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.” By the team’s own testimony, the $573M is upgrades, not repairs.
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. Settled: by charter, the Mayor and his team are the sole negotiators; Council’s power is advice, consent, and the purse. Which makes the terms Council attaches to its August 12 yes the only instructions it ever gets to give.

What’s still open goes to the Aug 5 testimony hearing and the Aug 12 vote: the itemized budget (still “to be attached”), rent, 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 Aug 12 term-sheet 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. Seattle's city-owned Climate Pledge Arena was rebuilt for about $1.15B in private financing, per the city's own materials. Why is Portland being asked to do the opposite?
2. Why is Tom Dundon's ownership group listed at $0 when most comparable public arena renovations required private money, rent, or revenue sharing?
3. If state, city, and county taxpayers are committing over $1B all-in, what comes back to Portland's General Fund?
4. Why call this a $573M or $600M renovation when the 20-year public commitment is $1.02B–$1.11B?
5. Who is negotiating for Portland, and what market-rate terms will make you vote no if they are missing?
6. Will Council require private funding or repayment for suites, clubs, bars, retail, and other revenue upgrades the operator keeps?
7. Will the lease, revenue waterfall, cost basis, and ROI model be public before the August 12 term-sheet vote?
8. Why should PCEF, Prosper Portland, or city tax money go into the arena before the owner puts in a dollar?
9. The 2024 bridge lease capped the City's share and put capital duties on the operator. Why is the permanent deal worse for the public?
10. Will any rent or revenue sharing reach the General Fund, or will it just recycle inside the Arena Fund?
11. If relocation is not a threat, will the team sign a real non-relocation covenant covering the full public investment?
12. Will every councilor disclose and decline team hospitality, suite invitations, and private meetings during the negotiation?
13. Which line items are genuine repair, which are revenue upgrades, and who pays for each bucket?
14. If the City cannot answer these questions in public, why is it ready to vote?

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 votes its resolution and conditions (9:30 a.m.).
2. Aug 12 — Council votes the term sheet.
3. Nov/Dec — Council votes the MOU; the County votes the IGA. The real terms get written here.
4. Early 2027 — Council votes the binding lease ordinance; then budget votes at both governments. Testimony is a right at every stage — get the 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 August 12 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. By Aug 12: the transparency conditions attached to any yes, and a recorded vote on every amendment — so the public 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. Before the MOU vote: the itemized renovation budget — the one Exhibit A still marks “to be attached” — reconciled by an independent reviewer against the City’s own $253M study.
4. December: the County’s IGA effective only when a signed lease contains its required terms — insurance after reading the policy, not before.
5. Early 2027: the lease public for 30 days. Then the public decides whether it needs instrument number three.

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.