[MUSIC] >> Welcome to Capital View on Suzhou.

I'm Brian Sapp.

Legislators and Capitol watchers have had a week to digest governor JB Pritzker, state of the State and Budget address, which included a tight budget outlook and ways to tackle tackle affordability issues.

And just the day after the speech, the bears in the state of Indiana announced legislation trying to lure the team to Hammond, Indiana.

Illinois legislators now are working this week to help to keep the Bears in Illinois, to help us break down these stories and more, we're joined by Brendan Moore.

He's the state House reporter with Capitol News, Illinois, and Kent Redfield Redfield, the political scientist, professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, Springfield.

Brendan and Kent, welcome to the program.

>> Good to be here.

>> Always a pleasure, Brian.

>> Good to see you guys.

Let's start off, um, we watched the governor's address last week, and we've had a week to process it.

Brendan, let's start with you.

What were what are some things now that the legislators had some days to be in session and process it?

What should we be looking at?

>> Big word Brian, I think in the spending plan is status quo.

Uh, it really holds the line on spending.

Uh, it's about 800, $900 million more than the current year budget.

Uh, when you take out some of the required payments, like pensions and for increases to education funding, uh, really the increase is about a half percent.

Uh, so this is very much a maintenance budget is the right word, but it's a let's not rock the boat budget.

Uh, this is a budget where there's a lot of federal uncertainty, uh, about the status of federal funds, whether, uh, you know, it's concerns down the line about what's in the one big, beautiful bill act asked about some of these programs that have been tied up in litigation with the federal government.

So Governor Pritzker, heading into an election year, uh, did not want to raise, uh, broad based taxes, um, but wanted to try to preserve programs, uh, largely did that, uh, but, uh, but there will be, um, a lot of pushback from, from some progressive groups who, you know, want more spending, more of a less of a defensive posture and more of going on offense, especially now that the the federal government has enacted some of these policy changes that have disproportionately benefited the wealthy.

So there's been some talk about, uh, a wealth tax about, um, you know, going after trying to do another graduate income tax amendment.

Uh, the governor has not pushed those things in this session.

Uh, but I don't think that's going to stop the conversation at least from happening.

Um, there was a proposed tax on social media companies in, in this proposal, uh, the, you know, the governor aims to, uh, you know, raise about $200 million for education.

Um, so that was an interesting proposal in there.

But for the most part, though, uh, it's a very much, uh, status quo spending plan.

Um, that, uh, kind of, uh, doesn't really rock the boat in an election year.

Um, again, still has to be negotiated with the legislature.

And, uh, this is really just kind of, uh, the opening salvo.

It's the kickoff to a season of negotiations, a season of budget making that will, uh, that will culminate in the end of session in May.

>> Let's let's take it from there, Kent, as we we that's what's next.

We just have to we have until the end of May to get this budget together.

What are some things watching state politics or as long as you have what should we look we be looking for.

How is this going to play out do you think?

>> Yeah.

We're not going to do anything that really gets at the underlying fundamental problems of the state's fiscal situation.

I mean, that's that's going to take time and money.

And we really have neither one of those, you know, they're going to get a primary out of the way.

And then a headlong rush to get, you know, a budget passed before you hit the end of May when the numbers change.

And so nobody wants to be, uh, you know, we empower every member of the Democratic caucus when suddenly they're looking, you know, not just for 60 votes or 30 votes, but, you know, the bigger numbers that even with the supermajorities and so, um, you know, and so you put a lot of things in there that discuss the problems.

You know, we're going to do something with opening up small nuclear facilities to put some more, uh, juice into the into the grid.

Uh, but, you know, we hope to start I think 2033 was when we were talking about, you know, finally getting together to to put these, uh, you know, small facilities, uh, online that would add to what we're doing.

And, uh, the background is that, you know, we've got a, an energy crunch that's going to hit us, uh, in the next couple of years.

That may end up, uh, you know, where we might have to keep some coal fired plants online in order to keep the lights on.

So, uh, you know, it it is.

You know, it's a discussion about problems, but, uh, there's not much in there that is going to result in a short, short term fix.

Uh, that's, uh, you know, whether, you know, the only people that may have leverage, maybe the, the bears, uh, and the governor, when they want, you know, if they're if they're, they're, uh, mega project bill and, uh, you know, what the what the bears want to do with moving to, uh, Arlington Heights, you know, you could end up with something like that.

That might, uh, open up the auction, uh, across, uh, you know, the whole of the legislature.

Uh, but it could just be a very sleepy, you know, sleepy, uh, status quo kind of session.

So it's hard to tell at this point.

>> I think that's one of the things that interests me in watching this.

You know, we're we're at that, I guess, for lack of a better word, at the top of the funnel where everybody's got their ideas and it's going to whittle down.

