* Rep. Marty Moylan (D-Des Plaines) and 13 co-sponsors have introduced HB4040. From an analysis…
HB 4040 maintains the foundation of the mega project/PILOT concept that was proposed in HB 3565. It adds additional layers of oversight for local stakeholders and the General Assembly to ensure that the Arlington Megaproject - and potential future megaprojects - proceed in a manner that is in the best interest of the local community and the state of Illinois. Additionally, HB 4040 ensures that the Bears will reimburse the City of Chicago over $150 million for the LGDF money that was reallocated from the city and used to pay down the Soldier Field renovation debt. The legislation also secures significant new funding for capital projects and infrastructure improvements in Arlington Heights and the surrounding communities that will face additional infrastructure challenges as a result of the Arlington Megaproject
I. Arlington Megaproject Oversight Board
HB 4040 creates a Megaproject Oversight Board with the power to approve or den incentive agreements and zoning actions in the Arlington Megaproject. Voting members of the oversight board include representatives from Arlington Heights, Rolling Meadows, Salt Creek Rural Park District, school districts 214, 211 and 15, and legislators from Senate District 27 and House Districts 54 and 53. Additional advisor members or the oversight board include representatives from other area municipalities, Cook County, state agencies, and legislators in the region.
II. Admissions Tax to reimburse the City of Chicago
A $3 admissions tax is imposed on all entertainment and sporting events within the Arlingtor Megaproject. This revenue will be used to reimburse the City of Chicago for the LGDF funding it lost because of the Soldier Field renovation debt. The City of Chicago’s LGDF share has been reduced by at least $5 million per ear since 2001. and those reductions are exoected to continue for a most ten more ears. The admissions tax will ensure the Bears repay the over $150 million that has been reallocated from the City of Chicago to service the Soldier Field debt. After the City of Chicago is fully reimbursed, subsequent admission tax revenue will be deposited into the Common School Fund to support education initiatives statwide.
III. Infrastructure Improvements in Arlington Heights and the surrounding communities
State tax revenue originating within the Arlington Megaproject from sales tax, hotel tax, liquor tax and sports wagering tax will be deposited into a new Arlington Megaproject Infrastructure Fund. The balance of this fund will be distributed on a monthly basis to the local governments who will see additional infrastructure challenges as a result of the Arlington Megaproject: 35% to Arlington Heights, 10% to Cook County, 10% to Palatine, 10% to Rolling Meadows, 7% to Buffalo Grove, 7% to Elk Grove Village, 7% to Mount Prospect, 7% to Prospect Heights, and 7% to Wheeling. Revenue received from this fund must be used for capital projects and infrastructure improvements.
IV. General Assembly must expressly approve all megaprojects
Because of the unique nature and statewide impact of megaprojects, any future projects must receive express authorization from the General Assembly before proceeding. HB 4040 expressly authorizes the Arlington Megaproject and requires express authorization on megaprojects going forward.
This is not a Bears initiative, from what I’m told.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 5:30 pm:
Huh.
Reimburse Chicago?
I like that “idea”
See… I might even be “neutral” on this “start”
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 5:43 pm:
Other than the buy out provisions of the lease, I do not see why Bears owe Chicago or Park District anything. And I do not want them to get any money from State except for maybe what would be normal as far as infrastructure
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 5:47 pm:
===I do not see why Bears owe Chicago or Park District anything.===
“Good Will”
If it were me, and I were a Chicago legislator, unless the Bears are in the $300+ million range to the City, it’d be a dead deal.
Sure the $150 mil looks good and looks like a “give”, but 1/4 of what’s left, even if it’s not the Bears’ fault, gotta have some sulfur to counter the sweet molasses
- lake county democrat - Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 5:50 pm:
So why does the rest of the state want all the state revenue to go to the nearby burbs? Why is Wheeling getting more than Mt. Prospect - it’s farther away and isn’t going to experience the same kind of upheaval the Euclid Avenue cooridoor is going to experience.
