11. Ron Hockersmith, Founder and Director of Beer at Amorphic Beer testified relating to the expansion of off-site retail privileges to all producers. Amorphic Beer is a small brewery in Milwaukee and has historically had the use of off-site retail privileges to conduct beer gardens, charitable events, and other outdoor activities across Wisconsin. Hockersmith's request is for the department to keep the simplicity and cost-effective nature of existing off-site retail permitting processes to sell beer at offsite events, further Hockersmith requests the department create a process and form that can be universally used by all Wisconsin municipalities. Hockersmith also requested that the department involve the industry directly in the rulemaking process by asking for their input. aa. DOR Response: DOR will consider Hockersmith's comments through the rulemaking process. 22. Jack Zelinka, Director of the Caribou Bay Retreat provided written comments regarding qualifying event venue licenses. Zelinka expressed concern that the forms to apply for qualifying event venue certification are not yet available and was unsure about the status of an event the business had booked for October 2024. Zelinka also asked questions regarding the cost of an above quota license issued to a qualifying event venue. Finally, Zelinka noted that the pricing structure for Caribou Bay Retreat will have to be adjusted to accommodate a new business model and this is a disadvantage compared to other venues that have an existing liquor license. bb. DOR Response: Provisions relating to qualifying event venue certification and above quota licenses do not take effect until January 1, 2026. The department is implementing provisions of Act 73 in order of effective date. Zelinka was informed that this Act will not impact the event scheduled at the venue for October 2024. 33. Nicole Lyddy, the Deputy Clerk of the City of Mauston provided written comments to express concern regarding the operator licensing process. Lyddy mentioned that simplifying the licensing process will result in consistency and fairness in who will hold an operator license in any given municipality and statewide. Lyddy also requested the department consider rules that prevent individuals who have been denied municipal operator's licenses from bypassing the process and obtaining an operator's permit from the state. cc. DOR Response: The existing operator's license process and qualifications are untouched in 23 Wisconsin Act 73 and are therefore outside of the scope of rulemaking. The department does recognize the importance of consistent operator licensing and will consider this feedback outside of this rule process. The department has considered and shares the concern about operator permittees obtaining state permits to undermine a municipal operator license decision. Rulemaking may be required on this topic. 44. Emily Chelberg, Co-Owner of Sunflower Hill Wedding and Event Venue, provided written comments regarding the impact of liquor licensing on event venues that are zoned for agricultural use with special exemptions. Sunflower Hill is an active farm with cattle and flower fields, both of which provide income streams outside of the event venue business. Chelberg would like the department to consider the impacts of zoning laws and liquor licensing on event venue businesses that are still actively farming. 55. Erich Weidner, from Erich Weidner Consulting, provided written comments expressing concern that 2023 Wisconsin Act 73 was rushed and the structure of the effective dates of different provisions would make it difficult to track implementation. ee. DOR Response: This comment is related to the legislative process. It cannot be addressed through rulemaking. A few attendees had questions about the contents of 2023 Wisconsin Act 73. Department staff provided resources to those attendees to get their questions answered. Summary of comments received during comment period and public hearing on the emergency rule promulgated under the same scope statement (EmR 2419):
A comment period was opened on January 13, 2025, with notice in the Administrative Register. Interested and impacted parties were also contacted on January 13, 2025, via email message through the department's Administrative Rules and Alcohol Beverage email lists. A public hearing, noticed in the Administrative Register on January 13, 2025, was held via Microsoft Teams on January 24, 2025, with the purpose of soliciting feedback from impacted parties to inform the permanent rule drafting process. 80 people registered to attend. 59 people attended the hearing. Two people appeared offering testimony. Nine people provided written testimony on or before day of the hearing. The comment period was open until 11:59PM on January 24, 2025. The comments from the public hearing and comment period and DOR's response follow.
