Bothell tourism group pauses 'Sip and Stay' hotel passport after Liquor Board review

Bothell tourism and lodging members agreed this month to pause outward marketing for the long-running "Sip and Stay" hotel passport program after a Liquor and Cannabis Board staff member signaled the initiative may not comply with current rules.

Vinay McGee, tourism and arts commission manager for the City of Bothell, said the program — which gives visitors a wine‑country passport and hotel discounts and has drawn participants from within 50 miles and beyond — has faced pushback from the liquor board for years. "There has been some pushback from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board for years about this program," McGee said. He told the committee a new board staffer connected with Woodinville Wine Country asked organizers to put the initiative on hold.

Committee members said they took down program marketing and removed the passport from the city's website while hotels retain existing physical passports and will honor them when guests present them. "They already exist in the world," a hotelier said. "If somebody calls the hotel and says, 'Hey, why can't we find this?' they have the passports, and they're going to honor it." (Unattributed; committee discussion.)

James Lawrence, who identified himself as director of the Chamber of Commerce, described the core issue as taxation and enforcement complexity rather than age‑verification: "It comes down to who's being taxed there and how," he said. Another member added that the Liquor Board has given inconsistent answers over time: "Every time you call the liquor control board, you get a different answer."

Committee members discussed alternative program structures to preserve visitor experiences while reducing regulatory risk — for example, a coupon or non‑alcohol reward delivered through the platform Bandwango, or a coupon code hotels provide at check‑in. Staff said Windmill/Woodinville Wine Country's board must also approve any revised approach, and the wine‑country executive director and lobbyists are trying to schedule a meeting with the board to discuss compliance pathways.

The committee did not adopt a formal policy change at the meeting; members framed the action as a pause in external marketing while staff and Wine Country representatives seek clarification from the Liquor and Cannabis Board and consider alternatives that avoid jeopardizing licenses. The next procedural step is a staff‑facilitated meeting with industry representatives to clarify the board's concerns and explore technical fixes such as non‑alcohol incentives or contract changes with the passport vendor.

Ending: Staff will follow up with the wine‑country leadership and the Liquor and Cannabis Board; the committee did not vote on a permanent change at this meeting.