- ChicagoVinny - Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 6:09 pm:
$150 mil to Chicago is a good start but I agree with OW, needs to be higher.
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 6:10 pm:
A “Chicago” bill dropped late and there is NO Madigan involvement? HOLD THE PRESSES!
- Langhorne - Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 7:01 pm:
A big bill package erupting like this brings back memories from when I was a young staffer half a century ago. Working through most of the night. Scrounging for food in the wee hours. Nasty coffee. Sour wardrobe.
Our most exotic piece of office equipment was an IBM Selectric typewriter. Four amendments amending the same paragraphs, relied on four colors of magic marker, to see what they did. Bill analysis actually got shorter and crisper with fatigue.
I wouldn’t trade the experience for anything in the world. I loved it, but would also prefer not to relive it.
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 8:29 pm:
“… IBM Selectric … .”
With a MAG card?
- K3 - Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 9:07 pm:
So…it’s still incentivizing the project right? Because the state tax revenue is being diverted to address the infrastructure impact. Wanting to make sure I understand.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 9:20 pm:
===for unspecified “significant infrastructure improvements”===
It’s for the bonds. Keep up.
You can ask for anything if the Bears want something within a reasonable context of business.
The Bears aren’t required to agree…
- JustAThought - Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 12:41 am:
OW, telling someone to keep up on the various Bears bills after you were asea just this morning is a bad look.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 6:23 am:
- JustAThought -
I clarified that, once again, you should keep up.
- supplied_demand - Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 7:52 am:
==I clarified that, once again, you should keep up.==
No need to talk to people like this, its a bad look. Most people don’t spend as much time on here as you.
- Pundent - Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 7:57 am:
=I do not see why Bears owe Chicago or Park District anything.=
The investments made in Soldier Field would not have happened but for the Bears being the primary tenant and a reasonable expectation that they wouldn’t bail in 20 years. Think of it not as paying back the city and park district but the residents of Chicago who had no say in the matter and are left holding the bag.
- Cool Papa Bell - Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 10:27 am:
=Admissions Tax to reimburse the City of Chicago=
Could be wrong here but the Bears aren’t on the hook here. The attendees are at $3 a ticket.
Want traction? Have the Bears actually be on the hook for $150 million, double the tax to $6 giving the city $300 million, combine it all and now your to $450 of the $640 million left on Solider Field debt.
The above bill is start but I still feel like its way too much just to let one multi-billion dollar business move from one part of the state to another.
Let’s wait and see what Kenosha or Gary come up with before we start tossing around hundreds of millions of dollars.
As is the case during baseball free agency - it appears we are only bidding against ourselves here.
- From DaZoo - Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 10:44 am:
When throwing around dollar amounts of what’s “owed” to Chicago, let’s remember that the Bears will still play at Solider Field for at least a couple more seasons even if the “deal” and site development plan get approved next month (which likely won’t happen). So the remaining lease amount will be less than it is today.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 10:47 am:
===So the remaining lease amount will be less than it is today.===
It’s far more about the debt the renovation caused.
It’s also about “good faith” beyond the actual dollars, as the Bears ask for dollars in possible relief for them.
- Steve Polite - Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 11:54 am:
=Admissions Tax to reimburse the City of Chicago=
I’m with Cool Papa Bell here. This looks like people buying tickets may be paying down the debt if the admissions tax is passed on through ticket sales. It would be a free pass for the Bears organization.
- From DaZoo - Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 12:33 pm:
===It’s far more about the debt the renovation caused.===
True. Although that should have been included in the lease arrangement.
===It’s also about “good faith” beyond the actual dollars…===
Totally agree. This, I feel, would be the biggest reason for making sure the “owed” amount and how it’s paid is within reason. Showing that _all_ parties are operating in “good faith” is where the bill gets to the 60/30/1.