Mayor Brandon Johnson’s last-minute effort to keep the Chicago Bears from leaving the city has pulled support for an essential mega-projects proposal that would help keep the team in Illinois, the bill’s top Senate sponsor said Thursday.

But there are other problems too, including concerns over traffic near an Arlington Heights stadium, as well as the impact a payment in lieu of taxes system would have on local property taxpayers. The friction between Gov. JB Pritzker and Johnson over where the stadium should be built is also posing a major obstacle.

There are just 10 days left before state legislators are scheduled to adjourn for the spring session, with May 31 marking a crucial deadline for a bill the Bears say they absolutely need to consider keeping the franchise from crossing state lines to Hammond, Indiana.

The Sun-Times last week reported that top Johnson aide Jason Lee said “there’s a lot more shoes left to drop” when it comes to whether Chicago is still in play for the Bears. Lee said the team has had “sensitive conversations” with the mayor’s office, but declined to offer details.

The Bears quickly shot down that chatter, reiterating that there are only “two viable stadium locations under consideration — Arlington Heights and Hammond.” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell also this week declared that the team is leaving Chicago. And Pritzker is exclusively focused on the Arlington Heights bid.

The Bears on Thursday again said Chicago “is not a viable site.”

“The Chicago Bears have exhausted every opportunity to stay in Chicago, which was our initial goal. There is not a viable site in the city,” the team said in a statement. “As a result, the only sites under consideration are in Arlington Heights and Hammond.”

A source close to the negotiations also poked holes in conversations the Bears had with Johnson’s office, saying the team went to city attorneys to discuss lease parameters of Soldier Field, not to reengage around a lakefront proposal. A source in the mayor’s office contested that notion — saying there have been multiple meetings with the Bears since April. The lease was discussed during one meeting but it has “since evolved to a new lakefront stadium.” They did not disclose when the lakefront stadium was last discussed.

The mayor’s office said in a statement that the “several recent meetings” included talk about “terms” for a new lakefront stadium.

Nevertheless, Johnson’s last-minute lobbying efforts are having an impact in Springfield.

“I think it’s breathed life into the mayor’s claim that Chicago still has a chance,” State Sen. Bill Cunningham, the bill’s lead sponsor, said of Johnson’s pitch. “The Bears, of course, say that isn’t true, and I believe the Bears when they say that. But you know they’ve given the mayor a prime card to play here, and he’s obviously playing it.”

Cunningham said opposition from Chicago legislators has “intensified,” with what they see as hope for the team to stay in Chicago. He said outreach by the Bears about a month ago is helping the mayor convince Chicago members not to vote for the Arlington Heights proposal.

A second obstacle is the Bears’ request for taxpayer help for infrastructure, with the team pursuing a sizable commitment from the state for infrastructure upgrades in and around Arlington Heights, with no traffic study in place for communities that would be affected by a new stadium.

“We can’t appropriate state funds without some idea of how exactly they’re going to be spent for those purposes without a traffic study,” Cunningham said. “You just don’t do that with large developments like that, and the fact that there isn’t a traffic study has caused turbulence in the northwestern suburbs. … They have not been given the seat at the table.”

Other legislators are objecting to a “general lack of comfort with the payment in lieu of taxes mechanism,” Cunningham said.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty that is embedded in the mechanics in that we don’t know what the payment in lieu of taxes would be to the taxing districts, and there are some concerns about whether or not that will have an effect on property taxpayers in the area where the mega-project is placed.”

Cunningham said the Bears were making headway in the state when the locations were down to Arlington Heights and Hammond. But with rumblings of Chicago in the mix, which they deny, the support is splintering. He is taking their threat to move to Hammond seriously — and doesn’t see it as a bluff.

But he wouldn’t go so far as to blame Johnson if legislators fail to pass the bill by adjournment, and ultimately prompt the Bears to leave the state. He says the impetus is on the Bears.

“The Bears need to step up their game. It’s ultimately up to them to get 60 votes in the House and 30 in the Senate that are required to pass this bill, and they’re going to need to do that in the next 10 days,” Cunningham said.

The state senator pointed out that the governor and mayor were in lockstep when two major stadium deals were passed in Springfield: in 1988 for the Chicago White Sox and in 2000 for the Soldier Field renovation.

“The governor and the mayor were working together, pulling from the same side of the rope. That is not the case right now,” Cunningham said, adding, “Absent that, it’s very difficult to pass a bill.”

Contributing: Pat Finley

DES MOINES, Iowa — Forty Iowa lawmakers, including Iowa House Majority Leader Bobby Kaufmann, are urging federal regulators to reject a request from utility companies that would temporarily halt competition for major electric transmission projects.

In a letter sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, lawmakers asked regulators to deny a complaint filed by utilities seeking a moratorium on transmission competition, arguing the move would increase electricity costs for consumers and reduce market competition.

The complaint, filed in April by incumbent utilities against regional grid operators Midcontinent Independent System Operator, or MISO, and Southwest Power Pool, seeks to pause competitive bidding for transmission projects across multiple states.

Supporters of competition argue the change would effectively allow utilities to receive no-bid control over billions of dollars in future transmission projects tied to growing electricity demand, including from data centers.

The lawmakers wrote that Iowa has repeatedly rejected anti-competitive legislation in recent years and pointed to President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at reducing regulatory barriers for new market participants.

“The utility complaint is tone deaf to the electricity affordability crisis facing Americans,” Paul Cicio, chair of the Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition, said in a statement. “Suspending competition in MISO and SPP would expose consumers in these regions to billions in unchecked cost escalation for years, guaranteeing higher utility bills.”

Utilities that filed the complaint include ITC Midwest, Ameren Services, Xcel Energy and several other regional electric providers.

The coalition opposing the complaint argues competitive bidding has historically lowered costs for transmission projects in MISO and SPP regions, while utilities say changes are needed to speed project development amid growing energy demand.

The dispute comes as energy providers face increasing pressure to expand electric infrastructure to meet demand from large-scale developments, including data centers.