AURORA | Aurora might take a less aggressive approach to the state’s potential home rule encroachments in the 2026 legislative session.
Edits made by Councilmember Alison Coombs to redirect the city’s priorities on Municipal Home Rule were approved by the majority of members in the City Council Federal, State and Intergovernmental Relations Committee on Thursday.
“I think we should narrow and tailor our approach to having the Home Rule conversation with the legislature, rather than treating it as a cudgel that we use whenever we disagree, and promoting the perception that Home Rule authority is absolute,” Coombs said to the Sentinel.
The potential change will be discussed by the entire city council during Monday’s Study Session, where the rest of the council will decide whether to approve it, according to Coombs.
Aurora has fought state lawmakers in the past two years on legislation they say usurps local control of home-rule cities. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Aurora last month for imposing harsher sentences for misdemeanor shoplifting than imposed by the state. Legislators last year created a law that was punitive of Aurora and other cities, but it was vetoed by Gov. Jared Polis.
Any council member can propose changes to any committee, and Coombs’s suggested changes were supported by new council members Amy Wiles and Alli Jackson.
Coombs clarified that she did not intend to eliminate the Municipal Home Rule Authority as a city priority in the legislative session, but rather to clarify the direction.
Councilmember Angela Lawson, who is chairperson of the FSIR Committee disagreed with the change, but she was outvoted. Mayor Mike Coffman, who attended the meeting, also voiced disagreement with the proposed change.
“I will not be supporting that municipal Home Rule authority (change),” Lawson said. “We shouldn’t be told about what to do on certain things.”
The language was changed to say, “there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to transportation, economic development or other issues. The city requests consistency and clarity with respect to Home Rule authority.
In her edits, Coombs removed housing from the first part of the language and changed the second part of the sentence from saying, “ the city encourages expanding partnership opportunities with the state to work in collaboration with local governments in order to meet the needs of Colorado’s unique communities.”
It also changed the language under Home Rule from ”opposed, unfunded and administratively burdensome regulations” to “protect voter allocated funding.”
This language stated that, “the city opposes any efforts by the state to reallocate voter-approved funding to fund other programs outside of the intent of the direction of what was approved by the voters.”
These changes were made because the language, such as “unfunded mandates” and “administratively burdensome regulations,” were often used ideologically and inconsistently “as a tool to oppose things people don’t like,” she said.
Coombs said she ultimately disagrees with the broader ideological approach often pushed by the Colorado Municipal League, which treats Home Rule as always paramount, and instead wants a more practical, constitutional and honest approach.
“I want to make sure that, as FISR is moving forward with taking legislative positions, that we’re not creating a kind of backdoor language, and that we’re really being clear about what the things are that matter,” Coombs said.
Although Coombs said the language was minor and still allows the city to maintain its home rule priority with the legislature, Coffman — a former state lawmaker — told the newer city council members that Home Rule is a constant battle that warrants close attention by city lawmakers.