When it comes to changing Napa County’s Winery Definition Ordinance, there is the big picture and there are the details.

The big-picture question is a decades-old debate here: Whether any change affecting the county’s Agricultural Preserve is beneficial or harmful.

The proposal to modify the Winery Definition Ordinance to allow a broader range of events to take place on winery grounds could have a significant impact on the valley’s economy and quality of life. Strong points regarding the need for change have been made on this page over the last two days.

As to the details, there are several points being considered by county officials, vintners and other stakeholders.

• Weddings: Allowing a wider range of marketing events is one thing, but allowing weddings at wineries covered by the ordinance might be another. The current law limits winery events to those related to “education and development” tied to wine sales. While corporate retreats or getaways may include — or can be finessed to include — a wine-marketing component, weddings are social gatherings that clearly exist independent of wine marketing.

Yet wineries can insist that their wines be served at weddings, and can argue they would make customers for life (i.e. do some marketing) by hosting weddings. Further, other counties allow winery weddings and there is a steady demand for them.

One suggestion is that the county regulate weddings at wineries or in the Agricultural Preserve separately from other events, but in doing so agree not to increase the overall number of events wineries may host.

• Oversight: David Aten, an events planner seeking a change to the law, told the Register editorial board that some wineries regularly exceed existing limitations on the number or kind of events allowed on their premises. Foster’s Wine Estates executive Ed Matovcik strongly disagreed.

Either way, if there is a perception that some wineries are scofflaws, the question of whether the county should increase enforcement of the Winery Definition Ordinance is in play. That would require more resources from the county.

• Public hours: As part of the discussion, some wineries and others have cast their eyes on broader aspects of the Winery Definition Ordinance. One question is whether the county should expand the number of wineries that have regular tasting room hours vs. those open only by appointment. A shift here could make a big difference in a winery’s bottom line, traffic patterns and the lives of winery neighbors.

• Temporary permits: the Napa County Board of Supervisors asked county staff to suggest temporary rules that might allow weddings or other specially-permitted events at wineries while any permanent changes to the law are ironed out. These proposals could raise, in miniature, the controversial questions above.

While it appears a majority of the supervisors favor a change in the law, the board has agreed to wait until January to hear from staff and vintners. That approach improves the chances of reaching a consensus position rather than starting a battle among the vines.