* From a press release…
GROW-IL (Growing Resources and Opportunity for the Workforce in Illinois) coalition applauds business, labor, environmental and transportation groups for coming together this week to fashion an agreement to develop common-sense hydraulic fracturing regulations for Illinois. The Coalition believes this growing industry will create thousands of good, high paying jobs across Illinois, generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the state and put in place important environmental safeguards.
“GROW-IL is pleased that such a diverse group was able to come together and put forth well-rounded hydraulic fracturing legislation,” said Mark Denzler, Vice President & COO, Illinois Manufacturers’ Association. “After very long and detailed negotiations, everyone put the people of Illinois first and came together to establish a hydraulic fracturing regulations that will create jobs, stimulate the economy and provide regulations to protect our environment, all of which will have a significant impact on Illinois.”
“The working men and women of organized labor appreciate the hard work by all parties that has gone into this significant agreement,” said Michael T. Carrigan, President of the Illinois AFL-CIO. “This will result in good-paying jobs for working families in Illinois.”
17 Comments  
|
Really bad advice
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Tribune once again rails against the gaming bill. For example…
It makes no sense to structure oversight so the Gaming Board doesn’t review matters as crucial as the choice of a company to operate a casino until after the city’s casino authority already has made its decision. At every other casino, the Gaming Board isn’t just a rubber stamp; its regulators walk the walk with the casino developer from the get-go.
The language doesn’t make the Gaming Board a “rubber stamp.” It gives the Board power to veto any operator chosen. That’s just a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
* And then there’s this farcical demand…
It reminds us of Senate legislation that House Speaker Michael Madigan recently amended to create a much better pension reform bill.
Speaker Madigan, take this rigged casino bill away from sponsors who plainly won’t write an expansion plan without weakened enforcement at Chicago-owned casinos. Maybe a Madigan casino plan, like the Madigan pension plan, would be a vast improvement on the Senate’s proposal.
Madigan is not involved with gaming negotiations because he has a conflict of interest. So, if he ignored his conflict of interest and interjected himself into the gaming bill talks, the Tribune’s reporters would likely write a series of stories about Madigan’s conflicts and the Tribune editorial board would denounce Madigan for being a walking conflict of interest.
Who writes this stuff?
16 Comments
|
Caption contest!
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Senate President Pro Tempore Don Harmon smashes a guitar…
38 Comments
|
*** UPDATED x1 *** Sandack withdraws
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I think the only guy who thought he might have a chance was Rep. Sandack himself…
*** UPDATE *** Statement…
After much contemplation and discussion with several Republican activists, I am withdrawing my name from future consideration. I look forward to working with the new Chairman and together focusing on rebuilding a Republican brand. As I have stated several times, we must be more inclusive to revive and revitalize our party.
25 Comments
|
* The Sun-Times initially broke the story about a mega-project near McCormick Place that would house DePaul’s basketball team, two major hotels and possibly a new casino…
Mayor Rahm Emanuel is expected to announce this week plans for a $300 million 12,000-seat arena for DePaul University at McCormick Place — a proposal that will call for millions in taxpayer dollars, sources tell the Chicago Sun-Times.
The mayor will also announce plans to build two mega hotels on McPier property in the hopes of aggressively growing convention and meeting business in Chicago. […]
“If I was a betting person, I would say McCormick Place is where you’re going to find a Chicago casino,” said an official who has taken part in development discussions. “I would guarantee you that’s where it’s going.” […]
A source with knowledge of the proposal said one of the mega hotels is slated for the site directly north of McCormick Place between Indiana Street and Prairie Avenue. The other would be on the north side of Cermak Road, which is owned by Centerpoint, a huge industrial real estate property owner, sources say. The west side of McCormick Place, near Cermak, is the area tentatively being considered for the arena.
Sources familiar with the plan said the city would attempt to sell the proposal as not just a basketball arena for DePaul but as a place to attract mid-size convention shows that are too small for McCormick Place and too large for Navy Pier. […]
Gov. Pat Quinn is ruling out any direct infusion of money from the state budget.
“We’re not discussing any scenarios where there would be direct state support. That’s not something the state can afford right now,” said Brooke Anderson, a Quinn spokeswoman said.
