Kansas Association
of Beverage Retailers

 

 

 

 

Uncork Kansas Pushes for Liquor Expansion

David Dillon to lead the effort.  

Another new year brings a new round of news coverage for the Uncork Kansas message.  David Dillon, newly retired CEO of the Kroger grocery chain, has been named the new chair of Uncork Kansas and has been meeting with the press and legislators to promote changing Kansas laws to put strong beer wine and spirits into corporate retailers such as grocery and convenience stores.

Read the article.

The 2015 version of the legislation has not yet been released, but Uncork representatives say that it will include expanding the sale of strong beer to any retailer who could currently qualify to sell cereal malt beverages and grant licenses to sell strong beer, wine and spirits to grocery stores.  The proponents say that this proposal should gain more support because it will limit the number of liquor licenses in the state and those licenses would have to be purchased by the grocery store from a liquor store holding a current license thus giving some “value” to current license holders.

Liquor store owners point to studies that indicate expanding strong beer sales to 2000 to 3000 additional outlets would be devastating to current liquor stores as proof that this proposal will not provide any “value” for existing licenses.  If current stores fail at the predicted rate of 40% or more, their licenses will likely become available for purchase for very little, or the Division of ABC will have to manage their allotment.

Uncork says their bill should be printed - or available to read - perhaps next week.  It is anticipated that Mr. Dillon will come to Topeka to request its introduction.

There are many open questions:  Will the bill be a true "one-strength beer" bill - eliminating 3.2 beer in Kansas altogether?  Or will it allow current CMB retailers to choose whether or not to sell stronger beer?  Will the bill attempt to raise more revenue for the State by increasing fees or taxes?  The current State budget deficit is clearly the biggest issue facing the Legislature this session.  So far, the proponents aren't saying.

Governor Proposes Tax Increases on Liquor and Tobacco

The new budget plan released today by Governor Sam Brownback proposes consumption tax increases for cigarettes, tobacco products and liquor enforcement.  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.    

Thursday evening, Governor Sam Brownback delivered his State of the State address, declaring that Kansas recent tax policies have been successful and that he would stay the course toward achieving zero income tax in Kansas.  Briefly addressing the State’s revenue deficit (projected to exceed $700 million in FY 15 and FY 16), the Governor laid the blame directly on increased expenditures for education.  He recommended rewriting the school funding formula entirely and assured legislators that his proposed two year budget would balance, with revenues exceeding expenditures.

Friday morning, the Governor’s Budget Director Shawn Sullivan and former legislator, now Department of Revenue representative Richard Carlson delivered the budget proposal to a joint meeting of the Senate Ways and Means and House Appropriations Committees.  Some legislators are not sure that the proposed tax plan actually lines up with the promises of the Governor’s speech, because it would revise the statutory scheduled income tax reductions.  (Calling off these further reductions was a primary recommendation of the Paul Davis campaign for Governor.)

The current tax statutes are scheduled to decrease income tax rates progressively, then establish a cap on revenue growth of 2%, so that any additional revenues must be committed to tax reduction.  Under the Governor’s proposal, there would be only one more scheduled rate reduction, reducing the lower income tax rate from 2.7% to 2.66% (paid by those who earn less than $15,000 a year if single or $30,000 a year if married).  The 4.6% rate paid by higher earners would not change.  It would also implement immediately the reduced value of home mortgage interest and property tax deductions to individual income taxes.   (This “haircut” was part of last year’s tax bill, but was not scheduled to begin.)  

Revenue exceeding 102% of the prior year (2% growth) would go into a budget stabilization fund (replacing the need for 7.5% ending balance) and revenue above 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 a reserve budgetary fund before pursuing further tax reduction.

The session has only just begun, and legislators return next Tuesday after the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to get started on real committee work.  This week, most committees only held informational meetings or agency reports.  


OTHER NEWS OF INTEREST

Smaller stations in Gardner say it’s a tougher game since QuikTrip came to town, and now Casey’s is upgrading too.   Read the article.

                                                                                                  

(March 31)  The House and Senate Federal and State Affairs Conference Committee will meet Wednesday, April 2, at 1 p.m. in Room 144-S to work out their differences on Sub for HB 2223.  Link to bill description.  Link to HB 2223(Lobbyists are calling this the Micro Mega Liquor Bill of 2014)

                                 

 

 

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. 
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

 

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