* Last September…
“We need the Bears to pay off what’s owed on the existing stadium,” [Pritzker] said. “So that’s going to be a really important feature of whatever happens going forward. And if they want a PILOT [payment in lieu of taxes] bill or some other help, we’re going to make that a prerequisite for something like that happening.”
* Last week, Pritzker was asked about the “core issue” of paying off the debt. His response…
That is not the core issue. Let’s just let me step back for a second, because I know there have been a lot of reporting about that. You know, the Bears don’t owe that. That is a decision that government leaders made years ago to borrow that money to create the Bears stadium.
I mean, the Bears, of course, as a result of them playing at Soldier Field and paying rent, essentially at Soldier Field, are helping to pay the bills on that. But I just want to be clear that the actual fiscal responsibility, the financial responsibility for that debt, does not fall on the Bears.
Having said that, we do not want to leave the city of Chicago or the state of Illinois with enormous debt that goes unpaid. And so we have to figure out how that happens that does not fall entirely on the Bears. So just wanted to disabuse people of that notion in terms of the dynamics.
You know, we’ve been really clear about what we’ve been willing to do as a state, and there have been lots of discussions over time and recently with the Bears to make sure that they know what those options are. And I believe it’s best for the bears to stay in the state of Illinois. I’ve always said that I do not think the fans want the Chicago Bears to be based anywhere else except in the state of Illinois.
I think this Indiana gambit may have some folks spooked a bit. Either way, the tone has changed. State capital money for infrastructure is still on the table and has been from the beginning. But there remains zero appetite to shovel state GRF money at the team to build its stadium complex. Republican gubernatorial candidate Darren Bailey rcently whacked Pritzker for allowing the Bears to consider Indiana, but would not, in the end, support giving the team tax money…
When asked whether he supports using taxpayer money to fund stadiums for sports teams, however, Bailey said he has never been in the conversations.
“I support keeping teams. It’s big business. It needs to stay in Illinois. Right now, I don’t think the people of Illinois would support that until we get our taxes down,” Bailey said.
Property taxes, as indicated above, might be a different story because that’s on the locals, not the state.
* Last week, we linked to former Rep. Mark Batinick’s white paper on the Bears stadium. He focuses mainly on property taxes…
The Bears’ challenge becomes clearer when viewed alongside comparable stadiums across the country:
Metro Area - Stadium - Approx. Annual Property Tax
Los Angeles - SoFi Stadium - ~$8.1 million
Dallas - AT&T Stadium - $0
Las Vegas - Allegiant Stadium - $0
Chicago’s own facilities follow the same pattern:
• Soldier Field: $0
• Guaranteed Rate Field: $0
• Wrigley Field: ~$2.7 million
• United Center: ~$6.1 million
None are taxed anywhere near Cook County’s full commercial rate. If they were, none would exist.
The Bears Are Already Paying More Than Before
Ironically, Cook County is already collecting more in property taxes from the Bears’ Arlington Heights site today than it did before.
The Bears currently pay approximately $3.6 million per year in property taxes — more than the roughly $3 million collected when the property operated as a racetrack. Yet the site now produces no jobs, no sales tax, no hotel tax, and no surrounding economic activity.
From a taxpayer perspective, this is effectively the high-water mark under the current system.
Discuss.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 2:14 pm:
== None are taxed anywhere near Cook County’s full commercial rate. If they were, none would exist. ==
Sounds like they shouldn’t exist then. Why are we subsidizing multibillion dollar companies?
Los Angeles had it right. The NFL has always needed LA more than LA needed the NFL. The same is true of every large market city.
Stop bowing to emotional terrorists who hold your sports fandom hostage to extract public benefits for private companies.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 2:15 pm:
My problem isn’t that they want a steep discount on the property taxes for their stadium, my problem is that they want and expect that discount on the development that they’re planning to build around the stadium which at this time would appear to be owned by the organization.
Why should hotels, restaurants, bars, and other venues that they build get preferential treatment?
Aside from their ability to profit, it also means that they will be in a position to unfairly compete against existing hotels, entertainment venues, and other areas of the city developed to facilitate large conferences, conventions, and concerts.
If they want preferential tax treatment, perhaps we should break the property down into multiple parcels and discuss the merits of each one — of each development.
I don’t like the idea of making a family of billionaires richer at the expense of others.
Why do their hotels need a tax break to be built?
- DuPage Moderate - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 2:15 pm:
I system is completely broken and it would be nice for everyone to acknowledge that instead of pointing fingers. Each one of these tax issues becomes more about “what’s in it for me” rather than what’s good for Illinois.
I pay $173,000 of property taxes on a North Side Chicago building this is worth, maybe, $3,000,000. I can’t sell it because the tax bill is too high. So, soon enough, it will go back to the bank.
The Bears have a much bigger impact on its residence than my business, and for that, I would like them to stay; but the whole system is an unfair mess that cannot be fixed because the tax eaters continually want more and more.
