EDITORIAL: Time has come to pursue the City and County of Aurora

Few people have a good understanding of how state and local governments work, which is in indication that, generally, the system is working.

That means Aurora has two big challenges if city officials decide they want to pursue a city-county form of government, similar to that in Denver. Officials must persuade voters there’s a problem, that a city-county government is the solution, and then explain how a transformation would happen.

In a city where voters repeatedly turn down road repairs and construction even though they could come without a tax increase, pushing for a major change of government is going to be tough.

In the most comprehensive study yet of whether and how Aurora should become one governmental entity, instead of being spread across Douglas, Arapahoe and Adams counties, researchers have done a good job of pointing out how inefficient Colorado’s state and local government system is, and how disparate government services are across Aurora, and the state.

The study makes a compelling argument for change, although the best, easiest change really shouldn’t come in the form of Aurora evolving its form of government. Rather, the state is long overdue to overhaul a county form of government that not only doesn’t serve Aurora well, but it doesn’t serve the other 3 million or so residents who also live in all urban centers.

We, and many others, have long argued against the need for elected officials running administrative offices like county treasurer, clerk, assessor and coroner. The positions are overlapping and unnecessary. Well-run cities such as Aurora, Lakewood and Arvada have made it clear that appointments by professionals to municipal leadership positions, accountable to a chief administrator, provide the best, most consistent, efficient government services. Seemingly endless scandals in Adams County and the most recent embarrassment with El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, his sexual follies and refusal to leave office, are why county government can be a real problem.

The simpler solution there is to do away with elected officials for some or all offices in counties that want to make that change. Local counties would be obvious candidates for that. But that only solves part of the problem that Aurora city officials have identified. Three counties serving Aurora and at least a dozen other municipalities makes it impossible to focus services where they’re most needed in communities that are vastly disparate. The Aurora neighborhood surrounding 17th and Beeler Street is nothing like the center of Highlands Ranch, yet the range of county services are pretty much the same. If Aurora was controlling how social services were meted out, it would probably provide services that wouldn’t make sense in suburban Littleton. We’re all in this together, but nobody cares when their neighbors or constituents can’t get rides to doctor appointments or can’t find a way to shelter a growing homeless population.

So the answer there is to both align Aurora with one instead of three counties, and the obvious choice is Arapahoe County, and to increase Aurora commissioner districts from two to three of five seats on the Arapahoe County commission. The city’s population is pushing 350,000 residents and there are only 600,000 residents in all of Arapahoe County. We’re underrepresented.

So what are the chances that state lawmakers will let urban counties hire rather than elect most county leaders? Or how likely is it that Aurora will be encompassed by just one county, or that Aurora will get a majority of seats on the Arapahoe County commission? Two chances: slim and none.

Since Aurora can’t change the rest of the state, it most certainly can change to a city-county government. There are still many unanswered questions about such a city-county evolution, but all we’ve see so far are compelling reasons to pursue it, until better, realistic answers become available.