Alcohol Compliance Survey, January 2004
Second Class Licenses
| County |
# Licensees | Licensees that sold alcohol to minors |
Licensees that did not sell alcohol to minors |
| Bennington |
5 | 2 | 40.0% |
3 | 60.0% |
| Caledonia |
4 | 1 | 25.0% |
3 | 75.0% |
| Chittenden |
15 | 2 | 13.3% |
13 | 86.7% |
| Essex |
1 | 1 | 100.0% |
0 | 0.0% |
| Franklin |
7 | 0 | 0.0% |
7 | 100.0% |
| Lamoille |
2 | 2 | 100.0% |
0 | 0.0% |
| Orange |
2 | 0 | 0.0% |
2 | 100.0% |
| Orleans |
4 | 1 | 25.0% |
3 | 75.0% |
| Rutland |
18 | 3 | 16.7% |
15 | 83.3% |
| Washington |
13 | 1 | 7.7% |
12 | 92.3% |
| Windham |
4 | 0 | 0.0% |
4 | 100.0% |
| Windsor |
10 | 0 | 0.0% |
10 | 100.0% |
| TOTAL |
85 | 13 |
15.3% | 72 |
84.7% |
Of the 13 Second Class licensees who sold Alcohol products to a minor (17-20 years old), 8 requested valid photographic
identification from the minor and made the sale; 5 did not ask for identification.
