Aurora City Council approves giving $500,000 to VNA Health Care in support of new clinic
The city of Aurora is moving forward with giving VNA Health Care $500,000 in support of its newly-opened clinic at the Bloomhaven campus on Aurora's near East Side.
The Aurora City Council on Tuesday evening approved the move, despite concerns from some aldermen.
The money will go toward supporting the opening of VNA's new Primary Care Center, which offers services in both English and Spanish, at 323 Weston Ave. VNA, a nonprofit, accepts patients with Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance or no insurance, with potential discounts for those without insurance.
The nonprofit invested around $8 million in its new center, according to past reporting, with $500,000 pledged by city administration last July and recognized through a letter signed by former Mayor Richard Irvin and VNA CEO Linnea Windel. But the agreement never went before the City Council for approval, nor was it included in the 2025 budget.
The item most likely should have gone before the City Council when the agreement was made, Aurora Chief of Staff Shannon Cameron previously said, and it appears to have been simply an oversight of the previous administration.
The item was set to go to the City Council Finance Committee on May 15 but was held so more research could be done, according to past reporting. It went to the May 29 Finance Committee meeting, then came back to its meeting on June 12 with a change by Aurora Chief Financial Officer Chris Minick, who suggested the city pay the $500,000 in two installments. VNA tentatively agreed to the plan, according to past reporting.
The payment is now being split in half, distributing $250,000 this year and $250,000 next year, according to past reporting. This year's payment is set to be paid using city interest earnings, and the funding source for next year's payment will be decided during the 2026 budgeting process, Minick previously said.
The item was reviewed by the Committee of the Whole, and then ultimately discussed and voted on Tuesday by the City Council.
Ald. Edward Bugg, 9th Ward, who had previously expressed concern about the way the agreement was approved, said on Tuesday that he had 'serious doubts' about the matter going forward. He — along with Ald. Ted Mesiacos, 3rd Ward, and Ald. Keith Larson, at-large — voted against approving the payments to VNA.
But the majority of the City Council, acknowledging the potential error in the approval process, said they felt it was a worthy cause regardless.
Ald. Carl Franco, 5th Ward, said it was 'unproductive' to 'keep bringing it up and throwing people under the bus' and said the council should focus on whether it's appropriate to provide the funds.
'Is it worthwhile?' Franco said. 'I don't even think it's a question.'
Several council members echoed similar sentiments about the value VNA provides to the community, in spite of any possible mistakes made on the city's end.
But, looking to future votes, Ald. Daniel Barreiro, 1st Ward, who noted that he was voting for the proposal 'on a non-precedent setting basis,' said the city needs to ensure a similar situation doesn't happen again.
Now, with final approval secured, VNA is set to get the first installment of the payment this year for the new clinic, which opened in April, and the second half of the payment next year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
15 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Tourists are trickling into Afghanistan and the Taliban government is eager to welcome them
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — By plane, motorbike, camper van and even on bicycles, tourists are beginning to discover Afghanistan, with solo travelers and tour groups gradually venturing into a country that until recently was wracked by war. And the country's Taliban government, which seized power more than three years ago but has yet to be formally recognized by any other nation, is more than happy to welcome them. 'The Afghan people are warm and welcoming and wish to host tourists from other countries and engage with them,' Deputy Minister of Tourism Qudratullah Jamal told The Associated Press in an early June interview. 'Tourism brings many benefits to a country. We have considered those benefits and aim for our nation to take full advantage of them.' A potentially lucrative industry Tourism is a vital, multi-billion-dollar industry for many countries. Afghanistan's isolation on the international stage, largely because of the Taliban's restrictions on women and girls, has left much of its 41 million people mired in poverty. As it struggles to attract foreign investment, the lucrative potential of tourism is far from lost on the government. 'We are currently earning a considerable amount of revenue from this industry, and we are hopeful it will grow even more in the future,' Jamal said, noting money spent by visitors can reach more layers of society than revenue from other industries. 'We are optimistic this sector will evolve into a large economy, bringing significant benefits. It plays an important role in strengthening our national economy.' Trickle rather than a flood Tourist visas are quick and easy to obtain and flights from major transit hubs such as Dubai and Istanbul operate several times a week. The government has even set up a training institute for men — and it is only for men — seeking jobs in the hospitality and tourism sector. While visitor numbers are still very much a trickle rather than a flood, they are increasing. Nearly 9,000 foreign tourists visited Afghanistan last year, while nearly 3,000 people visited in the first three months of this year, Jamal said. Four decades of near-continuous conflict kept nearly all vacationers away from this landlocked country of towering mountains, deep gorges and millennia of history. The Taliban's takeover from a U.S.