Legislative CommitteeMonday, February 8, 2010

11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.Chairman: Sean Sebold

Vice-Chairman: Russ Whitaker Hotel Arista

2139 CityGate LaneNaperville, IL 60563

MEETING AGENDA This Legislative Committee is non-partisan and issue oriented only. Welcome and introductions 11:30 a.m.

Chair Report:

Minutes Approval p. 1 New Business:

State & Local:CALL TO ACTION:Illinois Fair Map Initiative Constitutional Amendment: Jan Czarnik, Exec. Director,

Q & A About Fair Map Amendment p. 2-4 Ill. League of Women Voters Redistricting Reform Comparison p. 5 State Journal-Register (12/30/09) “Give Voters...”p. 6 Chicago Sun-Times (12/4/09) p. 7 The Southern Illinoisan (12/15/09) p. 8-9 Fair Map Presentation p. 10-21 DuPage and Will Petitions p.22-25

INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING:Naperville Voter Education League: Municipal Term Limits & Districts: Gerry Cassioppi

Presentation p. 26-38 Bill EaganState:

Springfield Update: Pensions & General Revenue: Commission on Government Forecasting and p. 39-56Accountability, January 2010 Update

Civil Justice: ChicagoBusiness.com (2/5/09) p. 57-58Statement from Illinois Hospital Association p. 59On Illinois Supreme Court Med. Liability Ruling

Updates:

Reference:City Of Naperville Budget Articles:

Daily Herald (1/26/10), “Naperville explores…” p. 60Naperville Sun (1/26/10), “More taxes, fees…” p. 61Naperville Sun (1/26/10), “Pradel: Naperville…” p. 62Daily Herald (1/26/10), “Mayor: Not business…” p. 63

Politco, (2/2/10), “President Obama and U.S. Chamber...” p. 64-68

Adjournment 1:00 p.m.

Save the Date: Monday, May 17 – Wednesday, May 19, America’s Small Business Summit 2010 – Washington D.C.

Advancing Dialogue. Advocating Progress.

Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee Minutes - DRAFT

Monday, January 11, 2010 - 11:30 a.m. Hotel Arista

Chairman: Sean Sebold Vice-Chair: Russ Whitaker

Chair Report: Sebold called the meeting to order and conducted introductions. A motion to approve the minutes for the December meeting was offered, seconded and passed.

New Business:

Federal Update (F): Congresswoman Judy Biggert was introduced to provide an update of the closing of the first session of the 111th Congress. Her comments addressed the status of legislation dealing with taxes, health care, and cap and trade. Additionally Mrs. Biggert spoke to her efforts to bring regional consensus on how to deal with the Asian Carp situation in the I&M canal.

Informational Briefing: Financial Condition and Forecast of School Districts 203 & 204 (S) – Dave Holm, Assistant Superintendent, Business for District 204 and Dave Zager, Assistant Superintendent Finance for District 203 provided the Committee with a joint update on the financil health of the school districts.

In FY 2009, the State owed District 203 an average of $3,260,000 and was 90 days late in their quarterly payment. District 204 was owed $5,123,791 and received their quarterly payment on average 94.4 days late. Currently in FY 2010, the State is over 103+ days past due on their payments and owes District 203 $7,100,000 and District 204 $10,383,469 as of the presentation. School districts are tax capped entities. The cap, limits the ability of the taxing jurisdiction to raise taxes by 5% or CPI, whichever is less. The modest rates of inflation recently have limited the ability of school districts to raise revenue to meettheir operational obligations.

Members of the Committee asked various questions of the speakers. During discussion it was noted that the Boards of Education have not endorsed public pension reform as a legislative priority.

A motion was made that a Taskforce be constituted to study the impact that statewide school funding reform(s) would have on the local school districts, the long-term financial and tax plans of both districts; the impact the upcoming employment contracts will have; the impact pension reform would have and other subjects determined by the Taskforce. The motion was seconded and approved.

Annual Review of Legislative Committee Principles and Framework & Annual Review of Priorities and Initiatives: Sean Sebold conducted the annual review of the Chamber’s Legislative principles and priorities.1 They are:

1. Taxation: We support and promote a competitive and fair tax climate. 2. Education and Workforce Development: We support and promote an education system that produces and sustains a

qualified workforce. 3. Transportation Infrastructure: We support and promote improvements to our region’s transportations infrastructure. 4. Regulations, Employment Requirements and Business Burdens: We support and promote a competitive business

climate. 5. Civil Justice: We support and promote transformation of the civil justice system. 6. Global Commerce: We support and promote free and fair trade in a global economy. 7. Technology and Innovation: We support and promote incentives for investing in research, development and

technology. Updates: Patrick Skarr provided the Committee with an update of the reference letters in the packet regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, City of Naperville Budget and encouraged Members to apply to be on the Naperville Area Chamber Political Action Committee Board of Directors.

Adjournment At 1:12 p.m., a motion was made to adjourn, seconded and passed unanimously. Minutes respectfully submitted by Patrick Skarr.

1 Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce 2010 Legislative Committee Framework, positions and Initiatives (1/2010) http://bit.ly/9znwKt

1 of 68

!

SOME ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THEILLINOIS FAIR MAP AMENDMENT INITIATIVE & HOW IT REFORMS

REDISTRICTING IN ILLINOIS

What is redistricting?

Redistricting is the process by which legislative maps are drawn after each decennial census. Since 2010 is acensus year, state legislative and Congressional districts throughout the United States will be redrawn to reflectchanges in population.

The Brennan Center has published a thoughtful and accessible Citizens Guide to Redistricting. It is available on itswebsite at http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/a_citizens_guide_to_redistricting/.

Why is Illinois’ process of redistricting ripe for reform?

The current redistricting process is controlled by the legislative leaders of whichever political party is in powerimmediately following the census (taken every ten years). It is a secretive process which results in the almostcertain election of candidates favored by the political leaders in power. The Illinois legislature has completecontrol over drawing the boundaries of Illinois’ 59 legislative districts. Because of partisan gridlock, for the lastthirty years a partisan name drawn from a hat determined which political party’s map would become theapproved map from which all candidates for the General Assembly run for election or – in most instancesreelection.

Is there a better way to ensure a more transparent, less arcane process?

The drafters of the Illinois Fair Map Amendment believe that there are a number of cornerstones to any reformeffort:

The Constitutional protections embodied in the Voting Rights Act must be preservedThere must be independence in map making – politicians should not draw the lines; neitherincumbency or a voter’s party history should be consideredThe process of redistricting must be transparent and open to the public. The public should be able toparticipate in the process.

Why are we trying redistricting reform via citizen initiative?

Because the Illinois General Assembly has failed, despite the call to do so from many quarters, to agree on a bestway to reform the current process.

2 of 68

The legislative article in the Illinois constitution (Article IV) is the only one that can be amended by citizeninitiative and so offers a golden opportunity for voters to become involved in shaping an important aspect ofrepresentative government. The proposed amendment must be applicable to both the structure and procedureof the General Assembly.

The Fair Map Amendment seeks to undo by changing the composition of legislative districts the structuralnesting requirement currently in the Illinois Constitution. Nesting in Illinois results in two Representative districtsnested (within the boundary) in one Senate legislative district. Under the Fair Map Amendment, the House andSenate districts would be drawn independent of each other.

The Illinois Fair Map Amendment changes the procedure by which the General Assembly draws its legislative mapafter every ten year census. Under the current system, redistricting is done by a bill, with both the Senate and theHouse passing the bill and sending it on to the Governor for signature.

How will the Illinois Fair Map change the way in which Illinois does redistricting?

A. An Independent Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission (TRAC) is appointed by all currentlegislative leaders. There are very strict and specific criteria by which the leaders are bound whenappointing members of TRAC. No current legislators or lobbyists may serve on TRAC.

B. Maps drawn by TRAC are guided by stringent, specific and established criteria, in order of importance.C. The TRAC process is open and transparent with its meetings open to the public with 24 hours notice; the

public is invited to submit maps to TRAC. It is likely that TRAC will consult with software vendors whohave the capacity to draw maps based on the specific criteria. We expect that TRAC will consider dozensof possible maps from a variety of sources.

D. TRAC will draw and submit a map to the Illinois Senate and another to the House of Representatives. Ifthese first maps are not approved by a 2/3rd vote in either chamber, TRAC goes back to the map drawingboard and submits another. If no map is approved by the first Monday in July, TRAC will approve one ofthe two previously submitted maps by the third Monday in July, and that map automatically becomes law.

E. If TRAC fails to meet a deadline, a special master process is triggered and that master will file the finalmap.

Is there a document that helps me understand the differences between the current wayredistricting is accomplished and what the Fair Map Amendment will do?

Yes. Please refer to the Illinois Redistricting Process Comparison (attached).

How was the idea for the Illinois Fair Map Amendment developed?

The amendment was based initially on a proposal recommended by Governor Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commissionwhich was chaired by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Collins. The amendment language was revisedseveral times with input from the League of Women Voters of Illinois, the Brennan Center for Justice, the IllinoisCampaign for Political Reform, Illinois Reform Commission members and others.

3 of 68

Why not Iowa?

It is true that Iowa does redistricting by commission but the commission functions to advise the legislature and todraw draft lines for the legislature to accept, reject or modify. Additionally, Iowa’s geography and population aremuch different than that of Illinois.

How many other states conduct redistricting through an independent commission?

Six – Arkansas, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana and Washington.

How many signatures are required to ensure that the Fair Map Amendment gets onto theNovember 2, 2010 General Election ballot?

Signatures equal to 8% of the total vote cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election must becollected, or nearly 300,000 valid signatures. The Fair Map Amendment organizers have targeted 500,000 as theirgoal to ensure that we reach the approximately 300,000 valid signatures required.

Why should I sign the petition?

If you believe that in Illinois our elected leaders are too powerful, that partisan gridlock and not goodpublic policy is all we get from those we elect, if you believe it’s time to reclaim our right to electrepresentatives of our choice, and if you believe in getting voters directly involved in reforming our stategovernment, please sign the petition.

How can I help circulate a petition?

Go the ILFairMap.com website where you can download a petition. Each petition is specific to anelection authority so make sure you circulate the one from the correct election authority (either yourcounty or in the case of a few communities, your city).

Remember that the signatures you obtain on the petition must be from registered voters in thatelection authority. As a circulator, you need not be a registered voter but you must be at least 18, aresident of Illinois and a citizen of the United States. The petition must be copied front and back so thatthe language of the amendment is on the reverse side of the petition.

For more information, please contactThe Illinois Fair Map Amendment Initiativec/o The League of Women Voters of Illinois332 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1150

Chicago, Illinois 60604www.ilfairmap.comilfairmap@gmail.com

4 of 68

REDISTRICTING REFORM COMPARISON

CURRENT LANGUAGE REFORM PROPOSAL

CRITERIA: 1. Compact.

1. Compliance with Federal Laws, including providing the substantive protection of the Voting Rights Act.

2. Contiguity. 3. Substantially equal population. 4. Compact. 5. Follow geographic features and

municipal boundaries.

2. Contiguous. 3. Substantially equal population. 4. Nested.

6. Nondiscrimination against any political party or group.

7. Denested.

WHO DRAWS: Legislature.

Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission. 9 members. 2 chosen by each legislative leader. Ninth member, who is the chair, chosen by the other members. No member can be a lobbyist, immediate family member, public or political official, contractor or employee of the State of Illinois.

Legislature by a majority vote, subject to approval by the Governor.

WHO APPROVES: Legislative body that map affects (by a two-thirds vote).

FAIL-SAFE PROVISION:

Legislative Redistricting Commission consisting of 8 members. 2 chosen by each leader and one of each leader’s choices must be a sitting legislator. Tie breaker decided by picking name out of a hat.

Special Master chosen by two Supreme Court Justices (most Senior in each party). Special Master cannot be a lobbyist, immediate family member, public or political official, contractor or employee of the State of Illinois.

TRANSPARENCY: Silent.

Requires notice for meetings, data and documents to be made available to the public and at least 8 public hearings in at least 5 different geographic areas.

MINORITY PROTECTION:

Specifically sets forth Federal law and the current language of the VRA as requirements. Hence, if the VRA is ever repealed, minority protection would remain.

Silent.

TIMELINE: Process must finish by October 5. Process must finish by September 30. 5 of 68

Our Opinion: Give voters a say on remap amendmentTHE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER Posted Dec 30, 2009 @ 12:05 AM

IN THE SPRING of 2008, things appeared optimistic for those who had long hoped for in infusion of order into the chaotic system by which Illinois maps its legislative districts.

Under that chaotic system, the party that won a lottery won the right to carve up the state to its demographic liking in 1981, 1991 and 2001. The winning party drew districts based on voting data, protecting its own incumbents while placing targeted office-holders from the opposite party into redesigned districts where re-election would be much more challenging.

By a vote of 98-10, the Illinois House in April 2008 had approved a bill that would let voters in November decide whether to adopt a system aimed at forcing partisan politics out of the process. All that was needed was a three-fifths majority vote in the Illinois Senate to let voters decide at the polls. Unfortunately, then-Sen. President Emil Jones was not known as a reformer, and the bill never came up for a vote.

SO WITH THE 2010 census upon us and a new legislative map due in 2011, Illinois voters again face the prospect of a deadlocked legislature forcing a lottery that awards district-drawing privileges to the winner. This time, however, voters don’t need to wait for lawmakers to give them the chance to vote on a more fair and sensible system.

A coalition of civic and reform groups led by the League of Women Voters has begun a petition drive aimed at getting the Illinois Fair Map Amendment onto the November ballot. The amendment would require that legislative districts be drawn by an independent commission in a process open to the public. Currently, the process is conducted behind closed doors by legislators.

The amendment calls for creation of districts that are contiguous and compact and, where possible, “follow visible geographic features and municipal boundaries.”

TO GET ONTO the ballot, the amendment needs 280,000 signatures by April 1. To protect the petition against challenges, proponents are seeking 500,000 signatures. Supporters of the amendment decided on a citizen initiative because they don’t think the legislature will ever cede power on this issue.

“Let me put it this way,” says Jan Czarnik, executive director of the League of Women Voters. “Do you think for a minute that (House Speaker Michael) Madigan is going to do anything that dilutes his power?”

Even if the General Assembly were to pass some kind of redistricting reform, Czarnik and other backers of the amendment don’t believe lawmakers ever will remove either themselves or political considerations from the process. Given the state’s history of corruption and partisan bickering, we agree.

THAT'S WHY we urge all readers of this piece to visit www.ilfairmap.com to learn more about the Illinois Fair Map Amendment. The site has petition forms that can be downloaded and information about participating in the petition drive.

Under the current system, politicians in Illinois have been allowed to choose their voters by creatively drawing the districts best suited to them. We think voters should choose politicians, and we believe the voters deserve to have their say on the Illinois Fair Map Amendment in November.

Copyright 2009 The State Journal-Register. Some rights reserved 6 of 68

suntimes.com Member of Sun-Times Media

December 4, 2009

Illinois voters, prep your John Hancocks. Citizen petitions began circulating Thursday to fix the perverse way Illinois draws its state legislative districts -- a way that stacks the deck in elections in favor of incumbents.

Don't be shy about signing on the dotted line.

The goal is 500,000 signatures by April, enough to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot asking voters if they want to strip from legislators the power to draw legislative districts and give that power to an independent, bipartisan commission. Nine other states already do it this way.

Fierce partisanship and incumbency protection now poison any honest effort at redistricting, a process done every 10 years, after the U.S. census is complete.

Our state's politicized system frequently creates illogical, gerrymandered legislative districts that virtually guarantee re-election for incumbents. Ninety-eight percent of recent elections, in fact, were won by incumbents, according to the backers of this citizen initiative, including the League of Women Voters, the Better Government Association and a former member of the Illinois Reform Commission, a bipartisan group appointed by Gov. Quinn.

This stark reality discourages both competitors and voters. Why vote if the outcome is preordained?

It's hard to think of a single reason to preserve the current system and, fortunately, a growing number of legislators agree. Several redistricting reform plans are floating around Springfield, and a Senate committee has held several hearings on the topic, with plans to unveil a reform proposal next week.

But if the Legislature is left to its own devices, even its best proposals inevitably will be watered down. It is simply in no incumbent legislator's self-interest to give up control over drawing the boundaries of his own district. He has too much to lose.

For that reason, we wholeheartedly support this citizen initiative, known as the Illinois Fair Map Amendment.

In brief, the proposed amendment would create a commission, with equal numbers of members picked by legislative leaders from both parties. To minimize political influence, the commission members could not have worked as a lobbyist or for the state for four years before being appointed and could not be elected to the General Assembly for 10 years after their service. Collectively, this eight-member group would pick a ninth member as chairman. The commission would draw up a map with compact and sensible boundaries, without regard to voting histories in existing districts, and submit it to the Legislature for a vote. This new system also would allow for significant public input and make transparency a top priority.

It is not a perfect system but, on balance, it is vastly superior to what Illinois has done for the last 40 years -- let the pols gerrymander the map to protect their own jobs.

If between now and April, the state Legislature manages to whip up a redistricting reform scheme that truly ends the political games, we'll wholeheartedly embrace that proposed constitutional amendment as well.

But we've been to Springfield, where self-preservation is the first rule of the road. Our bet is on the Illinois Fair Map Amendment.

Its backers call it a "citizens' movement to take back Illinois."

That sounds about right. For more details on the proposed redistricting reform plan, go to www.ilfairmap.com.7 of 68

Guest Column: Redistricting is most important issue in stateDecember 15, 2009

Opinions Page, The Southern Illinoisan

by David Yepsen, Paul Simon Policy Institute Director, SIUC

The single most important ethical reform Illinois could undertake is to eliminate the system that allows state lawmakers to draw their own legislative district lines.

You can help make it happen.

A group of reformers has started a petition drive to put such an initiative on the November ballot. They are asking voters to approve the Illinois Fair Map Amendment. It would create an independent commission to do the map making and take it away from statehouse political leaders operating behind closed doors in Springfield and Chicago.

Why is this the most important governmental change that needs to be made in Illinois? Because redistricting problems sit at the core of every other reform and ethical issue facing the state. In Illinois, as in many other states, lawmakers and legislative leaders control the drawing of their own district lines. As a result, they create districts designed to protect themselves. It leads to problems.

Think of it this way: If someone doesn’t think they can get fired, they can become arrogant, sloppy or lazy. Their logic becomes one of “who cares if this budget is a mess, no one is going to defeat me.” Or “who cares if I put a relative on the payroll, nobody can take me out.”

The amendment would result in more turnover in the Legislature and lawmakers know it. More turnover will give more people, especially women and minorities, an opportunity to serve. New members would naturally mean more turnover in legislative leaders, too.

The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute has offered one plan to repair this system. You can read about it on our website www.paulsimoninstitute.org. The Illinois Fair Map Amendment is another way to fix it.

There’s no perfect way to do this but the goal has to be taking control of the crayons away from legislators when new maps are drawn and giving them to independent groups. Districts will be drawn in accordance with the federal Voting Rights Act, equality of population standards and requirements that districts be compact and contiguous.

Some lawmakers say they plan to create a new system. But promising and delivering are two different things and legislators don’t always keep their promises.

8 of 68

Fortunately, the drafters of the Illinois Constitution saw how it might be difficult for legislators to do political surgery on themselves. They gave voters the ability to initiate and approve amendments relating to the “structural and procedural matters” of the General Assembly.

But there’s only a narrow window open for voters to use this power. If they want a new system of drawing legislative district lines in place for the November 2012 elections, they must get it on the ballot in November 2010. That means they must get their petitions signed and returned by early May 1, 2010. That’s only a few months away.

An initiative effort to change the Legislature is not a radical step. In 1980, a young activist named Pat Quinn used this power to enact what was dubbed the “cutback” amendment to reduce the size of the Legislature.

Nor is this an effort by fringe groups. It is sponsored by the Illinois League of Women Voters, the Better Government Association, the Illinois Campaign for Political reform and individual members of the Illinois Reform Commission. Those are serious groups and reformers like Brad McMillan and Andy Shaw are serious people.

You can do something, too. If you’d like more information on the Illinois Fair Map Amendment, you can go to www.ilfairmap.com or contact the League of Women Voters, 322 South Michigan, Suite 1150, Chicago, IL 60604. Or you can call them at 312-939-5935 312-939-5935 or e-mail them at ilfairmap@gmail.com.

If you agree a change is in order, you can download petitions and instructions for your county or voting area and start getting them signed yourself. If nothing else you can download the petition yourself, sign it and have it notarized. Organizers of this effort feel they need 500,000 signatures to make sure they’ve got enough viable signatures to get this measure on the ballot.

