In its first full public conversation about the ~$1 billion Moda Center deal, councilors pressed the administration and the team for answers — and established four things, on the record, that every Portlander should understand before any vote.
This was the Council’s first real conversation about the ~$1 billion Moda Center deal. No term sheet exists yet. But councilors across the dais — with PhDs in economics, the scholarly literature in hand, and months of withheld answers behind them — pried loose the four things that decide this:
And the public agrees with the standard. In the City’s own 18,000-response survey, the #1 thing Portlanders want from a renovation is more private dollars; what they want least is luxury suites and clubs; and the one thing every faction agreed on was transparency.
The deal on the table still asks ~$1B+ from the public for a return that rounds to $0. On June 24, the Council said so itself.
Each is grounded in the City’s own documents — the signed lease, the enrolled statute, the City’s own facility study. What June 24 added is the City and the team confirming them, in public, on the record.
Asked directly whether ownership had committed any private investment, the City Administrator confirmed the City formally asked — and got no commitment. The team’s actual answer, stated on the record by a City official:
Councilor Candace Avalos cut it off at once: “My answer to that is absolutely not. I do not accept that response.” A private contribution means the owner puts in his own money. The team isn’t putting in any. The fees on tickets and parking are paid by the public, not by him — and under the 2024 lease, the City already hands those fees back to the operator as the “City Contribution” (§10.9). So it is the public’s money going to him, relabeled to sound like money coming from him. The Council named it for what it is, on the record.
In his own words, line by line: the “contribution” con ↓ · the full money map: what he already makes → · what a real contribution looks like: Term 06 (rent).
A councilor surfaced a provision in the 1995 ground lease (carried into the 2024 bridge lease): the operator, Rip City Management, must keep the arena in “first-class” operating condition at its sole cost. The City’s venues manager confirmed the building does not currently meet that standard per the Facility Condition Assessment, that the 2024 bridge agreement agreed not to enforce the clause during the bridge term (while it remains in force, enforceable at lease end in Oct 2030 or on breach), and that the new ownership is seeking to replace or forgive that obligation in a new lease.
Said playfully, but not lightly. The implication is real: the public may be about to pay $600M+ for “first-class” upgrades the team is already contractually obligated to provide — and the City set that claim aside in 2024. The exact dollar figure would be litigated and opinions differ; the detailed, lease-sourced analysis is laid out in Term 10.
And “first-class” isn’t vague — the lease defines it as NBA-caliber, at the operator’s sole cost. In the contract’s own words:
So the accrued obligation runs from the City’s ~$164M repair floor up toward the full ~$600M renovation — exactly Novick’s point. Read §10.2 / §5.4 in the lease →
The leverage nobody was using: Term 10 — the first-class claim → · the history of the standard: whose arena is it →
Pressed on where the December requirement appears in the statute, the City Administrator conceded it is not in either enacted law — it is an administrative practice driven by the State’s bond-underwriting schedule and a desire to finish renovations before the Spring 2030 NCAA Final Four. A councilor pinned it: “That’s not in the law. It’s just a practice.” And it was confirmed that Portland keeps the Final Four regardless of whether the renovation happens.
Two more councilors pushed the obvious follow-up: could the State secure the funding on a different timeline — months, not years — that gives the City room to negotiate? The urgency that has framed this entire process was shown, on the record, to be self-imposed administrative preference, not a legal cliff.
The fact-check, with the statutes: councilor brief, Q6 → · the deadline, on the homepage →
SB 1501 §6(2)(a) requires the State to retain an independent professional to review comparable NBA arena projects. Asked whether that analyst had been hired, the City Administrator said they were “closing in on that hire” — and acknowledged the results won’t be ready in time. The City’s own refreshed economic-impact analysis won’t arrive until the July 22 work session at the earliest. A councilor, holding a peer-reviewed Journal of Sports Economics paper he’d entered into the record:
The same councilor noted the State passed a $365M bond package on roughly $130K of lobbying spend in a short session — and could do it again in the long session. The required diligence will not exist before the August vote. The Council said so.
Why the benchmark study matters: Term 01 (price the alternative) → · the numbers, decoded: economic impact →
At the Portland Metro Chamber’s June 24 annual meeting — the same day as the work session — Tom Dundon argued the public money funding the renovation is really his contribution. Walk through what he’s claiming, source by source, and almost none of it is.