* Deets from the Trib…
The facility would be partly funded with $125 million in public money — $55 million in special taxing district funds and $70 million in McPier bond funds supported by hotel taxes, a second source familiar with the deal said. DePaul University would chip in another $70 million, the source said. […]
Emanuel spoke with Illinois House GOP leader Tom Cross and told him the project would require state legislation so that McPier bond funds and city tax increment financing funds could be directed toward it, a spokeswoman for Cross said.
House Speaker Michael Madigan said he’s talked “a little bit, not a lot” with the mayor about the proposed project and said it’s uncertain what action the legislature might need to take to make it happen.
“It is certainly worthy of consideration because it’d be a huge construction project, but we’d like to get the details,” Madigan said.
* Meanwhile…
Chicago will phase out its 55 percent subsidy for retiree health care by January 2017 but continue that coverage for the oldest retirees, under a mayoral plan that will free taxpayers from a $108.7 million a year burden. Thirty thousand retired city employees will be forced to switch to Obamacare.
“With an increasing retiree population, earlier retirement ages and longer life spans, the ability of the city to continue to provide these benefits is totally untenable,” City Comptroller Amer Ahmad told the Chicago Sun-Times on Tuesday.
“It’s far too expensive and could have an adverse impact on our credit worthiness and add a significant long-term liability to the city’s financials,” he said. “This is just a number that continues to grow over the years. We have to be financially responsible.”
*** UPDATE *** From AFSCME…
“AFSCME is gravely concerned that the Emanuel Administration has offered no details except to say non-Medicare retirees will have to seek private insurance through an exchange that hasn’t yet been launched. This uncertainty will cause anxiety and fear for tens of thousands of seniors who gave their working lives to public service—men and women whose retirement savings are already under attack in the name of ‘pension reform.’
“Our union will be working to get answers to our many questions, to ensure the City Council closely oversees the administration’s proposals, and to protect access to affordable health care for city retirees now and in the future.”
* Other stuff…
* Quinn on new FedEx facility: Best way to help people is with a j-o-b
* Illinois adds tech jobs ahead of national rate
* Mexican official pitches business in Chicago
* Illinois passes law to make Busch divest beer distributorship
* Craft beer’s conundrum
* Illinois House Passes ‘Homeless Bill of Rights’
* Voluntary school merger bill goes to Quinn: The measure comes out of Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon’s Classrooms First Commission, which studied ways for schools to save money by reducing duplicative practices and combining educational offerings.
* Allegedly drunk limo driver prompts House bill to boost DUI penalties: The proposal, sponsored by House Republican leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego) and Rep. Dennis Reboletti (R-Elmhurst) comes in response to limo driver Richard Madison taking 23 Oswego East High School students to their prom in Glen Ellyn last weekend while allegedly driving with a blood alcohol level that was three times the legal limit.
* Senate OKs bill for arrested 17-year-olds to be sent to juvenile court
19 Comments
|
Question of the day
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Sun-Times…
Secretary of State Jesse White believes the idea of reducing Illinois’ drunk-driving threshold merits “further study,” his office confirmed Tuesday after a federal agency recommended all states scrap their .08 DUI standards.
The National Transportation Safety Board urged all 50 states to lower their drunk-driving limits by nearly half from .08 blood-alcohol content to .05 blood-alcohol content.
“It’s an issue that needs further study. We commend them for looking into this and the work they’ve done. But we feel at this point, it needs more study to go to .05,” White spokesman Dave Druker told the Chicago Sun-Times. […]
A 180-pound man could drink no more than two 12-ounce servings of light beer in an hour to stay below a .05 blood-alcohol content, according to an online blood-alcohol calculator maintained by the University of Oklahoma.
* The Question: Should the DUI limit be lowered to .05? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
customer surveys
72 Comments
|
* AP…
An Illinois senator seeking to keep some concealed carry limits in place after a federal judge found the state’s ban unconstitutional said Tuesday that his compromise plan would allow large cities to customize their lists of places that are off limits to concealed weapons.
Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, told The Associated Press that cities would be able to designate unique locales, such as a park or cherished landmark, as gun-free zones above and beyond what restrictions would be put into a law allowing public possession of firearms,
Raoul said that a community could have a “sensitive place” not recognized by a state law as not appropriate for people carrying weapons. But the Chicago Democrat predicted there wouldn’t be a great demand for customized places beyond those where concealed weapons already are prohibited under state and local laws.
“They would have to get pretty creative to think of something additional,” Raoul said. “It’s sort of a security blanket to some who are just nervous about concealed carry generally.”
