Breweries opening in Minnesota 2015/2016

Good question. I'd guess that only breweries that package in the 750mL would either re-fill of accept them.

Maybe @ZAP has some familiarity with this?

 

Took a walk down to Roets last night as it's luckily only a few blocks from my house. Seems like they've made no progress in the past 5-6 weeks since that late January facebook update. I didn't see any drywall and only a vague outline of the bar. The brew system is sitting in the middle of the floor. I was hoping they'd be up and running by this summer so I could spend some time down there but that seems unlikely.

On a side note, once they do get going, they are situated right next to an arcade who has a "free-play" business model. You pay $5 and all the games are set to free play mode. I'm not saying it would be a good idea to give your kiddos a 5-spot and let them play video games for hours while you drink next door... but the thought had crossed my mind.

 

That arcade sounds pretty fun! I know a family of gamers and home brewers that would be up for that.

Too bad it's taking them a while longer than expected, but they really got hit last year.

 

Sorry...I do not know...all my attention is on all the 64 ounce growlers in my possession.

 

Some guy wrote the following recently on another thread: http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...ties-march-edition.263324/page-4#post-3401310

As I read the applicable law, growlers are defined as 64 ounce containers, and the 750 ml containers, despite their growler-like caps, are defined as bottles. The law specifically allows breweries to fill other breweries' growlers (given certain labeling requirements) but makes no mention of filling other breweries' bottles. Consequently, I think it technically would be illegal for Fair State to fill another brewery's 750 ml containers, even if people casually refer to them as mini-growlers or growlettes. That said, I'm not a lawyer; nor do I work at a brewery. For all I know you could get away with such an exchange in practice.

See 7(b): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=340a.301

The malt liquor shall be packaged in 64-ounce containers commonly known as "growlers" or in 750 milliliter bottles. The containers or bottles shall bear a twist-type closure, cork, stopper, or plug. At the time of the sale, a paper or plastic adhesive band, strip, or sleeve shall be applied to the container or bottle and extend over the top of the twist-type closure, cork, stopper, or plug forming a seal that must be broken upon opening of the container or bottle. The adhesive band, strip, or sleeve shall bear the name and address of the brewer. The containers or bottles shall be identified as malt liquor, contain the name of the malt liquor, bear the name and address of the brewer selling the malt liquor, and shall be considered intoxicating liquor unless the alcoholic content is labeled as otherwise in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules, part 7515.1100. A brewer may, but is not required to, refill any growler with malt liquor for off-sale at the request of a customer. A brewer refilling a growler must do so at its licensed premises and the growler must be filled at the tap at the time of sale. A growler refilled under this paragraph must be sealed and labeled in the manner described in this paragraph. A brewer's total retail sales at on- or off-sale under this paragraph may not exceed 3,500 barrels per year, provided that off-sales may not total more than 500 barrels.

Oh wait, that was me. Anyway, the language of the law seems pretty clear to me in separating 64-ounce growlers from 750 mL bottles. The former generally may be refilled at any brewery, and the latter are not mentioned in that regard so presumably may be filled only at the original brewery at which they were sold. But @McRyan implied that someone at Fair State said he would fill an outside 750 mL container, if I interpreted his post correctly. Nonetheless, whoever he spoke to at Fair State may well be misinterpreting the law.

Heck, Jim Watkins at Sociable Cider Werks seems to think that he can get away with calling 750 mL cans ("crowlers") "bottles," just as he's gotten away with calling graff "cider." As Shakespeare wrote, "What's in a name? that which we call a gose by any other name would smell as salty," or something to that effect.

http://growlermag.com/cans-and-growlers-meet-in-the-crowler/

 

You get paid by the word on here, don't you?

 

The sad part to this is there are some places that still find a loop-hole in this as an excuse to not fill other growlers. I forget their argument but clearly none of the numerous places that do it are going to jail or paying fines. I think it is the "contain the name of the malt liquor" part which is easily handled by tossing an easily obtained sticker on it. It is getting to be less and less of a concern for me as prices go up. I'm not paying 20 for a fill of beer at some new place in St. Cloud even if they use my growlers (which they don't yet because of this unnamed law)... Sorry I will just use my multiple Town Hall Growlers for better beer at better prices...or go to Harriet for quality beer at very reasonable prices...I could go on...

 

Yes.

 

According to its Facebook page, Lupulin in Big Lake (570 Humboldt Dr.) opens its taproom to the public on Friday, 4-3-15 at 4 p.m.

 

Update on 56 Brewing in Nordeast Minneapolis, located in the former NorthGate space: It will be opening later this month or in early April and "will start out serving draft accounts at bars and restaurants about town and filling growlers and pouring samples without a taproom." One of the owners mentions the possibility of a taproom "in a few years." I believe this will be the first brewing company with its own physical brewery in the Twin Cities area to open without near-term plans to open a taproom since the passage of the Surly Bill. It joins the likes of Flat Earth, Lucid, and a few others around town in not having a taproom that sells beers by the glass.

http://blogs.citypages.com/food/2015/03/56_brewing_will_offer_minnesotas_first_csb_brewery.php

 

after reading 5 pages of this thread, I'm dizzy. As someone said on page 1 or 2, so many beers, so little time.

 

Lakeside Tavern in Detroit Lakes is expanding and adding a brewery to become DL's first brewpub. The are hoping for a Memorial Day Weekend grand opening for the brewery.
http://www.inforum.com/business/3702950-lakeside-tavern-will-become-detroit-lakes-first-brew-pub

 

Roets posted on Facebook. They've gotten approval for their beer garden and construction is progressing. They say they're slightly behind schedule and plan to open by late Spring.

 

Doesn't yet have a name (that I could dig up...): http://discussions.probrewer.com/showthread.php?45911-Wanted-Head-Brewer-near-Minneapolis
Put 'er on the watch list - cuz you know, it's EZ to open a BruAiry!

 

The fact that it says "northern suburb of Minneapolis" has me excited

 

I'm in St. Paul, so the next few links are 'north' of me -- and all of these are new to our survey.

I always say I'm forgetting one plan or other, and this guy is one (that makes two Champlin plans including Blue Wolf.)

Did I saw there were two or three plans for Anoka?

And then there's this one in Ham Lake that fell off my radar a while back -- 'til today.

P.S. LTS Brewing Company in Rochester received their brewers license last week, so a grand opening can't be very far off.

 

Hit up both Lupine and Beaver Island today. I thought the beers were pretty solid at both places.

Will definitely be a repeat drinker.

 

10K Brewing plans to be open in Anoka by July.

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/297425471.html

 

10k just launched their kickstarter but plan to be open by July? Sounds aggressive. Unless they have their mechanical done already and equipment already procured July may come and go quickly.

 

No one opens when they think they will. Ever.