Asked on stage why he isn’t 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.
Here’s what he’s claiming — source by source:
The Rose Quarter parking garages are publicly built and publicly owned — the City’s own garages. That revenue has always been the public’s, and the City collects it today. Claiming it as his means claiming money the public already owns.
It’s a public charge on the people who buy tickets, collected by the City. Dundon says he “really pays it” because he’d otherwise charge more — but even granting that, economists agree he absorbs only a slice; loyal Blazers fans pay the rest. Overwhelmingly the fans’ money, not his.
The biggest pot isn’t a check from Dundon. Under SB 1501 (§4), the Oregon withholding on wages earned at the Rose Quarter — including the team’s own payroll — moves out of the General Fund (schools, parks, public safety) into an Arena Fund that can only be spent on his building. And it’s no Oregon quirk: 41 of the 50 states tax wages like these — only nine don’t — so the players would owe this almost anywhere they played. Not new money; Portlanders’ spending, taxed in transit →
His whole case rests on one line: “if you didn’t charge that money on the ticket, we would charge more for the ticket.” Translation: the fee is really his, because he’d otherwise pocket it. So who actually pays it?
Economists call this tax incidence. A fee on a ticket is split between the team and the fans — and the side that won’t walk away pays the bigger share. Blazers fans are famously loyal, and the building isn’t sold out every night, so Dundon can’t just raise prices to cover the fee — if he could, he already would. So the fee rides mostly on the fans who hand it over at the gate, not on him. The exact split is debatable; the shape isn’t. His argument needs the fee to be 100% his — and it never is. (Split shown is illustrative.)
So what is actually his? Add it up: the parking is the City’s, the fees are the fans’, the taxes are the players’ — owed here or anywhere. He isn’t putting money into this building. He’s relabeling the public’s money as his investment — and asking us to be grateful for spending it.
Dundon leaned on this too: “there’s lots of places that don’t have taxes at the same rate.” True — and it cuts against him. Oregon has no sales tax at all. Almost everywhere else, a night out at the arena — drinks, food, merch, parking, and in many cities the ticket itself — is taxed on top:
That missing ~10% isn’t a break for Portland fans — it’s room in their wallet that a profit-maximizing owner prices into. A Seattle or New York fan hands roughly a tenth of the night to the public in tax; a Portland fan hands much of that same room to Dundon instead, because no tax claims the space first. The no-sales-tax market lets him charge more and keep it — before a dollar of renovation. Oregon’s small ticket “user fee” is the public taking back a sliver of that advantage — which he’s relabeling as his contribution. (General combined sales-tax rates; Oregon has none.)
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 “City Contribution” routing of ticket and parking revenue (§10.9) and the General-Fund-to-Arena-Fund withholding diversion (SB 1501 §4) are sourced to the executed 2024 bridge lease and enrolled SB 1501; the income-tax figures are detailed on Economic Impact.
Four more things the public should now understand from the public record.
The City’s chief communications officer was careful: the survey is not statistically valid, over-represents mobilized opinion, and shows a polarized “U-shaped curve.” But the priorities are clear and they cut toward the public’s standard:
That is the fair-deal standard, in the public’s own words. See the 14-term standard →
Asked whether the City receives any naming-rights revenue on the building it owns, the venues manager answered “No.” Has it been put out to bid? No — naming rights were granted to the operator. Is the operator earning money on them right now? “Oh yes.” How much? “We don’t know… that’s not public.” The public owns the building, the operator keeps the name, and the City can’t even see the number.
Capture the naming re-rate the public’s money creates: Term 03 →
The venues manager confirmed the bridge lease puts capital and upkeep on a 50/50 match, capped at the Blazers-derived revenue the City already collects (parking and ticket fees on Blazer events only). A councilor drew the line: “I will not accept anything less than half.” The hidden risk in a permanent deal is the operator’s match quietly disappearing — turning a 50/50 obligation into a 100%-public one.
Cap it, match it, name the payer: Term 08 → · the renovation study →
The August term sheet was framed as a stage gate: if there’s no signed term sheet the Blazers agree to, “we pivot into a future without an NBA franchise.” A councilor’s response: “That is putting a gun to our head. And I really, really do not appreciate that… the clock for y’all has started, but it hasn’t started for us, because we still don’t have the information.” The threat is a lever the process maintains — not a priced, demonstrated alternative.
