With a crowd of high-powered business leaders watching, Bears President and CEO Kevin Warren repeated his pitch for the new domed stadium in a keynote address. He presented the stadium as a surefire growth starter for downtown Chicago.

“You cannot make progress only playing defense,” Warren said.

But by the time he gave his impassioned plea, the two most pivotal members of the audience — Mayor Brandon Johnson and Gov. J.B. Pritzker — had left the event. Pritzker has not yet met with Bears officials about their stadium plan, and has publicly expressed deep skepticism about the funding aspect.

In their first public appearance together since the team’s pricey proposal that’s backed by the mayor floundered during the Illinois General Assembly’s spring session, Pritzker and Johnson stayed mum on the topic during their own remarks to the chamber audience. Warren filled the void for onlookers curious about the plan, carefully appealing to nostalgia, business interest and ego alike as he re-upped the hot-button request.

Warren began his speech by invoking the memory of legendary team founder George Halas and celebrating the Bears’ fleecing of the Carolina Panthers in a 2023 trade that landed a cache of top picks. The team on the field is coming together, he promised. And the field itself should come together too, he added.

Ninety-three of the 100 top television programs last year were NFL broadcasts that gave viewers a look at cities across the country, Warren said.

“Every time that we play on television here in Chicago, and especially when we pay on national television, the entire world is looking at Chicago,” he said. “We have a unique time here with the Chicago Bears to not only build a great football team, to build a great organization, but to build a world-class stadium that will only empower everyone in this room.”

After lauding the business promise of a new stadium, Warren questioned the city’s outlook. He cited Chicago’s slide in a ranking of the world’s best cities and noted downtown has high commercial vacancy and few cranes in the sky.

“It’s only so long that we can lean on the fact that we are Chicago,” Warren said. “We got to start coming together and doing big jobs, putting people to work, closing the economic gap between people of color and non-people of color.”

Despite a lack of success in Springfield so far, the general outlines of Warren’s proposal for the glitzy stadium did not change as he presented Tuesday. He once again touted the over $2 billion in private money that would go into the project, claiming a local parallel for private investment “does not exist.”

The team’s investment would amount to 72% of the stadium’s cost, he said. The Bears have previously called for the rest of the $3.2 billion cost of the stadium alone to be paid for with $900 million from the state.

But the true public cost of the project would likely be far more expensive. The Bears have requested the city and state refinance $430 million existing debt for previous stadium projects, set up a $160 million so-called liquidity fund to help Chicago cover any unexpected tax revenue shortfalls and pony up as much as $1.5 billion more in infrastructure money.

Counting interest and other long-term costs, the proposed new borrowing would tally up to at least $4.8 billion over four decades.

The team’s plan would include 65,000 seats for football, a translucent roof and the potential for year-round events.

Johnson called it a future “crown jewel of the city of Chicago” when it was unveiled. At the time, Pritzker said parts of the proposal were “probably nonstarters” — a stance that seems to have taken hold in Springfield.

“The deal that was presented didn’t take into account that taxpayers really aren’t going to do well under that proposal,” Pritzker has said.

But both the mayor and the governor steered clear of the topic Tuesday. Instead, they highlighted their different visions and accomplishments to the business community.

Pritzker focused his remarks on his efforts to balance budgets while attracting new businesses with “pro-growth policies” and “red carpet” rollouts.

“For a couple of decades, our state was plagued by fiscal challenges. And it weighed on our businesses and residents,” he said. “My hope is that decades down the line, our children look back on decades of prosperity and recognize commonsense decisions that we all made to invest in ourselves and our future. And the way we make that possible is, of course, by working together.”

Johnson zeroed in on the importance of equity in Chicago’s economy. He called attention to his effort to spur housing development with a new $1.25 billion bond plan and red-tape-cutting proposals he said will help the city “get out of its own way.”

“We can spur development all throughout our city and not just within wealthy TIF (tax increment financing) districts,” Johnson said.

As he asked business leaders to join the city’s mentoring efforts for teens and young adults, he underscored the tale of two Chicagos. In South and West Side neighborhoods, unemployment is far higher than in other thriving areas, he said. Supporting the Chicagoans with the most needs will help the whole city, he argued.

“We must confront the difficult truth and we must do it head on,” Johnson said. “When we look closer at the numbers, we can see the real story of this city. There’s a lot of work to be done.”

Chamber President and CEO Jack Lavin closed the meeting taking shots at positions favored by Johnson and other local progressives. He knocked the mayor’s paid leave ordinance as a policy that stunts growth and halts job creation and called the county’s property tax system “a mess.”

“The best way to address these issues is a pro-growth jobs strategy,” Lavin said. “We will continue to reject this narrative that businesses do not pay their fair share because business has always led our economic growth and built the global city that we are today.”

jsheridan@chicagotribune.com

Lawmakers adjourned Wednesday without even publicly considering the team’s proposal for a publicly owned stadium downtown.

Also Wednesday, Openlands, a regional conservation group, issued a statement opposing the plan, saying that the stadium would have “dire implications” for migratory birds and “breaks this promise” of a lakefront kept clear for public use.

“A stadium proposal that also includes detached hotels, restaurants, retail operations, and other structures is tantamount to a mixed-use commercial district in a public park,” Openlands stated.

The conservation group — not to be confused with the Friends of the Parks group that also has concerns — said the proposal would effectively offer public land for private purposes.

In Arlington Heights, Mayor Tom Hayes declined to gloat over the Bears’ lack of progress in Springfield, but said he hopes the team eventually will return to its previous proposal for a new stadium in his northwest suburb.

“We’ve been working over the last couple of months to stand ready if the Bears do get a ‘no’ and turn back in our direction,” Hayes said. “We’re continuing our discussions with the school districts to resolve the tax issue, which has been the sticking point so far. I think it will be easily resolved.”

In April, the team unveiled its proposal for a $3.2 billion enclosed stadium on the lakefront, just south of its home at Soldier Field. The team would put up $2 billion, but would need the state to borrow more than $1 billion, plus find up to $1.5 billion for new roads, utilities and other infrastructure.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson supported the concept enthusiastically, though City Hall on Friday did not reply to a request for comment on lawmakers’ inaction. In a rare unified show of preemptive force, Gov. J.B. Pritzker, state Senate President Don Harmon and House Speaker Emmanuel “Chris” Welch all cast doubt on the plan.

Downplaying the disinterest, team officials said they weren’t pushing for legislation this session, merely starting a dialogue and having “productive conversations.”

The team issued a statement again promising that the project would create 43,000 construction jobs and more than 4,000 permanent jobs but has not shared how its consultant came up with those projections.

“We look forward to continuing to meet with elected officials, community leaders, business leaders, residents and fans to collaborate on ways to make this massive economic development project for Illinois a reality,” the statement read.

A relaxed timeline doesn’t fit with Bears President and CEO Kevin Warren hoping to start construction this fall and open in 2028, emphasizing that every year’s delay could cost $150 million-$200 million.

Despite what Warren called the team’s “laser focus” on Chicago, officials previously proposed moving to Arlington Heights.

Just last year, the team paid $197 million for the former Arlington Park horse track, which Churchill Downs Inc. shut down in 2021.

In 2022, with much fanfare, officials announced plans for a $2 billion stadium there, with a surrounding mixed-use development of housing and entertainment. But after Warren took over, he reversed direction, saying the property taxes on the site were too high, and turned to Chicago.

