Windowbox
Transcript
Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors and includes testimony in languages other than English that is not individually marked up for assistive technology.
Kristen Dennis 5:41 - 5:48
Shall we?
Jamie Dunphy 5:50 - 9:21
Here we go, y'all.
Good morning.
I'm calling this work session of the Portland City Council to order.
Good morning, colleagues, members of the public, and our distinguished guests.
Welcome to Portland City Hall.
We're here to discuss the conditions of a term sheet that Portland City Council will be approving as a pivotal step forward in negotiations for the next new 20-year lease between the City of Portland and the Portland Trail Blazers for the use of the Moda Center.
We have 2 goals for our time together this morning.
First, for the public and for city councilors to hear from our partners at the Portland Trail Blazers about their thoughts on what the next successful chapter of our partnership will look like, including questions and answers with council.
The second goal is to walk through some of the basic facts about where we are right now in this overall process.
What is in the current proposed term sheet, and the next steps for the public, for the council, and for the negotiators working towards our goal of a memorandum of understanding and a long-term lease agreement by the end of the year and early 2027, respectively.
For those in the audience and listening at home, we are expecting to have the first hearing with public testimony on this term sheet on Wednesday, August 5th.
On Thursday, August 6th, we will continue on to council deliberations, and the term sheet will then return to council for a vote on Wednesday, August 12th.
Today is not about negotiating the specifics of this agreement.
The Portland City Councilors are not the city negotiators.
By charter, the mayor and our negotiating team under his authority are the negotiating body of our government.
Council's task is to give advice and consent on terms negotiated by our city team, the joint authority with the state, and the Portland Trail Blazers.
Importantly, via our power of the purse, we must formally approve this and any negotiated deal that commits public funds.
So to that end, today is absolutely an opportunity for direct, honest, and hard questions.
It's a chance for Portland City Councilors to hear directly from Blazers leadership about their contributions to this deal, and for the public to learn directly from all parties involved and not just the often distorted and maximally dramatic view this is already a partnership, a partnership that is nearly 50 years old, and we are looking forward to continuing that partnership for decades to come.
These are our Portland Trail Blazers.
So today's agenda will run as follows.
Our guests from the Trail Blazers will give their presentation that should last roughly 30 minutes.
The city councilors will then have a chance to ask questions of the Trail Blazers team, where councilors will each have a chance to ask one opening question.
After the initial round, we'll take follow-up questions as time allows by jumping into the queue.
We unfortunately only have our guests for about an hour, so I'll ask us all to be prompt with our questions and answers.
In the second half of our work session, we will have a presentation from city staff about where we are in this process, what some of the proposed terms mean and their responsiveness to council priorities, and our timeline moving forward.
And finally, we will close with council discussion.
With that, I would like to welcome President of the Portland Trail Blazers Business Operations, Duane Hankins, Joe Loomis, the CFO, Charles Boyle, the Director of Public Affairs, Xandria Conyers, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Landis Anderson, Assistant General Counsel, and Mike Wilkerson, Partner and Director of Economic Research at Eco Northwest.
Welcome, and Duane, esteemed guests, take it away.
The floor is yours.
Duane Hankins 9:23 - 17:45
Good morning, Council President Dunphy, Vice President Clark.
Thank you, Council President Wilson.
Thank you, Mayor Wilson, members of the council, and councilors.
For the record, I'm Dewayne Hankins, President of Business Operations for the Trail Blazers and Rip City Management.
I'm actually excited to be here today.
The conversations we've been having with the city go back more than 4 years since we began negotiating the current lease bridge deal.
Since that time, we've remained consistent that to have a long-term future in Portland, the Blazers will need a market-rate deal.
So much of that focus has been on the building, However, like so many other companies trying to make Portland its home, we are focused on the strength of Portland's economic business environment and what it takes to be a successful business.
And to enter into a long-term deal with the city, we must first address a central issue and then get serious about what a new deal looks like.
Identify who negotiates on your behalf to get us there and determine a good faith process that sets aside rhetoric, legal posturing, And political grandstanding.
For the past 4 months in meetings with the city's leaders, we have been clear about the first step that's needed for these negotiations to move forward: the bridge agreement.
And although we enter negotiations in good faith, the first-class standard has been wielded as a weapon, chilling our negotiations.
To be clear, the first-class standard is a relic language from a 30-year-old lease.
It is not standard in today's NBA deals and was certainly atypical at the time.
Thank you.
Not only that, it would not be included in any new deal with the city.
When we negotiated the bridge, we all recognized this fact, so much so that we agreed to take the standard off the table by suspending the city's ability to make those claims during the lease.
I say again, the city must acknowledge that the arena is and remains in first-class condition.
Doing so removes the threat of litigation hanging over these negotiations so that our conversations can move forward.
For months, our requests to address this and other fundamental issues in the bridge agreement have been ignored.
We've consistently proposed language to break the logjam but have been flatly rejected.
Without that critical first step, it's obvious that negotiations are compromised, knowing that information shared during these negotiations can't be unheard, it can't be unseen, and eventually may be used in litigation against us.
As I mentioned, the building is just one part of this.
Councilmember In terms of what a market rate deal looks like, for 30 years the team has invested nearly $1 billion to ensure the building is in first-class condition.
That includes the building being built privately.
That includes all the work that we've done to keep it in a first-class manner.
And it includes the dollars that have gone into the spectator fund, which I'll talk about more in a minute.
That investment has not only kept the NBA in Portland, it has helped bring the return of WNBA's Portland Fire.
It has brought top-tier concerts and a winning bid for the NCAA Women's Final Four in 2030.
Thank you.
Even so, this team has accrued losses of more than $1 billion doing business in Portland, and it's just not sustainable.
On top of that, there has been a 6% sales tax on every ticket sold at the Moda Center.
Those dollars have historically been spent towards the city's other expenses instead of putting that money back into the arena that's generating it.
Much has been said about our investment.
As I said, the building was privately built, highly uncommon in a market this size.
The team paid a sales tax in terms of the spectator fund for over 30 years, and combined with every ticket that we sell, we are paying taxes that are higher than any other team and seeing that money go anywhere but back into the Moda Center.
Councilors, after asking for it since March, we were as surprised as you were to see the term sheet shortly before it was shared with the press.
It was never negotiated with the team, just as it never received your input.
Rather, it was delivered as a PR response days after the NBA commissioner's media comments that the deal was, quote, If you're not aware, it contains more than 20 material departures from the state's language in Senate Bill 1501.
It also adds hundreds of millions of dollars in extra costs that we hadn't discussed in the conversations we had earlier this year, creating further team deficit.
No team would sign a lease that would keep this business in the red for 20 more years.
So let me be clear.
A vote on August 12th gets us no closer to a deal unless that vote fixes the bridge agreement.
The factors that will determine if the Blazers are successful, and therefore if the arena generates revenue for the public, are a growth-focused economic environment, a competitive tax structure that allows us to compete for top-tier free agents, turning around Portland's national reputation so families and businesses can thrive here, and assessing premium offerings for fans compared to other markets.
There is a path, though, to keep the team and Portland's mutual success.
The arena is only a small piece of that bigger picture.
Portland has always punched above its weight as a great sports city.
We have incredible fans, but we've faced significant economic headwinds since the pandemic.
Portland's current stagnant business climate, high income taxes, and divisive political environment make this a tough city to invest in.
It makes it harder to sell tickets, secure corporate partnerships, and as I said, recruit players.
And that's not just our assessment.
Read the headlines.
Specifically, national brands have passed on partnership deals with the Blazers because Portland is not a, quote, target market, quote, and players have flatly rejected playing for our team.
That's the market speaking.
Now, I've been with the organization for 13 years, and I've lived in Portland since 2013, and I have seen the ups and downs of this great city just as each of you has, and I want to be part of the solution.
Creating a successful business environment is how we ensure that Moda Center continues to be Oregon's busiest gathering place.
Generating over $600 million in economic impact and welcoming 1.6 million visitors per year.
Dr. Mike Wilkerson from Eco Northwest can dive into those numbers further, and we'll have him do that in a minute.
But having an NBA team as your anchor tenant is the best way to get the most out of this public asset for the community.
Now, our commitment to our community goes well beyond the walls of our arena.
Since 2009, the Trail Blazers and our foundation have donated more than $17 million across Oregon and Southwest Washington.
Over $2.1 million in '24-'25 alone, and all of that has gone to youth education, health, workforce development, and nonprofits around the region.
And on the subject of team sharing information, we've been at the table with your city negotiators since 2022.
This year we've met or exchanged many calls nearly weekly.
Additionally, in full transparency, we've led over a dozen building tours with the city, county, state officials, many of you.
And we have information to share, comparable markets, NBA data, and dynamics on how this can be a competitive market to the mutual benefit of the city and the team.
So of course we're ready to share more information with you.
That is what partners committed to a common goal of success will do.
As always, I'm available to answer your questions and engage directly with you.
You all have my phone number.
Our team is prepared to negotiate seriously, promptly, and in good faith.
But we will have very little to discuss if the city does not address the first steps in this process.
Thank you.
Moreover, in the past few weeks, this process has become increasingly adversarial.
Every day we see contradictory statements from public officials, and I too feel your frustration.
But there's time to reset this conversation.
We need clarity about who is negotiating for you and all the other public entities that are involved.
The March framework was successful because it brought all the parties together.
We need that alignment again.
But this process cannot move forward if we're all faced with threats, public negotiations, and one-sided, uninformed proposals.
I want to say— I want to close by saying a few words about our partners, our ownership group here.
So they do believe that Portland has the best fans in the world, just as I've seen over the last 13 years.
They believe we can build a team that Rip City can be proud of, and they believe that Portland is the best and most obvious choice for this team.
I mean, this fall we're excited to introduce Ja Morant, our head coach Mike Inori, And to hear a sold-out crowd roar when the letter O returns to the court.
Seeing lifelong memories formed in Moda Center for the next generations of fans is why I do what I do.
This is why this is so important.
It's the future we should be working toward, which is that of a perennial contender, a modern arena, and a city that is first among cities in America.
So thank you.
And Mike, if you want to come up.
Donnie Oliveira 17:52 - 17:53
Thanks, Duane.
Mike Wilkerson 17:54 - 25:10
Council President Dunphy, Vice President Clark, councilors, for the record, my name is Mike Wilkerson.
I'm the Director of Economic Research at Echo Northwest.
What I have prepared for you today is a concise overview of some work that we did for the Blazers specifically related to SB 1501 with the state.
And so I want to be clear, there are some limitations here as it relates to the city, but we still think this is very helpful contextualization to unpack what is a challenging industry to model.
Sports, specifically professional sports and stadium deals, have been investigated a lot in an academic literature.
And have known limitations.
And I think what we have tried to do here is a first-of-its-kind study.
That is to say, we've looked at the breadth of the critiques and tried to understand how can we address as many of those as possible and provide a meaningful framework.
And so what I would say that the main challenge when you're looking at economic impacts is you would use a static version of the economy.
And so that is to say, you just take the economy as it is, and in a 1-year snapshot you say, What is the benefit of having a franchise, or how much spending does that support?
And those are the numbers that Duane and you've heard regularly referenced in that $600+ million range.
The challenge is when you're thinking about a long-term commitment and investment, really what we want to understand is what is that incremental benefit?
And to do that, you need to use more complex modeling.
And I'm happy to submit more to the record in terms of our methodology and have follow-on conversations, but—.
Thank you.
For now, I'd like to start by jumping in on the next slide, please.
The key assumption that we are modeling in this approach is understanding that local dollars are likely to get redirected elsewhere in the economy.
And this is a common critique of most spending studies.
And so that is to say, when we look at the current baseline, we wanna model what the renovation of the Moda Center would do and what the Blazers' continued operations would be through 2045.
And that is that baseline economic forecast.
And to do that, we can trace the origin of the dollars or the revenues that are supporting the team's operations.
And the vast majority, about 65% of all dollars that support operations come from out of region.
This is not typical for most sports.
And I think is crucial in that many studies paint with a broad brush.
That is to say, well, all sports are the same.
In the case of the NBA, and specifically with the Blazers and many of the issues that Dwyane has addressed, the national TV dollars support an outsized share of operations, more so than most franchises in the NBA, and certainly more than almost any other professional sports.
So if you look at the recent TV deal and the, The CBA that's associated with that, those dollars are immense.
And the local revenues are those people who live in region and they buy tickets, they buy merchandise, they go to games, they support the team.
What we want to be very careful to understand is if the Blazers weren't an option in where to spend and support, those dollars could be respent in the region.
And so what we are effectively doing is—.
Thank you.
Taking all of those local revenues, so that's $7.7 billion over the time horizon, and running those as a counterfactual scenario.
And so essentially we're not calculating any benefit from those local spends.
Those are redistributed as if they would be spent on other arts, entertainment, cultural offerings in the region.
And I think that is a distinction that we have seen no other study do.
And we are using a dynamic economic impact model which has feedback effects.
And so if you thought about removing the Blazers operations from the region, that causes economic harm and there's a period of disruption.
And so what the dynamic model allows you to do is trace that disruption over time and really look at the cumulative impacts over a long-term horizon, not in a 1-year snapshot.
Next slide, please.
So the most straightforward and regularly conducted approach is to say, can we quantify the impacts of construction?
Yeah.
And so if we're thinking about $600 million as a construction cost, what you get is a standard multiplier effect where that supports supply chain relationships.
It generates income for construction workers who then respend those dollars in the economy.
And so you end up with close to $1 billion in economic output and on an annual basis would support close to 1,500 jobs.
And from a state revenue, and again, this report was specifically targeting the state would generate $31 million back to the state over that 3-year construction period.
Next slide, please.
The more challenging piece is to think about the cumulative impact of operations.
And so here, because the bridge agreement runs through 2030, we modeled 2030 through 2045, which is a 20-year time horizon.
But the cumulative impact of the non-local dollars is what we are tracing.
And so here, And I have a slide that will help illustrate this next.
But in aggregate, that operational period through 2045 supports incremental about $14 billion of economic output.
On an annual basis, it's a little bit more than 3,000 jobs.
And I think crucially from the state's perspective, generates $950 million.
And so when you're thinking about the state's investment relative to the return on that investment over the time horizon, This starts to be an effective lens to understand why that is a beneficial investment.
If we go to the next slide, here we can really look at this on an annual basis.
And so what we're modeling effectively is a 3-year construction period.
And then the blue bars are the benefits associated with the baseline.
So again, these are the out-of-region dollars that support player salaries, staff, supply chain relationships, And then the counterfactual is the harm.
So that is to say, if the Blazers weren't operating, and to be clear, this isn't an assumption that that is going to happen.
It's a tool that you need to use in economics to say with and without.