The state will cut them a deal - because that’s what they do - and maybe should do to benefit the citizens of Illinois. But, like always, the average resident or investor is going to take it in the pants as a result of it.
And JB, the consummate tax reducer/dodger, and Johnson, the consummate tax eater, don’t have any credibility to speak on this issue.
- Oklahoma - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 2:17 pm:
Seems like the Bears should strike a lease deal with the Arlington Heights Park District for the field, and pay what they owe in taxes on their Bearsville commercial development.
- Think again - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 2:20 pm:
=That is not the core issue. Let’s just let me step back for a second, because I know there have been a lot of reporting about that. You know, the Bears don’t owe that=
I, like many commenters, have been saying this for months. For JB to be taken seriously, he must modify his message to match the facts. Glad he finally did.
- Thought folly - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 2:21 pm:
===the bears are paying more than before===
The former leader conveniently leaves out the fact they now pay more only after the (unsuccessfully) arguing the value of the Arlington heights site should be assessed as $35 million ($60 million) less than the valuation the former owner agreed to ($90 million)
“Property taxes in Cook County lag by a year, leaving former owner Churchill Downs on the hook for the first bill at the higher value. Churchill Downs appealed to the Board of Review, then negotiated a one-year agreement with the school districts, which rely on property taxes for their funding and intervened in the appeal, for a $95 million value.
The responsibility for the bill then shifted to the Bears, who continued to negotiate with the districts.
At a January 30 Board of Review hearing on the issue, the Bears’ attorney said the team submitted two appraisals, one for $60 million and the other for $71 million. The Bears’ lawyer argued the Assessor’s Office inflated the value of the land relative to other, similarly sized sales, asking the Board of Review to reduce the value to $60 million.“
https://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/bears-school-districts-fail-to-reach-deal-on-arlington-heights-property-value-by-deadline/3359161/?amp=1
- Jerry - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 3:14 pm:
The Bears can’t afford to build the new HQ which is why they are mooching off of taxpayers….AGAIN.
Tax Certainty for Illinois taxpayers and no more Government Entitlements for the Bears from Illinois.
If Indiana wants to give away Free Handouts and they move, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
- TC - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 3:28 pm:
No doubt, JB’s tone has changed. But the biggest obstacle to passing the Bears’ Arlington Heights bill remains — and that’s the difficulty in getting Chicago General Assembly members to vote for it. I can’t think of a single example of legislators voting to give tax breaks to a business so it can leave the town they represent. Maybe the threat of going to Indiana changes the mindset of Chicago members. We’ll see.
- Save Ferris - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 3:32 pm:
Taxes of $5mm-$10mm on whatever portion of the 326 acre parcel is designated as “Stadium” plus 100% straightforward assessment of the portion designated as “Entertainment District” works for me.
And I don’t even live in AH.
- Juice - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 3:37 pm:
My main complaint with Batinick’s paper is its assumption on what the Bears would actually owe on property taxes on their new stadium, which I believe he pins at $200+ million based on a $3 billion development.
But that’s not how commercial property taxes work in Illinois. The assessed value is going to be determined based on the income generated by the property.
The development itself is supposed to be mixed use. I don’t see any reason why the residential portions of the property should be treated any differently than other residential properties in Arlington Heights.
Similarly, for the non-football commercial properties, same thing.
My next point comes with the giant caveat that it is my reading of the statute that the property tax deal that was put in place for the United Center has expired. But I could be wrong on that. But the UC reportedly has a property tax bill of $6.1 million.
According to Forbes (so also a huge caveat on that) the Bulls have an operating income of $160 million and the Hawks have an operating income of $86 million. Forbes pegs the operating income of the Bears at $80 million. I would assume that income for the team will increase based on owning the stadium, and that the capitalization rate would be higher than an NBA and NHL team potentially.
But I don’t know if we are looking at an assessed value that is exponentially greater than what the UC is currently paying. (Plus, I would assume that some portion of the income would be attributable to Halas Hall and not the stadium, though not sure how that works.)
This is all a long way of saying that the one person who really needs to be more front and center on this topic is the assessor and how do they plan on treating the project once complete. But the Bears seem to be publicly talking as if they are going to be facing a tax bill that’s in the hundreds of millions of dollars once complete, and without the assessor showing some of their work of what the future would look like, it appears all parties involved are looking at this issue without a total lack of information.
- Telly - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 3:40 pm:
I guess the state has been focused on college football, but I get no sense that anyone in Indiana is applying any scrutiny to their Bears proposal. The bill that was filed last week gives the newly created NW Indiana stadium authority the ability to issue bonds, but it doesn’t say how they’ll actually pay for them. Kind of an important detail if you’re gonna be floating $2 to $3 billion in bonds.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 3:42 pm:
Pritzker’s big dilemma. No one wants public subsidies for the Bears but no one wants the team to leave. Arlington Heights makes the most fiscal sense…they own the land. Infrastructure help plus? to get them to stay.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 4:01 pm:
“I don’t think the people of Illinois would support that until we get our taxes down”
Cutting taxes for corporate handouts, that’s Eastern Bloc math?
