Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Bears told property tax fairness/certainty go both ways

Posted in:

Illinois

* Last month, Chicago Bears CEO and President Kevin Warren said that the company was looking for “property tax fairness” from Arlington Heights, but complained they hadn’t received it and were therefore looking at other towns to host the team. He also said this week that talks with the school districts are at “stalemate” and said Arlington Heights was not providing the team with tax “certainty.” The Daily Herald’s Christopher Placek talked with a school board member who’s been trying to get some answers from the Bears this year…

“I think he spoke very eloquently. A lot of what he said was positive. But our biggest concern is we really need to know more about the impact study and the traffic study,” [Northwest Suburban High School District 214 board member Frank Fiarito] said. “To us, that’s very important. And like he wants certainty with the taxes, it’s the same with the school districts, too.”

It’s an example of the chicken and the egg: The Bears want to come to agreement over property tax payments before proceeding with their $5 billion mixed-use commercial and residential redevelopment. But the schools want details first about what such a project would mean for their enrollments and if they’ll get commensurate revenues to teach new students and even build new schools. […]

While discussions are centered on the 2023 and 2024 assessment years, legislation the NFL franchise is backing in Springfield would freeze the assessment for up to 40 years.

Under the proposed Payments in Lieu of Taxes financing mechanism, annual payments to the schools and other taxing bodies would also be subject to negotiation.

“If we are going to get stuck where it is a PILOT program and taxes are frozen, then obviously we would not benefit,” Fiarito said.

* Also, this Warren statement from earlier in the week is just blatantly false…

“We’re not trying to skirt any taxes,” [Warren] said. “We’re not asking for any unique breaks. I’m hoping we’ll get back to the table with the school boards. We have to figure out if Arlington Heights is really a viable option.”

Um, they’re trying to pass a bill in Springfield to give the team a very unique tax break.

* Meanwhile…

Add Aurora to the growing list of suburbs that have invited the Chicago Bears to consider as part of the NFL franchise’s relocation plans.

Aurora officials said they sent a letter touting the state’s second-largest city as a destination for the Bears to build a new stadium, joining Arlington Heights, Naperville and Waukegan.

“Upon receipt of the letter, representatives of the Chicago Bears organization responded quickly and positively,” an Aurora news release stated.

Comments

“A Modest Proposal” …

Is there a suitable tract of land in unincorporated Cook County? Maybe Cook County could come up with a proposal for such a tract of land (and, yes, they’d have to work with the Township).

Comment by A Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 11:52 am
Years ago, the Bears had the option to buy some land in Aurora (we didn’t think it would happen). The land is now being developed into a data center (across 88 from a different data center).

Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 11:56 am
=$5 billion mixed-use commercial and residential redevelopment=

The team is worth about $6 billion. The redevelopment is worth $5 billion. So eventually a $11 billion operation is looking to skirt a few million in taxes every year that will fund basic services in a city they want to call home?

Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 11:58 am
Unincorporated areas are still covered by school districts.

Comment by StarLineChicago Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 11:58 am
===Um, they’re trying to pass a bill in Springfield to give the team a very unique tax break.===

It’s very disingenuous to say the Bears aren’t looking for any breaks or help, especially from the state…

… when 60-30-1 is required… by state officials.

Warren is likely over his head, has proven in the past he can’t complete big deals with many moving parts, and no one is stopping the Bears from chucking all this nonsense and just building the building… since the Bears decided not to do any pre-purchase preparations as to what will happen after purchase… and seemingly negotiated zero with AH, school boards, or the state before quietly buying the land… such geniuses.

Not one nickel. Not one…

… unless it starts here, for me;

Bears Deal Parameters (I’d like to see)

* Pay $300 million (over 10 years) to Chicago for the bonds.

* No relief for stadium footprint. Taxing “relief” for surrounding complex

** Tax relief for 5-year period, renewable for 5 additional years, maximum 2 renewals, both side need to agree to renewal.

* Infrastructure upgrades (roads, sewers, local traffic) done by the state

Frame things around these parameters, then I can see how a Bears Bailout can work.

