Kansas Association
of Beverage Retailers

 

 

 

 

House Commerce Committee will vote Monday Feb 23 or Tuesday Feb 24

Photo by Kathy Damron

PUBLIC HEARING ON HB 2200 – House Commerce Committee

Kansas retailers showed up to hear the testimony from Proponents and Opponents for the Big Box Bill February 11, 12, and 13.   Read First Day notes here.  Read Second Day notes here.  Read Third Day notes here.   Read HB 2200 here.

The hearings this year featured testimony from more than the Kansas retailers who will be impacted by transforming the current private retail system to a private corporate retail system.  HB 2200 puts strong beer in 1775 retail convenience, grocery and big box stores in 2018.  It also allows grocery and big box stores to purchase liquor licenses to sell strong beer, wine and spirits.

There was testimony opposing the bill from former legislative Rep. Jim Howell, Frances Wood - Women's Christian Temperance Union, Seth Fox - High Plains Distillery, customer Ron McDowell, Culture Shield Network, Kansas Association for Responsible Liquor Laws, Kansas Wine and Spirits Wholesalers Association, Kansas Association of Beverage Retailers.  Written testimony was submitted expressing the opposition of sheriffs from Harvey and Montgomery counties, Lyons Bank, EZ Spirits, KS Winery and Viticulture Association, as well as accountants, attorneys and other small businesses.

Uncork Chair David Dillon testified that a 2011 economic study by Dr. Art Hall showed that Kansas would gain jobs and tax income if HB 2200 were passed - even though liquor stores would close.  He said these gains would come from expansion of grocery and convenience store businesses.  Several consumers testified that Kansas should pass the bill for customer convenience.  Lobbyists for the convenience stores and Dillons stated that they were interested in possible amendments.  

Whitney Damron, KARLL, shared a more recent study that shows the loss of jobs and businesses that will occur.

Legislators asked questions - attempting to understand if the bill's provision for grocery stores selling strong beer, wine and spirits would be limited to grocery stores or would include big box stores, drugstores and dollar discount stores.  The expansion of strong beer sales to all convenience stores also raised questions - the strong beer license created by the bill appears to be for convenience stores and big box/grocery stores only, meaning that other retailers who currently sell cereal malt beverages would be unable to get the new strong beer license.  Taverns are not addressed.

Rep. Brunk asserted that the predicted jobs and tax gains seemed unlikely and the current liquor licensing system appears to be more of a free market, since anyone who qualifies can open a liquor store now - rather than the proposed bill which includes caps and restrictions for licenses.

The operator of a small grocery store was asked if he could open a liquor store in his current location, and he could.  The opponents brought forward a letter from the small grocer in Grain Valley who has added his own liquor store and now opposes Uncork legislation.    A Manhattan liquor store owner testified in support of the buyout portion of HB 2200 and felt this was the best deal that liquor stores were going to get.  When questioned, he stated that it would be better for liquor store small businesses if the legislation never passed in Kansas, but stated he didn't think Uncork would ever go away.

Chair Mark Hutton has said that if HB 2200 is defeated this year, he is not likely to hold any hearings next session.  

Resources for Contacting Legislators

Hotline:  1-866-519-2200

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.)

House Commerce Committee Information - members & contact information

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

Information about the 2015 Kansas Legislature

Contact KABR for assistance.

 

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

Governor Proposes Tax Increases on Liquor and Tobacco

The new budget plan released 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.    Read more.

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

15 Mar 2015 10:00 AM • Topeka, Kansas
25 Apr 2015 3:00 PM • Manhattan, Kansas
22 Aug 2015 7:00 PM • Kansas City

 

News

28 Jan 2015 5:35 PM • Anonymous
25 Jan 2015 11:43 AM • Anonymous
16 Jan 2015 12:22 PM • Anonymous
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