The lack of movement with state lawmakers tells Joe Ferguson, president of the Chicago financial watchdog Civic Federation, that it’s time to consider other sites.

“It’s time for the Bears to turn the conversation from an either-or Bears proposal into a broader discussion of what options exist in the city,” Ferguson said.

The former Michael Reese Hospital site in the Bronzeville neighborhood would be ideal for allowing surrounding economic development, including a proposed Chicago White Sox stadium, Ferguson said.

The Bears rejected the site as too narrow, but Ferguson suggested that a public discussion could address how to overcome such limitations. The site also has tax increment financing that could help pay for development costs.

Whatever happens, there is still plenty of time to make a decision. The Bears lease at Soldier Field runs through 2033.

With state lawmakers still grappling with the state budget after blowing their self-imposed Friday deadline, state Sen. Bill Cunningham of Chicago, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, said there would be no action on the team’s request before the legislature adjourns for the spring.

State Rep. Kam Buckner of Chicago, a member of House Democratic leadership, likewise said the team’s quest for a new home to replace aging Soldier Field, which lies in his district, isn’t on the legislative agenda in the waning days of session.

“It’s fair to say that there won’t be any Bears action … in this legislative session, which I think is fine,” Buckner said Saturday at the Illinois State Capitol. “I think a proposal of this magnitude deserves sunlight and scrutiny. And very often what has happened in this building is that things get rammed through at the last minute without much public input or transparency.

“So I welcome conversations that will probably begin to happen once we’re done here.”

Cunningham also said there would be no movement during the spring session on the Chicago White Sox requests to get public assistance for their new stadium proposal. No legislation was even formally announced during the spring session for either the Bears or the White Sox stadium proposals.

Despite the full backing of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who stood with team officials when they unveiled their proposal last month, the Bears’ plan faced a cool reception in Springfield.

It’s the second year in a row that talks about public support for the charter NFL franchise have stalled at the statehouse. A proposal last year that would have helped the team relocate to Arlington Heights also failed to gain support in the Democratic-controlled General Assembly.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s office called the team’s latest bid to stay in Chicago a “nonstarter” in its initial form, and the team’s efforts to round up support among legislative leaders and rank-and-file lawmakers were met with reactions ranging from firm and outspoken opposition to indifference.

When the team showed off its plans with great fanfare in April, Bears President and CEO Kevin Warren attempted to put pressure on legislators to take action this spring.

“If we are approved in May, then that will allow us to be able to start construction, to put people to work, next summer,” Warren said in response to a question about whether the team’s proposal could wait until the legislature’s fall session. “And that would allow us 36 months later to open our building in 2028. So this is truly one of those adages that time is money.”

The Bears’ plan calls for the team to bring $2.3 billion in private financing to the table, including a $300 million stadium loan from the NFL, but the stadium itself is projected to cost $3.2 billion.

To fill in the gap, the team wants the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority to issue $900 million in new bonds to cover the remaining cost. Each year that the project doesn’t move forward, the funding gap would increase by about $150 million due to rising costs, team officials said.

Additionally, the team wants ISFA to refinance about $430 million in outstanding debt for previous projects at Soldier Field and Guaranteed Rate Field, where the White Sox play.

The Bears also want the state agency to borrow about $160 million more to set up a liquidity fund to cover future shortfalls in the dedicated 2% city hotel tax that’s dedicated to repaying the bonds. When those revenues fall short, as they have in recent years, the difference gets taken out of the city’s share of state income tax revenue.

Bears officials say the roughly $1.5 billion in new borrowing, which would require legislative approval, could be paid off over 40 years without raising the 2% hotel tax. Including interest and other long-term costs, taxpayers would end up spending about $4.8 billion over four decades, according to ISFA.

The Bears’ proposal would leave little, if any, room for funding other stadium projects at a time when the White Sox also have looked to Springfield for help financing a new stadium at The 78, a proposed development along the Chicago River south of Roosevelt Road.

At the same time, framing it as an issue of equity, Pritzker and some Democratic lawmakers have said any stadium funding discussions should include professional women’s teams, such as the Chicago Red Stars soccer club, which also is in the market for a new home to replace SeatGeek Stadium in suburban Bridgeview.

Sen. Robert Peters, a Chicago Democrat whose district covers Soldier Field, said on Thursday that the Bears and White Sox need to work together to have any chance for securing new stadiums, and that women’s professional sports teams, such as the Red Stars and the WNBA’s Chicago Sky, should also be in the mix for those discussions. Legislation that would authorize bond authority for the construction of a stadium for a women’s pro sports team was introduced earlier this month without any movement so far.

” I don’t think there’s necessarily an appetite to just give billionaires a whole bunch of money,” Peters said. “I think there’s just a series of things: People need to work together. They need to be realistic (in) what they ask for. They need to think about equity in that conversation.”

On top of the borrowing to pay for the stadium itself, the Bears are looking for another $1.5 billion in public money for infrastructure improvements to the lakefront to fully realize the team’s vision, including plans to demolish most of Soldier Field and create more lakefront green space. The latter proposal could be a key component in fending off advocates who previously defeated “Star Wars” creator George Lucas’ plans for a lakefront museum of narrative art.

While the state has helped finance previous projects for the Sox and Bears, public sentiment largely has turned against public assistance for professional sports stadiums, which economists generally agree fail to deliver promised benefits for taxpayers.

Further complicating the issue for the Bears is the team’s previous $197 million purchase of the former Arlington International Racecourse, where the team planned to build a stadium and mixed-use development before getting mired in a property tax dispute with local school districts in the northwest suburbs.

An unorthodox proposal filed earlier this month, which faces long odds of passage before lawmakers are scheduled to adjourn the spring session on Friday, calls for the state to set aside an unspecified amount of funding for a women’s sports stadium if Illinois helps finance a new home for the Bears, the Chicago White Sox or any other men’s pro team.

While the legislation is ambiguous in parts and likely to change if it comes up for a legislative vote, it strikes on the issue of equity, politically popular among Democrats, that many Illinois elected officials have raised in recent months as the Bears and White Sox have come to the statehouse with their hands out.

It also comes amid a heightened interest in women’s sports and as owners of the Chicago Red Stars women’s soccer team, including Chicago Cubs co-owner Laura Ricketts, have been steadily but quietly making a case that the public could help build a new stadium for the National Women’s Soccer League club.

“Anytime we talk about anything in this building, we talk about equity,” the bill’s main sponsor, Democratic state Rep. Eva-Dina Delgado of Chicago, said during an interview in the state Capitol. “So if there were something that would come together in the future, if there was an appetite for it, we have to make sure we’re talking about it in terms of equity.”

Still, even supporters of the proposal say it is in its formative stages.

“This is, I think, a very nuanced situation,” said co-sponsoring Rep. Kam Buckner, a Chicago Democrat whose district includes both Soldier Field where the Bears play and the nearby land where the team wants to build a domed stadium and outdoor lakefront pavilion. “And so because there are still more questions than answers, because this is different, we’ve got to take our time and get it right.”

The most important part is for women’s sports to be a part of the conversation, he added.

In its current form, Delgado’s proposal would require the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority — which holds hundreds of millions of dollars of debt related to the construction of Guaranteed Rate Field three decades ago and the renovation of Soldier Field two decades ago — to issue “some bonds … to fund facilities for professional women’s sports” if any future bonds are issued for any men’s team.