But follow the rules carefully. You can bet the powers that be will be fighting every step of the way to knock this idea off the ballot. Knocking people and ideas off the ballot is a rich tradition with some political types in Illinois.

9 of 68

Change the CultureWe have an opportunity to change the culture of corruption that haunts Illinois.For the last 3 decades, Illinois legislators have created their own safe districts – behind closed doors.The result is incumbent protection – and more of the same.For the first time in 10 years – we have the opportunity to unite as citizens and Take Back Illinois!

10 of 68

BackgroundRedistricting: the process of redrawing legislative districts.Occurs every 10 years, after the new census figures come out.Redistricting is done to “rebalance” the population equally into legislative districts.

Legislative districts must be substantially equal in population, per the Illinois Constitution.Legislative districts must also represent the diversity of the state per federal law (Voting Rights Act).

New Illinois legislative districts will take effect for the 2012 election.

Illinois’ Current Redistricting ProcessPoliticians have complete control over drawing the boundaries of Illinois’ legislative districts Maps are drawn by members of the legislature with few restrictions.

Constitution only requires districts to be: compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population.

If the parties in power cannot agree, the balance of power is determined, literally, by chance.

In each of the last three decades, a draw from a hat has determined which political party would draw the map.Illinois is the only state in the nation with this “winner take all” approach.Both parties have benefited from the current system, but voters are not well served.

11 of 68

Current process is controlled by leadersand further entrenches those in power.

District lines are drawn by legislative leaders.Leaders become kingmakers.They draw maps, in private, with very few restrictions, usually benefiting incumbents.They use political data to draw “safe” districts that are not competitive.Legislative leaders can reward lawmakers loyal to them – or punish those who are not. This process further entrenches the power in the hands of the legislative leaders.

Creation of “safe” districts reduces competition and advantages incumbents.

Under the existing map drawn by politicians:There have been 630 general elections for seats in the Illinois General Assembly.

Just 27 of those were decided by 5 percentage points or less – 4% of all races are “competitive”.In 275 of those races, almost 45% of all elections, there was nochallenger at all.

There have been 547 general elections that included an incumbent.

The incumbent has won 536 of those races.Incumbent record is 536 wins, 11 loses. Incumbents have a 98% success rate under this map.

12 of 68

Illinois needs a new fair mapping processA fair map is the 1st step to take back Illinois from the politicians.It puts the power in the hands of the people, not the politicians

The Solution: A Fair Map

Reform groups and editorial boards agree:this process must be reformed!

“…the state’s redistricting process yields gerrymandered legislative maps and deprives Illinois voters of fair representation.”- Governor Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission“Illinois’ system is embarrassing and counter to the public’s interest.” -- Paul Simon Public Policy Institute“…(the current system) is a protection racket for incumbents. It needs to be fixed now.” - Chicago Tribune“our state’s politicized system leads to illogical, gerrymandered districts that all but guarantee re-election for many incumbents, discourage competition and further voter apathy.”- Chicago Sun-Times“Map drawing is where it all begins. If our legislators truly are committed to cleansing Illinois of its gamy reputation, they will push for a new mapping process now.” – Daily Herald

13 of 68

Cornerstones of ReformConstitutional Protection for Voting Rights ActIndependence in map making

Politicians should not draw lines.Incumbency should not be considered.Political data (voting history) should not be considered.

Transparency in processProcess should be open to the public.Public should be able to participate.

Redistricting is a Constitutional issue.There are two ways to change the system.

Through the LegislatureLegislature can approve a constitutional amendment for the ballot.

Requires 3/5ths vote in House & Senate.Party in power will have to agree to change the system.

Through the CitizensCitizens can approve a constitutional amendment for the ballot by Citizen Initiative.Many believe this is the only way reform will happen.

14 of 68

A Citizens InitiativeThe Illinois Fair Map Amendment amends the Illinois Constitution to reform the state’s redistricting process.A Citizens’ Movement To Take Back Illinois

Illinois Fair Map AmendmentPlaces map drawing duties in the hands of an independentCommission.Allows de-nesting of House and Senate districts.Requires legislature to approve a map by 2/3rds majority.Removes Governor from the approval process.Increases public transparency.

Requires public hearings.Requires public display of proposed maps.Allows public to submit maps to the Commission.

Requires Commission to use neutral criteria that will remove political considerations from map drawingAmends Constitution to specifically protect minority voting rights Eliminates the hat draw provision and replaces it with a fair resolution to the map-making process.

15 of 68

How was the Proposal Developed?We are a growing coalition which includedinput from:

Brennan Center, League of Women Voters, Change Illinois!, Reform Commission members and testimony from the Senate Redistricting Committee hearings

Based on the proposal put forward by Gov. Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission.Adjusted to meet legal and constitutional requirements for a Citizens’ Initiative.

Independent Commission will draw maps.Establish Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission (TRAC).

Each legislative leader appoints 2 people.In choosing, diversity of our State must be consideredTo maximize independence, significant limitations on TRAC

No current or former lobbyists or state employees (within last 4 years)No partisan political officeholder, party officeholder or familymember of a legislator.TRAC members may not run for the General Assembly for 10 years – the duration of the map.

Ninth member – chairperson – chosen by original 8.

16 of 68

Process is Transparent and OpenTRAC meetings open to the publicTRAC must make their census data – and their maps -- available to the public.Members of the public may submit maps to TRAC.TRAC shall hold at least 5 public hearings around the state prior to voting on any maps.TRAC must hold at least 3 additional hearings around the state after its preliminary approval of maps to be considered by the legislature.

Guided by clear & fair criteria: 1. Districts must comply with all federal laws – including the

Voting Rights Act -- which is embodied in the Amendment. 2. Districts shall be contiguous.3. Districts shall be substantially equal in population.4. Districts shall be compact.5. District boundaries shall follow visible geographic and

municipal boundaries, to the extent practical.6. The map shall not be drawn to favor one party or another.

Party registration, voting history or incumbency cannotbe used to draw the maps, but may be used to evaluate.Allows “de-nesting” – Representative districts need not be contained within a single Senate district.

17 of 68

Approval of mapsTRAC may approve maps for consideration by the legislature by simple majority vote (5 of 9).Each chamber of the General Assembly may approve a TRAC provided map by 2/3rds vote.

Requires bipartisan support2/3rds vote required to reduce partisanship in the process.

Governor is removed from the redistricting process.

The ProcessTRAC provides a map to each chamber by the 3rd Monday in May.

A House map to the House. A Senate map to the Senate.

If first map is not approved, TRAC provides an alternative map by the 3rd Monday in June.If the alternative map is not approved, the TRAC will approve one of the two previously provided maps, and it will become law.

18 of 68

What if the process fails to work?Fail safe provision: Not a drawing from a hat. If, for any reason, TRAC fails to meet a deadline:

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a Supreme Court judge of the other political party shall appoint a Special Master to draw the maps.Special Master bound by the same restrictions and criteria as TRACSpecial Master must consider all plans submitted to the legislature by TRAC and comply with same criteriaSpecial Master must file maps by September 30th.

Citizen Initiative ProcessPetitions must be circulated with the question being proposed for the ballot.Requires a minimum of 300,000 signatures of registered voters to qualify for the ballot. (Our goal is 500,000)Petitions must be filed by first of May in 2010 to be on November 2010 ballot.

State Board of Elections will hear petition challenges.Amendment may be subject to challenge in Illinois Supreme Court.

Once on the ballot, the question must receive the support of either:

A majority of those voting in the election; or3/5ths of those voting on the question.

19 of 68

It’s Up To Us. The People.We have a chance for meaningful redistricting reform, but that window of opportunity is closing.Without change, party leaders will again draw the lines, pick their voters, solidify and enhance their power for the next decade.

Citizen Initiative is, realistically, the only way to change.“Redistricting (reform) is as key to getting true political reform in this state as anything else on the table.” -- State Journal-Register

Put the Illinois Fair Map Amendment on the November, 2010 ballot

A Citizens Movement to Take Back Illinois.Sign the petition! Gather signatures on petitions.Educate friends, neighbors and community organizations about the importance of reform.Raise money to fund this program.

20 of 68

Visit our websitewww.ILFairMapAmendment.comfor more information.

21 of 68

x………….BIND HERE…………x

DuPage County

We, the undersigned registered and duly qualified voters of the State of Illinois petition to amend Article IV of the Illinois Constitution by placing the amendment attached hereto before the voters of Illinois at large by referendum at the General Election to be held in this State of Illinois on the second day of the month of November in the year 2010.

***NOTE***Registered voters in Aurora, Bloomington, Chicago, Danville, East St. Louis, Galesburg, Peoria or Rockford may only sign a petition form in which that city is indicated at the top of the form and in the column labeled “City.”

SIGNATURE ADDRESS CITY, VILLAGE, TOWN COUNTY

1. DuPage2. DuPage3. DuPage4. DuPage5. DuPage6. DuPage7. DuPage8. DuPage9. DuPage10. DuPage

Circulator Affidavit

I, _________________________________, being first duly sworn, do hereby certify that I am at least 18 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that I reside at _____________________, in the City, Town or Village of ___________________________, County of _______________, State of Illinois, and that the signatures on the sheet were made in my presence and are genuine and were made not more than twenty-four (24) months preceding the General Election on November 2, 2010, that the text of the amendment was available for review and that to the best of my knowledge and belief the persons so signing were at the time of signing the petition duly qualified and registered voters of the State of Illinois and that their respective residences are correctly stated, as set forth above.

____________________________________ (Signature of Circulator)

Signed and sworn to by _________________________________ before me, on ____________________________(Name of Circulator) (DATE)

[SEAL] _____________________________________________(Signature of Notary Public)

Return this Petition to: IL Fair Map Amendment, c/o League of Women Voters of Illinois 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL 60604

Sheet No. _______

Shall the voters of Illinois adopt the 2010 Illinois Fair Map Amendment which amends Article IV of the Illinois Constitution to change the structure of General Assembly member districts and the procedure by which the General Assembly redistricts the Legislative and Representative Districts?

YES

NO

22 of 68

2010 ILLINOIS FAIR MAP AMENDMENT

ARTICLE IVTHE LEGISLATURE

(ILCON Art. IV, Sec. 2)SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE COMPOSITION(a) One Senator shall be elected from each Legislative District. Immediately following each decennial redistricting, the General Assembly shall divide the Legislative Districts as equally as possible into three groups. Senators from one group shall be elected for terms of four years, four years and two years; Senators from the second group, for terms of four years, two years and four years; and Senators from the third group, for terms of two years, four years and four years. The Legislative Districts in each group shall be distributed substantially equally over the State.(b) In 2012 and every two years thereafter one Representative shall be elected from each Representative District for a term of two years.(c) To be eligible to serve as a member of the General Assembly, a person must be a United States citizen, at least 21 years old, and for the two years preceding his election or appointment a resident of the district which he is to represent. In the general election following a redistricting, a candidate for the General Assembly may be elected from any district which contains a part of the district in which he resided at the time of the redistricting and reelected if a resident of the new district he represents for 18 months prior to reelection.(d) Within thirty days after a vacancy occurs, it shall be filled by appointment as provided by law. If the vacancy is in a Senatorial office with more than twenty-eight months remaining in the term, the appointed Senator shall serve until the next general election, at which time a Senator shall be elected to serve for the remainder of the term. If the vacancy is in a Representative office or in any other Senatorial office, the appointment shall be for the remainder of the term. An appointee to fill a vacancy shall be a member of the same political party as the person he succeeds.(e) No member of the General Assembly shall receive compensation as a public officer or employee from any other governmental entity for time during which he is in attendance as a member of the General Assembly.No member of the General Assembly during the term for which he was elected or appointed shall be appointed to a public office which shall have been created or the compensation for which shall have been increased by the General Assembly during that term.(ILCON Art. IV, Sec. 3)SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING(a) On the second Tuesday in February in the year following each federal decennial census year, the President of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the Minority Leader of the House may each, considering the diversity of the State, appoint two members to the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission. On or before the second Tuesday in March, one additional member shall be elected by a majority of the members appointed, and that member shall serve as Chair. Members of the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission shall not be eligible to be elected to the General Assembly or appointed to any office that is subject to confirmation by the Senate for ten years after completion of service on the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission. No person may serve asa member of the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission who is at the time of appointment, becomes at any time during service, or who was at any time during the preceding four years (i) a registered lobbyist in Illinois; (ii) an employee or contractor of the State of Illinois; (iii) an elected official of or a candidate for or appointed member of any elected body of: the federal government, the State, a unit of local government, a school district or a political party or (iv) an immediate family member of any of the foregoing. As used in this Article IV, Section 3, "immediate family member" is a person with whom the person has a bona fide relationship established through close blood or legal kinship. If any member of the Temporary Redistricting AdvisoryCommission shall be unable to fulfill the duties required under this Section, then the person who appointed said member, or that person’s successor, shall appoint a person

to fill said vacancy within five days of the occurrence of the vacancy.

A meeting of a majority of a quorum of the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission shall be open to the public with at least twenty-four hour notice. The Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission shall have authority to hire independent private firms for any assistance. The Commission shall conduct at least five public hearings on separate days around five distinct geographic regions of the State before voting on any redistricting plans, and at least three of the hearings shall be after receipt of the data from the United States Census Bureau.

Within three days after receipt of the data from the United States Census Bureau, the Commission shall make that data, together with redistricting software, available to the public. (b) The Commission shall approve any redistricting plans by a majority vote of its members.

The Commission shall establish districts pursuant to a mapping process using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:(1) Districts shall comply with all federal laws, and shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice.(2) Districts shall be contiguous.(3) Districts shall be substantially equal in population.(4) Districts shall be compact.(5) District boundaries shall, to the extent practical, follow visible geographic features and municipal boundaries.(6) The plan shall not be drawn to purposefully or significantly favor or discriminate against any political party or group.

Party registration, voting history data and incumbency shall not be considered in the mapping process, except to evaluate compliance with the criteria listed in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(6). The Commission shall establish definitions where applicable for each of the criteria listed in subsections (b)(1)-(6). A Representative District need not be entirely within a single Legislative District.

After preliminary approval of the redistricting plans, the Commission shall release the proposed plans to the public, conduct at least three public hearings around three distinct geographic regions of the State, and submit a report to the General Assembly. At any time prior to the submission of a plan under subsection (c), any member of the General Assembly or general public may submit a plan to be considered by the Commission and for public viewing. All documents submitted to or plans considered by the Commission shall be made available to the public within a reasonable time period.(c) After conducting the required public hearings, the Commission shall approve by a majority vote a Representative redistricting plan by third Monday in May, which the Chair of the Commission shall deliver to the House of Representatives on the third business day after approval. The House must take a record vote to accept the plan by a House Resolution. The Resolution is adopted if it receives the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members elected.

After conducting the required public hearings, the Commission shall approve by a majority vote a Senate redistricting plan by the third Monday in May, which the Chair of the Commission shall deliver to the Senate on the third business day after approval. The Senate must take a record vote to accept the plan by a Senate Resolution. The Resolution is adopted if it receives the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members elected.

Redistricting plans may not be amended by either chamber. An adopted redistricting resolution shall be filed with the Secretary of State by the presiding officer of the chamber that initiated the resolution. Each chamber shall have until the first Monday in June to file a resolution with the Secretary of State approving the redistricting plan.(d) If a plan is not adopted by a chamber of the General Assembly, the Commission shall approve an alternative redistricting plan no later than third Monday in June, and the

Chair of the Commission shall deliver that plan to the appropriate chamber of the General Assembly on the third business day after approval. The appropriate chamber of the General Assembly shall approve or reject that plan in the same manner established by subsection (c). Each chamber shall have until the first Monday in July to file a resolution with the Secretary of State approving the alternative redistricting plan. (e) If a plan is not approved by a chamber of the General Assembly by the first Monday in July, the Commission shall approve by a majority one of the two previous plans submitted to the appropriate chamber of the General Assembly under subsections (c) and (d). The Chair of the Commission shall file the approved redistricting plan for the appropriate chamber with the Secretary of State not later than the third Monday in July.(f) If at any time the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission fails to meet one of the deadlines set forth herein, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a Supreme Court judge chosen by the judges of the Supreme Court who are not of the political party of the Chief Justice shall within ten days jointly appoint and certify to the Secretary of State one person to act as Special Master to generate any maps not previously approved. No person may serve as Special Master who is not eligible to serve on the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission. A person who serves as Special Master is not eligible to be elected to the General Assembly or appointed to any office that is subject to confirmation by the Senate for ten years after completion of service as a Special Master. A Special Master shall consider all redistricting plans delivered by or submitted to the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission, the Senate, or the House as applicable. The Special Master shall have authority to hire independent assistance, make available the data received from the United States Census Bureau, together with redistricting software, to the public within three days of receipt unless the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission has already done so; shall conduct at least five public hearings on separate days around five distinct geographic regions of the state after receipt of the data from the United States Census Bureau and before promulgating any preliminary redistricting plans, and shall hold at least three public hearings on separate days around three distinct geographic regions of the state after promulgating any preliminary redistricting plans and before finalizing any plan or plans. All documents submitted to or utilized by the Special Master shall be made available to the public within a reasonable amount of time. The Special Master shall file a redistricting plan complying with the criteria set forth in subsection 3(b) for the Legislative Districts andRepresentative Districts, as applicable, with the Secretary of State not later than September 30.(g) A redistricting resolution or redistricting plan filed with the Secretary of State shall be presumed valid, shall have the force and effect of law and shall be published promptly by the Secretary of State.

The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions concerning redistricting the House and Senate, which shall be initiated in the name of the People of the State by the Attorney General.

SCHEDULEThe State Board of Elections shall proceed, as soon as all the returns are received but no later than 31 days after the election, to canvass the votes given for and against this Constitutional Amendment, as shown by the abstracts of votes cast. If this Constitutional Amendment is approved by either three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election, then the State Board of Elections shall declare the adoption of this Constitutional Amendment and it shall, upon declaration of its adoption, take effect and become a part of the Constitution of this State. This Schedule supersedes and applies notwithstanding any statute to the contrary, and no other requirements, including without limitation proclamation of the results of the vote or notice by publication, are necessary for its effectiveness. This Constitutional Amendment applies to redistricting beginning in 2011 for the election of members of the General Assembly beginning in 2012.

23 of 68

x………….BIND HERE…………x

Will County

We, the undersigned registered and duly qualified voters of the State of Illinois petition to amend Article IV of the Illinois Constitution by placing the amendment attached hereto before the voters of Illinois at large by referendum at the General Election to be held in this State of Illinois on the second day of the month of November in the year 2010.

***NOTE***Registered voters in Aurora, Bloomington, Chicago, Danville, East St. Louis, Galesburg, Peoria or Rockford may only sign a petition form in which that city is indicated at the top of the form and in the column labeled “City.”

SIGNATURE ADDRESS CITY, VILLAGE, TOWN COUNTY

1. Will2. Will3. Will4. Will5. Will6. Will7. Will8. Will9. Will10. Will

Circulator Affidavit

I, _________________________________, being first duly sworn, do hereby certify that I am at least 18 years of age and a citizen of the United States, that I reside at _____________________, in the City, Town or Village of ___________________________, County of _______________, State of Illinois, and that the signatures on the sheet were made in my presence and are genuine and were made not more than twenty-four (24) months preceding the General Election on November 2, 2010, that the text of the amendment was available for review and that to the best of my knowledge and belief the persons so signing were at the time of signing the petition duly qualified and registered voters of the State of Illinois and that their respective residences are correctly stated, as set forth above.

____________________________________ (Signature of Circulator)

Signed and sworn to by _________________________________ before me, on ____________________________(Name of Circulator) (DATE)

[SEAL] _____________________________________________(Signature of Notary Public)

Return this Petition to: IL Fair Map Amendment, c/o League of Women Voters of Illinois 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1150, Chicago, IL 60604

Sheet No. _______

Shall the voters of Illinois adopt the 2010 Illinois Fair Map Amendment which amends Article IV of the Illinois Constitution to change the structure of General Assembly member districts and the procedure by which the General Assembly redistricts the Legislative and Representative Districts?