And so the without would indicate you would lose things like out-of-region visitors who wouldn't be coming to games and the disruption that you have in the economy by removing hundreds of millions of dollars in the economy.
The economy does not adjust immediately.
And so you'll see that red bar.
Yeah.
Does revert back to the mean.
And effectively what you lose in the long term is really that tourism effect.
And then the blue bars are the benefit of the operations growing over time.
And because of the TV contract and the CBA growing consistently over time, we've modeled in that growth over time.
And so when you look at each year cumulatively, on average it's in the $800 to $900 million range as the benefit to the state, or cumulatively it's $15 billion of the construction plus the operations.
Thank you for your time.
I'm happy to take questions later.
Duane Hankins 25:14 - 25:15
That's it from our end.
Jamie Dunphy 25:15 - 25:27
Okay, well, thank you all very much.
Councilors have some questions, and I appreciate, yeah, folks coming up to help join the phone a friend.
We are going to start with Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan 25:29 - 26:04
Thank you, Council President.
And it's really a good morning, first of all.
It's great to see you, Duane.
I'm so glad you're excited to be here.
That's good news to hear.
And really, it is good to see you.
Let me repeat how important that is to be in person with you.
The first question just gets to some brass tacks.
What if the $573 million, the proposed public funding, is insufficient to fully fund the needed renovations of the arena?
What happens to the project then?
Will the team step up and fund the remaining project needs and potential cost overruns?
Duane Hankins 26:06 - 26:59
I think on cost overruns, what we had talked about at the state level with SB 1501 was should the Blazers want to do some expensive, incredibly different thing that's out of scope, the Blazers would pay for it.
But if the city or state were to come and say, hey, do we want to do this huge, expensive, different thing, then we would have a conversation about who would cover that.
Generally on the renovation, we've been at this since 2020 to try to understand what kinds of work needs to happen to the building.
And for any of you that have had a home renovation, there's— we identified at that time in 2021 dollars, $800 million, let's call it, of things that we could do to the arena.
And our goal at that time was to get it into a budget of the things that we should do to the arena focused on fan experience, focused on infrastructure, focused on technology, and focused on revenue generation.
Dan Ryan 27:02 - 27:05
Thank you.
And thank you for distinguishing between could and should.
Yes.
Kristen Dennis 27:05 - 27:06
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 27:06 - 27:07
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 27:08 - 27:38
Thank you.
So the Blazers have repeatedly stated in the press and here that they have provided information to the city.
But for example, we did not receive the requisite information for key decisions related to, say, the Portland Clean Energy Fund.
Also, the team has not yet responded in writing to our negotiating team's questions.
Can someone explain the Blazers' position on why the city has not received these key details?
Duane Hankins 27:39 - 28:12
Yeah, thank you, Councilor.
As we mentioned in, in the opening remarks, the conversation around providing details that could then be used to sue us later makes it very challenging.
So we need to figure out the the first-class facility issue first.
As it relates to your second question around responding to the questions, we have responded to those questions in those meetings with, with your city staff.
So if they're not getting you those answers, we're happy to meet with you individually and talk you through that.
Jamie Dunphy 28:12 - 28:14
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick 28:15 - 28:26
Thank you, Mr. President.
Before I ask a question, I have to say that I'm one of the few people up here old enough to remember the '77 championship.
So I really hope that we can work together To have a first-class celebration next year.
Duane Hankins 28:27 - 28:28
Deal.
Sameer Kanal 28:28 - 28:29
Let's do it.
Steve Novick 28:30 - 28:49
My question is, why are you seeking such a significant ongoing annual public contribution, $270 million over the 20-year lease?
Surely the newly renovated building won't have such high ongoing upgrade costs.
We need some assurance that the purpose of these ongoing public funds is not to subsidize operations.
Duane Hankins 28:51 - 29:11
Yep.
I mean, again, I think we are happy to have that conversation as part of the greater negotiation.
Piecemeal, it's hard to say we could do one thing or the other thing.
So in our mind, if that's on the table and you'd rather see those dollars go directly towards, you know, CapEx work rather than OpEx, that's a conversation we're open to have.
Jamie Dunphy 29:12 - 29:14
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Murillo.
Angelita Morillo 29:16 - 30:03
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you all so much for being here today and for answering our questions.
I'm really grateful for our city team who I know is hard at work trying to get us information, and I will say that some of those things do need to be in writing because we need to read through some of those documents.
So while things can be shared verbally, I am going to say our team is doing a good job trying to get that information, and I hope that you will help us get that information too so that we can help you.
Thank you.
My question for today is, If you could share more information on the proposed scope and budget for the renovation.
There was an ask for $600 million, but I'm sort of unclear as to where that came from.
We've only seen a few artistic renderings so far, but nothing really specific.
And so I'm curious as to what exactly that $600 million buys for us as a city.
Duane Hankins 30:03 - 31:06
Thank you, Councilor.
As I mentioned earlier, we've been at work on this since 2020.
In 2021, we identified more than $800 million in those years' dollars of projects that we could do.
And we have gotten it down to about $600 million worth of projects that we probably should do based on those 4 factors that I mentioned, infrastructure, revenue generation, fan experience, and technology.
We've shared those plans with the city in a meeting back in 2023.
So again, they have that information.
It's changed since then because we have a new owner who has a different way that he wants, you know, again, If this was your house and you bought it, you'd want to change from the plans that were there in 2020.
So we're trying to figure that out.
And then the secondary problem is we have architects and general contractors that we are excited to get to work with.
We've in fact had interviews with the city and state by our side to have those, to pick those and select those.
But until we have the funds to pay those architects, we don't have plans to show you.
We have concepts, but until then, we don't have plans.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 31:07 - 31:07
Gotcha.
Angelita Morillo 31:07 - 31:09
So right now you have concepts of a plan?
Duane Hankins 31:13 - 31:22
We have concepts, right?
And in order to have a plan, we need to pay an architect to start working on the plan that we would put in place alongside your partnership, Councilor.
Angelita Morillo 31:24 - 31:24
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 31:24 - 31:24
Do you understand?
Duane Hankins 31:25 - 31:25
Do you got that?
Kristen Dennis 31:26 - 31:27
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo 31:27 - 31:28
I may have further questions later.
Jamie Dunphy 31:28 - 31:31
Absolutely.
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos 31:38 - 32:58
Hello.
Apologies that I can't be there in person today.
Thank you, Dwayne and Mike, for being here.
I'm really glad to hear that you are here to engage in good faith negotiations with the council.
We're prepared to do the same.
And before I ask my question, I just want to emphasize that it's not just us that you have to convince, also Blazers fans who Um, have seen some concerns about how the team's operating in it.
This is why we're asking these hard questions, and the council is eager to keep the Blazers in Portland.
And simultaneously, Portlanders are investing 3 times through their state taxes, their county taxes, and now their city taxes.
So we do have an immense responsibility to assure an equitable return.
And to Portlanders, I just want you to know that keeping the Blazers in Portland has not been a debate amongst councilors.
We all want to keep them here in their home.
Thank you.
And we're discussing information today about an agreement between the property owners of Moda, the city, and the property manager, Rip City Management.
And so therefore, my question is, we understand that the team has stated that it will not consider any private contribution to funding the renovation project, but we also know that in most other recent arena deals, even in small markets, there have been some private capital investment, even if it is a small percentage of the total cost.
So help us understand why you are unwilling to thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Duane Hankins 32:59 - 33:40
Great to see you again as well.
And to your first point, yes, understand the weight and what's required to be a good steward of the public dollars that we're asking for.
So that's at the top of our mind, of course.
And then secondarily, I think as we mentioned, you know, in our statements, the team has already invested nearly $1 billion just on the construction of the stadium.
Thank you.
In maintenance of the building over the first 30 years.
And that often doesn't get talked about or counted as any sort of effort for what's already gone into the building.
And so going forward, in order for this deal to make economic sense, the contribution needs to come from the public sector.
Angelita Morillo 33:42 - 33:42
Thank you.
Candace Avalos 33:42 - 33:49
Just to follow up, so that is your confirmation that the team has no interest in further investing in their home court?
Duane Hankins 33:49 - 34:02
Again, this is starting to sound like negotiation, so we're not going to negotiate this piecemeal.
Um, certainly if that's something that's important to the city to put on the table, we're happy to talk about it along with everything else that we're trying to get done.
Candace Avalos 34:04 - 34:05
All right, that's all for now.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 34:06 - 34:09
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 34:10 - 35:27
Thank you, Council President, and thank you all for being here today.
It's nice to have the opportunity to thank you.
Thank you, Mayor Wilson, for the opportunity to have a conversation.
And while this is not the negotiating table, and as the council president stated, we don't sit at the negotiating table, it is important to be able to have this dialogue about priorities and expectations of each other.
The city and Rip City Management will, of course, be having negotiations moving forward, but there are a lot of other parties who are affected by this work in the now.
And one of those parties is the the groups through the Albina Rose Alliance who the Blazers and Rip City Management have had a very good partnership with in the past.
I'm wondering what the current status— again, not looking at negotiations and piecemealing— but what is the current status of your partnership with Albina Vision Trust and with the Albina Rose Alliance broadly?
Are you still working with Albina Vision Trust toward the eventual goal of neighborhood redevelopment and community building?
Yes.
And more generally, what are you hoping to see in that relationship and in the community benefits work that the Blazers do moving forward in your relationship with the city of Portland broadly?
Duane Hankins 35:28 - 36:41
Thank you, Councilor.
I did actually just talk to Wynta this morning, just trading notes on this conversation for today.
The alliance is alive and well.
We've been very— it's been very strong.
I think it's incredibly important for a sports team thank you.
I think it's really important for the team, when you consider the amount of people that we bring down to the district on an annual basis, on a daily basis, to feel supported and in partnership with the neighborhood that surrounds you, I think is really important.
Teams around the country take that for granted when they want to decide to drop in and build arenas.
And when you consider the history of that area specifically, the fact that they have such an inspiring vision for what they want that neighborhood to become, which is something that Portland sorely needs, is people that have, um, that bring that sort of inspiration.
Um, and Winta and Rekia do that, and we've been very excited to be partners with them and excited to work with them and would love to see— you know, we often think of that area of the city as Portland's front door.
I mean, you have the convention center there where hundreds of thousands of people come.
You've got our building, and that's a great way for people to see our city and to show off our city.
And so the vision that they have is one that we're very excited about.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 36:42 - 36:44
And what does that relationship look like moving forward for you?
Duane Hankins 36:46 - 37:17
I mean, we have constant conversations with them.
So for us, you know, it's important to continue to have the conversation.
You know, 1803 just bought the grain silos next to our— the lot that we own.
Then we remain in constant conversation about We don't have solid plans at this point, but I think our— what you're asking, I think our first step is to try to get this arena in a really good spot and then start to work with them on what the surrounding area looks like.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 37:18 - 37:18
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 37:19 - 37:21
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith 37:23 - 38:24
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you all for coming today and giving your, um, Brief presentation on what you would like and would not.
And I know you don't want to negotiate here, but I have a question that we wanted to get a clear answer on.
We've heard that you view our draft term sheet for a new lease on going forward as a non-starter, and we see it as one of the most generous public proposals in professional sports.
Please help me understand and tell us specifically what you see as being so far off your definition rate market of market rate, and how would it have to change to bring us back to the table?
And would— when can we start negotiating Again.
Sameer Kanal 38:24 - 38:25
I'll take this one.
Xandria Conyers 38:26 - 39:23
Greetings, Councilor.
Thank you for the question.
The first thing I just want to correct is that we have been at the table this whole time.
We've not left the table.
We've been very engaged.
As Dwayne alluded to in his earlier comments, we have multiple conversations a week.
We have standing meetings, and there's no part of our side or any of us that have not been available for additional conversations and questions outside and then with regards to the lease, you're right, we're currently in active negotiations as well as under the threat of litigation.
So I have advised our team not to negotiate here in the open forum.
But what I will say about the current term sheet is, again, as Duane alluded to, we had not negotiated it.
We were expecting to have some conversations and input, but the conversations got interrupted by the pandemic.
Raymond C. Lee 39:23 - 39:23
So you're not going to be able to talk about it?
Loretta Smith 39:25 - 39:25
Okay.
Xandria Conyers 39:25 - 40:18
And that got chilled once we started to receive— once we started to have the conversations about first-class standard and us feeling that that was not in our best interest legally.
But I will say this, the term sheet as we have in front of us right now contains more than 20 departures from the original language from 1501 that we all agreed to, that was voted and passed by the state legislature.
So when we think about the term sheet and how we move forward and what that would look like, There's a lot of work to do with that.
You asked about terms.
Duane mentioned those earlier as well.
We're looking for competitive tax rates.
We're looking for business conditions and economic conditions that can improve and also help our business be competitive as well.
So I guess a theme—.
Loretta Smith 40:18 - 40:34
And you understand that some of those tax rates we don't have the ability to change if you're talking about some local taxes, ballot measures that are mandatory.
We don't control that.
So it sounds like you did walk away from the table a bit.
Xandria Conyers 40:36 - 41:22
So again, I'll repeat, we're still at the table.
We have not walked away from the table.
But what I will emphasize again, as Duane already alluded to, when we talk about a market rate deal, there are multiple components to that tax rate, competitive tax structure is just one part.
So once we have a full suite of opportunities in front of us and terms that we can discuss, and we've had the opportunity to partner with your negotiators who— to Council Member Morillo's comment— that have been working hard, once we have an opportunity to get with them to be able to exchange the information that is necessary without the threat of litigation hanging over our head, then there— I think you'll find that we can be reasonable and that there is a lot of conversation to be had about how to right.
Loretta Smith 41:22 - 41:31
And so you stopped talking when you heard the threat of litigation?
That's, that's what you're saying?
But you were at the table before that?
Xandria Conyers 41:31 - 41:38
That's not what I said at all.
In fact, in fact, we just had a meeting on Monday.
Okay.
So we're, we're, we're for sure at the table.
Loretta Smith 41:38 - 42:02
Yeah, but prior to that, we were told that you were not at the table.
But I want to level set something really quick, and I, I need the mayor to, to say this because you, both of you have kind of said the same thing.
Um, Um, it is my understanding, Mr. Mayor, that you and your team are the negotiating team, that we're not negotiating with the Blazers.
Is that correct?
Keith Wilson 42:06 - 42:07
Councilor, you are correct, yes.
Loretta Smith 42:07 - 42:31
Okay.
And, and so I want to be clear.
So when you say that people say things, we are all individual elected officials And I just want to say that you may hear any one of us say many things, but I think what you need to take to the bank is what you hear from the mayor and what he says.
And please, you know, talk to him and his team.
Xandria Conyers 42:31 - 42:40
Yeah, we appreciate that invitation and you reiterating that, and we stand ready to continue working with the mayor and his team as well.