11. Maureen Busalacchi, testifying on behalf of the Wisconsin Public Health Association, Wisconsin Association of Local Health Directors and Boards, and the Comprehensive Injury Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, requests the following changes to state law: aa. Increased permit fees to support administration and decrease excessive alcohol harms. ii. DOR Response: The department heard from industry stakeholders during the emergency rule promulgation process that the permit fees were too high. Further, state statue limits how expensive permit fees may be. Due to the breadth of comments from stakeholders across the industry regarding permit fees, the department did not make changes to permit fees. bb. Incorporate verification of identity standards into the responsible beverage server course standards in Tax 7.06, and require additional material such as de-escalation techniques, and identifying symptoms of depression and suicidality. iiii. DOR Response: The department agrees that these are worthy topics but does not have experience with this material, nor is it convinced that these are appropriate topics for an RBS course. Further, the department does not have capacity to add brand new course material requirements but will continue engage public health on RBS course material at the next opportunity. iiiiii. DOR Response: The term "growler" is not used in statute. Rather than create a defined term for "growler," the department chose to use the exact language in s. 125.295(1)(c) for purposes of the exemption to labelling requirements outlined in s. Tax 7.07. dd. Establish a size limit on cocktails to go. iviv. DOR Response: s. 125.03(2) establishes a total limit on spirits containers. This limit applies to cocktails-to-go, which is the equivalent of a large pitcher. Municipalities may place more restrictive limits on cocktails-to-go if desired. To create a limit as requested would undermine local control. For this reason, the department has not made changes to this rule draft to reflect this request. ee. Create a mechanism for municipalities to file complaints requiring revocation, suspension, or refusal to renew operator's permits. vv. DOR Response: The department is working with the League of Wisconsin Municipalities to address this issue outside of the rules process. ff. Local approval and input when full-service retail sales authorizations are issued to producers, and a mechanism for municipalities to report violations of law to the division. vivi. DOR Response: Municipal approval of full-service retail outlets is required per state statute. To align with the treatment of retail licensees, s. Tax 7.17(3) requires a municipal governing body to decide, which requires a public meeting and local feedback. The department is working with the League of Wisconsin Municipalities to create a mechanism for municipalities to report violations of producers relating to full-service retail sales. 22. Susan Quam, testifying for the Wisconsin Restaurant Association, requests changes to s. Tax 7.06 relating to responsible beverage server training course standards. WRA requests dropping the passing threshold from 80% to 75% to align with food safety industry standards for a passing score, suggests alternative language to ensure that course exams are rigorous and cheat proof, and that the department eliminate the requirement that courses show the student incorrect responses, and information regarding the correct response. gg. DOR Response: The department disagrees that the passing score threshold should be reduced. There is a public health and regulatory interest in ensuring alcohol beverage licensees and permittees have a firm grasp on Chapter 125 and the effects of alcohol beverages on the human body. Further, the department engaged with other states on their standard for passage of a beverage server training course, and 80% is aligned with many other states. The department engaged with WRA on identifying standards that better reflect the professional exam community but were unable to come to an agreement on a best practice. The conversation is ongoing, and changes could be a part of future rulemaking. The department did make changes to reflect WRA's request about incorrect responses and instead requiring exams to provide a content domain breakdown. 33. Michael Semmann, on behalf of the Wisconsin Grocers Association, writes to request the department reduce the operator's permit fee to more closely align with municipal operator's license fees. hh. DOR Response: State law created the operator's permit as an alternative to a municipally issued operator's license, but did not replace municipally-issued operator's licenses. Bartenders in Wisconsin have the choice to obtain the permit, valid statewide, or a license, valid in the municipality where it is issued. To that end, the operator's permit is extremely valuable. A bartender holding an operator's permit may operate in all Wisconsin municipalities. Applying for a state-issued permit is convenient, saving a bartender application time and fees in multiple municipalities. The department considered municipal fees in determining the operator's permit fee. Because the value of the permit is equal to all the fees of each municipality combined, the $200 fee is reasonable. 