The record · Transcript
Council session — 2026-06-24
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (27,504 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.
You're welcome. Okay.
Good afternoon. I'm calling to order this work session of the Portland city council. It is 2:00 o'clock on Wednesday, June 24th. We don't take roll at work session, do we? Okay. Please take the roll.
Sorry, that was a yes. You do not.
Cool. I just want to look at all these wonderful people, great colleagues. This is the first of what will be several work sessions. Cool. I'm gonna start over. It's all good. Colleagues. This is the first of what will be several work sessions on the city's role in the renovation of the moda center investment, our expectations and our questions. Today's meeting will primarily be led by kristen dennis, who is on special assignment to my office from metro. Thank you, metro president juan carlos gonzalez. And kristen is taking an acting role as a project manager capacity on this issue to help us try and land this. So thank you kristen. Miss dennis will be here beginning the. Miss dennis will begin the hearing with an articulation of the goals for today's work. We'll then receive an update from our administration partners who helped facilitate the council led community engagement process and survey over the last two weeks. And finally, I'll note that while many offices have reached out and received brief, detailed briefings from the administration on technical and financial details, I have received consistent feedback that there are more questions to be asked and more information needed for council and the public to be able to engage effectively. To that end, city administrator lee dca oliveira and spectator venues manager carl lyle are here and will be able to provide information throughout the discussion. But it is worth noting that there are certain things we simply don't know yet, and this conversation today is intended to help us frame those questions for the future. So with no further ado, I'm going to turn it over to kristen. Dennis.
Great. Thank you so much. Council president Dunphy, happy to be here. For the record. Again, my name is kristen dennis, and I am the chief of staff to the metro council. Again, as council president, Dunphy said, I'm on loan here. I'm not representing metro, so I want to make sure that that is clear. I'm working for council and really my directive is to assist the city council. Thank you so much. As you go through this process. So for the benefit of the public watching at home, and in particular, I wanted to start by generally talking about where we're at and center the council's role in the process moving forward. The city owns several venues. This includes p five. That's keller, schnitz, newmark, winningstad and brunish theaters, veterans memorial coliseum, providence park and moda center. And I'll take the liberty of adding that there. They are part of a larger ecosystem of visitor venues within the Portland city limits, which are owned and operated by metro, which include the Oregon convention center, the expo center and the Oregon zoo. Across the board with publicly owned venues, there's a serious challenge as public ownership requires us to balance competing interests. They're both a business and a community asset. The moda center occupies a unique space in this visitor venues ecosystem. It generates a large amount of economic activity that has both direct and indirect revenue implications for both the public sector and the private sector. But it's also, of course, a community asset, both as an arena where portlanders and visitors have access to incredible, memorable events and as part of our city scape neighborhood and infrastructure. So that brings us to where we're at. There have been a lot of conversations about the moda center and what it needs, and this is the first time that the Portland city council has really gotten a chance to have that conversation as a whole. And in just a few very short weeks, I'm going to be sitting here again trying to give you something specific to discuss and vote on. I'm, of course, talking about a funding proposal and term sheet for a lease agreement. And when I come back at that time, my directive is to have something that most of you that reflects where you all are at. That's a tall order. My goal here today is, though, is pretty simple. I need to get to understand your scoring rubrics. Trying to get a venn diagram of where you all are at. When I bring a funding proposal to you, how are you going to grade it? What are you looking for? What does the right balance look like between competing interests? Ultimately, I'm trying to get a passing grade from as many of you as possible on whatever way I'm able to. We're able to bring you. So the most critical first step here today is for you to talk to each other. I will track what you are telling me and probably ask some follow up questions. But what I'm asking you to do is discuss what you expect from the arena on behalf of your constituents. What are the outcomes you expect from any city investment in the arena? Now, before that convo, though, I want to turn it over to laura, who will be talking about the community outreach survey results.
