Lawmakers not ruling out game plan to keep Bears in Illinois

Illinois House Democrats were told last week that a state capital projects plan designed to assist Arlington Height’s bid to lure the Chicago Bears away from their Indiana stadium gambit would cost up to $895 million.

None of the money would be used to directly build the new Bears stadium or the surrounding commercial district envisioned by the team’s ownership. Gov. JB Pritzker insisted to reporters earlier this month that the projects would be done to help enhance the area. Capital assistance has been on the table since the Soldier Field teardown proposal, but now we have an idea how much the team wants for this project.

A portion of the capital funding would be used for things like moving water mains to allow for the stadium’s construction. Other improvements, including a major tollway project, would benefit the surrounding area, but, like the water lines, also probably wouldn’t be done without the new stadium.

Politically, it’s imperative that the state not be seen as giving the billionaire Bears ownership a taxpayer-funded stadium. If they can give themselves enough cover, then maybe they might possibly find enough votes for this. But it’s still a straight uphill climb even after Indiana has begun putting its cards on the table.

Lots of meetings have been held at the legislative and executive levels with the team and local government officials. Whether this is motion or actual movement remains to be seen. But some previously recalcitrant Chicago legislators do appear to be considering an Arlington Heights plan to prevent the team from crossing the border.

You’ve probably already seen that an Indiana Senate committee unanimously approved a bill to attract the Bears across state lines last week.

Before they passed the bill, the committee stripped out minority and women contract goals and protections, which is not a good look for the Bears here.

According to the bill, the stadium’s construction funding includes “proceeds of local excise taxes” and “applicable proceeds of food and beverage tax and innkeepers [hotel] tax.” Those local sales taxes would pay the lease, which would in turn pay off the bonds for building a new stadium.

Right now, there’s no state limit on the amount of bonding authority to finance the complex, which will definitely run into the billions of dollars.

The size of the taxing district or whether tax increases or even new taxes would have to be imposed are not specified in the bill, either.

Lots of local governments over a wide swath of Indiana could be frozen out of receiving increased sales tax collections, and/or taxpayers could feasibly be hit with new taxes or higher rates.

The legislative calendars in each state may give Indiana an advantage. Indiana state law requires adjournment by March 14, but Hoosier legislative leaders have said they want to adjourn by Feb. 27.

Indiana’s House speaker said last week that he won’t run a bill unless the Bears commit to moving to his state. If he sticks to his guns, he could force the team to pick a state well ahead of the Feb. 27 deadline.

The Illinois Legislature doesn’t usually do much until after the March primary, so getting something done or on the table this month would be way out of character.

And some Illinois legislative higher-ups want to wait and to see what Indiana does before moving forward.

Indiana’s governor has engaged in open warfare with key Republican state senators, including its top leader, after the chamber rejected his proposal to redraw congressional boundaries to help Republicans. It’s also doubtful that Indianapolis will welcome competition from another domed stadium for major sports and concert events, and the House speaker represents some Indianapolis suburbs.

The Bears also want a payment in lieu of taxes bill from Illinois. The legislation would let them lock in annual payments to local governments for decades, rather than be subjected to the ever-increasing payments under the property tax system. From what I’m hearing, however, quite a large number of legislators don’t yet have a decent understanding about what that bill would do. But the bill is seen as attractive to state leaders because it puts the onus on local governments and doesn’t cost the state a dime.

The bottom line is that the Bears’ Indiana gambit has managed to change the public tone of leaders like Pritzker, who is no longer openly hostile to the idea. House Speaker Emanuel "Chris" Welch recently posted photos of himself hanging out in the Bears owner’s skybox.

For both states, motion is one thing, actual movement is another.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.