Skip to main content
Rip City, Not Rip Off
Council can still set the terms. Email your city councilors →
The deal now · kept current · cite freely

Where the deal stands

One page for councilors, reporters, and anyone catching up: the status, the numbers that matter, the draft’s score against a market deal, what is still unknown, and every source document. Everything here links to its evidence.

Status

Stage
The City’s first draft term sheet is on paper — published July 17, 2026.
Next decision
August 12, 2026 — City Council votes on the term sheet.
What that vote does
Sets the terms the final lease is drafted from. What isn’t in the term sheet rarely appears later.
Last updated
August 3, 2026
  • August 6 · the amendments session — Council met to amend the term sheet. Eleven amendments reached a recorded vote. None passed. The Council President said before the first was introduced that he would oppose all of them, because they had not been pre-cleared with the administration’s negotiating team. Defeated: a rent line on the building the City owns and leases for $1 a year (6–6), private capital from an owner who paid $4.25B for the team (5–7), naming-rights revenue (5–7), a funding-source and opportunity-cost report 30 days before any vote (5–7), and one sentence directing the Mayor to negotiate any return at all (6–6). Councilor Green also revealed the number nobody had stated in public: with Exhibit D’s pre-pledged $275M of arena revenue, the deal is $848 million, not $573 million — before interest. The real number →
  • August 6 — The “grassroots” coalition’s receipt. “We Are Rip City,” launched on term-sheet delivery day as “a broad coalition of Portland restaurants, small businesses, community organizations,” lists as its media contact a March Strategies partner who — per the state ethics commission’s lobbyist registry — was a registered lobbyist for Rip City Management/TBI from February 16 to April 9, 2026, the exact window of the Legislature’s $365M push, and is a former deputy chief of staff to the Governor. Added to the retrospective.
  • August 8 · correction — The Facility Condition Assessment memo did reach Council. The retrospective said it never did. That was wrong. KATU’s Wright Gazaway supplied the record: on June 3, 2026 the Council President’s policy director sent it to every council office, with the facility assessment, the twenty-year capital plan and the 2022–23 economic impact analysis, ahead of the June 24 work session. The page is corrected and dated. Two caveats from the memo now travel with the $80 million figure wherever this site uses it: the administration’s, that assessment costs should not be compared directly to the proposed renovation; and the memo’s own, that some removed items would still be needed for WNBA and college basketball, making the NBA-only figure smaller than $80 million. Also corrected: the Crossroads “subjective and difficult to support” answer is dated June 5, two days after that packet went out.
  • August 8 — What the August 6 session actually established, added across four pages: the six-vote floor (definitive agreements need seven; the negotiators are one vote short of a council that requires a return), the Mayor’s on-record answer that “market rate” came from discussions with the NBA with nothing written down, the February 11 Senate testimony pledging the City’s $120M before the sale closed, and a dated, falsifiable prediction of what December delivers. The retrospective → · Why one city can’t do this alone → · The real number →
  • August 7 — The next phase begins: The Fan Compact — five league-wide rules that would end the city-versus-city arena auction, a petition for fans in every market, and an invitation to the players and to Commissioner Silver. Delivery to the league office follows the August 12 vote; from that day the page runs a public response clock. Every national claim on it was verified against primary sources before publication.
  • August 6 — ECONorthwest answers. In a written response now published in full, the study’s author confirms the $15.2B “does not estimate the return on the proposed $573 million public package—or Portland’s $120 million contribution—and should not be interpreted as doing so”; that the analysis assigns no probability to the team leaving; and that it was produced “for the Blazers to support conversation at the state legislature.” The review’s central verdict, confirmed by its author, six days before the vote. Two of our own characterizations are corrected on the page, dated, per policy.
  • August 6 — The bill’s sponsor says the quiet part on camera. In a KGW interview, Sen. Kate Lieber describes the state’s $365M: scope from the team (“the Blazers were helpful in helping us figure this out”), amount from the team’s ask (“what they wanted from the state… was between 500 and 600 million… that’s what we tried to put together”), no architectural renderings (“chicken or egg”), built as a message to the NBA during the sale — and, asked whether the owner should contribute: “it was not something that was overwhelmingly needed at the time.” Added to the blank-check page and the retrospective, with the video.
