lending.

One point of agreement among many participants was that so-called "Freedom to Farm" bill has in reality become "Freedom to Fail."

Mr. Friedman noted that it is especially important for the public health, growers, and Congress to come together around a proposal. He expressed a sincere interest to know what participants think, and asked people to feel free to pick up a phone and keep him informed.
 

Potential Public Health Legislation

Mary Wallace, American Public Health Association
Ms. Wallace noted that the state settlement has been met with a mixed reaction among public health advocates. While it does some good things, it also creates enormous frictions between states and the federal government.

There is a need to address many concerns that were not and could not be addressed by any state settlement. Despite the unhappy experience with the McCain bill, public health advocates have received messages from the administration to go back and do it again – perhaps with more modest goals. Instead of a comprehensive bill, they might seek to increase the per pack cost of cigarettes to fund public health and other initiatives, impose certain international controls on the sale of tobacco and tobacco products, and address the issue of FDA jurisdiction over all tobacco products. It is uncertain how high a priority tobacco control will be in the presidential agenda, in relation to the Patients' Bill of Rights, saving social security, and several other initiatives.

The frictions that are built into the state settlement will have a great impact on the success of any federal effort. Through the use of a waiver mechanism, the states might be required to guarantee that they would have to commit a minimum percentage of incoming assets from the settlement toward tobacco control or other public health initiatives, in order to fend off any overture by the federal government to recoup its share of the Medicaid moneys recovered by the states under the settlement. This could be complicated by the fact that competing elements within each state are lining up to allocate the money toward many non-health related objectives, and there is disagreement even among the public health community as to how the funds should be spent.

Ms. Wallace also affirmed that one of the key points of their tobacco policy is to attain relief for tobacco communities.

Rich Hamburg of the American Heart Association noted that the coalition "ENACT," which supported comprehensive tobacco control legislation last year, has reaffirmed and even strengthened language addressing tobacco communities. However, they frame their goals now as an "agenda" and not as a comprehensive settlement to be accomplished through one piece of legislation. In a more incremental sense there may be opportunities to address FDA authority, and very probably the medicaid "waiver." Another possibility is the Department of Justice suing the companies for the Medicaid money. There is some support for this, but there is also opposition. Each of these may present opportunities for addressing issues related to our core principles.

During general discussion, participants observed that Sen. Ford’s retirement leaves a gap in the Senate that will need to be filled by more than one senator. The way to get tobacco state senators fully engaged is to have unity among tobacco growers in their states. Burley and flue-cured growers don’t need to have the same policies, but they need to be willing to go along with one another’s plans. It is vital for people to coalesce around a single amount and approach, and then let the supportive senators figure out how to get it. If there is no unity, the political interest in fighting for this issue diminishes, and then you will have nobody to fight for you.
 

FDA Authority

Scott Ballin, National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids
Mr. Ballin observed that tobacco companies have tried to convince farmers that FDA authority over tobacco would extend to on-farm activities and that the FDA would seize their farms and equipment and put them out of business. As talks between farmers and health advocates proceeded, it became clear that was not going to happen and that FDA authority was never intended to, and ought not to, extend to the farm.

He noted that the manufacturers agreed to an advertising code in 1964 that was to be independently enforced by the companies. The public health community has been deceived for 35 years, and that is why it is so focused on making sure that the manufacturers of tobacco products come under the same kind of oversight and legal control that every other industry is held to. The public health community wants better labeling, e.g. for pregnant women not to smoke, or warnings for people with heart conditions or emphysema, or information about the addictive nature of the product. Companies should not be able to make claims about lower nicotine or other health claims without review by the FDA. The FDA component is very important to the public health community, and public health advocates ask for the help of farmers to communicate this to other farmers in their communities.

Another participant observed that labeling and advertising and other things could reduce the use of the product, and that farmers were concerned about that. Yet another argued that better information might mean recognition that American tobacco might be different from other foreign-grown leaf, which could help American growers.
 

Anti-Trust Implications of Phillip Morris Strategies

There was considerable discussion of how the recent moves by Phillip Morris might involve anti-trust activities. Phillip Morris commands over 50% of the U. S. market. R. J. Reynolds is financially much weaker, as they are still paying the costs of the leveraged buyout of several year ago. This settlement has taken a large part of the liability off of the industry’s back, and it has also solved a lot of political problems. Phillip Morris will be absolutely dominating the market, which is why there has been some discussion of anti-trust litigation.