If there was no ongoing women’s stadium project at the time, those funds would be reserved for future use, according to the proposed legislation.

Such an arrangement, including selling bonds for an unspecified purpose, is relatively untested, a bond expert said. It also likely would require even more tweaks to state law to become reality.

“I don’t recall seeing a provision like this with other entities we rate,” said Eric Kim, a senior director with Fitch Ratings who covers Illinois.

While the proposed structure wouldn’t necessarily have “direct credit implications” for ISFA or the state, there could be other issues at play, Kim said.

“There are IRS rules about how quickly tax-exempt bond proceeds must be spent so that might be a limiting factor here,” he said.

As for whether Gov. J.B. Pritzker would support Delgado’s proposal, the governor “believes everyone deserves a seat at the table and remains open to discussions about how to make that possible,” spokeswoman Olivia Kuncio said. “He will thoroughly review any bill the General Assembly sends to his desk.”

Pritzker has been highly skeptical of providing public assistance for the Bears’ nearly $5 billion plan for a domed stadium on a revamped lakefront south of Soldier Field — a proposal his office called a “non-starter” in its current form after a meeting earlier this month — and a new White Sox stadium on The 78 development south of Roosevelt Road along the Chicago River.

But the governor has taken a friendlier tone toward Chicago’s women’s soccer club while also remaining noncommittal.

When asked last month about the Bears’ request for more than $2 billion in public support for its stadium and related infrastructure improvements, Pritzker replied, “What about women’s sports?

“Very little has been talked about, about the Red Stars, for example, who have asked to be heard on this subject.”

In addition to getting a cold shoulder from Pritzker, the Bears’ plan also has received a cool reception from House and Senate leaders in Springfield after being unveiled last month with great fanfare and a ringing endorsement from Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson.

Though state legislation has yet to be introduced, the Bears’ plan calls for ISFA to issue $900 million in bonds for the lakefront stadium, refinance about $430 million in its existing debt for previous projects, and take out about $160 million more to set up a so-called liquidity fund. The fund is supposed to cushion the city of Chicago from future shortfalls in revenue from the 2% city hotel tax that was established when ISFA was created to cover the cost of the borrowing.

The Bears’ plan, which would require legislative approval, calls for the debt repayment to be stretched out over 40 years. Should that happen, the project could be paid for without raising the hotel tax, according to the Bears, who plan to contribute $2.3 billion in private financing for the stadium portion of the project.

All of that borrowing would leave little, if any, room for additional bonding to pay for a Red Stars or a White Sox stadium project. And that’s part of the issue Delgado’s proposal seeks to address.

“The intent here is to say, if at any point in the future there is a decision made to increase bonding, to put together any kind of stadium deal, that we are talking about equity as we move forward,” she said.

In response to questions about ISFA’s position on the proposal, CEO Frank Bilecki wrote in an email: “Throughout the United States, there is growing momentum to develop facilities specifically for women’s professional sports teams. The Chicago Red Stars presented a thoughtful presentation on their plans for a new stadium to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority and we look forward to further discussions with the Red Stars.”

In a statement, Red Stars President Karen Leetzow thanked Delgado and the proposal’s other supporters for “fighting for equity to ensure that women’s professional sports teams always have a seat at the table when there are discussions about public/private partnerships.”

“Over the last century, as local and state governments have invested in professional sports stadiums, women’s professional teams have never been included,” Leetzow said.

The Red Stars currently play at SeatGeek Stadium in Bridgeview, a publicly financed facility originally built for the Chicago Fire men’s soccer team.

Debt incurred for construction of the stadium, completed in 2006, has long strained the village of Bridgeview’s finances, though payments from the Fire to buy out its lease after the team decamped for Soldier Field ahead of the 2020 season have at least temporarily eased the burden.

The current state budget includes $4 million in capital funding for improvements to SeatGeek Stadium, though none of the money has been released to the village, according to the state comptroller’s office.

Chicago Tribune’s Olivia Olander contributed. Gorner reported from Springfield.

Johnson is backing the Bears’ proposal, while Pritzker has labeled it a “nonstarter” in large part because of its large public funding component. Meeting with reporters late Wednesday afternoon, Johnson said conversations are ongoing but stressed the need to replace Soldier Field.

“You have a 100-year-old building that is millions of dollars in debt. And so you have this asset that is not getting the full benefit for the people of the state of Illinois,” he said. “And as the Bears continue to have these conversations with leadership, as well as the rank-and-file members, that’s the case that they will have to make, but understanding that we have a structural, damaged situation that really needs a solution.”

Johnson’s budget requests at the Illinois State Capitol came on the same day a state Senate committee approved legislation opposed by the mayor’s key ally, the Chicago Teachers Union, that would extend a school closure moratorium for all of the city’s public schools by two years. The CTU has labeled the measure, initially drawn up to protect selective-enrollment schools, as “racist,” as the union presses to invest more money in neighborhood schools.

“We want an equitable school district that speaks to the needs of the people of the city of Chicago,” Johnson said when asked about the bill. “And as these amendments continue to be assessed, we’re going to create more space for these conversations so that we ultimately get to the goal that we want, which is an equitable school district.”

Johnson previously has said his Springfield wish list includes more than $1 billion in state funding that’s “owed” to the “families of Chicago.” That money would include greater state aid under the evidence-based funding formula and additional teacher pension funds.

“We have to continue to make sure that the state of Illinois is doing right by the economic engine of the state of Illinois, which is the city of Chicago,” Johnson told reporters. “But it’s also to continue to build relationships of the opportunity that we have in this moment as a state to really build the type of operation that speaks to equity and justice.”

Johnson’s request for additional funding for Chicago Public Schools could be a tall order, as Pritzker has over the last few years increased state funding for elementary and high schools only by a minimum target of $350 million annually set in a 2017 education funding compromise under his predecessor, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Advocates have warned that those increases are not enough to meet the state’s goals of adequately funding public schools in Chicago and other parts of the state.

Pritzker also has indicated that belt-tightening is needed to secure his $52.7 billion budget proposal, which is now negotiated by state lawmakers ahead of a scheduled May 24 adjournment.

There was no full accounting of specifics disclosed by city or state officials on what the progressive mayor discussed at  Wednesday’s meetings. But a meeting with progressive Democratic lawmakers involved some “less high-profile budget needs,” such as lead service pipe replacement, according to state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat.

She said school funding and the Bears’ stadium plan came up. But the meeting was brief and specifics were few, Cassidy said.

Johnson arrived at the Capitol early Wednesday afternoon. He met separately with Pritzker, the two top leaders of the Democrats’ legislative supermajority, House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch of Hillside and Senate President Don Harmon of Oat Park, and various lawmakers. At one point, a reporter asked Johnson how the sessions were going.

“Well, you know, it’s Springfield,” he said, before walking up to the third floor of the Capitol.

Funding for Chicago’s public transportation apparatus could also be on Johnson’s Springfield agenda. Lawmakers are weighing a sweeping set of recommendations about what Chicago-area transit could look like in the future, including whether the CTA should be consolidated with Metra and Pace into one agency and how to address a transit fiscal cliff expected when federal pandemic aid runs out.

But Pritzker and Johnson differ on who should be leading the charge. The governor has indicated in recent weeks that the CTA is due for an “evolution of the leadership,” comments that were directed toward CTA President Dorval Carter, who has come under fire by critics for the transit agency’s shortcomings. Johnson has not said whether Carter should be removed from his post.

