SPRINGFIELD — An Illinois House committee voted to advance a major economic development bill on Thursday that could ultimately help convince the Chicago Bears to stay in Illinois rather than bolting for Indiana.
It represents the first notable legislative movement on a concept that had languished at the bottom of Springfield’s priority list for several years. However, the full Illinois House adjourned without acting on the bill, and they’re not scheduled to return until March 18. That left the Bears short of the goal line in Illinois, even as Hoosier lawmakers work this week to finalize a legislative framework to lure the team across the state line.
The House Revenue and Finance Committee voted 13-7 along party lines to send House Bill 910 to floor. The bill would freeze property tax assessments on the sites of so-called “megaprojects,” like the Bears’ proposed stadium in Arlington Heights, and instead allow developers to negotiate a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes with local governments.
The bill, and other parts of any deal with the Bears, likely has a long way to go, however.
Funding for public infrastructure needed to support a new stadium isn’t addressed in the bill. Members of both parties on the committee also raised several concerns about the mechanics of the bill, indicating the plan is still likely to change. And left unresolved are concessions for Chicago, which many city lawmakers have said are necessary to earn their votes for any bill that would clear the way for the Bears to leave Soldier Field.
Competition among governments
The bill’s advancement happened under the shadow of the Indiana General Assembly, which was on track on Thursday to pass their plan to lure the Bears to Hammond, which Gov. Mike Braun is expected to sign.
“I don't think we're in competition with Indiana,” state Rep. Kam Buckner, a Chicago Democrat sponsoring the bill, told reporters. “I've been very clear about this. I think what they have done there and what they have rolled out has not risen to the level of the pandemonium that's been surrounding it.”
Buckner said the Bears “understand” the General Assembly’s process and schedule, which has lawmakers in Springfield for another three months.
A big question also remains in Illinois: Does the bill have enough votes to pass the House and will Chicago Democrats get on board? House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Hillside, has an unofficial rule that requires at least 60 Democrats to support a bill before it moves forward.
Chicago officials are still holding out hope the Bears can remain at Soldier Field. Chicago acting chief financial officer Steven Mahr, who testified in opposition to the bill, begged lawmakers to give the city “fairness” in negotiations and consider the team’s 2024 proposal to overhaul the lakefront stadium.
"If the state is going to support infrastructure spending elsewhere as a subsidy to facilitate a new sports stadium, then the state should be willing to support infrastructure in and around the Museum Campus for a similar build,” Mahr said. “With such a commitment, the city of Chicago and the Park District would submit multiple viable proposals for a new publicly owned sports stadium in Chicago.”
Gov. JB Pritzker and state lawmakers have long ruled out spending state dollars on stadium construction. And the governor told reporters in Chicago last week that “there’s a common understanding by most of the General Assembly that they’re not going to be able to build in the city of Chicago,” and would likely bolt city limits for Arlington Heights or Hammond.
State Rep. Curtis Tarver, D-Chicago, who chairs the House Revenue Committee, suggested the city might struggle to attract large projects, pointing to Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s proposal to tax large businesses for each person they employ.
"I do not want this committee hearing hijacked by this notion of Chicago versus Arlington Heights and the Bears ... it is a tool for the entire state of Illinois,” Tarver said of the megaprojects bill.
If the Bears do decide to leave Soldier Field for Arlington Heights, Buckner told reporters the team could have to pay some costs to leave the stadium the state paid to renovate in 2002.
“There is no Soldier Field renovation in 2001-02 without the Bears demanding one,” said Buckner, whose district includes Soldier Field. “And so we can't gloss over the facts. We can't forget the past. Got to find a way to deal with that and move forward the same time.”
Buckner said lawmakers “have not gotten that commitment yet” from the Bears. While he declined to get into specifics, Buckner said that the team’s earlier $25 million offer to Chicago was a nonstarter and that it would have to be something in line with the Cleveland Browns’ agreement to pay $100 million to the city to leave their publicly owned lakefront stadium for new digs in the Cleveland suburbs.