YES

NO

24 of 68

2010 ILLINOIS FAIR MAP AMENDMENT

ARTICLE IVTHE LEGISLATURE

(ILCON Art. IV, Sec. 2)SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE COMPOSITION(a) One Senator shall be elected from each Legislative District. Immediately following each decennial redistricting, the General Assembly shall divide the Legislative Districts as equally as possible into three groups. Senators from one group shall be elected for terms of four years, four years and two years; Senators from the second group, for terms of four years, two years and four years; and Senators from the third group, for terms of two years, four years and four years. The Legislative Districts in each group shall be distributed substantially equally over the State.(b) In 2012 and every two years thereafter one Representative shall be elected from each Representative District for a term of two years.(c) To be eligible to serve as a member of the General Assembly, a person must be a United States citizen, at least 21 years old, and for the two years preceding his election or appointment a resident of the district which he is to represent. In the general election following a redistricting, a candidate for the General Assembly may be elected from any district which contains a part of the district in which he resided at the time of the redistricting and reelected if a resident of the new district he represents for 18 months prior to reelection.(d) Within thirty days after a vacancy occurs, it shall be filled by appointment as provided by law. If the vacancy is in a Senatorial office with more than twenty-eight months remaining in the term, the appointed Senator shall serve until the next general election, at which time a Senator shall be elected to serve for the remainder of the term. If the vacancy is in a Representative office or in any other Senatorial office, the appointment shall be for the remainder of the term. An appointee to fill a vacancy shall be a member of the same political party as the person he succeeds.(e) No member of the General Assembly shall receive compensation as a public officer or employee from any other governmental entity for time during which he is in attendance as a member of the General Assembly.No member of the General Assembly during the term for which he was elected or appointed shall be appointed to a public office which shall have been created or the compensation for which shall have been increased by the General Assembly during that term.(ILCON Art. IV, Sec. 3)SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING(a) On the second Tuesday in February in the year following each federal decennial census year, the President of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the Minority Leader of the House may each, considering the diversity of the State, appoint two members to the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission. On or before the second Tuesday in March, one additional member shall be elected by a majority of the members appointed, and that member shall serve as Chair. Members of the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission shall not be eligible to be elected to the General Assembly or appointed to any office that is subject to confirmation by the Senate for ten years after completion of service on the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission. No person may serve asa member of the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission who is at the time of appointment, becomes at any time during service, or who was at any time during the preceding four years (i) a registered lobbyist in Illinois; (ii) an employee or contractor of the State of Illinois; (iii) an elected official of or a candidate for or appointed member of any elected body of: the federal government, the State, a unit of local government, a school district or a political party or (iv) an immediate family member of any of the foregoing. As used in this Article IV, Section 3, "immediate family member" is a person with whom the person has a bona fide relationship established through close blood or legal kinship. If any member of the Temporary Redistricting AdvisoryCommission shall be unable to fulfill the duties required under this Section, then the person who appointed said member, or that person’s successor, shall appoint a person

to fill said vacancy within five days of the occurrence of the vacancy.

A meeting of a majority of a quorum of the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission shall be open to the public with at least twenty-four hour notice. The Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission shall have authority to hire independent private firms for any assistance. The Commission shall conduct at least five public hearings on separate days around five distinct geographic regions of the State before voting on any redistricting plans, and at least three of the hearings shall be after receipt of the data from the United States Census Bureau.

Within three days after receipt of the data from the United States Census Bureau, the Commission shall make that data, together with redistricting software, available to the public. (b) The Commission shall approve any redistricting plans by a majority vote of its members.

The Commission shall establish districts pursuant to a mapping process using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:(1) Districts shall comply with all federal laws, and shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice.(2) Districts shall be contiguous.(3) Districts shall be substantially equal in population.(4) Districts shall be compact.(5) District boundaries shall, to the extent practical, follow visible geographic features and municipal boundaries.(6) The plan shall not be drawn to purposefully or significantly favor or discriminate against any political party or group.

Party registration, voting history data and incumbency shall not be considered in the mapping process, except to evaluate compliance with the criteria listed in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(6). The Commission shall establish definitions where applicable for each of the criteria listed in subsections (b)(1)-(6). A Representative District need not be entirely within a single Legislative District.

After preliminary approval of the redistricting plans, the Commission shall release the proposed plans to the public, conduct at least three public hearings around three distinct geographic regions of the State, and submit a report to the General Assembly. At any time prior to the submission of a plan under subsection (c), any member of the General Assembly or general public may submit a plan to be considered by the Commission and for public viewing. All documents submitted to or plans considered by the Commission shall be made available to the public within a reasonable time period.(c) After conducting the required public hearings, the Commission shall approve by a majority vote a Representative redistricting plan by third Monday in May, which the Chair of the Commission shall deliver to the House of Representatives on the third business day after approval. The House must take a record vote to accept the plan by a House Resolution. The Resolution is adopted if it receives the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members elected.

After conducting the required public hearings, the Commission shall approve by a majority vote a Senate redistricting plan by the third Monday in May, which the Chair of the Commission shall deliver to the Senate on the third business day after approval. The Senate must take a record vote to accept the plan by a Senate Resolution. The Resolution is adopted if it receives the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members elected.

Redistricting plans may not be amended by either chamber. An adopted redistricting resolution shall be filed with the Secretary of State by the presiding officer of the chamber that initiated the resolution. Each chamber shall have until the first Monday in June to file a resolution with the Secretary of State approving the redistricting plan.(d) If a plan is not adopted by a chamber of the General Assembly, the Commission shall approve an alternative redistricting plan no later than third Monday in June, and the

Chair of the Commission shall deliver that plan to the appropriate chamber of the General Assembly on the third business day after approval. The appropriate chamber of the General Assembly shall approve or reject that plan in the same manner established by subsection (c). Each chamber shall have until the first Monday in July to file a resolution with the Secretary of State approving the alternative redistricting plan. (e) If a plan is not approved by a chamber of the General Assembly by the first Monday in July, the Commission shall approve by a majority one of the two previous plans submitted to the appropriate chamber of the General Assembly under subsections (c) and (d). The Chair of the Commission shall file the approved redistricting plan for the appropriate chamber with the Secretary of State not later than the third Monday in July.(f) If at any time the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission fails to meet one of the deadlines set forth herein, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a Supreme Court judge chosen by the judges of the Supreme Court who are not of the political party of the Chief Justice shall within ten days jointly appoint and certify to the Secretary of State one person to act as Special Master to generate any maps not previously approved. No person may serve as Special Master who is not eligible to serve on the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission. A person who serves as Special Master is not eligible to be elected to the General Assembly or appointed to any office that is subject to confirmation by the Senate for ten years after completion of service as a Special Master. A Special Master shall consider all redistricting plans delivered by or submitted to the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission, the Senate, or the House as applicable. The Special Master shall have authority to hire independent assistance, make available the data received from the United States Census Bureau, together with redistricting software, to the public within three days of receipt unless the Temporary Redistricting Advisory Commission has already done so; shall conduct at least five public hearings on separate days around five distinct geographic regions of the state after receipt of the data from the United States Census Bureau and before promulgating any preliminary redistricting plans, and shall hold at least three public hearings on separate days around three distinct geographic regions of the state after promulgating any preliminary redistricting plans and before finalizing any plan or plans. All documents submitted to or utilized by the Special Master shall be made available to the public within a reasonable amount of time. The Special Master shall file a redistricting plan complying with the criteria set forth in subsection 3(b) for the Legislative Districts andRepresentative Districts, as applicable, with the Secretary of State not later than September 30.(g) A redistricting resolution or redistricting plan filed with the Secretary of State shall be presumed valid, shall have the force and effect of law and shall be published promptly by the Secretary of State.

The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over actions concerning redistricting the House and Senate, which shall be initiated in the name of the People of the State by the Attorney General.

SCHEDULEThe State Board of Elections shall proceed, as soon as all the returns are received but no later than 31 days after the election, to canvass the votes given for and against this Constitutional Amendment, as shown by the abstracts of votes cast. If this Constitutional Amendment is approved by either three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election, then the State Board of Elections shall declare the adoption of this Constitutional Amendment and it shall, upon declaration of its adoption, take effect and become a part of the Constitution of this State. This Schedule supersedes and applies notwithstanding any statute to the contrary, and no other requirements, including without limitation proclamation of the results of the vote or notice by publication, are necessary for its effectiveness. This Constitutional Amendment applies to redistricting beginning in 2011 for the election of members of the General Assembly beginning in 2012.

25 of 68

Naperville Voter Education League

DRAFT VERSION – NOT FINALFOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION

Contents

1.Objective2.League Purpose3.Naperville Government History4.League History5.Ballot Questions6.Signatures Required7.Community Outreach8.Ideology9.Appendix

2/5/2010 2

26 of 68

Objective

1. Educate Naperville voters on issues the committee has undertaken

2. Remain impartial on all issues

3. Ensure that all facts and both sides of each issue reach the voting public

2/5/2010

3

League Purpose

Support the placement on the ballot, through City Council or voter petitions, and the voters’ consideration of two questions -

1. Should the City of Naperville Have Term Limits

2. Should the City of Naperville Have District Representation

2/5/2010 4

27 of 68

Naperville Government History

1857 – Naperville organized as the Village of Naperville and Trustees were elected

1890 – Residents voted to switch to the district system and the first Mayor was elected

1913 – Government switched to commission form of government

1969 – Government switched to City Manager form of Government

Our City has had different forms and structures of government -

2/5/2010 5

League History

Developed as a follow-up to the meeting called by Councilman Jim Boyajian on June 15, 2009

Has met several times and debated the questions before forming the questions to ask

Has not and will not take a position on the issues –our mission is solely educational

2/5/2010 6

28 of 68

District Question

The question to be presented on the ballot:

"Shall the city of Naperville elect part of the councilmen at large and part of the councilmen from districts with staggered four year terms and biennial elections?"

If Districts were to pass, there would be 5 District seats and 3 At-Large seats given Naperville’s current population, with a district expected to be about 30,000 people.

District boundaries would be determined by the Council – with a Council appointed committee to analyze and recommend these boundaries.

2/5/2010 7

Term Limit Question

The question to be listed on the ballot:

"Shall the City of Naperville limit the number of terms of office of each elected official in the city to no more than two consecutive four-year terms?"

Currently, the offices are Councilmen and Mayor. Both offices would be affected by term limits.

Presently, a person can run for as many terms as they can be elected. Under the proposal, a person could serve two terms as councilmen, two terms as mayor and then go back to councilmen.

If the District question passes (see previous slide) then there would be three offices that a person could switch between and essentially be never termed out of office.

2/5/2010 8

29 of 68

Signatures Required

To be placed on the ballot Term Limits Requires petitions signed by 10% of the registered voters in Naperville

To be placed on the ballot Districts Requires petitions signed by 10% of the people who voted in the last Mayoral Election

RegisteredVoted inMayoral

Dupage 59,275 14,771Will 27,606 4,436Total 86,881 19,207

Term Limits Districts10% of Total 8,688 1,92120% Safety Signatures 1,738 384Total Needed 10,426 2,305

Voters

10% 10%

2/5/2010 9

Community Outreach

• City Council members

• Various community/political organizations

• Educational WorkshopMarch 23 - Rubin Community Center

2/5/2010 10

30 of 68

Ideology

2/5/2010 11

League supports the idea that these key government issues should be debated every couple of decades.

The debate over these and other government issues will ensure the best government is continually in place for our City.

APPENDIX31 of 68

Illinois Statute for Districts

In Part, what the Illinois Statute says on how districts would be formed:

For the full State Statute please refer to the following web address:

2/5/2010 13

Petition for Districts

2/5/2010 14

32 of 68

Petition for Term Limits

2/5/2010 15

FAQ Districts

2/5/2010 16

What is the difference between District Representation and At Large representation?

At large representatives are voted into office by the entire City, District representatives are voted into office by the Citizenswho reside in the district the Councilmen represent. At large councilmen represent the entire city; District Councilmenrepresent the citizens that reside in their district only.

How will the Districts be formed?

If a referendum creating districts were to pass, the City Council would draw the district boundaries in accordance with law.For example, 65 ILCS 5/5 2 18.2 provides “The city council shall divide the city, whenever necessary thereafter, into districtswhich shall be of as compact and contiguous territory as practicable and of approximately equal population.”

Have Districts ever been tried before?

Yes. In 1890, the citizens of Naperville voted to re incorporate as a city in the State of Illinois with the most popular form ofmunicipal government at the time. With a Mayor Alderman form of government, Naperville was divided into wards witheach ward electing its own representative. There were six aldermen and a Mayor who was elected at large.

Will implementation of districts have a cost to the taxpayer?

No. Since the total number of councilmen will remain the same, the citizens should not see additional costs added to thebudget for this change.

When will Districts take effect?

District representation will take effect with the next Council Election in 2011.

33 of 68

Districts Pro’s

2/5/2010 17

1. Citizens always know to whom on council they can turn to bring up a concern or issue.2. District Representation gives an equal voice to all areas of the city Under a district system, your Councilmen lives,

drives, walks, and shops in your neighborhood.3. Every area of the city deserves equal representation.4. The district system encourages Councilmen to become fully knowledgeable about the area they represent.5. Running in a district makes Councilmen more accountable to neighborhood voters Your vote carries more weight

in district elections.6. The district system prevents the possibility of having all Councilmen come from the same area of the city.7. Citizens who need help know exactly who to contact and can hold them directly accountable at election time.8. At Large elections are cost prohibitive.9. Naperville is too large for Councilmen to have intimate knowledge of every neighborhood in the city.10. In a democracy, it is important to make informed decisions. District elections facilitate face to face interaction

between voters and candidates and help to inform voters.

Districts Con’s

2/5/2010 18

1. Members represent the whole city, not just their own district2. Reduced divisiveness and factions3. Voters can choose from a broader base of candidates4. No battles over how to draw district lines5. At large Councilmen are elected by a broad base of voters and are thus responsive to all constituents. Councilmen

from districts may respond only to small groups of constituents who work hard to get them elected in the mannerof ward politics.

6. The at large system gives an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates.7. District Representation may result in elected officials who are unwilling to deal with large, complex citywide issues.8. District representation leads to increased spending and pork.9. At large members are more likely to represent the interests of the city as a whole. They are not likely to act in

support of narrow, parochial interests that are desired by a small part of the city.10. District Representation may result in elected officials who are unwilling to deal with large, complex citywide issues.

34 of 68

FAQ Term Limits

2/5/201019

How will Term Limits work?

Elected officials will be limited to two or three consecutive elected terms. After two or three consecutive terms in office,the candidate will either have to run for a different office or sit out and election cycle before running again for the sameoffice.

How do Term Limits benefit the voters of Naperville?

Term limits encourage more participation from the citizens in their city government by encouraging others to step up andoffer their skills to help govern and run their city.

Term Limits lower the barrier to entry.

During the time they are in office, incumbents enjoy the benefit of a public platform that provides the equivalent of years offree political advertising. Senior officials have had opportunities to make speeches, take public positions, hold pressconferences, appear on radio or television, participate in ceremonies like school openings, and otherwise be in the newsand public eye. To compete at all, challengers have to overcome that inherent edge with enormous amounts of paidpolitical advertising. Not surprisingly, this creates a huge entry barrier. And that entry barrier keeps a lot of desirablechallengers out.

Term limits lower entry barriers by reducing the years of effectively free political advertising an incumbent can enjoy. Thatin turn encourages additional challengers, thus benefiting the political system in two ways: (1) by better defining the issuesof the day and (2) by providing new ballot options the voters often prefer to the incumbent. Some of the additionalchallengers are in fact politicians termed out of other offices, which makes elections far more competitive by creating a racebetween two politicians who have had the advantage of a public platform.

FAQ Term Limits (Cont)

2/5/2010 20

Do term limits result in an undesirable loss of experience?

Potentially; however, A new person in office will bring a different view to the topics at hand which may be more beneficial.

What if there is someone really good in office we would like to keep?

A well respected and effective representative can move from a different office to an at large office and back again.

How can I find out more?

I need a web site address here.

What other locations in the area have term limits on their officials?

Need to identify

35 of 68

FAQ Term Limits (Cont)

2/5/2010 21

What Cities have term limits?

City Name Term Limits

New York City Y

Los Angeles Y

Chicago N

Houston Y

Philadelphia Y (Mayor Only)

Phoenix Y

San Antonio Y

San Diego Y

Dallas Y

San Jose Y

Term Limits Pro’s

2/5/2010 22

1. Term limits provide fresh perspective on issues that concern the citizens and their neighborhoods2. Term limits prevent a politician and supporting special interest groups from establishing an entrenched position

of power and influence over the City.3. Term limits allow the incumbents to step away and see the council from the outside and find new ideas

36 of 68

Term Limits Con’s

2/5/2010 23

1. Term Limits may reduce the number of experienced people on the council2. Working relationships may have to be built more frequently3. The voters should decide with their votes on when an official should be taken out of office

Relevant Websites

2/5/2010 24

1. http://bengrosser.com/noatlarge.org/research/at-large-research-9-11-2004.pdf

2. http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/newsblog/2008/10/should_naperville_consider_cou.html

3. http://www.empowernb.com/files/fckimages/file/Support%20the%20Ward%20Campaign.pdf

4. http://coalition4democracy.com/wardfacts.htm

5. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v663836h2615218m/

37 of 68

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.

2/5/2010 25

38 of 68

MONTHLY BRIEFING JANUARY 2010http://www.ilga.gov/commission/cgfa2006/home.aspx

SENATEJeffrey M. Schoenberg, Co-Chairman

Bill Brady Michael Frerichs

Matt Murphy Dave Syverson Donne Trotter

HOUSERichard P. Myers, Co-Chairman

Patricia Bellock Kevin McCarthy Elaine Nekritz Raymond Poe

Al Riley

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dan R. Long

DEPUTY DIRECTOR Trevor J. Clatfelter

INSIDE THIS ISSUE PAGE 1 - ECONOMY: Jobs the Main Concern

PAGE 3: Illinois Economic Indicators

PAGE 3: FY 2010 Special Transfers

PAGE 10 - REVENUE: January Revenues Grow Due to Federal Sources

PAGE 11-12: Revenue Tables

PAGE 13 - PENSIONS: Retirement Systems Funding Projections

703 Stratton Ofc. Bldg. Springfield, IL 62706

ECONOMY: Jobs the Main Concern Edward H. Boss, Jr., Chief Economist

he economic recovery has been underway since last summer as confirmed by data released by the Commerce

Department near month end, yet the major concern is the lack of jobs this growth has generated. Advanced data on inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) showed the economy grew for the second consecutive quarter in the final quarter of last year at an annual rate of 5.7%, the fastest pace since the third quarter of 2003. This was up substantially from the 2.2% gain in the previous quarter, which had reversed four consecutive quarters of decline. The surge in last quarter’s growth in large part reflected the change in real private inventories that added 3.39 percentage points to the overall gain, and therefore its strength could prove temporary, although business capital spending, exports, and consumer spending came in somewhat higher than expected.

At the same time that the economy has been growing over the past six months employment continued to drop, albeit at a slower rate, and the unemployment rate rose to 10%. In the U.S. employment dropped by over 800,000 since June as measured by the Establishment, or payroll measure, substantially less than the 4.1 million lost in the previous six months. The slowdown, however, was substantially less in the Household Survey, used to determine the unemployment rate. In this series employment loss slowed from 3.1 million in the first six months of 2009 to only a 2.3 million loss in the six months ended December 2009.

While most attention generally is paid to the more comprehensive Establishment series, which directly looks at the employment records of companies, it is slow to account for new businesses where most new jobs are created. Thus, in the early stages of an economic recovery, the

T

39 of 68

CHART 1

Percent12

10

8

ILLINOIS

6

UNITED STATES4

JAN2

JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

CGFA

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

Establishment series may lag, or put another way, the Household series may lead. This being the case, the continued weaker employment picture in the Household survey does not auger well for a substantial improvement in the employment picture any time soon.

Chart 1 shows unemployment rates for the U.S. and Illinois. As illustrated, the U.S. unemployment rate currently is at 10% for the second consecutive month, up from 7.2% a year ago. Moreover, it would have been higher last month had it not been for a reduction in the size of the labor force. Indeed, as many analysts have concluded, if discouraged workers who have stopped looking for work and those working part time that would prefer to work full time were included, the “real” unemployment rate probably would be around 17%.

Illinois’ unemployment rate is currently at 11.1%, the highest

during this cycle and surpassed only in February 1983 when it reached a post WWII record 12.9% (at that time the U.S. unemployment rate was 10.4%). It is not unusual for Illinois’ unemploy-ment rate to be above the national rate, as generally has been the case in recent decades, although the magnitude of the difference currently is extremely large in part because Illinois has typically lagged the nation at this stage of the business cycle. Recently, it was announced that an Illinois Ford plant would be adding 1,200 new jobs as it was chosen to produce the new Ford Explorer SUV at the Chicago based plant. This is important as manufactur-ing jobs have been the hardest hit in recent years as reflected in the 1,300 manufacturing jobs lost just last month.

