The Moda Center Deal:Make a Deal,
Not a Donation
The City paid for an independent study of what the arena needs: about $253M in today's dollars. The draft asks the public for $573M — more than double — and most of even the real number is revenue-generating upgrades the Blazers keep.
The study says ~$253M. The draft budgets $573M.
Today's dollars vs. the draft budgetMost of it is revenue for the Blazers, not repair.
20-yr plan · the ceiling, ~$505MNecessary repair
Keeping the building sound and safe — the public's job as the owner.
Revenue upgrades
Premium suites, clubs, bars, retail, and fan-tech. The Blazers operate the arena and keep this revenue.
The City’s own engineering study prices the full renovation scope at $253M in today’s dollars — and labels ~$341M of the 20-year plan as revenue-generating upgrades: suites, clubs, bars, retail. The draft budgets $573M of public money and requires no private dollar toward any of it.
$253M Verified — the consultant’s full-scope price today ($505M if the same scope repeats over 20 years). Genuine repair inside it: ~$164M.
The split matters before August 12: repair is arguably the landlord’s bill — revenue upgrades are the operator’s. The draft charges both to the public.
How these numbers fit together
The same scope, escalated and repeated over 20 years: $505M. Inside it: ~$164M genuine repair, ~$341M revenue-generating upgrades.
This is the current number. The earlier “$600M ask” you may have seen was the floated figure this draft replaced.
The balance sheet’s ~$850M–1B modeled core sits inside this range.
Not the $2.5M-per-year maintenance reserve — that is a separate recommended term.
Verified primary document · Calculated arithmetic from verified inputs · Modeled assumptions disclosed & adjustable. Every line’s paper trail: the Public Balance Sheet.
The City's own study says this is not a rescue
In 2024, the City hired Venue Solutions Group, a national arena firm, to assess Moda Center and build a 20-year capital plan.
How to read $253M, $505M, and $573M
Three versions of the same plan: the line-item list, the 20-year escalation, and the draft's public budget. The bars are drawn to scale.
What the study lists in today's dollars
The line items before inflation and repeat replacements. Even here, the scope is more revenue-upgrade than repair.
What that becomes over 20 years
The same plan after inflation and recurring replacement cycles — the ceiling. It already bakes in 3.5%/3% annual escalation; the revenue-upgrade share grows because premium spaces recur faster than core repairs.
What the July 17 draft asks the public to fund
The draft's public budget runs about $68M above the independent 20-year plan Calculated — and it can't be inflation, because the $505M already projects 20 years of escalation. The gold segment shouldn't count as public obligation until officials disclose what it buys and who keeps the revenue. The earlier floated ask was $600M.
All dollar figures are in millions.
Where the money actually goes
Four cuts of the same plan — by system, by line item, by urgency grade, and over time. Every one points the same direction.
Slice 1 — by building system: where the $253M sits ▾
What the building needs, by system
Current-dollar line items · $253M totalClassification rule: repair covers worn-out systems, structure, waterproofing, safety, and basic building function; revenue/amenity covers renovations, new build-outs, premium spaces, and commercial areas that generate income for the operator.
Slice 2 — the five biggest line items are all revenue the Blazers keep ▾
The five biggest line items
Major amenity items · current dollarsThe report grades its own urgency
VSG's own grades · $253M scopeYou don't have to take our split for it. VSG grades every line item High, Medium, or Low. High means work that “should be addressed immediately… due to end of life or obsolescence” and “to maintain the safety of the facility.” Of the full $253M, only about $70M — barely more than a quarter — clears that bar.
Slice 4 — over 20 years the bill is $505M and front-loaded ▾
Why the 20-year number matters
Cumulative spend · 2025–2044The 20-year plan reaches about $505M because costs rise and some amenities get redone more than once.
How the City counts — and why our number differs
On June 3, 2026, the City released its own summary of the same study, with different figures than this page. Both sides work from the identical workbook, and the totals reconcile to the dollar. The difference is what counts as “necessary.”
Two methods, one workbook
Both start at the same $505M · 20-yr planThe City's method
Subtract from the full planOur method
Sort the same plan by VSG's own labelsHow we reconciled with the City
We replicated the City's subtractions line by line — they tie out, and we agree with every removal. Our split simply follows the scope labels VSG assigned to each line.
