What is Illinois H.B. 910?
Illinois House Bill 910, or H.B. 910, is a bill introduced by State Representative Kam Buckner (D-Chicago) that would allow megaprojects—significant development projects, such as stadiums and major buildings—in Illinois to receive property-tax freezes for 45 years. Under the bill, developers of megaprojects would pay the same fixed tax rate based on how much their property is worth pre-construction regardless of whether their property value increases after construction on their megaproject is complete. For a $5 billion megaproject, H.B. 910 would freeze the property’s value at its pre-construction value of $200 million and impose $9.5 million in annual property taxes, far less than the $238.5 million in annual property taxes that would have been imposed if the post-construction property value was used.
While “megaprojects” are defined differently by various entities, H.B. 910 defines “megaprojects” as projects that meet certain requirements regarding cost, job creation, and duration of investment. Under the bill, any project that costs over $100 million falls within the legislation’s thresholds as long as 100 new, full-time jobs are created and the investment period does not exceed 10 years. Projects over $250 million must only create 50 new, full-time jobs and abide by the 10-year investment period. Projects exceeding a cost of $500 million do not have to adhere to job creation requirements under H.B. 910, but still must fall within the 10-year investment period to be considered “megaprojects.”
Besides paying lower property taxes under H.B. 910, the developers of megaprojects would also be required to make special annual payments, with the exact payment amounts decided by local taxing districts and expected to change over time. Another provision in H.B. 910 exempts developers from paying occupation taxes, or taxes imposed on local retailers for doing business within a jurisdiction that are often implicitly passed down to consumers through high prices, on building materials for no more than 15 years. H.B. 910 was initially put forward to persuade the Chicago Bears, the National Football League (NFL) team that has called Illinois home since 1920, to build a new stadium in Arlington Heights, Illinois after the Bears organization agreed to purchase the Arlington International Racecourse in 2021. The bill is now also meant to stave off Indiana’s recent efforts to rehome the team in Hammond, Indiana, following Indiana’s passage of Senate Bill 27, or S.B. 27, on February 26, 2026.
Rising Urgency for Illinois Lawmakers
On March 18, 2026, Illinois lawmakers returned to Springfield to debate H.B. 910 after the Illinois State House chose not to take up the bill before lawmakers adjourned at the end of February. Their return followed comments made by Arlington Heights Mayor Jim Tinaglia, who suggested that the Bears organization would make a deal with Indiana by the end of March without decisive action from Illinois lawmakers.
Who Supports H.B. 910?
Despite lawmakers adjourning before H.B. 910 could be brought to the House floor, many have continued to show support for H.B. 910. Representative Buckner, who introduced the bill, has said that H.B. 910 would not only help the Bears finance a new stadium in Arlington Heights but would also attract large-scale development to Illinois. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has echoed Bucker’s viewpoints, insisting H.B. 910 is not exclusive to the Bears and applies to all future megaprojects. Some Illinois unions also support H.B. 910, applauding the bill’s stipulation that developers must reach a project-labor agreement prior to construction.
Who Opposes H.B. 910?
Opposition to H.B. 910 includes Americans for Prosperity Illinois Deputy State Director Brian Costin, who has argued that the bill is “an economic cancer” and would result in higher property taxes for homeowners and small businesses to compensate for the revenue lost to the megaprojects’ property tax freezes. Representative Justin Slaughter (D-Chicago) has questioned the bill’s ability to benefit Black communities throughout Illinois, while Senator Andrew Chesney (R-Freeport) has asserted that H.B. 910 would contribute to “the toxic tax climate in Illinois that is squeezing everyone.” Other critics have decried the burden H.B. 910 would inflict on taxpayers, pointing to how Illinois taxpayers are still paying off 2001 renovations to Soldier Field, the current Bears stadium.
What Are the Future Implications?
If H.B. 910 passes in the Illinois House and Senate, there is a possibility that the Chicago Bears will stay in Illinois and pursue a stadium in Arlington Heights, which is already projected to cost $5 billion and take around three years to build. Some economic analysts have estimated that H.B. 910’s property tax freezes could save the Chicago Bears organization $67 million a year.
If H.B. 910 fails, the Bears could turn again to Indiana, especially as the Bears’ President and CEO Kevin Warren wrote in a letter last December that the organization “must keep every credible pathway open to deliver” fans and players a world-class stadium. Without H.B. 910, Indiana’s S.B. 27 could be that pathway. The law establishes a Northwest Indiana Stadium Authority, which gives Indiana legal standing to negotiate with a NFL franchise, and finances a new Bears stadium through tourism-related revenue. This revenue is intended to come from increases in admissions taxes for large events in the city of Hammond, food-and-beverage taxes in Lake and Porter County, and hotel occupancy taxes in Lake County. Although S.B. 27 has received widespread support from Indiana lawmakers, some pushback has arisen over the stadium’s proposed location near Wolf Lake, a 800-acre lake supporting more than 2,000 animals and plants.
Regardless, the construction of a new Bears stadium is likely to affect taxpayers, joining a trend throughout the NFL where private stadiums have been largely taxpayer-funded. For example, the Kansas City Chief’s new stadium set to be completed in 2031 is projected to cost taxpayers more than $6 billion, while the Tennessee Titans’ new stadium is already costing taxpayers nearly $2.3 billion a year. Similarly, the Buffalo Bill’s new stadium that will open later this year is expected to cost taxpayers $850 million, an amount once deemed the “largest public commitment for an NFL facility” before numbers came out of Kansas City and Tennessee. Given this trend, the ongoing debate on H.B. 910 thus might not be about whether taxpayers will pay for a Bears stadium, but instead about how much.