Thank you kristen. Thanks everyone for the opportunity to join you. For the record, my name is laura oppenheimer. I use she and her pronouns. I am the city's chief communications officer. I am also our interim chief engagement officer. And that's the hat that I am wearing this afternoon. It was a little over three weeks ago when the council president's team reached out to me, asking for some help from the administration in coordinating a unified council wide and really citywide engagement initiative around the moda center. I had to check my calendar to make sure it was really only three weeks, but it was during that time, the council chairs group has invited dca oliveira spectator venues program and myself into that space every Monday morning for dedicated time to this to make sure we could move forward in lockstep. Super grateful to that group for the shared direction, which has really been invaluable in being able to advance this engagement initiative quickly. I think by working across the legislative and executive branches, we've been able to create a highly visible and highly accessible opportunity for portlanders to weigh in on a potential moda center renovation. I'm here today to share some initial results from that effort. I just want to express my gratitude to council for being willing to try something new and gratitude to portlanders for really showing up and making their voices heard. As you'll hear about, I'm confident we're going to learn from this experience as we consider innovative and effective ways to engage portlanders. Next slide please. Thank you. So at the start of the process, we really outlined what council wanted to achieve at the heart of it, meaningfully informing council decisions by understanding public perspectives. Certainly, we wanted to provide some community education, knowing that while some portlanders have dived deeply into this issue, to others, it's new focus on not just the blazers, but the building and the community around the building that uses it. We wanted to reach a broad cross-section of portlanders and literally and figuratively reach them where they are reducing barriers to participation. Next slide please. In service of those goals, we took a two pronged approach to engagement over the past couple of weeks. One park was our parks pop up tour. We'll talk more about that in a minute. And then the second was an online survey where we were really trying to pull in as many people as possible to hear their perspectives. Next slide please. So I know many of you were there with me sweating through the parks pop up tour. Thank you. It was really, really hot. A lot like today. I appreciated that councilors really asked to make sure we were at not one, but two parks per district over that weekend, to be as accessible as possible to where people are in their neighborhoods. The goal of this session was to provide that in-person engagement with councilors and some kind of real time conversations that you just can't have through a survey. Additionally, we were hoping to reach people who didn't hear about the survey, weren't familiar with the issue, but just happened to be out at the park. I would say broadly how these turned out was almost like informal outdoor town halls. At most of the sites we had a couple dozen people. Many of them had come to have conversations with councilors. I thought it was really heartening to hear people on various sides of the issue with different perspectives, having respectful dialog with city councilors, that was really nice. I do want to note that the folks who took the survey as a result of the parks pop up tours represent a small proportion of the overall people who took the survey. I think it was complimentary rather than kind of a driving force for the survey. Let's see if we can go back. One slide. Thank you. So then giving a little overview of the survey itself, I want to be really clear about what this is and what it isn't. We drafted a survey really aimed at getting at topics where the city has influence and leverage. We want to ask people things that can lead to meaningful results and input into the process. We drafted a survey that was reviewed by the six council offices and the council chairs groups, and vetted by the spectator venues program for accuracy and consistency with the facts on the matter. So I would characterize this as a civic engagement exercise, providing a big tent to bring in as many people as possible to share their opinions about the moda center. As you know, there's not a specific funding package or term sheet on the table right now. As such, we weren't asking people about a specific package. We were really gauging their values and their priorities to inform how you all go about making decisions. There's a lot of things that this is not it's not statistically valid public opinion research. It's not proportional representation. And I feel pretty confident in saying we're missing a range of more moderate opinions on the topic. Groups that are really passionate about this did a great job encouraging people to turn out and share their opinions, and that's great. We just need to be careful in terms of the context in which you consider these results. With that, let's move on and I'll share a little bit about who participated in the survey. We had over 18,000 responses. I do not have a historical record, but I think it's safe to say that this was very robust participation for a city engagement process, probably highly unusual. And that speaks, I think, to the passion that portlanders have on this issue. It was literally yesterday morning that we received the detailed data set from the survey platform. We had the basic results prior to that. So today we're going to be focusing mostly on the aggregate results. My commitment to all of you is that next week we will deliver a report that provides detailed demographic breakdowns and detailed crosstabs showing full results by council district, and I hope that will be helpful as well. If there are things you want to prioritize in that, I really welcome the feedback about what you want to be most sure that you get out of that. A majority of participants actually did not provide their location based information, but of those who did, you can see the breakdown here across council districts and those who live outside of Portland. Moving on then to the kind of top line results, I want to make clear that in the introduction to the survey, we did provide a couple paragraphs of context about this venue the ownership state of the venue, the age of the venue, current situation. Again, all of this was vetted by our subject matter experts and our council representatives. We tried to provide as much context as we could within the confines of a survey. And yet, that being said, we know that people taking the survey probably had a wide range of understanding levels of the nuances of the situation. For every question, brief context was provided. We started out by asking people the baseline questions of how important is it for the moda center to be renovated, and do you support the city contributing up to $120 million? We felt it was important to ask those separately, because there might be folks who are saying, yes, it's very important to be renovated but not necessarily at a comfort level with the city making that contribution. What you're going to see in the results here was echoed throughout the survey, and that's what I would call a u-shaped curve, kind of the opposite of a bell curve, where we see very strong, passionate opinions on both ends of the spectrum and a much smaller proportion of people in the middle. So on this, taken at the aggregate level, you can see those results. And they were actually pretty similar across both questions. Just some slight variations there. But moving to the next slide, this is where I do want to provide a sneak preview of how that district by district data is going to really add some richness to what you all are able to see. I'm going to take a moment to just kind of walk you through this and what you're seeing. This is folks who did indicate which district they live in, and you'll see that the results are similar overall in that most people gravitated to a one or a five on this and far fewer responses in between. But there are some really distinct differences among