Brendan, how is the, um, Democrats obviously have a veto proof they have a majority?

Um, is there going to be a heavy lift for the governor to get everybody in the Democratic caucus behind his budget ideas here and keep them in line?

>> Yeah, I mean, every year it's kind of a battle.

You know, maybe they just see the numbers and say, oh, it must be easy to get your budget passed.

But, uh, there's a lot of diversity within the the Democratic caucus in both the House and the Senate.

And, you know, so getting them all in agreement, uh, you know, with, you know, within their own caucuses and, and, you know, with, with the two caucuses, you know, the House and the Senate sometimes differ, too.

And then, you know, the legislature differs from the governor.

Uh, they've always landed the plane, uh, under Governor Pritzker.

Uh, it hasn't been pretty some years, but, uh, they've always passed a budget.

Uh, I would, I would imagine this year they will, as they will do that once again.

Uh, again, it's a it's it's a an election year.

Uh, there's kind of a a, uh, I guess, desire not to rock the boat, uh, not to do anything too controversial.

Uh, it appears there's enough revenue coming in where, you know, you can avoid drastic cuts.

And I think that is going to be enough for for a lot of legislators.

Uh, would have been hard, you know, harder if you were facing, you know, as you probably will in the coming years, more so when some of these federal changes take effect.

Uh, but this year, it looks like it won't be as difficult.

Um, you know, there there might be some haggling about some of the fine details, but, uh, you know, I did have an interview with House Speaker Chris Welch, uh, right after the budget address, and he kind of said kind of what we know that, you know, any given year, about 90% of what the governor proposes is in the final budget.

You know, you may haggle over some of the details.

Some things might change.

Um, you know, it's not going to look, uh, 100% like what was proposed, but, uh, it will be pretty darn close.

So, uh, I would expect the Democrats to, to land the plane again.

Uh, again, you know, we'll see.

Things can blow up, but, uh, uh, but they have a decent track record, at least in the past few years of, of getting it done before they finish their business for, for the spring session.

>> That's an interesting thought from Mr.

Welch.

You want to make sure that they have it together.

And I think it goes back to kind of what the governor said.

I think near the end of his speech where he said he just wanted a normal year, and it sounds like he's trying to it's not going to be normal outside.

He's trying to set it up so that we can weather that.

So got a long few months, so we'll see how the budget turns out.

The other part where some of the policy issues that he talked about, um, last week we had John, um, John Jackson and John Foster on to, um, react to the governor's speech.

And one of the things that they talked about was how the two speeches, the state of the state and the budget were combined.

And then there weren't many numbers, but there were some policy issues.

Kent, I want to start with you.

What was one, 1 or 2 of the policy suggestions from the governor that maybe kind of struck you?

>> Um, well, I mean, some of this is I mean, we're talking cell phones.

Uh, you know, that's a local issue that doesn't involve any revenue.

Uh, it's a you know, who no one's in favor of, uh, you know, destroying children's minds through social media.

So, you know, there's not you know, there's no general opposition.

It gets complex when it gets down to, you know, the the specifics.

Uh, again, the energy part of it, uh, you know, it is talking about something that, you know, might start putting nuclear facilities, you know, uh, under construction, you know, eight, six, eight years down the road, uh, you know, ten years doesn't, doesn't, doesn't do much.

And so, um, I think there's some effort, you know, at least to start a conversation about housing, uh, because, you know, there's a lot of it that involves what we're going to do, this type of development, that type of development, this kind of financing.

Well, if we just get interest rates down, then the market will open everything up.

And, uh, you know, there are a lot of people that look at housing and say, you know, we're in a very different situation than where we were, you know, 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

You know, what's it going to take if home ownership is kind of a core part of how we think of ourselves culturally, having a family, you know, owning a home, uh, then, you know, do we need to be rethinking.

And, you know, that's getting into a conversation, uh, that, uh, you know, has to deal with local zoning and, uh, it has to deal with how the, you know, how we buy and sell real estate.

Uh, you know, there's some fundamental kinds of things that, you know, we're kind of operating with an ideal about a housing market ought to work that, you know, might have been great in the 50s and the 60s, but really doesn't fit what's going on now.

And so I don't think that's wasted energy to start asking tough questions about what is affordable housing look like.

You know, how do we deal with, you know, not only for people in poverty situations, low income, but middle class families?

You know, how how to how do we how do we restructure something that, uh, you know, we're always looking for, you know, the magic bullet this is if we just did this one thing, then we'd be back to normal.

Uh, normal doesn't exist anymore.

And.

And I think that's.

So that's the one thing I. You know, I think that's productive, uh, to talk about that, uh, nuclear is fine.

Uh, we happen to almost lead the nation in the amount of our electricity that comes from nuclear facilities.