  • August 5 — The retrospective: The Whole Story — a signed essay telling the whole arc from the City’s own records: the 2024 memo that said no, the October 2025 “partnering” email, the January–March window in which $573M was “accepted by all parties,” and what this campaign did and didn’t accomplish. Published in draft; the outcome section will be completed the night of the August 12 vote. Also new: the complete record — 879 dated records from 20 productions, every entry cited, and the City’s own no-NBA costing of the building now at /the-model.
  • August 4 — A 1,188-page production lands — including, by accident, the team’s own internal emails about the seven questions. June 15, the general counsel: “I don’t think our public answers will be well-received.” The president: “Very much feels like a trap.” A written response was drafted June 19 and never sent — and on July 7 the City offered, in writing, the exact legal protection (an evidence-rule agreement) that the team’s later public excuse said was missing. Also in the production: an April 23 “Architect Review — Populous” at the Rose Quarter attended by the Mayor.
  • July 30 — The work session, held and scored. The team attended and answered on the record: the building is “in first class condition” (their words — making the $573M upgrades, not repairs); “until we have the funds to pay those architects, we don’t have plans”; and the private contribution “needs to come from the public sector.” The Mayor: the March commitment came from the NBA, “while not written, implied” — and the City has “never contemplated suing the Blazers.” Every question, scored →
  • August 3 — Published The Blank-Check Problem: neither August vote spends a dollar — they lock the number while the itemized budget stays unwritten. Includes the County-vs-City protections audit (the County’s own sheet prices its true cost at $138.6M with interest, not the $101.6M headline) and the five fixes still available. Plus the three instruments the public owns through the final vote.
  • August 3 — Three new public-records productions, read in full. What they show: the City Attorney sent the team seven numbered written questions on June 16 — private capital, overruns, opex, rent and its basis, good-neighbor, community benefits, labor harmony — and no written answer appears anywhere in the produced record; the team’s own April 6 letter proposed a lease “no later than February 2027,” while the City called spring 2027 achievable and refused “an arbitrary timeline”; and the July 16 draft term sheet’s Exhibit A — the itemized $573M budget — is a page reading “Estimated Renovation Budget to be attached.”
  • July 29 — The team states its condition on the record. Spokesperson Charles Boyle to The Oregonian: the City must “take the prospect of litigation off the table by affirming the work the team has done to maintain Moda Center in a first-class condition” — removal is “a critical first step to unlock a freer flow of information about the building.” The demand prices the claim: see Term 10, and the five questions that follow from it. Novick, same story: “we’d be crazy to give up the right to bring a lawsuit under that provision.”
  • July 28 — Two councilors put the split on the record. Kanal: the draft term sheet “was presented as though it reflected the direction of the City Council. It didn’t” — and confirms the Mayor has proposed Portland Clean Energy Fund resources for the renovation. Novick: the delivered sheet “only had one financial ask” (the $3M/yr payment), the team is also asking the City for ~$14.5M a year in ongoing maintenance, and the City’s current Moda revenue is ~$11M a year — “I don’t want my city to grovel.”
  • July 28 — County Commissioners Brim-Edwards and Moyer file roughly a dozen amendments for the County’s August 6 vote: fund the full $88M from the existing rental-car tax so Blazers-sale business-tax revenue stays with county services, and add a clawback if the team leaves — language the Chair’s own updated resolution now carries. The county workers’ union backs the reset (The Oregonian, July 28).
  • July 27 — The Athletic reports the team calling the term sheet “a nonstarter” and declining the July 30 work session — then, hours after the story publishes, reconsidering. The same report confirms the City’s own negotiators wanted rent, a beverage tax, and street pricing in the term sheet; none survived to the delivered draft. What rent should look like →
  • July 24 — Council President Dunphy invites the team, in writing, to a July 30 work session on how the $120M City share would be spent. The team’s first answer, per Dunphy: no attendance, no written reply, and no requested documentation.
  • July 17 — The City’s draft term sheet lands: $573M public budget, a $3M/yr tax offset, strong non-relocation language, no rent and no private construction requirement. Scored line by line →
  • July 16 — Multnomah County’s reset letter puts its $88M share in writing.
  • July 9 — The State’s own comparables summary documents what peer cities got: 18–52% private capital, rent, naming shares.