districts. You'll see that in d for there was a significantly higher level of support for renovation in d one, a slight lean toward renovation d two, where the moda center is located, looking almost evenly split, and then in d three, a significant majority saying not important to renovate. So, you know, again, not statistically valid representative sample, but really interesting to see how different sections of our city are sharing different perspectives. And I know that when we analyze each question through this district by district lens, you'll, you'll probably get a lot more insight and have a lot more questions as well. Moving on to the next question, we asked people on the ten point scale to gauge how important is each of these potential outcomes if a renovation is pursued, people were not having to choose or rank things here. They could say one on all of them or ten on all of them. It's just, how important is this to you? We did see some of the u-shape, but I think this set of questions is where we start to get into more nuance, and you really can see how things stack up differently. You'll see the top three, which stood out pretty significantly above the others, seeking additional private dollars, providing living wage jobs and supporting local businesses, and making sure there are community benefits to a renovation. Next slide. We had a couple of ranked choice questions where we provided a list of choices, and similar to our new election system for the city, asked people to rank those in order from most important to least important. This first one. Again, making sure each of these things is realistic, asking people what they most want to see out of a renovation if it moves forward, you will see that structural technology and operating upgrades were number one on the list. That was, I think, by a pretty significant margin. So clearly people are looking at that city venue through that lens. And as you go down the list, you move on down to high end details such as suites, bars and club spaces at the bottom. Our next question used a similar ranking system and scale, and this is on a potential community benefits agreement. Again, we provided some baseline information about what that is and how it could work. And again, ask people to rank choices. Although on this one we allowed another option if there are things maybe we didn't think of yet that people would like to you all to know, they're thinking of the top choices here. Were investing in neighborhood development, living wage jobs for local people, and supporting the right to unionize, and addressing neighborhood impacts of large events. Did want to make note? We included on this slide, and we'll have more details in the full report. What some of those other responses were. You'll see here people mentioned affordable housing, homelessness services, business support, public schools, and citywide transportation and roads. I know those are things you all hear a lot about frequently. The next question is related to potential funding sources, and we all need to be clear that this is a complex topic that will likely require a mix of different sources, and we cannot possibly adequately and fully explain those in a short survey. What we did do, however, for each of these potential sources that's been identified, is provide a short blurb explaining where that money comes from, what it can be used for, and what it typically goes to. And we asked people, what is your comfort level with each of these sources? Again, I'm going to give you the disclaimer. We saw a lot of you curve stuff going on here, but you do see some real variation in people's comfort level with the highest level of comfort with the spectator venues and visitor activities. Fun moving on down to bonding as the lowest level, so it at least provides a rough gauge of where people are with just kind of very minimal basic information about these potential sources. Next slide. This is the last section, and I have several slides here. My favorite part of the survey. Maybe it's because I work in communications and engagement, but I thought it was fascinating. The open ended questions. We asked two of them. What's the most important thing for city councilors to keep in mind as they make a decision about the moda center? And what information do you need to better understand and decide on the moda center renovation as the public process continues? People had a lot to say. There were almost 27,000 comments, so if you need some light weekend reading, highly recommend it. It's actually really fascinating. And I think people were so thoughtful and shared a whole lot of insight and passion that does to me. Go beyond what you can get just from the numbers, what we've been able to do today with the time that we had, sorry if you can move to the next slide for this one. We did distill this by skimming the 27,000 and using some tech support to help us sort into five themes that seem to be emerging across these. Oh, sorry. I think we went the wrong direction. There we go. Thank you. So I'm just going to briefly touch on kind of those five themes that emerge to us. In each case, we just picked two illustrative quotes on different perspectives in the issue. They certainly do not represent the full breadth of what's being said, but just want to give you a sneak preview of your reading material. The first one, certainly people had a lot to say about whether it is important to them to keep the blazers in Portland or not. You know, you'll see some really impassioned arguments on both sides of this. Next slide, please. This topic, a lot of commentary about who should be responsible for renovation. To what extent is this an obligation of the city? As the owner of the moda center, versus to what extent is it the obligation of the the primary tenant or others? So you'll find that third category is city spending priorities. I think, you know, we're coming right on the heels of budget season. And certainly those conversations about city spending priorities are top of mind, and you will see that come through as you wade through the the comments that we received here. Next one. The Portland community benefits clean energy fund. We did receive a lot of commentary about that as a potential use of funding. You'll see there are some comments that are. Quite a few comments, I think, with concerns about using it, and then some with some nuance there. You'll see the comment on the right, for example, suggesting that there are some potential obligations that could be part of the deal that would make them have more comfort with particular funding sources. And then the last one, I'm going to end on a note of unity, because there is one area where I think portlanders broadly agree, and that is around transparency and accountability. I think regardless of which side of this issue people were on or where on the spectrum they were, we did see a lot of comments around the importance of having a public process of being accountable and having portlanders really understand how decisions are being made. So I will end on that note. Happy to answer any questions and look forward to giving you the full report next week.
Excellent. Thank you. So, kristin, at this point, should we just jump into oh.
Do we if we have technical questions on that presentation, do you think.
Let's let's jump into some questions for either the framing or also for laura or for anything we just heard. So I'm going to jump to the. Q and we'll start with councilor Green.
Mitch Green: Thank you, council president. Thanks for the presentation, laura. I want to go back to the the results of the distribution of strong support, strong opposition, whether we're looking at the question of whether the thing should be renovated at all, or the question of whether or not to use $140 million in public funds. I do want to note that I think it was right to divide those two types of inquiry, because those are is a complicated public opinion matter. And so you might support redevelopment without necessarily supporting the public funds being used. But I want to make sure I'm clarifying something. So when you said that this is perhaps not picking up moderate opinions, are you talking about the politically moderate opinion or the sort of folks who are maybe interested in. They don't feel strongly either way?
