If Illinois legislators ever seriously debate a new stadium for the Chicago Bears, they undoubtedly will start with a discussion about Comiskey Park.
It’s not that the Bears could play in Comiskey. It’s that Comiskey could serve as a benchmark, at least in terms of public financing for a new sports arena.
The controversial 1988 deal to build a South Side baseball stadium, and the results of the deal, will serve as ammunition for both proponents and opponents of a similar arrangement. Two weeks ago, Bears president Michael McCaskey asked the legislature to approve $185 million in state bonds for a new football stadium.
Comiskey Park was built with $150 million in state bonds.
So the question that legislators will ask is: How good or bad a financial deal has the new baseball stadium been for Illinois? The answers vary.
According to Comiskey Park officials, the stadium has done very well-to the point of costing state taxpayers less than expected.
“I think Comiskey’s been very successful for the state and the city,” said Mark Peterson, executive director of the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. “They invested in Comiskey to help Major League Baseball in Chicago, but also to help out the region financially.”
Even so, critics insist, the arrangement was a mistake-transferring taxpayer dollars to a private sports business.
“Maybe it’s better than anticipated, but you just have to ask yourself philosophically: If you have a dollar to spend, is it wise to spend it on a recreation industry?” asked former Rep. John Dunn, a Decatur Democrat who was among the deal’s most vocal opponents. “To spend any taxpayer dollars for a recreation industry is questionable.”
Other observers point out important differences between the Bears and the White Sox, and those also could prove instructive.
Comiskey Park, which was host to baseball games starting in 1991, was the result of a nasty political fight-and the Comiskey proposal barely passed the General Assembly. Many legislators saw the plan as a good investment for Chicago, but others believed it was fiscally foolish to put a baseball team before items such as education.
The complicated 20-year agreement that eventually was approved now can be viewed most simply in terms of approximate revenues and expenses for the Sports Facilities Authority, which operates Comiskey Park.
The authority receives $5 million annually from both the city and the state. It also receives the annual proceeds of a 2 percent tax on Chicago hotel rooms, which were expected to be at least $8 million. And the White Sox contribute about $3 million in rent per year-with the exact amount depending on attendance.
That comes to about $21 million in annual revenues.
The authority owes $14.65 million each year to bondholders. It also has about $5.8 million in bills each year, including administration, maintenance and capital expenditures.
That comes to about $20.45 million in annual expenses, roughly equal to revenues.
In reality, however, the revenues have been much higher than expected. The hotel tax has brought in at least $12.1 million each year, according to the authority’s figures, and it is expected to raise $15.6 million next year.
What money remains after the authority pays its expenses is rebated to the city’s McCormick Place expansion and to the state’s general fund, in equal amounts. Such rebates have averaged almost $4.1 million per year, or more than 40 percent of the $10 million that Chicago and Illinois initially contribute.
As a result, the authority technically could cover its expenses without a single White Sox game-although that would reduce rebates substantially. The recent baseball strike made that scenario a brief reality.
Authority officials expect the next rebate to total only about $3.5 million, a figure that suffered because of last year’s early end to baseball. Even a one-time decrease, however, should have little impact on the huge McCormick Place and Illinois budgets.
More Top Picks Best Gaming Mouse Pad
“It was one of the best votes I ever made in the General Assembly,” said Rep. Donald Saltsman (D-Peoria), who grudgingly supported the plan.
Saltsman noted the baseball team’s success, including a division championship in 1993, as a major factor in drawing fans and generating revenues.
“Yes, there was some money up front that could have gone to other projects, but I know you have to put money in to get a good business deal,” said Rep. Louis Lang (D-Skokie), who also supported the bill.
It turns out that a set of 1988 projections prepared by authority officials was remarkably accurate. While some people were predicting insignificant or even red-ink rebates, stadium officials said Comiskey would return about $4 million per year.
The deal’s success, however, has had more to do with Chicago’s strength as a business and tourism destination than with the White Sox. The excess hotel tax has accounted for more than the team rent, and that ratio is rising.
Since 1988, according to the Hotel-Motel Association of Illinois, downtown occupancy rates in Chicago and the number of rooms have increased slightly. Arnold Karr, president of the association, also noted that convention business has been strong and that rates have risen recently.
The 2 percent tax, he conceded, has had little effect on travel here.
But critics of Comiskey contend that even a few million dollars in city and state money is too much for a sports arena, noting that Illinois still has trouble paying for education and social services. They also attack Chicago’s relatively high hotel tax and the state’s increasing burden of debt.
And as for the hotel tax windfall, Lake Forest College economics Professor Robert Baade said: “I think it’s fortunate it turned out that way, but you can’t plan for that.”
Such criticisms already form a foundation of opposition to McCaskey’s request. Several legislators who backed the Comiskey Park bill say that a football stadium provides far fewer dates to generate revenue and that the state isn’t really in danger of losing the NFL franchise.