Separately Wednesday, members of the Chicago City Council’s aldermanic Black Caucus were in Springfield on Wednesday to talk to Welch about ward-level priorities, including education and neighborhood improvement issues.

Ald. Jeanette Taylor, of the South Side’s 20th Ward, said she supports extending the moratorium on school closings, and that there is a need to “invest in alternative schools.”

But she also cited the need for nuts and bolts infrastructure improvements.

“I could never in my tenure get all of my streets and sidewalks done, and so I need to be able to ask those state (elected officials), senators and my Cook County commissioners, because that’s the next stop. … ‘Hey, how are we working together to make sure that every community looks good?'” Taylor said.

Tribune reporter Olivia Olander contributed.

For reference, $1 billion is more than the budgets of the Chicago Park District, Cook County Forest Preserves and Greater Chicago Food Depository combined. Annual spending for Chicago police is about $2 billion, while Chicago Public Schools’ budget exceeds $9 billion.

Now, Illinois politicians are faced with the Chicago Bears’ request to build a new, publicly owned $3.2 billion enclosed stadium on Chicago’s lakefront. The state’s top leaders expressed reluctance, but Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is all in.

So what exactly is proposed, what else is at stake, and how will this play out? Here are a few highlights.

What is proposed

Bears President and CEO Kevin Warren envisions a stadium just south of the Bears’ current home at Soldier Field, on the site of what is now a parking lot. The facility would seat about 65,000 for football, with standing room up to 70,000, and a capacity of 77,000 for basketball.

The structure would have a fixed, translucent roof, and a glass wall on the north end to take in the skyline. Unlike Soldier Field, it could hold events year-round, including concerts, soccer, college basketball playoffs, or, once in a great while, the Super Bowl.

Soldier Field would be torn down, but its colonnades would be saved and 14 acres of athletic fields and open space added in between and to the north of the colonnades, for use by local sports teams, graduations and other events. If approved this year, the stadium would open in 2028.

A little context

The stadium would be designed by Manica architects, which designed Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas. That stadium, referenced by the Bears in their presentation, also has a translucent roof, and opened in 2020 at a cost of $1.9 billion, with $750 million from taxpayers.

What it could cost

The Bears say they would pay $2 billion, a huge private investment, plus $300 million requested from the NFL. The rest of the $3.2 billion cost of the stadium alone would be paid with $900 million from the state. The team said another $325 million would be needed for infrastructure, including improved road access and utilities as part of up to $1.5 billion for full build-out with extras like a hotel.

The public money would be borrowed through bonds issued by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, or ISFA, which previously financed construction of Guaranteed Rate Field, where the White Sox play, and the 2003 renovation of Soldier Field. The bonds are to be repaid over 40 years by the city’s 2% hotel tax.

Some context

The first problem is, the hotel tax has not been enough to repay even the past work on Sox park and Soldier Field. The state still owes about $430 million for that, which would have to be refinanced, with interest totaling $1.3 billion, ISFA calculates.

Borrowing $900 million in new spending would add an additional $2.6 billion in interest, plus a $160 million reserve, which would earn interest, for a total stadium cost nearing $4.8 billion.

That’s not counting the $1.5 billion in infrastructure costs, or the $1 billion already paid for both existing stadiums.

The Bears say that’s an unfair way to look at it. Home mortgages often cost twice the value of a house, but nobody cites the interest cost as part of the sales price. To be consistent, the team’s investment, to be paid by equity and debt, would also have to be figured with interest.

Unanswered

How the state would pay for the $1.5 billion in infrastructure. Officials proposed using federal and state grants, but how much they could get is unknown.

What reaction the Bears are getting

State lawmakers would have to approve such a deal to make it happen, but the leadership is against it.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker called the Bears’ proposal a “non-starter.”

“I didn’t say that there’s not ever the possibility of having a domed stadium in Chicago, I’ve never said that,” the governor said recently. “I have said, however, that it’s not a high priority for the taxpayers and, very importantly, it’s got to be a good deal for taxpayers. So, there’s a lot of questions about whether the deal could get done.”

House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch and state Senate President Don Harmon both said the chances of passage are low.

In contrast, the state just announced that Rivian would make a $1.5 billion investment in its electric vehicle plant in Normal, with a 30-year $827 million incentive package from the state, mostly from tax credits.

The not-for-profit Friends of the Parks issued a statement questioning the rush for a new stadium on the lake, saying it could be built elsewhere, and raising numerous issues, such as: “Does it seem reasonable that the Chicago Bears should get their wants satisfied immediately while poor neighborhoods suffer from benign neglect?”

The group failed when it challenged the renovation of Soldier Field, but successfully fought off filmmaker George Lucas’ proposal for a museum on the same site.

What are the economic impacts

Warren says the public money is not a donation, but an investment.

The Bears project $8 billion in regional economic impacts during construction, with 43,000 job-years. Once operational, the team projects 4,000 permanent jobs, generating $450 million in annual regional impact, though only about 25% of that would be new.

Economists often are skeptical of such estimates, saying that officials must consider how else they could spend money to promote public benefit and productivity.

What’s unknown

The Bears have not specified what they would expect in return for their investment. Pritzker has said the Bears are asking for revenues from other events at the stadium, including from tickets, concessions and parking. That could cut into a major revenue source for the landlord, the Chicago Park District, which is budgeted to make $54 million from Soldier Field in 2024.

What happens if this doesn’t fly?

Just last year, the Bears paid $197 million to buy the former Arlington Park racecourse. Similar to its presentation for a Chicago stadium, the team proposed building a $2 billion domed stadium in Arlington Heights, while saying it would need unspecified public help for infrastructure. The major difference was that the suburban stadium would be surrounded by a $5 billion mixed-use development, with housing, hotels and entertainment, that would generate significant revenues and taxes.

That project stalled after the team could not agree with local school districts on property taxes, though they were apart only a few million dollars — a pittance compared with the overall costs. Warren said that plan is now off the table while the team pursues Chicago, but noted that the Bears remain the largest property owner in Arlington Heights.

Village officials are biding their time, saying they think the Bears will be back. Mayor Tom Hayes said “we are ready, willing and able,” if the Bears want to turn again to the suburbs.

The message echoed much of last week’s rhetoric from Pritzker and other state leaders after the Bears proposed building the project with help from the public, including $900 million in new debt to cover costs for the stadium plus up to $1.5 billion in infrastructure funding to deconstruct Soldier Field and convert it for park space and youth athletic programming.

“As the Governor has said, the current proposal is a non-starter for the state,” Pritzker spokesperson Alex Gough said in an email after aides to the governor held the 90-minute remote meeting with Bears President Kevin Warren and Executive Vice President Karen Murphy. “In order to subsidize a brand new stadium for a privately owned sports team, the Governor would need to see a demonstrable and tangible benefit to the taxpayers of Illinois.”

The statement after the meeting reflected all of the same skepticism Pritzker projected on the proposal last week, when he indicated the Bears’ pitch could be a poor deal for taxpayers. It also reflected his stated attitude for years that Illinois should be wary of using public funds to build private stadiums.

The Bears, for their part, called the initial conversation “productive.”

“We share a commitment to protecting the taxpayers of Illinois and look forward to further discussions,” the team said in a brief statement.

