Lift Assist Fees Approved, Growth Alliance Funding Debated

The council approved new fees for lift assists at care facilities after extensive debate about fairness, staffing, and resident impact. Tensions flared over $250,000 in funding for the Springfield Sangamon Growth Alliance, with council members clashing over transparency, targeted support for underserved areas, and the future of the partnership. 24mins

Budget Economic Development Fire & EMS Health
Was this helpful?

Original Meeting

YouTube Channel Icon
Springfield City Council on YouTube
Tuesday, May 6th, 2025
13196.0
Full Meeting on YouTube
avatar
Alex Rosen
Durham, North Carolina
As the Executive Director of See Gov, I focus on how to best achieve our mission of expanding thoughtful and consistent participation in democracy. I develop See Gov's technology, work to grow our impact, and find ways to sustain our nonprofit. I live in Durham, NC and make highlight reels for Durham and other See Gov pilot communities.
View full bio
In This Video
  • Mayor Buscher introduced an ordinance to charge fees for lift assists at certain care facilities and explained an amendment exempting the first two assists per year and clarifying that residents would not be charged. 
  • Alderman Williams raised concerns about how lift assist fees might be passed on to residents, and Corporation Counsel Moredock clarified that the ordinance prohibits charging individual residents for these services. 
  • Alderman Hanauer and Chief Scarlette discussed concerns that some care facilities may avoid hiring adequate staff for lift assists because the city previously provided the service for free, and that charging facilities could incentivize them to hire staff rather than rely on city resources. 
  • Alderwoman Conley and Chief Scarlette emphasized that residents should not hesitate to call 911 for assistance, as medical calls remain free of charge to citizens. 
  • Alderwoman Notariano questioned whether the proposed $300 fee for lift assists was sufficient, and Chief Scarlette suggested the fee could be reevaluated after one year to determine its effectiveness. 
  • Alderman Gregory expressed concern about a small number of assisted living facilities generating a high volume of lift assist calls and suggested targeting enforcement toward those facilities rather than affecting all seniors in the community. 
  • Alderman Williams raised concerns about liability and staffing at care facilities regarding lift assists, suggested a threshold before fines are imposed, and Chief Scarlette noted that similar ordinances are common in other cities. 
  • Mayor Buscher called for a vote on the amendment, which was approved by the council. 
  • The council approved the ordinance on lift assist fees with a vote of eight in favor and two opposed. 
  • Alderman Hanauer read a statement from the Springfield Sangamon Growth Alliance requesting removal of a proposed contract amendment from the agenda to allow for further review, and indicated there would be no further action on the item at this meeting. 
  • Alderman Gregory expressed frustration that the Springfield Sangamon Growth Alliance declined to accept contract language directing targeted funding, and reiterated a request for a progress report in six months. 
  • Alderman Gregory criticized the Springfield Sangamon Growth Alliance for offering exclusive benefits to members and questioned whether local businesses are being excluded from valuable resources. 
  • Alderman Gregory emphasized the goal of extending support from the Springfield Sangamon Growth Alliance to underserved areas and expressed frustration that the organization had not acted on targeted funding for the east and north sides. 
  • Alderman Gregory expressed frustration that efforts to support the East Side were being deliberately stalled and suggested that someone was preventing progress on projects benefiting that area. 
  • Alderman Williams criticized the process for reconsidering previously approved items, questioned the influence of certain individuals and the mayor's role on the board, and expressed frustration with delays and perceived lack of transparency regarding funding decisions. 
  • Alderwoman Notariano criticized the Springfield Sangamon Growth Alliance for refusing to negotiate openly with the council, questioned their communication and tactics, and stated that funding would be withheld if the contract amendment was not signed. 
  • Alderman Carlson criticized the council for micromanaging contract negotiations with the Springfield Sangamon Growth Alliance, argued that amendments were not handled transparently, and suggested that elected officials should allow professionals to manage such agreements. 
  • Alderman Williams criticized behind-the-scenes negotiations regarding funding for the Springfield Sangamon Growth Alliance, emphasized the importance of public decision-making, and expressed frustration with a lack of transparency and communication among council members. 
  • Alderman Gregory expressed reluctance to work with the Springfield Sangamon Growth Alliance if they are unwilling participants and suggested redirecting funding to other groups willing to support targeted community initiatives. 
Your Governments
Your governments list is empty.
Manage Your List
More from this government
Lake Springfield Zoning Dispute and Animal Control Debate
May 20, 2025
Springfield’s Next Police Chief and Downtown Plans
May 13, 2025
25-Year Solar Contract, Assisted Living Fees, and Wyndham Fallout
Apr 29, 2025
Springfield City Council
Nearby governments
Sangamon County Board
Springfield District 186 Board of Education
window.reelId = "681b6f36140aa8734c12aaa3";