44. Toni Herkert, representing the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, writes to request the department amend s. Tax 7.11 to include a mechanism for municipalities to report to the department when an operator's license was denied, or a person who holds an operator's permit has violated state or local regulations relating to alcohol beverages that could result in suspension or revocation of that permit. ii. DOR Response: Ensuring compliance of permitted operators is a priority of the department. The department is working with the League of Wisconsin Municipalities to ensure that information relating to violations of state or local law by permitted operators is available to the department. The department will not include a process in administrative rule, however. 55. Ron Zimmerman, Town of Harrison Chairperson, requests that retail licensees retain proof that they have purchased alcohol beverages from a wholesaler. He notes his experience with a licensee in his community that violated this law for a decade. jj. DOR Response: State law requires retail licensees to purchase alcohol beverages from a permitted Wisconsin wholesaler. Tax 7.08 provides additional guidance to all alcohol beverage industry members about proper invoicing to comply with this requirement. 66. The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States via Andy Deloney, Senior Vice President and Head of State Public Policy requests that the department incorporate the federal standards of fill by reference. kk. DOR Response: The department is in the process of requesting Attorney General approval to incorporate federal standards of fill and labelling requirements by reference. 77. Jean Bahn, Owner of Farmview Event Barn, commented that while Act 73 made changes to event venue and public place laws, EmR 2419 did not contain any rules relating to no-sale event venue permits or qualifying event venue certification. Bahn further commented that the event venue owners and groups were not engaged in the process of adopting EmR 2419. Finally, Bahn commented that event venues will incur significant costs associated with obtaining a retail alcohol beverage license or no-sale event venue permit. ll. DOR Response: EmR 2419 did not contain rules relating to no-sale event venue permits or qualifying event venue certification, because the laws do not go into effect until January 1, 2026. Permanent rules relating to both provisions are contained within this rule. The division did not engage event venues as stakeholders in EmR 2419 because they were not impacted by it. The division has since engaged with the Wisconsin Agricultural Tourism Association and received feedback relevant to this rule order. Finally, the license or permit requirement for event venues was created under 2023 Act 73. The department cannot change the law through rulemaking. 88. Scott Eickschen, hotel consultant and agricultural event space owner/operator, requests that the department repeal Act 73 as it relates to event venues. Eickschen provided data demonstrating the economic impact that Act 73 will have on event venues. mm. DOR Response: The department cannot repeal a law through rulemaking. 99. Ron Hockersmith, Founder and Director of Beer at Amorphic Beer, provided written comments regarding the process for approval of an off-site full-service retail outlet. Hockersmith points out that 2023 Act 73 heightened the requirements for approvals of off-site retail outlets, including requiring municipal governing body approval. Hockersmith requests that instead of breweries having to submit complete full-service retail sales applications 15 days prior to the event as stated in EmR 2419, the standard should be an outright approval or denial within 5 days of submission. nn. DOR Response: The department cannot undo what has been done in the law. To ease the burden on municipalities and producers engaging in full-service retail sales, this rule order allows a municipality to adopt an ordinance similar to those for temporary retail licenses, that delegates the authority to a designated municipal official for events less than four days. 1010. Jessica Gibson of Triglav Wines, LLC, requests that the department rescind the minimum square footage requirement for wholesalers. oo. DOR Response: This standard has been in administrative rule for many years. The department does not find a compelling reason to change course at this time. 1111. Christopher Schroeder of Lake Whispers Brewing, LLC, requests the department reconsider charging $500 for each brewery permit issued for the same premises, like under a contract production agreement. pp. DOR Response: State law generally requires that both parties to a contract production agreement hold the same alcohol beverage production permit. The department does agree that producers engaging in contract production should only be required to hold one permit for the location where the alcohol beverages made under the contract are produced. This is reflected in sec. Tax 7.14(4). Comparison with rules in adjacent states:
Tax 7.01 Authority and Purpose cites the statutory authority for the chapter and outlines the responsibilities of the Division of Alcohol Beverages.
