Instead, a broader megaproject proposal that would benefit the Bears would have been combined with other legislation, potentially a bill so loaded with other economic development incentives favored by Pritzker and state legislators that it could have proved difficult to turn down.

The Bears received significant support from organized labor, who want a large construction project that will benefit their members and lobbied legislators to not deny the team from being eligible for tax incentives.

Ultimately, no amendment was filed, and a sponsor of megaproject legislation says she’ll work through the summer to address the concerns of her colleagues.

An extra hand?

Some thought the team was also receiving an assist from an unlikely partner.

Comments made in meetings by Pritzker — that he would not block any megaproject bill he deems good for the state, simply because the Bears could also benefit — led some to believe he had shifted his stance on stadium subsidies, but the governor did not actively lobby for the Bears and his team says his position has been consistent.

Pritzker’s comments led to a frenzy of calls a day before the spring legislative session ended, as members of the Chicago delegation, the team’s current landlords at the Chicago Park District and city officials scrambled to plan their defense, believing the governor was actively supporting the team.

The governor had been cold to the Bears’ proposed lakefront stadium deal to stay in the city that would have required lawmakers to green-light $900 million in direct stadium subsidies and another $1.5 billion in public infrastructure spending. 

But he’s repeatedly left the door open for a plan that doesn’t require direct state subsidies and has hired a consultant to evaluate whatever projections and offers the team puts forward.

After the end of the spring session, Pritzker told reporters that, as a Chicago resident, he wants to see the team stay in the city, but they are “a private business and they’ll choose to do what they like.”

“This is about making this a business-friendly, job-friendly state and not specifically about the Bears,” he said.

Outlines of a possible deal

The so-called megadevelopment legislation would allow eligible developers — defined in one bill as those investing at least $500 million, with signed labor peace agreements and that stay in operation for at least 20 years — to have their property tax frozen for decades, even as the property value rises as the project takes root.

The developer would then negotiate with the local taxing bodies, including municipalities and school districts, on an annual payment in lieu of taxes, or PILOT, which would likely be significantly less than a regular bill due to the frozen property tax rate. 

It’s a structure the Bears have sought for years in Arlington Heights. 

Negotiations over how many years the tax break would last, whether to make the annual payments tied to inflation, and ensuring school districts are front and center of the talks will continue in the coming months.

But no amendment aiding the team this past weekend was going to sneak by those in the Chicago delegation wary of any vote that has them opening the exit door.

High alert

Even amid tense negotiations over the state budget, which was approved, and a mass transit overhaul that failed, Illinois Rep. Kam Buckner, D–Chicago, told Crain’s he was keeping close tabs on the bills that were rumored to carry the megaproject legislation.

During a discussion on separate legislation amending Illinois’ sales tax and revenue, or STAR, bond program — which allowed projects to receive up to $75 million from bonds backed by an increase in state sales taxes spurred by the development — state Rep. Curtis Tarver, D-Chicago, made public the private worry of Chicago Park District officials.

Tarver repeatedly sought assurances from state Rep. Jay Hoffman, D–Belleville, that STAR bonds would not support stadium construction despite language Hoffman added to the bill that appeared to exclude professional sports teams.

The amendment was meant to assuage those concerns by ruling out projects whose “primary purpose” is for a sports stadium.

That still concerned some who thought it may be a clever way of saying a stadium built for the Bears — but capable of holding more concerts and other events than NFL games — could tap into the bonds.

Hoffman repeatedly said the language was meant to block stadiums.

Buckner also received a call from the park district, but he felt comfortable that the language excluding stadiums was sufficient. 

Nonetheless, any legislation that helps the Bears build a new stadium should only be approved through a vote on its own merits, Buckner said.

"If the Bears were trying to use some kind of end-around of procedures to get what they needed in Springfield, I think — number one — that was the wrong thing to do. Number two, this should be proof positive to them, that sunlight and scrutiny is the best way forward,” he said. "If it’s such a good idea, let’s pull back the layers and do it in public.”

What’s next

Illinois Rep. Mary Beth Canty, D–Arlington Heights, one of the sponsors of megaproject legislation, says she’ll continue negotiating to fine-tune an amendment she’ll file “so everyone can see what we’re talking about.”

“People sometimes get so caught up in the Bears-ness of it all that they don’t give themselves the full opportunity to explore the policy itself,” she said.

Canty said she’s spoken with Pritzker’s staff and it is her understanding he would not block a larger megaproject bill.

“They have also been, as I have been, steadfast in that they would not be open to state funding for any stadium projects, whether those are for the Bears or anyone else,” she said. “I am not open to taking away from our general revenue fund.”

But she conceded it will be difficult to untangle the team’s ambitions from any legislation that allows them to negotiate a property tax break, even if it’s a statewide economic development incentive.

“I want to spend the summer sitting down with each of my colleagues, as many of them as I can, particularly those in the city, to make sure that I have heard and understand their concerns with the legislation and to talk through a path forward with them,” Canty said.