The Bears can easily get a $100 million, MINIMUM (look at the SoFi deal in Los Angeles) 12 year naming rights deal “today”

The Bears will have PSL fees, skybox purchases, tickets *in* the skyboxes too, and “partners and sponsors” for in-stadium revenues, let alone concessions, all things bought inside the building.

There’s parking, game parking, all parking that will be revenues each time the facility is used.

The Bears currently carry 2% debt, the NFL will back the note.

The Bears will get a “worth windfall” totaling between $200-400 million on the approved sale of the Washington Commanders.

So… asking the Bears to pony up $300 million (over 10 years) for a deal that’s maximum 15 years, start there.

Otherwise the Billionaire Bears Bailout is horrendous, especially and pointedly for Chicago and schools’ funding around the site.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 11:59 am
Waiting to hear that Decatur has sent a letter.

“Return to their roots” and all.

Comment by Chris Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:00 pm
The Bears can certainly pay a real estate tax that is calculated based upon levies and assessments like the majority of property in Illinois.

Comment by Eyeball Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:04 pm
=== Um, they’re trying to pass a bill in Springfield to give the team a very unique tax break. ===

Just yesterday he said negotiations were too convoluted. Maybe he forgot this very important part of the plan?

I’d like to see the Bears in Arlington Heights, and I don’t mind if that requires a reasonable, negotiated incentive package. But Kevin Warren does not seem capable of landing this plane. The Bears need to find a new point person.

Comment by vern Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:16 pm
So I’m to understand the Bears organization paid 197 million for a piece of land only worth 33 and taxpayers are supposed to make up the difference?

Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:17 pm
Ahh the daily Bears discussion. I defer to OW for obvious reasons. One thing I will say is that I am not impressed with this Warren guy. No impact study no traffic study but hey taxpayers give us tax relief. Hey Bears go fly a kite

Comment by regular democrat Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:19 pm
Can we talk about the team on the field instead of this stadium issue? It would be much more enjoyable.

I think it would be ironic if the Bears progressed with Justin Fields to the point where they can compete for a Super Bowl at the same time the team gets up and leaves Illinois.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:26 pm
(Tips cap, humbly, to - regular democrat -)

How does Warren square the 1/3 of a billion (with a B) windfall of added worth come July 21st as a team needing “help” with money issues…

Not one nickel. Nope.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:37 pm
The Mayor of Murphysboro put out a press release calling on the bears to move there.

Comment by Captain Applesauce Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:47 pm
=The Bears will have PSL fees, skybox purchases, tickets *in* the skyboxes too, and “partners and sponsors” for in-stadium revenues, let alone concessions, all things bought inside the building.

There’s parking, game parking, all parking that will be revenues each time the facility is used.=

And consider that the Bears will be selling tickets to a stadium that probably will seat 17,000 more people than they currently have. The Bears average ticket is $234. That’s an additional $4,000,000 a game in just seat revenue.

10 home games 2 pre/8 regular season = $40,000,000 a year.

Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:49 pm
In a less than serious note, build a stadium for Taylor Swift and then let the Bears rent it. Taylor Swift has been a whole lot more successful lately than the Bears have been. And it appears, that she is a lot smarter too.

Comment by Appears Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:53 pm
“property tax relief” is just a nice way of saying “Welfare”.

Taxpayers have already built them a stadium. Dont like it? Sell. Move. But dont mooch.

Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:54 pm
Hold tight, Arlington Heights! This is all just noise designed to wear everyone down.

Comment by Politix Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 12:55 pm
==at the same time the team gets up and leaves Illinois

I feel like this has to be a joke. Right? Go where? NWI? Kenosha? Or move to a market significantly smaller?

Season ticket holders complain about traffic in/out the city. They’re gonna drive to Gary now? Nothing says ’smooth traffic free flow’ like 90 or 94

I’d be bummed if they left, but the NFL would have a new team lined up that-same-year and there’s zero chance they’d be worse.

