SB1809 amends the Illinois Video Gaming Act to create a separate revenue-sharing category for video gaming tax revenue generated in municipalities with populations of 2,000,000 or more. Under current law, video gaming tax revenue is split between the Capital Projects Fund and the Local Government Video Gaming Distributive Fund; this bill would instead direct the local-government share from the largest municipalities into a newly named fund, the Local Government with Greater than 2,000,000 Residents Video Gaming Distributive Fund. The bill also makes conforming changes to the Video Gaming Act to reflect this new fund structure.
The bill preserves the existing 30% tax on net terminal income and the additional 3% in supplemental taxes, but it changes how the base tax revenue is allocated when the revenue is generated in a municipality with at least 2 million residents. For those municipalities, eleven-fifteenths would go to the Capital Projects Fund and four-fifteenths would go to the new local fund. The Department of Revenue would continue to allocate the local share monthly, and the affected municipality could use the money for any general corporate purpose authorized by law. The State Finance Act is amended to create the new special fund in the State Treasury, and the bill takes effect immediately.
The bill’s practical impact is limited to Illinois’ largest municipality or municipalities meeting the 2,000,000-population threshold, rather than all local governments participating in video gaming revenue sharing. It would not change the overall tax rate on video gaming terminals, but it would create a distinct accounting and distribution mechanism for the local share of revenue generated in those very large cities. That means state agencies, especially the Department of Revenue and the State Comptroller, would need to administer a separate fund and separate allocation process for qualifying municipalities.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears technical and fiscal in nature, aimed at refining how video gaming tax proceeds are distributed rather than changing the underlying gaming policy. The caption, "VIDEO GAMING-LOCAL SHARE," also suggests the bill is focused on local revenue allocation rather than regulation of gaming operations.
The main point of contention likely would be the special treatment of municipalities with populations of 2,000,000 or more, because the bill creates a separate fund and distribution rule for only the largest city or cities in the state. Supporters would likely view this as a targeted adjustment to ensure local governments in very large urban areas receive an appropriate share of gaming revenue, while critics might question whether carving out a population-specific fund is equitable or whether it complicates the existing statewide distribution system.
SB1809 would amend Sections 60 and 75 of the Video Gaming Act and add Section 5.1030 to the State Finance Act. Its legal effect is to create a new special fund for video gaming revenue attributable to municipalities with populations of at least 2,000,000 and to direct the local-government share of that revenue into that fund instead of the existing Local Government Video Gaming Distributive Fund. The bill would also require conforming changes to the revenue allocation language so that the Department of Revenue and State Comptroller can separately distribute those funds to qualifying municipalities. It does not alter the underlying video gaming tax rates or the general rules for municipalities and counties below the 2,000,000-population threshold.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so the recorded legislative sentiment cannot be measured directly. From the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a narrow, administrative-fiscal proposal rather than a controversial policy overhaul. The structure suggests a targeted effort to adjust revenue sharing for the state’s largest municipality, which may be viewed favorably by local fiscal interests but neutrally or cautiously by those concerned about special carve-outs.
The likely area of contention is the bill’s population-based distinction: it creates a separate video gaming distributive fund only for municipalities with 2,000,000 or more residents. That could raise fairness concerns from other local governments that remain in the general fund structure, and it may prompt questions about whether the largest municipality should receive a distinct statutory treatment. Another possible issue is whether the new fund complicates administration or changes the balance between state capital funding and local revenue sharing, though the bill does not change tax rates or expand gaming eligibility.