Chicago’s acting CFO registers city’s opposition to Bears bill

Listen to the article 4 min

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

In an escalating battle between legislatures in Illinois and Indiana over the location of the Chicago Bears, Chicago’s interim CFO is walking a fine line.

After Indiana Gov. Mike Braun late last week signed legislation designed to lure the Bears to build a new stadium in Hammond, Indiana, lawmakers in Illinois took up their own proposal in hopes of keeping the team in their state.

The latter legislation, approved by an Illinois House committee on the same day Indiana’s bill became law, would halt property tax assessments on sites of “megaprojects” — such as a new Bears stadium — and allow developers to arrange agreements for payments in lieu of taxes with local governments, according to local media outlet Capital News Illinois.

The bill has not yet been approved by the full House, which won’t convene again until March 18.

So why, then, did Chicago interim Chief Financial Officer Steven Mahr speak in opposition to his own state’s proposal last week?

In a nutshell, the Illinois bill may incentivize the Bears to stay in Illinois, but not necessarily in Chicago proper. The village of Arlington Heights, Illinois, remains a top contender for a new stadium to replace Chicago’s existing Soldier Field, located on the 57-acre Museum Campus property along Lake Michigan. The team’s current stadium is the oldest and the smallest in the National Football League, which is likely driving the team’s desire to build a new one. 

After the Illinois committee approved the measure on Thursday, Arlington Heights leadership released a statement hailing it as “an important step in keeping the Bears in Illinois.”

The Bears, in the past, have said they’d invest upwards of $2 billion to build a new stadium in Arlington Heights.

The fight for the Bears is a reminder of the many competing forces and stakeholders municipal CFOs must reckon with. On behalf of Chicago City Hall, Mahr filed an opposition slip against the Illinois bill.

“If the state is willing to support infrastructure spending elsewhere, either through direct or indirect subsidy to facilitate a new sports stadium, then the state should be willing to support infrastructure spending in and around the Museum Campus for a similar development,” Mahr was quoted by Illinois Capital News as saying. “With such a commitment, the city of Chicago and the Park District would submit multiple viable proposals for a new publicly owned sports stadium in Chicago.”

Mahr was named acting CFO of Chicago last month after prior finance chief Jill Jaworski left for the same job at tourist destination Navy Pier.

Lawmakers who represent Chicago in the legislature, too, would likely seek concessions for moving the team from their longtime home at Soldier Field, the news outlet reported.

Indiana’s legislation, meanwhile, “outlines a financial structure for a Chicago Bears stadium” in Hammond, the Chicago Tribune reported.

For their part, the Bears have remained mostly circumspect in response to the dueling proposals before them. “Indiana has taken important steps over the last few months, and we are grateful for the leadership reflected by Governor Braun signing SB 27, establishing the framework for a stadium development in Northwest Indiana,” the team said in a statement quoted by the Tribune. “We continue to work on the necessary due diligence and appreciate the ongoing engagement with Indiana state and local leaders.”

And, for what it’s worth, at least one Illinois lawmaker doesn’t see what’s happening as a “competition” between his state and Indiana.

“I think what they have done there and what they have rolled out has not risen to a level of the pandemonium that’s been surrounding it,” Illinois state rep. Kam Buckner told the Chicago Tribune. “I think that there’s still people in that state that either don’t know or are unsure about the smorgasbord of tax increases that’s attached to their proposal. We’re doing our job.”