On paper.
Still to deliver.
Rent was added. The complete funding, private investment and enforcement package still needs to be resolved.
The short version. Rent was added on August 12. Major funding conflicts, blank budget detail, private capital and enforcement mechanics remain to be resolved.
A proposal is the beginning of delivery
- 01ProposedWhat the term sheet says.
- 02SignedA binding, complete obligation.
- 03FundedMoney or usable security is committed.
- 04VerifiedEvidence shows actual performance.
Status without false precision
| Subject | Current status | What must be completed |
|---|---|---|
| Rent | Proposed: $3.17M initial annual payment | Commencement, escalation floor, recipients, credits and security. |
| Public contribution | Framework totals stated | Reconciled City/County funding, full budget and financing risk. |
| Maintenance | Existing rights and proposed future standards | Value releases and assign lifecycle costs, reserves and inspection. |
| Private cash and participation | No settled new minimum/share | Price the complete operating and capital exchange. |
| Nonrelocation and security | Existing bridge plus proposed replacements | Actual franchise, obligors, lenders, NBA consents and continuity. |
| Land and Coliseum | Valuable rights implicated | AVT parcel process and separately priced operatorship. |
| Public approval | Final material suite not yet reviewed here | Redlines, fiscal report, deviations and meaningful review time. |
Sources: August 12 City term sheet · Resolution 37750 · County Resolution 2026-050
Published, then drafted
Several terms in the City’s July 17 draft matched language published here on June 25, when the common response was that no deal gets those terms; the adopted August 12 sheet keeps them. Four pairs, verbatim: ours first, the City’s beside it.
| Term | Published here, June 25 | The City’s term sheet |
|---|---|---|
| Nonrelocation remedies | “…pair them with an express specific-performance clause” · “recapture, acceleration, clawback… keyed to the full unamortized public stack” | “the right to obtain specific performance, temporary restraining orders, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and all other equitable remedies, without the necessity of proving actual damages or posting bond” (August 12 sheet, Non-Relocation) · “(iv) recapture, acceleration, clawback, or repayment of public incentives, subsidies, grants, Property Tax payment abatements, or other economic benefits provided in connection with the Arena” (August 12 sheet, Non-Relocation) |
| Overruns | “Name the payer — the management entity bears all overruns above the approved budget…” | “All costs for the Renovation will be the sole responsibility of, and be paid for by, Rip City, except for the Public Funding Contribution (defined herein) over which the Joint Authority will have final approval. Anything in excess of the Renovation Budget as shown in Exhibit A is the responsibility of Rip City.” (August 12 sheet, Renovation Budget) |
| The parent guaranty | “Every public protection jointly and severally guaranteed by the operator (RCM) and Trail Blazers Inc.… The terms… will bind any successor” | “TBL will provide an unconditional guaranty of Rip City’s performance of all Renovation and post-Renovation obligations. The terms of the Definitive Agreements (including guaranty and non-relocation provisions) will bind any successor to Rip City or TBL and survive any change of control.” (August 12 sheet, Assignment, Assumption and Guaranty of Obligations) |
| Audit rights | “Audited annual public disclosure by revenue stream, as a lease covenant… City audit rights” | “The Joint Authority and the City may audit detailed financial reporting from Rip City to verify public return on the Public Funding Contribution.” (August 12 sheet, Financial Transparency and Audit Rights; the review process is “to be established”) |
A guaranty, an overrun clause and an audit right on paper are proposed, not signed. The delivered language is evidence that the remaining terms are winnable, not a score for the current deal.
Sources: August 12 City term sheet · July 17 draft term sheet (City public records) · The June 25 standard, archived
The governments need a consistent offer
The City’s August 12 package assumes franchise-sale Business Income Tax funding that the County’s final resolution excludes. The County also requires arena-related receipts sufficient for its bond payments. A shared initial $3 million tax offset cannot simply be promised in full to every claimant. The combined plan needs a reconciled source-and-distribution schedule before the private obligations are priced.