* Gatehouse…
Citing high-crime rates and a “different atmosphere” in places like Chicago, Raoul said it only make sense to limit guns in densely populated areas.
Sen. Tim Bivins, R-Dixon, who had been appointed to work alongside Raoul on the bill, said Tuesday he no longer supports the legislation with this added provision.
“The problem that you have is there are so many competing interests going on in a bill like this that when you try to satisfy a lot to get the votes, you end up satisfying no one,” Bivins said. “Sen. Raoul’s put a lot of work into this … but at this point in time, it’s not something we’re going to agree on.”
The concept of the bill is similar to Gov. Pat Quinn’s long-standing push to give home-rule units the power to create their own concealed-carry restrictions, Bivins said.
“The problem with that is becomes patchwork and you don’t know where it’s legal and where it’s not,” Bivins said.
If you think that would create a problematic patchwork, just let the courts strike down the state’s public carry laws and see how weird things get. There are over 200 home rule units in Illinois. You’d need an iPhone app to figure things out.
58 Comments
|
Another look ahead
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Yesterday, we took a look at an analysis by legal expert and Supreme Court watcher Kurt Jenkins. I followed up with Jenkins later in the day with this e-mail…
I’m curious how you think the Supreme Court roll call will break out on a pension bill. Doubt you can speculate much without an actual law, but wondered anyway.
Jenkins said I was right that he’d be hesitant to speculate, but he did offer this…
I think a few things are clear from the Court’s recent history. I don’t agree that the Kilbride Court is a political court; I think their opinions show it’s a pragmatic and fairly cautious one.
It’s deeply ingrained in appellate judges to be reluctant to step in and strike down what the political branches have done. They’ll only vote to overturn a statute if they feel they have no other choice, and that’s particularly true in a case like this that’s clearly important to the state.
So those attacking whatever bill the legislature passes will certainly have the burden of proof before the Court; this isn’t a race that starts out even.
That said, I think we’ll get a much clearer picture of the Court’s inclinations relatively soon. As you know, they’ve got the Kanerva v. Weems pension case in front of them now. It may well be heard on the September docket – if not, then certainly no later than the November docket. We’ll know far more about what the Justices’ concerns in this area of the law after seeing the Kanerva argument.
* Meanwhile, some of y’all have wildly overreacted to the news that Speaker Madigan predicted his pension plan would get a majority of at least four votes on the Illinois Supreme Court. But Madigan has insisted that he didn’t have any contact with any of the justices, he was just speculating. So, you can probably remove your tinfoil hats.
* Regardless, the questions continue. Tom Kacich…
Does Madigan really have that much clout, I asked [former state Rep. Bill Black], that he can practically tell the Supreme Court how to rule on a major constitutional issue?
That’s not it, said Black. It’s that Madigan knows the Supreme Court members’ backgrounds and how they interact.
“I don’t think Sherlock Holmes would ever be able to trace any indication, verbal, written in code or whatever, that Mike Madigan would ever suggest to a Supreme Court justice how they should find a certain case. And I don’t think he would do so,” said Black, who served for 14 years in the Illinois House with Madigan.
“But I do think he has a very keen knowledge how that court works. And he certainly has a keen knowledge of where those people came from. I think that gives him an advantage. If anybody could understand how they would react to anything, it’s probably Speaker Madigan.”
34 Comments
|
Pollapalooza
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Global Strategy Group has a new poll out about the parking meter deal. I’ve seen all of the questions before these questions and it doesn’t set up the issue one way or another. The poll of 501 registered voters was taken May 9-12 and had a margin of error of +/-4.4 percent. It was conducted for the Illinois Restaurant Association, which has ties to Mayor Rahm Emanuel…
* “As you may know, in 2009, the city leased control of Chicago’s parking meters to a private company for a one-time payment of one-point-two billion dollars. Do you support or oppose this parking meter deal?”…
90 percent opposed. That’s what you call a radioactive issue.
* “Recently, Mayor Rahm Emanuel renegotiated some pieces of the parking meter lease agreement and the plan is now waiting for approval by the Chicago City Council. Have you heard anything about this deal between the city and the company leasing the city’s parking meters? [IF YES] Have you heard a lot about this plan, some, or only a little?”…
* “And based on what you know, do you support or oppose the city’s deal to renegotiate the terms of the parking meter lease agreement?”…
So the “uninformed” total isn’t bad. Now onto the “informed vote.”