Participants exchanged a variety of views about this issue. There are a lot of tobacco farmers who would like to believe that the companies need the farmers. That is what the companies want them to believe, but according to some participants, it is no longer true. The companies showed that they could spend $40 million and fight off a legislative settlement that they didn’t like. So they no longer need the tobacco farmers for support, and the companies are ready to see the tobacco program go. They can keep the same level of production by reducing or using cheaper inputs from Zimbabwe or Brazil.

An example was offered of one company several years ago that supported a restriction on foreign tobacco. They didn’t do that to support American producers, but because the increased costs would be more painful to other companies. So companies will do things that don’t make sense on the surface, but which make good business sense.

Another participant argued that the companies do need the American farmers both for tobacco and political support. The U. S. is the second largest market in the world, and he thinks that the companies want to be able to continue to manufacture here.

Yet another participant wondered why the companies would bring on the opposition that the 17% quota cut would bring. The only answer that he can think of is that they don’t care any more, and that they would like to be rid of the program.

There was some discussion of the prospects for contract farming. Nobody noted any solid contracts that have been let, but there was some expectation that contract farming will occur. In this new climate they’re entering, the companies realize that there is significant liability attached to their product. They also assume that the FDA will be regulating their product in the future. They are going to have to control the inputs in a tight way, and that will lead to contract farming.

Settlement with States’ Attorneys General

Status of Settlement – Prospects For Funding Coming To States
The general sentiment was that few legal challenges posed any real possibility for hindering the settlement, with the possible exception of New York City’s lawsuit. There is a big range of what people are looking at in the different states. One participant related that New Jersey was proposing that 28% of the settlement money would go toward tobacco education. In Utah, they are equally interested in hospital care getting some of the money. Different collaborations are developing in each state. Many individuals thought it likely that the companies will never actually pay any substantial amount of money, and that they would tie up the money in court challenges, and take advantage of various loopholes and offsets to avoid payments.

Strategies for Uses of Funding – KY, NC, VA, TN, SC, GA
Participants described their plans for uses of any moneys that might come to their states through the settlement.

Kentucky – In Kentucky, newspapers have pointed to the collaboration among growers and health advocates as a model for deciding how any such funding would be used. Health advocates have not yet reached agreement about how any money ought to be used. The alliance with the farmers has opened doors that were not previously open. The state health department has been asked to develop a set of recommendations for the Governor’s office. They expect to receive about $40 million annually for 25 years, assuming that the 70% federal medicaid portion will be returned to the federal government. They’re following the CDC recommendations for broad education-based activities, and are wondering whether to pursue a broad-based program or one targeted at a youth-only program. Some people believe that a focus on youth is all that is politically feasible in Kentucky.

The health advocates prefer that Phase I settlement money be used for providing assistance to farmers in the form of community development and transitioning away from tobacco. Quota compensation and other kinds of direct assistance would be taken care of by Phase II moneys. Out of the $40 million, probably 50% will go to farm-related activities, a percentage that the farmers support. They don’t want to set something up that will require heavy administrative costs. The public health portion is not necessarily the remainder, as funding can be used on anything the state wants to, such as paving roads. The legislature set up a panel to determine how this money will be spent.

It is very possible that agriculture and health groups will be willing to support one another over a joint position for uses of this funding.

North Carolina – The public health advocates in North Carolina also are assuming that a portion of the settlement funds will be returned to the federal government for their portion of state medicaid expenses. The Attorney General has proposed that 50% of any Phase I money go to support agriculture, a proposal that was provided by a consent decree and that must be approved by the legislature by March 15. They would like the remaining money to go for tobacco control and prevention, with 75% of that money going directly to tobacco control and 25% going for other public health needs. Their plan includes three components:
 

1) A private foundation to administer the spending, along the lines of the Minnesota model;

2) Support for community dialogue with the farmers;

3) Definitions of "licensure" in NC – they currently have no way of knowing which retail outlets are licensed to sell tobacco products [NOTE: some of this information was provided after 12/17].

Virginia – Tobacco farmers and public health advocates have taken the Core Principles and are trying to plan for funds supporting those in a way they can both agree. There is substantial support from the public health community for funds for the farm communities, and farm support for prevention of youth access to tobacco products. Both groups support the idea that every stakeholder needs to be at the table, and they also recognize that Phase II will not be enough to address farmer needs. There is also agreement that this needs to be done on a non-partisan basis.