Kristen Dennis 42:40 - 42:40
Thank you.
Loretta Smith 42:40 - 42:41
Thank you.
Xandria Conyers 42:41 - 42:41
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 42:42 - 42:44
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green 42:46 - 43:52
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Duane and team, for being here.
I think, again, this is for the body to start to think about and have this conversation about what a term sheet looks like, which then provides the parameters for the negotiating team to move forward.
We're having this conversation in public, and a lot of what you've seen publicly from my end has been I'm a trained economist.
I wanted more information all along about the underlying economic and financial assumptions.
So I appreciate, Dr. Wilkerson, you bringing in some kind of new modeling.
I think you must be reading my posts or my newsletters.
I appreciate that.
This is the first I'm seeing of it, so I'll need more detail on your approach after the fact.
But I think, you know, the city has been seeking key economic and financial data from the Blazers to update our own.
Yeah.
Economic impact analysis to better inform council's decision-making.
It is my understanding that the Blazers refused to convey critical details to our consultant to update the study, a study that the city was willing to pay for, I'll add.
Why won't you help us make an economic case for the deal?
Xandria Conyers 43:53 - 44:36
So not to be repetitive, but as we've said here and have said in multiple conversations we've had with the city staff, the exchange of information is clearly at issue while we're under the threat of litigation.
So until that threat is removed, it becomes very untenable and difficult for us to exchange information in the manner in which you all are looking for it.
But again, I do want to reiterate that we have been having these conversations for years.
We've had, you know, we've had multiple tours and walkthroughs of the building.
So there's a lot of information there that is available to you all to be able to figure out what type of deal that you'd like to support.
And it certainly was enough information for the state.
Councilor Smith.
Mitch Green 44:40 - 45:07
I hear you, and I've heard that a couple times today, but I just— if we're also going to be receiving top-line results of an updated economic impact analysis that makes some claims and some large benefits, how is this body supposed to adjudicate and evaluate the validity of such claims is the question.
And I— you've been clear in your response.
I understand you're couching it in legal terms, but I'm just curious.
Councilor Smith, But that's a big one for this body to be able to evaluate.
Xandria Conyers 45:07 - 45:29
I appreciate that.
And, you know, I want to again emphasize, we want to be able to share information.
We want to have conversations.
Our CFO Joe is front and center in a lot of that economic analysis.
And so it's there for us and we want to share it with you.
But right now, as I've already stated, we have this threat of litigation that is putting a chilling effect on the conversations.
Mitch Green 45:30 - 45:31
Okay, that's my questions for now.
Jamie Dunphy 45:32 - 45:33
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Knell.
Sameer Kanal 45:35 - 46:34
Thank you everybody for being here.
Everyone up here, Charles as well, good to see you.
I think you've covered part of this, so I wanna narrow my question a little bit because we're obviously very happy that you're here and happy to have a possible direct conversation that's not mediated through folks who can't speak for us.
What we've been told is that since April, most of the conversations— and I want to stress conversations not in the sense of phone calls or physical meetings, but in the sense of advancement of the conversation— has not had Blazers participation in it since April.
And what I mean by that is that there have been verbal conversations, but nearly nothing in writing required to advance this deal.
Can you give your views on that piece of it?
And why that is.
I know that the work session in which the other conversation happened around the first-class standard was in June, June 24th or 25th.
So, but we've been hearing it since April.
Can you speak about that period of time?
Xandria Conyers 46:36 - 47:50
So, yeah, I think that's not accurate.
Again, we've been having the conversations.
There has been a lot of emphasis on what we're willing to put in writing.
Again, um, the, the term sheet that we got presented with, and I think you guys have known this and you've heard this feedback, has been a non-starter for us.
It is just not, um, it's not even a document that we can respond to aside from the more than 20 departures from 1501.
Um, there were just elements in there that, um, increased the financial obligations of the team and, um, increased financial impact to the team.
And so until I think that's a fair point.
I think that's a fair point.
I think that there's— and quite frankly, it came at a time when we had been asking for a term sheet for months, and it came at a time after media comments by the commissioner, and it just kind of popped up, and we hadn't had the conversation.
So we just didn't, quite frankly, see it as the starting place for conversations.
Of course, you know, there's writing to go back and forth.
We're going to trade writing.
I was a part of the team that negotiated the bridge deal that we're currently under.
Olivia Clark 47:50 - 47:55
There were no shortage of drafts of of documents and information exchange, et cetera.
Xandria Conyers 47:55 - 48:04
And I can't imagine that it would be any different this time around.
We just got to get to the place where we can have those conversations and a free exchange of information.
Duane Hankins 48:05 - 48:45
And we do.
Again, you're talking about putting in writing, but we meet— I feel like I talk to Donnie Oliveira daily.
I talk to the— you know, we have meetings that are sort of weekly set up.
We meet every Wednesday with the state.
We meet every Friday with what's becoming the joint authority.
And we have, I mean, shown up for those meetings and had conversations.
We've never once negotiated deal points in those meetings.
They seem to just be general updates.
But we are, again, assuming we get past this first-class issue, I mean, we'd be happy to start negotiations.
It's, Yeah, I mean, we want to get a deal done.
Sameer Kanal 48:46 - 48:49
I very much look forward to that.
I'll have more questions later, but I'll pass it off to other colleagues.
Olivia Clark 48:50 - 48:50
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 48:50 - 48:53
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman 48:53 - 49:01
Hi, thanks for being here.
Dwayne, do you mind?
I don't think I caught the names of your guests here.
Do you mind introducing who's to your right?
Duane Hankins 49:01 - 49:13
Of course, yes.
Our Chief Financial Officer, Joe Loomis, has spent time with the Knicks, the Spurs, and the NBA.
Xandria Conyers, who's our Chief Legal Officer, spent time with the NCAA and LPGA.
Eric Zimmerman 49:15 - 49:51
We know him.
We got him.
Gotcha.
We had a lot of dialogue and I wasn't quite sure with names.
So I appreciate y'all being here.
Thank you so much.
You know, it's a bit of a scripted day and that's okay.
So my question, if the City Council passes a term sheet, we will have officially demonstrated our seriousness in getting to a deal.
Are you committed to moving quickly into a development of a binding lease and development agreement I think, again, we—.
Duane Hankins 49:51 - 50:11
That assumes a lot of things.
As Andrew said and I said earlier, there's, there's more than 20 points of difference between the state bill and the bill that was dropped on all of our laps, or the term sheet that was dropped on all of our laps.
So I think there's a lot of conversation yet to happen.
I think the question is, is there a timeline thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Jamie Dunphy 50:12 - 50:13
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark 50:14 - 50:34
Thank you, Council President.
Welcome.
Thank you.
It's great to see you.
I really appreciate your being here today.
You mentioned earlier, Dwayne, you talked about the condition of the building, and I'm trying to get my head around that, what that really means.
So do you believe that the Moda Center is in a first-class condition currently?
Kristen Dennis 50:35 - 50:36
You do?
Duane Hankins 50:36 - 50:38
Yes, I can.
Do you want me to explain or—.
Angelita Morillo 50:38 - 50:38
Please.
Kristen Dennis 50:39 - 50:39
Okay.
Duane Hankins 50:39 - 51:30
So I think the difference between a renovation and maintenance is, you know, for instance, a kind of project that you could see done in a renovation is our north entry, which is a bottleneck.
It is an area where fans get caught up, they get caught in the elements, they get caught in the rain.
And so We would like to do a grand entrance for the arena, much like something you might see at the airport.
Does that mean it's not a first-class facility?
Not in our definition.
But when you're asking about first class, it's the ability to have events.
It's the ability to have NBA games, WNBA games, other things.
There's not deferred maintenance in the building.
We keep the building in great shape.
We replace things as they need to be replaced.
So there's the difference between renovation and maintenance.
I think that would be what I would want to state on record.
Xandria Conyers 51:31 - 51:35
Can I, can I just add?
Yes, we think the building is in first-class condition.
Olivia Clark 51:35 - 51:51
I just want to tease this out a little bit more so I really have a better understanding.
Excuse me.
So if it is in first-class condition, why does it need major renovation?
And why is the list of necessary work identified in the facility's condition assessment so extensive?
Xandria Conyers 51:53 - 52:58
So the one thing I'll say about the conditions assessment is it's forward-looking, and it talks about what would be needed in the building over time, over the next 20 years.
That's a really important thing to focus on.
But I will just again reemphasize that we believe the building is in first-class condition.
But I want to remind everyone that the building is just one part of this deal that we are seeking.
There are so many other elements and factors and facets for this deal.
And so yes, we want to have a competitive building.
That is a must-have on tours.
We want to have a building that players from other teams are jealous of and they want to play in.
But we also want to have a thriving business.
We also want our city that we love dearly to be a thriving city and to be able to partner with you all to contribute to the revitalization of Portland.
So there's a lot of focus on the building, but I just would encourage everyone to not just let that be the focus.
There is a lot more to a market rate deal that we have to think about.
Councilor Smith.
Olivia Clark 53:00 - 53:05
Thank you for your answers.
Did you want to elaborate, Dwayne?
Is that—.
Nope.
Okay, thank you.
Perfect.
Jamie Dunphy 53:05 - 53:33
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Um, my question is the last of our pre-prepared questions.
That's not a sentence.
Um, this—.
And it's relatively straightforward.
Portland is a union town.
Will you commit to a labor peace agreement that includes not only construction of renovation and general operations and improvements So again, I'd say we wouldn't negotiate all this piecemeal.
Duane Hankins 53:33 - 53:52
I will say that we do have, you know, we do have 3 unions in the building as of right now.
We work with them.
We just actually negotiated a new CBA with one of them.
So, you know, again, not as a, you know, it's part of a bigger conversation, but happy to do it as part of a negotiation.
Jonas Biery 53:52 - 53:54
Councilmember Herbold, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 53:54 - 54:04
All right, colleagues, we have about 12 minutes left for some general questions.
And so folks in the chat, actually, I'm going to start by extending a courtesy to the City Administrator.
Raymond C. Lee 54:06 - 58:02
Thank you, Council President and councilors, and to our Blazer partners in this.
I just want to reiterate something so the public knows this as well as it relates to the city's negotiating team.
The city does have negotiators along with legal counsel.
Sitting at the table in these conversations to really work through some of the small detail points, but a lot of the major detail points that have been addressed as concerns, both from the Blazer standpoint, but also from our councilors on relates to what does a term sheet look like for our 2 entities.
Just keep in mind though, As we go through this, and this is for the public's general just knowledge, this term sheet is not a binding agreement.
This term sheet helps set the table for us as it relates to what does a long-term lease look like and really gives the framework for those negotiating points that we will be discussing in a long-term deal.
What council what the council is being asked to do in this whole equation is to really evaluate, is that the framework we want to move forward in a negotiation?
And we know the council is really hearing from the public as it relates to the citizens and community members that they represent to make sure that we're putting the best offer on the table to move forward.
We know in any negotiation there's going to have to be give and take on both ends.
The city still remains committed to having the Blazers as a longtime partner and an international presence here in Portland.
And we know as a city and as staff that is working on this as well that that without this, this is a nonstarter for both ends, and that we need the partnership at the table.
And for us to be able to do that, there has to be a certain level of trust.
And we are coming to the table fully trusted and invested in the process and the individuals as yourselves that are coming to the table and negotiating with us, and we appreciate that.
Thank you.
We know there's concerns as it relates to comments that have been made, and I strongly believe, and I know the mayor and our legal team strongly believes this as well, anything that has been stated in the past or presently does not deter our ability to negotiate and our willingness to negotiate.
The direction of these negotiations is informed by our elected body.
The mayor has really directed us to put forth a world-class negotiating team to be able to do that on our behalf, and we continue to do that.
I just want to thank you for being here today, and I hope that we can continue to move forward and work together collectively as a group to come up to terms on a term sheet and overall a final lease agreement that supports this city's economic vibrancy.
But also enhance the values that we share, all of us in this city, around equity, community benefits agreements, our labor agreements, and ensuring that everyone can benefit from the vibrancy in which the Portland Trail Blazers and the Fire bring to our community.
So I want to just share that so we can kind of just set that table for the community so they'll know that this is thank you, City Administrator.
Jamie Dunphy 58:06 - 58:12
And Mr. Mayor, go ahead.
I also just want to be mindful of time.
We got only about 8 minutes left with our guests, and we got a bunch of councilors in the queue.
Keith Wilson 58:14 - 1:01:27
3 key points to just be brought forward on behalf of council, which I appreciate this privilege, and thank you as well for the Trailblazers RIP City Management.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Thank you, Mayor Wilson, and thank you, Deputy City Manager, for being here.
First, we continue to look forward in this negotiation and not backward towards agreements that are already in place that outline the rights and obligations of the city and Rip City Management.
As you know, we spent months negotiating the specific provisions in the arena operating lease and the exclusive site agreement, which makes up the bridge agreement that you are asking us to either waive or change.
Those agreements were adopted by Rip City Management, the Trail Blazers, the city, and the council vote.
Those agreements were assumed by the current ownership upon closing of the sale of the Trail Blazers in March.
The city has met its commitments, including reimbursing Rip City Management the full amount of user fees on Trail Blazers games in FY25 and '26.
Thank you.
There is simply no good reason to amend those agreements unless and until we reach a new long-term lease and commitment by Rip City Management and the Trail Blazers to play at the Moda Center for the next 20 years.
Secondly, and more practically, any material amendments to either the arena operating lease or the exclusive site agreement would require approval by the City Council.
And even if we considered the changes you proposed, which we do not, The City Council is committed to the parties honoring the existing agreements as previously negotiated in the bridge agreement.
Like the city administration, the City Council is focused on the next iteration of a public-private partnership with you and our county and state partners along in partnership with us.
Another practical reason for the infeasibility of reopening existing agreements is the involvement of the state of Oregon through the Joint Authority.
While the Joint Authority is not a party to the existing bridge agreement, your proposal is premised on a series of hypotheticals that would surely affect the interests as expressed in SB 1501.
It is impracticable to do anything but focus on the future work of negotiating a long-term agreement and partnership between the Joint Authority, the city, and Rip City Management.
And the Trail Blazers.
And last, and more germane to this conversation, the mayor, the city administrator, the city attorney has never contemplated suing the Blazers.
It has never been a part of our conversations, backroom with you.
The ruminations that are contemplated by this council are just that, in open meetings.
They are required to only discuss this openly.
While that doesn't often lead to positive outcomes or bylines or stories or articles.
The negotiating team that you have and you've brought forward, we appreciate, and our negotiating team have shown up in good faith.
We are not contemplating suing the Blazers, Rip City Management, or any other parties, and I just wanted to make sure you trust us in that discussion.
So thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy 1:01:27 - 1:01:32
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Okay, colleagues, we got a few minutes left.
I'm going to jump into the queue.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith 1:01:32 - 1:02:17
Thank you, Council President.
And I think the mayor just took what I was going to say, because I was going to say I have never been in an executive session, and it would have to go through executive session before we sued anybody, the Blazers or anyone else.
And I've never seen that.
So thank you, Mayor, for, um, letting us know what, what, what is going on.
But I want to I want to ask this one question because we keep coming back to it, and it's similar to my original question.
Will you be willing to give those 20 points that you said that we're off on the term sheet?
Would you be able to give that to the mayor's negotiating team to let them know where we're off on?
Because we're just— it's just up in the air right now.
Would you be willing to agree to do that?
Xandria Conyers 1:02:23 - 1:04:04
So look, nobody wants to get to the meat of the deal more than us, get to talking about that.
I mean, that's what this is all about.
And as mentioned before, we started these conversations long ago, even before, before I came.
So it is our desire, and I feel what the mayor just said, Thank you.
But at the end of the day, the fact still remains that there is a litigation threat out there.
I understand that's not the intent nor the desire nor even the contemplations of the city right now.
But the reality is that there's just information and conversation that we have to have, that information that can't be unseen, dialogue that can't be unheard, that can end up impacting us thank you.
And our legal position in litigation.
But again, I don't, I don't want to keep talking about the litigation.
We've been clear what our ask is on that.
What I would rather us spend our time talking about is what the mayor's talking about, which is the relationship.
We're talking about remedies right now.
We need to be talking about the relationship between us and you all, the relationship that has been longstanding for decades that allowed us to continue having the building here and continue being a part of this community, but also that got us through the bridge deal that we're currently under.
Yes, there's some conversation about the things that are not working for us under the threat of litigation, but outside of that, we wholeheartedly believe and agree with the mayor that there is a pathway to a deal getting done.
Loretta Smith 1:04:04 - 1:04:07
Thank you, but you're not going to be willing to give those 20 points to the mayor?
Xandria Conyers 1:04:08 - 1:04:13
At the appropriate time, we absolutely, because that's how we're going to get to the deal.
Yeah, we're going to dig in.
Mike Wilkerson 1:04:14 - 1:04:14
Yes.
Jamie Dunphy 1:04:15 - 1:04:17
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green 1:04:18 - 1:04:55
Thank you, Council President.
The next stage is for councilors to contemplate a term sheet.
The term sheet for me is about whether or not— whether I can support a term sheet really does depend upon me understanding what goes into these economic impact analyses.
So we can evaluate the claims to the taxpayer.
And that's what it's always been about for me.
My question is to— and I know I don't have much time, so I might have to take this offline, but I'm going to lay the questions out on the table now.
Dr. Wilkerson, this analysis that you presented today, when did you do this analysis?
Is this recent?
Did this happen back in March?
Mike Wilkerson 1:04:56 - 1:05:15
Yeah, thank you, Councilor Green.
This was conducted in late fall and early spring as related to the state short session and ultimately SB 1501.
So it relies on backward-looking data and then projections going forward.
And so, yeah, happy to get you more technical information and answer more questions.
Mitch Green 1:05:17 - 1:05:47
Okay, that's helpful.
So why wasn't this shared today?
This, I mean, if you did this in the spring, my understanding is the city hasn't seen this yet.
This is the first time I've seen it.
So I'm curious why this is just now coming forward.
Because these are some large claims to benefits that are frankly outside of the literature that you spoke to.
And so can you share those now?
Can you send me the underlying methodology and as many assumptions that you can?
Mike Wilkerson 1:05:48 - 1:05:52
Yeah, absolutely.
Happy to get you whatever you need and continue the conversation.
Candace Avalos 1:05:52 - 1:05:53
Okay.
Mitch Green 1:05:53 - 1:06:17
I hope to have that very soon because we're going to be starting to talk about this term sheet next week.
And because what the public has been talking about is the benefits associated with the Crosspoint Consulting study from 2024.
And if we've had this since the spring and we're just now— I'm just now seeing it, the city's just now seeing it, that's troubling to me.
Okay, thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 1:06:17 - 1:06:25
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Uh, Councilor Kanal, last question I thought I was next.
Oh, sorry, I, um, going to Councilor Kanal next.
Sameer Kanal 1:06:25 - 1:08:12
Sorry.
Thank you, Council President.
Um, so I, I appreciate the reference to business conditions and economic conditions, and I think, um, I think it would be fair to say that that includes public safety, uh, in the context of, of what creates the conditions for businesses to succeed here I believe I've seen, and correct me if I'm wrong, previous comments that there have been negative impacts on the Blazers organization, on Rip City Management, starting at the beginning of COVID in 2020, not only from the pandemic, but conditions in the Rose Quarter as it relates to public safety, to homelessness, et cetera.
I believe I've seen that.
I'm seeing nods here.
And I know that everyone here is aware of the city's budgetary constraints and cuts.
Absent enough information from you, either directly or indirectly, and so I'll invite anything related to that $800 million list from 2021, my email is councilor.kanal@portlandoregon.gov.
I'd love to get that directly.
That would be incredibly helpful.
But absent information to help us understand how we could access restricted funds from PSF, any other funding source would have an impact on the general fund, which we fund public safety out of.
So my question is, I think that we share the priority that the city retain enough general fund resources after this deal to provide fire, emergency management, ambulance, Portland Street Response, police, and other services in public safety to the Rose Quarter at a high level.
Can you confirm that from your side?
We agree.
Okay, thank you.
And so I would love any information that helps us talk about any— not just PSF— any restricted funding source to avoid the necessary impacts that would result from only using thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Jamie Dunphy 1:08:13 - 1:09:01
Thank you.
We are at time, friends.
You're promised time for your hour with us.
Thank you very much.
I just want to thank you for joining us today and accepting my invitation to attend.
This is incredibly meaningful to the public to see that we are having dialogue.
And these are hard conversations and these are tough conversations and they're supposed to be.
This is about the future of our city.
And I think I can hear clearly from you all that you care about the future of this city, just as every single person on this dais is.
And I hope the public understands that we are moving in good faith, all of us around this giant weird circle, to find a future for the Portland Trail Blazers here in Portland that everybody feels proud of.
Thank you so much for the trust to come to us this morning.
And I look forward to working with you all.
Thank you.
If you have any last parting words, I'd love to turn to you.
Duane Hankins 1:09:02 - 1:09:25
No, I just agree.
Thank you for all your time.
Thank you for your questions, councilors.
I really appreciate it.
This is really important to us.
I mean, I think you said in your opening remarks that the team, you know, it's been here 50 years.
I would just correct the record to say 56.
But I, you know, this, I always think about Harry Glickman in these moments because Harry believed that Portland could be a major league city when he brought the Trail Blazers here.
Raymond C. Lee 1:09:38 - 1:09:38
Absolutely.
Jamie Dunphy 1:09:38 - 1:25:37
There will be further conversations, I'm sure, and more questions back and forth.
But for now, we're going to take a 10-minute break and come back and have a presentation from city council— or from council staff about where we are right now.
So see everybody back at 10:45.
Thank you.
I'm bringing us back to order here, folks.
Thank you very much.
We are now going to transition to Kristen Dennis, who's going to give us a presentation on— for the public, what broadly where we are right now, some of the information about different terms that are flying around and help the public understand where we're going to engage next.
So, Kristen, take it away.
Xandria Conyers 1:25:37 - 1:25:37
Excellent.
Kristen Dennis 1:25:37 - 1:25:46
Thank you, Council President.
Again, for the record, my name is Kristen Dennis.
I'm currently on loan from Metro working as a special advisor in the Council President's office.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 1:25:47 - 1:25:48
Happy to be here.
Kristen Dennis 1:25:49 - 1:42:28
So I'm going to get right into it.
Hopefully I won't bore you too much with some of the legal review.
But, and again, I'm not giving you any legal advice.
This is all policy.
So first, I just wanted to ground everybody.
Oh, sorry, next slide, please.
First, I just wanted to ground everybody in just a high-level overview of where we're at in the process.
Some of this is going to be familiar to you, obviously, from the presentation that we already had, but I thought it was important to talk about how we're at the beginning of several large steps.
Obviously, we have the term sheet, which is where we're starting, and that's the part of the conversation that we're having today.
But ahead of us, we still have the creation of the joint authority, a lease agreement, a long-term lease agreement, and a development agreement, state bond sale, and then local budget approvals, which includes the City Council's budget approvals that will have to come subsequent to that.
So there's a lot of engagement, a lot of relationship building, a lot of collaboration that's going to need to happen in the coming months and years as we get to construction.
Next slide, please.
So a few words on council's role in this, which I know you've already talked about in length.
You ultimately have review and approval roles in steps that I listed above, including approval of the term sheet so that we can continue conversations toward a long-term lease agreement and development agreement.
The city is a venue owner.
Your administrative team is responsible for negotiating agreements that reflect management needs and the interests of the city.
So we've been clear that council is not negotiating the deal.
But what I thought was important to do is talk about what you are doing and talk about what I know that you expect of yourselves and what your constituents are all expecting of you as well.
And this is part of why you all brought me on.
So talking about asking questions and defining desired outcomes, establishing clear guardrails on how and when public money can be spent.
Thank you.
Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Mayor.
I think it's important to be transparent, clearly communicate to your constituents, and I think most importantly, have a vision for the future.
A lot of the discussion that we had earlier today was kind of this back and forth of council has a lot of responsibility to communicate publicly to make sure that you all understand what you will be voting on, and then also you're able to communicate it to the public, which is why there's some of this tension around verbal exchange of thank you.
I think it's important to note that we're in a problem-solving situation right now because we're not— our structures are not necessarily conducive to the type of complex deal that we're working on.
We have a negotiating team that ultimately needs to have something that works for the city but also works for and reflects the needs of council.
You all are responsible for being able to demonstrate that you understand and have confidence in what you're actually going to be voting for, hopefully on August 1st.
Thank you.
And frankly, that's part of the reason why y'all brought me on to help facilitate that, those conversations so that I could be working with councilors and with administration to kind of bridge the gap a little bit and really centering council as you center your constituents, but centering council in some of those discussions.
So I'm gonna continue to do that today.
And, oh yeah, so next slide, please.
Thank you.
So I wanted to talk about some of what I've been hearing since coming on board in June.
One of the things that's been great about working with you all is that you all have a clear vision for the future.
I heard this in particular during your work session in June that I was with you in.
The goal is a long-term— and I heard you all repeating this earlier this morning— the goal is a long-term relationship with the Blazers.
That's what success looks like.
It's less about what the particular deal is at the end of the year, but it is how do we have a mutually beneficial agreement and relationship moving into the future.
So what I've heard from you is you want something that makes economic sense for the public and for the Blazers, that reflects Portland values including accessibility, safety, inclusivity, and transparency, and it creates public benefits with an activated space, partnerships in the community, revitalized neighborhood, and good jobs.
Next slide, please.
So I put together a slide here that just shows a little bit of some of the things that we have heard from council in June and then kind of ongoing, just to demonstrate to the public and to you all we've been taking notes and listening to some of the things that you have said.
Now, these are not for negotiating purposes.
Some of these have been Some of them have a lot of support, some of them don't have very much support, but this is just to demonstrate all of the council inputs.
And I hope that you will see many of these, or I believe that you will see many of these reflected in the terms that I'm going to go over shortly.
Next slide, please.
And here's more.
All right, next slide.
So now we're getting into the fun part, the term sheet.
A couple things before I start on the term sheet.
I will be showing you language from the July version that was shared with the Blazers and with the public.
I expect changes in the version you will consider next week, but I want to have an opportunity to discuss what's been public both for you all and for the public as well.
And I want to note, because this is something that was discussed before, it is definitely more comprehensive than what was in SB 1501.
For a few reasons.
One, because the city has historically had a different role than this, uh, has a different role, uh, since it's a venue owner.
A 20-plus-year lease agreement naturally needs to have more details than what was contained in the bill.
Uh, that said, as I walk you through, I'll be noting where the language that comes directly, comes directly from the state legislation, so we can actually talk about where there might be some differences.
And hopefully, Councilor Smith, this gets to some of the questions that you were I thought it was also important, though, to note that SB 1501 speaks directly to the fact that it is not— it's an incomplete document.
In the bill, it says that the state obviously is going to be retaining a professional with expertise in arena negotiations to review information regarding recent comparable NBA arena projects in similar-sized markets.
Councilor Smith, I think you're and then also importantly, nothing in this subsection requires the inclusion or exclusion of any particular term in an agreement between the joint authority and a management entity.
So it's certainly the expectation that, you know, we don't want things to be inconsistent, but I, so, but we can walk through what that actually means.
But certainly I would expect that the term sheet have more information in it.
Okay, so first, renovation.
This is the first term.
Pretty simple.
It just defines that there's gonna be a renovation not to exceed 4 years and trying to have the arena stay as operational as possible within those parameters.
Next term, or next slide.
The parties, there are, it's not just the city and the Blazers.
It is obviously the joint authority, the city, the state, Rip City Management as the operator of the venue, and then the Trail Blazers as the primary tenant.
Next slide.
Okay, so next is the role of the joint authority.
The joint authority was obviously contemplated in SB 1501, so on the right you'll see the language from SB 1501 directly.
On the left is the July draft term sheet.
Very similar.
This essentially just establishes that you're going to have the joint authority, and the joint authority will play a direct oversight coordination and information sharing role with respect to the public contribution.
This is also required in the bill.
The joint authority will be reporting to the legislature, making sure that the legislature is kept up to date as well.
Thank you.
Next slide, please.
Let's see, renovations standards.
This also references joint authority approval at the end.
This is making sure that it's benchmarked and that it meets all of the regulatory requirements.
This is not directly— this is one place where it's not directly referenced in SB 1501, but it is stuff that's pretty standard for contracts.
And also notes that the joint authority, any decisions or any material design changes will require the joint authority's review and approval after consultation and collaboration with the city.
Next slide, please.
Next is the renovation budget.
Here's another place where you will see the language alongside from 1501.
All costs and renovation will be sole responsibility of and And paid for by Rip City except for the public funding contribution.
And then anything in excess of the renovation budget as shown in Exhibit A is the responsibility of Rip City.
Now, I'll note we don't have an Exhibit A yet, so that is kind of a piece that's missing and is part of what I assume will come through the negotiations.
But it does handle the— it does speak directly to cost overruns.
And on the right, you'll see in Section 6, thank you.
So under Section 6 of 1501, the joint authority and management entity must execute one or more agreements that collectively contain all of the following provisions.
Now, obviously I didn't list all of the provisions, but the relevant one is addressing responsibility for cost overruns in any project carried out by the joint authority.