Minnesota | The Minnesota Division of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement is the authority over alcohol beverage law in Minnesota. The division resides in the Department of Public Safety. s. 340A.201, Min Stats. |
Iowa | Iowa Code section 123.1 outlines the public policy statement for alcohol beverage control. |
Illinois | The Illinois Liquor Control Act of 1934 (s. 235 ILCS 5) governs alcohol beverage regulation in Illinois. |
Michigan | Michigan Liquor Control Code of 1998 (ch. 436 MCL) establishes statutory authority for the Michigan Liquor Control and governs alcohol beverage regulation in Michigan. |
Tax 7.03 Background check fees describe the purpose for background checks for alcohol beverage permit applicants and which members of the applicant business are subject to criminal history checks. Authority for the Division to charge these fees was granted in sec. 125.04(8m), Stats.
Minnesota | Minnesota caps investigation fees for alcohol beverage licenses are capped at $500 for in-state licensees and $10,000 in actual costs incurred for out-of-state licensees (s. 340A.412, Min. Stats.). |
Iowa | Background checks are required to determine fitness for an alcohol beverage license in Iowa. The Department of Public Safety background checks are $15 each. |
Illinois | Illinois state law (ILCS 5/6-2) requires that alcohol beverage licenses not be issued to persons that "are not of good character and reputation in the community in which they reside." The chapter outlines criminal history criteria that would prohibit a person from holding a license in Illinois. |
Michigan | Michigan law gives the Michigan Liquor Control Commission the authority to request fingerprinting in s. MCL 436.1525(3). Any applicant that has not been previously licensed to hold a license must consent to a background check and finger printing. |
Tax 7.04 Permit fees outlines expiration dates, price, and when an application fee may be refunded for all alcohol beverage permits issued by the Division.
Minnesota | Alcohol permit fees in Minnesota vary depending on the type of permit and the city. Some alcohol beverage producers in Minnesota also receive their retail sales authority through local licensing so more than one fee may apply. |
Iowa | Iowa alcohol beverage permit fees expire one year from the date of issuance unless suspended or revoked (s. 123.35(1) Iowa Code). Permit fees vary depending on the type of authorization. |
Illinois | Illinois state and municipal licenses are renewed annually. State liquor license fees are established in s. 235 ILCS(5)5-3. |
Michigan | Alcohol beverage license fees are set by statute in s. 436.1525(1) MCL. |
Tax 7.06 Responsible beverage server training course standards establishes requirements that alcohol beverage server training courses must meet to be approved. This codifies the departments' long-standing guidance. Minnesota | Based on the best available research, it appears that Minnesota delegates bartender licensing and course requirements to municipalities. Further research is needed to determine where this authority comes from. |
Iowa | Alcohol server training course is not required in Iowa, and bartenders are not licensed. State law provides that if sufficient funding is appropriated, the department of revenue may create a course (s. 123.50A, Iowa Code). |
Illinois | Illinois requires completion of an approved course for all on-premises alcohol servers as well as anyone who checks ID cards for alcohol service. Some requirements for approved Beverage Alcohol Sellers and Servers Education and Training (BASSET) are outlined in s. 235 ILCS 5/6-27 and in Illinois Administrative Code (77 Ill. Adm. Code 3500.155). |
Michigan | Certain licensees have a bartender training course requirement as a condition of licensing, and most are required to have trained bartenders supervising sales and service of alcohol beverages. The Michigan Liquor Control Commission approves courses that meet the criteria set under s. 436.1906, MCL. |
Tax 7.11 Operators' permits establishes the expiration date and application process for operator's permits issued by the division.
Minnesota | Based on the best available research, it appears that Minnesota delegates bartender licensing and course requirements to municipalities. Further research is needed to determine where this authority comes from. |
Iowa | Operator's licenses are not required by law in Iowa. |
Michigan | Michigan has responsible beverage server training requirements but does not issue licenses or other authorizations to servers. |
Tax 7.12 Alcohol beverage warehouse standards establishes long-standing department practice for regulation of alcohol beverage warehouse permittees including who may hold this permit, authorized activities under the permit, and requirements of the premises.