The meeting was the first tangible move by the Bears since last Wednesday when the team, alongside a supportive Mayor Brandon Johnson, publicly laid out plans for a $3.2 billion domed stadium development plus anywhere from $325 million to $1.5 billion in infrastructure costs around the stadium area.

As part of the deal, the state agency for stadium development projects, the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, would borrow at least $900 million in new cash as well as refinance an existing $430 million in debt that remains from building and renovating Soldier Field and Guaranteed Rate Field where the White Sox play. In addition, a $160 million liquidity fund would be established. Long-term costs and interest on the initial state borrowing would add up to at least $4.8 billion, not counting $325 million to $1.5 billion in infrastructure spending.

Warren insisted last week that the team wanted to get a deal done by the end of the current legislative session, which is scheduled to adjourn in a little more than three weeks on May 24.

In addition to Pritzker, House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch of Hillside and Senate President Don Harmon of Oak Park also expressed skepticism about the Bears’ plan, even though the team has offered $2.3 billion in private funding.

The pitching of pictures and renderings is “behind us now,” Pritzker told reporters Wednesday. “We’re just talking about numbers.”

The governor’s office, represented at the meeting by Deputy Gov. Andy Manar and chief of staff Anne Caprara, appreciated the opportunity to discuss the proposal with the Bears, Gough said. The office did not respond to a question about whether Pritzker had any upcoming plans to meet with the team.

Legislative sources said lawmakers are scheduled to be briefed Thursday about unanswered questions regarding the stadium plan.

The initial reluctance by Pritzker and the Democratic legislative leaders last week sets up up challenging negotiations for the team over the next month. The team will have to convince not only legislative leaders but rank-and-file lawmakers within and outside Chicago.

So far, the Bears have “talked to an awful lot of folks” in Springfield and are “doing a fine job,” Pritzker said Wednesday.

While the Bears try to pitch the Chicago lakefront plan, there’s also the Arlington Heights factor. The team previously spent $197 million to purchase a tract of land in the suburb for a possible stadium, making a Chicago stadium potentially an even tougher sell to some suburban lawmakers.

The Bears have said a new stadium would generate jobs and $64 million annually in additional amusement, hotel, income and sales taxes.

“There’s a lot of questions about whether the deal could get done,” Pritzker said. “I’m very hopeful that they could put something on the table. But you’ve got to remember that we have a lot of priorities.”

Gorner reported from Springfield. The Tribune’s Dan Petrella and Bob McCoppin contributed.

“It was never a done deal in Arlington Heights. I don’t think it’s anything close to a done deal in the city of Chicago. And so we are ready, willing and able to continue our discussions with them if they get a ‘no’ on the lakefront” proposal the team announced Wednesday, Mayor Tom Hayes told Pioneer Press.

Still, Bears President and CEO Kevin Warren said Wednesday the team is shifting its efforts to singularly making the lakefront redevelopment happen. He acknowledged that the team still owns the former Arlington International Racecourse site in Arlington Heights and is the largest landowner in the village.

“Our focus right now is on the city of Chicago” and the lakefront property, Warren told the Chicago Tribune editorial board “That’s where we are pouring all our time, energy and effort.”

While other Chicago suburbs made a bid to have the team move to their town, the Bears purchased land in Arlington Heights and pitched a redevelopment plan to village leaders and residents.

For more than a year, the Bears had eyed the racecourse site. Then, last February, they purchased the 326-acre site from Louisville-based Churchill Downs for $197 million. Shortly afterward, the structures on the land parcel were razed.

“We offer the opportunity for the Bears to own their own stadium, which is a big difference between our opportunity and the proposal that they submitted” to the city of Chicago for the redo of the land immediately south of where their current Soldier Field home sits, said Hayes.

Shortly after the racecourse land sale, a team entourage that included now-retired Bears President and CEO Ted Phillips presented a redevelopment proposal — first to the Arlington Heights Village Board, then at a community forum at John Hersey High School in the village — detailing an enthralling $5 billion plan to build an enclosed stadium, which the team would own, and accompanying residences and entertainment district.

The Bears currently play at 100-year old Soldier Field, which is owned by the Chicago Park District. The team’s lease there is scheduled to expire in 2033.

Chicago Bears’ flashy game plan for lakefront stadium project greeted with questions

The Arlington Heights plan, Hayes said, would have allowed the Bears to “provide that game-day experience that they have told me from day one that they were looking to do with a new stadium – that’s really kind of the industry standard now” and to be landowners.

Further, Hayes is convinced that his town offers the team, one of the only in the NFL to not have an enclosed stadium, so much more than a lakefront location.

But Warren, who took over team leadership in January 2023 from Phillips, expressed being unbothered by the idea of the team owning its own stadium versus being a renter. Asked at the news conference Wednesday about renting a venue instead of seizing an opportunity to own it, Warren flashed back to a similar question he said was posed to him while he was an executive with the Minnesota Vikings football team.

“We don’t look at it in a derogatory manner of ‘being a renter,’ we look at it as being a good partner,” he said, mostly referencing the Bears potentially working with the city of Chicago and Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration.

Arlington Heights residents seem to have embraced the idea of the Bears moving into town, so long as local taxpayers weren’t on the hook to pay for it. But the team and a trio of local school districts continue to battle over property taxes.

With the addition of residences as part of the Bears’ proposal in the Arlington Heights development, Township High School District 214, and Palatine High School District 211 and elementary feeder School District 25 – also based in Palatine – anticipate as many as 400 new students, with a collective financial impact to the districts of at least $22 million, an attorney for one of the districts estimated.

The school districts, working in unity, and the Bears remain at loggerheads over how much the team should pay in property taxes to the districts.

Further, the Cook County assessor set a valuation of the racecourse property at $192 million, an amount close to what the team paid for it. But the Cook County Board of Review lowered that to $125 million after the team appealed. Still, the football team would have a property tax bill of more than $10 million for the site, which the team says prevents redevelopment.

Hayes conceded the ongoing tax wrangling with the school districts “was a concern. I know the Bears were frustrated about that.” He believes it could have led, in part, to the Bears exploring more earnestly the Chicago lakefront option.

Still, he explained he respects the school districts being “advocates for their positions” just as the team is for theirs.

“We’re continuing our discussions with the school districts to help try to solve the short-term tax issues so when the Bears are ready to jump back this way, then we can say to them, ‘Hey, we’ve got that short-term tax issue resolved’” Hayes said.

Each of the school districts declined to comment on the Bears’ new Chicago proposal or the ongoing tax flack in Arlington Heights.

While Hayes said he wants the Bears to refocus on his town, Arlington Heights won’t just sit and wait. He said eventually the village will look forward to putting the land to good use, especially considering the legacy and longevity of the racecourse that once stood there as a crown jewel of the village.

“It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity for a new developer or multiple developers, and so I would like to see some kind of unified development,” the mayor said about building on the property should the Bears not move forward with its plans. “But, we haven’t given up hope on the Bears redevelopment, so we haven’t gone down that road yet to make any other plans.”

He said with the Bears being the property owners, the team and the village will, nevertheless, have to work together – whether a stadium is built or the land is sold.

The site “will be something unique and exciting at some point,” said Hayes.

Now, Mayor Brandon Johnson hopes to shoehorn a wealthy new group into the fold: the Chicago Bears.

