What the Council put on the record.
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.
On June 24 the Council examined the deal in public for the first time — before any term sheet existed (the City’s first draft landed July 17). This page keeps what went on the record: four admissions that frame every vote after it.
4 Verified — on-record admissions from the session, each quoted and timestamped below.
When a councilor says the economics were never benchmarked, that is not the campaign’s claim — it is the record’s.
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 four admissions
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.
The team’s “private contribution” is the public’s own money
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.
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).
The team may already owe what the public is about to pay for
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.
The implication is real: the public may be about to pay for “first-class” upgrades the team is already contractually obligated to provide — and the City set that claim aside in 2024. The exact figure would be litigated; the lease-sourced analysis is 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 →
The December “deadline” is not in the law
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 →
You’re being asked to vote before the analysis exists
SB 1501 §6(2)(a) requires the State to retain — “at its own expense” — “a professional with expertise in arena negotiations” 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 →
A real contribution means the owner puts in his own money. That’s not what’s happening here.
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.
What else came out
Four more things the public should now understand from the public record.
Portlanders want private money and the basics — not luxury suites
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:
- Top things people want from a renovation: more private dollars, living-wage jobs, and community benefits.
- What to build: structural, technology, and operating upgrades ranked #1 by a wide margin — high-end suites, bars and clubs ranked last.
- Funding comfort: highest for spectator-venue/visitor sources, lowest for bonding.
- The one universal, across every faction: transparency and accountability.
That is the fair-deal standard, in the public’s own words. See the fair-deal standard →
The City gets $0 from naming rights — and doesn’t know what the operator makes
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 current deal is 50/50 — the new one could flip it to 100/0
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 relocation threat was deployed inside the room — and a councilor named it
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 →
The numbers, on the record
Figures stated during the work session, alongside the public’s cost stack. Where the sourced detail lives on this site, it’s linked.
The cost the public is being asked to carry
| 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 | $3M/yr | The July 17 draft’s tax offset (~$99M/20yrs) — with rent, revenue share, and naming share still absent; relocation remedies now drafted. the draft, scored → |
What the City actually collects today (FY 2024–25, as stated on the record)
| 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.
The questions in the room — where to dig in
The questions councilors pressed on June 24 — and where the sourced answer to each 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. |
Quick FAQ
Did the Council approve anything on June 24?
Is the survey a mandate for the deal?
Does this mean the Council is against the Blazers?
So what happens next?
What can I do?
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.
The Council asked the right questions.
The public deserves the answers.
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 15 Fair-Deal Terms →