OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Aurora City Council Study Session – January 14, 2026

City Council — Wednesday, January 14, 2026
BodyAurora, Colorado
SessionCity Council
DateWednesday, January 14, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:21

Mayor Coffin here Councilmember Andrews Councilmember Bergen?

0:28

Council.

0:29

Yes.

0:30

Mayor Pro Tim Coombs present.

0:36

Somebody is unmuted and joined the meeting.

0:39

Make sure you're muted.

0:41

Anybody in the meeting?

0:48

Mayor Pro Tim Coombs?

0:52

Councilmember Gardner?

0:55

Councilmember Hancock?

0:57

Councilmember Horton?

0:58

There.

0:58

Councilmember Jackson?

1:00

Councilmember Lawson?

1:02

Here.

1:02

Councilmember Medina?

1:04

Councilmember Wiles.

1:06

Ms.

1:06

Korn.

1:12

There's no uh mayor's update.

1:14

Uh are there any issue updates?

1:16

Seeing none, uh is there any objection uh to moving the consent calendar forward?

1:23

Item number two a through two Icel member Hancock.

1:34

I remember two I.

1:36

Two, I'm sorry, two I then is there objection for moving the consent colour forward number two A through two H.

1:50

Uh saying none, then uh that consent count will move forward.

1:54

I'm number two I uh 2026 state and federal legislative priorities.

2:00

Uh Liz Liz Rogers formerly Liz Lemon, but she doesn't get that.

2:07

Thank you for that clarification, Mayor.

2:09

Uh hi everyone, Liz Rogers, intergovernmental relations manager.

2:12

Um the 2026 parties were pulled for state and federal.

2:15

They should be in your backup, happy to take any questions on these comments or concerns.

2:21

Uh questions of Liz.

2:24

Not directly.

2:26

I I have well.

2:28

Councilmember Hancock.

2:29

Thank you, Mayor, because I got excited.

2:31

Um I I was at the Pfizer Committee meeting and I was a little bit confused, so I have some questions I need some clarification on.

2:40

Um specifically, I wanted to ask Councilmember Coombs.

2:45

Um, I want to understand the factual basis and the practical effect of your proposed edits to the city's home rule legislative priorities.

2:53

You said in an article that we should not treat home rule as a cudgel.

2:58

Can you cite one example where Aurora invoked home rule improperly, either through issue on date, in the city position that you believed was wrong.

3:09

Mayor Pro Tim.

3:10

Mayor, so it's not about whether or not we can invoke the home rule authority, it's about the approach that we take to the legislature in doing it.

3:21

Um so when we say every time that we have a disagreement, this is because of home rule, right?

3:30

If home rule is a possible objection, then I think that reduces our efficacy in approaching the legislature about home rule specifically.

3:42

Um so in this whole last conversation about um land use priorities when we also objected on home rule in relation to sentencing right in the same session any time that FSIR had an objection, they also invoked home rule, even if the objection was also grounded in other issues.

4:07

Um and so the reason that I requested those changes is specifically that we need to be really direct about what are our issues that we have if it's about the legislation itself and the philosophy behind the legislation, we need to be honest about that.

4:28

Um when we are invoking home rule, we have to acknowledge that it is possible, even with the home rule uh provisions of the Constitution that the legislature can reasonably argue that something is a matter of statewide concern.

4:51

We cannot say because we have laws on this or we have made laws on this historically, that means it is not a matter of statewide concern.

5:00

And I think that the way that we've approached them in those conversations has not been from a collaborative standpoint of how do we come to agreement about what is and is not a home rule issue.

5:14

So you're you're not Mayor?

5:18

Councillor Hancock.

5:19

Okay, because it's of my question here.

5:22

So you're not describing a pattern without identifying a single instance.

5:27

That that sounds is that fair?

5:29

So, what specifically made it improper?

5:31

What what was the legal aspect of what you're factually trying to assert here?

5:36

Well, I'm not a lawyer.

5:38

Um, I'm talking about the collaborative legislative process with our fellow legislative body.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Procedural█████████████████████████████29%
Federal And State Relations████████████████████████████28%
Water And Wastewater Management███████████████████19%
Zoning And Land Use██████6%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████6%
Community Engagement███3%
Public Safety██2%
Technology and Innovation██2%
Public Engagement██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Aurora City Council Study Session – January 14, 2026

The Aurora City Council held a study session on January 14, 2026, to discuss the 2026 state and federal legislative priorities, a planning/annexation boundary amendment, outside agency appointments, and the Build Up Aurora infrastructure initiative. Key debates focused on home rule authority language, water supply limitations, and stakeholder engagement.

Consent Calendar

  • Routine approvals for items 2A through 2H were moved forward without objection. Item 2I (2026 state and federal legislative priorities) was pulled for discussion.

