Construction
New arena or renovation? Equalize scope, dates and indirect public support.
Comparable arena deals
Compare the deal.
Not just the share.
Capital, commercial rights, land, tax treatment and long-term obligations belong in one comparison.
The short version. PFM’s State review includes fully public renovation funding examples. A claim that every peer pays an 18–62% private share is too broad.
What belongs in the comparison
Commercial rights
Identify who keeps naming, parking, premium seating and event income.
Land and duration
Value property rights, infrastructure, renewal options and extra years.
Future obligations
Identify lifecycle costs, insurance, reserves and exposure after default.
Compare the same transaction
A new arena is not the same as a renovation. Public ownership, arena income, land/development opportunities, naming, rent, public debt guarantees and future maintenance can shift the actual burden. Capital-share tables may omit indirect support. The same owner’s Raleigh arrangement is useful evidence of negotiable mechanisms, not proof that every Portland demand has already been accepted on identical terms.
We retire the $1.1–1.2 billion combined “market-standard package” as a demonstrated floor and the description of a proposed $4.5 million rent plus 3% schedule as an identical Raleigh obligation. Require current executed documents and a net package comparison.
Sources: State PFM comparables review
The comparison checklist
- Capital cash and who finances it.
- Operating term and all renewal options.
- Rent commencement, escalation, credits and security.
- Naming, parking, concessions, premium seating and tax treatment.
- Land control, infrastructure and community obligations.
- Lifecycle maintenance, casualty, departure and public liability.
How these numbers fit together
$573MProposed public renovation portion: State $365M, City $120M, County $88M. The adopted negotiating documents still need a reconciled funding plan and complete project budget. Proposal verified
Up to $288.6MContinuing contribution ceilings: City $275M plus County $13.6M. Annual limits and actual-receipt conditions matter; these are not unconditional cash commitments. Proposal verified
$861.6M$573M + $288.6M: combined nominal framework ceilings before financing costs. This is neither a present value nor a binding all-in expenditure. Do not add repayment of the same borrowed principal twice. Calculated
$3.17M + $3MProposed initial annual rent and tax-offset payment. Rent begins at the specified post-renovation commencement and escalates by the lesser of CPI-W or 3%; the tax offset grows 5%. Start dates, recipients and credits still matter. These are not the public’s only receipts. Proposal verified
UnvaluedThe maintenance claim, new commercial rights and operating alternatives require legal, engineering and financial valuation. A lifecycle cost estimate is not a damages award; gross venue revenue is not profit.
Verified describes what a source says, not that a proposed obligation is signed or funded. The reconciled ledger and sources →