What’s next for Bears after legislature punts on stadium assistance?

Illinois lawmakers left Springfield this weekend without passing long-sought legislation that could pave the way to a new Chicago Bears stadium in Arlington Heights amid resistance from city legislators reluctant to let the team depart for the suburbs.

Even before the NFL franchise announced last month it is turning its focus back to its 326-acre Arlington Park property as the site of a new home field, Bears brass tried to convince skeptical legislators to support a financing mechanism that would freeze the property assessment there between 23 and 40 years.

That would allow the team to make negotiated payments to local governments, including the village of Arlington Heights and school districts, and save millions on property taxes.

But lawmakers were busy trying to make a midnight deadline to pass a budget and deal with the public transit crisis, among other matters.

“The Bears’ lobbyists were around talking to a lot of people, but no one really had time to even focus on it,” said state Sen. Mark Walker, an Arlington Heights Democrat who sponsored one of several so-called “megaproject” bills that could benefit the Bears or other major developments in the state.

“But I think their real problem is — and I’m not in this discussion — they still don’t have enough money,” Walker said of the envisioned stadium-anchored mixed-use development that could cost $5 billion. “It’s a lot of money, and I think they expected some money from the state.”

Walker noted Bears President/CEO Kevin Warren was able to get state support for the Minnesota Vikings stadium when he worked for that team, but “he unfortunately came to a state where we weren’t gonna do it.”

When asked what the team would do now, a Bears spokesman Monday reiterated the club’s statement from last month that they “look forward to continuing to work with state and local leaders on making a transformative economic development project for the region a reality.”

Walker said the parties are “fairly close conceptually on what a deal could be,” but no bill will pass without buy-in from the General Assembly’s Chicago delegation. Suggestions in the past have included a stadium ticket tax to pay off Chicago’s debt from the 2002 renovation of Soldier Field.

“That’s always been part of the assumption that if there was a deal in Arlington Heights, there would have to be some kind of agreement with Chicago to get the votes,” Walker said.

Even still, any vote that would clear a path for the Bears to head to the suburbs could be a poison pill for any city legislator.

Rep. Brad Stephens, the Rosemont mayor who doubles as a Republican state representative for a swath of Chicago’s Northwest Side, noted the Bears surfaced during debate over the weekend on a separate special taxing mechanism for big projects. Another state rep from the city wanted assurances the bill couldn’t be used for a professional sports stadium.

“I doubt there will be any warm and fuzzy feeling from Chicago legislators,” Stephens said.

Like Walker, Rep. Mary Beth Canty — an Arlington Heights Democrat who has sponsored companion megaproject legislation in the House — said she would continue working on her bill, but that it’s not a deal for the Bears.

“They own their property in Arlington Heights. Nothing is stopping them from moving right now,” Canty said. “Nothing is stopping them from going through the process and putting shovels in the ground. Not this legislation, not anything else.

“Which is why for my purposes in terms of legislation, I’m not focused on the Bears. The Bears go back and forth all the time about where they want to be, and that’s fine,” she added. “That’s their prerogative. But what really has me thinking is how do we protect the taxpayers and the schools across the state.”

While the Bears didn’t score millions of dollars in Springfield, they had some success Monday night in Arlington Heights when the village board granted the organization permission to keep up an advertising billboard that’ll generate thousands in revenue for another year.

The board’s action extended municipal sign code variations allowing the 20-by-60-foot double-sided electronic billboard alongside Route 53.