Discussion Items

2026 Legislative Priorities – Home Rule Language
Intergovernmental Relations Manager Liz Rogers presented the draft priorities. Councilmember Hancock questioned Mayor Pro Tem Coombs about his proposed edits, asking for examples of improper home rule invocation. Coombs argued for a more collaborative approach, stating that repeatedly invoking home rule reduces efficacy. Councilmember Hancock and others defended strong home rule language, citing state overreach. Councilmember Gardner proposed adding opposition to unfunded mandates and changing "request" to "expects" for clarity. Councilmember Horton suggested inserting "land use" into the list of issues to which a one-size-fits-all approach does not apply. After debate, the council adopted: "Oppose state preemption of local authority. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach to transportation, economic development, land use, or other issues. The city expects consistency and clarity with respect to home rule authority." Additionally, the council approved: "The city opposes unfunded mandates. Unfunded mandates delay projects and have negative budget impacts. We oppose unfunded mandates without significant input from municipalities."

Item 3A – Study on Business Regulations
Councilmember Hancock pulled this item, citing insufficient stakeholder engagement (the Business Advisory Board met only 48 hours prior). Councilmember Medina, the sponsor, agreed to defer to a future study session. The council voted to delay discussion to February 9, 2026, and directed staff to include BAB input and other stakeholder comments in the backup.

Item 3B – Planning and Annexation Boundary Amendment
Daniel Krasanowski (Planning) and Alexandra Davis (Aurora Water) presented. Davis detailed water supply challenges: current demand is 93,193 acre-feet, projected to reach 116,000 by 2060, while supply is being reduced by climate change, expiring leases, and overappropriated river basins. The city cannot serve all land within the current planning area boundary. The proposed reduction was unanimously supported by the Planning Commission. Council agreed to move forward with a comprehensive plan amendment to adjust the boundary.

Outside Agency Appointments
Council filled 24 positions on various boards and commissions. Notable changes: Councilmember Jackson appointed to DDA and Highline Canal Collaborative; Councilmember Andrews took Spirit of Aurora; Councilmember Horton replaced Councilmember Bergen on Fitzsimmons Innovation Committee; Councilmember Medina added as alternate on I-70 Aerotropolis RTA. Several incumbents were reappointed (e.g., Councilmember Gardner to Adams County Regional Economic Partnership). No objections were raised.

Build Up Aurora Update
Deputy City Manager Laura Perry outlined a $1.6 billion capital needs list across five focus areas. She proposed a process of five stakeholder meetings (February – March), a joint council town hall, and a spring workshop on May 9, 2026, to finalize recommendations. Council endorsed the proposed engagement plan.

Key Outcomes

  • Amended 2026 legislative priorities with new home rule and unfunded mandates language.
  • Deferred item 3A to February 9, 2026, for additional stakeholder input.
  • Directed staff to proceed with a comprehensive plan amendment for the planning/annexation boundary reduction.
  • Approved all outside agency appointments as discussed.
  • Endorsed the Build Up Aurora public engagement and timeline proposal.

Meeting Transcript

Mayor Coffin here Councilmember Andrews Councilmember Bergen? Council. Yes. Mayor Pro Tim Coombs present. Somebody is unmuted and joined the meeting. Make sure you're muted. Anybody in the meeting? Mayor Pro Tim Coombs? Councilmember Gardner? Councilmember Hancock? Councilmember Horton? There. Councilmember Jackson? Councilmember Lawson? Here. Councilmember Medina? Councilmember Wiles. Ms. Korn. There's no uh mayor's update. Uh are there any issue updates? Seeing none, uh is there any objection uh to moving the consent calendar forward? Item number two a through two Icel member Hancock. I remember two I. Two, I'm sorry, two I then is there objection for moving the consent colour forward number two A through two H. Uh saying none, then uh that consent count will move forward. I'm number two I uh 2026 state and federal legislative priorities. Uh Liz Liz Rogers formerly Liz Lemon, but she doesn't get that. Thank you for that clarification, Mayor. Uh hi everyone, Liz Rogers, intergovernmental relations manager. Um the 2026 parties were pulled for state and federal. They should be in your backup, happy to take any questions on these comments or concerns. Uh questions of Liz. Not directly. I I have well. Councilmember Hancock. Thank you, Mayor, because I got excited. Um I I was at the Pfizer Committee meeting and I was a little bit confused, so I have some questions I need some clarification on. Um specifically, I wanted to ask Councilmember Coombs. Um, I want to understand the factual basis and the practical effect of your proposed edits to the city's home rule legislative priorities. You said in an article that we should not treat home rule as a cudgel. Can you cite one example where Aurora invoked home rule improperly, either through issue on date, in the city position that you believed was wrong. Mayor Pro Tim. Mayor, so it's not about whether or not we can invoke the home rule authority, it's about the approach that we take to the legislature in doing it. Um so when we say every time that we have a disagreement, this is because of home rule, right? If home rule is a possible objection, then I think that reduces our efficacy in approaching the legislature about home rule specifically. Um so in this whole last conversation about um land use priorities when we also objected on home rule in relation to sentencing right in the same session any time that FSIR had an objection, they also invoked home rule, even if the objection was also grounded in other issues. Um and so the reason that I requested those changes is specifically that we need to be really direct about what are our issues that we have if it's about the legislation itself and the philosophy behind the legislation, we need to be honest about that. Um when we are invoking home rule, we have to acknowledge that it is possible, even with the home rule uh provisions of the Constitution that the legislature can reasonably argue that something is a matter of statewide concern. We cannot say because we have laws on this or we have made laws on this historically, that means it is not a matter of statewide concern.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com