-2-

40 of 68

Most forecasters continue to predict a continuation of the economic recovery. They point to an improvement in business spending as reflected in the Purchasing Manufacturers’ Indices as well as the rising trend of nondefense capital goods orders; stronger exports; the declining trend in unemployment claims; an improvement in consumer attitudes; and a 38-year low in the inventory of new houses, suggesting the housing sector may be reaching a bottom.

n addition to expectations of continued economic growth, there is still a large

share of federal stimulus spending yet to

come as well as proposals to assist small businesses announced by the President in his State of the Union address. While further growth is anticipated, its rate expected in the quarters ahead is likely to fall short of what would be needed to sharply improve unemployment rates any time soon. Indeed, as it is perceived that economic conditions are continuing to improve, it can be expected that discouraged workers will reenter the labor force keeping unemployment rates relatively high. Even so any improvement in employment would be welcomed and a necessary step to eventually reduce unemployment rates both in the U.S. and in Illinois.

INDICATORS OF ILLINOIS ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

INDICATORS DEC. 2009 NOV. 2009 DEC. 2008

Unemployment Rate (Average) 11.1% 10.9% 7.2%Annual Rate of Inflation (Chicago) -5.8% 2.8% 2.5%

LATESTMONTH

% CHANGE OVER PRIOR

MONTH

% CHANGE OVER A

YEAR AGO

Civilian Labor Force (thousands) (December) 6,623 -0.3% -0.6%Employment (thousands) (December) 5,890 -0.5% -4.6%New Car & Truck Registration (December) 34,057 8.4% 5.0%Single Family Housing Permits (December) 482 -26.7% 23.9%Total Exports ($ mil) (November) 3,692 -0.4% -17.0%Chicago Purchasing Managers Index (January) 61.5 4.7% 84.6%

FY 2010 SPECIAL TRANSFERS Lynnae Kapp, Senior Analyst

FY 2010 Fund Sweeps to the General Revenue Fund were approved by Public Acts 96-0044 and 96-0045, in the amount of $351.7 million. Amounts will be transferred quarterly, or as they become available. In January 2010, the quarterly

amounts transferred netted $58.7 million, including retransfers that were made back to the original funds due to appropriation needs. Year-to-date, there have been $219.9 million in fund sweeps, as shown in the following tables.

I

-3-

41 of 68

FY

2010

FU

ND

SW

EE

PS

$1,0

53,0

00.0

0$1

,191

,000

.00

0046

Aer

onau

tics

Fun

d$2

5,36

0.00

$6,3

40.0

0$6

,340

.00

$6,3

40.0

0$1

9,02

0.00

$6,3

40.0

000

47Fir

e Pr

even

tion

Fun

d$1

0,40

0,00

0.00

$2,6

00,0

00.0

0$2

,600

,000

.00

$2,6

00,0

00.0

0$7

,800

,000

.00

$2,6

00,0

00.0

000

48R

ural

/Dow

nsta

te H

ealth

Acc

ess

Fun

d$1

,700

.00

$425

.00

$425

.00

$425

.00

$1,2

75.0

0$4

25.0

000

50M

enta

l Hea

lth F

und

$24,

560,

000.

00

$6,1

40,0

00.0

0$6

,140

,000

.00

$6,1

40,0

00.0

0$1

8,42

0,00

0.00

$6,1

40,0

00.0

000

57IL

Sta

te P

harm

acy

Dis

cipl

inar

y F

und

$2,0

54,1

00.0

0 $5

13,5

25.0

0$5

13,5

25.0

0$5

13,5

25.0

0$1

,540

,575

.00

$513

,525

.00

0059

Publ

ic U

tility

Fun

d$9

60,1

75.0

0 $2

40,0

43.7

5$2

40,0

43.7

5$2

40,0

43.7

5$7

20,1

31.2

5$2

40,0

43.7

500

60A

lzhe

imer

's D

isea

se R

esea

rch

Fun

d$1

12,5

00.0

0 $2

8,12

5.00

$28,

125.

00$2

8,12

5.00

$84,

375.

00$2

8,12

5.00

0067

Rad

iatio

n Pr

otec

tion

Fun

d$9

2,25

0.00

$2

3,06

2.50

$23,

062.

50$2

3,06

2.50

$69,

187.

50$2

3,06

2.50

0069

Nat

ural

Her

itage

End

owm

ent T

rust

Fun

d$2

50,0

00.0

0 $6

2,50

0.00

$62,

500.

00$6

2,50

0.00

$187

,500

.00

$62,

500.

0000

71Fir

earm

Ow

ner'

s N

otif

icat

ion

Fun

d$2

56,4

00.0

0 $6

4,10

0.00

$64,

100.

00$6

4,10

0.00

$192

,300

.00

$64,

100.

0000

74E

PA S

peci

al S

tate

Pro

ject

s T

rust

Fun

d$3

,760

,000

.00

$940

,000

.00

$940

,000

.00

$2,8

20,0

00.0

000

78So

lid W

aste

Man

agem

ent F

und

$1,2

00,0

00.0

0 $3

0 0,0

00.0

0$0

.00

$0.0

0$1

,200

,000

.00

0085

IL G

amin

g L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent F

und

$141

,000

.00

$35,

250.

00$3

5,25

0.00

$35,

250.

00$1

05,7

50.0

0$3

5,25

0.00

0089

Subt

itle

D M

anag

emen

t Fun

d$3

75,0

00.0

0 $9

3,75

0.00

$93,

750.

00$8

0,02

9.00

$294

,971

.00

0093

IL S

tate

Med

ical

Dis

cipl

inar

y F

und

$11,

277,

200.

00

$2,8

19,3

00.0

0$2

,819

,300

.00

$4,6

87,2

00.0

0$6

,590

,000

.00

0096

Cem

eter

y C

onsu

mer

Pro

tect

ion

Fun

d$6

58,0

00.0

0$1

64,5

00.0

0$1

64,5

00.0

0$1

64,5

00.0

0$4

93,5

00.0

0$1

64,5

00.0

001

00A

ssis

tanc

e to

the

Hom

eles

s Fun

d$1

3,80

0.00

$3

,450

.00

$3,4

50.0

0$3

,450

.00

$10,

350.

00$3

,450

.00

0106

Acc

essi

ble

Ele

ctro

nic

Info

rmat

ion

Serv

ices

Fun

d$1

0,00

0.00

$2

,500

.00

$2,5

00.0

0$2

,500

.00

$7,5

00.0

0$2

,500

.00

0109

CD

LIS

/AA

MV

Ane

t Tru

st F

und

$110

,000

.00

$27,

500.

00$2

7,50

0.00

$27,

500.

00$8

2,50

0.00

$27,

500.

00

0112

Com

ptro

ller'

s A

udit

Exp

ense

Rev

olvi

ng F

und

$31,

200.

00

$7,8

00.0

0$7

,800

.00

$7,8

00.0

0$2

3,40

0.00

$7,8

00.0

001

13C

omm

unity

Hea

lth C

ente

r C

are

Fun

d$4

50,0

00.0

0$1

12,5

00.0

0$1

12,5

00.0

0$1

12,5

00.0

0$3

37,5

00.0

0$1

12,5

00.0

001

15Sa

fe B

ottle

d W

ater

Fun

d$1

5,00

0.00

$3

,750

.00

$3,7

50.0

0$3

,750

.00

$11,

250.

00$3

,750

.00

0118

Fac

ility

Lic

ensi

ng F

und

$363

,600

.00

$90,

900.

00$9

0,90

0.00

$181

,800

.00

$181

,800

.00

0123

Han

sen-

The

rkel

sin

Mem

oria

l Dea

f St

uden

t C

olle

ge F

und

$503

,700

.00

$125

,925

.00

$125

,925

.00

$125

,925

.00

$377

,775

.00

$125

,925

.00

0127

IL U

nder

grou

nd U

tility

Fac

ilitie

s D

amag

e Pr

even

tion

Fun

d$2

9,60

0.00

$7

,400

.00

$7,4

00.0

0$7

,400

.00

$22,

200.

00$7

,400

.00

0130

Scho

ol D

istr

ict E

mer

genc

y Fin

anci

al

Ass

ista

nce

Fun

d$2

,059

,200

.00

$514

,800

.00

$514

,800

.00

$514

,800

.00

$1,5

44,4

00.0

0$5

14,8

00.0

001

34M

enta

l Hea

lth T

rans

port

atio

n Fun

d$8

59.0

0 $2

14.7

5$2

14.7

5$2

14.7

5$6

44.2

5$2

14.7

5

0151

Reg

iste

red

CPA

Adm

inis

trat

ion

&

Dis

cipl

inar

y Fun

d$3

4,60

0.00

$8,6

50.0

0$8

,650

.00

$8,6

50.0

0$2

5,95

0.00

$8,6

50.0

001

52St

ate

Cri

me

Lab

Fun

d$1

42,8

80.0

0 $3

5,72

0.00

$35,

720.

00$3

5,72

0.00

$107

,160

.00

$35,

720.

00

0153

Agr

iche

mic

al I

ncid

ent R

espo

nse

Tru

st F

und

$80,

000.

00$2

0,00

0.00

$20,

000.

00$2

0,00

0.00

$60,

000.

00$2

0,00

0.00

0155

Gen

eral

Ass

embl

y C

ompu

ter

Equ

ipm

ent

Rev

olvi

ng F

und

$101

,600

.00

$25,

400.

00$2

5,40

0.00

$25,

400.

00$7

6,20

0.00

$25,

400.

00

PA

96-

44 &

96-

45

No.

Fun

dSt

atut

ory

Am

ount

July

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

TO

TA

LR

emai

nder

0014

Foo

d an

d D

rug

Safe

ty F

und

$6,8

00.0

0 $1

,700

.00

$1,7

00.0

0$1

,700

.00

$5,1

00.0

0$1

,700

.00

0015

Penn

y Se

vern

s B

reas

t, C

ervi

cal &

Ova

rian

C

ance

r R

esea

rch

Fun

d$3

3,30

0.00

$8

,325

.00

$8,3

25.0

0$8

,325

.00

$24,

975.

00$8

,325

.00

0018

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Reg

ulat

ory

Fun

d$2

,122

,000

.00

$530

,500

.00

$530

,500

.00

$530

,500

.00

$1,5

91,5

00.0

0$5

30,5

00.0

000

22G

ener

al P

rofe

ssio

ns D

edic

ated

Fun

d$3

,511

,900

.00

$877

,975

.00

$877

,975

.00

$877

,975

.00

$2,6

33,9

25.0

0$8

77,9

75.0

000

23E

cono

mic

Res

earc

h an

d In

form

atio

n F

und

$1,1

20.0

0 $2

80.0

0$2

80.0

0$2

80.0

0$8

40.0

0$2

80.0

0

0024

IL D

ept.

of

AG

Lab

Ser

vice

s R

evol

ving

Fun

d$1

2,82

5.00

$3

,206

.25

$3,2

06.2

5$3

,206

.25

$9,6

18.7

5$3

,206

.25

0031

Dri

vers

Edu

catio

n Fun

d$2

,244

,000

.00

$561

,000

.00

$561

,000

.00

($69

,000

.00)

($30

0,00

0.00

)

($10

7,47

1.00

)($

172,

000.

00)

($15

9,40

0.00

)($

620,

000.

00)

-4-

42 of 68

-5-

FY20

10 F

UN

D S

WE

EPS

No.

Fund

Stat

utor

y A

mou

ntJu

lySe

pO

ctN

ovD

ecJa

nT

OT

AL

Rem

aind

er01

63W

eigh

ts a

nd M

easu

res

Fund

$625

,000

.00

$156

,250

.00

$156

,250

.00

$156

,250

.00

$468

,750

.00

$156

,250

.00

0175

IL S

choo

l Asb

esto

s A

bate

men

t Fun

d$2

99,6

00.0

0 $7

4,90

0.00

$74,

900.

00$7

4,90

0.00

$224

,700

.00

$74,

900.

0001

79In

jure

d W

orke

rs'

Ben

efit

Fund

$3,2

90,5

60.0

0 $8

22,6

40.0

0$8

22,6

40.0

0$8

22,6

40.0

0$2

,467

,920

.00

$822

,640

.00

0184

Vio

lenc

e Pr

even

tion

Fund

$79,

500.

00

$19,

875.

00$1

9,87

5.00

$19,

875.

00$5

9,62

5.00

$19,

875.

0001

92Pr

ofes

sion

al R

egul

atio

n E

vide

nce

Fund

$5,0

00.0

0 $1

,250

.00

$1,2

50.0

0$1

,250

.00

$3,7

50.0

0$1

,250

.00

0195

IPT

IP A

dmin

istr

ativ

e T

rust

Fun

d$5

00,0

00.0

0 $1

25,0

00.0

0$1

25,0

00.0

0$1

25,0

00.0

0$3

75,0

00.0

0$1

25,0

00.0

001

98D

iabe

tes

Res

earc

h C

heck

off

Fund

$8,8

00.0

0 $2

,200

.00

$2,2

00.0

0$2

,200

.00

$6,6

00.0

0$2

,200

.00

0208

Tic

ket f

or th

e C

ure

Fund

$1,2

00,0

00.0

0 $3

00,0

00.0

0$3

00,0

00.0

0$3

00,0

00.0

0$9

00,0

00.0

0$3

00,0

00.0

002

15C

DB

Rev

olvi

ng F

und

$346

,000

.00

$86,

500.

00$8

6,50

0.00

$86,

500.

00$2

59,5

00.0

0$8

6,50

0.00

0218

Prof

essi

ons

Indi

rect

Cos

t Fun

d$2

,144

,500

.00

$536

,125

.00

$536

,125

.00

$536

,125

.00

$1,6

08,3

75.0

0$5

36,1

25.0

002

22St

ate

Polic

e D

UI

Fund

$166

,880

.00

$41,

720.

00$4

1,72

0.00

$41,

720.

00$1

25,1

60.0

0$4

1,72

0.00

0237

Med

icai

d Fr

aud

and

Abu

se P

reve

ntio

n Fu

nd$2

0,00

0.00

$5

,000

.00

$5,0

00.0

0$5

,000

.00

$15,

000.

00$5

,000

.00

0238

IL H

ealth

Fac

ilitie

s Pl

anni

ng F

und

$1,3

92,4

00.0

0$3

48,1

00.0

0$3

48,1

00.0

0$3

48,1

00.0

0$1

,044

,300

.00

$348

,100

.00

0240

Em

erge

ncy

Publ

ic H

ealth

Fun

d$8

75,0

00.0

0 $2

18,7

50.0

0$2

18,7

50.0

0$2

18,7

50.0

0$6

56,2

50.0

0$2

18,7

50.0

0

0241

Tra

nsm

itter

s of

Mon

ey A

ct (

TO

MA

) C

onsu

mer

Pro

tect

ion

Fund

$50,

000.

00

$12,

500.

00$1

2,50

0.00

$25,

000.

00$2

5,00

0.00

0242

ISA

C A

ccou

nts

Rec

eiva

ble

Fund

$24,

240.

00

$6,0

60.0

0$6

,060

.00

$6,0

60.0

0$1

8,18

0.00

$6,0

60.0

002

45Fa

ir a

nd E

xpos

ition

Fun

d$1

,257

,920

.00

$314

,480

.00

$314

,480

.00

$314

,480

.00

$943

,440

.00

$314

,480

.00

0251

Dep

t. o

f L

abor

Spe

cial

Sta

te T

rust

Fun

d$4

09,0

00.0

0$1

02,2

50.0

0$1

02,2

50.0

0$1

02,2

50.0

0$3

06,7

50.0

0$1

02,2

50.0

002

56Pu

blic

Hea

lth W

ater

Per

mit

Fund

$24,

500.

00

$6,1

25.0

0$6

,125

.00

$12,

250.

00$1

2,25

0.00

0258

Nur

sing

Ded

icat

ed &

Pro

fess

iona

l Fun

d$9

,988

,400

.00

$2,4

97,1

00.0

0$2

,497

,100

.00

$4,9

94,2

00.0

0$4

,994

,200

.00

0259

Opt

omet

ric

Lic

ensi

ng &

Dis

cipl

inar

y B

oard

Fu

nd$9

95,8

00.0

0 $2

48,9

50.0

0$2

48,9

50.0

0($

17,0

00.0

0)($

8,00

0.00

)($

61,5

62.4

5)$4

11,3

37.5

5$5

84,4

62.4

502

70W

ater

Rev

olvi

ng F

und

$4,9

60.0

0 $1

,240

.00

$1,2

40.0

0$1

,240

.00

$3,7

20.0

0$1

,240

.00

0283

Met

ham

phet

amin

e L

aw E

nfor

cem

ent F

und

$50,

000.

00

$12,

500.

00$1

2,50

0.00

$12,

500.

00$3

7,50

0.00

$12,

500.

0002

85L

ong

Ter

m C

are

Mon

itor/

Rec

eive

r Fu

nd$1

,700

,000

.00

$425

,000

.00

$425

,000

.00

$425

,000

.00

$1,2

75,0

00.0

0$4

25,0

00.0

0

0287

Hom

e C

are

Serv

ices

Age

ncy

Lic

ensu

re F

und

$48,

000.

00

$12,

000.

00$1

2,00

0.00

$12,

000.

00$3

6,00

0.00

$12,

000.

0002

88C

omm

unity

Wat

er S

uppl

y L

ab F

und

$600

,000

.00

$150

,000

.00

$150

,000

.00

$97,

853.

00$3

97,8

53.0

0$2

02,1

47.0

002

89M

otor

Fue

l and

Pet

role

um S

tand

ards

Fun

d$4

1,41

6.00

$1

0,35

4.00

$10,

354.

00$1

0,35

4.00

$31,

062.

00$1

0,35

4.00

0290

Fert

ilize

r C

ontr

ol F

und

$162

,520

.00

$40,

630.

00$4

0,63

0.00

$40,

630.

00$1

21,8

90.0

0$4

0,63

0.00

0291

Reg

ulat

ory

Fund

$307

,824

.00

$76,

956.

00$7

6,95

6.00

$76,

956.

00$2

30,8

68.0

0$7

6,95

6.00

0294

Use

d T

ire

Man

agem

ent F

und

$8,8

53,5

52.0

0 $2

,213

,388

.00

$2,2

13,3

88.0

0$2

,213

,388

.00

$6,6

40,1

64.0

0$2

,213

,388

.00

0298

Nat

ural

Are

as A

cqui

sitio

n Fu

nd$1

,000

,000

.00

$250

,000

.00

$250

,000

.00

$250

,000

.00

$750

,000

.00

$250

,000

.00

0301

Wor

king

Cap

ital R

evol

ving

Fun

d$6

,450

,000

.00

$1,6

12,5

00.0

0$1

,612

,500

.00

$1,6

12,5

00.0

0$4

,837

,500

.00

$1,6

12,5

00.0

003

10T

ax R

ecov

ery

Fund

$29,

680.

00

$7,4

20.0

0$7

,420

.00

$7,4

20.0

0$2

2,26

0.00

$7,4

20.0

003

17Pr

ofes

sion

al S

ervi

ces

Fund

$3,5

00,0

00.0

0 $8

75,0

00.0

0$8

75,0

00.0

0$8

75,0

00.0

0$2

,625

,000

.00

$875

,000

.00

0331

Tre

asur

er's

Ren

tal F

ee F

und

$155

,000

.00

$38,

750.

00$3

8,75

0.00

$38,

750.

00$1

16,2

50.0

0$3

8,75

0.00

0340

Publ

ic H

ealth

Lab

Ser

vice

s R

evol

ving

Fun

d$4

50,0

00.0

0 $1

12,5

00.0

0$1

12,5

00.0

0$2

25,0

00.0

0$2

25,0

00.0

003

41Pr

ovid

er I

nqui

ry T

rust

Fun

d$2

00,0

00.0

0 $5

0,00

0.00

$50,

000.

00$5

0,00

0.00

$150

,000

.00

$50,

000.

0003

42A

udit

Exp

ense

Fun

d$5

,972

,190

.00

$1,4

93,0

47.5

0$1

,493

,047

.50

$1,4

93,0

47.5

0$4

,479

,142

.50

$1,4

93,0

47.5

0

PA 9

6-44

& 9

6-45

43 of 68

-6-

FY

2010

FU

ND

SW

EE

PS

No.