* “Now I’m going to read you a bit more about the city’s deal to renegotiate the terms of the parking meter lease agreement and afterwards, I’d like to ask you about what you’ve just heard…. As you may know, the city of Chicago and the private firm holding the parking meter lease were in a legal battle over compensation for lost parking meter revenue due to street closures and other issues. Mayor Emanuel recently settled that lawsuit and now the city will be paying 20 million dollars a year less than the company had demanded, amounting to more than a billion dollars over the life of the deal. As part of the settlement, there will be free parking on Sundays in the city’s residential neighborhoods, but metered parking hours will be extended by at least one hour - from 9 pm to 10 pm - the other six days of the week. There will also be a new pay-by-cell option so that drivers can pay with their cell phone rather than going to the meter. Based on this new information, do you support or oppose the city’s deal to renegotiate the terms of the parking meter lease agreement?”…
But…
* “As part of this new deal, some changes would be made to the city’s parking meters… Under the new plan, parking would be free on Sunday in Chicago’s neighborhoods outside of downtown and River North. In exchange for free Sundays, the new plan would extend parking meter hours by one hour to 10 pm the other six days of the week. Residential parking in neighborhoods that ends at 6pm will continue to end at the same time. Within downtown and River North, parking would not be free on Sundays and parking hours would be extended by three hours until midnight the other six days. . Which system do you prefer? Do you prefer the new plan with free parking on Sundays in most neighborhoods or do you prefer the existing system with shorter hours on the other six days?”…
While a majority supports the new plan, it’s not exactly overwhelming.
* From the press release…
Opposition to the plan is limited to the 42nd Ward (52% prefer the existing system). However, even though residents in the 42nd Ward will not receive free Sundays and will have extended hours of operation, nearly a third of respondents in the 42nd prefer the new plan (30%).
* In other polling news, this is pretty much what I believe…
Chicago voters in a Tribune/WGN poll have a message for Cubs executives and Wrigleyville rooftop owners locked in a feud over the team’s proposed ballpark overhaul: A plague on both your houses.
Nearly half said they side with neither the Cubs nor the rooftop owners in the ongoing debate to renovate Wrigley Field, the poll showed. The team’s efforts were backed by 28 percent of voters while the rooftop owners were backed by 21 percent.
* Graphic…
More…
The wealthiest voters were more likely to side with the Rickettses. Among those making more than $100,000 a year, 40 percent sided with the North Side team owners while only 24 percent backed the rooftops. The remaining 36 percent didn’t take sides.
Younger voters ages 18-35 were almost equally split — 30 percent for the Cubs and 29 percent for the rooftop owners.
Geographically, voters in North Side wards sided with the Cubs, 43 percent, to 19 percent for the rooftop owners, while 37 percent sided with neither.
* Meanwhile, if the latest Chicago Tribune poll is correct, Chicagoans have been all over the map on a city casino for the past few years…
The latest poll found that 49 percent of Chicago voters surveyed support a casino while 43 percent oppose it. Those numbers are nearly flipped from an October survey that had 49 percent of city voters opposed to a statewide gambling expansion that included a Chicago casino, compared with 40 percent who supported it.
Historically, Chicagoans appear to have hedged their bets on the gambling proposition. In February 2012, 54 percent of city voters backed gambling expansion. In a December 2010 poll, 47 percent supported a city-owned casino.
So, support is up nine points since October, but down five since a year ago February, but about the same as December 2010.
* Young voters and whites appear to be the most in favor…
The new poll indicated that younger voters by far were the most supportive of a Chicago-based casino. Fully 56 percent of voters ages 18-35 backed bringing gambling to the city, compared with 40 percent who disagreed.
The latest survey also found a racial gap in the support of expanded gambling. Among white voters surveyed, 54 percent supported a casino with just 38 percent opposed. African-American voters were evenly split at 46 percent, and Latino voters narrowly backed a casino, 49 percent to 46 percent.
14 Comments
|
Patience, please
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Before we begin, let us recall that Rep. Dunkin’s name appears twice on the “Century Club” trophy. He actually “won” the award three times, but since he did so twice in one year his name is only listed once. He’s the record-holder. And in case you don’t know what the Century Club is, it’s a trophy “awarded” to a House member whose bill receives at least 100 “No” votes.
Dunkin has grown in the past year or two, but I’m not sure he should be giving tactical advice…
In the waning days of the legislative session, at least one Illinois House member is getting antsy over the lack of movement on gay marriage.