Comment by jimbo Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 1:16 pm
The Bears spent $190M+ on a stadium and now need to decide if it’s viable? I’m shocked. But then again this is the franchise that traded up for Mitchell Trubisky only to soon discover that their quarterback wasn’t viable.

Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 1:23 pm
Connor Bedard is about to be drafted and has super human powers, can he fix this too?

Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 1:35 pm
They should be clearer. Are they seeking tax relief on whole thing or just the land that the stadium sits on. Why should they get relief on any residential portion or hotels or commercial? I am against any but maybe they could try for just stadium. I mean if they have a residential component those people would get a tax break and a block away a residential area that has been there for years gets none? No to it all pay up like everyone else

Comment by DuPage Saint Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 1:36 pm
=== I feel like this has to be a joke. Right? Go where? NWI? Kenosha? Or move to a market significantly smaller? ===

They can go anywhere. Just look at some of the other teams that couldn’t get a stadium in their current location. Chargers moved from San Diego to LA and The Raiders moved from Oakland to Las Vegas. The world is their oyster.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 2:16 pm
Which is it?

Not one nickel or 5 years of certainly followed by 2 five year options negotiated with the local governments?

Why not follow best practices of other successful developments like Wrigley Field?

Imagine Wrigleyville in Arlington Heights?

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 2:24 pm
===The world is their oyster===

The NFL is gonna open up the third largest media market in the country?

lol

It’s way too early to be taking hallucinatory drugs.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 2:25 pm
The biggest NFL embarrassment was the Los Angeles market vacant.

The NFL was so bent on making that right it ensured the market had two franchises, and put San Diego as part of the package to try to appease San Diego fans.

Cleveland … they lost the Browns and the NFL expeditiously not only got a franchise there, they helped ensure the Browns name couldn’t travel (unlike the Colts, where ironically the old Browns went, but I digress)

The largest solo media market in the league is not what the McCaskeys are willing to give up, with all that “cash poor” billionaire ridiculousness, and to sell… no one is buying the Salt Lake City Bears…

This franchise overplayed with a clandestine land purchase they refused to lock in guarantees before purchase.

The Bears are staying in this market. The price of this error in location is yet to be seen.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 2:32 pm
(Sigh)

===Which is it?

Not one nickel or…===

Yeah, I’m gonna stop ya. Right here.

Not one nickel, these plans? You got that right. Not one. There’s nothing to these silly ideas that warrant state or muni support for a franchise that will be worth, roughly, $6.2 billion, with a b, after July 21st, a 1/3 of a billion of worth “earned” by a sale of another franchise.

When adults talk, understanding parameters of deals that are feasible for both parties, that means both parties don’t win everything.

I’ve said since jump street, infrastructure, if the Bears lock in their own financing, I’m in on infastructure.

You, with childlike wonderment, can’t grasp why the Bears can’t get 105% of all they want with no cost to the Bears.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 2:38 pm
This alone…

===Why not follow best practices of other successful developments like Wrigley Field?===

Wrigley Field was a renovation of existing infrastructure, it’s also for 12 years, saving $8 million

Those are not the parameters nor the construction similarities of this Bears situation.

You know this, yet you keep pretending there’s “but this” in anything that you can deflect.

Not one nickel. Not one.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 2:42 pm
“They can go anywhere.”

San Diego and Oakland wouldn’t build stadiums for their incumbent teams, why the Bears?

Most viable options are probably San Antonio, SLC, Toronto in some order.

Suppose they could be the 3d NJ team, and still call themselves the Chicago Bears, since no one .

The question is not “where could they go?”, but “where can they find a sucker?”

San Antonio seems like the best bet.

Comment by anon (tfo) Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 2:46 pm
===San Antonio seems like the best bet.===

Jerry Jones has already vetoed one known and one unconfirmed move to San Antonio. That’s not an option.

Toronto only made sense for the Bills, which is why NY state moved as they did, as that (Toronto) option was also ok with the NFL.

Moving from the largest unshared media market to, say, Salt Lake City would cost the McCaskeys maybe $2 billion in worth and they’d likely lose the “Bears” name

There are no options.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 2:53 pm
Except the value of the Cubs franchise is approximately the same as the Bears.