During a long-awaited presentation at Soldier Field Wednesday, the mayor stood with the National Football League franchise’s CEO and President Kevin Warren to debut a nearly $5 billion proposal for a new stadium and lakefront redevelopment that would be half-funded by taxpayer dollars.

With political allies from the Chicago Teachers Union — which has vociferously opposed prior publicly funded stadium projects — looking on at the Soldier Field extravaganza, Johnson then sought to tie the shiny architectural renderings of the glass-domed sports arena dominating the lakefront museum campus to his larger, left-leaning agenda.

“Because of the public benefit,” Johnson said when asked how he will make a progressive case for the proposal. “We are investing in people. Look, these pictures are miraculous. We are talking about thousands of lives that will benefit. … Think about how long people have been waiting for investments like this.”

His confidence was echoed by Warren, who cast the package as a “win-win-win” that will serve as an economic catalyst and international gem for generations to come.

But elsewhere in city and state government, a tepid to outright antagonistic response — even from Johnson’s usual allies — signaled the mayor will face tough headwinds in pitching the project as a natural fit for his progressive base, which has historically decried public subsidies for sports teams and other corporations.

State Rep. Kelly Cassidy said she’s a “no” as long as there is a single penny of public money obligated to the project.

“This is so far from a progressive priority as to be laughable,” Cassidy said. “There is not a case to be made to me that would ever compel me to give a billionaire more money. … This thing is dead in the water.”

And Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who was absent during the grand unveiling, said aspects of the package are “probably nonstarters.”

“As I’ve said, the priorities of the people of Illinois are not building stadiums, right?” Pritzker told reporters Thursday. “We have important things we need to invest in for the future of the state and, again, stadiums in my mind don’t rank up in the top tier of those.”

Facing a daunting road ahead of convincing the governor and other reluctant leaders, the mayor going all in on the Bears is high-risk, but potentially high-reward. Chicago has never seen an exodus of a major sports team in modern history, and Johnson becoming the mayor who can take credit for keeping the Bears from moving to the suburbs could serve as a major boost to his leadership credibility (and a potent reelection slogan if he needs to broaden his base beyond progressive voters). But a high-profile defeat could further exhaust political capital that he’s counting on to address other pressing issues.

The mayor recently said he intends to head to Springfield to lobby for more state funding for Chicago Public Schools, the city’s 40,000-plus migrant population, homelessness initiatives and more before the General Assembly adjourns for the spring session in a month.

During a mayoral runoff debate in March 2023, Johnson himself came out for “not subsidizing, but finding creative ways” to get the Bears to stay in Chicago in the wake of the team closing in on a land deal to move to Arlington Heights. He now maintains city taxpayers will not be on the hook for this proposal, though the Bears are asking for a whole bunch of public money.

With the price tag of the stadium itself estimated at $3.2 billion, the Bears will put up $2.3 billion, with help from a $300 million NFL loan. The franchise is also asking the state to take on $900 million in new debt to cover the remaining cost, backed by an existing 2% tax on hotel stays in the city, as well as an additional $1.5 billion in unspecified “infrastructure” funding to reimagine a demolished Soldier Field for park space and youth athletic programming.

The team wants the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority to refinance existing debt for prior projects at Soldier Field and at Guaranteed Rate Field, where the White Sox play, and to borrow at least $150 million to cover future shortfalls in hotel tax revenue. The plan calls for repayment of the new borrowing to be stretched out over 40 years, and the whole proposal would require approval from the legislature and the governor. Neither the city nor the Bears would disclose how much the debt would ultimately cost over those four decades.

Progressive political consultant Rebecca Williams was “baffled” to see Johnson support the project after the city’s political left so fiercely resisted tax increment financing for other megadevelopments such as Lincoln Yards, approved under former Mayor Lori Lightfoot, and to funnel money for the renovation of Navy Pier under her predecessor, Rahm Emanuel, she said.

“The progressive movement for more than a decade has been persistent in fighting the allocations of public money to privatization,” Williams said. “I do not see a way to make a case for this that is progressive, and especially in terms of what we’ve expected of our mayors for the last two decades.”

Johnson praises Bears for putting ‘skin in the game’

Later Wednesday evening, the mayor went on NBC Sports Chicago and elaborated on why a new sports stadium is “consistent” with his values. He never expected years ago to “stand with billionaires,” he said.

“But here’s the thing that I believe is special about this moment: The fact that a middle child, 10 siblings, from a working-class family, is in the position to speak to the interest of everyday Chicagoans and challenge billionaires to put skin in the game, that’s what I promised.”

Pritzker and the leadership in the Illinois General Assembly say they don’t see the $2.3 billion private investment from the Bears as nearly enough.

House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch told reporters Wednesday, “I’m going to say to you publicly what I said to Kevin Warren privately last week: If we were to put this issue on the floor for a vote right now, it would fail.” Senate President Don Harmon too was unenthusiastic.

Among Springfield’s House Progressive Caucus, where the mayor has some of his closest state legislator ties, reaction was muted. Caucus co-chairs Reps. Theresa Mah and Will Guzzardi were noncommittal on the proposed stadium and said the Bears had a high bar to clear for that to change.

“I, and I think many of my colleagues in Springfield, will walk into that discussion from a place of skepticism about why this multibillion dollar franchise would need public dollars to continue its operations in our city,” Guzzardi said, citing doubt that sports stadiums have a high return on investment.

Economic studies on the benefits of sports stadiums overwhelmingly show that they do not spur employment or wage growth. A 2022 study spanning 30 years of research found that any local economic impact from sports facilities was limited to the immediate surrounding neighborhoods and “overall, consensus findings from economic research demonstrate that public subsidies to fund sports stadiums and arenas likely do not pass a cost-benefit test.”

Still, the Bears in their pitch last week promised more than 40,000 construction jobs to build the stadium, not to mention the bolstering of Chicago’s cultural relevance were it to host a Super Bowl, Olympics or World Cup. Warren cited a Sports Business Journal article that left Chicago out of the top 25 cities for hosting major sports events and lamented, “That hurt my heart. … We cannot fall further behind.”

Many state lawmakers are waiting to hear more on the benefits before deciding, so anything could happen in the next month. Springfield, after all, is where Gov. James R. Thompson in 1988 famously led an eleventh-hour push to approve a new tax-subsidized, $167 million White Sox stadium as the Major League Baseball team was threatening to pack up for Florida.

But it’s also highly unlikely the legislature’s Democratic supermajority will want to rush through a controversial stadium proposal in an election year.

Former mayoral candidate Rep. Kambium “Kam” Buckner was at the Soldier Field event but told reporters he has not signed onto the proposal yet. State Sen. Robert Peters said while he is also “still skeptical” of the ask for state money, “I want to give credit where credit’s due” on the franchise’s $2.3 billion pledge.

“Technically, this is a free stadium for the city of Chicago,” said Peters, a Johnson ally. “The Bears are asking the state. I’m not going to blame someone who’s being offered a free stadium.”

Meanwhile, some of Johnson’s most vocal surrogates were mum on the plan.

His former floor leader Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, 35th, did not respond to requests for comment last week.

The Chicago Teachers Union, where Johnson cut his teeth as an organizer, declined to comment, saying the organization needs more information about the proposal even though its president, Stacy Davis Gates, and vice president, Jackson Potter, attended the Bears news conference. Potter and the union have also previously spoken out against publicly financing stadiums.

