The last council meeting was by far, the most entertaining as well as eye opening. For all of the city’s inhabitants, it should be a well known fact that the council is the local liquor licensing authority. The issue discussed that seized my attention was the ordeal of granting a liquor licence to a business owner new to Greenwood Village. I found the ostensible conundrum a non-issue simply because the new store owners had not violated any laws regarding liquor distribution in the past. However, local store owners did not find the new liquor licence as non threatening as I did.

Much to my surprise, local store owners had hired an attorney that tried to block the council from issuing a liquor licence to the Marmel Corporation for the new store Chartreuse liquor. I assume Marmel corporation hired their attorney in response to this attempt by local business owners to block their entry into Greenwood Village. Both sides were backed by a strong showing of supporters whom I assume were friends and family members.

I’m sure that local business owners had concerns about the competition that the new store would bring and potential for lost customers. Of course, multiple stores  of the same kind opening within a one mile radius has to be difficult for business, but then again, such direct competition is representative of capital markets.  It was evident in their attorney’s discourse on the subject. He went on about “demand” for a new store and how it wouldn’t add to current customers’ “convenience.” The attorney responsible for legal representation of the Marmel corporation shrewdly and calmly pointed out the facts that business owners were well within their rights to open new businesses. Besides that, Chartreuse liquor claimed to service a niche market through the sales of middle eastern liquors. The tone of discourse by the two attorneys was definitely contentious; almost to the point of immaturity. As such, this item on the agenda was extremely amusing entertaining to watch.

After a period of deliberation (no doubt to decipher the legal jargon recently orated by the two opposing attorneys), the council arrived at a decision to grant the Marmel corporation a liquor licence. Of course, this wasn’t without a stern warning from the mayor about proper ethical practices for the new store. I fully agree with the council’s decision in this case because it wouldn’t have been fair to let the Marmel corporation to have to look for a new and possibly more expensive location to do business. While it may or may not hurt its surrounding’s businesses’ profits, it would be wrong and perhaps legally unjustifiable to deny a licence to Chartreuse Liquor. This decision by the city council should instill confidence in both inhabitants and denizens of Greenwood Village in its ability to make shrewd decisions regarding business and upkeep of the city.

The city council meeting of November 7th, 2011 was the very definition of efficient government. I understand that under normal circumstances, meeting tend to take several hours. However, this was not the case because several items on the council’s agenda were passed unanimously and very little needed to be discussed. One of the few items on the agenda that needed to be discussed was the issue of Merrick and Company which seeking to set up its new world headquarters in Greenwood Village. In return, Merrick and Company wanted 50% off the occupational privilege tax for 300 of their employees for six months. In reality, the occupational privilege tax is only $4 per month for every employee a company has in the city. This is the equivalent of $7200 over six months but Merrick and Company wants to save $3600 over six months. During the meeting, council member Presley brought the issue under conversation. Among the council members, there was a general consensus that this request was most irregular. When voting, all members with the exception of Council member Todd approved of Merrick and Company’s proposition.

In my opinion, a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue shouldn’t be asking for something as minuscule as $3600 from the council. In fact, I see it as just wasting the council’s time. For Merrick and Company’s supposed $125 million dollar revenue, their request seems most ludicrous. In the long run, approving their proposition is just a bump in the road to what is sure to be a prosperous relationship between the city of Greenwood Village and Merrick and Company. I just hope that Merrick and company isn’t setting a precedent for companies to think that they avoid taxes all together. I realize that this is, perhaps, an irrational fear but a government relaxing laws on taxing slightly implies that they don’t need them. The city, of course, needs taxes like the occupational privilege tax to maintain the wonderful infrastructure that everybody enjoys. If I had to vote on the council, I would approve Merrick and Company’s most irregular request not because I support relaxing tax regulation but because it’s a practical incentive for one more business operating in the City.