Fun

dSt

atut

ory

Am

ount

July

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

TO

TA

LR

emai

nder

0356

Law

Enf

orce

men

t C

amer

a G

rant

Fun

d$2

,631

,840

.00

$657

,960

.00

$657

,960

.00

$657

,960

.00

$1,9

73,8

80.0

0$6

57,9

60.0

0

0357

Chi

ld L

abor

and

Day

& T

empo

rary

Lab

or

Serv

ices

Enf

orce

men

t Fun

d$4

90,0

00.0

0$1

22,5

00.0

0$1

22,5

00.0

0$1

22,5

00.0

0$3

67,5

00.0

0$1

22,5

00.0

0

0360

Lea

d Poi

soni

ng S

cree

ning

, Pre

vent

ion,

and

A

bate

men

t Fun

d$1

00,0

00.0

0$2

5,00

0.00

$25,

000.

00$2

5,00

0.00

$75,

000.

00$2

5,00

0.00

0365

Hea

lth

& H

uman

Ser

vice

s M

edic

aid

Tru

st

Fun

d$6

,920

,000

.00

$1,7

30,0

00.0

0$1

,730

,000

.00

$1,7

30,0

00.0

0$5

,190

,000

.00

$1,7

30,0

00.0

0

0366

Pri

sone

r R

evie

w B

oard

Veh

icle

& E

quip

men

t Fun

d$1

47,9

00.0

0$3

6,97

5.00

$36,

975.

00$3

6,97

5.00

$110

,925

.00

$36,

975.

0003

68D

rug

Tre

atm

ent Fun

d$4

,400

,000

.00

$1,1

00,0

00.0

0$1

,100

,000

.00

$2,2

00,0

00.0

0$2

,200

,000

.00

0369

Fee

d C

ontr

ol F

und

$625

,000

.00

$156

,250

.00

$156

,250

.00

$156

,250

.00

$468

,750

.00

$156

,250

.00

0370

Tan

ning

Fac

ility

Per

mit F

und

$20,

000.

00

$5,0

00.0

0$5

,000

.00

$5,0

00.0

0$1

5,00

0.00

$5,0

00.0

0

0371

Inno

vation

s in

Lon

g-te

rm C

are

Qua

lity

D

emon

stra

tion

Gra

nts

Fun

d$3

00,0

00.0

0 $7

5,00

0.00

$75,

000.

00$7

5,00

0.00

$225

,000

.00

$75,

000.

0003

72Plu

mbi

ng L

icen

sure

and

Pro

gram

Fun

d$1

,585

,600

.00

$396

,400

.00

$396

,400

.00

$396

,400

.00

$1,1

89,2

00.0

0$3

96,4

00.0

0

0373

Stat

e T

reas

urer

's B

ank

Ser

vice

s T

rust

Fun

d$6

,800

,000

.00

$1,7

00,0

00.0

0$1

,700

,000

.00

$3,4

00,0

00.0

0$3

,400

,000

.00

0376

Stat

e Pol

ice

Mot

or V

ehic

le T

heft

Pre

vent

ion

Tru

st F

und

$46,

500.

00$1

1,62

5.00

$11,

625.

00($

23,2

50.0

0)$0

.00

$46,

500.

0003

78In

sura

nce

Pre

miu

m T

ax R

efun

d Fun

d$5

8,70

0.00

$14,

675.

00$1

4,67

5.00

$14,

675.

00$4

4,02

5.00

$14,

675.

0003

86A

ppra

isal

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Fun

d$3

78,4

00.0

0$9

4,60

0.00

$94,

600.

00$9

4,60

0.00

$283

,800

.00

$94,

600.

00

0387

Smal

l B

usin

ess

Env

iron

men

tal A

ssis

tanc

e Fun

d$2

4,08

0.00

$6

,020

.00

$6,0

20.0

0$6

,020

.00

$18,

060.

00$6

,020

.00

0388

Reg

ulat

ory

Eva

luat

ion

and

Bas

ic E

nfor

cem

ent

Fun

d$1

25,0

00.0

0 $3

1,25

0.00

$31,

250.

00$3

1,25

0.00

$93,

750.

00$3

1,25

0.00

0394

Gai

ning

Ear

ly A

war

enes

s an

d R

eadi

ness

for

U

nder

grad

uate

Pro

gram

s Fun

d$1

5,00

0.00

$3,7

50.0

0$3

,750

.00

$3,7

50.0

0$1

1,25

0.00

$3,7

50.0

003

97T

raum

a C

ente

r F

und

$4,0

00,0

00.0

0$1

,000

,000

.00

$1,0

00,0

00.0

0$1

,000

,000

.00

$3,0

00,0

00.0

0$1

,000

,000

.00

0398

EM

S A

ssis

tanc

e Fun

d$1

10,0

00.0

0 $2

7,50

0.00

$27,

500.

00$2

7,50

0.00

$82,

500.

00$2

7,50

0.00

0417

Stat

e C

olle

ge a

nd U

nive

rsity

Tru

st F

und

$20,

204.

00

$5,0

51.0

0$5

,051

.00

$5,0

51.0

0$1

5,15

3.00

$5,0

51.0

004

18U

nive

rsity

Gra

nt F

und

$5,6

08.0

0 $1

,402

.00

$1,4

02.0

0$1

,402

.00

$4,2

06.0

0$1

,402

.00

0419

DC

EO

Pro

ject

s Fun

d$1

,000

,000

.00

$0.0

0$1

,000

,000

.00

0422

Alter

nate

Fue

ls F

und

$2,0

00,0

00.0

0$5

00,0

00.0

0$5

00,0

00.0

0$5

00,0

00.0

0$1

,500

,000

.00

$500

,000

.00

0429

Mul

tipl

e Scl

eros

is R

esea

rch

Fun

d$2

7,20

0.00

$6,8

00.0

0$6

,800

.00

$6,8

00.0

0$2

0,40

0.00

$6,8

00.0

004

30L

ives

tock

Man

agem

ent F

acilitie

s F

und

$81,

920.

00

$20,

480.

00$2

0,48

0.00

$20,

480.

00$6

1,44

0.00

$20,

480.

0004

31Se

cond

Inj

ury

Fun

d$6

15,6

80.0

0 $1

53,9

20.0

0$1

53,9

20.0

0$1

53,9

20.0

0$4

61,7

60.0

0$1

53,9

20.0

004

40A

gric

ultu

ral M

aste

r Fun

d$1

36,9

84.0

0$3

4,24

6.00

$34,

246.

00$3

4,24

6.00

$102

,738

.00

$34,

246.

00

0444

Hig

h Sp

eed

Inte

rnet

Ser

vice

s &

Inf

orm

atio

n T

echn

olog

y F

und

$3,3

00,0

00.0

0 $8

25,0

00.0

0$8

25,0

00.0

0$8

25,0

00.0

0$2

,475

,000

.00

$825

,000

.00

0452

IL T

ouri

sm T

ax F

und

$250

,000

.00

$62,

500.

00$6

2,50

0.00

$62,

500.

00$1

87,5

00.0

0$6

2,50

0.00

0474

Hum

an S

ervi

ces

Pri

ority

Cap

ital

Pro

gram

Fun

d$7

,378

,400

.00

$1,8

44,6

00.0

0$1

,844

,600

.00

$1,8

44,6

00.0

0$5

,533

,800

.00

$1,8

44,6

00.0

004

85W

arra

nt E

sche

at$1

,394

,161

.00

$348

,540

.25

$348

,540

.25

$348

,540

.25

$1,0

45,6

20.7

5$3

48,5

40.2

505

14St

ate

Ass

et F

orfe

itur

e Fun

d$3

21,6

00.0

0 $8

0,40

0.00

$80,

400.

00$8

0,40

0.00

$241

,200

.00

$80,

400.

0005

17Pol

ice

Tra

inin

g B

oard

Ser

vice

s Fun

d$8

,000

.00

$2,0

00.0

0$2

,000

.00

$2,0

00.0

0$6

,000

.00

$2,0

00.0

005

20Fed

eral

Ass

et F

orfe

itur

e Fun

d$1

,760

.00

$440

.00

$440

.00

$440

.00

$1,3

20.0

0$4

40.0

0

0523

Dep

t. o

f C

orre

ctio

ns R

eim

burs

emen

t an

d E

duca

tion

Fun

d$2

50,0

00.0

0$6

2,50

0.00

$62,

500.

00$6

2,50

0.00

$187

,500

.00

$62,

500.

0005

24H

ealth

Fac

ility

Pla

n R

evie

w F

und

$1,5

43,6

00.0

0 $3

85,9

00.0

0$3

85,9

00.0

0$3

85,9

00.0

0$1

,157

,700

.00

$385

,900

.00

0528

Dom

estic

Vio

lenc

e A

buse

r Se

rvic

es F

und

$11,

500.

00

$2,8

75.0

0$2

,875

.00

$2,8

75.0

0$8

,625

.00

$2,8

75.0

005

36L

EA

DS M

aint

enan

ce F

und

$166

,800

.00

$41,

700.

00$4

1,70

0.00

$41,

700.

00$1

25,1

00.0

0$4

1,70

0.00

PA

96-

44 &

96-

45

44 of 68

FY

2010

FU

ND

SW

EE

PS

$0.0

0$0

.00

$13,

408,

328.

0005

67C

hart

er S

choo

ls R

evol

ving

Loa

n F

und

$82,

000.

00$2

0,50

0.00

$20,

500.

00$2

0,50

0.00

$61,

500.

00$2

0,50

0.00

0569

Scho

ol T

echn

olog

y R

evol

ving

Loa

n Fu

nd$1

,230

,000

.00

$307

,500

.00

$307

,500

.00

$307

,500

.00

$922

,500

.00

$307

,500

.00

0571

Ene

rgy

Eff

icie

ncy

Tru

st F

und

$1,4

90,0

00.0

0 $3

72,5

00.0

0$3

72,5

00.0

0$3

72,5

00.0

0$1

,117

,500

.00

$372

,500

.00

0576

Pest

icid

e C

ontr

ol F

und

$625

,000

.00

$156

,250

.00

$156

,250

.00

$156

,250

.00

$468

,750

.00

$156

,250

.00

0581

Juve

nile

Acc

ount

abili

ty I

ncen

tive

Blo

ck G

rant

No.

Fun

dSt

atut

ory

Am

ount

July

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

TO

TA

LR

emai

nder

0537

Stat

e O

ffen

der

DN

A I

D S

yste

m F

und

$615

,040

.00

$153

,760

.00

$153

,760

.00

$153

,760

.00

$461

,280

.00

$153

,760

.00

0538

IL H

isto

ric

Site

s Fu

nd$2

50,0

00.0

0$6

2,50

0.00

$62,

500.

00$6

2,50

0.00

$187

,500

.00

$62,

500.

0005

43C

ompt

rolle

r's

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Fund

$134

,690

.00

$33,

672.

50$3

3,67

2.50

$3,6

98.0

9$7

1,04

3.09

$63,

646.

9105

46Pu

blic

Pen

sion

Reg

ulat

ion

Fund

$0.0

0$0

.00

$0.0

0

0552

Wor

kfor

ce,

Tec

hnol

ogy

and

Eco

nom

ic

Dev

elop

men

t Fun

d$2

,000

,000

.00

$0.0

0$2

,000

,000

.00

0562

Paw

nbro

ker

Reg

ulat

ion

Fund

$26,

400.

00$6

,600

.00

$6,6

00.0

0$6

,600

.00

$19,

800.

00$6

,600

.00

0564

Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y R

esou

rces

Tru

st F

und

$13,

408,

328.

00

$3,3

52,0

82.0

0$0

.00

($3,

352,

082.

00)

Fund

$10,

000.

00$2

,500

.00

$2,5

00.0

0$0

.00

$10,

000.

0006

04M

ultip

le S

cler

osis

Ass

ista

nce

Fund

$8,0

00.0

0$2

,000

.00

$2,0

00.0

0$2

,000

.00

$6,0

00.0

0$2

,000

.00

0605

Tem

pora

ry R

eloc

atio

n E

xpen

ses

Rev

olvi

ng

Gra

nt F

und

$460

,000

.00

$115

,000

.00

$0.0

0$4

60,0

00.0

006

08Pa

rtne

rs f

or C

onse

rvat

ion

Fund

$8,2

00,0

00.0

0$2

,050

,000

.00

$2,0

50,0

00.0

0$6

,150

,000

.00

$2,0

50,0

00.0

006

11Fu

nd f

or I

llino

is'

Futu

re$3

,000

,000

.00

$750

,000

.00

$750

,000

.00

$750

,000

.00

$2,2

50,0

00.0

0$7

50,0

00.0

006

13W

irel

ess

Car

rier

Rei

mbu

rsem

ent F

und

$13,

650,

000.

00

$3,4

12,5

00.0

0$3

,412

,500

.00

$3,4

12,5

00.0

0$1

0,23

7,50

0.00

$3,4

12,5

00.0

006

21In

tern

atio

nal T

ouri

sm F

und

$5,0

43,3

44.0

0 $1

,260

,836

.00

$1,2

60,8

36.0

0$1

,260

,836

.00

$3,7

82,5

08.0

0$1

,260

,836

.00

0631

IL R

acin

g Q

uart

erho

rse

Bre

eder

s Fu

nd$1

,448

.00

$362

.00

$362

.00

$362

.00

$1,0

86.0

0$3

62.0

006

35D

eath

Cer

tific

ate

Surc

harg

e F

und

$900

,000

.00

$225

,000

.00

$225

,000

.00

$225

,000

.00

$675

,000

.00

$225

,000

.00

0637

Stat

e Po

lice

Wir

eles

s Se

rvic

e E

mer

genc

y Fu

nd$1

,329

,280

.00

$332

,320

.00

$332

,320

.00

$332

,320

.00

$996

,960

.00

$332

,320

.00

0638

IL A

dopt

ion

Reg

istr

y &

Med

ical

Inf

orm

atio

n E

xcha

nge

Fund

$8,4

00.0

0$2

,100

.00

$2,1

00.0

0$2

,100

.00

$6,3

00.0

0$2

,100

.00

0641

Auc

tion

Reg

ulat

ion

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Fun

d$3

61,6

00.0

0$9

0,40

0.00

$90,

400.

00$1

80,8

00.0

0$1

80,8

00.0

006

42D

HS

Stat

e Pr

ojec

ts F

und

$193

,900

.00

$48,

475.

00$4

8,47

5.00

$48,

475.

00$1

45,4

25.0

0$4

8,47

5.00

0643

Auc

tion

Rec

over

y F

und

$4,6

00.0

0$1

,150

.00

$1,1

50.0

0$1

,150

.00

$3,4

50.0

0$1

,150

.00

0649

Mot

or C

arri

er S

afet

y In

spec

tion

Fund

$389

,840

.00

$97,

460.

00$9

7,46

0.00

$97,

460.

00$2

92,3

80.0

0$9

7,46

0.00

0653

Coa

l Dev

elop

men

t Fun

d$3

20,0

00.0

0 $8

0,00

0.00

$80,

000.

00$8

0,00

0.00

$240

,000

.00

$80,

000.

0006

58St

ate

Off

-set

Cla

ims

Fund

$400

,000

.00

$0.0

0$4

00,0

00.0

006

77IS

AC

Con

trac

ts a

nd G

rant

s Fu

nd$1

28,8

50.0

0 $3

2,21

2.50

$32,

212.

50$1

03.1

4$1

28,7

46.8

606

90D

HS

Priv

ate

Res

ourc

es F

und

$1,0

00,0

00.0

0 $2

50,0

00.0

0$2

50,0

00.0

0$2

50,0

00.0

0$7

50,0

00.0

0$2

50,0

00.0

0

070 2

Ass

iste

d L

ivin

g an

d Sh

ared

Hou

sing

Reg

. Fu

nd$1

22,4

00.0

0$3

0,60

0.00

$30,

600.

00$3

0,60

0.00

$91,

800.

00$3

0,60

0.00

0705

Stat

e Po

lice

Whi

stle

blow

er R

ewar

d an

d Pr

otec

tion

Fun

d$3

,900

,000

.00

$975

,000

.00

$975

,000

.00

$975

,000

.00

$2,9

25,0

00.0

0$9

75,0

00.0

007

08Il

linoi

s St

anda

rdbr

ed B

reed

ers

Fund

$134

,608

.00

$33,

652.

00$3

3,65

2.00

$33,

652.

00$1

00,9

56.0

0$3

3,65

2.00

0712

Post

Tra

nspl

ant M

aint

enan

ce a

nd R

eten

tion

Fund

$85,

800.

00

$21,

450.

00$2

1,45

0.00

$21,

450.

00$6

4,35

0.00

$21,

450.

00

0714

Spin

al C

ord

Inju

ry P

aral

ysis

Cur

e R

esea

rch

Tru

st F

und

$300

,000

.00

$75,

000.

00$7

5,00

0.00

$75,

000.

00$2

25,0

00.0

0$7

5,00

0.00

0716

Org

an D

onor

Aw

aren

ess

Fund

$115

,000

.00

$28,

750.

00$2

8,75

0.00

$28,

750.

00$8

6,25

0.00

$28,

750.

00

0718

Com

mun

ity M

enta

l Hea

lth M

edic

aid

Tru

st

Fund

$1,0

30,9

00.0

0 $2

57,7

25.0

0$2

57,7

25.0

0$2

57,7

25.0

0$7

73,1

75.0

0$2

57,7

25.0

007

31IL

Cle

an W

ater

Fun

d$8

,649

,600

.00

$2,1

62,4

00.0

0$2

,162

,400

.00

$2,1

62,4

00.0

0$6

,487

,200

.00

$2,1

62,4

00.0

0

PA

96-

44 &

96-

45

($5,

000.

00)

($11

5,00

0.00

)$2

,050

,000

.00

($14

,518

.86)

($49

,803

.00)

-7-

45 of 68

FY

2010

FU

ND

SW

EE

PS

No.

Fun

dSt

atut

ory

Am

ount

July

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

TO

TA

LR

emai

nder

0733

Tob

acco

Set

tlem

ent R

ecov

ery

Fun

d$1

0,00

0,00

0.00

$2

,500

,000

.00

$2,5

00,0

00.0

0$5

,000

,000

.00

$5,0

00,0

00.0

0

0738

Alter

native

Com

plia

nce

Mar

ket A

ccou

nt

Fun

d$9

,984

.00

$2,4

96.0

0$2

,496

.00

$2,4

96.0

0$7

,488

.00

$2,4

96.0

0

0739

Gro

up W

orke

r's

Com

pens

atio

n Poo

l In

solv

ency

Fun

d$4

2,80

0.00

$1

0,70

0.00

$10,

700.

00$1

0,70

0.00

$32,

100.

00$1

0,70

0.00

0740

Med

icai

d B

uy-I

n Pro

gram

Rev

olvi

ng F

und

$1,0

00,0

00.0

0 $2

50,0

00.0

0$2

50,0

00.0

0$2

50,0

00.0

0$7

50,0

00.0

0$2

50,0

00.0

007

46H

ome

Insp

ecto

r A

dmin

Fun

d$1

,225

,200

.00

$306

,300

.00

$306

,300

.00

$306

,300

.00

$918

,900

.00

$306

,300

.00

0750

Rea

l E

stat

e A

udit F

und

$1,2

00.0

0 $3

00.0

0$3

00.0

0$3

00.0

0$9

00.0

0$3

00.0

007

60M

arin

e C

orps

Sch

olar

ship

Fun

d$6

9,00

0.00

$17,

250.

00$1

7,25

0.00

$34,

500.

00$3

4,50

0.00

0763

Tou

rism

Pro

mot

ion

Fun

d$3

0,00

0,00

0.00

$7

,500

,000

.00

$7,5

00,0

00.0

0$1

5,00

0,00

0.00

$15,

000,

000.

0007

74O

il S

pill R

espo

nse

Fun

d$4

,800

.00

$1,2

00.0

0$1

,200

.00

$1,2

00.0

0$3

,600

.00

$1,2

00.0

0

0776

Pre

side

ntia

l L

ibra

ry a

nd M

useu

m O

pera

ting

Fun

d$1

69,9

00.0

0 $4

2,47

5.00

$42,

475.

00$4

2,47

5.00

$127

,425

.00

$42,

475.

00

0796

Nuc

lear

Saf

ety

Em

erge

ncy

Pre

pare

dnes

s Fun

d$6

,000

,000

.00

$1,5

00,0

00.0

0($

696,

849.

00)

($80

3,15

1.00

)($

544,

050.

00)

($22

,480

.00)

$1,5

00,0

00.0

0$1

,500

,000

.00

$4,5

00,0

00.0

008

20D

CE

O E

nerg

y Pro

ject

s F

und

$2,1

76,2

00.0

0 $5

44,0

50.0

0$0

.00

$0.0

0$2

,176

,200

.00

0821

Dra

m S

hop

Fun

d$5

00,0

00.0

0$1

25,0

00.0

0$1

25,0

00.0

0$1

25,0

00.0

0$3

75,0

00.0

0$1

25,0

00.0

008

23Il

lino

is S

tate

Den

tal D

isci

plin

ary

Fun

d$1

87,3

00.0

0$4

6,82

5.00

$46,

825.