So, you know, the problem is we're trading, uh, fossil fuels for affordable, uh, in a situation where demands are going through, you know, are really probably going to go up.

And it's it's very complicated.

Uh, and, uh, you know, expecting miracles out of this session.

I'd be satisfied with some good, you know, good conversations about how to ask the serious questions.

>> Uh, head over to you, Brendan.

Um, housing seems to have been popular.

What what what did you see from that?

What's been the reception to that?

And also, is there any other policies that the governor brought up that are going to, you know, step out and bring attention to themselves?

>> Governor Pritzker, uh, I would say in terms of his policy agenda that he outlined in his state of the dress was kind of a let's get out of our own way type of, of, of way of looking at things, especially when it comes to housing and especially when it comes to energy.

So on on housing, he proposed a comprehensive plan that would basically, uh, allow for, uh, create a state zoning law that would basically say that, uh, multi-unit housing would be allowed by right on most land that's zoned for residential.

It would also legalize accessory dwelling units such as granny flats.

You know, it would establish statewide timelines for inspections and reviews and allow for third party inspectors, uh, to to do the job of municipalities drag their feet.

Uh, and it also includes a capital side investment to spur more housing.

Uh, so it's kind of trying to eliminate red tape, eliminate, you know, tear down some of these barriers, especially local barriers, uh, that that, that make building housing difficult and expensive.

Um, obviously, uh, there's been pushback.

Uh, this would be a significant preemption of local authority.

Uh, so municipalities, uh, are less than thrilled by this proposal.

And I think that'll make it make it difficult for the governor to get it through.

Uh, but, uh, it's, uh, it's there's certainly been a kind of a yes in my backyard movement that's kind of sprung up in recent years based on some of these affordability issues.

So I think it'll be a good campaign issue for him, especially with some elements of his base.

Uh, but it will upset some of those folks, especially in the suburbs, where you have maybe some more of this, uh, exclusionary residential, uh, single family homes, zoned, uh, suburbs.

And, uh, I think that a lot of these local governments are going to want to protect their right to zone, uh, to, I guess, plan their communities as they see fit.

Um, and then just quickly on the nuclear um, as Kent said, Illinois is number one in terms of nuclear production.

Uh, and, you know, it still comprises more than half of the electricity production in the state.

But, uh, we had a moratorium in place for a long time.

And, uh, you know, since I believe 1987, it was literally just lifted, uh, last year.

And, uh, but obviously nuclear takes some time to develop.

So, uh, the governor is trying to spur that through an executive order, uh, to get, you know, basically getting the state, all the state agencies ready, uh, you know, to, to seek out development of new nuclear.

Um, this is again, is kind of, uh, maybe more of a pragmatic approach to, to energy production, an acknowledgement that, uh, wind and solar and other renewables haven't come online as quickly enough.

And, you know, even as they are developing may not be enough, uh, baseload power to, uh, to give the state reliable and affordable energy in the future.

So nuclear is viewed as a solution to that, is viewed as a reliable part of the portfolio.

And other states have embraced this type of agenda to, of, um, you know, we're going to build out more nuclear and, uh, you know, that'll be I mean, not it's not the only thing you have to do to to bring down energy costs, but it is it is a big part of the puzzle.

>> Yeah.

And when he talked about nuclear and the, the surgeo, the with the battery storage and so and it sounds like everybody's trying to do understand that, uh, it might be the need for energy is coming closer faster than it wanted.

I talked with, um, state Senator Terry Bryant, Republican down here.

And that was one of the things that she touched on was the nuclear.

And she's in favor of of that.

I think, you know, my guess is she's got her differences with the governor and how it happens.

But it sounds like there's some movement there and.

>> Yeah.

And I'll just add Brian to your point.

I mean, that's a very bipartisan, uh, issue.

And, you know, state Senator Sue risen up in the Morris area.

She has a few nuke plants in her district, has been kind of leading the charge on the Republican side for this.

And, uh, you know, just talking to folks on both sides of the aisle last week, that was the one area of agreement.

Well, a couple of areas agreement.

But nuclear was a big one where Republicans said they could work with the governor on that, along with the cell phone ban.

That one also has has some popularity.

Cell phone ban in schools.

>> Yeah.

And and I think, as Kent said, got to get the idea out there and then work through the process, the process we have and try to get it down to something where people got the best bill that they think they do, wanted to move on.

We've got about a little bit more in five minutes.

The almost took the wind out of the sails.

The bears and the state of Indiana announced that the house in Indiana had passed a bill trying to lure the Bears to Hammond, Indiana.

Um, Brendan, you had done some reporting on that, so I wanted to start with you.

Where do things stand this week?

It's been a busy week.

A lot have happened, but I don't know if you could boil it down for us.

>> Yeah, well, we're talking a little earlier in the week, but.

So?

So things could change by the time this airs.