Days after the Bears signed a purchase agreement for Arlington International Racecourse in September 2021 — a move team officials said presaged their departure to Arlington Heights before changing tack and pitching the new lakefront plan — Potter tweeted “Let the Bears leave and then create a team publicly owned by Chicagoans who invest in our city instead of their profit margins.”

The Local 1 and Local 73 chapters of the Service Employees International Union, another of Johnson’s major labor backers, too opted not to comment.

Chicago Federation of Labor President Bob Reiter at first gave bullish support for not only a new Bears stadium but also a new White Sox one, which the team has floated at The 78 complex in the South Loop, before revising his remarks to a watered-down, “The prospect of improving our sports infrastructure for the Chicago Bears is exciting, creating jobs and opportunities for people who build, operate and take the field.”

Don Rose, a longtime Chicago political consultant, remarked that the city’s political left “would probably be opposing it if it was Lori and Rahm” pushing an expensive new Bears stadium.

“I don’t know what kind of progressive case he can make without twisting the idea of ‘progressive,’” Rose said. “He doesn’t want to be the guy who lost the Bears. … That’s an onus, and he doesn’t want it even though publicly funded rip-offs like that are considered to be non-progressive at best.”

Wait-and-see at City Hall

The City Council could also wield some power over the stadium proposal due to the likely need for major zoning changes. But many of the aldermen who most often undergird Johnson’s legislative efforts signaled the path to backing a new stadium is narrow.

“I’d need to hear that the Bears are paying for the whole thing,” Johnson’s immigration committee chair Ald. Andre Vasquez, 40th, said before casting doubt on the proposal living up to the mayor’s purported values. “When you talk to most progressives, they would think of taxing large corporations as progressive, not giving them money.”

Three more of the mayor’s handpicked committee chairs — Aldermen Byron Sigcho-Lopez, 25th, Daniel La Spata, 1st, and Ald. Michael Rodriguez, 22nd — were more open to a new stadium and said their minds were not yet made up. The council member who represents the proposed site, Ald. Lamont Robinson, 4th, praised the plan’s broad strokes but said “we have more work” to do on getting a better deal for taxpayers.

Asserting he needs to see a state-run economic analysis, Sigcho-Lopez said he does not want to watch the city’s public amenities “decay and depreciate,” while La Spata noted the project could be a win for Chicago if the state ponies up major funding for the downtown project. Meanwhile Rodriguez, who chairs the council’s Workforce Development Committee, said the creation of thousands of union construction jobs is alluring so long as the taxpayer funding part holds up under scrutiny.

“Public money going toward public infrastructure does make sense to me,” Rodriguez said. “But I’m very wary of subsidizing stadiums just for the sake of subsidizing stadiums.”

For his part, Johnson on Wednesday invoked Chicago’s renowned Burnham Plan to reimagine the city’s urban planning and protect its lakefront, despite the potential threat of legal opposition from the Friends Of The Parks advocacy group over the proposed stadium’s use of public land along Lake Michigan. The stadium’s vision “truly embodies the spirit” of the architect Daniel Burnham’s 1909 blueprint of Chicago’s future, the mayor argued, before stretching the stakes further.

“All of these year-round attractions in the city of Chicago will generate significant new revenue that will support my commitment to invest in people,” Johnson said, “and that means more revenue for mental health clinics, youth jobs, housing, investments and our community violence interrupters. Simply put, this is going to reinvigorate the entire city of Chicago.”

His Education Committee chair Ald. Jeanette Taylor, 20th, shared some of the sharpest skepticism from City Council’s progressive bloc and doubted how much the South and West sides need this.

“Based on just common sense, it’s a no for me,” Taylor said. “Unless there is some real conversations on how they will support communities of color and young people who have never been in those stadiums, I’m not interested.”

Asked if Johnson’s backing of the stadium deal was progressive, Taylor questioned what the word “progressive” really means.

But finally, she added a definition: “Progressiveness is holding people accountable, even when they’re your own.”

ChicagoTribune’s Olivia Olander, Dan Petrella, Olivia Stevens and A.D. Quig contributed.

ayin@chicagotribune.com

jsheridan@chicagotribune.com

Team officials said during their public unveiling Wednesday the Bears would pledge $2.3 billion in private money while asking the state agency charged with stadium development projects to borrow less than half of that — $900 million — to build a long-sought, year-round indoor replacement for century-old Soldier Field.

But a deeper look at the financial details of the Bears’ full plans shows the costs, especially over the long term, are drastically higher.

In addition to the $900 million in borrowing, the Bears want the state’s stadium agency, the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, to refinance about $430 million in existing debt for previous projects and take out about $160 million more to set up as a so-called liquidity fund to cushion the city of Chicago from future shortfalls in revenue from a 2% city hotel tax that’s supposed to cover the cost of the borrowing.

Counting interest and other long-term costs, the proposed new borrowing would tally up to at least $4.8 billion over four decades, said Frank Bilecki, ISFA’s CEO.

In addition, the Bears are seeking up to $1.5 billion in infrastructure money, not counting the debt the public will incur, that the team says would be needed to fully realize its vision for a year-round venue and surrounding park space that Mayor Brandon Johnson said Wednesday would be “the crown jewel of the city of Chicago.”

The bill could even go up even more if the agency borrows additional money for the football stadium or other projects, such as a new White Sox or Red Stars stadium.

Although some costs would be offset by interest earned on the money parked in the liquidity fund, according to a financial expert familiar with the team’s plans who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the proposal in detail, the total price tag of the proposed borrowing is just one of many issues the Bears must tackle. They have pledged overt transparency along the way.

While Johnson has embraced the Bears’ vision, Gov. J.B. Pritzker and other state leaders — who must approve the borrowing plan at ISFA and, potentially, infrastructure dollars to make the team’s lakefront vision a reality — have been openly skeptical.

Pritzker, who for years has expressed wariness about using public funds to help build stadiums for professional sports franchises, on Friday reiterated that his door is not closed but that he must be convinced any use of taxpayer dollars reaps sufficient public benefits.

“I’m a Bears fan, and I want to see a domed stadium in the city of Chicago,” the governor said at an unrelated event. “But again, the question is, ‘Who’s paying for that?’

“And it seems to me that the team owner who benefits most ought to be the principal provider of the capital, and when I say principal, I mean the vast majority of it. And the taxpayers — to the extent that they’re putting anything up here — should be getting return on the investment that they’re making.”

The Bears answer to that question so far has been a projection that a new domed stadium would generate 37% more in local taxes than Soldier Field currently produces while delivering well-paying construction and permanent jobs. The city, county and state would annually net $64 million in additional amusement, hotel, income and sales taxes from the new stadium, they estimate.

But economists generally look askance at sports franchise claims that spending public dollars on professional sports stadiums is a good investment of taxpayer resources. Such developments rarely result in enough economic activity to boost per capita income, long-term jobs or sufficient tax revenue to recoup the cost of the subsidy, studies have found.

“From the city’s point of view, this would be one of the worst decisions they could make,” said Allen Sanderson, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and noted stadium skeptic.

Spending public money on the project would be akin to the team having used its No. 1 pick in Thursday’s NFL draft not on USC quarterback Caleb Williams but “to draft Brandon Johnson,” Sanderson said.

The grand vision for the new Bears stadium involves several moving pieces: the demolition of Soldier Field except for the historic colonnades and the stadium’s south-end horseshoe, construction of a new stadium hundreds of yards away to the south, and improvements to the surrounding public land that is part of the Museum Campus.

