Aurora city councilmembers delayed a decision on a proposal to get rid of the city’s ability to prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence cases after several councilmembers expressed concern about the proposal and the people it could affect.

The proposal, presented in Monday’s study session by councilmember Dustin Zvonek, would end the city’s ability to hear non-felony level domestic violence cases — instead passing them off to county courts.

In Colorado, Aurora is one of four municipalities that handles domestic violence cases. The other three are Lakewood, Westminster and Denver.

Aurora’s municipal court has been handling misdemeanor domestic violence since it began, with reported increases in domestic violence cited as part of the reason for the court’s creation. The rationale is that 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.

Proponents of the ordinance to remove those services from Aurora said the current system costs taxpayers more than necessary and moving these cases to county courts instead would save the city money and resources.

A misdemeanor domestic violence incident is one that results in bodily injury, and anything more serious than that, such as serious bodily injury or a situation involving a weapon, automatically goes to a higher court, according to Pete Schulte with the City Attorney’s Office.

On Monday, multiple councilmembers — including several who usually agree with Zvonek — expressed concerns about the proposal, eventually deciding to wait to make a decision. 

Some councilmembers were concerned about what would happen to active cases, to which Schulte said there would not be a “hard stop.”

If someone with an active municipal warrant for domestic violence were picked up after the city stopped prosecuting domestic violence cases, the case would still be handled by Aurora Municipal Court until they “dwindle down to zero,” Schulte said.

Councilmember Alison Coombs worried that people whose domestic violence cases would normally be heard at the municipal court level may not be handled with the same rigor at the county level, she said.

Schulte confirmed that would be likely.

“I’ll be honest, there are some cases that we would probably take at the municipal court that the county courts may not prosecute as vigorously as we would here,” Schulte said.

Councilmember Angela Lawson expressed the same concern.

“Our municipal court has been considered one of the best in terms of domestic violence cases and the resources that we provide,” Lawson said. “I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m looking at it from the victim perspective.”

Currently, the number of cases the county courts could take and how extensively they could be handled is a “question mark,” Lawson said. 

Councilmember Curtis Gardner said he knows “we need to be as fiscally responsible as possible,” but that public safety is a “core responsibility” for the council.

“I can tell you what’s going to happen when we send these hundreds of cases to the county, they’re not going to get the attention that they deserve,” Gardner said. 

The ordinance and debate around it are tangentially related to a contentious issue 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 among municipalities. And, under that argument, an in-house public defender’s office is necessary because 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 more than 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.

The issue arose again in early April, 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 was passed.

She was referring to House Bill 24-1437, which passed the Colorado Senate in early May and requires 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. Gov. Jared Polis signed it into law Thursday, June 6.

In Monday night’s study session, councilmember Gardner said he understands that some people on the council want to get rid of domestic violence cases municipally to “respond to state legislation,” but he wants to make sure victims get the best representation that they can. 

“Spend some time talking to people who were on council in the eighties and nineties and they will tell you there is a reason why we prosecute misdemeanor domestic violence cases,” Gardner said. “It’s to ensure that our residents, victims of domestic violence, get the best representation that they can, and that cannot always be measured on a spreadsheet.”

In other council news, councilmembers voted to finalize an ordinance removing the sunset provision on mandatory minimum jail sentences for auto theft; passed a new ordinance allowing Aurora residents to have a maximum of four dogs instead of three; and voted to change the makeup of the Aurora Housing Authority and add term limits for its members.