Kansas Association
of Beverage Retailers

 

 

 

 

Kansas Legislature Wraps Up Longest Session with Largest Tax Increase in History:  No Further Action on Uncork in 2015

Liquor Omnibus Bill Passed                                  

The Conference Committee Report on HB 2223 includes 17 distinct liquor policies  

In a pattern that has become commonplace in recent years, the House and Senate Federal and State Affairs combined HB 2223 and HB 2331 into a large conference committee report covering issues ranging from distributors sampling to retailers through farm winery farmer's market permits.  Click HERE to see a chart of the issues that were passed in the conference committee report.

Most of the issues, including enforcement procedures requested by ABC, had been combined into two House bills during the regular session in order to facilitate their passing even while leadership was trying to decide what to do with Uncork legislation.   Two controversial measures were amended into the bills by the Senate in May - allowing self-service wine dispensers (requested by the Kansas Star Casino) and allowing the Legislative Coordinating Council to permit liquor to be served in the Capitol at official state functions.




 

Kansas Retailers Take Action

The paid lobbyists in Topeka have nothing over local businesses and voters when it comes to supporting local legislators.  But it takes work.

When it comes to sharing your message – do not forget to involve your friends, vendors, customers, pastors, community leaders and others.  Many retailers have been very successful in gaining petition signatures, generating phone calls to the hotline, and generating emails through http://keepksjobs.org  

 Hotline:  1-866-519-2200     Email Site for Employees/Customers/Friends:  http://keepksjobs.org

Find the Names of Your State Representative and State Senator on your own (Enter your zip code and select your State Representative and State Senator from the list.  You may need to also enter your full street address.)

Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee Information – members and contact links

Contact Information for Senators Linked Here.

House Commerce Committee Information - members & contact links

Look up Legislators or Bills at Legislative Website (includes contact information)

Information about the 2015 Kansas Legislature

Contact KABR for assistance.


Photo by Kathy Damron

 

 

Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 
Revenue growth exceeding 102% would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and growth exceeding 103% would go into a tax reduction fund.  This is similar to the current policy designed to limit growth of government expenditure to 2%, but provides for a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction. 


Have you paid your 2015 dues?  Please pay  ASAP 

Print Form Here. 



 

2015 Calendar of Events

                                           

Register for Upcoming Events

 

List of Legislation  (Click on number to read the bill)

HB 2088 – ABC Bill to Remove Requirement for Immediate Citation

HB 2089 – ABC Bill to Clarify that Hidden Ownership is Disqualification from License

HB 2125 – Apply KS Administrative Procedures Act to ABC Regulatory Proceedings

HB 2162 – Exempting “Core Commercial Districts” from Liquor License Distance Restrictions

HB 2171 – Lottery Vending Machines

HB 2189 – Microbrewery Self-Distribution

HB 2191 – Sampling by Distributors to Retailers and Employees

HB 2223 - Initially a bill to streamline required notifications by caterers and allow a drinking establishment to dispense alcohol from containers used to mix, chill or infuse alcohol.   Currently, alcohol is only to be dispensed from the original container.  The House Federal and State Affairs Committee amended to move the caterers section to HB 2331 and add language from the ABC to clarify that self-dispensing by customers is not allowed.  The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee added provision of HB 2088 - ABC Citation requirements as amended by Senate Committee; HB 2089 - ABC Bill to Clarify that Hidden Ownership is Disqualification from License as introduced; HB 2125 KS Admin Procedures Act as amended by House Federal and State Affairs Committee;  HB 2191 Sampling by Distributors to Retailers and Employees as introduced.

HB 2331 - Initially a bill allow catering on public property.  Amended by the House Federal and State Affairs Committee to  insert the catering notification requirements from HB 2223.  Amended by full House to allow cities to pass ordinances allowing liquor retailers, microbreweries, microdistilleries, and farm wineries to locate within 200 feet of schools, college or church in a "core commercial district"; add more State Fair Temporary Permits and to allow BYOB businesses such as Painting Studios without licenses.  An amendment to allow chain liquor stores failed.  The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee added a section allowing wineries holding special order shipping permits to market wines and receive order though any means of communication, including in-home parties; and amended the BYOB section to create a $25 art studio permit.

Legislature will take up Tax Increases on Liquor and Tobacco

With the recent updates to revenues forecasting a larger hole for legislators to fill between proposed budget expenditures and tax income, taxes will be a primary topic of conversation during the upcoming Veto Session.  

Health advocates have been actively promoting the tax increase on tobacco with testimony and advertising.  There has been less support for the liquor tax increase, but a study by Florida researchers suggest it could reduce alcohol related accidents - read article

Some legislators are promoting a more broad solution - looking at general sales taxes.  Others are insistent that additional budget cuts must make up the difference.

Read the Joint Industry Letter recently distributed opposing Senate proposal to increase gallonage and enforcement taxes on liquor in the form of Senate Sub for HB 2109.

Liquor enforcement tax is the 8 percent tax that is paid on all purchases at the retail liquor store.  The proposal increases that tax to 12 percent.  According to the Governor’s Budget Report, the last increase in the liquor enforcement tax was 1983, when it was increased from 4 percent to 8 percent.

The last increase on cigarette taxes was in 2003 when it was increased to 79 cents per pack.  The tobacco products tax has remained at 10 percent of wholesale price since 1972.  The new rates would be $2.29 per pack and 25 percent of wholesale price.    Read more.  


KABR Membership

The Kansas Association of Beverage Retailers offers membership to licensed retail liquor store owners in Kansas.  Since 1949, the Kansas Association of Beverage Retailers has been the liquor store owners best, and only, organized voice in Topeka. 

Join KABR Now!   Print out the form on this website and mail or fax it.  For membership information, email Stacey Harlow. 

 

Retailer Education Seminars

The Kansas Association of Beverage Retailers offers retailer training seminars with the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control.  With the adoption of many new statutes and new regulations in the past three years, this education is extremely important to your business.  Seminars are offered regularly from April to December at various locations throughout the state.  This year, training seminars are available at regular KABR events (see calendar).  Also, KABR will set up training events on request.  KABR Members are eligible for two free registrations.  Fees for seminars are typically around $20 per person, but can vary according to actual cost.  ABC considers voluntary training to be a mitigating factor for licensee violations.

For training, sign up for upcoming conferences, or to set up a seminar, please email KABR.


Kansas Association of Beverage Retailers       P.O. Box 3842, Topeka, KS  66604      Email KABR  

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software