The latter I it was clear to us that groups that have strong, passionate opinions on the topic were very effective at mobilizing people to fill out the survey, which is great as a civic engagement exercise, right? It's a way to express their opinion. But we could literally see when there was a particularly effective social media push. You know, in the early parts of the survey, results kind of swing in one direction or the other. Additionally, we did ask how people got to the survey. I can't quote you the number off the top of my head, but a very large proportion came to it through social media. And so what that tells me is that a lot of people came to it with a passion on this issue, and I do think that shows up in the results. But of course, the same would be true if you held a listening session or a lot of other modes of engagement. I think statistically valid public opinion research through a firm that does that would probably be the one surefire way to know that you're getting a full cross-section of the population coming at it without strong opinions, right?
No, I appreciate that. And it is not a statistically valid method, and we all recognize that. I will note that this is this is a likert scale. So rank from 1 to 5 your feelings about a thing. So that scale is is pretty standard. And it's designed to gauge kind of the nuance of reigns of a position. But those are almost always distributed with those same extreme pollers. So it's and those are in randomized unbiased samples or general good unbiased estimates of the, of the total population. So the nature of that style of questioning will produce those. So it's not that it's necessarily, you know, I want to be careful that we don't dismiss those responses because it was not a statistically significant outcome. You'll likely see the same thing with unbiased research polling it. A likert scale is just ordinal, which means you say what you prefer over the other. You cannot say how much more I prefer the other thing over the other, which is where you would get the more nuance. So as we're working through that, I think it's really important to clarify that piece, which is just a statistical matter of interest. Thanks.
Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thanks, council president, thank you to both of you. I am grateful that metro council president has offered to provide some support by having you help. And thank you, laura, for your work too. I see you working really hard in being thrown into this and just want to be clear that if there's if there's ever any tension or spiciness, it's not about you all, it's that this is a a charged topic. In case you haven't noticed. I wanted to clarify, did I hear correctly that 60% of respondents were removed from the data because they didn't share their location?
Every single response that you saw other than that one graph by council district includes all participants, regardless if they shared their location. Okay? However, in order to provide you with district specific results, of course we can only include the people who who did state their location within the district results. So all of the overall results apply to the entire 18000 people, and then we'll provide those council district specific ones. And, you know, you can analyze those for what they're worth without the other participants in there.
Okay. Can you clarify a bit about the creation of the survey and the shaping of it? I appreciate the using of the six councilors who hold gavels that weekly meeting. Using that sort of leadership team, I, I heard mixed things that some were like, I don't remember actually seeing that or we got it really last minute. So where did the question start from? How much workshopping was there back and forth?
Yeah, I can briefly describe. I will also say that three weeks from ideation to completion is not the optimal timeline and does not allow for the review loops. That would typically. Totally fair be used in this kind of process. So at each Monday meeting, we took one kind of major step because of that exceptionally tight timeline that the first one, we had to talk about what sorts of topics would be included in the survey within a couple of business days, got a draft done based on that. And then I think we had 1 or 2 business days turnaround time for feedback. Again, not optimal. And I think typically you would want to see more iterations and more time in those review loops. That being said, we were able to incorporate the vast majority of comments that we received from council offices in the survey. And then in any case, where there was maybe conflicting feedback or something that that felt hard to implement, we worked directly with the council president's office to figure out how to handle that. That was only a couple of instances, though.
Understand the tight timeline. And ideally, we would have started this engagement six months ago or even a year ago. I think you're doing the best you can with what you have been thrown into. I will be honest that I heard from a lot of constituents that it felt like a push pull, that it didn't feel like there was information to explain a lot of those pieces, and that there was it was pushing people in a certain direction. And so just a few days ago, I put out, yeah, I know, councilor Ryan, you're making little comments over here, but I have the floor.
Got it.
I did put one out just a few days ago. I did not get as many responses, but I did get almost 2000. I don't think that's anything to sneeze at. Most were in district 358%, but I got folks from every all of your districts. I understand. I mean, we're district three, so it's it's a little different. You can see that. But I heard from 109 people from district one, 183 from district two and 220 from district four, to share with my colleagues, because I think it is important to hear the vast majority did say. Fund only the necessary renovation renovations for things like accessibility, safety and standard maintenance, and don't do the deal even if the blazers leave. Not saying that those are things that I want, but that's the results that I also got, and I would have loved a chance to help get a little bit more data. I'll leave it there.
Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president. I just have a request that I know I have mentioned to you, but I want to make in a more formal way, which is that when you get us the complete results and you're looking at the cross tabs and, and how we separate this and how we understand it, I would like to be able to see as closely as we can approximate the people who filled out the survey at the parks, whether that's looking at people who filled it out that weekend, or if we can go more granular and say, filled it out that weekend at an event. I am very curious because I've heard you say before that you saw swings as different organizations and different individuals pushed this out. I think that's a really good thing. It's a really important thing where we have passionate groups of portlanders who are talking about something for us to hear that. But I also want to be able to understand where those portlanders who didn't proactively come to us, who aren't on our lists, who we don't reach normally, but who one of us or one of our team members walked up to in a park and said, hey, we want to know what you think. I had a few people at the park say, oh, well, I don't, I don't really know. And I said, that's exactly why I'm here, because we want to know what you think. Without having already been passionate about this. I'd like to see where those folks are as best as we can approximate, knowing that it's not scientific, but reflecting the important conversations that we had that weekend. So if you can make sure that we have some way of pulling that out when you get us the cross tabs, I would really appreciate it.
