Amended Bears megaproject bill could have major impact on property tax
payers
[February 27, 2026]
By Jon Styf | The Center Square
(The Center Square) - An Illinois megaproject bill about a new Chicago
Bears stadium project passed through a House committee Thursday, but it
did so with a warning from several legislators and an advocacy group
that the bill could lead to a meteoric rise in property tax bills in
multiple communities in the state.
The bill will next go to the House for a vote with sponsor Kam Buckner,
D-Chicago, saying he didn’t know how quickly it would be taken up for a
vote.
The bill would allow the Bears’ proposed $5 billion stadium project and
any $500 million project in the state to pay a negotiated lower rate
instead of the same property tax that other companies and residents pay
and it would allow the construction of the facility to be done sales tax
free for 10 years.
A project cannot include residential building to be eligible, meaning
the Bears will likely have to shift away from plans for residential
structures on the land, instead building commercial and industrial.
University of Colorado Denver Associate Professor Geoffrey Propheter,
who studies these projects across the country, estimated that the tax
break will be a benefit worth $2 billion to the Bears over 30 years, or
$67 million a year on average. He said that estimate won't change much
if the Bears shift to a plan without residential structures.
The cost for other property taxpayers in a community with a megaproject
could be large.
The issue for other property taxpayers comes in a technical clause in
the bill that allows local governments to count the cash value of the
megaproject toward its tax base even though the entity is receiving a
lower negotiated payment.
Illinois has a 5% cap on property tax increases, called the Property Tax
Extension Law Limit, but by counting the value of a megaproject in the
tax base without receiving the corresponding property tax payment, other
taxpayers could see property tax bill increases that far exceed the 5%
cap.
And the bill doesn’t just apply to a new Chicago Bears stadium. It
applies to any project worth $500 million or ones worth $100 million
with 100 net new employees or $250 million with 50 net new employees.
Several lawmakers pointed out that large data center projects or battery
farms exceed the megaproject threshold and would be able to negotiate
lower property taxes and not pay sales tax on construction, while Rep.
Steve Reick, R-Woodstock, pointed out the bill could apply to a proposed
600-watt battery farm in Prairie Grove in McHenry County.
[to top of second column]
|
Illinois state Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, speaks during an
interview. Photo: Greg Bishop / The Center Square
Americans for Prosperity Illinois Deputy State Director Brian Costin
called it the “riskiest economic development program not just in
Illinois history but U.S. history” and said his group could not find
any other state in the country that had done anything similar to
property tax bills.
“This is much bigger than the Bears,” said Sen. Andrew Chesney,
R-Freeport. “This is about the toxic tax climate in Illinois that is
squeezing everyone.”
The bill stipulates that the negotiated payment in lieu of property
taxes must be worth 10% of the assessed value of the property but
the threshold does not apply to projects worth more than $2 billion,
like a new Bears stadium.
“That seems dangerous to me,” said Rep. Joe Sosnowski, R-Machesney
Park. “[The negotiated rate] could be zero.”
Costin estimated that local taxing bodies could double or triple the
bills for taxpayers under the bills current format and warned that
local taxing bodies then would not have a strong incentive to
negotiate large tax payments from entities like the Bears if they
knew they could get the tax funds from other taxpayers anyway.
“We’re not confident that any of those local boards will look out
for any of the considerations for the local taxpayer because they
are going to see it as a way that we’re going to get a lot more
money into our local tax unit and the taxpayers are the ones that
are holding all the risk,” Costin said.
Buckner responded to the PTELL questions by repeating that he
believes that the PILOT payments are best determined by the local
taxing entities, not the state.
"That decision is best laid with the people who live there," Buckner
said.
 |
