Arlington Heights warms to public stadium ownership model

When Chicago Bears brass first came to Arlington Heights looking to redevelop the sprawling Arlington Park property, there was never a suggestion that their envisioned stadium on the former racetrack grounds would be owned by the Northwest suburban municipality.

Village officials weren’t interested in such an arrangement, and the Bears wanted to hold the keys to the front gates, anyway.

But five years after the NFL franchise signed an agreement to buy the prime acreage — and now with the chance that the team could go to Northwest Indiana instead — the political dynamics and realities of the moment have brought about a growing comfort level at Arlington Heights village hall to a public stadium ownership model.

Legislation to be considered this week in Springfield — where the veto session begins Tuesday — would allow Arlington Heights, Chicago and other big towns in Cook County to create their own municipal stadium authorities, then enter into lease deals and other agreements with the team.

The location-neutral legislation — a version of which cleared the state Senate in the waning hours of the spring session June 1 — is seen as more politically palatable to various voting blocs under the Capitol dome, from Chicago-based legislators who have been reluctant to ease the team’s path to a suburban relocation, to progressives and others unwilling to help subsidize a corporation worth an estimated $9 billion.

So-called megaproject legislation that the Bears lobbied for over much of the last five years, which would have given the team a 40-year-long property tax break at the 326-acre Arlington Park site, passed the state House in April, but was dead on arrival in the other chamber.

That’s why, since the General Assembly adjourned, most everyone involved behind the scenes in the stadium saga has focused much of their energy on crafting tweaks to the surviving bill, which would enable the Bears to build a publicly-owned stadium without paying property taxes.

“We don’t know exactly what we’re going to get, if we get anything, out of this veto session,” said Arlington Heights Mayor Jim Tinaglia. “We are crossing our fingers and hoping that all of the lawmakers can work together in a productive way to get one of these options over the finish line, and I’m confident that we can absolutely work with the basics of whatever we’re given. We’ve given an enormous amount of thought to both types of bills, and we’re confident that we get to the same end result, regardless of which bill has the legs to get through.”

Movement on the leading stadium authority proposal has raised all sorts of questions in Arlington Heights, where village leaders initially lobbied together with three area school districts in support of the megaproject bill — for what it could portend for economic development and new revenues in local coffers.

While having warmed to the public stadium concept in recent months, village officials now find themselves having to convince school superintendents and boards — who mostly rely on local property taxes to fund education — as well as local homeowners concerned they could be on the hook for increased taxes for the $5 billion stadium and mixed-use district redevelopment.

Under a preliminary scenario being discussed, the Bears — who have committed to building, funding and managing the stadium on their own — would pay yearly rent to the Arlington Heights-run stadium authority that is inclusive of monies for local taxing bodies.

Negotiated payments covering what otherwise would have been a property tax bill — not unlike the setup contemplated by the megaproject bill — would be divvied up by proportion, so that schools get about two-thirds and other local governments get the rest.

The Arlington Heights authority, which would have a five-member board of directors and executive director, would ink a master agreement with the Bears, and side intergovernmental agreements with the school districts and other taxing bodies.

In effect, the Arlington Heights public agency would own the stadium on paper, and serve as middleman for payments to flow from the Bears to local governments, under the arrangement.

“We consider the school districts our partners and friends, and we have a mutual obligation to our residents to give the school districts everything they need and everything they deserve,” Tinaglia said. “Whatever comes out of this General Assembly veto session, we are going to make sure the end result has all the proper finances to make the schools whole.”

He added that a memorandum of understanding — brokered by village officials in 2024 to resolve a protracted property tax dispute between the Bears and the three school districts — would likely be the basis for negotiating new agreements in the years to come.

The short-term settlement has the Bears paying an annual $3.6 million tax bill through 2027, and it could remain the same in the following years if the team submits formal plans seeking zoning approval and then applies for building permits to begin construction, according to the memorandum.

If the Bears don’t meet those milestones, the property value would be tied to annual increases in the Consumer Price Index between 2% and 5%.

In a joint statement released Friday by Palatine Township Elementary District 15, Northwest Suburban High School District 214 and Palatine-Schaumburg High School District 211, officials said they remain supportive of efforts to keep the Bears in Illinois, but still need to study the stadium authority legislation.

“The school districts, the Bears, and the village of Arlington Heights previously reached a memorandum of understanding built around a payment in lieu of taxes framework,” district officials wrote. “The stadium authority model now under discussion represents a different approach, and we have not yet had an opportunity to review this updated legislation; however, we remain in close collaboration with the village of Arlington Heights and look forward to continued productive conversations.”

Even if Arlington Heights is the owner of the stadium in name only, the legislation would allow for capital improvements and infrastructure — everything from public parking garages to plazas — to be financed with bonds and debt issued by the local authority.

Bonds can be payable from private funds, rent from the lease, and, taxes in Arlington Heights that are pledged to the authority, according to the bill first introduced in June.

But Arlington Heights officials maintain that new tax revenue generated by the development — not local taxpayers — would back those bonds.

“Nobody wants this to come in here and become a disaster for any of us, for any of these entities,” Tinaglia said. “And nobody wants this thing to come in here costing all of us a bunch of money and changing our lifestyles. So it has to be done right. And for that to happen, it’s got to take care of everybody.”

Lawmakers return to Springfield Tuesday through Thursday, and then again Dec. 1-3.

cplacek@dailyherald.com