How the numbers fit together

Different figures answer different questions. These are the seven that carry the argument — each with its provenance.

How these numbers fit together
$253MWhat the City’s own consultant priced the full renovation scope at, in today’s dollars. One-time cost. Verified
The same scope, escalated and repeated over 20 years: $505M. Inside it: ~$164M genuine repair, ~$341M revenue-generating upgrades.
$573MThe public construction budget in the July 17 draft: State $365M + City $120M + County $88M. One-time, nominal. Verified
This is the current number. The earlier “$600M ask” you may have seen was the floated figure this draft replaced.
~$99MEverything the public is priced to receive back across the 20-year lease: the $3M-a-year payment, growing 5% a year. 20-year total. Calculated
$1.02–1.11BThe all-in public commitment over 20 years once bonds and debt service, the City and County shares, and future arena spending are counted. Modeled
The balance sheet’s ~$850M–1B modeled core sits inside this range.
~$2.5BWhat the building hands the operator over the 20-year lease (~$100M+ a year), from an arena rented for $1 a year. Modeled
Not the $2.5M-per-year maintenance reserve — that is a separate recommended term.
$1.1–1.2BWhat a market-standard package would return the public over 20 years, priced line by line against 17 peer deals. Calculated
$4.25BWhat the franchise sold for in 2026. Verified

Verified primary document · Calculated arithmetic from verified inputs · Modeled assumptions disclosed & adjustable. Every line’s paper trail: the Public Balance Sheet.

The draft, scored

The July 17 draft, measured against the fifteen terms of the standard that existed when it landed — every one sourced to a deal somebody already signed. Three further terms have since been added from the 2024 closing package; no draft has addressed them:

2Delivered
4Partial
5Open
1At risk
3A&R watchlist

The protections converged: the stay-in-Portland covenant is strong and court-enforceable. The economics did not: the draft’s one priced return is the $3M-a-year offset. Every term, before/draft/must-appear →

Who pays, who collects

The public supplies 91¢ of the deal’s modeled cash and can keep about 8¢ of each priced arena dollar; ownership supplies 9¢ and keeps about 70¢. Modeled public commitment ~$850M–1B; fixed ownership construction money $0; scheduled cash back ~$99M. The full balance sheet, badge by badge →

What a responsible yes requires

Where Council stands

Twelve councilors vote on August 12. Positions below reflect on-the-record statements only. Ask yours to commit to the checklist above: it takes two minutes →

The amendments on the table

Five one-sentence fixes, each priced and sourced on the Fair-Deal Terms, with drafting language in the redline:

  1. A private capital line. Ownership funds the revenue-generating scope (~$245M ≈ 43% of budget — mid-range among peers).
  2. Rent, separate from the tax offset. $4.5M/yr — the rent this same ownership signed in Raleigh.
  3. A formula PILOT. Greatest-of-three: the certified floor, the county’s own construction formula ($5.1–9.4M/yr), or appraised equivalency. Method →
  4. A share of the new revenue. A minority public share of premium, naming, and parking money above today’s audited baseline.
  5. Nothing quietly erased. One sentence preserving the ~$164M first-class repair claim, plus audit rights with copies.

Three more, added July 27 after reading the 2024 closing package — none of them appears in any draft: delete the clause requiring the City to refund any arena tax it levies; release the five-county non-compete that bars Portland from building a mid-size venue without the operator’s consent; and open the books of the garage the City owns. Where these came from →

Still not public

No one — including Council — can price the deal without these. Until they surface, the balance sheet marks them Unpriced:

The withheld record sets →

The documents

What happens next

  1. July 30, 2026 · the council work sessionHeld. The team attended; the documents didn’t. “We have concepts… we don’t have plans.” Scored →
  2. Aug 5, 2026 · council hearing & public testimonyCouncil takes testimony on the renovation, 9:30 a.m. Sign-ups opened with the agenda July 31. Get the alert →
  3. Aug 6, 2026 · the County board vote — and Council, againMultnomah County votes its $88M share and the amendment slate — funding source, clawback, conditions. Council meets the same day on the term sheet and remaining testimony.
  4. Aug 12, 2026 · the term-sheet voteCouncil sets the terms. The last cheap moment to fix the economics.
  5. Fall 2026 · lease draftingThe term sheet becomes the amended & restated lease. Watchlist terms live or die here.
  6. Dec 17, 2026 · the final-lease voteCouncil votes the definitive documents. Both votes take public testimony. Get the hearing alert →
  7. After signing · the bondsState bonds issue only after the City signs — that sequence is the public’s leverage, in statute.

Page changelog

The terms get set August 12. After that, this page just keeps score.

Take action →

Every figure on this page traces to the Public Balance Sheet, the City’s Draft, Scored, or the Fair-Deal Terms; bridge-lease citations (§) are to the executed 2024 documents under Ordinance 191857.