The Bears had a smashing success of a year, something to build on hopefully (kick the field goals next time and take the points). There is joy and hope in Bearville. The Bears are responsible for remaining a better team, and improving, to make it more attractive to taxpayers.
- Casper the Ghost Bus - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 4:20 pm:
So right after a transit debate that includes tough votes to invest in the system and underserved areas that have been waiting for stations and stops, the Bears show up and say, hey, we’re gonna get all the transit we want in Arlington Heights and it will be paid for by someone else, right? And exactly when do we get to see what that infrastructure ask and costs are?
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 4:41 pm:
=No one wants public subsidies for the Bears but no one wants the team to leave.=
Given the choice I would bid them adieu. As their last stadium deal underscores, these are short term decisions with long term taxpayer consequences. Debt gets refinanced again and again, payments are skipped, and the taxpayer obligation balloons. We’ve seen this movie far too many times and know how it ends. It’s time to say no to billionaire sports owners just as the taxpayers in Missouri did with the Super Bowl winning Chiefs. If the Indiana taxpayers want to be foolish so be it. Pritzker and the taxpayers will be just fine without them.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 4:44 pm:
Rep. Batanick leaves out a very critical point.
Property taxes are $0 for Dallas, Las Vegas, Soldier Field and Guaranteed Rate because the land is owned by public bodies: the City of Arlington, TX, LV Sports Authority, Chicago Park District, and IL Sports Authority.
Why property taxes for Wrigley are so low is a head scratcher. But Jerry Reinsdorf is a tax code genius, so the United Center’s taxes dont surprise me, just keep in mind that stadium ownership and team ownership are different.
So, what the Bears want is something no one else gets, and not even Indiana is offering: private ownership with the tax status of a public body but none of the public oversight or transparency.
It is a bad deal.
And its motivated by the desire to enrich the current team owners when they sell it, so they can list the stadium entertainment complex as an asset.
A cleaner path forward is to offer the team the same deal Indiana has: rent to own, the stadium is yours when you pay it off. Or, the Bears could easily swap the land to the Arlington Heights park district for a $1 in exchange for a stadium lease. They would be paying $0 property taxes and can work with the park district to build the venue to precisely suit their tastes.
- Sue - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 4:44 pm:
“the Bears show up and say, hey, we’re gonna get all the transit we want in Arlington Heights and it will be paid for by someone else, right?”
There is a Metra stop there already. That’s not a relevant issue — though I don’t know how much expanded capacity a Metra line is capable of relative to, say, the trains they run every 20 minutes or half hour during rush hour.
- Mark Batinick - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 5:32 pm:
Yellow Dog @4:41 — The “trick” others have done is to have a government body “own” the stadium. But the tenant “controls” everything and gets the naming rights, profits from events, etc. The Chiefs will have a 30 year lease with 30 years of options. The Chiefs control it for 60 years while only paying for 40%. The Bears are offering to comletely pay for the stadium. And their property tax bill will likely be the highest in the nation for a stadium. I’m not sure how structuring the deal so they pay $0 in property taxes is better for citizens. Past deals were losers. This one doesn’t have to be. BTW, I’ve been told that J.R. got special legislation passed to lock in property taxes on the UC. So this isn’t a new thing. Wrigley MAY be low bc of historical status.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 7:16 pm:
=Past deals were losers. This one doesn’t have to be.=
History tells us that these deals are always a loser for the taxpayers. And part of that is due to the fact that the politicians cutting these lousy deals aren’t around to deal with the consequences. Whether its parking meters, the renovation of Soldier Field, we’ve seen how today’s good deal becomes financial boat anchor for the future.
I’m looking for deals that prioritize education, mental health, and healthcare, for the citizens of Illinois. If we’re concerned about providing property tax certainty for the future maybe we should prioritize doing so for homeowners. Trust me, the billionaires will be just fine.
- JB13 - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 7:56 pm:
You all can cheer him on if you want.
But it would be a national embarrassment for Pritzker if he were seen to just shrug his shoulders and allowed the Bears to move to Indiana.
I believe most of you here when you say you don’t believe public money should be used to help the Bears.
I am much more skeptical when those pronouncements are made by Chicago politicians who appear to be much more offended at the notion that the Bears would spurn their beloved city, then they are offended at the thought of wasting taxpayer money
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 20, 26 @ 11:18 pm:
===There is a Metra stop there already. That’s not a relevant issue===
Pretty sure the existing Metra station won’t suffice.
- Sue - Wednesday, Jan 21, 26 @ 9:09 am:
“Pretty sure the existing Metra station won’t suffice.”
Truly, I don’t understand the point you and the other commenter were making. Do you think the platform isn’t large enough for all the fans to stand on? That they need to build crowd-control gates? Add more vending machines? I’m at a loss as to what would need to be changed as far as the Metra station is concerned.