BEARS, BUSINESS GROUP PUSH TO MAKE ARLINGTON HEIGHTS SUBSIDY PLAN MORE THAN JUST X’S AND O’S ON A BLACKBOARD
Supporters of a new plan to subsidize a proposed Arlington Heights stadium for the Bears are drawing up a play that is so far missing a quarterback in Springfield.
In fact, most of its backers are still in the huddle.
No legislation has been filed, and no sponsors have been named for the measure that would create a new class of tax incentive called a PILOT. That stands for payment in lieu of taxes.
It would allow the Bears to pay to Arlington Heights a negotiated sum for the property taxes on the 326-acre site of the old Arlington International Racecourse. The amount presumably would be less than what the team would be liable for as it pursues its stadium and other buildings that would add to the property’s value.
“As we have said publicly, property tax certainty is necessary for the Arlington Park project to move forward. We continue to do our due diligence on how that can be accomplished,” the Bears said in a statement.
In a summary of the proposal, the team said 35 other states have a similar tax incentive to attract major developments, leaving Illinois at a disadvantage.
A key issue with the Bears’ proposal is whether Arlington Heightsarea schools would be involved in negotiating any payments. Any development that would add families to the area would increase school enrollment — and by extension the need for funding, now largely supplied through property taxes.
A draft of the legislation said a municipality and private developer can mutually terminate the incentive at any time, but the developer must agree to stay at the property for at least 20 years.
The Bears have enlisted consultants, one of the state’s leading business groups and a road builders’ association to promote the legislation.
The idea was floated in Springfield weeks ago, including in a meeting with high-level Democratic staffers that included at least one representative of Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s office. But the plan was initially met with a resounding no, a source with knowledge of the meeting told the Sun-Times.
But now, supporters of the incentive, including the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, are trying to round up support — using the argument that without state support for the Bears, the team could pack up and leave.
“I think it needs to happen by the end of this session. If not, you’re going to start to have other states make their cases on why the Chicago Bears should be the St. Louis Bears,” said Todd Maisch, president of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. “That’s just the reality of the world.
Maisch also fought back the characterization that it is a “Bears bailout,” which is how many view any subsidies for a team that took in $520 million in revenue in 2021, according to Forbes.
“Let’s recognize that there’s a competition for investments across the nation, whether it be light manufacturing, transportation or whether it be sports teams,” Maisch said.
In September, the Bears laid out the groundwork to seek some sort of public subsidy for a massive, mixed-use stadium development they are exploring on the Arlington Heights site. The team said it wouldn’t seek public funding for stadium construction, but would ask for “additional funding and assistance” for a broader, mixed-use development it called one of the largest in Illinois history.
Pritzker has said he does not support public financing of the stadium.
And in the waning days of the Illinois General Assembly’s lame duck session, legislators passed the Invest in Illinois Act, which includes the following language: “the Department [of Commerce and Economic Opportunity] shall not award economic incentives to a professional sports organization that moves its operation from one location in the State to another location in the State.”
That bill has yet to make it to the governor’s desk.
State Rep. Mark Walker, DArlington Heights, said he has reviewed the latest proposal — and has a lot of questions, including how the Board of Appeals and Cook County Assessor Fritz Kaegi would feel about freezing such a large assessment for 20 years.
“I wouldn’t call it a subsidy. It really is much more of paying fewer taxes. I think the plan is interesting. I think it’s new. We don’t do this in the state.
“The difficulty I have is that it requires the municipalities to negotiate on behalf of the school districts, and I’m not so sure the school district shouldn’t have more power on what happens with the tax money that should go to them that they do this in this plan,” Walker said. “I’m not sure yet. That’s a shortcoming.”
Walker said he hasn’t been asked to sponsor the bill.
State Rep. Mary Beth Canty, D-Arlington Heights, told the Sun-Times the proposal deserves “careful review” before it’s considered. Canty is also on the Arlington Park Village Board.