Committee reviews draft to shorten tasting-permit notice, expand tasting-room sales

The Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on Jan. 30 heard testimony on a pre-introduction draft under Tucker Anderson that would shorten the retail tasting-permit notice period and expand where Vermont distilled spirits manufacturers may sell and sample products.

Mimi Yates, president of the Distilled Spirits Council of Vermont, told the committee the draft contains "two relatively uncontroversial" items aimed at fixing practical barriers faced by small producers. She urged changing the Department of Liquor & Lottery (DLL) permit notice language so manufacturers could apply "at least 1 business day" before a retail tasting, replacing a five-business-day restriction she said remains from the paper era.

Yates also said staffing and cost have made it difficult for smaller distillers to open and staff multiple tasting rooms. The draft would permit expanded class-4 tasting locations — the version discussed would allow up to 10 fourth-class license locations for a manufacturer — and could broaden the rule that currently limits a manufacturer or rectifier to selling products from no more than five additional manufacturers at a single fourth-class site.

Legislative counsel Tucker Anderson cautioned the committee to consider how the proposed changes would interact with existing license categories under Title 7. Reading statutory limits into the record, Anderson noted that fourth-class locations currently may serve, by the glass, not more than two ounces for malt or RTDs with an eight-ounce total per customer, and for distilled spirits "no more than one quarter ounce of spirits or fortified wine with a total of one ounce" to each customer; contiguous premises may distribute mixed drinks with a combined total of up to one ounce of spirits.

Anderson said broadening location counts, increasing service-size allowances, or allowing non-contiguous tasting rooms to serve a wider pool of products could blur the line between a fourth-class location and a third-class standalone license, with administrative and fee implications. He noted a fee structure in which the Department collects a $70 application fee per fourth-class license and that the gap between fourth- and third-class licensing carries roughly a $1,000 difference in fees and regulatory posture.

Committee members asked practical questions about implementation, including what would happen if DLL could not meet a one-business-day turnaround during busy periods or holidays. Yates said permit processing often takes two to three days and industry staff sometimes phone the agency in last-minute cases; committee members discussed whether draft language should use a practicability qualifier or other implementation safeguards.

Members asked counsel for historical background on Vermont's liquor-control tier system; Anderson described its origins in a public-safety and regulatory model dating from prohibition and said the committee should review charts and materials that break down beverage classifications and license distinctions. The committee asked staff to archive background materials on a shared site and said it will take additional testimony and study the draft further. No formal vote or action was taken.

The committee plans to gather more testimony and staff-provided charts and will revisit statutory language, fees and practical implementation before advancing any bill.