City Council committee backs $32.1 million in security upgrades for Wrigley Field
A key City Council committee advanced a $32.1 million plan to upgrade security at and around Wrigley Field.
The package backed by the Finance Committee on Monday would call for "anti-terrorism rated security bollards" to be installed around the ballpark, and for sidewalks on Addison Street to be widened by four feet.
The project would receive $10 million in city funding and $12 million in state funding. The Cubs would have to pay at least $8 million, and cover any cost overruns.
Ald. Bennett Lawson (44th), whose ward includes Wrigley Field, hopes the security plan will help the Cubs get approval from Major League Baseball to host a future All-Star Game.
The plan could face a final vote by the full City Council on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
8 minutes ago
- Washington Post
A split forms in MAGA world as Trump weighs next steps on Iran, with some top stars rebuking him
A schism has opened among President Donald Trump's most devout MAGA supporters and national security conservatives over the Israel-Iran conflict , as some longtime defenders of the president's America First mantra call him out for weighing a greater U.S. role in the region. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, commentator Tucker Carlson and conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk — with legions of their own devoted followers — are reminding audiences of Trump's 2024 promises to resist overseas military involvement after a week of deadly strikes and counterstrikes between Israel and Iran, and discussion of U.S. involvement.
New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Senate Wants Billions More in Medicaid Cuts, Pinching States and Infuriating Hospitals
The Senate policy bill released Monday would cut billions of dollars more from Medicaid than the earlier, House-passed legislation — in large part by cracking down on a budgeting maneuver used by 49 states that congressional Republicans have called a scam or gimmick. It does this by limiting Medicaid provider taxes, a loophole that states use to collect more federal matching funds for Medicaid, an insurance program for the poor that covers roughly 70 million Americans. For decades, taxing providers like hospitals has been a major part of how states pay Medicaid bills, but this tactic has come under scrutiny in Congress this year as Republicans look for ways to help pay for President Trump's tax cuts. Cutting provider taxes would probably mean funding shortfalls of hundreds of billions of dollars for states over the next decade, leaving them with budget holes to fill. To offset the losses, states would most likely need to explore cutting other services or raising other taxes. In scaling back Medicaid provider taxes, Senate Republicans are pursuing cuts that their House colleagues were hesitant to propose. House members had landed on freezing provider tax rates at current levels instead of reducing them. If the Senate passes its plan for provider taxes, the House and the Senate will have to reconcile their differences. The basic way Medicaid payments work A state pays a hospital $1,000 for a patient's medical expenses. The federal government reimburses the state a share of the amount, in this case 60 percent. $1,000 payment $600 reimbursement State government $400 paid on net Federal government Local hospital How states use provider taxes A state pays a hospital a higher amount, but charges some of it back in taxes, in this case $30. The federal government calculates its share based on the original payment. The state can keep the extra money. $1,030 payment $618 reimbursement $30 tax State government $382 paid on net The tax generates an additional $18 for the state. Federal government Local hospital The basic way Medicaid payments work How states use provider taxes A state pays a hospital $1,000 for a patient's medical expenses. The federal government reimburses the state a share of the amount, in this case 60 percent. A state pays a hospital a higher amount, but charges some of it back in taxes, in this case $30. The federal government calculates its share based on the original payment. The state can keep the extra money. $1,030 payment $1,000 payment $600 reimbursement $618 reimbursement $30 tax State government State government $400 paid on net $382 paid on net The tax generates an additional $18 for the state. Federal government Local hospital Federal government Local hospital The basic way Medicaid payments work A state pays a hospital $1,000 for a patient's medical expenses. The federal government reimburses the state a share of the amount, in this case 60 percent. $1,000 payment $600 reimbursement State government $400 paid on net Federal government Local hospital How states use provider taxes A state pays a hospital a higher amount, but charges some of it back in taxes, in this case $30. The federal government calculates its share based on the original payment. The state can keep the extra money. $1,030 payment $618 reimbursement $30 tax State government $382 paid on net The tax generates an additional $18 for the state. Federal government Local hospital Note: States pay different shares of Medicaid costs. This example illustrates when a state pays 40 percent, a common scenario. The New York Times Estimated share of federal Medicaid funding from hospital and nursing home taxes 0% 10% 20% 30% Wash. Maine Mont. N.D. Minn. Vt. Ore. N.H. Idaho Wis. N.Y. S.D. Mich. Wyo. Conn. Pa. Iowa N.J. Neb. Nev. Ohio Md. Ill. Ind. Utah Colo. Calif. Va. Kan. Mo. Ky. N.C. Tenn. Okla. Ariz. Ark. S.C. N.M. Ala. Ga. Miss. La. Texas Alaska Fla. Hawaii Estimated share of federal Medicaid funding from hospital and nursing home taxes 0% 10% 20% 30% Wash. Maine Mont. N.D. Minn. Vt. Ore. N.H. Idaho Wis. S.D. N.Y. Mass. R.I. Conn. Mich. Wyo. Pa. N.J. Iowa Neb. Nev. Ohio Del. Md. Ill. Ind. Utah Colo. Va. Calif. Mo. Kan. Ky. N.C. Tenn. Okla. Ariz. Ark. N.M. S.C. Ga. Ala. Miss. La. Texas Alaska Fla. Hawaii Source: The Hilltop Institute This map underestimates the effect of provider taxes in the Dakotas, which tax other health care providers, and North Carolina, which recently made major policy changes. The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
South Carolina's LaNorris Sellers rejected tempting transfer offers, the college football star's father says
The advent of name, image, and likeness (NIL) has significantly altered the college sports landscape. High-profile college athletes will often consider projected NIL figures before they commit to or transfer to another school. South Carolina football star LaNorris Sellers received tempting offers designed to entice him to enter the transfer portal. "He was offered all kinds of crazy numbers," Sellers' father, Norris, told The Athletic. The South Carolina quarterback ultimately turned down the offers in favor of remaining with the Gamecocks, according to his father. At least one of the lucrative proposals "he heard was for $8 million for two years," Sellers' father said. He also suggested that his son never intended to play college football to simply "make money" and that another university "offering more" wasn't enough to motivate the quarterback to transfer. "I told him he could say, 'I'm gonna stay or I'm gonna go.' [But] my two cents: It was to get into college on a scholarship, play ball, get our degree, and go on about our business," Norris Sellers said. "This NIL deal came later. We didn't come here to make money. We came here to get our education, play ball, and with schools calling, we're not gonna jump ship because they're offering more than what we're getting. If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Sellers, who will be classified as a redshirt sophomore this fall, finished the 2024 season with 2,534 passing yards and 18 touchdowns. He will be eligible for the NFL draft after the 2025 college season. Sellers and South Carolina are slated to open the regular season on Aug. 31 against Virginia Tech in Atlanta. College athletes started receiving compensation for their names, images, and likenesses in 2021. At the time, many athletic boosters formed groups called collectives. The collective effectively tapped NIL funds as de facto salaries for their respective teams. Prominent players have received millions of dollars from collectives. However, a federal judge's recent decision on a $2.8 billion settlement paved the way for college and university athletic departments to cut checks directly to athletes. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the multi-billion The House v. NCAA settlement. Wilken's ruling came just weeks before July 1, the date many schools planned to begin issuing payments directly to athletes. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