Illinois Legislative Black Caucus Chair Ken Dunkin (D-Chicago) said he’s been urging the bill’s sponsor to call it for a vote.
“He needs to do something. The longer he waits, I believe, the less likely he’ll be to get a simple majority in our chamber. I also think he will pick up a few votes once people listen to the debate … This bill will be passed. There’s only 20 of us out of 118. It’s not a Black Caucus issue. The Black Caucus is not responsible for the bill not getting passed. This is Downstater’s issue, this is a rural area issue, a suburban issue.”
Rep. Greg Harris is the sponsor. He’ll move the bill when it’s ready.
And as far as the Black Caucus is concerned, yes, it is a problem. Just two BC members voted “Present” in the Senate, and another was absent due to a serious illness. The Senate’s Black Caucus was not an issue at all. It’s only now, when churches have ginned up the opposition, that the House Black Caucus is shying away from the bill.
The HBC has 20 members, but only a small handful have said they’ll vote for the bill. So, yeah, Chairman, the caucus is an issue.
13 Comments
|
Behind the headlines
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This is definitely not good at all, but it’s not quite as horrible as the headlines make it out to be…
* Audit: Less than half of state road fund spent on roads
* Audit: Less than half of Road Fund spent on roads
The trouble with the headlines is the way money is classified. From the Auditor General’s report…
In FY12, IDOT noted that Transportation Bond Series A Fund expenditures paid for $419.3 million in road construction costs, and over $2.67 billion over the 10 year audit period.
Yet the interest payments on those bonds were classified as “Non-Direct Road Construction Expenditures.” That seems odd.
* Also, the General Assembly stopped paying state police and secretary of state salaries out of the Road Fund a few years ago, so things are different now. There was a big problem, however…
In 2010, lawmakers stopped the practice of using road fund money to pay salaries in the secretary of state’s office and state police, but health insurance charges to the fund didn’t go down by a comparable amount, auditors said.
State officials said a single employee, who no longer works for the state, was responsible for calculating the health insurance charges that should be made to the road fund. Auditors said those calculations weren’t based on actual insurance costs.
Auditors also found the road fund was billed for $54 million more in workers’ compensation costs than it should have been during a three-year period. State officials said this was because lawmakers capped the amount of general fund money that could be used for workers’ comp costs.
I’m not so sure that throwing one guy under the bus is legit here. It seemed back then that it was a deliberate act. From the audit…
Department of Healthcare and Family Services
Road Fund expenditures by HFS during the audit period totaled more than $1 billion and were for Employer Contributions for Group Health Insurance. Payments for Group Health Insurance by HFS began in FY06 at a cost of $126 million. These expenditures increased in each of the next six years. In FY12, expenditures for Group Health Insurance were more than $165 million.
* Response…
Gov. Pat Quinn’s office and the Illinois Department of Transportation disputed the findings, saying auditors should have included costs such as road construction bond payments, snow removal and other safety upgrades required by the federal government when they calculated the amount spent on “direct road construction.”
Spokeswoman Jae Miller said about 75 percent of the Road Fund goes toward IDOT expenses. She said that’s a “significant increase” over previous administrations.
* But this is from the audit…
Senate Resolution Number 788 asked auditors to examine the uses of the Road Fund, including the amounts used for “direct road construction costs.” Since IDOT did not have an established definition of direct road construction expenditures, auditors worked with IDOT and selected certain detail object codes established by the Comptroller and appropriation codes to identify direct road construction expenditures.
Oy.
* And check this out…
In addition to decreased funding available for direct road construction and an increase in non-direct road construction costs, the costs for road construction are also increasing. Exhibit 3-9 shows the average construction costs by type of work per mile. According to IDOT, between 2002 and 2012, the average costs for every type of construction increased.
New construction has more than doubled from $4.02 million/mile from 2002-2004 to $8.91 million/mile from 2009-2012. Increasing construction and non-construction costs combined with declining revenues has caused IDOT to express concern over the number of roads needing repair. IDOT stated that the backlog of State roadway miles in need of improvement is expected to grow significantly through FY18 unless additional revenues are made available. Even if Road Fund revenue was stable, the increase in construction costs would cause a decrease in the amount of direct road construction projects that could be completed.
The high price of commodities is surely contributing to this problem.
The chart…
Discuss.
20 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
   
|
Hosted by MCS
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax
Advertise Here
Mobile Version
Contact Rich Miller
|
