Kansas Association
of Beverage Retailers

 

 

 

 

House of Representatives to Vote on Big Box / County Option Bill Thursday - Sub. for HB 2200 - This is the up or down vote many have waited for...

After failing to adopt a proper motion on Monday to adopt Substitute for HB 2200, the Chairman Hutton opened a quick meeting Tuesday.  After apologizing for not having the correct motion yesterday to pass the bill out of committee, he requested motion. 

Rep. JR Claeys made the motion to adopt HB 2200 as a substitute bill.  Second by Rep. Schwab.

Sub. for HB 2200 passed 9 to 8.  See bill info below.

YES:  Hutton, Claeys, Couture-Lovelady, Davis, Hemsley, Kleeb, Mason, Suellentrop, Schwab (sitting in for Carpenter)

NO: Billinger, Brunk, Corbet, Curtis (sitting in for Whipple), Frownfelter, Patton, Ruiz, Ward (sitting in for Tietze),

All members voted Tuesday, but the Chair did have to vote to break another tie - this time it was 8-8. 

This action sets up the House floor debate that many have been waiting for.  The Speaker of the House had asserted that he wanted to have an up or down vote on Uncork this year, because the issue has been around long enough.

We have heard from many of our supporters that they want to see the bill voted down on the floor.  Some are counting on the committee chairman's statement that he would not hold hearings next year if the bill is defeated.

______________________________________________

It is very important to know if your representative and senator will support Uncork with either of these amendments.  If legislators maintain their opposition to Big Box Liquor, SB 298 and HB 2200 could remain in committee.

Please speak to your senator and representative and ask if they are planning for vote for or against Uncork with these amendments.  

Please generate as many calls and emails to representatives and senators as you can over the next week from employees, family, vendors, peers, and neighbors!  The hotline is open and operates during business hours:  

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

 

Information about Sub for HB 2200

The Monday Commerce Committee vote to create Sub for HB 2200 was tied at 7 to 7 and the Chair voted to break the tie.  The vote was as follows:

YES:  Rep. Mark Hutton, Rep. J.R. Claeys, Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady, Rep. Erin Davis, Rep. Lane Hemsley, Rep. Marvin Kleeb, Rep. Scott Schwab (replacing Carpenter), Rep. Gene Suellentrop

NO:  Rep. Rick Billinger, Rep. Steve Brunk, Rep. Ken Corbet, Rep. Stan Frownfelter, Rep. Fred Patton, Rep. Louis Ruiz, Rep. Jim Ward (replacing Whipple).

Did not vote:  Rep. Mason, Rep. Tietze  (Both of these legislators voted yes to get the bill to the floor for a vote of the full House before, but did not assist with adopting the substitute bill today.) 

Read the Proposal to Amend HB 2200 from Uncork HERE

See Chart for County Option Retailer Act License Descriptions

Read the Notes from the Committee HERE

Amy Campbell KABR Testimony Opposed to HB 2200 with County Option

Tuck Duncan KWSWA Testimony Opposed to HB 2200 with County Option

Whitney Damron KARLL Testimony Opposed to HB 2200 with County Option

David Dillon, Dillon Food Stores, Testimony Supporting HB 2200 with County Option

Mike O'Neal, Kansas Chamber, Testimony Supporting HB 2200 with County Option

 


Action Items:    (scroll to bottom of this message for more tools)

COME TO TOPEKA ON THURSDAY FOR HOUSE ACTION!

1.   Write a Letter to the Editor - we can help you with editing at KABR email

        Editorials:   

Retailer Aaron Rosenow  http://www.kansas.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article20050995.html

http://cjonline.com/opinion/2015-05-03/letter-its-time-kansans-enjoy-beer-wine-bought-grocery-stores

 

2. Contact your Senator and Representative – Set up a meeting.  Meet in their office, your store, meet for lunch, meet for dinner or a drink.  Either or both of them may end up voting on Big Box Liquor before this session ends.  Legislators are home for the break and will return to Topeka for veto session April 29.  

3. Communicate the issue to your customers.   Signs, posters and petitions can effectively share the message of small business and preventing underage sales.

4. Generate phone calls and emails to Senators and Representatives to oppose Big Box legislation.  While there are some legislators who are hearing from a lot of opponents.  There are several who have told me they are discouraged at the lack of communication.  Even if you know your legislator supports you – he or she needs to hear from your employees, customers, vendors, church members, community leaders, local law enforcement in order to support his or her position.  You must provide that support.                                                     

 

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  

Resources for Contacting Legislators

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