The City wants retention and a manageable public asset; the County seeks protection of its budget, repayment and community conditions; the State controls a financing route and statutory conditions. These are distinct institutional incentives. A County remedy against the City can move risk within government unless the City obtains matching direct rights against a capable private obligor.
Sources: August 12 City term sheet · County Resolution 2026-050 · City CFO financing memo
One renovation, five official numbers
Each figure measures something different. None is reconciled to another, and the itemized budget exhibit is where they converge or do not.
- $3M a year
- The Property Tax Offset Payment: $3,000,000 a year, “escalated by 5% annually,” distributed “proportionally between the County, City, and Portland Public Schools.”Proposed
- $3.17M a year
- Rent of $3,170,000 in each year of the Term, “escalated by CPI-W or 3%, whichever is less”; the Term begins at substantial completion of the Renovation.Proposed
Sources: City memo, June 3, 2026 · Renovation study explained · State PFM comparables review · August 12 City term sheet · The public ledger
New in the sheet: worth knowing
Two provisions of the adopted sheet the public debate has mostly missed. Both are proposals for the Definitive Agreements, not signed obligations.
An anti-tanking clause
“The Definitive Agreements will include commitments requiring TBL to maintain minimum competitive standards, including payroll spending thresholds (e.g., prohibition on finishing in the bottom third of league-wide payroll) and/or on-field/on-court performance benchmarks (e.g., minimum playoff appearance requirements).” The sheet’s reason: “team performance constitutes a material component of the return on public investment.” A standard needs a measure and a remedy to be delivery (Requirement 43). Proposed
The blank exhibit
“The current total budget for the Renovation is, based upon information to be verified, estimated at $573,000,000 (as itemized and shown in Exhibit A, the ‘Renovation Budget’).” Exhibit A itself is a page reading “NTD: Estimated Renovation Budget to be attached.” By the July 30 work session’s own account, the itemization did not yet exist. The blank exhibit · The blank-check problem
Source: August 12 City term sheet, TBL Performance Requirements and Exhibit A.
What replaces the old scorecard
The former “delivered” counts overstated what a nonbinding proposal can establish. Use the 46-entry Register with separate statuses for proposed, agreed in principle, signed, funded and verified. Preserve equivalent existing protection only after checking the whole agreement suite.
The “contribution” claim, in his own words
At the Portland Metro Chamber’s June 24 annual meeting, Tom Dundon argued that the public money funding the renovation is really his contribution. A real contribution means the owner puts in his own money; the adopted framework’s ownership construction contribution is $0.
“We’re really just paying it”
Asked on stage why he is not putting his own money into the renovation, Dundon explained why he counts the public’s ticket and parking fees as his contribution: “…when you charge an incremental fee on a ticket, we’re really just paying it. So we are investing in it because if you didn’t charge that money on the ticket, we would charge more for the ticket… It’s not that we’re taking the money.”
Whose money it is
The parking revenue comes from publicly built, publicly owned garages the City already collects from. The ticket user fee is a public charge collected from fans; a team-remitted fee may still be paid economically by fans, and how much an owner absorbs is a question of incidence. The withholding that SB 1501 §4 moves into the Arena Fund is tax on wages earned at the Rose Quarter, which players would owe in most states. Set against $573 million of public renovation funding and up to $288.6 million of continuing support before financing, the sliver of the fee an owner might absorb does not change the scorecard line.
Sourcing note. Dundon’s words are quoted from his on-stage interview at the Portland Metro Chamber annual meeting (Moda Center, June 24, 2026), a public event; verify exact wording against the recording before citing. The source-by-source walk-through, the fee-incidence illustration and the §10.9 and SB 1501 §4 routing are on the work-session page.
How these numbers fit together
Verified describes what a source says, not that a proposed obligation is signed or funded. The reconciled ledger and sources →