Aurora City Council approved the city’s proposed 2024 budget, which is about $150 million higher than last year’s budget, at a Monday night council meeting after some debate over funding for the Public Defender’s Office.

The budget, which sits at $1.3 billion, was increased largely to fund public safety-related departments. Aurora’s population sits at 399,913.

Of the total budget,$86.3 million is set aside for Aurora Fire Rescue, an increase of more than $3 million from the 2023 budget.

The funding adds a civilian “community educator” position for planning, preparing and presenting programs of instruction intended to reduce community risk, educate, and inform the public to increase fire and life safety. The money will also continue to fund psychological services for department members to address mental health needs, according to a budget presentation.

Aurora Police Department will get $155.8 million, some $13 million more than this year’s budget of $142.2 million.

The Aurora Public Defender’s Office, meanwhile, will get $2.3 million. The 2023 adopted budget allotted the office about $2.2 million and the 2022 budget allotted about $2 million.

The future of Aurora’s Public Defender’s Office has been in question, with council voting in October to look into the cost of privatizing the service, meaning the city would get rid of the office and replace it with outside attorneys hired contractually.

Council voted on the proposal, sponsored by councilmember Dustin Zvonek, on Oct. 9.

Privatizing the service would not get rid of access to public defense for those who qualify, but would likely save the city money, Zvonek said.

Members of Aurora’s Public Defender Commission argued that private lawyers who did not get into the business of public defense, which often pays less and is extra work, may not be as passionate and, thus, would not work as hard to defend clients as people with a “calling” for public defense work.

During Monday’s meeting, Public Defender Commission chair Tom Tobiassen objected to the adoption of the proposed budget, saying city council’s “denial of adequate funding” for Aurora’s Public Defender’s Office fails to ensure effective and competent representation for individuals facing incarceration.

The funds from the 2022 budget that were requested to be appropriated for additional attorney positions for the Public Defender’s Office were allocated in the 2023 budget and the proposed 2024 budget to the non-departmental budget, city officials confirmed.

The funds were pulled by council and set aside to non-departmental while the city awaits the results of studies looking into the costs of public defender privatization.

Councilmember Coombs moved to amend the adoption of the budget, moving the funds from from the non-departmental budget to the Public Defender’s Office budget “in order to adequately serve the residents of our city with appropriate public defense.”

Coombs said the city is wasting money by hiring contractors while the discussion about privatization is underway.

Councilmember Zvonek pointed to a budget workshop in 2022, during which council asked then-city manager Jim Twombly to do a cost analysis of the potential move to privatize.

That cost analysis wasn’t done, Zvonek said, meaning the money moved into the non-departmental budget has stayed there in the interim.

The current city manager is working on a cost analysis now, Zvonek said, so the city can get an “apples to apples comparison and determine whether or not there would be a significant enough cost savings.”

Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky ended the debate, calling for the question and saying council has “hashed this out so many times.” The discussion is being made into one about a constitutional rights violation, making it seem like council is trying to do away with public defenders altogether when they are not, she said.

“This is not about not providing a public defender for people, which is a constitutional right that we are well aware of and needs to be in place,” Jurinsky said.

The motion to adopt the 2024 proposed budget passed with six ‘yes’ votes and three ‘no’ votes from councilmembers Ruben Medina, Coombs and Crystal Murillo.

Juan Marcano, whose vote usually aligns with those of the other three progressive councilmembers, was not present at Monday’s meeting.

Coombs’ amendment failed with five ‘no’ votes and three ‘yes’ votes from Medina, Coombs and Murillo.