-backed government in August 2021 stunned the world and sent thousands of Afghans fleeing. But with the insurgency over, the bloodshed from frequent bombings and suicide attacks all but ended too. Attacks still occur, however. An Islamic State affiliate in Afghanistan remains active and gunmen killed six people, including three Spanish tourists, in a May 2024 attack in Bamiyan, one of the country's main tourist attractions where centuries-old giant Buddhas carved into the cliffs were blown up by the Taliban in 2001. While Western countries still advise against travel to Afghanistan, a drop in violence from the two decades of U.S.-led military presence is indisputable, as the government is keen to point out. 'Afghanistan has gone through many years of war and hardship. Now, we want tourists to come and see the true traditions and customs of Afghans, to understand Afghan life, creativity and resilience,' Jamal said, noting there was 'comprehensive security across Afghanistan.' An ethical dilemma Critics question the ethics of foreigners visiting Afghanistan for pleasure when its government discriminates so heavily against half the country's population. Education beyond primary school level is banned for girls and women and few professions are open to them. Women cannot enter parks, gardens or gyms. Beauty salons are forbidden. Authorities dictate how women dress and have demanded they cover their faces in public, a decree still flouted by many, particularly in Kabul. Some visitors say they contemplated the ethics, but ultimately wanted to see the situation for themselves. French-Peruvian Illary Gomez said she and her British partner, James Liddiard, debated for about a year whether to drive through Afghanistan as part of their U.K.-to-Japan camper van journey. 'Some things didn't feel morally right,' she said. But once here, they said they found a warm, hospitable and welcoming people and beautiful landscapes. They didn't feel their presence was any form of support for the Taliban. By traveling, 'you put money in the hands of the people, not the government,' Liddiard said. Building bridges The treatment of women is particularly sensitive for government officials. Jamal declined to comment on the subject beyond saying male and female visitors were welcome. 'Those who respect our laws and traditions have already come and can continue to come,' he said. While most restrictions are strictly enforced on Afghan women, they are far more relaxed for foreigners. Although they must still wear a headscarf in public, foreign women are more likely to gain entry into some restricted areas such as parks and are rarely asked to cover their faces in public. Opening the country to foreign visitors was also a way of building bridges, Jamal said. 'It is a great way to promote interaction between the people of different countries. It helps build international relations and is also beneficial for trade,' he told the AP. 'When foreigners come here, Afghans also learn a lot from them. In addition to expanding commerce, tourism also helps foster mutual understanding, cultural exchange and strengthens talents as people learn from one another.' A foreign traveler seeing the country with his own eyes 'creates closeness, builds connections and fosters trust among people,' Jamal said. 'They will respect each other's culture and the distance between peoples will diminish.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Senate ekes out late-night win on Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Senate Republicans voted 51-49 late Saturday to move forward with President Trump's " big, beautiful bill" — clearing a significant hurdle and setting up a lengthy weekend to pass the legislation. Why it matters: After days of heated debate and complaints, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is barreling forward to get Trump's priorities on taxes, the debt ceiling, border security and military funding passed by July 4. All Republicans but Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) ultimately voted yes, making the final tally 51-49. But GOP holdouts — notably Sens. Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Rick Scott (Fla.) and Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.) — forced the vote to remain open for more than three hours while they negotiated with party leaders, including Vice President JD Vance. Johnson told reporters on Saturday that holdouts were promised a vote on an amendment that would reduce the federal matching share for some new Medicaid enrollees. Scott has been pushing the approach. What to watch: Democrats are forcing the entire 940-page bill to be read on the floor, a process that could take well over 10 hours. Hours of debate, followed by a series of unlimited amendment votes, known as a vote-a-rama, will happen before final passage can take place. Zoom in: Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) plans to offer an amendment to strike a temporary pause on states passing AI regulations. It is likely to be adopted, given that other Republicans, including Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), also are unhappy with the measure. Lee, as the vote was ongoing, announced he would withdraw his plan to sell off public lands to private housing developers. Several other GOP senators, including Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), opposed Lee's provision. Between the lines: Trump ramped up pressure on Republicans on Saturday morning, circulating a statement of administration policy urging the bill's passage. "President Trump is committed to keeping his promises, and failure to pass this bill would be the ultimate betrayal," the statement read. Senators have been receiving phone calls, lunching and golfing with the president this weekend. The big picture: The new text would delay implementation of a reduced Medicaid provider tax in expansion states. It includes a compromise with the House to raise the cap on the state and local tax deduction to $40,000 for five years before reverting to the current $10,000 cap. It would create a $25 billion rural hospital fund, bumped up from $15 billion, an attempt to assuage concerns from some Republicans that bill's Medicaid cuts would devastate rural health providers.
