HB2657 would require the Illinois Department of Transportation to complete a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the proposed South Suburban Airport before any additional state money can be spent on the project. The bill also bars the State from allocating further funds and prohibits IDOT from using Airport Improvement Program money for the airport until the analysis is finished.
The measure further reaches private development activity tied to the airport by requiring any request for proposal submitted after the bill’s effective date to include a certification that no additional funds will be used for the project until the analysis is completed. The bill defines “funds” broadly to include spending for studies, engineering, environmental review, and other public expenditures related to airport construction, and it takes effect immediately.
Impact
HB2657 would add a new Section 2705-627 to the Department of Transportation Law in the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. Its practical effect is to place a temporary funding freeze on the South Suburban Airport project and to condition further public or programmatic spending on completion of a mandated analysis. It would affect IDOT, state funding decisions, Airport Improvement Program expenditures, and any private developer participating in the airport procurement process.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests a cautious, oversight-oriented approach rather than outright support or opposition to the airport itself. The bill appears designed to slow or pause spending until the project’s economic justification is examined, indicating concern about fiscal prudence and project viability. No formal vote history or transcript is available to show broader legislative sentiment.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether the South Suburban Airport should continue receiving public support before a full cost-benefit review is completed. Supporters of the bill would likely argue that the state should not commit more money without clearer evidence of value, while opponents may view the funding restriction as an unnecessary delay to a long-planned infrastructure project. The requirement that private developers certify no additional funds will be used may also be controversial because it extends the pause beyond direct state appropriations and could complicate procurement and development planning.