What’s in the bill?
Pritzker has insisted that this is not a “Bears” bill, but a “megaprojects” bill that the Bears would just happen to benefit from. This broadened lens is reflected in the updated language, which includes two new investment tiers aimed at smaller megaprojects.
The original bill required companies to put up a minimum investment of $500 million. But now those that invest $250 million and create 50 new jobs or $100 million and 100 new jobs would be eligible for the incentives. The jobs must be full time and permanent, which Buckner said likely excludes projects such as data centers.
The new legislation would still allow the Bears — or any other eligible company — to freeze their property tax assessment and negotiate a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes with local taxing bodies for up to 40 years. All local taxing bodies would have a seat at the table, with votes weighted in proportion to share of property taxes levied — meaning local school districts would likely carry the largest influence.
This annual “special payment” can’t be any less than 10% of the base year property tax levy except for developers who invest more than $2 billion, a carveout that gives “more flexibility” given the “different realities” of larger projects, Buckner said. The Bears have pledged at least $2 billion towards stadium construction in Arlington Heights.
The bill tightens eligibility through amended language specifically prohibiting projects containing housing units from being certified as a megaproject. State lawmakers sought this narrowing to prevent the Bears from using the tax benefits for the development of a broader mixed-use stadium district planned for the 326-acre Arlington Park site.
In addition to back-end help on property taxes, the bill now contains provisions to help with front-end construction costs through a sales tax exemption on building materials like what Illinois already offers through its Enterprise Zone Program. This perk would be available for the first 10 years of a megaproject, though it could be renewed for an additional five years.
Unions support
The bill also includes a requirement that a project-labor agreement must be agreed to before construction starts on a project, winning support from unions for the bill.
“Our state is on the razor’s edge of losing the Bears and tens of thousands of good jobs for working people,” a coalition of unions said in a statement. “The team’s massive new development would generate more than $600 million in wages and revenue every single year. Losing the Bears would be an economic blow to Chicagoland working families and our entire state. We urge legislators to move swiftly so Illinois’ loss is not Indiana’s gain.”
Twenty percent of contracts for the project would also have to go to minority-owned businesses.
Concerns with the bill
A top concern for many is how property tax revenue the Bears wouldn’t pay would be made up by other taxpayers.
Brian Costin, deputy state director for Americans for Prosperity, a conservative organization that advocates for limited government, told lawmakers the bill would shift a greater portion of property taxes on to residents.
State Rep. Rita Mayfield, D-Gurnee, said she has “a lot of problems with the bill” and worries how much property tax it will divert from local governments for up to four decades. She suggested the Bears’ $2 billion stadium investment would cost local governments $600 million in revenue.
“They are being taxed under this bill for vacant land for 45 years,” Mayfield said. “That's absolutely ridiculous. I can't see anyone voting for that and agreeing to that. It's just not plausible.”
State Rep. Dan Ugaste, R-Geneva, also raised several concerns, including that school boards might have complete control over the weighted vote to approve incentive agreements and the $100 million investment threshold for a project might be on the lower side for a project described as “mega.”
Those concerns were echoed by progressive state Rep. Will Guzzardi, D-Chicago, who said the smaller end represents “a big investment, but that's not a once in a lifetime investment."
He also worried about communities being “outgunned,” noting that one person under the weighted vote structure could potentially be “sitting across the negotiating table from a multibillion-dollar corporation with no staff or resources available to help support them” in a negotiation that would have a decadeslong, community-wide impact.
State Rep. Sonya Harper, D-Chicago, expressed concerns about the potential of tax revenue that would otherwise go towards schools and other local services. She also pushed for incorporating a community benefits agreement that’d ensure a portion of the Bears’ tax benefit be put into a fund for public needs.
“I just want to make sure that we are not more creative when it comes to helping billion dollar developments — millionaires and billionaires — than when it comes to helping the neighborhoods and everyday people who built this state, who built the city of Chicago, and who keep it running daily,” Harper said.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
