Two Aurora councilmembers are teaming up in the push to end the city’s ability to handle domestic violence cases in municipal court, a responsibility that sets the latter apart from other local governments.

Councilmember Dustin Zvonek and Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky in the past week have both addressed the possibility of handing domestic violence cases to county courts, like most other municipalities in Colorado do. 

In Monday’s meeting, Zvonek said he would assist Jurinsky’s efforts to do so. 

The debate is tangentially related to a contentious conversation that has been going on in the city for months about whether the city should contract out for indigent defense or keep its in-house public defender’s office.

One argument against contracting out indigent defense is that Aurora handles domestic violence cases, making it an outlier and why an in-house public defender’s office is necessary. 

In Colorado, only three other municipalities, Lakewood, Westminster and Denver, handle domestic violence cases.

Aurora’s municipal court has been handling domestic violence since it began, with reported increases in domestic violence cited as part of the reason for the court’s creation, since municipal court could handle them more quickly than state or county court, according to a 2021 review of Aurora’s public defense system from the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. 

Domestic violence cases make up a large portion of the public defender’s office workload. The city prosecutes about 1,600 domestic violence cases each year, with a good portion of those going to trial with public defender representation, the review said.

Aurora’s public defenders handled over 4,000 cases in total in 2023. With a public defender’s budget of $2.2 million, that comes out to $550 per case.

The push to determine if Aurora could save money by contracting out for indigent defense services ended in February when a request for proposals came up empty.

At the time, Zvonek — who led the efforts to send out the request for proposal — told The Denver Gazette he would “move on,” saying he still believes it would have been possible to make the city’s indigent defense more cost effective but noted nobody was willing to do it.

The issue arose again last week, when Jurinsky threatened during a committee meeting to pursue an ordinance that would stop the city from prosecuting domestic violence cases if legislation at the Colorado state Capitol about indigent defense contracts gets passed.

She was referring to House Bill 24-1437, which would require cities that prosecute domestic violence cases to pay contractors hourly at the same or higher rate that the state pays for its services. Rep. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora, sponsored the bill.  

It bans such cities from using flat-fee contracts for indigent defense.

Zvonek cited his worries about the city losing control as a result of the proposed state law in pushing 

At the next public safety meeting, Zvonek said he will bring forward an ordinance to start the conversation and “ask the question of whether or not we want to allow the state legislature to determine how we handle public defense and how we contract or potentially contract out with public defenders.”

He will also push for a resolution asking the city manager to analyze the cost to taxpayers for handling those types of cases in the municipal court system, he said. 

According to the Colorado Judicial Branch 2023 report, Arapahoe County handled 896 domestic violence cases last year, Douglas County handled 476 and Adams County handled 1,226.

A spokesperson for the 18th Judicial District said they are unaware yet how this change might affect them or what their possible additional needs might be if the city followed through. 

The 17th Judicial District, which includes Adams County, did not reply to a request for comment. 

Aurora city staffers recommended the council not take a position on the draft bill when it was presented to the Federal, State and Intergovernmental Relations Policy committee last week, but Jurinsky fought the recommendation.

Jurinsky also called out Elizabeth Cadiz, Aurora’s chief public defender, who has pushed against efforts to contract out indigent defense, alleging the latter was behind the bill in the Colorado House.

“I’m sure this legislation came from our friend Elizabeth Cadiz, who is currently on this meeting … in an attempt to stop us from trying another RFP or continue our efforts to get rid of our in-house public defender’s office,” Jurinsky said.

Jurinsky, who has also been a proponent of pushing the city to see if contracted indigent defense would be cheaper, said she will “not back off.”

“Should this legislation pass, we will no longer prosecute domestic violence cases in the city of Aurora at all anymore,” Jurinsky said at the committee meeting. “So, go ahead and gripe about that. Go ahead and put it in your pipe and smoke it because that’s where we’re at and I strongly oppose.”

Cadiz said she was not asked to provide staff comment or recommendations concerning the bill and also didn’t request the opportunity to do so, nor did she provide the draft bill or ask for it to be put on the agenda.

“I will defer to the bill sponsor for questions concerning any other intention of the bill,” she wrote in an email to The Denver Gazette Monday. “I fear that any further comment concerning Council Member Jurinsky’s comments will attract further criticism and retaliation by a member of City Council.”