Though taxpayers, in one form or another, are slated to foot a substantial part of the bill, the Bears argue they are making one of the biggest investments in city history by investing $2 billion in equity and debt from the McCaskey family as well as a $300 million NFL loan.

The team has not yet finalized plans for naming rights or the sale of personal seat licenses. Both could be used, along with other revenue streams, to help cover a portion of its stadium costs.

The Bears’ $1.5 billion infrastructure wish list would be rolled out in three phases over five years, according to the plan.

The $325 million first phase — which Bears officials said was necessary to open the new stadium’s doors — involves moving utilities and roadways with the goal of reducing the bottleneck drivers currently sit through at McFetridge Drive.

The next two phases — costing an estimated $510 million and $665 million, respectively — include demolishing the old stadium, adding parking and expanding a bus depot, as well as building new parks and playfields. Phase three includes restoring the century-old colonnades, retail space and a possible hotel.

The latter two phases represent the bulk of public benefit Johnson and Bears President Kevin Warren highlighted during Wednesday’s presentation — athletic fields for Chicago Public Schools sports teams to use, field house facilities, and year-round amenities that would ultimately increase the current green space by nearly 20%. Johnson described the “miraculous” renderings as a fulfillment of Daniel Burnham’s vision for the city’s lakefront.

But the public funding for those infrastructure changes was unclear. Officials said they hoped to tap federal Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Act funding, including dollars set aside specifically for green infrastructure. The city is responsible for finding that money.

“We really look for the city to work with the state on that and what programs are available,” Bears Chief Operating Officer Karen Murphy said Wednesday.

The stadium refresh would require again tapping ISFA, which has so far paid $549.5 million for the 2001 “spaceship” renovation of Soldier Field. That tally is on track to hit $1.1 billion by 2032 under the current debt schedule.

Currently, ISFA pays down the debt with state hotel tax revenues, which are later replenished with funds from an additional 2% tax on city hotel stays. There also is a static $5 million annual payment each from the city and state.

When all ISFA bonds for Soldier Field and the White Sox stadium are paid off, the revenue from the 2% tax will be used to repay the city for what has been swept from its share of state income tax revenue to cover hotel tax shortfalls. Once that is repaid, the revenue would begin flowing to McCormick Place.

Under the Bears’ proposal, however, the 2% city tax would be used to continue paying stadium-related debt for another 40 years.

The 40-year term is unprecedented for state borrowing and suggests there is more debt than an ability to repay it under a more typical timeline, said Matt Fabian of Municipal Market Analytics, an independent research firm.

“That’s a very long time for an asset that typically doesn’t last 40 years. It’s one thing for Washington, D.C., to sell century-long bonds for their sewer system, because that’s going to last. But a stadium — to tie up taxpayer dollars for 40 years is a massive bet on this being a good idea,” he said.

The economic returns on a stadium have proven to be scant compared with other economic development measures like housing or transit improvement, Fabian said. The city and state would be better off saving taxpayer dollars to fund more urgent projects like infrastructure that protects against climate change.

“You shouldn’t be using up your borrowing capacity spuriously right now,” he said, suggesting the city focus on keeping “the lake out of downtown.”

However, the financial expert familiar with the team’s plans said 40-year financing has become relatively standard for large stadium projects.

Backers argue the taxpayer brunt is largely borne by visitors to Chicago, rather than residents. But when hotel tax revenues fall short of the required payment, the city has to make up the difference with its share of state income taxes.

That’s happened twice in recent years thanks to cratering hotel stays during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hotel tax revenues fell $27.3 million short in 2022 and $8.7 million the following year. That money was automatically withdrawn by the state from Chicago’s cut of state income taxes that goes to local governments. Those funds could have otherwise gone to filling gaps in the city’s budget.

That could become a more frequent occurrence as payments ramp up over the remaining life of the bonds.

The $160 million liquidity fund idea is aimed to address the use of city funds to make up the difference when hotel taxes don’t cover ISFA’s payments.

Creating that fund would add to ISFA’s debt while insulating Chicago. While the city would still be the guarantor of the debt if the liquidity fund is insufficient, the extra coverage would likely stave off several years of shortfalls. It would be set aside immediately from the initial proceeds of any bond sale to fund the project.

Setting aside reserves from a debt issuance is somewhat standard practice, said Ashlee Gabrysch of Fitch Ratings.

However, “this is, I think, slightly different than that, in that it’s anticipating an event that has actually occurred in the past, where the revenues were not sufficient to cover debt service,” Gabrysch said.

While a potential boon to the city’s immediate budget needs, creating such a fund is deficit borrowing, or the equivalent of using a credit card for groceries, Fabian said.

The plans also call for refinancing $430 million in outstanding debt for both Soldier Field and Sox Park. That could represent a repeat of the city’s and state’s histories with so-called scoop-and-toss borrowing — heaping old debt onto future generations.

After last week’s announcement, Pritzker told reporters that “there are aspects of this that are probably nonstarters.”

He didn’t answer directly when asked the next day whether the proposed liquidity fund was one of those aspects.

“The deal that was presented didn’t take into account that taxpayers really aren’t going to do well under that proposal,” Pritzker said.

Another outstanding question is whether hotel tax revenue will grow at a rate fast enough to support the proposed borrowing.

The Bears and Chicago CFO Jill Jaworski said Wednesday their bonding calculations rely on more conservative hotel tax revenue projections: an annual increase of about 4% or 4.5% compared with the 5.6% growth assumption in previous ISFA bonds sales.

While the financial expert familiar with the team’s plans said revenue from the dedicated city hotel tax grew at an annual rate of 4.6% from 1994 to 2023, Fitch’s Gabrysch said the Bears’ assumed growth rate could be overly rosy.

When it comes to business-related levies like the hotel tax, “we look at closer to a 2%” annual growth rate, she said.

Another wrinkle: In an interview Wednesday with the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board, Warren also suggested the team hasn’t “given up” on construction of a hotel, which would be included in phase three, arguing it “would be sold out constantly” given the hoped-for events at the new stadium.

He suggested it would be publicly owned.

“We already have history and tradition,” in the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority’s ownership of the Hyatt Regency at McCormick Place and the Marriott Marquis Chicago. “We know it works, if you check their occupancy and profitability,” Warren said. If lawmakers “like it, we love it.”

A stadium-based sportsbook is not in the cards at the moment, Murphy said, though the team “would be open to talking about it in the future.”

Though the Chicago Park District would remain the team’s landlord, it’s still undecided how much of a cut the district would receive from new events at the stadium, like concerts, NCAA Final Four matchups or a Super Bowl.

Park District revenue from Soldier Field includes Bears games — which brought in $7 million in 2023 — non-Bears events like concerts, nonevent parking and an annual subsidy from ISFA. In 2024, gross revenues are budgeted at $53.9 million — about 9% of all park revenues — against $35.3 million in gross expenses.

After Pritzker publicly said the team is “asking to keep all the revenue from other events that might take place at this stadium,” citing Beyoncé concerts as an example, the Bears issued a statement saying negotiations are ongoing.

“The Chicago Bears, the city of Chicago and all interested parties will need to work together so that we can achieve a mutually beneficial agreement for operating the new stadium and cultural and recreation campus,” the team’s statement said.