The Aurora City Council voted on whether to continue holding its regular meetings virtually or return to in-person sessions; a motion to stay virtual, moved by Council member Jurinski and seconded by Council member Casa, failed in a roll call vote.

Council members debated how to balance open public participation with controlling repeated disruptions that council members said have driven some residents away from attending in person. During the discussion, members described options including returning to fully in-person meetings, keeping the public-comment "listening session" virtual at 6 p.m., or maintaining the current virtual format for regular meetings.

An executive-session update noted that the council had received legal advice about future in-person or virtual meetings and possible changes to council rules. The update discussed several operational options: returning to in-person meetings with an in-person public-comment listening session at 6 p.m.; returning to in-person meetings while keeping the listening session virtual; or keeping the current fully virtual format. The transcript records both a suggestion to return to in-person meetings and alternative proposals that would preserve some virtual access for public comment; the speaker providing the executive-session update was not clearly identified in the public portion of the transcript.

Council member Verdi said disruptions at in-person meetings have been frequent enough that "other residents don't wanna come to our meetings anymore for fear of retaliation," and asked whether the council could control disruptions so the meeting could continue rather than adjourn. "I just think it's a disservice to the public when we have such disruptions that it precludes other people from wanting to even be there," Verdi said.

Other members described repeated patterns in which people calling in for virtual meetings sign up for many agenda items and deliver the same remarks multiple times, prolonging meetings and delaying staff and experts who need to speak on specific items. Council member Bergen summarized the problem as a trust issue: "It's down to a trust level at this point," Bergen said, noting that members have seen respectful behavior at some meetings followed by disruptions at others.

Council members discussed procedural thresholds for changing meeting rules. At different points in the discussion speakers referenced that restoring previous rule language would require either six votes or seven votes because suspending rules may take a higher threshold; the transcript records both numbers in the course of the conversation and does not resolve the apparent inconsistency.

When the council called the question on the motion to stay virtual, the roll call recorded the following votes: Mayor — no; Council member Coombs — no; Council member Drinsky — yes; Council member Hancock — yes; Council member Medina — no; Council member Mario — no; Mayor Pro Temstenberg — no; Council member Lawson — yes. The transcript also notes that Council member Curtis was not present for the vote. Based on the recorded votes in the transcript, the motion failed and did not pass.

After the vote, members discussed procedural next steps, including adjourning the regular meeting and reconvening at the scheduled time. Several members urged the council to consider rule changes or operational approaches that would balance in-person access with measures to reduce repeated disruptions.

The transcript does not record the council adopting a new permanent rule or a specific timeline for returning to in-person meetings; members suggested options to revisit rules and to use a mix of in-person meetings and virtual listening-session access, but no formal change beyond the failed motion is recorded in the public transcript.