Minnesota | Minnesota alcohol beverage warehouse standards are established in ss. 340A.305 and 340A.3055, Min. Stats. |
Iowa | Iowa controls the distribution tier of the alcohol beverage industry for intoxicating liquor. Further research is needed to determine if there are warehouse permits or standards for other types of alcohol beverage distributors outside of the state monopoly or for producers. |
Illinois | There are some regulations in Illinois state law and administrative code relating to warehousing of alcohol beverages. Further research is needed to determine if that approach is like that in Wisconsin law. |
Michigan | Michigan controls the distribution tier of the alcohol beverage industry for intoxicating liquor. Further research is needed to determine if there are warehouse permits or standards for other types of alcohol beverage distributors outside of the state monopoly or for producers. |
Tax 7.13 Permissible interests provide definitions and processes necessary to administer s. 125.20, Stats, created in 2023 Wisconsin Act 73. Minnesota | Cross-tier interest restrictions and permissible interests are governed by s. 340A, Minn. Stats. |
Iowa | Cross-tier interest restrictions are governed by state statute, s. 123.45, Iowa Code. |
Michigan | Cross-tier interest restrictions are governed by state statute, s. 436.1603 MCL. |
Tax 7.14 Production agreements provide clarification for producers engaging in production agreements under s. 125.21 including requirements for disclosure of agreements, and examples for tax payment and reporting requirements specifically relating to contract production agreements with out-of-state recipe suppliers. Minnesota | Minnesota statute and rules do not formally address contract production or alternating proprietorships. Minnesota relies on TTB guidance to regulate alternating proprietorships. The state requires submission of federal permits and an approved request for alternate method of operation from TTB upon application for a manufacturing license from Minnesota for an alternated premises. Recipe holders are not recognized as lawful manufacturers or brand owners in Minnesota. A recipe holder may hire a properly licensed Minnesota manufacturer that will register the brand with the state. Manufacturers in Minnesota may not sell finished products to each other. If a recipe holder wanted to send the product produced under contract to market, they would have to qualify for and obtain a state wholesaler or importer license. |
Iowa | Iowa law allows alternating proprietorships for native wineries by state statute. Iowa Code s. 123.176 (7) requires alternating proprietorships be approved by the TTB and all manufacturers that are parties to the alternating proprietorship must have proper permits from the state. On July 1, 2023, a new law went into effect to allow alternating proprietorships for native breweries and brewpubs. Alternating proprietorships for intoxicating liquor are not allowed under Iowa state law. |
Illinois | Illinois statute does not address alternating proprietorships or contract manufacturing relationships directly. For alternating proprietorships, the Illinois Liquor Control Commission expects licensed manufacturers to follow federal requirements for executing the agreement. Illinois allows contract manufacturing agreements. The Illinois Liquor Control Commission reserves the right to review all contracts to ensure that a licensed manufacturer is serving as the title holder that controls the product and sells the product to permitted wholesalers. |
Michigan | Michigan allows alternating proprietorships for beer and wine manufacturing by statute, s. MCL 436.1105 (4). The law allows more than one winery or brewery to engage in an alternating proprietorship if all businesses are properly permitted by the TTB and the state. Upon application to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, all businesses party to the agreement must present appropriate documentation from TTB to demonstrate federal approval. All manufacturers that are party to the agreement must have their own licensed premises. Manufacturers in Michigan must make their own products on their own licensed premises, except for alternating proprietorships. Because of this requirement, contract production of alcohol beverages in Michigan is illegal. |
7.15 Common carriers provide that permits may be issued to one entity for multiple locations and specifies that the report must be filed electronically.
Minnesota | Common Carriers in Minnesota are passenger vehicles, like trains or planes, under s. 340A.407 Minn. Stats. |
Iowa | Iowa Code references "common carrier" in ch. 123, but does not define it. Further research is needed to determine the definition of common carrier and if the regulation of such entities is comparable to that in Wisconsin Statutes. |
Illinois | 234 ILCS 5/8-12 governs common carrier regulation and reporting in Illinois. |
Michigan | Section 436.1203 MCL governs the shipment of alcohol beverages into Michigan. |