00$4

6,82

5.00

$140

,475

.00

$46,

825.

0008

28H

azar

dous

Was

te F

und

$800

,000

.00

$200

,000

.00

$200

,000

.00

$200

,000

.00

$600

,000

.00

$200

,000

.00

0831

Nat

ural

Rec

ours

es R

esto

ration

Tru

st F

und

$7,7

00.0

0 $1

,925

.00

$1,9

25.0

0$1

,925

.00

$5,7

75.0

0$1

,925

.00

0835

Stat

e Fai

r Pro

mot

iona

l A

ctiv

itie

s Fun

d$1

,672

.00

$418

.00

$418

.00

$418

.00

$1,2

54.0

0$4

18.0

008

44C

ontinu

ing

Leg

al E

duca

tion

Tru

st F

und

$10,

550.

00$2

,637

.50

$2,6

37.5

0$ 5

,275

.00

$5,2

75.0

008

45E

nvir

on P

rote

ctio

n T

rust

Fun

d$6

25,0

00.0

0 $1

56,2

50.0

0$1

56,2

50.0

0$1

56,2

50.0

0$4

68,7

50.0

0$1

56,2

50.0

008

49R

eal E

stat

e R

esea

rch

and

Edu

cation

Fun

d$1

,081

,000

.00

$270

,250

.00

$270

,250

.00

$270

,250

.00

$810

,750

.00

$270

,250

.00

0851

Fed

eral

Mod

erat

e R

ehab

ilitat

ion

Hou

sing

Fun

d$4

4,96

0.00

$1

1,24

0.00

$11,

240.

00$0

.00

$44,

960.

00

0865

Dom

estic

Vio

lenc

e Sh

elte

r an

d Se

rvic

e F

und

$55,

800.

00

$13,

950.

00$1

3,95

0.00

$13,

950.

00$4

1,85

0.00

$13,

950.

0008

66Sn

owm

obile

Tra

il E

stab

lish

men

t Fun

d$5

,300

.00

$1,3

25.0

0$1

,325

.00

$1,3

25.0

0$3

,975

.00

$1,3

25.0

008

78D

rug

Tra

ffic

Pre

vent

ion

Fun

d$1

1,20

0.00

$2

,800

.00

$2,8

00.0

0$2

,800

.00

$8,4

00.0

0$2

,800

.00

0879

Tra

ffic

and

Cri

min

al C

onvi

ctio

n Su

rcha

rge

Fun

d$5

,400

,000

.00

$1,3

50,0

00.0

0$1

,350

,000

.00

$1,3

50,0

00.0

0$4

,050

,000

.00

$1,3

50,0

00.0

0

0888

Des

ign

Pro

fess

iona

ls A

dmin

and

Inv

estiga

tion

Fun

d$7

3,20

0.00

$18,

300.

00$1

8,30

0.00

$18,

300.

00$5

4,90

0.00

$18,

300.

0008

96Pub

lic

Hea

lth

Spec

ial St

ate

Pro

ject

s Fun

d$1

,900

,000

.00

$475

,000

.00

$475

,000

.00

$475

,000

.00

$1,4

25,0

00.0

0$4

75,0

00.0

009

00Pet

role

um V

iola

tion

Fun

d$1

,080

.00

$270

.00

$270

.00

$270

.00

$810

.00

$270

.00

0906

Stat

e Pol

ice

Serv

ices

Fun

d$7

,082

,080

.00

$1,7

70,5

20.0

0$1

,770

,520

.00

$1,7

70,5

20.0

0$5

,311

,560

.00

$1,7

70,5

20.0

009

09Il

lino

is W

ildl

ife

Pre

serv

atio

n Fun

d$9

,900

.00

$2,4

75.0

0$2

,475

.00

$2,4

75.0

0$7

,425

.00

$2,4

75.0

009

10Y

outh

Dru

g A

buse

Pre

vent

ion

Fun

d$1

33,5

00.0

0 $3

3,37

5.00

$33,

375.

00$3

3,37

5.00

$100

,125

.00

$33,

375.

0009

22In

sura

nce

Pro

duce

r A

dmin

istr

atio

n Fun

d$1

2,17

0,00

0.00

$3,0

42,5

00.0

0$3

,042

,500

.00

$3,0

42,5

00.0

0$9

,127

,500

.00

$3,0

42,5

00.0

0

0925

Coa

l T

echn

olog

y D

evel

opm

ent A

ssis

tanc

e Fun

d$1

,856

,000

.00

$464

,000

.00

$464

,000

.00

$464

,000

.00

$1,3

92,0

00.0

0$4

64,0

00.0

009

34C

hild

Abu

se P

reve

ntio

n Fun

d$2

50,0

00.0

0 $6

2,50

0.00

$62,

500.

00$6

2,50

0.00

$187

,500

.00

$62,

500.

00

0938

Hea

ring

Ins

trum

ent D

ispe

nser

Exa

min

ing

and

Dis

cipl

inar

y Fun

d$5

0,40

0.00

$1

2,60

0.00

$12,

600.

00$1

2,60

0.00

$37,

800.

00$1

2,60

0.00

0942

Low

-lev

el R

adio

active

Was

te F

acility

Dev

elop

men

t an

d O

pera

tion

Fun

d$1

,000

,000

.00

$250

,000

.00

$250

,000

.00

$250

,000

.00

$750

,000

.00

$250

,000

.00

0944

Env

iron

men

tal Pro

tect

ion

Per

mit a

nd

Insp

ection

Fun

d$7

55,7

75.0

0 $1

88,9

43.7

5$1

88,9

43.7

5$1

88,9

43.7

5$5

66,8

31.2

5$1

88,9

43.7

509

45L

andf

ill C

losu

re a

nd P

ost-

Clo

sure

Fun

d$2

,480

.00

$620

.00

$620

.00

$620

.00

$1,8

60.0

0$6

20.0

0

PA

96-

44 &

96-

45

-8-

46 of 68

-9-

FY20

10 F

UN

D S

WEE

PS

No.

Fund

Stat

utor

y A

mou

ntJu

lySe

pO

ctN

ovD

ecJa

nA

prT

OT

AL

Rem

aind

er09

51N

arco

tics

Prof

it Fo

rfei

ture

Fun

d$8

6,90

0.00

$2

1,72

5.00

$21,

725.

00$2

1,72

5.00

$65,

175.

00$2

1,72

5.00

0954

IL S

tate

Pod

iatr

ic D

isci

plin

ary

Fund

$200

,000

.00

$50,

000.

00$5

0,00

0.00

$50,

000.

00$1

50,0

00.0

0$5

0,00

0.00

0963

Veh

icle

Insp

ectio

n Fu

nd$5

,000

,000

.00

$1,2

50,0

00.0

0$1

,250

,000

.00

$1,2

50,0

00.0

0$3

,750

,000

.00

$1,2

50,0

00.0

009

69Lo

cal T

ouri

sm F

und

$10,

999,

280.

00

$2,7

49,8

20.0

0$2

,749

,820

.00

$5,4

99,6

40.0

0$5

,499

,640

.00

0973

Build

IL C

apita

l Rev

olvi

ng L

oan

Fund

$3,8

56,9

04.0

0 $9

64,2

26.0

0$9

64,2

26.0

0$9

64,2

26.0

0$2

,892

,678

.00

$964

,226

.00

0974

IL E

quity

Fun

d$3

,520

.00

$880

.00

$880

.00

$880

.00

$2,6

40.0

0$8

80.0

009

75La

rge

Busi

ness

Attr

actio

n Fu

nd$1

3,56

0.00

$3

,390

.00

$3,3

90.0

0$3

,390

.00

$10,

170.

00$3

,390

.00

0984

Inte

rnat

iona

l and

Pro

mot

iona

l Fun

d$4

2,04

0.00

$1

0,51

0.00

$10,

510.

00$1

0,51

0.00

$31,

530.

00$1

0,51

0.00

0993

Publ

ic In

fras

truc

ture

Con

stru

ctio

n Lo

an

Rev

olvi

ng F

und

$2,8

11,2

32.0

0 $7

02,8

08.0

0$7

02,8

08.0

0$7

02,8

08.0

0$2

,108

,424

.00

$702

,808

.00

0997

Insu

ranc

e Fi

nanc

ial R

egul

atio

n Fu

nd$5

,881

,180

.00

$1,4

70,2

95.0

0$1

,470

,295

.00

$1,4

70,2

95.0

0$4

,410

,885

.00

$1,4

70,2

95.0

0To

tal

$351

,738

,973

.00

$87,

084,

743.

25$2

80.0

0$7

7,48

2,78

2.25

$58,

682,

916.

39$0

.00

$219

,869

,417

.03

$131

,869

,555

.97

PA 9

6-44

& 9

6-45

($3,

255,

001.

86)

($12

6,30

3.00

)

47 of 68

REVENUEJanuary Revenues Grow Due to Federal Sources

Jim Muschinske, Revenue Manager

fter experiencing a drop off the previous month, federal sources

rebounded in January. While most of the economic sources continued to struggle, those losses were more than offset by federal reimbursements. As a result, net base monthly revenues grew $184 million. January had one fewer receipting day as compared to one year earlier.

Gross personal income tax plummeted $223 million in January, or $202 million net of refunds, and reaffirmed the road to recovery will be dotted with potholes. Sales tax receipts, while experiencing a decline of $19 million, is at least giving appearances that a bottom has formed. Public utility taxes were down $12 million, inheritance tax off $8 million, other sources declined $5 million, insurance taxes fell $3 million, and corporate franchise taxes dipped $1 million.

Only a few sources enjoyed gains in January. Gross corporate income taxes were up $18 million, or $16 million net of refunds. Liquor taxes managed to gain $3 million, while vehicle use tax eked out $1 million in growth.

Overall transfers rose $32 million for the month. While the lottery was again flat, other transfers rose $72 million due to the scheduled third quarter fund sweeps. Riverboat transfers partly offset those gains, falling $40 million. The sizable loss appears to have been due in part to the timing of transfers. As mentioned, federal sources posted a

sizable gain, up $382 million due to higher reimbursable spending.

Year to Date

Through the first seven months of the fiscal year, overall base revenues are down $45 million. However, sizable growth in federal sources masks the extremely poor performance of the other revenue areas. In fact, when $899 million in federal source growth is excluded, all other revenue would be down a crippling $944 million. Despite being in the early stages of a recovery, the larger economically related sources such as income and sales continued to suffer from the recession’s effect. As continually mentioned in previous revenue briefings, it will be some time before improvement in receipts can be expected.

Through January, gross personal income tax is down $571 million, or $516 million net of refunds. Sales tax is down $478 million, while gross corporate income tax has declined $102 million, or $84 million net of refunds. Public utility taxes are down $53 million, while all remaining sources showed a net drop of $57 million.

With the third quarter funds sweeps, overall transfers are up $244 million. Other transfers are up $292 million, while riverboat transfers are down $48 million. Federal sources have benefited from increased reimbursable spending and are up a whopping $899 million.

A

-10-

48 of 68

Jan. Jan. $ %Revenue Sources FY 2010 FY 2009 CHANGE CHANGEState Taxes Personal Income Tax $1,044 $1,267 ($223) -17.6% Corporate Income Tax (regular) 89 71 $18 25.4% Sales Taxes 552 571 ($19) -3.3% Public Utility Taxes (regular) 92 104 ($12) -11.5% Cigarette Tax 29 29 $0 0.0% Liquor Gallonage Taxes 19 16 $3 18.8% Vehicle Use Tax 2 1 $1 100.0% Inheritance Tax (Gross) 15 23 ($8) -34.8% Insurance Taxes and Fees 2 5 ($3) -60.0% Corporate Franchise Tax & Fees 16 17 ($1) -5.9% Interest on State Funds & Investments 1 1 $0 0.0% Cook County IGT 0 0 $0 N/A Other Sources 46 51 ($5) -9.8% Subtotal $1,907 $2,156 ($249) -11.5%

Transfers Lottery 46 46 $0 0.0% Riverboat transfers & receipts 15 55 ($40) -72.7% Other 88 16 $72 450.0% Total State Sources $2,056 $2,273 ($217) -9.5%

Federal Sources $638 $256 $382 149.2% Total Federal & State Sources $2,694 $2,529 $165 6.5%

Nongeneral Funds Distribution:

Refund Fund Personal Income Tax ($102) ($123) $21 -17.1% Corporate Income Tax ($15) (13) ($2) 15.4%

Subtotal General Funds $2,577 $2,393 $184 7.7%Short-Term Borrowing $0 $0 $0 N/APension Contribution Fund Transfer $206 $0 $206 N/ABudget Stabilization Fund Transfer $150 $0 $150 N/A Total General Funds $2,933 $2,393 $540 22.6%

CGFA SOURCE: Office of the Comptroller: Some totals may not equal, due to rounding 2-Feb-10

GENERAL FUNDS RECEIPTS: JANUARYFY 2010 vs. FY 2009

($ million)

-11-

49 of 68

-12-

GENERAL FUNDS RECEIPTS: YEAR TO DATEFY 2010 vs. FY 2009

($ million)

CHANGEFROM %

Revenue Sources FY 2010 FY 2009 FY 2009 CHANGEState Taxes Personal Income Tax $5,259 $5,830 ($571) -9.8% Corporate Income Tax (regular) 711 813 ($102) -12.5% Sales Taxes 3,738 4,216 ($478) -11.3% Public Utility Taxes (regular) 610 663 ($53) -8.0% Cigarette Tax 204 204 $0 0.0% Liquor Gallonage Taxes 95 99 ($4) -4.0% Vehicle Use Tax 17 16 $1 6.3% Inheritance Tax (Gross) 131 168 ($37) -22.0% Insurance Taxes and Fees 159 144 $15 10.4% Corporate Franchise Tax & Fees 122 123 ($1) -0.8% Interest on State Funds & Investments 16 33 ($17) -51.5% Cook County IGT 56 65 ($9) -13.8% Other Sources 229 234 ($5) -2.1% Subtotal $11,347 $12,608 ($1,261) -10.0%

Transfers Lottery 339 339 $0 0.0% Riverboat transfers & receipts 257 305 ($48) -15.7% Other 486 194 $292 150.5% Total State Sources $12,429 $13,446 ($1,017) -7.6%Federal Sources $3,498 $2,599 $899 34.6% Total Federal & State Sources $15,927 $16,045 ($118) -0.7%

Nongeneral Funds Distribution:Refund Fund Personal Income Tax ($513) ($568) $55 -9.7% Corporate Income Tax ($124) ($142) $18 -12.7%

Subtotal General Funds $15,290 $15,335 ($45) -0.3%

Short-Term Borrowing $1,250 $1,400 ($150) N/A

Pension Contribution Fund Transfer $206 $0 $206 N/A

Budget Stabilization Fund Transfer $666 $276 $390 141.3% Total General Funds $17,412 $17,011 $401 2.4%SOURCE: Office of the Comptroller, State of Illinois: Some totals may not equal, due to rounding.CGFA 2-Feb-10

50 of 68

PENSIONSRETIREMENT SYSTEMS FUNDING PROJECTIONS

Dan Hankiewicz, Pension Manager

Fiscal Year

2010 17,269.9 4,046.6 23.4% 1,486.3 132,529.0 66,011.1 66,517.8 49.8%2011 17,938.3 4,576.3 25.5% 1,540.7 139,157.1 68,436.6 70,720.5 49.2%2012 18,593.8 4,842.1 26.0% 1,598.2 145,919.2 71,004.2 74,915.0 48.7%2013 19,321.3 5,156.3 26.7% 1,658.6 152,807.5 73,751.8 79,055.7 48.3%2014 20,089.1 5,477.4 27.3% 1,723.7 159,829.2 78,152.0 81,677.1 48.9%2015 20,904.0 5,806.7 27.8% 1,794.0 166,997.8 82,769.6 84,228.2 49.6%2016 21,772.2 6,056.3 27.8% 1,869.5 174,320.8 87,535.5 86,785.3 50.2%2017 22,688.3 6,310.5 27.8% 1,949.8 181,805.4 92,461.8 89,343.6 50.9%2018 23,655.3 6,579.1 27.8% 2,035.1 189,469.8 97,584.1 91,885.8 51.5%2019 24,673.1 6,862.2 27.8% 2,124.5 197,320.2 102,920.3 94,399.9 52.2%2020 25,743.4 7,154.1 27.8% 2,218.4 205,372.8 108,483.5 96,889.3 52.8%2021 26,869.6 7,461.9 27.8% 2,317.9 213,650.6 114,309.9 99,340.7 53.5%2022 28,053.7 7,786.6 27.8% 2,422.9 222,172.9 120,437.3 101,735.6 54.2%2023 29,296.2 8,128.1 27.7% 2,533.5 230,962.7 126,911.5 104,051.2 54.9%2024 30,592.6 8,478.8 27.7% 2,648.8 240,034.0 133,763.8 106,270.2 55.7%2025 31,935.4 8,842.7 27.7% 2,768.4 249,397.1 141,042.5 108,354.6 56.6%2026 33,334.6 9,230.4 27.7% 2,894.0 259,078.5 148,789.3 110,289.2 57.4%2027 34,791.6 9,635.2 27.7% 3,024.1 269,088.9 157,052.6 112,036.3 58.4%2028 36,306.4 10,050.4 27.7% 3,156.5 279,444.7 165,858.2 113,586.6 59.4%2029 37,896.5 10,487.8 27.7% 3,294.9 290,166.7 175,236.4 114,930.3 60.4%2030 39,564.3 10,941.6 27.7% 3,441.5 301,206.4 185,206.1 116,000.3 61.5%2031 41,272.2 11,406.2 27.6% 3,590.5 312,645.0 195,858.8 116,786.2 62.6%2032 43,082.0 11,910.3 27.6% 3,747.2 324,506.0 207,290.8 117,215.1 63.9%2033 44,970.2 12,444.8 27.7% 3,911.9 336,805.0 219,583.3 117,221.7 65.2%2034 46,947.4 13,126.9 28.0% 4,085.9 349,563.5 233,109.3 116,454.2 66.7%2035 49,024.5 13,705.2 28.0% 4,266.0 362,817.6 247,669.0 115,148.6 68.3%2036 51,205.9 14,312.5 28.0% 4,453.7 376,610.5 263,372.9 113,237.6 69.9%2037 53,502.1 14,951.7 27.9% 4,649.8 390,990.4 280,332.4 110,658.0 71.7%2038 55,909.0 15,621.7 27.9% 4,862.1 405,985.4 298,703.8 107,281.6 73.6%2039 58,429.6 16,323.1 27.9% 5,085.4 421,619.5 318,607.2 103,012.3 75.6%2040 61,080.9 17,060.3 27.9% 5,315.7 437,958.8 340,156.7 97,802.1 77.7%2041 63,881.9 17,838.2 27.9% 5,560.9 455,054.2 363,498.9 91,555.3 79.9%2042 66,851.8 18,661.6 27.9% 5,823.8 473,018.8 388,817.0 84,201.8 82.2%2043 69,970.5 19,525.6 27.9% 6,103.5 491,924.6 416,499.1 75,425.5 84.7%2044 73,229.4 20,428.0 27.9% 6,389.6 511,809.1 446,641.2 65,167.9 87.3%2045 76,627.2 21,368.7 27.9% 6,687.9 532,707.4 479,437.7 53,269.6 90.0%

Funded Ratio

State Contribution

as a % of Payroll

Total EmployeeContribution

Accrued Liabilities

Assets

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEMSSystem Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009

($ in Millions)

