Kansas Association
of Beverage Retailers

 

 

 

 

  

KABR is working for you - the Kansas independent retail liquor stores.

Join us to receive regular email updates regarding the liquor industry in Kansas and the fight to keep our small businesses the safest place for the legal sale of adult beverages.

VERY IMPORTANT - KABR Members are encouraged to join the regular teleconferences the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month at 4:30 p.m.  Regular member emails include the dial in number.



House Commerce Committee Passes Limited Beer Proposal

Tuesday, the House Commerce Labor and Industry Committee met and passed the limited beer content compromise language that has been negotiated by KABR, KARLL and Uncork proponents.

The Committee approved the new language as a substitute bill for HB 2282, then inserted the new bill into SB 13 - a move called a “gut and go”.  The full House of Representatives could debate the bill as soon as Thursday.

Read Substitute for SB 13            Read the Supplemental Note for SB 13

Before taking action, the Committee had a full discussion of the proposal and questioned representatives of these organizations, as well as the Kansas Beer Wholesalers and Kansas Wine and Spirits Wholesalers Association. 

Read the KABR statement here.   Read the KARLL comments here. 

In the meeting, Whitney Damron, KARLL; Amy Campbell, KABR; Tom Palace, Uncork Kansas; and Dick Stoffer, HyVee were each individually asked these questions by the Chairman and all responded yes to both questions 

  • 1.       “Are you and the members of your organization in support of the Substitute Bill for HB 2282?”
  • 2.       “This legislation is a major, fundamental change in more than 60 years of state policy for the sale of intoxicating liquor products and is likely to have a marked impact on Kansas retailers as well as new licensees that will be allowed to sell CMB and a stronger beer product.  The substitute bill contains a requirement for ABC to conduct a market study and present its findings to the Legislature ten years following this bill’s enactment.  Do you and your clients believe this is a reasonable timeframe to allow for the impact of this law on all licensees to be measured before the Legislature considers additional, substantive changes to state law regarding where alcohol products are offered for sale?”

Lobbyist Tom Palace verified that Uncork was representing the Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association, Casey’s General Stores, QuikTrip, Walmart, Dillons and HyVee and all support the agreement as stated above.

Read the notes here

As word of this proposal has gotten around the Legislature, many have contacted us to learn about the legislation.  We are sharing information and helping them to connect with the retailers in their districts  There has been appreciation from many legislators for the hard work that went into this effort.  It is obvious where our retailers have been actively involved and their legislators are very interested in how the proposal will work and how it will affect their communities and retailers in the future. 

In addition to the moratorium, a key piece of this proposal is that it will keep the CMB outlets separate from our state regulated retail liquor stores – requiring the more regulated liquor stores to handle stronger beer, wine and spirits – rather than following the pattern of Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee and Arkansas, where grocery stores are becoming liquor/wine retailers.

Click here for the list of House members.

The Legislature is scheduled to reach First Adjournment on Friday, April 7 – but there were rumors today that they might wind up this week a little early.  At this point, there is still no budget, no tax plan, no new school finance formula.  The Senate adopted a Rescission Budget today and the House is supposed to act tomorrow – that is the budget for the current fiscal year ending June 30, 2017.  With all of these issues still pending, the veto session is unlikely to be short.

*************************************************************************

REMEMBER TO RSVP FOR THE KANSAS CITY RETAILERS MEETING APRIL 21-22-23 HERE.  MAKE YOUR HOTEL RESERVATIONS NOW AT THE BEST WESTERN PREMIER KC SPEEDWAY INN AT 913-334-4440.


HB 2366 Beer and Keg Registration Act

KABR provided neutral testimony on HB 2366 before the House Federal and State Affairs Committee on Wednesday, March 15.  The purpose of the legislation is to add “hard cider” to beer and cereal malt beverage, the products subject to the Beer and Cereal Malt Beverage Keg Registration Act.  Read the testimony.

Although the objective is simple, KABR members are concerned about the potential for amendments.  The compromise that was crafted in 2002 between the retailers and the proponents of keg registration was a careful balance.  The compromise sought to balance the public safety objective of deterring adults from providing kegs to youth with the need to maintain reasonable privacy protections for individuals who purchase alcohol.  Retailers are accustomed to implementing the State’s public safety goals as an obligation of holding a liquor license, but keg registration act takes that one step further – requiring retailers to gather, hold and provide customer’s personal information to law enforcement without a warrant.  We believe that is a task that should be carefully regulated.

The language of the bill adds “hard cider” to the products in the keg registration statute, and changes the name of the Act to the Keg Registration Act.  In order to change the name, the bill includes Liquor Control Act licensing statutes, where they refer to the keg registration act. 

Committee Chair Judge Barker said that he was a part of a judicial group and substance use prevention organization that supported keg registration at the time of its passage.  Rep. Smith, a law enforcement officer, indicated that he, too, was a supporter.  Both said they believe that the statutes continue to have a deterrent effect.

KABR will watch this bill closely for potential amendments.



Have you paid your membership dues?   

Print forms and mail to KABR: 

Print Forms Here. 


Register for Upcoming Events


News

04 Apr 2017 10:44 PM • Anonymous
03 Apr 2017 6:39 PM • Anonymous
01 Apr 2017 5:56 PM • Anonymous
23 Feb 2017 5:42 PM • Anonymous


When was the last time you updated your credit processing?  IMA offers payroll services and business loans too! Call Betty Knackstedt today for a free cost comparison 816-225-8547.



 

 

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. 



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 organized voice in Topeka. 

 

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.



Retailers attend legislative hearings.  Photo by Kathy Damron.


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

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software