Take action

July 30 — the work session, scored

Twenty questions — what got answered, what got dodged

The team showed up: president Dewayne Hankins, the CFO, the general counsel, public affairs, and an ECONorthwest economist. Below, each question we published before the session — and what actually came back, quoted from the session’s live-caption record (full video; captions can contain errors, so verify against the recording before repeating any quote).

1. The building is first-class — per the team, on the record. Asked directly whether the Moda Center is in first-class condition today: “Yes, we think the building is in first class condition” — and “there’s not deferred maintenance in the building.” That testimony does not allocate every proposed work item; an independent scope and liability review is still needed.
2. The plans don’t exist. “We have concepts… until we have the funds to pay those architects, we don’t have plans.” City staff, same session: “We don’t have an Exhibit A yet” — and, from the deputy administrator: “we still don’t know what 573 is getting us.”
3. The private contribution is zero. “Going forward, in order for this deal to make economic sense, the contribution needs to come from the public sector.” Pressed to confirm: “we’re not going to negotiate this piecemeal.”
4. The March “promise” was never written — per the Mayor. Asked what was agreed before Council was involved: the winter talks “primarily dealt with the NBA… didn’t involve President Hankins at all,” and “we had a commitment from the NBA. While not written, implied.”
5. The litigation “threat” was disclaimed in the room — and the demand survived anyway. The Mayor: the City has “never contemplated suing the Blazers… We are not contemplating suing.” A councilor: “I cannot imagine a world in which seven of us vote to do that.” The team’s response, unchanged: the City “must acknowledge that the arena is and remains in first class condition.”

1. The definition. Asked whether the building meets the first-class standard today. Answered: yes — with the caveat that the condition assessment is “forward looking.” Both branches of the question closed: if it’s first-class today, the renovation request is competitiveness and revenue, in the team’s own words (“a building that players from other teams are jealous of”).
2. The information. Answered in halves. The construction plans do not exist (“concepts,” no architect funded). The financial analysis exists and is withheld: “it’s there for us and we want to share it” — but not “while we’re under the threat of litigation.” The economic study shown at the session was produced for the State in the spring; councilors saw it July 30 for the first time. “That’s troubling to me,” said the council’s trained economist.
3. The timing. Not answered. Why an organization planning to stay needs the claim removed before signing went unaddressed; the demand was restated instead.
4. The trade. Not answered. No exchange was offered for the release — “piecemeal” was the reply to pricing questions all morning.
5. The records. Dodged. “We have responded to those questions in those meetings with your city staff” — verbal only; a councilor confirmed “nearly nothing in writing” since April; the team called the written term sheet “not even a document that we can respond to.”

1. The plan you signed ($61.5M capital plan, executed to date?). Not asked; still open for Aug 5 testimony.
2. The owner’s share. Answered: zero — “the contribution needs to come from the public sector,” with prior investment (“nearly $1 billion” over 30 years) offered as the reason no future dollar is needed.
3. Rent. Never addressed by the team. One councilor put his ask on the record instead: a 7% user fee, a larger share of non-Blazers parking, continued Foundation giving.
4. The promise. Answered — by the Mayor, not the team: an NBA commitment, “while not written, implied.” The number itself: “573 was us getting as close to that 600” target the NBA was “validating” — and, confirmed on the record, the NBA never requested $573M specifically.
5. Who signs / audit rights / the NDAs. Not addressed. The draft’s guaranty and audit provisions were walked through by City staff; the team took no position on the record.
6. Overruns. Partially answered, weaker than the draft: team-initiated out-of-scope work is the team’s; anything the City or State wants becomes “a conversation about who would cover that.” The draft assigns overruns to the operator, full stop — watch this term.
7. The ongoing $275M. Movement: the team is “open” to redirecting opex dollars to capex; City staff confirmed the $275M figure is a revenue projection, not a needs estimate, and said the next draft caps it, with the excess returning to City discretion.

1. The basis. Answered, damningly: “We don’t have an Exhibit A yet” (staff) and “we still don’t know what 573 is getting us” (deputy administrator). Nobody in the building has seen the itemization.
2. The deadline and the term. Staff’s target: term-sheet vote Aug 12, lease vote in December. And as drafted, the new 20-year term starts when the bridge ends in October 2030 — “we’re looking at 2050, not 2046,” one councilor noted, uncorrected.
3. The funding source. Advanced: two councilors on the record against PCEF (“frankly, I’ve said I don’t want to use it at all”), the climate-eligibility spreadsheet still unproduced, and “there’s no money in the general fund for this.” The $120M’s source remains unnamed.
4. The market test. Declined on the record: asked why the City never ran even a request-for-information with other arena operators, staff answered that the incumbent relationship made it impractical — it “probably needed to start a few years ago.”
5. The mandate. The session distinguished executive negotiation from Council’s advice, consent and budget powers. The adopted framework is a negotiating baseline; Council still needs the complete final package for its later approval decisions.