Yeah, well, we have that on our list. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney councilor Avalos.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney: All right. Well, I was told, you know, we would have some time to just kind of put on the record our thoughts. And so I have some of those comments to share. And then if I have time left over, I've got some questions. Sound good? Thank you again. Council, is there an issue?
No. You're good.
Go ahead. Thank you again, council president. Thanks, kristen, for jumping in to help and for just facilitating this process and doing the pop ups. Thank you to the thousands of portlanders that took the time to complete the survey and just engage in the conversation. Your participation is really important and I just wanted to name that directly. So for me, looking at the results, it's clear to me that portlanders are not speaking with one voice. People are divided on whether the moda center should be renovated, or even more skeptical about committing significant public dollars. And so to me, what that means is that we just have an obligation to slow down, ask good questions, make sure that the public understands the choices that are in front of us. I am excited that this is our first public conversation about the future of the moda center. I think it is definitely happening a lot later than many of us wanted to, but let's seize the moment. And I think the goal here is to not argue for a particular outcome. But what I want to say first on the record is that we do have options. I think that's the thing that keeps getting muddled, and I really want portlanders to understand that we have the power to decide what goes into the deal, that there's not just one deal structure available to us, one financing model, all of that. So and then there's also not one definition of what people consider a fair deal. So I think that's obviously what you're seeing in the tension around like how all of our opinions are showing up on the dais and in the, in the public. So as these negotiations are continuing, I think that the city has the ability to pursue a bunch of different options. And I wanted to name some of those so I could just put into the record what portlanders could expect, at least that I plan to talk about. But I think just to lay out what is available. So one, I think is a meaningful private capital contribution from ownership, consistent with many arena deals around the country. That is probably my number one issue. I am going to have a hard time agreeing to give public money if I'm not seeing a private investment. That is what public private investment means, and I will be demanding that that comes true. Number two, rents or other financial payments, recognizing the value of operating a publicly owned facility. So definitely want to make sure we're negotiating those payments requirements that the private operator cover ongoing maintenance and capital responsibilities. It's my understanding that they currently cover half of the cost of maintenance that is the floor. So I will not accept anything less than half of their responsibility on maintenance, a longer lease term, and stronger relocation protections to provide certainty for portlanders. I know we've been talking a lot about 20 years. It sounds like there is an option to extend that. I, I think pushing for 30 would be great, but I want to make sure that that's available to us to extend that possible lease as it relates to labor standards, including things like labor peace agreements, and also important that we are looking at prevailing wages not just for the construction, but also living wages for the employees that will operate the moda center and, you know, having local hiring and opportunities for workers to organize is going to be really critical to me. Obviously, we all keep talking about community investments and community benefits. And so that's things like in the surrounding neighborhood. I think other things that I've heard that we should talk about are improved transit access, public use opportunities, and partnerships that create lasting value beyond just game day. Right? The whole if this conversation is beyond the blazers, then I want to make sure that the negotiation is not limited to what the blazers need, but what this moda center needs, because it is an important part of not just our city, but our state revenue sharing opportunities. So whether that's parking premium, seating concessions, naming rights or other sources that will allow the public to share in the success of an asset that they own, if we own it, they share the success in that asset. And then lastly, strong accountability measures, as you ended with laura, that is definitely common across the board. And so to me, that looks like including independent cost analyzes, transparent financial reporting, audit rights, enforceable performance metrics, and clear consequences if commitments are not met. So any kind of accountability measures need to have teeth. They need to have a way to hold them accountable if they're not met. And so and yeah, I think that we also have the option to negotiate longer or differently if that's what it takes to secure a better outcome. That's some of the questions that I have. But, you know, I have always felt that artificial urgency should not substitute for careful stewardship of public resources. I know that there's been a lot of rhetoric in recent weeks suggesting that asking tough questions somehow means you're against the project. I completely reject that premise. I think that supporting the moda center and scrutinizing the moda center are not opposites. In fact, because it is a publicly owned asset, I think scrutiny is part of our responsibility. I've also heard the argument that criticism is easy. Negotiation is hard. You're right. It is hard. And that is exactly why we should negotiate from a position of strength. Armed with good data, clear expectations, and a firm understanding of what portlanders deserve in return. So for me, this conversation comes down to a couple of expectations that I want to lay on the table. I expect transparent cost estimates and an independent understanding of what this renovation requires. I expect meaningful private participation alongside any public investment. I expect enforceable community benefits and strong protections for workers. I expect accountability and measurable public return. And lastly, I expect us to use funding sources that are appropriate for this type of investment. I love the blazers. I understand the importance of the moda center to our city, and I understand that deferred maintenance can become more expensive over time. But I also represent portlanders who are worried about paying rent. They're worried about housing. They're worried about heath debts, behavioral health issues, worried about making ends meet. Those realities don't make this investment impossible, but it does make it our responsibility to negotiate the best deal possible. So my goal is not to say no. My goal is to define the conditions under which Portland can confidently say yes. I have just two questions that I'll ask for now. And I think the main thing around these questions are understanding what kind of information we're going to be getting and when. So can you walk us through the range of potential city funding sources that are still under consideration and explain, like legal or policy constraints associated with that? And if you don't have that information, when will we get that kind of information?
