Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retail Liquor Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fayetteville aldermen reject proposal to remove cap on retail liquor stores
Summary
After public comment from local liquor-store owners and residents, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted down an ordinance that would have removed the city's limit on retail liquor licenses.
The Board of Mayor and Aldermen of Fayetteville on Monday rejected an ordinance that would have removed the city's cap on retail liquor licenses, following public comments from local store owners who said lifting the limit would harm established businesses.
The ordinance (2025-14) to remove the cap was introduced by Alderman Keener and seconded by Alderman Faulkner. The motion failed after aldermen voted against the measure, and the board announced that the ordinance did not carry.
The vote came after three members of the public addressed the board during the meeting's public-comment period, urging aldermen to keep the existing cap. Doug Strong, owner of Strong Brothers Liquor Store, told the board he had been in the local liquor business since 1967 and warned that adding another store would "immediately devalue" existing businesses and put "some of us out of business." He also said recent changes allowing larger retailers to sell wine had already reduced his wine sales.
Neil Patel, speaking on behalf of Eastern Liquor, cited population and market figures he said came from U.S. Census data and argued Fayetteville's market is already well served. Patel said Fayetteville's population "declined slightly from 7,059 in 2019 to 7,047 in 2023" and that roughly 2,300 residents are under the legal purchasing age; he added those numbers suggest a limited pool of adult customers and said lifting the cap would divide an already small customer base.
Sahil Patel, speaking on behalf of his family, said his group invested more than $1,000,000 to buy a liquor locker in an existing licensed location after a prior board decision to uphold the cap in 2022. "Removing it now would not only devalue significant investments made by existing small business owners, but it would also risk saturating the market," Sahil Patel said.
Discussion: The item was debated as ordinance 2025-14 on the agenda. Aldermen discussed but did not adopt alternative caps or amendments during the vote. The board recorded the motion and the outcome; the motion to remove the cap failed. No follow-up direction to staff or a study item was recorded on the transcript.
Decision: The board voted and the ordinance to remove the cap on retail liquor licenses failed; the existing cap remains in place.
Ending: The meeting proceeded to the next agenda item after the vote.