Can you explain why vacant land should be taxed 10 times what Wrigley Field has been?

Property tax certainty allowed the Cubs to develop Wrigleyville

Do you see the taxes at Wrigley rising to where the Bears are at now before the stadium is even built anytime soon?

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 2:57 pm
=The Bears want to come to agreement over property tax payments before proceeding with their $5 billion mixed-use commercial and residential redevelopment. =

Sure, no problem. $5 billion? Your taxes will be figured on an EAV (33 1/3% of Fair Market Value) means they will be taxed on $1.65 Billion.

That is how are system works.

I won’t call Warren a liar when he says they are not asking for anything special all the while asking for something special. I will call him delusional.

Exactly why shouldn’t the bears pay property tax like everyone else?

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:03 pm
Please spare us all the lecture on the Cubs. They’ve threatened to move too.

One location mentioned was where the Schaumburg Boomers (nee Flyers) play.

And if memory serves me correctly they tried to get Rahm to cough up money and he told them to take a long walk off a short pier (to his credit). Not sure if he’s Sox fan or not.

Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:05 pm
=== It’s way too early to be taking hallucinatory drugs. ===

Maybe Ken Griffin will buy the Bears and move them to Florida just to spite Chicago and the State of Illinois /s LOL

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:13 pm
The Bears should have thought about the property taxes when they bought the property from Churchill Downs.

Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:18 pm
===Except the value of the Cubs===

No.

The revenues of the Cubs versus the revenues of the Bears.

See, that’s why the New York Jets and New York Giants are equal in that with league revenues.

The Chicago Cubs are a large market franchise, while it’s continually argued the Chicago White Sox are a small market franchise… why the A’s moving made sense, and why the Chargers sharing a market in Los Angeles made sense… revenues in each case are driven differently.

The Cubs worked with folks, the Bears bought and now want a deal. I can’t help inept purchases, nor can I help that you don’t understand simple construction, like renovation versus new.

If the Bears want $8 million in breaks, off what is assessed, over 12 years, I’d take that deal, LOL… so would Cook County, and the school boards.

You are out of your depth here. You are not talking to Facebook silly folks, as commenters here push back on you, not just me, but others that are showing your dishonesty.

===Do you see the taxes at Wrigley rising to where the Bears are at now before the stadium is even built anytime soon?===

Another Facebook deflection.

What, you don’t like my plan, lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:20 pm
Willy I only have one question for you:

Are you a Bears fan? Answer honestly.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:22 pm
===The world is their oyster===

There would be at least two or three teams would fight each other to move here, not to mention a chance to the league to get serious $$$ for a couple of expansion teams.

Chicago ain’t LA.

Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:24 pm
Its a little more complicated than you make it, OW (with respect).

The Cubs weren’t happy with the rooftops stealing their product.

But they won a World Series and now make you pay to watch a not very good team.

Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:31 pm
=== Are you a Bears fan? Answer honestly.===

I am an unabashedly a Bears fan. I cry every time I watch “Brian’s Song” for the love of Pete.

But, what it appears is missing is what I despise. I say it quite often.

I can’t stand bad baseball, I can’t stand bad politics. I despise both. They make me ill. I can’t watch either.

The Bears thing is just bad politics.

If they’d like my help, they can send me a number to reach them, “off-air”

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:34 pm
=== Its a little more complicated than you make it, OW (with respect).===

With respect, it just isn’t. “Why?”

=== The Cubs weren’t happy with the rooftops stealing their product.===

“Why?”… Revenues.

And why is revenue different in MLB franchises than the NFL? No billion dollar uber-sharing television package that makes equity in product possible, with a salary cap, not a luxury tax.

It is that simple.

The Cubs revenue is why they created their own network… and the NFL shared all that dough… and a network for the league that’s far different than the MLB network could ever be

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:49 pm
=Wrigley Field=

Entirely owned by the Ricketts.

=Solider Field=

Entirely owned by the City of Chicago.