So it makes it clear that the joint authority is not required to pay for any cost overruns.
Unless it's something that we ask for, which is similar to one of the things that we heard the Blazers team talk about.
So if it's something that's in the public interest and we say we need you to add something, certainly that would not be a cost overrun borne by the Blazers.
Next slide, please.
That's— sorry, this is again just pretty— this is new language, obviously, that's not in the bill, but it is this is just some standard language around the arena site and the arena.
It includes the plaza.
The plaza is an important part of what we're talking about.
Next slide.
Arena operating lease, the term in here, we have again at least 20 years.
This is directly taken from 1501 as well that requires again that same Section 6.
Thank you.
And then subsection A, a binding commitment from the management entity to a lease for a minimum term of 20 years.
It's pretty consistent.
Okay.
Sorry.
Okay, next slide, please.
Again, some additional normal terms.
I'm sorry to be boring you all.
This is— the Trail Blazers will sublease from Rip City as a tenant.
There are also going to be additional subleases we know of, in particular the Portland Fire and the Winterhawks.
We also, in here at the end, you see in the highlighted section, there's the requirement or the ask that they maximize the use of the arena by hosting other events including concerts, family shows, and community events.
So they will be as our— as the operator of the venue trying to maximize the use of the venue as part of the lease agreement.
Next slide, please.
This is again a renovation site preparation and condition of property.
This essentially just says that there's no extra public contribution if there are unexpected costs due to the condition of the property kind of as is.
Next slide.
Councilor Smith.
Project Development Agreement.
Again, this is gonna be happening, and I know the team can answer more questions about this, but the Project Development Agreement will be happening alongside the lease agreement.
And this provides really the meat and potatoes of what you will— of what the construction project will look like.
And again, you'll see in green language directly from 1501, which requires that a provision authorizing the joint authority to give final approval of scope, schedule, and budget for construction of the renovation projects related to the Moda Center.
And that is reflected in the language in the term sheet to the left.
Again, give the authority meaningful, in consultation with the city, meaningful review and approval rights over the design plan, major design changes, and Rip City's selection of contracts.
So again, there, as we talk about the importance of the relationship, here's another place where that importance of a really strong, healthy relationship between the city, the state, and the Blazers is going to be really important because we're going to be working through all of these deals.
What do we want the arena to look like?
There's going to be a lot of choices that are going to need to be made.
And by setting out the vision, a vision for an accessible, frequently used building, kind of helps drive some of those development decisions that will be made later.
Next slide, please.
Again, this is similar to what was noted in the renovation terms at the top, but this is a public investment, and that should at least be comparable to NBA recently renovated sites.
Again, these are some pretty straightforward terms.
Next slide, please.
User fees.
We heard a reference to this earlier, but currently in the bridge agreement, there's a 6% user fee payable to the city.
And the term sheet contemplates just continuing that payment at the same rate.
Again, these are all— everything in here will be negotiated by the team and the Blazers later.
But this is where the proposal is at the 6% user fee.
Thank you.
I will talk to you later.
You'll see later in the capital, the slide talking about the capital stack.
These dollars all go towards the Moda Center.
So this is money that comes in from the Moda Center and then goes for our ongoing support of the facility that we own, which again is pretty typical of venues.
Next slide, please.
This is the property tax offset payment.
This is a place where—.
I'm sorry.
In kind of reflection of what the team heard from council, particularly during that first work session that you all had, looking for to make sure that this is an economically beneficial, ultimately an economically beneficial agreement for the city.
We've also heard some of this from our county partners as well.
And so this is the kind of current proposal for a property okay.
Tax offset payment.
Obviously, because it's a publicly owned facility, the, um, there's no property tax being collected on it.
This essentially provides a payment instead of that, and it's just set at $3 million escalating over time.
Next slide, please.
Um, all right, parking revenues.
Uh, this is the same as, again, as what's in the bridge agreement, just like the 6%.
The funds from parking revenues also go to our ongoing contributions to the Moda Center.
Next slide, please.
All right.
This was a longer section, the funding for renovation.
Funding contributions, there's kind of 2 parts.
The first one is a public contribution, which you can see kind of the start of.
Next slide, please.
Here's where the city comes in.
The city has proposed an amount not to exceed $120 million for eligible renovation expenses.
At the end, I highlighted this because we're not specific about where the dollars come from.
Ultimately, that will be up to council where those dollars come from.
But the city can or may issue debt to meet its obligation.
But again, that's up for— up to council to figure out later.
Olivia Clark 1:42:30 - 1:42:30
Thank you.
Candace Avalos 1:42:31 - 1:42:31
Thank you.
Kristen Dennis 1:42:32 - 1:44:27
All right, next slide please.
Oh, okay, you got it.
This is Rip City's contribution.
We talked a little bit about the private contribution.
In the term sheet, it contemplates that Rip City will be solely responsible for all funding costs of renovation and post-renovation operation of their arena not covered by the public funding contribution.
So again, we've been talking about an up-to amount that would be the public contribution.
So anything over that would be the responsibility thank you.
And again, I put— you'll see some familiar language to the right, which is from 15-01, which contemplates the same thing.
So this is what was in the legislation specifically about cost overruns.
So again, it's— the public contribution is an up-to amount.
It will— there's no intention for it to go above that.
Next slide, please.
All right.
Funding for post-renovation operations.
So this is this is when I talked earlier about the 6% user fee and the parking fees.
This goes to that.
So providing for eligible ongoing capital expenses in the future.
Next slide, please.
I promise I'm almost through.
Assignment assumption and guarantee of obligations, making sure everybody stays responsible for what they said they're going to do.
And obviously the Trailblazers as the tenant will provide an unconditional guarantee of Rip City's performance of all renovation and post-renovation obligations.
So making sure they're on the same page should not be an issue.
Next slide, please.
Community benefit agreement, labor peace agreements, and good neighbor agreements.
So in— and obviously these terms, as you can see, there is a desire for Rip City to enter into one or more community benefit agreements.
Angelita Morillo 1:44:27 - 1:44:29
Yes.
Thank you.
Kristen Dennis 1:44:31 - 1:54:19
And again, that's to ensure that the renovation fosters inclusive economic growth, delivers tangible and meaningful benefits, and other appropriate investments for community residents.
This is a place where you saw kind of earlier, this came kind of directly from a lot of what we heard from council and is consistent with what we heard from council's overall goals and what is your vision for the arena.
Consistent with that, there is, Also a requirement for a labor peace agreement with relevant labor organizations to prevent disruptions of the renovation.
And then also one or more good neighbor agreements with the affected neighborhoods to minimize construction-related impacts such as noise, pollution, and traffic.
Next slide, please.
Non-relocation.
So this is a piece that has been obviously very critical to council and to the city, and I know to Blazer fans and I think to the Blazers as well.
And they— the Blazers will execute and deliver a non-relocation agreement in which the Blazers are— the Blazers as a team will agree to play all preseason, regular season, and playoff yes.
And the Portland Trail Blazers will not host any playoff home games at the arena.
Accordingly, the non-relocation agreement shall provide the city, county, and state with the right to obtain specific performance, temporary restraining orders, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and other equitable remedies.
This is so that it has some force of law.
So there is— it is an enforceable non-relocation agreement.
And again, that is for the term of 20 years.
Next slide, please.
This is more of that, um, and it kind of doubling down on obviously the different types of relief.
It also is requiring that the ultimate lease that we have will provide the city, county, and state with robust contractual remedies in the event of an actual or threatened breach of the non-relocation agreement.
Again, this is including liquidated damages reimbursement, termination rights, recapture, acceleration, clawback, or repayment.
That's consistent with the language that you see on your right directly from SB 1501, where again, we're looking at Section 6, which requires that within the ultimate agreement, you have Section— Subsection D, a provision authorizing the following remedies at a minimum in case of breach.
Of non-relocation agreement or exclusive site agreement as applicable.
So injunctive relief, liquidated damages is listed here.
Again, this is, you all know this, but I wanna say it again on the record.
The importance of this is because the city, or the, sorry, the state contribution is backed by revenue directly generated from the Moda Center as improved.
And so without, if they are no longer there, that means that the state would be on the hook for those payments and they're not authorized to do that.
So this is gonna be particularly important for bond counsel and having some important, having some strong language in there is gonna be an important part of the ultimate lease.
And then we'll need to kind of pass muster with the state's bond counsel.
Next slide, please.
Default and remedies.
This is just some, Again, I just wrote highlighted just that it's customary defaults.
And again, I noted Section 6, which requires a provision authorizing a management entity.
Oh, sorry, this is actually in the benefit, to the benefit of the Blazers that was in the legislation that I thought was important to highlight, that ultimately should have a provision authorizing a management entity.
So in this case, Okay.
So this just makes it so that they need to be able to use the Moda Center to also be able to make money, and they have customary remedies in that too.
And that will all be kind of figured out in the— hopefully in the long-term lease agreement.
Next slide, please.
Again, this is some— I'll skip over this.
The insurance casualty condemnation indemnification, these are all kind of customary pieces of the contract.
Next slide, please.
Arena management and operational standard.
This highlights our expectations of Rip City Management as an operator of a public venue.
Rip City's responsible for managing the facility on a year-round basis.
And they also are responsible for using diligent efforts to maximize activity in their arena and the Veterans Memorial Coliseum.
And obviously continuing, this includes them continuing to operate the VMC.
But this has been something that's, again, important to making sure that there's kind of long-term viability, not just Not just in the arena, but in the area around it.
Next slide, please.
Maintenance and repairs.
Rip City, at its cost and expense, is responsible for keeping and maintaining the arena and the arena site in compliance with the benchmark operational standard.
And then it's also requiring us— requiring Rip City to prepare and deliver to the city annually a 5-year capital asset management plan, Which goes along with the public contribution, the ongoing public contributions for capital expenses that the city's contemplating, again, from the parking and user fees.
Next slide, please.
This is a provision.
This is, I would put this under the community benefits bucket, but it allows the city to reserve a number of specified days to use the parking garage arena for civic and community use.
And it's on a rent-free basis.
And however, obviously we need to make sure that actual costs are paid, including labor.
Next slide.
This is more— this goes back into the oversight in terms of material agreements.
The city has review and approval rights.
Which will be later defined in the lease for anything that Rip City enters into relating to the arena.
So that includes like naming rights, some of the sponsorships, those types of activities.
Okay.
Next slide.
Again, this is reasonably continuous operations.
So this is our expectation of the venue operator to continue Operating the venue consistent with comparable facilities.
And also doubling down again on the arena shall be the home venue for the Trail Blazers and will also be made available for other events.
Next slide.
Taxes.
RIP City is responsible for paying taxes.
Next slide.
Naming rights and advertising signage, as is customary.
I know this has come up before.
Yes.
Quite a bit.
Rip City has, in this term sheet, Rip City has customary naming, advertising, and sponsorship rights for the arena, again, subject to city approval.
Oh, and here you can see there's a detailed in the MOU.
I'm not sure that there's going to be an MOU, but again, there's this, the draft is subject to some change.
Next slide.
Site coordination agreement.
This, as I talked about before, this is in reference to terms made earlier around the importance of the plaza.
This is all part of an overall area.
It's not just the building, it's also the plaza.
Next slide.
The Blazers' performance requirements, this requires them to stay competitive and make sure that they continue to be a high-value team that brings economic benefit obviously to their owners and to the city.
Next slide.
Financial transparency and audit rights.
This is a place where obviously consistent with what we heard loud and clear from council wanting to make sure that there is strong oversight and transparency, particularly on the finances within the lease agreement.
So this provides obviously the joint authority and the city to have rights to review Rip City's financial information concerning arena revenues, operating costs, and capital expenditures.
This will all go through the joint authority and kind of the details of that get negotiated later.
Next slide.
Okay, I got through it all.
You're still awake, thank you.
Next steps.
Obviously there's public hearings next week on the 5th and 6th where you will see an updated version of that term sheet.
We expect a council vote on the term sheet on August 12th.
And then the establishment of the joint authority.
And so more details will be forthcoming there from the administration team.
And most importantly, the council vote on a long-term lease agreement in December, which is where we're all, I think, trying to get to.
And that's it for me.
Jamie Dunphy 1:54:20 - 1:54:40
Thank you very much, Kristen.
That really helped us level set and everybody can have a better understanding of We've got a number of councilors in the room, and I'll just note we also have staff in the room who are available to answer.
City Administrator's here, the mayor is here as well to answer questions.
So let's start with Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo 1:54:41 - 1:55:05
Thank you so much, Councilor Dunphy, and thank you, Kristen, for being here and for that detailed explanation.
We really appreciate your assistance during this time.
I think things have gotten a lot better since you've come here to help us, so thank you for your work.
Thank you.
I had a few questions.
For one thing, I was wondering if the user fee can end up going into the general fund or if there's something that prevents that from happening moving forward.
Kristen Dennis 1:55:06 - 1:55:42
My understanding, well, that would be something that would need to be negotiated, but, and certainly what's in the proposal has it going to, yeah, going to the facility, I think, I think theoretically it could go to the general fund.
However, that puts us in the hole for some ongoing capital needs at the facility.
So like for instance, for the Expo Center and for Oregon Convention Center, which we run at Metro, we generally kind of keep the revenue back in to have ongoing capital needs or to meet ongoing capital needs.
Angelita Morillo 1:55:42 - 1:56:00
Gotcha.
Okay.
Yeah, 'cause obviously we haven't gotten any details about what the real renovations are looking like.
So would part of our negotiations include if there's leftover dollars?
I can't imagine there will be, but if there are, would it come back to the city or is that just all left to be determined?
Kristen Dennis 1:56:00 - 1:56:29
I think anything could be negotiated on it.
I think council's been clear that you would love to see additional economic benefit to the city.
As we know, I think that there are all All sorts of— particularly on all of the publicly owned assets, there are a lot of needs, and those needs keep getting more expensive.
So I think it would be— well, actually, Donnie's up here.
I'm going to let Donnie answer.
Donnie Oliveira 1:56:30 - 1:57:15
Donnie Oliveira, for the record, Deputy City Administrator, Community Economic Development.
Thank you for the question, Councilor Murillo.
It's a 2-part answer.
First, independent of the The revenue generated from the fees goes into the spectator fund.
And so that's currently, you know, the policy oversight of that is what's allowable in the spectator fund.
So that's just a data point.
In regards to the amount that's generated and where it goes, so as a part of the current term sheet, we contemplate a very specific amount going back into the Moda Center and the Rose Quarter campus at large.
The way that's currently structured The is that the revenue generated from the fees term sheet is being updated to be draft, is that's a fixed number, and anything above it would go back broadly into the fund beyond the commitments of the term sheet.
Angelita Morillo 1:57:15 - 1:58:42
Okay, that's helpful.
Sorry, just taking notes.