Thank you. Great question. Councilor. I'm actually going to share a powerpoint. You got ahead of me a little bit, but you're exactly where we need to get going. So thank you for leading the charge on that. I part of the conversation, right? Because as you said, this is the first time that you all have had a conversation to have these conversations about what are the outcomes that you want? Like what, what do portlanders deserve to use your words? And I want to differentiate between that and some of the tools that we're talking about. And so the way that we assess those and that we can assess those as staff for council to make sure they meet council direction is to first figure out what what are you looking for? What what are your values? And then we can figure out if those tools reflect those values. And so we'll be able to get you some of those. And I will make sure that I can walk you through exactly what we're able to get you, which will be narrowed down based on what we believe can actually achieve some of the. Thank you.
And kristen, before we get ahead, we actually have a couple councilors who still have a few more technical questions and some questions for laura as well.
Yeah. If we do laura questions, and then because we're going to get into some of the tools to hear. And then and then we'll probably definitely need other city staff to come up.
And that was my fault.
I thank you.
That was yeah.
My bad. Now, you know what my question is. So you can prepare to answer that. And then let me give you another question that you can noodle on, which is, I guess I just want to understand what aspects of the current timeline are driven by legal requirements versus policy choices. And if council believed that additional negotiation time would lead to a better deal, what flexibility exists? So the sources of money, the flexibility of the timeline are my main questions. I have a million more that I'm sure my colleagues will share, but I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councilor Avalos and councilor Morillo and colleagues, just to be super clear, let's get technical questions out and then we will do we'll let kristen do another quick powerpoint, and then we will get to lay out very similar to how councilor Avalos just did, which was perfect. So thank you. Councilor Morillo. Thank you.
I mean, I'm not even sure how anyone has any technical questions based on the information that we're receiving today. No offense to you guys. You guys are great, but this is I'm trying not to be extremely livid right now because we are under an extremely compressed timeline. As city councilors, we are being forced to negotiate this in a couple of months. These community listening sessions were put out with four days notice. My own staffer who has an lcl tear struggled to find the event that was posted in Laurelhurst park, which is a ginormous park. She walked for 30 minutes on her injured knee in 90 degree weather to try to find the event. As a staffer, she didn't have any more details about where it was, so I'm assuming other people with different abilities were not able to find the event. So we're getting data that's not statistically relevant from a survey that was pushed around in nba forums as well, from people who are not necessarily from Portland. Great. We have that. Not that helpful. We have been asking in executive session for weeks now for basic comparisons to other cities. What deals have other cities gotten? Why? Like the fact that we're having a conversation about how to have a conversation today is honestly mind boggling, given the timeline that we have to make this decision. The questions that I have, I will just list out the things that I not only expect, but demand that we have later. Mr. Oliveira, I hope you're listening. The negotiator, wherever he is, may be at the moda center. Where is he? Is he at the moda center with tom dundon? Is that what's happening? Where is he? Nobody wants to work these days. Okay. The questions I have are what do we currently pay for in maintenance? How does that compare to what we might be paying in the future? Are we going to use the spectator venues fund? And if so, does that eat into our reserves? Can we get a 20 year forecast to figure out if that's going to harm any other sources of revenue? I mean, I'm just asking for basic information so that we can make this decision. And I we're going to be here till 5 p.m. Having another discussion about how to have a discussion. I feel like I'm going to lose my mind. Honestly, I don't know. I don't know if I have anything more substantive to add, given the, the minuscule information that has been submitted in this. This is not public engagement. This is not getting statistically helpful data. And in every single executive session, I have asked over and over and over again for the same thing. We need comparisons about what other cities have gotten. We need to know what regular deals are in other places. We need to know what the cost comparisons are. If they are saying we bring in this much money for the city, so you guys better do something about it. Where is the evidence for that? I have gotten zero evidence for anything. I'm being told that we're going to have a magical electrification plan for the albino neighborhood. I said, awesome, that sounds lit. Where is the information? Is there an architecture plan? Is there anything that is proving to me that we are actually going to be able to electrify the albina neighborhood, or are they pitting that neighborhood and those people against the city councilors that are trying to hold a billionaire accountable? If I don't get this information, I'm just going to get worse and worse every meeting. So I'm really looking forward to getting that.