What leaving would actually cost: the relocation analysis →
Figures stated during the work session, alongside the public’s cost stack. Where the sourced detail lives on this site, it’s linked.
| What | Amount | The point |
|---|---|---|
| Headline renovation ask | ~$600M | Roughly half is revenue-generating / luxury upgrades, not life-safety — including ~$100M in luxury suite renovations (councilor, on the record). the $253M→$505M→$600M reconciliation → |
| Total project + interest | $1B+ | “Nearly $900 million… add $300 million in interest, and the public will be paying north of $1 billion” (councilor). |
| State bond contribution | $365M | Framed as generous, but the local share is structured so the City + County cover the rest — “a better-than-market deal” for the team (councilor). |
| City local commitment (to unlock state $) | ~$120M | Plus a pledged ongoing maintenance commitment. One of three SB 1501 conditions (joint authority + local commitment + 20-yr lease). |
| County ask vs. its deficit | $88M / $78M | The County’s reported commitment is ~$88M — closer to ~$130M with interest — against the projected $78M four-year General Fund deficit a councilor cited, with cuts to school-based mental health and DV shelters. |
| The public’s disclosed return | $0 | No rent, no revenue share, no naming share, no relocation penalty in the current structure. the 14 terms, priced → |
| Source | Amount |
|---|---|
| Blazers user fees (Moda) | $2.9M |
| Non-Blazers user fees (Moda) | $4.3M |
| Coliseum user fees | $0.65M |
| Total Rose Quarter user fees | $7.9M |
| Blazers-related parking | $1.4M |
| Non-Blazers parking (Rose Quarter, combined) | ~$2.5–2.6M |
| Rents & reimbursements (Coliseum profit-share + office) | $1.2M |
| Visitor-facilities IGA allocation | $0.53M |
| Property tax lost to the $1 public purchase (exemption) | ~$1M/yr |
| Capital match spent last year (50/50; funded the new scoreboard) | ~$4.5M |
These figures were recited verbally during the work session and are reproduced here for reference. Confirm against the official recording and minutes before citing.
These were the questions councilors pressed on June 24 — comparables, the maintenance math, an itemized scope, revenue-sharing precedents, “the spreadsheet of all spreadsheets.” For anyone who wants the sourced detail behind them, here’s where it lives on this site.
| The Council asked for… | Where the sourced version lives |
|---|---|
| Comparisons to other cities — what deals peer cities got | Deals Analysis — 16 peer NBA deals since 2013, private-capital %, rent, revenue share, relocation terms. |
| What the public’s money would buy — itemized, repair vs. revenue | Renovation Study — the $164M repair floor vs. ~$341M revenue upgrades, line-by-line from the City’s own VSG study. |
| Private-capital benchmarks (“20–60%”) | Term 08 + Deals — ownership paid 18–62% in every verified comparable; here, $0. |
| Rent / PILOT / revenue sharing precedents | The Fair-Deal Terms — rent (06), PILOT (05), participation (02/03), parking (04), priced with peer precedent. |
| The “first-class” obligation — what the team owes | Term 10 — the tolled §10.2 claim, the City’s ~$164M VSG floor, the count-once rule. |
| The December deadline — is it real? | Councilor brief, Q6 — neither statute contains it; the SB 5701 tranche split; the carry-forward. |
| Independent economic analysis / multiplier scrutiny | Economic Impact — the $670M→$17.9M debunk, the Arena-Fund diversion, payback math. |
| Relocation / competitive-bid comps (“Seattle did that”) | Relocation Analysis — the cost-of-leaving floor, Seattle/OVG, NBA approval process. |
| One public page with the documents | The public-protection checklist + the source-document panel on /terms. |
Sourcing note. This page summarizes the City Council’s public work session of June 24, 2026. Quotes and figures are drawn from the public broadcast and are reproduced for reference — verify exact wording and dollar amounts against the official recording and minutes before citing. Every underlying legal and financial claim — the §10.9 City Contribution, the “first-class” obligation, the December deadline, SB 1501 §6(2)(a), the naming rights, the maintenance match — is independently sourced to the executed lease, the enrolled statutes, and the City’s own facility study on the pages linked above.
On June 24, Portland’s elected representatives set the standard themselves, on the record: renovate Moda, keep the Blazers, and put the ~$1 billion on terms the public can defend — before the money moves.
See the 14 Fair-Deal Terms →