Aurora council delays MOU with GEO/ICE processing center after sustained public opposition

Aurora City Council on April 6 delayed consideration of a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would clarify how the Aurora Police Department (APD) responds to calls at the GEO (ICE processing) facility, following sustained, emotional public comment urging the council to oppose deeper cooperation with the facility.

The MOU, presented by APD and city legal staff, sets out responsibilities for the city when responding to incidents at the GEO facility, including responses triggered by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). City staff said the agreement is intended to clarify operational roles — for example, who leads criminal investigations and how APD will coordinate with federal authorities — and to avoid ambiguity when officers are requested to respond to escapes, medical incidents or other calls for service.

Why the discussion matters: Hundreds of residents, community organizers and advocacy groups told the council they oppose any formal agreement that they say embeds local resources in support of a privately run federal detention center. Speakers cited reports alleging medical neglect, restricted access for public-health investigators, and other troubling conditions inside the facility. Several who addressed the council urged officials to refuse formal collaboration, to demand greater transparency and to prioritize oversight and community input.

“Don’t give our tax dollars and police force to a detention regime,” said one public commenter, arguing the agreement would formalize assistance to ICE and GEO rather than offering real protections for people detained there. Other residents stressed that many people held at the facility are on civil immigration holds rather than criminal sentences, and said community safety and due process should be the primary priorities.

Council response and next steps: Councilmembers asked staff detailed questions about operational details — including when APD can enter the facility, what happens if GEO denies access to investigators, and how criminal jurisdiction is determined — and discussed whether policy directives could be attached to any MOU to limit APD engagement. After members debated options and public-engagement needs, Council Member Horton moved to continue the MOU to the council’s next regular meeting so staff could return with additional policy options and public engagement opportunities. The motion passed with ten votes in favor and one dissenting vote (Council Member Hancock).

The council’s continuance does not cancel existing informal or prior agreements; according to staff, the current document would supersede earlier versions if both parties ultimately accept a revised text and the council votes to adopt it. The item will return to the council agenda for further debate and possible amendments, and staff said they will pursue additional outreach to community organizations and affected families before the next hearing.

What was referenced: Staff explicitly cited PREA standards and state coordination requirements for in-facility criminal allegations. Speakers pressed for independent oversight, more transparency about health and safety conditions, and for the council to consider policy limits on local police support for immigration enforcement or other federal immigration actions.

The council’s decision to postpone marks a notable example of public pressure shaping the calendar for a high-impact intergovernmental agreement; advocates signaled they will continue mobilizing ahead of the next meeting.