Thank you, councilor Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan: Thank you, council president. I will go back to technical questions. So this will come to you, laura. Before that, I apologize. Councilor Koyama Lane. We were having a little moment over here about the push pull comment because we we experienced that on. I've experienced that on both sides of the you, as you call it. So depending on your perspective, it was a push pull that was not favorable to your side. So I just wanted to put that out. Speaking of swings, you mentioned swings based on promotional social promotional emails that came out from different organizations, probably from council offices as well. I would like to see some data sets on how you could attribute any influence of those push pulls to those swings. So what groups were the ones that pushed it to one side or the other? That would be helpful. So we don't have to just pretend we know. So any data on that would be really, really helpful. Is that possible?
Well, it is certainly possible to the statement.
So that's.
Why I reached the the survey through social media in general. I don't know after the fact, if we can tell which ones came from which social media, but I'll have the team look into what's possible.
I thought your comment was very important to take in, and so I just wanted some actually data behind that. Yeah, I'll save my statements and parameter stuff after we're done with the technical questions. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Ryan. Councilor Green.
Mitch Green: I mean, I'm just back in the queue for the broad discussion, so maybe I'll just pull my hand off. Okay, great.
Yeah, I'll turn it over back to to kristen.
Oh, sorry.
My. Powerpoint back up. All right. So quickly. Sorry. Moving forward. Okay. Councilor Avalos, you asked the question earlier about the timeline and. Sorry. Sorry, I need to get back. I skipped ahead, I'm sorry. So as you all discussed, the city of Portland, your venue operators and the city council gets to set policy direction under which the venues operate. Like any building and really any business based on providing a facility, the moda center will need funding for maintenance and improvements in order to get it booked and sell tickets to the event. Now, this is not the first time that the council that the city has undergone some of these investments for for facilities, for instance, funds out of the visitor development fund, which were used to finance the veterans memorial coliseum. Any of these different funding sources are going to have opportunities and also limitations. Then you also have buildings like the keller auditorium, which the council is currently discussing and making investments in as well. For buildings like the keller, they can have extensive years long processes with stakeholders and visioning and many competing studies. And so there's a lot of different ways that you all. And just like metro and other public organizations can can follow through in this process. And I want to be clear that. I want to be clear that the city council gets to decide what route and what process you all take. So you could do a longer process, or you can do a shorter process. The reason that we're having this conversation right now is you all are in obviously a very unique situation. Sb 1501 passed earlier this year, authorized the issuance of bond sufficient to yield 365 million to renovate and modernize the moda center. The requirements to unlock that state funding are. There's quite a few, but I will just highlight the three salient ones. The. First, establish a joint authority. Second, a local funding commitment. My understanding at this point is that this is approximately $120 million, though. Councilor aye, Morillo to your earlier points, I don't have any details around exactly what that would be funding yet, but I want to just highlight that. And then the third piece is a 20 year lease agreement. And as a lot of you know, but I want to make sure the public knows the reason for that is because the backing for this debt is from income from the moda center itself. And so you need to have the guarantee of that income in order to be able to back those bonds. And so there's going to be some bond council interest in how that lease agreement is set up as well. So in any as you as we look at how to make investments in in the auditorium or sorry, in the arena, the city is ultimately responsible for answering the question of what improvement, what those improvements are and how they get funded. The I'm sorry, I that's where I'm at. All right. So I want to differentiate here between outcomes and. Outcomes and tools. Here you have the different places where the council is being asked to take action. We have the investment decision that is related to the $120 million. You also can do this on a different timeline. That is likely going to be a larger amount, but that's a different timeline, obviously a lease agreement and then other council actions. Now, what I want to differentiate, like why it's important for us to talk about outcomes and having direction driven by outcomes and what the tools are. We've talked a lot about tools, and those are some of the terms that you see in lease agreements. But to determine whether or not those work for Portland that gets due to what portlanders deserve, we need to understand what your priorities are. Some of those have already been highlighted now, but why it's important to get the full picture of that is because, for instance, if if our if the priorities were only updating the pipes, creating, updating the bathrooms, creating more access, and then minimizing city contributions, the deal on the table from the state is very compelling right now, because there's a large amount of money that would not otherwise be available to you. All that said, you all need to balance whether or not that is worth the tightened timeline that you are all working through. And so there's going to be a lot of trade offs and figuring out if we can put enough tools into the investment decisions, into the lease agreements. And then obviously, council has other council actions that I want to make sure that we can kind of talk about broader as well. Certainly, the focus is going to be on the arena, and that is the focus in order to unlock those state dollars. But there are other discussions and other powers that the council has that are that are broader as well. So for the discussion today, and I'm happy to answer a lot of questions, I know that there are a lot I would like you all to think about the council values and objectives. What does success look like for you? Councilor Avalos you already talked about that quite a bit. What do your constituents expect from this arena? So what are we what are we looking for? So when you're when when staff brings stuff to you, brings some of this detailed information to you, what is the information they should bring to you? There are going to be things that that tools that staff could bring to you based on some of your values that are frankly, antithetical to what some of your other values are. For instance, if the if, if the value is just generating as much revenue for the city as possible, we could have, you know, an 800% tax on concessions. Now, that is antithetical to, I think, some of the values that I've certainly heard from from the city council in terms of making the making the arena accessible and a place that people can go and bring their families. And so there's a balancing that has to happen there. And so that is some of the important discussion for you all to have with each other. And this allows us to actually bring and craft because we're on a very tight timeline for this. Again, it's up to council to decide whether or not you want to move forward with this timeline or not. My, my goal is to, in good faith, try to get as far on this timeline as possible. Ultimately, the council will decide if what we're able to bring matches, what you're looking for, and if we're able to get you some of the more detailed information that you have been asking for as well. So the outcome topics that I put together for you all to discuss, I've heard some of them already and are listed here. I won't read them all, but this reflects some of what I've heard from you, some of the public statements that you've had, the, the I, the important here is this is both for providing staff direction. So staff figures out how do we how do we respond to what we're hearing from from council. Also, how are we communicating this with the with folks at large. So if there are particular terms in a lease agreement, we've heard a lot been talking about some very interesting lease agreement terms that could be put forward or what are the things we might buy with some of these investments. You know, being able to figure out whether or not those actually reflect the, the values that we have. So with that, I will oh, one other thing I wanted to add to this is another thing that I've heard, obviously, are lessons learned from other cities as well that we would want to make sure are reflected in what we bring back to you. So with that, I'll turn it back over to council president.
