While listening to the study session presentation on increased Lightrail ridership before the August 5^th City Council meeting, I was struck by the extent to which trends in Lightrail usage mirror the many changes that have occurred in Greenwood Village in recent years. Having lived and gone to school in the area for my entire life, I have witnessed the municipality begin to transform from an area with many open fields and mainly single-family dwellings to one with many more apartment buildings and multi-family residences. Since its creation in 2006, the Lightrail system has propelled some of these changes. With a quite effective and popular public transportation option, Greenwood Village is no longer a city in which having a car is an absolute necessity. Such changes, coupled with recent power outages in one of the city’s larger retail areas, bring up questions about how the Village will respond to various modernizations. Moving forward, the city will need to consider the fact that with such a viable transportation option in Lightrail, not all residents may own a car. Does this mean that a grocery store should be built within walking distance of some of the newly constructed apartment complexes? Furthermore, it may also be necessary for the city to change some aspects of its electrical system as a growing population increases the demand for power and taxes the current system. Although these questions do not currently have clear answers, they will need to be considered by City Council while making future decisions. As Greenwood Village itself continues to grow and transform, the city’s government must be sure to adapt as well to best serve the area’s changing needs.

Leading up to the July 15^th City Council meeting, councilmembers and the mayor had received various e-mails from constituents voicing their opinions on the same issue: the possible installation of a synthetic turf field in Greenwood Village. Although the majority of these e-mails expressed overwhelming support for synthetic turf, the conversation dealing with how to move forward regarding this issue was not simple by any means. With the community’s opinions in mind, the Council discussed both the advantages and disadvantages of investing in such a field. The main benefits seem to be the water savings that would result from replacing a traditional grass field with a synthetic field as well as the fact that synthetic grass can often be used during inclement weather and therefore provide for extended use when compared with natural grass fields. On the other hand, synthetic turf fields also have some drawbacks, including the high costs of installation, maintenance, and sanitation. With doubts about how useful one turf field will be and if there is room in the city’s budget for such an undertaking, the Council found itself not only deliberating these pros and cons, but also debating how to best respond to the public pressure to move forward with the installation of turf.

Elected officials at all levels of government in the United States regularly face a similar predicament of balancing the wishes expressed by some constituents and taking the course of action that is best for the community as a whole. Personally, I feel that in order for our system of government to work productively, it is essential for elected officials to listen to and be respectful of the public’s opinion. However, this process is complicated, as many constituents are often not well-versed about every side of a complex issue or the impact that a decision will have on the entire community.  Therefore, for our system of government to operate at its full potential, responsibility falls on both the governed and the government. Constituents must strive to stay informed in order to effectively communicate their preferences with government officials. In turn, it is vital for municipal, state, and national governments to pay attention to the community’s desires. Elected officials must then weigh the pros and cons of an issue alongside the public’s opinion and then remain transparent and explain its decision making process to citizens.

Along these lines, the City Council remained realistic in its discussion of the installation of a synthetic turf field. Realizing that there is no room in the 2014 Capital Improvement Budget (CIP) for an investment of this nature, the Council kept the e-mails it had received in mind and suggested both putting the installation of a synthetic turf field into a future CIP and also continuing to communicate with the public about this issue.

The second topic of discussion following the consent agenda at the June 3^rd Greenwood Village City Council meeting generated much conversation among council members. In response to recent passing of House Bill 13-1060 by the Colorado General Assembly, this discussion revolved around the ability of municipal courts to increase maximum penalties to $2,650. With this act propelling the first change to maximum municipal court fines in 21 years, it certainly merits close scrutiny.

At large, the City Council seemed to support applying Ordinance 11-13 to Greenwood Village, with the City Attorney recommending that the Council adopt the ordinance on first reading. However, one of the most alarming aspects of Ordinance 11-13 was the steep increase it proposed in terms of the maximum fine that a municipal court could impose, as the bill raised this amount from $999 to $2650. Although at first I found myself concerned by the fact that adopting the ordinance would result in more than a 150% increase from the previous maximum fine, the majority of the Council did not see this provision as a problem. In fact, having a maximum fine as low as $999 has even inhibited the court’s ability to limit some infractions, particularly in regard to the issue of overweight trucks on the roads of Greenwood Village. Because overweight trucks tear up the streets, they need to be limited in order to protect the roads themselves and thereby save taxpayer dollars in road repairs. However, because businesses could only be charged a maximum fine of $999, many companies found it less of a burden to pay the fine for breaking the law than to ensure that their trucks remained within the weight limit. As a result, many of the commercial trucks stopped in Greenwood Village are often more than 15,000 pounds overweight. After learning more about the frequency of this problem in the city, the initial shock that I felt about the sharp increase in fines was replaced by an understanding that the most effective laws may be ones that not only provide for a punishment when a misdemeanor occurs, but also ones that serve as a deterrent from the offense being committed in the first place. Therefore, greater consequences are often necessary in order to deter individuals from consciously breaking the law.

Also garnering support for the bill within the Council was the possibility that raising the maximum fine could afford the courts more discretion in deciding penalties on a specific case-by-case basis. Personally, I believe that judicial discretion is vital for any court system. In order for the justice system to be as fair and responsive as possible, judges should have the ability to decide the appropriate punishments for each case, without being too limited in the amount they can fine. With this in mind, I agree with the Council’s decision to pass Ordinance 11-13 on first reading.