>> The Chicago Bears say they're advancing plans for a stadium in Indiana.

Some Illinois lawmakers, though, insist that's not a done deal.

The General Assembly ended the spring session without passing a bill to incentivize the Bears to build in Illinois.

But conversations haven't stopped.

And while Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly, Republicans are not waiting around to present their own plan.

Joining us now to talk about a new mega mega projects proposal is state Representative Dan, you Gas T a Republican from Geneva.

Welcome back.

Thanks for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

Appreciate The Bears say they are moving forward with this plan to build a stadium in Hammond, Indiana.

Why do you think that they could still be more to stay in Illinois because they haven't said.

>> Okay, we're done.

We don't want to talk a more.

We don't want to hear from you.

We are moving to Indiana.

That's going to be our home.

What they're doing is they're advancing.

What India with what Indiana has proposed for them.

And they're not going to wait to see if we're going to come up with a plan.

A more.

They're going to move forward in case that is the only plan they feel that acceptable to them, that they then must take and go forward.

So they're not further delayed.

Okay.

So I think they're proceeding sure because they can't stop, of course.

But if Illinois gets it together, >> they could still put that down and come back?

Well, I think so.

Especially since there's at least one site, we know they're very interested Illinois and that an Arlington Heights.

Now, the mayor, Chicago, has been proposing another site.

I've heard them tell or say in public that they don't believe that's a suitable location for what they want to do.

But since then, a couple other sites with in Cook County have been proposed as well, senator Representative Carver.

He's mentioned something about the old South works facility where U.S.

steel was located.

I know Mccook as a facility where they're talking.

Maybe the Bears could Bo K so.

Wherever it is, I just like for them to stay in Illinois, in part because I like the team, but more so because I want that economic development here in Illinois.

>> You voted against for the first mega projects bill that passed the House back in April.

What are your concerns with that?

One biggest concern was it didn't protect taxpayers, local taxpayers and it did not have enough.

>> To provide statewide property tax relief for all taxpayers.

There was something there, but it's the governor's office pointed out within a few days after it didn't amount to much.

So what I'm looking for is something that will put start providing real tax relief to property taxpayers here in Illinois.

I'm statewide basis that every homeowner, every business owner, anyone who owns property, we get property tax relief and then we start building on that process to provide even more.

So tell me about your proposal, shirt, the 2 proposals I have with in the bill.

I'm putting together to keep the Bears here, at least for property tax relief are.

Every referendum from this point forward or if it passes would have to go on the general election ballot right now.

They're oftentimes placed on the consolidated election ballot for the primary ballot when not nearly as many voters show up.

And voters just aren't nearly as I don't think you really get the whole community's input on whether or not they want their property taxes to increase to fund whatever project it is.

That's being proposed.

We put it on the general election ballot.

Many more people show up.

People are much more in tune to the elections.

What the issues are on the ballot and that way we get a true sense of what the community watch they could before they could be against it.

It's up to It's their community, but at least most people are weighing in within the community.

Also, there's provision or it out, I guess a loophole in current state law where if a local taxing district currently get to write winds a referendum passes, but it gets ponds from, you know, based off that referendum to fund whatever facility they can just automatically roll over those ponds without ever having go back for another referendum to get the same amount of money.

Again.

This bill would stop that from ever happening again.

Once the bonds are paid off with a comes to maturity, it would be done if they want.

local taxing district wants more money.

They have to go back to the taxpayers on a referendum and ask him again.

Do you want this that we want to use the money for to simple as that?

I think that's the way it was intended from the word go.

But it just doesn't happen that way.

All right.

So Governor Pritzker, he spoke about this yesterday about the involvement that he would like to see from the bears.

>> Here he is.

>> I think that as you know, it takes a bill and that's really what we need them to put together of the provisions of a bill.

It's one thing to articulate generally what you want.

It's another thing to actually say we'd like a provision like this, a provision like that and those are many of them anyway, already written.

They have lobbyists.

You can help them right.

Those provisions are legislators who would help them write the bill and again, then they need to go and talk to people about the various provisions to get support for it.

>> Have you spoken with the Bears about your plan?

I have not.

Next been intentional.

They've been speaking with a lot of people in Springfield.

Now, what I I'd be happy to meet with a representative from there to hear what their thoughts are.

Sure.

But at the same time, they don't need to be speaking with every one of us.

I'm looking at what's been proposed so far.

What I think would work based on public statements to the Bears as to what they want, what they're looking for from Illinois in order to move forward, what is in the best interest of our taxpayers.

If we do this using that to go forward with a proposal once they see it, if they have a comment on it and think that something needs to be done, be happy to do it.

But I'm also basing it on what I know.

He's passed through the House and Senate and what I think might be able to going forward based upon people's concerns.

I've heard and other things so that we can actually get this done and move on because there's a lot other issues facing the state we need to address, right.

And that said, you know, state Republicans, you or the super minority, so you don't have enough votes to pass something on your own.

>> What do you see as the path forward for this bill?

So the path forward for me to this bill is that we start working in a bipartisan manner and that was a path forward from the word go as far as I was concerned when when Buckner first brought a mega project pilot Bill to committee and we made comments on it, he took notes exactly what we were commenting asking about.

And a lot of that was built into the next one.

Not all of it.

We didn't quite get there, which is why I didn't vote for it.

But it went on that way.

If.

We would work together what I think you would have is enough property tax protection for property tax payers in around wherever the stadium gets built.

You would also get property tax relief for all taxpayers statewide and something the Bears and other developers, if it's not just a Cook County bill alone could use.

And if we do that, everyone wins.

But you have to work across the aisle because I don't know that the votes are there on the Democrat side of the aisle alone because it appears they're not.

All right.

So obviously we'll see