What the $341M is made of
Largest revenue/amenity items · full 20-year costThe biggest items VSG labeled renovation, refresh, or premium/commercial — shown at their full 20-year cost, which counts every time an item is redone, in that year's dollars. That is why the suites run $45M: the plan renovates them twice.
See all 15 revenue/amenity items ($341M) ▾
What's in this list, and the caveats
“Redone 2×” means the plan renovates the item twice over 20 years. These 15 items are about $240M of the ~$341M; the rest is roughly $36M of recurring food-service equipment plus about 40 smaller lines. The list excludes the center-hung scoreboard (~$11.5M), which the City reports was completed in 2025.
Where the $505M actually goes
The same plan, one pictureNow apply the rule
The public should fund what the public gets; the Blazers should fund the revenue they get. Apply that rule and the renovation becomes a deal-structure question.
Necessary repair
Public repair floorThe ~$164M repair floor is defensible public spending: the public owns the building, and owners maintain their buildings. Even then, a normal landlord recovers maintenance through rent.
Revenue upgrades
Private or repaidThe ~$341M in revenue upgrades benefits the Blazers, who keep the revenue they produce. Funding them publicly, with nothing flowing back to the General Fund, is a straight subsidy. In a normal deal, whoever keeps the revenue funds the asset or repays it.
Gap above the plan
Disclose before voteThe draft's $573M budget runs above the independent 20-year plan. It may include legitimate new scope, but new scope is likely new revenue capacity — disclose it before a vote.
The deal test
Structure, core systems, life safety, the roof, basic building function, and Garden Garage waterproofing and safety barriers are the cleanest public obligation.
Seating, restrooms, and circulation are mixed. VSG also flags safety/code items — past-due CAT1 elevator testing, dead-end egress at locked upper-bowl gates, low-clearance zones, and a bowl ADA assessment — that need line-item public benefit and capped overruns.
Suites, clubs, bars, retail, premium tech, and new scope generate revenue the Blazers keep. They need a private match, rent, or revenue sharing back to the public.
Use the state's $365M first
The state bond authority is the public baseline, not permission for unlimited local subsidy. The bonds are repaid from public tax revenue through the Oregon Arena Fund.
Portland already wrote a fairer deal — in 2024
The bridge lease vs. the proposed packageThe 2024 bridge lease put capital and first-class upkeep on the operator, capped the City's share, and protected public money if the team leaves. The proposed long-term deal drops each of those.
The 2024 bridge lease
What the City already securedThe proposed long-term deal
What's on the table nowSources & lease terms
Bridge-lease terms are from the executed Arena Operating Lease (§10.9: the City's contribution is “no more than fifty percent (50%) of the actual expenditures paid by Tenant,” matched to Blazers game-day revenues; §10.9.1: if the arena “ceases to be the NBA home of the Portland Trail Blazers… Tenant shall repay the City Contribution”), plus the City's bridge-lease summary and Ordinance 191858. “Operator $0” reflects the team's position as reported.
Where the public money would come from
The proposed funding stack · as of June 2026The public bill is stacked across three governments and several separate city funds — part of why the true total is hard to see. Here are the stated sources in one place. The operator's listed contribution is zero.
| State of Oregon | Bonds under SB 1501, repaid from state income-tax revenue through the Oregon Arena Fund | up to $365M |
| Multnomah County | The County is “considering significant investment” (reported ~$88M) | ~$88M |
| City of Portland | $120M in capital improvements plus an estimated $280M over 20 years in maintenance, drawn from the city funds below | $400M |
The City's share would be drawn from:
| Business License Tax | A one-time tax estimated from the Blazers' ~$4.25B franchise sale | ~$50M |
| Clean Energy Fund (PCEF) | The city's climate / clean-energy fund; would require amending its Climate Investment Plan | TBD |
| Prosper Portland (SIF) | Strategic Investment Fund for economic development; requires board and Council authorization | TBD |
| Spectator Venues Fund | Venue revenue: ticket fees, parking, lodging & vehicle-rental taxes | TBD |
| Trail Blazers / operator | No private contribution is listed on the City's page | $0 |
Sources
Mayor Wilson's “Moda Future” page (portland.gov/mayor/keith-wilson/modafuture, as of June 2026) for the City's $120M / $280M and the funding sources; SB 1501 for the state's $365M; the Oregonian (6/3/26) for the ~$880M public-cost estimate (our fuller accounting, including total bond service, reaches $1.02B–$1.11B). The County ~$88M is a reported figure.