But, uh, let's just say that things are a lot.

People in Illinois are a lot more optimistic than they were last week when when Indiana, when Indiana passed their bill out of committee, everyone was, you know, the sky was falling.

The bears were leaving.

Uh, the bears put out a statement that that rubbed the governor and a lot of folks in Illinois the wrong way.

Uh, the bears cleaned it up over the weekend.

Kevin Warne a statement saying that he's been satisfied with some of the movement in Illinois.

Uh, because there has been a lot of movement in recent weeks.

Uh, there's been a lot of work done on this, uh, this payment in lieu of taxes bill that the bears have been seeking to get, basically a property tax break at the site in Arlington Heights.

There's been a lot more detailed discussions about infrastructure that would be needed around the stadium.

The state's always been open to that.

So things are coming together.

I think the question is, will there be a bill that moves this week in the House?

And again, you know, by the time this airs, who knows?

Uh, but uh, but it is kind of, uh, a little bit up in the air, uh, because there's still a lot of work to be done and there's still some skepticism among, uh, some, some legislators, especially Chicago legislators who, uh, would be essentially this would be voting to make it easier for the bears to leave Chicago, uh, leave Soldier Field, uh, which still has taxpayers still owe a little bit less than half $1 billion on the bonds that that were issued to renovate Soldier Field in the early 2000.

So, uh, a lot of Chicago legislators are going to want something for the city, uh, in a package, uh, And you know, just want to make it.

Also want to make sure that that the this pilot is payment in lieu of taxes is very narrowly tailored that yeah you can do it for the stadium.

Maybe some things around the stadium like like a team Hall of Fame.

But you know, you can't use it necessarily for like the big stadium district, you know, the housing and the, you know, restaurants and bars that, that, that you want to do, uh, at this 326 acre site.

So, uh, I think they're, they're kind of working on the language now to make sure that that, you know, that the tax break isn't too big and that, you know, other developers can't necessarily take advantage of it, uh, in that way.

But but a lot, a lot of positive momentum.

The governor, you know, signaled that, uh, on Tuesday when he was asked about it, uh, and, uh, you know, they said there's broad agreement and, uh, and also too, I mean, we'll see what happens in Indiana.

We're getting a better picture now of what it would take to pay for that stadium.

There would be public dollars that would go toward stadium construction.

Uh, at least half a dozen, uh, taxes would be used, uh, to, to, to fund that.

Whether it's the increase in the food and beverage tax increase in the hotel tax in Lake County, Indiana, um, you know, a special taxing district that would take the increment from property taxes and income tax and, um, and other taxes, a ticket tax at the stadium.

Um, you know, the governor asked the question, uh, kind of a rhetorical question of he'd be, you know, very interested in like if Indiana taxpayers would be okay with, you know, he called it massive tax increases.

But but I don't know if it would be massive, but like, there there would be a lot of, uh, people in northwest Indiana would be paying more to, for for the right the privilege of having this stadium.

Um, and again, that's something that's never been on the table in Illinois.

Uh, and, uh, but yeah, we'll see in the next few weeks will be interesting.

>> Uh, Kent, I want to just kind of your thoughts.

I was trying to figure out, is this just a negotiating tactic last week when we heard this come out on Thursday.

Um, and then also, I think Brendan talked about this, the state seemed and the governor seemed to telegraph, you know, a few months ago that they're open to these infrastructure improvements that that was maybe, you know, implying that that they might be able to get somewhere.

What's your take?

>> Yeah.

I you know, I think events happen and so they push things along.

But this is not you know, this is on a larger scale.

Uh, the governor wants a mega project bill that allows him to do economic development, uh, and compete with other states.

And so you have infrastructure that is capital money that you can't take and put in the education for education funding.

You know, this is just a larger scale sort of sort of effort in terms of providing incentives for businesses to locate, to move, what have you.

Uh, and the governor views it as a competitive kind of situation.

And so it's kind of the good news is that it has to do with the bears.

So that's a lot of attention.

But the bad news is that it has to do with moving the bears.

And, you know, that means you got more people that you you have to smooth things over with.

But this would not be unusual at all if you looked at other the way other privately funded stadiums have been built.

There's an awful lot of public money that goes into all of into those projects that are basically quote unquote, private stadiums.

We shall see.

>> We shall see.

That was a busy week, trying to chase down a lot of stuff.

And I'm sure, as you know, by the time this airs, it could be could have some new information and maybe the.

We have some movement going forward.

Well, gentlemen, thank you for joining us.

Glad to have you today.

That's it for this week's edition of Capital View.

Thank you for joining us.

On behalf of Brendan Moore and Kent Greenfield or Redfield.

Sorry, Kent, I keep doing that.

I'm Brian Sapp.

Thank you for joining us on Capital View.

[MUSIC] [MUSIC]