Above all the specifics here, the Ricketts own the building and heck now they own most of the surrounding street scape. And no tax dollars were sent to the Cubs to support the $700-$900 million remodel.

Rahm a few years back “”They came and they wanted a break on the amusement tax, all of this, and I said I’m not gonna have the taxpayers subsidize this, it’s not gonna happen. Twice they tried, not happening,” Emanuel said.

Did I miss the property tax break on the hotel the Cubs built? Or the purchase of all the rooftops? Help me out here by showing me how Billionaire owners of the Cubs got a ton of help from the city or state.

And the Bears pay $6,400,000 in rent at Solider Field. Again if they build a 80,000 stadium - just adding 17,000 seats nets them about $40,000,000 more a year in seat revenue…. just selling seats.

Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:50 pm
I agree OW.

Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:57 pm
- Jerry -

It’s all good, bud. And - Cool Papa Bell - has it down too.

Be well.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 3:59 pm
If Aurora is serious about pitching their city to the Bears, it might behoove them to quickly settle the lawsuit against them by the ACLU and Aurora Pride over their clearly unconstitutional parade permit ordinance. They’re losing, are destined to lose, and it’s bad press and a bad look for the city.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 4:42 pm
As someone who had a second row seat to the entire Cubs tax subsidy request or Rahm circus Cool Papa Bell above is entirely correct in his recollection of how that went down.

Also before anyone else makes a masterful “The Cubs and Bears teams have the same valuation but such different property tax bills(banned punctuation)” analysis you could fit about 60 Wrigley Field (and adjacent Gallagher Way plaza thing) into the 326 acres the Bears bought with for $198,000,000…without wait for it…a property tax certainty contingency in the purchase contract.

Comment by ChicagoBars Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 4:53 pm
Ah geez, what a mess of punctuation that last comment was. My apologies to all involved. Going to go look for the missing commas in a cold beer.

Comment by ChicagoBars Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 4:54 pm
==They can go anywhere. … Chargers moved from San Diego to LA and The Raiders moved from Oakland to Las Vegas.

HL- you likely won’t see this but: 1)Small market to large. #2) is actually a larger market to small move, but truthfully Oakland is the outlier in that MSA. It’d be more akin to the Gary Bears having never been in Chicago and moving out of market.

The market value of the Bears organization takes a hit if they leave the market. Period.

Comment by jimbo Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 5:13 pm
Coming way late to this, but have to challenge LP’s claim that “Except the value of the Cubs franchise is approximately the same as the Bears.”

Forbes 2022 value of Bears: $5.8 billion
Forbes 2022 value of Ricketts family sports holdings: $3.73 billion.
Difference Bears +$2.07 billion

That’s a darned loose definition of “approximately.” Way to play fast and loose with unsupported claims. How can you expect to be taken seriously? No, really: Ask yourself that question.

Comment by Flapdoodle Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 8:40 pm
Here is a link that supports my claim. Is 5 and 4.7 billion close enough to take seriously?

These are estimated values

Here is a link that says the Cubs are the 4th most valuable MLB team at 4.7 billion

https://www.sportico.com/feature/mlb-team-values-rankings-list-1234715821/

Bears valued at 5 billion, the 6th most valuable NFL franchise

https://amp.marca.com/en/nfl/2023/04/15/643a5d1d22601d836f8b45fc.html

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Jun 28, 23 @ 11:19 pm
Here’s the sitch on value.

The Bears are valued higher than the Commanders, no matter what list, who is analyzing the dollars, “The Bears are more valuable”

The Commanders are being sold for $6.05 billion, that’s their “value”

The McCaskeys’ Bears are worth more than $6 billion in real dollars.

That’s it.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 6:12 am
- Lucky Pierre -

Please don’t “value shop”

Marca? Sportico?

Your dishonesty is predicated on shopping for a max value of the Cubs, a lower value of the Bears…

… and ignoring the Commanders sale, of $6.05 billion… a franchise worth less than the McCaskey’s franchise.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 29, 23 @ 7:22 am