Room for justified mixed-benefit work before asking City or County for more.
That capacity could cover the mixed-benefit and safety items VSG identifies — the “prove it” column above. Council should publish exactly which line items fit.
The question then becomes: why should City or County taxpayers cover anything above the state package — and what pays them back? The upgrades' operating revenue goes to the Blazers, and any rent the public collects recycles into the Oregon Arena Fund for the arena's own future work. The General Fund — police, parks, housing — nets nothing.
A win-win deal requires
- Private match or repayment for revenue-generating upgrades.
- Rent, revenue sharing, naming-rights participation, or user fees tied to the public investment.
- General Fund return beyond money recycling inside the Arena Fund.
- Overrun caps so City and County exposure is not open-ended.
- No local gap funding above the VSG plan unless the public benefit is disclosed.
For Blazers fans
Wanting a fair deal is not the same thing as wanting the Blazers to leave.
The Blazers matter — Portland's major-league team, a civic institution. Moda Center should be renovated, and the team should stay.
But fans should not have to choose between losing the team and signing a blank check. A serious pro-Blazers deal is built to last: public money for real repairs, private or repaid funding for revenue upgrades, cost-overrun protection, and lease terms that keep the team here. Civic pride is a reason to negotiate carefully, not a reason to stop negotiating.
The local vote is the deal gate
SB 1501 does not lock in the money: the bonds cannot issue until the City and County make binding and substantial commitments. Those have not happened.
Methodology & sources
Figures are from the Moda Center Facility Condition Assessment (a May 14, 2024 draft marked “Draft & Confidential”) and its companion capital-expenditure workbook, both by Venue Solutions Group, commissioned by the City of Portland and obtained via public records request.
The ~$505M is the workbook's 20-year nominal total ($504,877,921), matching the report's Capital Expense Matrix Recap (p. 121); it is escalated at 3.5% in 2025 and 3% per year thereafter and includes recurring replacement cycles. We use ~$253M as the current-dollar anchor: the same work in today's dollars, every item counted once — $237.84M of building, systems, and technology line items (Costs tab, Column P) plus $15.05M of food-service equipment (F&B Costs tab, Column J), for $252.89M ≈ $253M. Each line carries VSG's 35% soft-cost loading. The two F&B figures are different bases — $15.05M is the current-dollar equipment cost; $36.40M is the inflated, recurring 20-year total — so they must never be added to the current-dollar main scope.
The High / Medium / Low figures are VSG's own workbook grades; the ~$15M of food-service equipment is graded by condition — 92% rated “Good.” The repair-vs-revenue split is our classification, anchored to VSG's own scope labels (Repair, Replacement, Restoration, and Waterproofing read as repair; Refresh, Renovation, Reconfiguration, and new build-out read as revenue/amenity).
Statutory references are to enrolled SB 1501 (2026); the Oregon Arena Fund and the ~$365M state package come from that legislation, not the VSG documents. The $600M figure was the earlier floated ask — described by Mayor Wilson as a placeholder, absent from the VSG documents, and replaced by the July 17 draft's $573M public budget. VSG states its estimates are planning-grade, not bids.
He already owes a first-class arena — at his own cost.
The Moda Center lease binds the operator to keep the building at current NBA standard — and to pay for it himself. The ~$600M of “first-class” upgrades the public is being asked to fund are, by the contract’s own words, his obligation. Here is the exact language, from the executed lease:
In plain English: whatever today’s NBA standard requires, the operator is already contractually bound to provide it — and to pay for it himself. The “first-class” upgrades the public is being asked to fund for ~$600M are, by the contract’s own words, his obligation — which is why Councilor Novick asked on June 24: “Why haven’t we filed a lawsuit asking for $600 million?”
Read it yourself: the executed Arena Operating Lease (§10.2, §5.4). Honest caveat: the City tolled (paused) enforcement during the bridge term, so it’s pressable at lease-end; the “equivalent age” phrase gives a scope defense; the figure (the ~$164M repair floor up toward the full ~$600M renovation) would be settled or litigated. The obligation itself is in black and white. You’ll also hear the City’s 2024 facility assessment only lists 20-year needs, not repairs due today — but the report and the lease answer different questions: the assessment describes what’s needed; §10.2 says who pays (a continuing obligation, at the operator’s sole cost, tolled — not waived). Walking away from the claim means paying his bill twice. The full breakdown →