There is a unique political climate in Virginia, with a large Phillip Morris plant in Richmond where the General Assembly meets, which makes the company very powerful. But the conversations and conceptual agreements between farmers and health advocates have made both groups a lot stronger and garnered support from a variety of legislators.

One participant encouraged everyone in all the states to set up an advisory council that will be able to make decisions on how this money will be used in a fair way. There need to be people with expertise on the tax ramifications of compensation, as well as experts on rural economic development in those communities.

Tennessee – The Tennessee Tobacco Working Group met earlier in the month and heard from several members of the Governor’s administration concerning the settlement. The feeling is that they aren’t willing to talk about how to use money until they know whether any and how much will be coming in. At the next meeting of the Working Group they hope to develop some general principles that will guide the use of money. In Tennessee, they were told, it is not possible for one legislative session to commit funds for another, so funds are allocated annually.

The Farm Bureau is very powerful in Tennessee, and they’re very concerned about whether agriculture will get money from Phase I, so that farm communities don’t have to wait for Phase II to kick in or in case Phase II money isn’t available.

The public health community is still working out what they want from any settlement. Most of them are using the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations, prepared for each state, as a basis for formulating their ideas. One of the problems in Tennessee is that there are no existing state tobacco control programs, so they have to establish general percentages of the funds, rather than saying they want X dollars allocated to such and such a program.

There was some general discussion of the use of any settlement money for agriculture. Some public health advocates suggested that there is too great a dependency on tobacco, so that when cuts occur or the manufacturers move overseas, the consequences are overwhelming. There are those who either want to get out of it or to better diversify, and there are communities that want to become less dependent on tobacco. And that is what they think these moneys should be used for.

Some farmers responded that this is true for those who have other options, but at this point many farmers truly don’t have any other options. They also reiterated the fairness and need for compensation going directly to quota owners, as well as community development.

A public health advocate emphasized that they are not interested in forcing individual growers out of producing tobacco, and that it would actually be harmful if no more tobacco would be grown in the U. S., because leaf will be bought from Brazil and other places. People who want to get out should be able to do that, but the goal is not to remove all production from the U. S.

South Carolina – They are just as unsure as others are about how Phase I funds would be used. No firm plan exists. They would like to see communication and unity among all groups to decide how these funds will be used.

Public health advocates support the CDC plan to address all of the same issues. One of the issues the Governor is interested in is helping uninsured children. They have had to rebuild their state public health coalition, and have included dialogues with the tobacco farmers as part of that process.

One of the points raised at recent meetings involving farmers and public health advocates was the need for money for research. Some of this research can only be done at land grant universities.

The question arose about whether health care groups oppose genetically altered tobacco. One individual responded that there was not enough information about it for them to have a position. They’re in the business of reducing relative risk. If there were no public health risks, they would not oppose it. It was noted that Europe is trying to close its doors to genetically altered foods, but that we eat those in large quantities in the U. S.

Georgia – They don’t think that they’re going to see any of the Phase I funds going to support farming or public health. One participant noted that farmers of Georgia are low on the totem pole. South Georgia is pretty much ignored by the legislature.

A farmer from another state observed that his cost to live is $32,500 per year and his farm of 1,000 acres netted $16,000. They lost $13,000 on corn alone. He warned that great countries fall from within, and when the producers in the country can’t produce anymore, we are headed for a fall.

It is difficult to decide how to divide any money coming to farmers – will it be based on acreage, pounds produced, those who own quota or the actual producers, or something else?
 

Next Steps

It was agreed that people would stay in touch about the outcome of Phase II settlement payment negotiations. The next meeting was tentatively set for Atlanta, with a possible date of Jan. 28 [NOTE: changed to Feb. 17].

One participant argued that it could be important to have a consensus for a general percentage of Phase I money to be used for health and agricultural transition. There could be some advantages to have the coalition continue to manifest something about its goals. Even if they don’t get specific, they can lay out general principles for spending based on the Core Principles in order to prevent the money from going to building stadiums or other less desirable uses.

The group recommended that Southern Tobacco Communities Project leaders put together four or five consensus points, based on notes from the meeting and telephone discussions, and then circulate those points to develop a consensus document.