Annual Payroll

Total State Contribution

Unfunded Liabilities

-13-

51 of 68

Fiscal Year

2010 8,929.0 2,087.7 23.4% 909.6 76,853.8 40,422.3 36,431.5 52.6%2011 9,384.5 2,357.0 25.1% 948.3 80,752.3 43,040.2 37,712.1 53.3%2012 9,732.6 2,429.7 25.0% 984.6 84,730.2 45,693.3 39,036.9 53.9%2013 10,144.7 2,549.0 25.1% 1,023.2 88,791.5 48,414.4 40,377.2 54.5%2014 10,585.7 2,676.6 25.3% 1,065.6 92,951.4 51,221.8 41,729.5 55.1%2015 11,060.7 2,813.9 25.4% 1,112.3 97,234.8 54,145.3 43,089.5 55.7%2016 11,571.2 2,945.8 25.5% 1,162.9 101,663.7 57,198.6 44,465.1 56.3%2017 12,115.2 3,084.3 25.5% 1,217.4 106,259.4 60,412.0 45,847.5 56.9%2018 12,688.1 3,230.2 25.5% 1,275.1 111,039.7 63,812.3 47,227.3 57.5%2019 13,290.4 3,383.5 25.5% 1,335.4 116,018.5 67,415.8 48,602.7 58.1%2020 13,925.6 3,545.3 25.5% 1,398.8 121,214.8 71,242.6 49,972.2 58.8%2021 14,593.9 3,715.4 25.5% 1,466.2 126,650.6 75,322.6 51,328.0 59.5%2022 15,295.7 3,894.1 25.5% 1,537.4 132,349.1 79,686.3 52,662.8 60.2%2023 16,030.4 4,081.1 25.5% 1,612.4 138,328.5 84,367.4 53,961.1 61.0%2024 16,793.5 4,275.4 25.5% 1,690.4 144,602.6 89,395.1 55,207.5 61.8%2025 17,587.7 4,477.6 25.5% 1,771.4 151,184.2 94,788.0 56,396.2 62.7%2026 18,412.2 4,687.5 25.5% 1,856.5 158,086.5 100,575.1 57,511.4 63.6%2027 19,262.9 4,904.1 25.5% 1,944.0 165,314.5 106,782.8 58,531.7 64.6%2028 20,140.2 5,127.4 25.5% 2,031.4 172,872.5 113,421.3 59,451.3 65.6%2029 21,059.4 5,361.4 25.5% 2,122.6 180,773.3 120,493.9 60,279.5 66.7%2030 22,019.0 5,605.7 25.5% 2,219.2 189,028.0 128,051.7 60,976.4 67.7%2031 23,013.6 5,858.9 25.5% 2,318.3 197,644.3 136,121.9 61,522.4 68.9%2032 24,040.8 6,120.4 25.5% 2,419.6 206,621.8 144,730.4 61,891.3 70.0%2033 25,100.4 6,390.2 25.5% 2,525.6 215,950.6 153,893.3 62,057.4 71.3%2034 26,202.0 6,670.7 25.5% 2,637.4 225,625.6 163,633.7 61,991.8 72.5%2035 27,355.3 6,964.2 25.5% 2,751.7 235,657.9 173,975.1 61,682.8 73.8%2036 28,563.9 7,271.9 25.5% 2,870.2 246,065.4 184,965.7 61,099.6 75.2%2037 29,836.6 7,596.0 25.5% 2,993.3 256,870.8 196,651.5 60,219.3 76.6%2038 31,167.4 7,934.8 25.5% 3,128.8 268,075.0 209,118.2 58,956.8 78.0%2039 32,560.5 8,289.4 25.5% 3,271.6 279,677.9 222,411.7 57,266.2 79.5%2040 34,032.7 8,664.2 25.5% 3,417.7 291,717.8 236,569.0 55,148.8 81.1%2041 35,602.1 9,063.8 25.5% 3,575.0 304,227.8 251,659.7 52,568.0 82.7%2042 37,284.2 9,492.0 25.5% 3,745.9 317,298.9 267,783.9 49,515.0 84.4%2043 39,058.7 9,943.8 25.5% 3,929.5 330,985.9 285,241.5 45,744.4 86.2%2044 40,912.7 10,415.8 25.5% 4,115.1 345,307.7 304,034.5 41,273.3 88.0%2045 42,843.5 10,907.3 25.5% 4,308.5 360,286.1 324,257.5 36,028.6 90.0%

State Contribution

as a % of Payroll

Funded RatioTotal Employee

ContributionAccrued Liability

AssetsUnfunded Liabilities

Annual Payroll

Total State Contribution

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEMSystem Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009

($ in millions)

-14-

52 of 68

Fiscal Year

2010 4,113.0 1,167.1 28.4% 234.6 26,642.2 11,090.9 15,551.3 41.6%2011 4,194.2 1,268.9 30.3% 239.7 28,074.0 11,268.8 16,805.2 40.1%2012 4,359.8 1,361.7 31.2% 249.4 29,559.4 11,518.4 18,041.0 39.0%2013 4,525.4 1,456.5 32.2% 259.1 31,091.8 11,845.2 19,246.6 38.1%2014 4,692.5 1,551.1 33.1% 268.8 32,666.5 12,855.8 19,810.8 39.4%2015 4,863.7 1,646.1 33.8% 278.8 34,278.7 13,940.1 20,338.5 40.7%2016 5,039.3 1,706.8 33.9% 288.9 35,921.8 15,060.0 20,861.8 41.9%2017 5,219.7 1,767.9 33.9% 299.3 37,591.7 16,208.4 21,383.3 43.1%2018 5,406.3 1,831.2 33.9% 310.0 39,287.1 17,386.6 21,900.6 44.3%2019 5,600.2 1,897.0 33.9% 321.2 41,002.5 18,591.8 22,410.6 45.3%2020 5,801.9 1,964.4 33.9% 332.8 42,733.0 19,818.2 22,914.8 46.4%2021 6,011.5 2,034.6 33.8% 344.8 44,475.1 21,065.7 23,409.4 47.4%2022 6,230.2 2,108.1 33.8% 357.3 46,222.5 22,333.4 23,889.2 48.3%2023 6,456.9 2,184.6 33.8% 370.2 47,974.2 23,623.3 24,350.9 49.2%2024 6,693.5 2,263.1 33.8% 383.5 49,728.0 24,934.0 24,794.0 50.1%2025 6,927.6 2,341.2 33.8% 396.7 51,477.5 26,261.5 25,216.0 51.0%2026 7,170.1 2,423.5 33.8% 410.3 53,227.4 27,618.5 25,608.9 51.9%2027 7,425.2 2,510.4 33.8% 424.6 54,976.9 29,011.2 25,965.7 52.8%2028 7,691.6 2,599.9 33.8% 439.5 56,731.4 30,445.3 26,286.1 53.7%2029 7,971.8 2,694.5 33.8% 455.2 58,497.2 31,933.4 26,563.8 54.6%2030 8,267.4 2,793.3 33.8% 471.9 60,207.5 33,430.8 26,776.7 55.5%2031 8,545.7 2,886.3 33.8% 486.7 61,932.6 34,983.8 26,948.8 56.5%2032 8,868.4 2,996.3 33.8% 505.0 63,685.3 36,631.9 27,053.4 57.5%2033 9,211.7 3,114.6 33.8% 524.5 65,482.6 38,407.6 27,075.0 58.7%2034 9,575.1 3,353.6 35.0% 545.4 67,339.3 40,623.0 26,716.3 60.3%2035 9,958.5 3,487.9 35.0% 567.4 69,267.8 43,043.9 26,223.9 62.1%2036 10,361.8 3,629.1 35.0% 590.8 71,283.1 45,701.1 25,582.0 64.1%2037 10,785.0 3,777.3 35.0% 615.3 73,398.3 48,625.5 24,772.8 66.2%2038 11,227.3 3,932.3 35.0% 640.9 75,625.0 51,848.5 23,776.5 68.6%2039 11,687.5 4,093.4 35.0% 667.6 77,971.6 55,399.9 22,571.7 71.1%2040 12,165.7 4,260.9 35.0% 695.2 80,448.2 59,312.9 21,135.3 73.7%2041 12,662.5 4,434.9 35.0% 723.9 83,062.3 63,620.8 19,441.5 76.6%2042 13,177.8 4,615.4 35.0% 753.6 85,820.0 68,357.7 17,462.3 79.7%2043 13,711.0 4,802.2 35.0% 784.3 88,729.4 73,561.2 15,168.2 82.9%2044 14,264.0 4,995.8 35.0% 816.0 91,796.8 79,270.8 12,526.0 86.4%2045 14,836.7 5,196.4 35.0% 848.8 95,027.5 85,527.6 9,499.9 90.0%

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEMSystem Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009

($ in millions)

Annual Payroll

Total State Contribution

State Contribution

as a % of Payroll

Funded RatioTotal Employee

ContributionAccrued Liability

AssetsUnfunded Liabilities

-15-

53 of 68

FiscalYear

AssetsUnfunded Liabilities

2010 4,051.5 702.5 17.3% 324.5 27,165.8 13,807.3 13,358.5 50.8%2011 4,175.3 848.1 20.3% 334.4 28,386.9 13,423.8 14,963.1 47.3%2012 4,309.2 944.6 21.9% 345.2 29,606.5 13,074.2 16,532.3 44.2%2013 4,451.3 1,039.8 23.4% 356.5 30,818.6 12,756.5 18,062.1 41.4%2014 4,603.7 1,134.2 24.6% 368.8 32,020.4 13,281.7 18,738.7 41.5%2015 4,765.3 1,226.7 25.7% 381.7 33,204.3 13,832.0 19,372.3 41.7%2016 4,938.8 1,278.4 25.9% 395.6 34,363.1 14,362.3 20,000.8 41.8%2017 5,121.7 1,328.1 25.9% 410.2 35,486.4 14,863.3 20,623.1 41.9%2018 5,319.9 1,382.3 26.0% 426.1 36,576.1 15,339.2 21,236.9 41.9%2019 5,531.8 1,440.8 26.0% 443.1 37,628.8 15,793.9 21,834.9 42.0%2020 5,755.2 1,498.0 26.0% 461.0 38,647.1 16,226.0 22,421.1 42.0%2021 5,993.4 1,559.9 26.0% 480.1 39,635.6 16,642.1 22,993.5 42.0%2022 6,246.1 1,626.5 26.0% 500.3 40,596.3 17,049.8 23,546.5 42.0%2023 6,516.1 1,698.5 26.1% 521.9 41,534.9 17,458.9 24,076.0 42.0%2024 6,801.1 1,770.3 26.0% 544.8 42,453.9 17,872.9 24,581.0 42.1%2025 7,103.7 1,847.9 26.0% 569.0 43,357.7 18,325.9 25,031.8 42.3%2026 7,423.3 1,936.0 26.1% 594.6 44,254.1 18,815.9 25,438.2 42.5%2027 7,761.4 2,029.7 26.2% 621.7 45,149.4 19,358.1 25,791.3 42.9%2028 8,118.8 2,124.5 26.2% 650.3 46,050.2 19,962.3 26,087.9 43.3%2029 8,495.4 2,225.5 26.2% 680.5 46,958.4 20,642.8 26,315.6 44.0%2030 8,893.2 2,328.4 26.2% 712.3 47,880.5 21,410.9 26,469.6 44.7%2031 9,313.0 2,438.7 26.2% 746.0 48,819.2 22,283.9 26,535.3 45.6%2032 9,756.8 2,561.9 26.3% 781.5 49,785.5 23,290.8 26,494.7 46.8%2033 10,225.5 2,697.9 26.4% 819.1 50,786.9 24,462.3 26,324.6 48.2%2034 10,720.4 2,848.1 26.6% 858.7 51,835.4 25,833.2 26,002.2 49.8%2035 11,242.9 2,988.3 26.6% 900.6 52,942.6 27,415.7 25,526.9 51.8%2036 11,793.7 3,136.2 26.6% 944.7 54,118.8 29,240.0 24,878.8 54.0%2037 12,374.6 3,292.1 26.6% 991.2 55,375.4 31,338.9 24,036.5 56.6%2038 12,988.1 3,456.9 26.6% 1,040.3 56,727.7 33,750.0 22,977.7 59.5%2039 13,634.4 3,630.6 26.6% 1,092.1 58,190.9 36,516.0 21,674.9 62.8%2040 14,313.3 3,813.1 26.6% 1,146.5 59,782.2 39,679.1 20,103.1 66.4%2041 15,025.4 4,004.6 26.7% 1,203.5 61,511.2 43,280.8 18,230.4 70.4%2042 15,774.3 4,205.9 26.7% 1,263.5 63,393.3 47,368.3 16,025.0 74.7%2043 16,560.6 4,417.5 26.7% 1,326.5 65,437.1 51,989.6 13,447.5 79.4%2044 17,387.1 4,639.8 26.7% 1,392.7 67,654.3 57,197.1 10,457.2 84.5%2045 18,254.7 4,873.3 26.7% 1,462.2 70,052.2 63,045.2 7,007.0 90.0%

Funded RatioEmployee

ContributionAccrued Liability

Annual Payroll

Total State Contribution

State Contribution

as a % of Payroll

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE STATE UNIVERSITIES RETIREMENT SYSTEMSystem Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009

($ in millions)

-16-

54 of 68

Fiscal Year

2010 161.8 78.8 48.7% 15.8 1,618.7 623.9 994.8 38.5%2011 169.2 90.3 53.4% 16.5 1,691.9 640.7 1051.3 37.9%2012 176.5 93.7 53.1% 17.2 1,767.8 659.3 1108.5 37.3%2013 183.6 98.0 53.4% 17.9 1,846.8 680.7 1166.1 36.9%2014 190.4 102.1 53.6% 18.6 1,928.4 737.6 1190.7 38.3%2015 196.9 106.1 53.9% 19.2 2,013.7 797.1 1216.6 39.6%2016 204.8 110.7 54.0% 20.0 2,101.8 859.2 1242.5 40.9%2017 213.0 115.1 54.0% 20.8 2,193.1 922.9 1270.3 42.1%2018 221.5 119.7 54.0% 21.6 2,287.6 990.3 1297.3 43.3%2019 230.4 124.5 54.0% 22.5 2,386.1 1,062.1 1323.9 44.5%2020 239.6 129.4 54.0% 23.4 2,488.0 1,138.3 1349.7 45.8%2021 249.2 134.6 54.0% 24.3 2,593.9 1,219.3 1374.6 47.0%2022 259.1 139.8 54.0% 25.3 2,703.6 1,305.1 1398.5 48.3%2023 269.5 145.3 53.9% 26.3 2,817.7 1,396.4 1421.3 49.6%2024 280.3 150.7 53.8% 27.3 2,935.6 1,492.6 1443.0 50.8%2025 291.5 156.3 53.6% 28.4 3,057.5 1,594.3 1463.2 52.1%2026 303.1 162.8 53.7% 29.6 3,183.4 1,702.3 1481.1 53.5%2027 315.3 169.6 53.8% 30.7 3,313.9 1,817.5 1496.4 54.8%2028 327.9 176.3 53.8% 32.0 3,448.8 1,939.7 1509.0 56.2%2029 341.0 183.4 53.8% 33.2 3,588.2 2,069.7 1518.5 57.7%2030 354.6 190.3 53.7% 34.6 3,732.6 2,207.6 1524.9 59.1%2031 368.8 197.7 53.6% 36.0 3,882.4 2,354.7 1527.7 60.7%2032 383.6 206.0 53.7% 37.4 4,037.5 2,512.0 1525.5 62.2%2033 398.9 215.2 53.9% 38.9 4,198.8 2,681.3 1517.4 63.9%2034 414.9 225.8 54.4% 40.4 4,366.1 2,864.7 1501.4 65.6%2035 431.5 234.9 54.4% 42.1 4,540.2 3,061.5 1478.8 67.4%2036 448.7 244.3 54.4% 43.8 4,721.3 3,272.7 1448.6 69.3%2037 466.7 254.0 54.4% 45.5 4,909.9 3,499.7 1410.2 71.3%2038 485.3 264.2 54.4% 47.3 5,106.5 3,743.9 1362.6 73.3%2039 504.8 274.8 54.4% 49.2 5,311.4 4,006.6 1304.8 75.4%2040 524.9 285.8 54.4% 51.2 5,525.0 4,289.3 1235.6 77.6%2041 545.9 297.2 54.4% 53.2 5,747.9 4,593.9 1154.0 79.9%2042 567.8 309.1 54.4% 55.4 5,980.7 4,922.1 1058.7 82.3%2043 590.5 321.4 54.4% 57.6 6,224.0 5,275.8 948.2 84.8%2044 614.1 334.3 54.4% 59.9 6,478.2 5,657.2 821.0 87.3%2045 638.7 347.7 54.4% 62.3 6,743.9 6,069.5 674.4 90.0%

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE JUDGES RETIREMENT SYSTEMSystem Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009

($ in millions)

Annual Payroll

Total State Contribution

StateContribution

as a % of Payroll

Funded RatioTotal Employee

ContributionAccrued Liability

AssetsUnfunded Liabilities

-17-

55 of 68

-18-

FiscalYear

2010 14.6 10.5 71.5% 1.7 248.5 66.8 181.7 26.9%2011 15.2 12.1 79.4% 1.7 252.0 63.1 188.9 25.0%2012 15.7 12.4 78.7% 1.8 255.3 59.0 196.3 23.1%2013 16.4 13.0 79.3% 1.9 258.8 55.0 203.7 21.3%2014 16.9 13.5 79.8% 1.9 262.5 55.1 207.4 21.0%2015 17.4 14.0 80.3% 2.0 266.3 55.1 211.2 20.7%2016 18.1 14.6 80.6% 2.1 270.4 55.3 215.1 20.4%2017 18.8 15.1 80.6% 2.2 274.7 55.2 219.5 20.1%2018 19.5 15.8 80.6% 2.2 279.3 55.6 223.7 19.9%2019 20.3 16.4 80.6% 2.3 284.4 56.7 227.7 19.9%2020 21.1 17.0 80.6% 2.4 289.8 58.3 231.5 20.1%2021 21.7 17.4 80.4% 2.5 295.4 60.2 235.2 20.4%2022 22.5 18.1 80.3% 2.6 301.3 62.7 238.6 20.8%2023 23.3 18.7 80.1% 2.7 307.4 65.6 241.8 21.3%2024 24.2 19.3 79.7% 2.8 313.8 69.1 244.7 22.0%2025 24.9 19.7 79.3% 2.9 320.3 72.9 247.4 22.8%2026 25.9 20.6 79.5% 3.0 327.1 77.5 249.6 23.7%2027 26.9 21.4 79.7% 3.1 334.2 83.0 251.2 24.8%2028 28.0 22.3 79.6% 3.2 341.9 89.6 252.3 26.2%2029 28.8 22.9 79.5% 3.3 349.6 96.7 252.9 27.7%2030 30.0 23.8 79.3% 3.5 357.9 105.1 252.8 29.4%2031 31.1 24.6 79.1% 3.6 366.5 114.5 252.0 31.2%2032 32.4 25.7 79.4% 3.7 375.9 125.7 250.2 33.4%2033 33.7 26.9 79.9% 3.9 386.1 138.8 247.3 36.0%2034 35.0 28.7 82.1% 4.0 397.1 154.7 242.4 39.0%2035 36.4 29.9 82.1% 4.2 409.0 172.9 236.2 42.3%2036 37.8 31.0 82.1% 4.3 421.9 193.4 228.5 45.8%2037 39.3 32.3 82.1% 4.5 435.9 216.7 219.2 49.7%2038 40.9 33.6 82.1% 4.7 451.2 243.3 207.9 53.9%2039 42.5 34.9 82.1% 4.9 467.8 273.0 194.7 58.4%2040 44.2 36.3 82.1% 5.1 485.7 306.4 179.3 63.1%2041 45.9 37.7 82.1% 5.3 505.0 343.6 161.4 68.0%2042 47.8 39.2 82.1% 5.5 525.8 385.0 140.8 73.2%2043 49.6 40.8 82.1% 5.7 548.2 431.0 117.2 78.6%2044 51.5 42.3 82.1% 5.9 572.1 481.7 90.4 84.2%2045 53.6 44.0 82.1% 6.2 597.8 538.0 59.8 90.0%

State Contribution

as a % of Payroll

Funded RatioTotal Employee

ContributionAccrued Liability

AssetsUnfunded Liabilities

Annual Payroll

Total State Contribution

FUNDING PROJECTIONS FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT SYSTEMSystem Projections Based on Laws in Effect on June 30, 2009

($ in millions)

56 of 68

Print Story | Close Window Printed from ChicagoBusiness.com

Illinois Supreme Court strikes down medical malpractice caps

By Mike Colias Feb. 04, 2010

(Crain’s) — The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a 4-year-old law that caps jury payouts in medical malpractice cases, infuriating doctors and hospitals that claim those caps were helping to tame once-soaring liability costs.

The court ruled that the caps on pain and suffering and other non-economic damages — $500,000 per case for doctors and $1 million for hospitals — are unconstitutional. Those limits were passed by the Legislature in 2005 after a fierce lobbying battle by medical providers, who said spiking liability insurance premiums were driving neurosurgeons, obstetricians and other doctors out of Illinois.

The court ruled that the law violated the Illinois Constitution’s “separation of powers” clause, essentially finding that lawmakers interfered with the right of juries to determine fair damages. It upheld a 2007 ruling by a Cook County Circuit Court judge.