I did want to sort of level set for my colleagues and for everybody who's watching today that I feel like some of the things that were stated earlier don't capture the full picture of why we're Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Mayor.
I just want to say that I'm very disappointed that we're here at this moment where we are.
And first, the Blazers told us that they need a term sheet in order to come sit at the table and negotiate.
We provided a term sheet for them, and I think we took a good faith effort to make that happen.
Then they said that they needed an architect, and then they moved the goalposts once more and said that now they're concerned about being sued.
But I do want to remind everybody that they are only sued if they actually choose to move the team according to the So I think that's something really important for people who are watching that to understand about the implications of that there and what we're trying to do as a city to get this deal done.
I do have a question perhaps for Mayor Wilson on this.
I know that a few days ago you did an interview with CityCast to talk about the Moda deal, and I believe in that interview you talked about meeting with Duane and having negotiations, and he sort of alluded to promises that were made to him during that time, which was months before council was involved.
Do you have— can you offer council some clarity about what sort of agreements or discussions were had before we were involved in the process?
Keith Wilson 1:58:44 - 2:00:12
Yeah, thank you for the question, Councilor.
The discussions with our team really started in January, February, and March, and it involved The commissioner of the NBA.
As we contemplated what a market rate deal for our arena would entail, we were talking with the state legislature, the county, and we had a host of individuals at that table weekends and such.
When we arrived at a particular amount, we then had it verified through a third-party consultant, somebody that we've hired to make sure that we're providing the best information to get the best deal.
It didn't involve President Hankins at all.
It primarily dealt with the MBA.
And then in March, when we came up with that rate, we worked on the hydraulics, which was how close we could get, but we also used the operating expenses and the capital maintenance expenses as part of the overall deal.
When we came up with that rate, then the state went forward with their—.
With their—.
Ask and such.
But we had a commitment from the NBA, while not written, implied.
And Tom Dundon and the new owner also at that point supported it.
So that's essentially what we were working off of.
We also, you know, we have ongoing conversations with the NBA as well.
And that commitment, so far as I know, was still in place to this day.
Angelita Morillo 2:00:14 - 2:00:15
Thank you, Mayor.
Kristen Dennis 2:00:15 - 2:00:16
Um, no more questions.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:00:16 - 2:00:17
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 2:00:17 - 2:00:26
Thank you, Councilor Maria.
Councilor Kanal?
Sure.
All right, Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos 2:00:33 - 2:00:36
I'm not up next this time, so no, you can go to the next person.
I'm not ready.
Dan Ryan 2:00:36 - 2:00:37
Thanks.
Gotcha.
Candace Avalos 2:00:37 - 2:00:38
I'm down the queue.
Kristen Dennis 2:00:39 - 2:00:40
Okay.
Sameer Kanal 2:00:40 - 2:05:54
Is she there?
Yeah.
I, um, I think I just— I want to make sure I understand that this is sort of the second and final round here, right?
Like, we're not going to have a third?
Okay.
So just to get on the record, because it's been stated, um, by the mayor, and I appreciate him stating that, um, you know, we— the city can initiate litigation through, um, the mayor authorizing it or through 7 councilors voting to do so.
I appreciate our lawyers.
They're good at their jobs.
They're very helpful to us in a general sense.
I also have plenty of time spent with lawyers already and no desire to increase their role in this process.
I—.
We heard from the mayor.
My speculation about my colleagues and certainly my own commitment is I cannot imagine a world in which 7 of us vote to do that.
So I just want to put that out there.
To the question, I think the idea of creating a delta between a 6% user fee funding going back into the arena and what we actually charge is something that I have an interest in.
And my reason for that is not that it in and of itself is valuable.
It's that in the absence of other data showing what portion of our return on investment is economic, because we don't have that data, this is something we could immediately point to and say there would be a return on investment A financial quantifiable return on investment if hypothetically we had a 7% user fee of which 6% went back into the— you know, so I think that's sort of the underlying need there.
It's not itself the goal.
It helps meet a goal.
And I just think that's important to kind of give the reason because we might find another way to get there.
I also want to ensure that that's like the quantifiable piece is this is valuable because at this point, and maybe this wouldn't have been the case earlier on, at this point we're not just trying to convince 12 people.
I think Councilor Green talked about this earlier.
At this point we have 630,000 people watching this and, you know, if Bill Simmons' podcast has the reach, I think it does, many more watching it as well.
So it has to be able to be explained and backed up.
The math has to math.
And I don't mean that in the sense I don't mean that in the sense of we need a specific dollar amount back, but I do mean that in the sense of if we say we're getting a dollar amount back, the math has to add up to that.
The only other thing that I wanted to touch on because it's been brought up in terms of the March conversation, I've seen in the press that the Blazers feel like there was a deal made in March and now that the city or the local governments in general is going back on that.
I could—.
I can understand how that might be felt.
I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I can understand it because I think I respectfully disagree with the assertion that all parties were at the table in March, right?
That was made earlier because the reality is that the mayor has the authority to negotiate but not to commit on behalf of the council.
We're independently elected, and I think that's really vital.
There was some consultation, but as far as I'm aware, none of the D2 councillors were directly looped in on it.
And so, you know, as we're talking about, you know, people who want to make a deal with the city, anybody, that's not limited to the Blazers, but people who want to make a deal with the city that requires the council to sign off, if you're getting a pledge from someone that's not a councillor about it, trust but verify, because we need to be consulted from day one on this.
And I think our interests were not all reflected in the conversation.
And I'm glad that we are getting to a place where our interests are able to be in the conversation because our interests are very localized to our districts.
And in our particular case, it's the district where the Moda Center is located and the district where much of the economic jobs, all the other benefits that we— and community benefits as well— would be realized.
And so I am concerned about the fact that we're not I'm concerned that given that our new form of government has legislative and budgetary authority coming to us, that we didn't seem to have negotiation based off of what council could approve because we weren't able— or at least we did, if we did, it was speculative because we weren't directly asked.
So needed to get that on the record.
Um, I am pleasantly surprised with a lot of what we've discussed.
I want to agree with in terms of the second half of the conversation, I agree with everything Councilor Morillo said.
It has been much better since you've been here.
And I think that's— it has— it is marked and notable.
But even the first part of this conversation with folks who were here before, because I heard a commitment to understanding our side of this.
You know, I asked a question about the opportunity costs, and I've been talking about this for a while, the opportunity costs are really important for people to understand for us, not just because of the direct impact.
I talked about public safety impacts at the Rose Quarter, and that's the, the most easily visible part, but because this is a big decision in general and we can't bankrupt the city to do this.
And if we're not bankrupting the city, which by the way, I don't believe we would be necessarily, but we need math for that.
I think that's a fair ask.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:05:54 - 2:05:54
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 2:05:55 - 2:05:57
Thank you, Councilor Connell.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green 2:05:59 - 2:10:25
Thank you, Council President.
Um, thanks again for, uh, helping us out with this, Kristen, and, uh, for, you know, the opportunity to talk about this publicly for our constituents ahead of the first consideration of a term sheet.
Um, been waiting to get here.
I understand y'all have been working hardest to get, to get us here, so kudos to everyone involved.
Uh, because this is my only chance Councilor Smith.
I'm going to take a few minutes to sort of react to the term sheet publicly before we have to then consider votes.
I'm just going to lay out a few, like 3 things that I hope I see in the term sheet before it's filed that will get me in a position where I can support this.
The first is I need to see— well, because we're in a situation where we don't have plans, we don't have documents, we don't have a clear estimation of what this transformational job really is.
It's just still a very vague number, and we're not going to get that before we vote on a term sheet.
The second best piece for me is clear language in that term sheet that grants or confers or clarifies both the duty and also the authority of the joint authority to approve or deny expenses that are limited to the serviceability and the kind of modernization aspect of it that we have been talking about that makes possible the other events, makes possible the concerts, makes possible a roof that can support a lighting rig and all that.
Surely all that does not cost $600 million.
Okay, I know that.
And so if the joint authority has a clear mandate and And there's some public accountability on their ability to exercise that mandate to be limited in scope on the public, a bucket or a class of public funds, then having an up-to value is, I think, better for the public and better for councilors than something that's left vague.
So that's what I would like to see in there.
The second part, and it's to dovetail a little bit on what Councilor Murillo introduced, The other side of it is the term in the term sheet, the sort of provision is the post— I think it's a post-renovation capital contribution.
And that's, I think, derived from the existing operating lease agreement that— and based upon the last work session, thank you, Donnie, your team sent out some data on the Spectator Facility Fund.
So I have those numbers in front of me.
So the $275 million is the term facility fund.
Right.
That was discussed earlier, is the sum over time of a class of revenues related to Moda Center activity, right?
So it's like $8.8 million in FY27, then it runs out.
So I've got the spreadsheet in front of me.
And so I'm interested in seeing in the term sheet, if not an outright removal of that clause, some language that says we're not encumbering it so tightly.
Right.
Because essentially what I see in here is the ongoing capital cost, which sums up to almost, you know, it's $275 million, is just $275 million because that's the expected revenue projection, not because there's necessarily expected expenses to incur in that.
And so that's how we get to a project that goes from $600 million to about $1 billion, is because you, you take $365 plus $120 plus $88 That's your $600 million.
And then you add in this other part, and now you're much closer to a billion.
Then you add in inflation, and now you're at $1.1 billion.
And so I'm not comfortable with that clause in there.
And if we were to remove that, that provides, one, a lower public commitment, and then two, the free cash flow from the Spectator Facilities Fund to support bonding against that to actually pay for the public's piece.
Because if PCF's not on the table, Yeah.
And I don't know where else we bond against our general fund.
That's what I would like to see.
And that gives us the sort of economic return proxy that Councilor Kanal is interested in as well.
And so, and it also provides some discretion space for this body and future councils to contemplate redirecting those funds to other performing arts and sports venues that also have a pressing need.
And so I'd like to see that piece removed.
I understand that might be difficult, but we have some time before next week.
That would get me most of the way there.
And I'll just say that right now.
Kristen Dennis 2:10:25 - 2:11:11
Thank you, Councilor.
If I can, one thing that I wanted to note, and some of this will be discussed obviously in the term sheet, and then some of it obviously the negotiating team will be working through in terms of the final lease agreement and exactly how those mechanics might work.
And so I think there's some opportunities for them to discuss and figure out where there is kind of some mutual benefit between the Blazers and between the city and the Joint Authority.
One thing I wanted to note on the ongoing capital expenditures is that there is an amount that is available, but it is subject to approval by the Joint Authority, as you talked about the importance of that joint authority oversight.
And so there's going to be years where that doesn't get spent.
And so it won't always be— it doesn't just go— it goes into a fund and waits until there are eligible expenses.
It doesn't just go over to the Blazers.
Candace Avalos 2:11:12 - 2:11:12
Thank you.
Mitch Green 2:11:13 - 2:11:58
Understood.
But I think it's really very clear to say that if, if there's a line item in the pro forma now that says these revenues are encumbered for the MOTU contribution, then you can't count on them to bond against because there's not that headroom.
And so if we wanted to find the $120 million by issuing limited tax revenue bonds and have that be a source of revenue, then we not— we can't pre-commit and fill that line item in the spreadsheet.
And so that's an important point.
Thank you.
Piece of the conversation because I've already— we haven't seen the PCF climate-eligible spreadsheet.
I've already said publicly I don't want to use PCF for it without some clear justification.
Frankly, I think I've said I don't want to use it at all.
And so we need to find some other source of revenue, and there's no money in the general fund for this.
So I just need to make that crystal clear, and I appreciate your response there.
Kristen Dennis 2:11:58 - 2:12:07
Yeah, absolutely.
So what I'm hearing clear that you want— you would like to see some flexibility in terms of how things yeah, I, I, I don't like the hard encumbrance that I see.
Angelita Morillo 2:12:07 - 2:12:07
Absolutely.
Mitch Green 2:12:08 - 2:12:16
Uh, and then finally, um, if I see a term sheet next week that doesn't have a labor peace agreement, I'm a hard no.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 2:12:16 - 2:12:18
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith 2:12:20 - 2:12:48
Thank you.
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Kristen, for the work that you've done.
Um, I have a question, and As we're— is the money going to be in like a, um, like a title company or something just waiting to be used, or does— is all the money transferred at once to Rip City?
How does that work, or is it on a reimbursable basis?
Kristen Dennis 2:12:48 - 2:13:05
So my understanding is that obviously the state, in the state legislation, they set up a joint authority fund that's operated by the State Treasury, and so all of their funds from the proceeds of the sale of the bond go into that fund, and then the joint authority, um, pay them.
Yeah, the joint authority then provides money, um, I think in, in reimbursement.
Loretta Smith 2:13:05 - 2:13:06
On a reimbursable—.
Kristen Dennis 2:13:07 - 2:13:08
Minor.
Yes, that's my understanding.
Donnie Oliveira 2:13:08 - 2:13:31
Yeah.
And, and Councilor, the other element of this is the potential county, uh, resources that we're working through an IGA with them on the mechanics of how those, those monies are transferred to the city.
And once the joint authority is established, then we'll contemplate how the, the state funding and the Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 2:13:32 - 2:13:34
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark 2:13:35 - 2:14:05
Thank you, Councilor President.
I just had a quick question.
I want to just make a statement that's not exactly about the term sheet, but thank you, Kristen, for all your work.
It was really, really helpful, really clarified everything.
But today, when we had our conversation with the representatives of the Blazers, nobody was able to answer what the 20 items were that are, that are not in alignment.
Do you have any sense for what those 20 items are?
What are those 20 items?
Kristen Dennis 2:14:06 - 2:14:43
Councilor, I, I don't know.
I, I look forward, and I know that they offered to just have the conversation with us and try to figure out what that looks like.
Again, and some of it is, it could be kind of a technical you know, a technical piece.
'Cause again, as I showed you, some of them are things that were not contemplated in the legislation.
Obviously the legislation's relatively short and it's certainly not expected to include all the things that you would need in a 20-year lease, which is many, many pages.
And so I'm not sure, it might be, it could be just some of those simple, like we have some boring language in there.
Okay.
That's not—.
Donnie Oliveira 2:14:43 - 2:15:22
Sorry, Councilor, we are aware of the, of the items.
Um, but I would also offer that in, in no situation did we assume that the first term sheet we put out was a take-it-or-leave-it scenario.
We anticipated there'd be some resistance, um, and we hope there would be not just dialogue but actually in writing redlining, uh, similar to how the bridge agreement was negotiated in the past.
Uh, that, uh, was a lot of back and forth between our teams that we hope to continue very shortly with them to start to daylight the specifics because we're generally familiar with the elements.
And I would just say I think they're largely financial related.
Olivia Clark 2:15:23 - 2:16:15
Okay.
All right.
