By Justin Laurence, Crain’s Chicago Business
Indianapolis Business Journal
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – With time running short, Illinois lawmakers are considering dramatically scaling back a sweeping megaproject incentive bill to focus almost exclusively on keeping the Chicago Bears in Illinois.
The change in strategy reflects growing concern in the Senate that the sprawling House bill approved in April may be too unwieldy to pass before adjournment this weekend, though a Bears-specific approach carries its own political risks and could quickly collapse.
For years, supporters pitched the incentive — which would allow developers to lock in long-term property tax breaks while negotiating separate PILOT payments with local taxing bodies — as a statewide economic-development tool, not a subsidy tailored to the Bears’ proposed move to Arlington Heights.
But specific concerns about the length of the tax break, what level of minimum investment is needed to qualify and the impact on school districts across the state have threatened to thwart the bill.
Legislators are now discussing options that would limit the use of the PILOT payment program for the Bears in Arlington Heights, or all of Cook County, while punting negotiations on a statewide program until later, according to people familiar with the negotiations.
State Sen. Bill Cunningham, the lead Senate negotiator on the legislation, did not directly address that possibility in a text response to Crain’s.
“No decisions have been made regarding modifications to the bill,” Cunningham said.
The House amendment also incorporated proposals from separate bills to create new tiers of the state’s Sales Tax and Revenue, or STAR, bond program and a railyard-specific incentive tailored to large projects in Chicago.
Adding those incentives, as well dedicating 50% of PILOT payments to local and statewide property tax relief, were necessary to carry the House bill across the finish line, but the weight of the bill appears to be at risk of crumbling in the Senate.
Cunningham has previously said the Senate would try to keep some form of property tax relief in the bill, but setting aside 50% of a PILOT payment is opposed by the Bears and Gov. JB Pritzker because would incentivize local taxing authorities to push for a higher annual payment while providing minimum relief statewide.
Tailoring a bill solely for the Bears is more viable in the Senate than the House, according to sources familiar with the talks.
The Bears declined to comment.
Other teams circle the talks
While the focus has been on the Bears’ future home, developers and team owners that could benefit from the various tax subsidies have also lobbied up and have been pushing to ensure they’re involved in the discussion, including the Chicago Stars and Chicago White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf.
Two years after rolling into the state Capitol sporting a leather jacket while cameras followed his every move, Reinsdorf quietly met with the lead negotiators of the megaproject bill last week, including Cunningham and State Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, who has been a point man on the legislation in the House.
A spokesman for Gov. JB Pritzker’s office said they did not meet with Reinsdorf.
The Sox owner is still hopeful of building a new ballpark in the South Loop at The 78 megadevelopment, where Chicago Fire FC has broken ground on its own stadium.
Buckner described the talks as a “refresher” on Reinsdorf’s plans for The 78 that never gained traction because they relied on huge public subsidies from the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority.
While he said the meeting with Reinsdorf was friendly without delving into specifics, the position against using ISFA-backed bonds for stadium construction hasn’t changed, Buckner told Crain’s last week.
“We’ve talked about how the state is inclined to move away from the old model of direct stadium subsidies, where I think we’ve made that very clear in our interactions with the Bears, I think that’s a fair conclusion for folks to come to, but I think that conversation is really more of a listening conversation,” he said.
It’s unclear what in the megaprojects bill would benefit the Sox at The 78, which is already inside a tax increment financing district, which captures future property tax revenue to support infrastructure projects in the district.
“With our lease with the state expiring at the end of the 2029 season, we continue to have conversations with various parties regarding our future,” White Sox spokesman Scott Reifert said in a statement.
Johnson keeps pressure on Springfield
Mayor Brandon Johnson remains opposed to allowing the Bears to leave Chicago.
After lobbying against the legislation for months, Johnson ramped up the efforts to stall the bill in recent weeks, including traveling to Springfield and disclosing to key lawmakers his administration held recent talks with the Bears, citing the discussion as evidence the team would reconsider a new Chicago stadium if their path to Arlington Heights were blocked.
Despite repeated rejections from Springfield over the past two years, Johnson said today his position has changed little: He still wants state lawmakers to support infrastructure improvements around the Museum Campus and authorize roughly $900 million in stadium subsidies through the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. Crain’s previously reported Johnson has also floated giving the city control of the agency if lawmakers refuse to expand its borrowing capacity for a new stadium.
Johnson said today state lawmakers should afford him the ability to put his plan on the table against the Bears proposal in Arlington Heights.
“How are we voting on something that would give property tax relief to a corporation, and the said corporation that wants the property tax relief has not put together a traffic study. There’s no study around the infrastructure. In fact, we don’t even know how they’re going to fully fund the stadium that would be privately owned,” he said.
The megaprojects bill also faced fresh scrutiny this week after Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas released a study estimating the Bears could save tens of millions of dollars annually through the proposed property-tax structure currently outlined in the megaprojects legislation.
Pappas, who has openly discussed a potential run for Chicago mayor, has promoted the report in appearances on local talk radio while arguing the legislation could erode the property-tax base and leave local governments exposed to future costs.
Supporters of the megaprojects legislation sharply disputed the Pappas analysis.
Buckner, one of the lead House negotiators, said the study relies on unrealistic assumptions by treating the alternative to the bill as a fully built stadium paying standard property taxes, rather than the possibility the project never materializes or moves to Indiana.
Critics of the report also note it largely ignores the potential tax revenue generated by hotels, retail and other adjacent development outside the Arlington Heights stadium footprint.
This article first appeared in Crain’s Chicago Business.
Leave a Reply