What’s still open now lands on the December documents: the itemized budget (still “to be attached” in the adopted term sheet), the guaranty, audit rights, the NDAs — and every term above marked not answered. The questions didn’t expire with the session. They transferred to the record.

Do this now — before the December documents vote

14 questions your councilor should answer on the record

Councilors count constituents and check claims. Whatever channel you use — the 2-minute email, testimony, or any public meeting — put a specific, hard-to-dodge question to your councilor and ask for an answer on the record. Pick the one you’d most want answered:

1. How does Portland’s complete capital, operating and land bargain compare with current executed arena agreements?
2. What genuine new private capital will be committed, by which entity, and when?
3. Which receipts reach the General Fund, which are restricted, and which are already pledged?
4. What is the annual and lifetime public exposure, including financing and continuing support, with no double-counting?
5. What outcomes has Council instructed the negotiating team to secure before final approval?
6. How will the public be compensated for the commercial rights created or extended by the renovation?
7. Will complete material contracts, redlines and the fiscal model be available with meaningful time before the vote?
8. How will City, County and State sources and receipt priorities be reconciled before public money is released?
9. Which existing rights will survive, and what is the independently assessed value of any release?
10. How will rent, parking, user fees, revenue shares and tax-offset credits be reconciled in one auditable account schedule?
11. Will the actual franchise be directly bound throughout construction, operation, default and lender replacement?
12. Will conflicts, hospitality and relevant official meetings be disclosed under a clear public process?
13. Which work packages address existing duties, lifecycle renewal, legal requirements or new commercial investment—and who pays?
14. What happens if costs rise, receipts fall, construction slips or the operator fails?

August to the final vote — the public’s role

The three instruments the public owns

The negotiations will go quiet this fall — that’s normal; no counterparty negotiates in public. What must never go quiet is the approvals. Not a dollar can move without public votes, and at every one of them the public holds three instruments that need nobody’s permission.

1. Aug 6 — the County voted its resolution and conditions; they ride with the term sheet as Exhibit F.
2. Aug 12 — Council adopted the term sheet, 8–4, amended on the floor (rent $1 → $3.17M/yr).
3. Nov/Dec — Council votes the binding documents, targeted for December 17; the County votes the IGA. The real terms get written here.
4. Financing and implementation — confirm the required ordinances, budget actions and public-comment procedures as each agenda is published. Get the hearing alert.

1. Open meetings. The new City–State Joint Authority is a governing body of public entities — Oregon’s Public Meetings Law presumptively applies: noticed meetings, minutes, and executive sessions only with a cited legal basis. Demand it operates that way from its first meeting.
2. Public records. Records law runs all fall. Everything on The Paper Trail exists because citizens kept asking. Rolling requests mean the quiet months become public on a delay — not never — and every official writes knowing it.
3. Documents before votes. The lease public for 30 days before the final vote; the documents behind the $573M ask public on receipt. That’s Term 18 — and it’s the single most important thing to attach to the December yes.

1. The final lease is a city ordinance — and Portland ordinances can be referred to the voters by petition. That is not a protest; it is a formal check written into the system. A public that is visibly organized enough to use it changes what officials dare to sign, without a single signature being gathered.

1. Aug 12 — done: recorded votes on every amendment, on the record. The public now knows who asked the owner for a dollar and who didn’t.
2. September: the Joint Authority formed with public-meeting rules, County and Council representation — and publication of the independent deal-terms review that state law (SB 1501 §6(2)(a)) already requires. It’s not a favor; it’s an unperformed legal duty.
3. The assessment is a lifecycle forecast, not a complete transformation price or an established repair debt. Preserve and independently value the existing maintenance obligations. Read the updated analysis →
4. December: the County’s IGA effective only when a signed lease contains its required terms — insurance after reading the policy, not before.
5. Financing and implementation — confirm the required ordinances, budget actions and public-comment procedures as each agenda is published. Get the hearing alert.

Why this works: officials respond to costs that are specific, attributable, and dated. Recorded votes become a public roster. Every session gets scored the same day. And the quiet months of this negotiation run straight through the November 2026 election — when the Governor, the Legislature, and the County Chair’s seat are all on the ballot. Ask every candidate, in writing, which terms they’ll require. The room where this deal gets decided isn’t closed. It’s the one you’re standing in.