I just was curious to see if you knew any more about that.
I also want to say something briefly about the ROI and our calculation of ROI.
I really feel like There are intangible benefits to having them here that we cannot measure.
There's no scientific approach.
I mean, maybe polling is about as close as you get.
And, you know, I admit I don't go to Blazer games, but I can feel how important this is to our whole community that we do this right.
There is an emotional, if not a spiritual support for having the Blazers here.
You can feel it, you can palpate it.
It's, it's about hope, it's about the future, and that's not something that you can calculate the value of.
I just wanted to throw that out there, remind everybody how important this, this is.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:16:15 - 2:16:16
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 2:16:16 - 2:16:18
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan 2:16:19 - 2:16:57
Thank you, Council President, and, um, I sure agree with your last statement, Councilor Clark.
This is probably for CA Lee or this is perhaps for Jonas.
The responsibility of the overruns is the responsibility of RIP City Management.
I want to clarify what the actual number is.
Did Senate Bill 1501 clarify it as $573 million, or the chatter that's taken off, is that a roundup to $600 million?
I really am curious because I think it's confusing to the public when both numbers are used.
I think the number that's in the If it's $573 million, I hope we can be disciplined and stick with that real number.
Raymond C. Lee 2:16:59 - 2:17:46
Yeah, I know the Senate bill doesn't mention the $573 million number.
It only mentions the state's contribution to it.
A lot of the $600 million number that's been put out there was a lot of the marketing aspect of the total cost of the renovations.
The $573 million is the commitment, but we have the thus far in conversations between the state's contribution to it, what the county is taking under consideration for their portion, and then the $120-odd million that we're looking at from our portion to make up that total number.
But the state does not mention an overall cost of the renovation of Moda.
It only speaks to their portion that they will issue debt on.
Donnie Oliveira 2:17:47 - 2:19:33
So, Councilor, to add some more context there, Duane had mentioned earlier that, you know, many years ago they were, you know, floating around a number about $800 million of a wish list.
You know, the could instead of the should.
Yes.
So when we started those conversations in earnest with the Blazers in the winter, late fall into winter into early spring, there was always a range.
It was like we're looking at, you know, $600 million.
That was sort of this target.
And the NBA, to the mayor's point earlier, was validating that, yeah, that seems appropriate given the market and the age of the arena, that we would be looking at a $600 million renovation target.
When we started piecing the thing— the elements together from the county, the city, and the state, that number landed at that $573 million.
So what you're seeing is that $573 million was us getting us close to that $600 million.
Arbitrary but not, right?
It was based on some, like, the condition assessment, general expectations of a modern NBA arena.
Right.
But $573 million got close to $600 million.
That's the, that's the number element.
So you— sometimes people round it to 6, but we're really talking about $573 million for renovation.
When we're talking about the overruns element, it's pretty standard amongst arena deals of this type, especially those that are publicly financed, that we hold the— in this case, the Blazers, the operator— to a target number.
And anything that goes beyond that, unless it's, you know, at the burden of the city or something for some reason, So we'd say they'd submit their plans for a $573 million renovation, and we would hold them to that.
And anything above that would— again, this is our term sheet today— would hold them accountable for those overruns.
And that's pretty consistent with deals of this type.
The other thing I would offer is, because we're lacking the information about the renovation as of this moment, we still don't know what $573 million is getting us.
Duane Hankins 2:19:33 - 2:19:33
I think And that's a fair point.
Donnie Oliveira 2:19:33 - 2:19:45
We have opinions on that.
So clearly in the term sheet, we outlined the process through the joint authority about how we would establish what that renovation is going to look like before approval and before council would take any definitive action.
Dan Ryan 2:19:47 - 2:20:03
Thank you.
That was a lot of context that was helpful.
I think the marketing— your language of $600 million became the number out in the stratosphere.
And so So am I being told then that the real number is $573 million?
Donnie Oliveira 2:20:03 - 2:20:15
That's the number that we've currently put on the table to invest in.
If the Blazers are interested in going up to $600 million or $650 million, we are welcome to that investment.
But at this point, uh, the public contribution is at $573 million.
Dan Ryan 2:20:17 - 2:21:22
Well, $27 million is a big deal, so thank you.
I'm glad we clarified that.
Um, as an oversight body, I want us to have access to walk the site with engineers and construction managers Thank you.
I've been to the City Hall Chambers before, during, and after the renovation, this grand renovation.
Nothing like absorbing insights in person in real time.
I'm really attached to this practice.
It's an open door.
It just should be standard.
This may seem minor and unnecessary, but I don't think it is.
And can we make sure that this better practice that builds trust in this agreement is visibly understandable?
Maybe it doesn't need to be a part of the formal— I don't know, but I just want I want to make sure it's visible that as a councilor, I want that opportunity to do that type of hands-on oversight.
That makes sense.
Okay, great.
And can we define 20 years?
That's another one of those numbers that I think really matters.
And I'm of course hoping the clock doesn't start ticking until after the completion of the revenue— after the completion of the renovation, which would mean obviously more than thank you for the question, Councilor.
Donnie Oliveira 2:21:22 - 2:22:13
So this is a very dynamic question because there's a lot of angles to it.
First and foremost, we are currently under a bridge agreement that runs through October of 2030.
So if you're just looking at very linearly, in theory, the new lease would start, you know, day one after that bridge agreement ends.
However, we are aware that there's considerations from both the Blazers and the state bonding alignment That we have to contemplate to ensure we align those accurately.
So the Blazers are very eager to get into the new lease agreement so they can start renovations and construction under different terms.
But of course, we have to work with our state partners to ensure that the bonding timeline also is carrying debt at the appropriate timeline of the new arena renovation.
So we have a lot of work to do on that.
As we currently wrote it in the draft term sheet, it would start at the end of the bridge.
Thank you.
But that we expect—.
Dan Ryan 2:22:13 - 2:22:17
It includes the bridge, so we're looking at 2050, not 2046.
Donnie Oliveira 2:22:17 - 2:22:22
But just again, to really be transparent, we know there's conversations that still need to be had on that.
Dan Ryan 2:22:22 - 2:22:26
That's great.
I just wanted to give my perspective on that, and I appreciate the dialogue.
Mike Wilkerson 2:22:26 - 2:22:27
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 2:22:27 - 2:22:29
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos 2:22:33 - 2:26:36
Um, thank you.
So I wanted to just speak to Portlanders while I have this chance.
Thank you, Mayor.
Councilmember Smith.
Thank you, Mayor.
I just want to take this chance because I understand that, you know, we have been as a body scrutinized on whether or not we're being reasonable.
And I think that is difficult, a difficult standard to evaluate without understanding how the city approaches major public investments.
So I just want to take this chance to share 2 examples.
First, when the City of Portland considers investing in a capital construction project with a nonprofit, for example, we have an intentional process thank you.
So we require things like a complete application that includes a summary of the organization, how it operates, how the partnership would benefit both parties, detailed plans and blueprints, a financial plan, and the organization's own financial contribution, and a clear request for public investment.
So those expectations aren't unique to this negotiation.
In fact, they're standard, uh, they're standard practice whenever we're considering investing taxpayer dollars.
Second, I think that many Portlanders can relate I wanted to relate to this through the lens of landlord and tenant.
I keep hearing this and seeing discourse around this, and so I wanted to speak to it because landlords are expected to maintain their property, but they are not automatically expected to fund every renovation a tenant would like to make.
If a tenant wants to have significant improvements that will benefit their business, then they make a proposal to the landlord.
They explain that project, demonstrate why that investment is going to make sense, negotiate who's paying for what.
And showing again how both parties benefit.
A perfect example of this is when I was at Verde, we rented a space and we had to put in lots of money to put— make it what we needed it to be.
And that was not the landlord's responsibility.
It was his responsibility to make sure that the HVAC worked and that basic, you know, safety needs are met.
But anything that benefited our organization, we had to pay for.
And the landlord the board asks questions and they review this kind of financial information and ultimately negotiate these terms before making a significant investment.
So I, I believe that that is responsible stewardship, not hostility.
And I think that is exactly the role that the city is playing here.
And I want to speak to that for the public because I just feel like there's a lot of misconceptions.
We are both the owner of this public asset and we are stewards of taxpayer dollars, and our responsibility is to understand the proposal before thank you.
We're here to make sure that Portlanders are getting a fair value for any investment.
And so our requests for information and accountability and transparency are not extraordinary.
They're actually exactly what Portlanders should expect from their elected officials.
And so I'll just close by saying that I remain hopeful that we can reach an agreement that keeps the Trail Blazers in Portland for generations to come.
I do have to admit that today's opening statement gave me pause, and I think good faith negotiations are demonstrated through actions, not simply words.
So as we're moving toward a vote, I hope to see that good faith reflected in the timely production of the financial information and analyses and other things that council has been requesting that we've been told already exist.
Councilmember Loretta Smith.
Thank you.
These are documents that are essential for us to fulfill our responsibility to the public.
And so I really look forward to continuing these negotiations.
I do hope that both parties remain focused on building a partnership that is transparent and collaborative, collaborative, and also worthy of Portlanders' trust.
I think trust is really at the center of a lot of what's been going on.
And I think everybody needs to do some hard work to earn Portlanders' trust.
That's the trust I care the most about.
Most about at this time.
So I'll just thank Councilor Green.
I have a lot of the same, you know, bottom lines that he does.
And I know that we're going to engage in some discussion soon about, you know, what are— and also thank you to Kristen for outlining kind of where you're hearing council's landing.
I'm just hoping that what is reflected back to us actually demonstrates what we've been saying.
And so I'm eager to see what gets filed for next week.
That's all for now.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 2:26:36 - 2:26:39
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:26:40 - 2:28:22
Thank you, Council President.
I want to start by saying that I really appreciate that there is language in the draft not only around transparency, audits, access, but around ensuring that the proposals for how dollars are spent are coming back to the joint authority and the city.
I think it's incredibly important as we look at a public contribution, a public contribution to an arena that we own, certainly, but a public contribution that will be executed by a third party, that we are retaining some oversight over how our public dollars are spent.
So I thank you for having that in the draft that you presented today.
I am expecting that those will be in what we have before us to formally debate next week.
And if there are any changes that move us away from that public oversight, um, I'll have some concerns about that.
I'm guessing others will as well.
So I, I want to ask a question about some of the funds that are in there, because I heard, DC Oliveira, you say that your impression is that most of the concerns, most of the things that make this a, a non- and I want to be clear, our guests today didn't share with us what those were, so council doesn't have a sense of those.
But your sense is that most of them are financial.
Mm-hmm.
So with what I heard you go over today, most of the dollars that come to the city are going directly back into maintenance of the arena, maintenance that we'll have some oversight on, but maintenance of the arena.
Kristen Dennis 2:28:24 - 2:28:33
That's correct, with the exception of the payment in lieu of— or the payment in lieu of taxes, which we're calling something else.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:28:33 - 2:28:48
That's the property tax offset.
Yeah, thank you.
So other than the property tax offset, dollars are going back into the arena.
And I think there was a cap on the amount going back into the arena.
Is that accurate?
There will be.
Can you explain that?
Donnie Oliveira 2:28:51 - 2:29:02
In the current term sheet that's public, we just acknowledge that the revenues generated from the 6% go back into the arena.
We're a little bit more fiscally disciplined on what that means and what the cap is on that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:29:04 - 2:29:45
Okay.
If some of the language changes there, I know my colleague asked for some changes around that.
I think it is important to make sure that we understand that the revenue bonds are not a revenue cap.
Understand what dollars are going in and if there is an opportunity for dollars in excess of that to come back to the city or not.
I raise this though because I'm curious, and I don't expect an answer from you all on this, but I'm curious about most of the concern being around financial issues, if most of the financial pieces are going back into some joint work there.
So that's just something that I hope that we can understand more.
Donnie Oliveira 2:29:46 - 2:30:00
Can I offer a little refinement to my comment?
It's not necessarily just dollars that the Blazers are directly contributing back to the city.
It's any of the things in our term sheet as currently proposed that cost them money.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:30:01 - 2:30:49
Okay, that's helpful then.
That's helpful to get clarity on.
Can you speak a little bit to the property tax offset and how that was calculated?
I actually think that's a really important piece of, of the terms that we're putting forward.
And I know that, you know, we made a decision when we purchased the arena as a city.
That's something that happened a few years ago, but that is a place where I think previously the team had an obligation, a financial obligation that seems in line with what exists in many other communities where it's not a publicly owned arena.
So this seems like a pretty reasonable expectation, but I'm wondering if you can share with us a little bit about how that was calculated.
Jonas Biery 2:30:50 - 2:32:59
Yeah, thank you, Councilor, for the question.
For the record, Jonas Biery, the city's Chief Financial Officer.
So yeah, just for the, Complete context.
So like any business property owner prior to city ownership, those tax parcels, the lots that those related properties are on related to the Moda Center, paid property taxes.
And so those taxes go to all the taxing jurisdictions within that area.
And the primary taxing jurisdictions are the City of Portland, Multnomah County, and PPS.
There's obviously smaller pieces related to PCC.
Yeah.
Et cetera, other small tax jurisdictions.
When the city took ownership of those properties, then obviously were tax exempt.
So those revenues did not exist.
The proposal as reflected in the term sheet would essentially, was calculated to essentially offset what we believe those but-for property tax amounts would be.
So we know, for example, in—.
Portland.
I think it was tax year '24-'25, the last year before it transferred to public ownership, that those payments on the appropriate, the relevant parcels was about $1.2 million in total to all jurisdictions, all taxing jurisdictions.
So the amount that's currently in the term sheet started as an assumption that it might double.
That seems a reasonable assumption.
We've subsequently done a little more deep dive analysis into what we think the incremental assessed value increase, taxable assessed value increase might be, which is significantly less under the Oregon property tax system than the full investment or full real market value.
And we've confirmed that depends on sort of some assumptions under the hood, whether you include bond levies, whether you include urban renewal, the impacts of compression.
But we have confirmed that our best estimate based upon what we know is it's about $3 million is pretty close to accurate.
With the caveat, as has come up multiple times this morning, With the caveat that we don't know what the improvements are.
And so we can't know what the actual incremental assessed value might be until we can see under the hood about that.
Olivia Clark 2:33:00 - 2:33:00
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:33:01 - 2:33:37
So I'm going into our conversations over the next few weeks assuming that what we're doing is essentially saying to the negotiators, here's where we want you to start, knowing that probably all of us have things we would love to see in there that are not in there because we have to work it out amongst 12 of us and bring a reasonable starting place to the table, but that things could change.
Should I assume from your last statement there that the numbers there are one of the pieces that could get more refined as we learn more about the actual renovation plans?
Jonas Biery 2:33:38 - 2:33:39
Yeah, Councilor, I think that's a fair assumption.
