Beverage-News.com

back| home |
subglobal1 link | subglobal1 link | subglobal1 link | subglobal1 link | subglobal1 link | subglobal1 link | subglobal1 link
subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link | subglobal2 link
subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link | subglobal3 link
subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link | subglobal4 link
subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link
subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link
subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link
subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link

Your Link To The Alcohol Beverage Industry In Kansas

 

Amy Campbell, Executive Director KABR

(March 24, 2005) Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Amy Campbell and I appear before you as an opponent to this legislation on behalf of the Kansas Association of Beverage Retailers. For those of you who were not members of the Legislature in 2001 and 2002, this request to raise the alcohol content of cereal malt beverages was raised during that session. It was also rejected by the Legislature during the 1993-94 session. In 1989, the same idea was rejected by the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee. Kansas business owners of retail liquor stores are disappointed, but not surprised, to be addressing the same issue again.

The same basic arguments are being made by both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to compile the comments of many of our members as I know that time is precious. However, we believe it is important too appear and state our case as succinctly as possible so this committee would not, in any manner, underestimate the depth of the opposition to this legislation felt by retail liquor owners.

This is not about only a six pack of beer. The products involved include malt based coolers, which look like wine coolers, fruit flavored malt beverages that mimic liquor based products, mini-kegs, and kegs. The proliferation of flavored malt based products on the market has exploded in the past ten years and this law would encourage further expansion. But this isn't about the product at all.

National statistics indicate that cereal malt beverage is a small and insignificant portion of most grocery and convenience stores total sales. Testimony in 2002 indicated that CMB made up less than 5% of total sales for the average convenience store – and that the percentage was not expected to increase with the passage of Strong Beer legislation. These products are often used as a loss leader or promotional item to sell other merchandise. The sale of liquor store beer in all existing cereal malt beverage outlets would only move those sales from Kansas liquor store to a multitude of other business. Liquor store beer constitutes anywhere from 40% to 60% of most liquor store sales.

And yet, statistics indicate that more than 20% of the product sold in Kansas by beer wholesalers is cereal malt beverage. This product does have a consumer base in Kansas. To replace cereal malt beverage with stronger beer is to remove that product with less alcohol content from the market altogether. (In cities and counties which adopt this Act.)
* SB 299 creates a fourth level of taxation for beer by adding sales tax to the enforcement tax, drink tax, and gallonage tax already paid on the product.
* The bill does not bring the Cereal Malt Beverage Retailers under the regulation of the State – although it appears to put the product under the regulation of the State.
* SB 299 appears to create a new Act which is non-uniform in its application to counties. If so, counties could simply opt out of this Act to change the law.
* The new Act (Cereal Malt Beverage Retailers Act) would permit cities and counties to choose whether to be regulated by the CMB Act or the new CMBR Act. If the CMBR Act is adopted by the local government, the city or county would now be regulated by pieces of the Liquor Control Act and the CMB Act. Other cities and counties would continue to be regulated by the current Liquor Control Act and the CMB Act. For instance, an agent would have to enforce the new section 41-102 and 41-104 from the CMBR Act and the old 41-101, 41-103 from the Liquor Control Act.
* SB 299 makes policy changes to the law regarding wholesaler sales to temporary permit holders. What is the purpose of this change to be applied differently from city to city?
Single store ownership minimizes the commercial pressures placed on wholesalers for special deals or bending the rules. If large grocery chains control the beer market in Kansas, rather than the smaller percentage they have now, imagine the increased pricing pressures on the wholesalers who supply the product. This could become a case of “the tail wagging the dog”.

If the Committee wishes to change how alcohol is sold in Kansas, KABR would respectfully request this Committee consider an amendment to SB 299 that would require all alcohol beverages and cereal malt beverages be sold by licensed retail liquor stores.

We can not emphasize enough the negative impact this legislation will have upon the retail liquor stores’ business throughout the state. Many may have the harsh opinion the number of retailers lost is an immaterial factor. However, I would submit that this is extremely important, as this Legislature established the business practices and structure under which approximately 720 retail liquor store owners must now operate. Therefore, we assert you should feel a type of fiduciary duty towards these individuals to protect their business from unfair competitive advantages enjoyed by the cereal malt beverage retailers.

In summary, I would respectfully ask this Committee keep two things in mind as you hear testimony today and reflect on the test8imony previously received. Ask yourself, what is the public policy being advanced by this legislation? I submit there is non. In addition, ask whether you are giving an unfair competitive advantage to large corporate entities at the expense of small businesses and, if so, what public policy is being advanced? If our projections are correct, and retail liquor store businesses are crippled by this legislation, will the same proponents be back in three years or in five years to ask this Legislature to all them to sell other alcoholic liquor products because the retail liquor stores are so few and far between they can not serve the Kansas consumer? I submit we are headed down a road of vertical integration of the liquor industry through ownership of large corporations should you continue to erode the public policies upon which the liquor laws are now based.

Last, but not least, Mr. Chairman, is the situation we place those 18-21 year old clerks who are treated as adults under the Kansas Criminal Code but as underage for purposes of purchasing alcohol. Please consider the importance of not increasing availability to those individuals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for your kind attention.

Read The Bills

Find Your Legislator

Where Does Your Legislator Stand On The Issues? Search By Name OR Search By District

Read Other Selected Testimony