It’s the third time the state Supreme Court has quashed limits on medical malpractice awards, having tossed out similar laws in 1976 and 1997.

Whether removing the caps will have an effect on the number of malpractice lawsuits or the premiums doctors and hospitals pay for insurance is a source of endless debate between the two sides.

Medical groups and their insurance companies contend the ruling could prompt more malpractice suits, which have dropped since the law took effect in August 2005, and rates could rise again following several years of stability.

Since the law took hold, “patient access to health care has expanded, frivolous lawsuits have ebbed and malpractice rates have leveled off or decreased for many doctors,” said Harold Jensen, chairman of Chicago-based ISMIE Mutual Insurance Co., the state’s largest malpractice insurer. “This is practical proof the law is working.”

Liability insurance rates for Illinois doctors generally have held steady or dipped slightly since the caps took effect, according to survey data from Medical Liability Monitor, an Oak Park-based trade publication.

Illinois’ malpractice-insurance rates have followed national trends. Trial lawyers and other critics of the caps contend that the flattening of rates has been the result of natural underwriting cycles and other state reforms that helped make the Illinois’ insurance market more competitive.

“For years the insurance industry has tried to convince the public that patients who are victims of medical errors are responsible for the increased health care costs,” said a statement from the Illinois Trial Lawyers Assn., the chief opponent of the caps on damages. “But . . . the Illinois Supreme Court has decided that the health care crisis cannot be solved by further hurting the patients who are victims of medical errors.”

In declaring the jury-award caps unconstitutional, the court’s decision also scraps several other insurance reforms included in the original law that both sides have said helped ease liability costs.

One example: A provision that forced ISMIE, the state’s dominant malpractice insurer, to disclose the data it

Print Story2/5/2010 11:42:37 AM

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/printStory.pl?news_id=36984

57 of 68

uses to set rates. That has made it easier for smaller companies to compete for business, luring a few firms back into Illinois.

Hospitals worry that “insurance companies that came into Illinois might decide they no longer want to do business,” said Mark Deaton, general counsel at the Illinois Hospital Assn.

Print Story 2/5/2010 11:42:37 AM

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/printStory.pl?news_id=36984

58 of 68

Statement From IHA President Maryjane A. Wurth on Illinois Supreme Court Medical Liability Ruling

NAPERVILLE, Ill., Feb. 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Illinois Hospital Association is disappointed that the Illinois Supreme Court has struck down critically needed medical liability reforms that were improving health care access throughout the state and restoring predictability to our broken medical liability system.

In doing so, the Court has rejected the clear will of the people of Illinois who called upon their legislators to enact this fair and sensible landmark legislation. In 2005, the General Assembly determined that there was a real public health crisis driving physicians out of Illinois and making health care more expensive and less available. Accordingly, it enacted a bipartisan and comprehensive solution that included judicial reform, strengthened insurance regulation and improved physician discipline.

The hospital community is deeply concerned that this decision will renew the malpractice lawsuit crisis and make it more difficult for Illinoisans to access or afford health care as liability costs for physicians and hospitals are driven to unsustainable levels. Hospitals across the state will again face even greater challenges recruiting and retaining physicians, especially specialists such as neurosurgeons and obstetricians, who were leaving Illinois during the height of the crisis.

This decision and its dire repercussions for the health care delivery system highlight the critical need for the President and Congress to embrace serious and meaningful medical liability reform as part of health care reform. All plausible forms of medical liability reform, such as arbitration, specialized courts and early settlement offer approaches, should be explored as part of health reform. However, caps on medical liability damages in many states (33) across the country have already proven to be effective at reducing health care delivery costs. We call on the President and Congress to include this important cost-reducing solution to the federal health reform package.

Background

IHA strongly supported this legislation to restore predictability to Illinois' broken liability system that drove costs for hospitals and physicians to unsustainable levels and jeopardized patients' access to health care. The legislation included:

Caps on non-economic damages ($500,000 for physicians; $1 million for hospitals) – but NO limits on economic damages, such as future lost wages and all past, present and future medical costs; Structured awards to more efficiently provide for future medical care of injured plaintiffs and reduce medical liability costs (e.g., periodic payments such as annuities, rather than lump sum payments); Insurance regulations, including new data reporting to promote greater competition in the marketplace and to stabilize premiums;Strengthened physician disciplinary regulations; Expert witness standards; Apology protection.

The Illinois Hospital Association is an advocate for 200 Illinois hospitals and health systems. See IHA's web site at www.ihatoday.org.

SOURCE Illinois Hospital Association

RELATED LINKS http://www.ihatoday.org

Find this article at:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-iha-president-maryjane-a-wurth-on-illinois-supreme-court-medical-liability-ruling-83557887.html

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

Statement From IHA President Maryjane A. Wurth on Illinois Supreme Court Medical Liability Ruling -- NAPER...

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Statement+From+IHA+President+Maryjane+A.+Wu...

59 of 68

Naperville explores ways to fill remaining budget gapBy Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald Staff

Published: 1/26/2010 12:00 AM

This spring, Naperville's motor fuel taxes and garbage collection fees likely will go up, while money for cultural grants will go down.

City councilmen on Monday gave preliminary approval to the tax changes as they struggled to fill the last $4.5 million of what was once a $14.1 million budget gap for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins May 1.

The city plans to add 3 cents to the current 2-cents-per-gallon gas tax. The additional money will help fund road improvements.

Councilman Doug Krause said the gas tax hasn't been increased since the early 1990s.

"That's the problem when we don't look at fees on a regular basis," he said. "I think 3 cents is where you need to go because ... people want good roads."

Councilman Kenn Miller said most gas stations are on the city's perimeter, so he does not expect the increase to have a significant impact on the city as a whole. Naperville expects to raise an additional $2.1 million from the gas tax increase.

In addition, councilmen reached a consensus on charging each household $3.50 per month for garbage pickup, while keeping it as a "take all" program. That move should generate just less than $1.7 million

The tax that garnered the most extensive discussion Monday was the 1 percent citywide food and beverage tax that goes toward Special Events and Cultural Amenities grants. Some councilmen have complained it now generates significantly more money than was anticipated when the grant program first started. In the current fiscal year, the city doled out about $2.9 million in cultural grants.

Councilman Grant Wehrli previously has called for eliminating the tax entirely; he's said it is "eroding the spirit of Naperville" by discouraging grassroots efforts.

Councilman Robert Fieseler said it doesn't fund core city services, and Councilman Jim Boyajian said too many groups have grown dependent upon it.

But Miller argued the money benefits not-for-profits that raise money for good causes.

Ultimately, the council decided to cut the grant funding in half, but will do so over the course of two years to give groups time to adjust. The other half of the money generated by the food and beverage tax will be diverted into the city's general fund. The city expects to be able to put about $750,000 into its coffers in the first year.

To fill the rest of the budget hole, the city is cutting spending in each department and reducing services, such as meter readings and front desk hours at the police station. It also recently eliminated 49 employee positions - 22 that were filled and 27 that were vacant.

The city will hold a final budget workshop on March 1, followed by a public hearing April 7 and budget adoption April 20.

Daily Herald | Naperville explores ways to fill remaining budget gap2/5/2010 9:07:01 AM

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=353896

60 of 68

Back to regular view Print this page

Search »Site All Papers Web Search by YAHOO!

NaperSun.com Member of Sun-Times Media

BECOME A MEMBER!

What's this?

Become a member of our community! |

Sign In Register

More taxes, fees due in Naperville

CommentsJanuary 26, 2010 By KATHY CICHON kcichon@stmedianetwork.com

Motorists filling up the gas tank in Naperville can expect to pay more in the future as the city looks to close its budget deficit.

Residents will pay a monthly fee for garbage collection.

And a portion of the funds generated through the citywide food and beverage tax — currently earmarked for the Special Events and Cultural Amenities grants — will likely be diverted to the city's general fund.

During a nearly 4½ hour workshop Monday night, the City Council debated ways to generate revenue to help close the multimillion-dollar deficit. By the end of the night, the council had informally agreed to institute a three cent per gallon motor fuel tax and a $3.50 per month refuse collection fee. In addition, the council agreed to allocate one quarter percent of the food and beverage tax to the city's general fund for the coming fiscal year (FY 2011), and another quarter percent the following year.

"It is our intention to have all of these sources become effective May 1 of this year," City Manager Doug Krieger said after the workshop.

Faced with a $14.1 million deficit for the coming year, the city had trimmed the shortfall through cost cuts and layoffs. But that still left a $5.5 million hole in the 2011 budget. The revenue generated through these "user taxes" is expected to generate $4.5 million, leaving the city with a $1 million hole remaining in the 2011 budget. The fiscal year 2011 budget begins this May 1.

The local gas tax is expected to raise about $2.1 million that will be used specifically for road maintenance.

Councilman Jim Boyajian expressed concerns about implementing a three cent tax, questioning if the marketplace could absorb such an increase. If the tax is "too aggressive," it would hurt the local station owners.

"I believe a one-time two cent (tax) will get washed out in the marketplace, and we'll still remain competitive with Bolingbrook and the other communities," Boyajian said.

But Councilman Doug Krause said the city hasn't reviewed a motor fuel tax since the early 1990s, and that the extra cent won't make much of a difference to the consumer.

"The difference between 35 cents and 40 cents is not going break ..." Krause said.

Council members spent some time debating on how much money to use from the SECA funds. While officials discussed cutting the grant fund in half to help close the budget gap, some council members thought it would be too drastic to the cultural organizations to do so all at once.

"We shouldn't punish those who worked within the system," Councilman Kenn Miller said.

During the evening the suggestion was made to use money from the city's general reserve fund, which is currently at $20.8 million.

But Krieger, along with some council members, said using the reserve funds would just be pushing the problem out a year.

"Fiscal year '12 doesn't look better than fiscal year '11," Krieger said. "We're going to have to work harder next year than where we're currently at this year."

PHOTOS: ARREST MUGS»More Naperville police news

CANDLESTICK MAKER»Hand-crafted soy candles

STATE OF THE CITY»Pradel: Hard times in Naperville

PHOTOS: CELEBRATIONS»Commemorate your event

Np2 Nail Polish: Classic Style That Gives BackFrom The Makeup Divas Beauty Blog

swatch till you drop.From the function key

The views expressed in these blog posts are those of the author and not of the Sun-Times News Group.

jim yuill wrote: Do we have a car pool, pay mieage? Stop this nonsense and let the

More taxes, fees due in Naperville :: Naperville Sun :: Local News 2/5/2010 9:07:50 AM

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2011183,More-taxes-fees-coming-to-Naperville_NA01...

61 of 68

Back to regular view Print this page

Search »Site All Papers Web Search by YAHOO!

NaperSun.com Member of Sun-Times Media

BECOME A MEMBER!

What's this?

Become a member of our community! |

Sign In Register

Pradel: Naperville is facing more hard times

CommentsJanuary 26, 2010 By KATHY CICHON kcichon@stmedianetwork.com

Unlike earlier years, Naperville's State of the City address Monday was not a top hat and tails occasion for the mayor.

"In my previous city speeches, I've been the city's biggest cheerleader because we have had so much to celebrate," Mayor A. George Pradel said. "This is not a business as usual time for the city, and this will not be a business as usual speech."

Taking on a more serious tone, Pradel told approximately 450 people gathered Monday at the Holiday Inn Select he was not trying to be the boisterous cheerleader of years past.

"When I stood before you last year to deliver my address, I reported that we were in uncharted territory in Naperville, along with the rest of the world," Pradel said. "I wish I could report that our financial situation has improved; however, we are in the midst of another budget deficit.

"Ladies and gentlemen, even in Naperville, as blessed as we are, we are not immune to the current economic climate."

Pradel spent about an hour reviewing the city's fiscal condition at the event — hosted by the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, as well as highlighting last year's accomplishments and plans for this year. The specter of the current economy loomed large, as the city has been working to close a $14.1 million deficit.

"Even with $4.5 million of new revenue, we will still have a $1 million gap to fill. I know that as we work together as a city team, we can close this gap," Pradel said. "We aren't waiting. We are meeting in less than six hours to discuss new revenue in a workshop. Some of the revenue sources we are considering include a motor fuel tax and a refuse tax, which by the way, is consistent with the input we received from the chamber."

Earlier this month, the city announced the elimination of 49 positions, of which 22 were filled. The cuts resulted in $3.6 million in budget savings, he said.

Pradel praised city employees for their service, and called on them to find more ways to cut costs.

"I urge employees to continue to suggest ways we can save money next year," Pradel said. "Please consider furlough days or other ways that you can help reduce spending. And I will be with you on every decision that you make. And I know we can make it if we put our arms and lock our arms together and walk through this crisis together as a city."

PHOTOS: ARREST MUGS»More Naperville police news

CANDLESTICK MAKER»Hand-crafted soy candles

STATE OF THE CITY»Pradel: Hard times in Naperville

PHOTOS: CELEBRATIONS»Commemorate your event

A co-op loan tax could bring city $50M a yearFrom TheRealDeal.Net - Articles

The U S Chamber : Yes They Did It AgainFrom St. Cloud Personal Injury Lawyer

The views expressed in these blog posts are those of the author and not of the Sun-Times News Group.

feduptaxpayer wrote: Save some money by turning off those Christmas lights that are still on every night at city hall. Eliminate all of them for 2010.Wish we had that 10 million which was wasted on the Carillon bailout now... Vote the bums OUT! 1/31/2010 8:09 PM CST on suburbanchicagonews.com

Report Abuse

feduptaxpayer wrote: Earlier in the year Wehrli and these other idiots spent millions to replace bricks at the riverwalk.What a bunch of moronic idiots. CUT SPENDING and BALANCE the BUDGET. 1/31/2010 7:57 PM CST on suburbanchicagonews.com

Report Abuse

denny wrote: Let's see, it must be some new kind of math. Lay off 20 and pretend it's

Pradel: Naperville is facing more hard times :: Naperville Sun :: Local News 2/5/2010 9:10:20 AM

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2010620,Pradel-State-City_NA012510.article

62 of 68

Mayor: Not business-as-usual in NapervilleBy Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald Staff

Published: 1/26/2010 12:00 AM | Updated: 1/26/2010 10:12 AM

Naperville Mayor George Pradel skipped his usual tuxedo and boisterous proclamations Monday as he delivered his 15th annual State of the City address.

"This is not a business-as-usual time for the city," Pradel said. "This will not be a business-as-usual speech."

Pradel told the crowd gathered for a Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce luncheon that the city has not been immune to economic troubles. It faced an $11 million budget deficit going into the current fiscal year and what was once a $14.1 million hole in the coming budget.

Just weeks ago, the city eliminated 49 employee positions - 22 that were filled and 27 that were vacant.

"These cuts were made after careful consideration and deliberation by the city and were extremely difficult decisions to make," Pradel said. "None of us wanted to do this and we spent a lot of time suffering over it."

The cuts included 10 sworn police positions, prompting dozens of officers and their supporters to fill city council chambers less than a week ago in protest. Pradel on Monday stressed the personnel cuts will not affect public safety.

Other cuts the city is making include reducing the hours of the police department front desk, reduced frequency of meter readings, suspending the Ogden Avenue corridor grant program and closing the Community Connection satellite service center.

"In the end, we will emerge a stronger, more efficient organization and continue to be one of the safest cities in the nation," Pradel said.

On the revenue side, the council is discussing increasing the motor fuel tax and refuse collection fees. But Pradel reiterated the council's desire not to increase the property tax rate.

One of the year's biggest disappointments, Pradel said, was the city's legal battle with Councilman Richard Furstenau, who filed a civil rights lawsuit in connection to a 2006 incident in which he was accused of shoving a police officer but later acquitted. Furstenau dropped the suit and the city agreed not to try to recoup more than $1 million in legal fees.

While most of Monday's speech was on the serious side, Pradel still cracked a few jokes and touted new businesses and developments such as the Delta Dental office building, Hollywood Palms Cinema, the Apple Store, iMed campus off 75th Street and North Central College's Wentz Concert Hall and Fine Arts Center as well as its combined Residential Hall and Recreation Center.

Naperville also celebrated in 2009 when it learned its long-awaited Route 59 widening project had received state funding. The city also is preparing to open its 10th fire station on Feb. 9.

Pradel highlighted the city's green initiatives including online payment of utility bills, the purchase of hybrid vehicles and the Smart Grid energy project.

John Puscheck, new chairman of the chamber's board of directors, applauded Pradel for his candor Monday.

"At times like this it's enlightening to have a mayor and city council that's willing to open everything up to the business community and the rest of the members of the community to show them they're working hard to make tough decisions," he said.

After the speech, Pradel tried something new - a question-and-answer session with city and chamber leaders.

Only one audience member, Don Wehrli, took advantage, calling for more green space in Central Park.

Daily Herald | Mayor: Not business-as-usual in Naperville2/5/2010 9:09:51 AM

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=353768

63 of 68

Obama and Chamber patch it upBy: Jeanne CummingsFebruary 2, 2010 04:11 PM EST

After publicly sparring in the fall, the White House and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are trying to make up.

In an extraordinary exchange of letters written after last week’s State of the Union address, Chamber President Tom Donohue and President Barack Obama agreed to disagree on some issues and work together where they can.

In a letter to Obama initiating the exchange, Donohue agreed to support the administration’s goals of reforming education, doubling exports, expanding nuclear power and domestic drilling, improving worker training and funding infrastructure projects.

“While we don’t agree with every idea in your speech, we support the priorities I mentioned and will work vigorously to achieve them,” Donohue wrote in the Jan. 28 letter.

On Monday, Obama responded with a more expansive “Dear Tom” letter that thanked Donohue for his “kind comments” about the speech and welcomed the Chamber’s help moving his agenda through Congress.

The president recalled their shoulder-to-shoulder effort a year ago to pass the stimulus bill. Noting last week’s report that the economy grew nearly 6 percent in the fourth quarter, Obama wrote:

“It was the largest yearly turnaround in economic growth in three decades and wouldn’t have happened without the legislation you and the Chamber supported.”

Like Donahue, Obama acknowledged that the White House and the Chamber will disagree on some issues or on “ how to achieve the goals we all share,” but the president appealed to the Chamber to “work together wherever possible to build an economy in which businesses and jobs are growing.”

The correspondence caps a quieter, gradual thawing of relations between the administration and the business group that had grown frosty during the 2009 health care and energy debates.

The hostilities grew so intense that the Chamber accused the White House of trying to drive away its members and undermine its the influence.

Tensions eased after White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel addressed Chamber members in November, and the two camps had continued to communicate with each other.

But, in December, the chill attracted new attention when the Chamber was not invited to attend a White House jobs summit.

Obama’s decision to reach out to Donohue reflects the changing politics and policy priorities in Washington.

Senate Democrats, having lost their filibuster-proof majority, must develop legislation that

Obama and Chamber patch it up - POLITICO.com Print View2/5/2010 12:50:55 PM

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=90727DE7-18FE-70B2-A849FA731922D541

64 of 68

is acceptable not just to some Republicans but also to their own conservatives and moderates, who are often closer to the business community than their liberal counterparts.

Those Democrats also could benefit disproportionately during the election season from winning the backing of the Chamber — and they can be harmed more by its opposition.

Beyond working with their own conservative Democrats, the White House must guard against a revolt among the party’s liberal wing, such as the one that threatened the reappointment of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

In the final days leading to the Bernanke vote, both the Chamber and the White House pressed senators to back Bernanke. The Chamber’s top lobbyist, Bruce Josten, sent a letter to all members of the Senate urging a second term for the Fed chairman.

With the economy showing signs of turning a corner, “the Chamber is convinced that as one of the architects of the plan that has brought us to this point, Chairman Bernanke is the right person to head the Federal Reserve System during this vitally important second phase,” Josten wrote.

Bernanke was reappointed on a vote of 70-30, with 18 Republicans, one independent, and 11 Democrats voting against him.

Renewed cooperation between the Chamber and the White House also coincides with Obama’s refocus on the economy and jobs, with the potential for mutual gains.

The White House on Tuesday unveiled more details about its plan to provide $30 billion in new loans to small businesses. The president also has been trumpeting the number of new jobs created by last year’s stimulus as a reason for Congress to invest more in infrastructure projects.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have reacted coolly — or with open hostility — to those ideas, which could heighten the need for the White House to work in concert with business groups to get them passed.

© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

Obama and Chamber patch it up - POLITICO.com Print View 2/5/2010 12:50:55 PM

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=90727DE7-18FE-70B2-A849FA731922D541

65 of 68

66 of 68

67 of 68

68 of 68