Raymond C. Lee 2:33:40 - 2:33:40
Okay.
Kristen Dennis 2:33:41 - 2:34:58
And Councilor, if I can put a finer point on that too, the term sheet gets us to the next step, which is negotiating this long-term lease agreement.
And so some of it will be what we want in there, but ultimately we will not be the only— the city will not be the only signatories to that term sheet.
And so there is— it's an agreement to get to an agreement.
And so it might not— the term sheet itself might also will be a compromise, but it is a compromise to get us to the next step.
And the negotiations are going to be really important because that's where we're hung up on all of these things that really require detail, and we won't get to those details until we get to the conversations around the 20-year lease.
We just simply don't have time to get to it before August 12th and really dive into those numbers.
So we had—.
I think the negotiating team had really hoped that when you were voting on a term sheet August 12th, it would be more robust.
I think that's fair.
Thank you.
So I think that the document that we would have discussed and it would reflect a broader agreement, it's going to need to be thinner now based on the limited information that we have and just where we're at in the process.
It still is an important first step and it is still a step that I'm optimistic that we can get to a long-term lease agreement by the end of the calendar year as we're supposed to.
But just again, to put a finer point, it might not even have all the things that we— it's not our starting point.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:35:00 - 2:35:20
So the term sheet, in essence, should be a tool to help us get some of the information that council has been asking for.
For example, what is it we are being asked to buy in terms of renovations, and what are the needs in the arena?
What are the expectations we can have of the team?
Olivia Clark 2:35:21 - 2:35:21
That's correct.
Kristen Dennis 2:35:21 - 2:36:28
You're sending your negotiating team, and again, I'm not part of the negotiating team.
They've done a fantastic job.
But you're sending them off with kind of the next step.
So you've gotten them kind of this far to where we're at with the term sheet, which hopefully reflects where the other parties are at too.
Obviously, some of that's already contained in SB 1501.
That's why the term sheet reflects so much of what was already in there.
We know that's where the state is.
The existing term sheet that we reviewed hasn't been approved by anybody yet.
Again, as Donnie noted, It is kind of a first step.
We expected for there to be some kind of back and forth, but certainly wanting it to reflect a lot of what we heard from Council.
Some of the things we knew we were gonna get some pushback on, and we are hearing some of that pushback.
But yes, it is to get to kind of a— I would recommend thinking you are trying to put your negotiating team in the best place possible moving into December.
Okay.
With enough information that they can really represent kind of where the city needs to go and reflect the vision that council's been talking about.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:36:28 - 2:37:02
And in a sense, these are multilateral negotiations.
We have the state with money on the table and interests.
We have the county that will be having a further discussion.
The city has been having our discussion, and I know we sat at this dais for a work session and all listed off things that were important to us, and many of those, though not all, it is a negotiation, but many of those were captured in the term sheet that you went over today.
At any point has the city given the impression that the terms in 1501 would be the only terms presented?
Donnie Oliveira 2:37:03 - 2:38:04
Absolutely not, Councilor.
Okay.
In fact, in many occasions, um, and several times in writing even, we communicated that several of the funding sources contemplated when we talked about 1501 required information and action, both by— in this case, I mentioned the PSF committee came up earlier, but also by council to approve those dollars.
So that's been communicated on multiple occasions.
And then just to hit a finer point, there's absolute understanding between the state and through the Joint Authority, of course, and the county that the term sheets that the council adopts on August 12th as a starting point, but it's really a baton handing off to the joint authority so that we become the joint authority's negotiating team with the state to finalize those details that you will absolutely need to make a decision.
I don't think there's any misunderstanding that council will not take action, um, in December without the requisite details to commit public dollars.
And I, you know, talking to the county staff and state staff, I think everybody is working on that same So there's no misunderstanding there.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 2:38:05 - 2:40:41
Okay, thank you.
I had noted in SB 1501 that there was a clause that said that that bill specifically didn't require the inclusion or exclusion of any other particular terms, and so I was surprised when I heard that, that other parties might have not expected to see other terms put on the table.
I had read that to a I assume that there would be other terms from us, from the county, from the other parties.
I just will note as we move forward that I mentioned that those transparency measures and the oversight that the city retains for how public dollars are spent is going to be really important for me as we have our conversations next week and the week after around a term sheet.
The labor piece These portions are very important as we think about the city's investment here.
My colleagues mentioned the emotional value.
The return on investment is not just a dollar return on investment, but I actually think there are returns on our investment that are not just dollars back to the city coffers, but are also more tangible than emotional.
Thank you.
Ensuring that the jobs at the arena are jobs where somebody gets healthcare is actually a return on investment for our community.
And if our dollar contribution can leverage those benefits for working people in our community, I think that's really critical.
So having those pieces there, right, it doesn't say healthcare.
I'm using that as an example.
Okay.
Ensuring that we have some lack of disruption during the construction process and a conversation about what the jobs are in this arena, I think, is a really important piece of the return on investment.
I also would note that you talked about community benefits, but there wasn't a lot there around that piece.
I know that there are some pieces around the relationship with the Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Mayor.
I have a couple of questions around the Blazer's relationship with the community and other pieces of that that perhaps are not a direct negotiation with the Blazers and involve the city and some of those partners.
And I just want to note that I think it's important that we are pursuing both of those tracks through this process, that there is a piece around the Blazers' relationship with the community and that the city is doing our due diligence to look at, at our thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Jamie Dunphy 2:40:41 - 2:40:42
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 2:40:43 - 2:41:01
Thank you.
I appreciated Councilor Ryan's questions about the $573 million.
That was helpful.
To put an even finer point on that number, it would be helpful to know and get some clarification if the NBA specifically has ever told us that they needed that specific amount of $573 million.
Donnie Oliveira 2:41:03 - 2:41:08
Not that specific.
There was never a request, Councilor, that from the NBA that that was the number we needed to hit.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 2:41:09 - 2:41:48
We never have heard that specifically.
Okay, thank you.
I'm also wondering why we haven't run a competitive RFI, a request for information, with other arena operators just to have a better idea of what market rate is so we know what should be what makes sense market— in terms of market rate in capital contributions, rent, revenue share.
We wouldn't necessarily have to use all those numbers, but it just seems like it could be an important tool in some of this research and just kind of in procurement processes in general.
Why haven't we done that?
Donnie Oliveira 2:41:50 - 2:42:29
Thank you for the question, Councilor.
I mean, frankly speaking, we have an existing relationship with Rip City Management as the operator of the venue.
If we were to contemplate an RFI where we were looking for other information for perhaps a new operator, timeline-wise, that probably needed to start a few years ago.
If you're asking, have we done any due diligence on looking at other operators, the complexity of the situation with the Blazers, matter of factly, is their management of the arena is intertwined with the existence of their management of the Blazers.
And so those things are directly tied to one another.
So you're not looking at other operators?
It's difficult to think about another operator independent of the Blazers as a direct party to that.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 2:42:30 - 2:42:47
And I'm not even talking about an RFP.
I'm just talking about even softer than that, just an RFI, just getting that information.
If we can't get specific numbers from the Blazers, those details, it seems like it's important to make sure we get that information somehow.
Did you wanna say something, Kristin?
Kristen Dennis 2:42:47 - 2:43:13
Oh yeah, I was just gonna note, Certainly getting as much information as possible is going to be very helpful to you all in making decisions.
I will note that certainly in my experience, sometimes it's hard to get folks to spend time to answer those RFIs if they don't think that it's actually going to bring them any business.
And so it— and then it will, as Donnie noted, it does change that economic specific pretty significantly.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 2:43:13 - 2:43:14
So—.
Kristen Dennis 2:43:14 - 2:43:30
I think that's a good point.
Because of the relationship between the Blazers and Rip City.
And so we would have that, and I mean, you could still analyze it, but it would be a little bit apples and oranges.
But not to say that you can't compare apples and oranges.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 2:43:30 - 2:44:11
And then my last question is, can you speak to— I think this is kind of for the public— some of the questioning that we've heard from county commissioners, school board members, and constituents about like the payment in lieu of tax, the pilot, and if that can be extended beyond just Portland Public Schools but to other school districts.
Can you lay that out and, and share a bit about why PPS is listed on there?
Is it even possible to list all of the school districts within Portland?
Is that something that would just be kind of uncommon and strange, or is it actually just not possible yeah, Councilor, thank you for the question.
Jonas Biery 2:44:12 - 2:45:11
So to kind of reiterate in part of the last answer, you know, this was a concept that was developed to get something into the term sheet so we can negotiate those details.
The methodology that was used was conceived to be specifically aligned to the properties that exist So the current concept is that those specific taxing entities that are not currently receiving property taxes directly that would be collected on those specific properties would essentially be reimbursed, be made whole.
Is there another pathway to add other taxing jurisdictions that are not part of that tax base?
Tax code area.
There are.
That would be a different conversation, and we'd have to work obviously with our partners to figure out what might make sense there.
Donnie Oliveira 2:45:11 - 2:45:44
Councilor, just, I mean, not that we're suggesting this right now, but hypothetically, we could turn that $3 million how we, as we currently conceived it, into just $3 million in rent.
And then we could say, and you get a cut, District A, you get a cut, District B, and We're just sort of arbitrarily making that up.
We were trying to be a little bit more, um, like explicitly, you know, targeting a past, you know, a loss of revenue to the taxing jurisdictions as justification.
Um, but hypothetically, we could decouple that and just call it rent and divvy it up.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 2:45:45 - 2:45:59
Thank you.
I think you explained that well, and, um, it ex— I think it clarifies the reason for the methodology and the taxing jurisdictions.
So it might be possible, but there were— there was also real reasons and thinking behind that.
Thank you.
That's it for me.
Jamie Dunphy 2:46:00 - 2:46:02
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick 2:46:03 - 2:46:17
Thank you, Mr. President.
Returning to Councilor Morillo's question about the user fee on ticket revenues, is that legally required to go back into the spectator venues fund?
We couldn't convert it to general fund if we wanted?
Donnie Oliveira 2:46:18 - 2:46:26
No, Councilor, that's just the current fund policy.
As one of our funds, we have policy, like how those funds are used.
That's the current policy for that fund.
Steve Novick 2:46:26 - 2:46:36
And is it true, as I've heard, that historically we've used the revenue from Laser tickets and Moda Center tickets to subsidize our other entertainment venues?
Donnie Oliveira 2:46:37 - 2:46:42
I would say we've invested those dollars in our other venues.
Maybe subsidization might be too strong a word.
Steve Novick 2:46:43 - 2:46:51
Or if from now on it's all getting plowed back into the arena, then those other entertainment venues will be short what they're sort of used to getting.
Donnie Oliveira 2:46:51 - 2:47:10
Currently contemplated, our forecasted amounts, which are very conservative in how we did that, but nonetheless, yes, we are committing dollars to a certain amount each year back into the Moda Center.
If the revenue generated was above those targets, they would default roll back into the fund for Thank you.
Steve Novick 2:47:11 - 2:48:21
And I just wanted, for the record, since this is our time to talk about this publicly, I mean, my wish list for the term sheet would be that we get a 7% user fee up from 6% in order to reinvest into our other obligations.
I'd like to see us get a larger share of the parking revenue from non-Blazer events.
And I'd love to see the Blazers commit that they'll continue to make the kind of charitable investment in the community through the Blazer Foundation that they have been making, which I think is around $2 million a year recently.
Another thing I want to say for the benefit of the press and the public is it worried me that the Blazers seem to me to be suggesting that a condition of their staying in Portland is that we restructure the income tax system, because the city does not— actually, Councilor Smith alluded to this— the city does the city doesn't have an income tax unless you count the $50 a year arts tax.
The state has an income tax, the county has one, the metro has one, but the city doesn't.
So the city literally has no power to change the income tax system.
And if that's a condition of the Blazers staying, that's something we can't do a darn thing about.
Jamie Dunphy 2:48:22 - 2:48:25
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Kanal.
Xandria Conyers 2:48:27 - 2:48:27
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal 2:48:29 - 2:50:35
I appreciate the, the comment from Councilor Novick.
I'll even add that, um, if we do count the $50 city arts tax— I know there's a lot of interest in, in changing that, but I can't imagine that that is, uh, the, the factor given the, the size of it.
Um, I do think that the creating the conditions necessary for everyone involved to thrive is, is sort of the the conversation that we're having here, and that does require some adjustments, not to necessarily our tax structure, but to our expenditures.
I want to just kind of put on the record a contrast that's been kind of frustrating to me.
6 Blocks away from the Moda Center is the Louisa Flowers Building.
I mentioned this before.
It's a Home Forward building.
It's a historic building.
It's sandwiched between the Convention Center, the Lloyd Center, and Moda Center.
And there's 4, I think now 3 commercial retail units down on the ground level that haven't been rented out in 7 years since the building opened because they don't have floors.
And they are being— sorry, prospective tenants are being asked to not merely create the improvements necessary for their own business to thrive, but the improvements that would be necessary for any business to thrive, which is to say taking bare stone and making it a proper floor.
Um, that's the expectation in a lot of commercial property, uh, development around the city.
And then we have this, where it's the expectation that the city do the overwhelming majority, along with the county and state as well.
That's a contrast that feels It feels messy, feels messed up.
And I think that we have to have the broader conversation about what we're going to do, what is a reasonable expectation, and have it be a consistent expectation around the city.
Because I do think it's fair for it to be considered a shared obligation.
And I look forward to having that conversation in the broader sense in other places.
But I—.
Jamie Dunphy 2:50:35 - 2:50:47
the thank you, Councilor Knoll.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman 2:50:49 - 2:51:48
Thanks.
So I've given you, Mayor and City Administrator, some of the specifics.
I'm going to keep it there.
I don't know that I really want to do specifics in an open forum like that, and I think you have a tough job ahead of you.
What I've heard today and what I'm observing is a majority of council wants a deal.
And so I say this kind of tongue-in-cheek, but don't come back until you got one.
So I think we're ready for you to put this thing together.
I think we're ready for you to bring us back a deal that we can vote on.
I think that 12 votes may not be a thing that exists here, but I see a majority, and I think you should take that, run, and get in the room.
So I'm looking forward to you bringing a deal forward that we can vote on.
Thank you.
Um, because I want another 20, 30, and more years of the Blazers here.
And I think today was a good reset.
I think it was important to get folks in the room.
The Novick airing of grievances moment, I think, has occurred perhaps, and I think that can be helpful.
So get it done, bring us back something we can vote on.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 2:51:49 - 2:52:01
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue to ask questions, I'd I'd like to thank our presenters, thank the Blazers who joined us, thank the folks from the media and everybody in the audience.
And with that, we are adjourned.
Thank you.
See you on the 5th.
Eric Zimmerman 2:52:02 - 2:52:02
Thank you.