Thank you kristen. Excellent. Okay, so we've got some framing colleagues, some opportunities. We also have some staff in the room. If there are questions. And as as as has been noted, we have more questions than answers at this time. And this is about an opportunity to help us frame those questions and get them back. I am also paying very close attention to the questions that are being asked and making sure that we get those those answers back. So I'm going to start by heading jumping into the q councilor Green.
Mitch Green: Thank you, council president. Thank you for the framing. Kristen. I want to start by. I want to start by saying, here's what I want to see in a deal. I think part of this, the expectation of the work session is like where councilors at. So I can start by saying like, I have some minimum expectations that I want to see in a term sheet. And if I don't see those in the term sheet, then it's like, what are we doing? I'll just list them in order. Private capital contributions to the project. Peer cities have private capital contributions that range between 20 and 60%. I want to see the team pay rent to the city of Portland. And I think there's a caveat on this. I want that rent to flow to the general fund. I want some of these revenue streams to flow to the general fund, because I'm worried that we are going to encumber all of any incremental revenue from this deal into a fund that is only servicing the debt on this fund. And so we don't really capture any of that to support our city. So flexible rent that we receive property taxes or equivalent. So payments in lieu of taxes. We heard this from the county's work session. You know, if the county is going to be expected to put up some money, that's going to come at the expense of their services, they want to see sort of a build back in some sense of payments in lieu of taxes. Try to get a city share of any incremental premium revenue. So if there's if these dollars are going towards premium things, we should also get some of that because I think what you do is when you when you look at the actual scholarly literature colleagues on this stuff, what we find is it's actually quite common for municipalities to fund stadiums. But oftentimes when the public shows up with that funding, you find that the cost of the project gets larger because that then pays for more expensive things. And so when when people say, we don't want to give handouts to a billionaire, we're talking about creating an incremental value with public dollars for upside, private value that would not otherwise exist. And so being able to capture that back. So that's where that comes from. And I've got the citations here. Event parking revenue. I, you know, I think that we should not just give that away. And those are just the short list. So that's my position. Okay. I also would like to see, I kind of want to talk about this timeline. I don't see anywhere in the state senate bills, the two bills that create this package that says this must be done by December. And so if there's anyone who has an answer to why this has to happen by December, I would love an answer to that.
I'm I'm happy to answer it. And then. But I will let actual city staff answer. Sorry.
Anyone?
Okay.
Thank you councilors. Good afternoon, council president donnie oliveira. For the record, there's a lot of questions asked. I've been taking notes and I'm. I'm happy to go back and answer your questions. Councilor Avalos. And councilor. Morillo. Starting with your question, councilor Green, the timeline right now is based on a couple of premises that started way back, even before there was a sale, which is that we had renovations that we'd like to get done by the spring of 2030 for. This is when we're going to be hosting the final four championship at the moda center. So that was the like that's like the north star for renovations. So working backwards from that, the next major milestone is unlocking those those state dollars, those bonding dollars, since that's the most substantial tranche of resources that are going into renovation, the state needs us to have definitive confirmation about our contribution. One of those requirements that kristen had mentioned, so they can start the underwriting of the bond so that they can issue the bond in the spring of 27, so we can start renovations essentially in the summer of 27.
But that's not in the statute. That's not in the law. It's just a practice.
That's the administrative. So that's like the that's the state's department of administrative services and department of justice administering that bond. That's the requirement for them to do that. On that timeline.
I'd like to see a citation to that point.
And if I can jump in there as well, part of that is it needs to go through the process. Obviously, with the the lease is going to need to be looked at by bond council to see if it's appropriately backed up. And then we open up the bond sales in generally in the spring as well. So that would be the timeline. And so then working backwards. Now that could be technically and we've had some conversations with the state. Some of it can be compressed, but I'd be really careful. And because it your risk increases the longer we wait. And then after we miss that window and I don't know, I don't think there is like a day where, you know, on Tuesday it's okay, on Wednesday it's not. So it's just going to get riskier and riskier. At some point, though, the the state will not have authorization under the bill to actually issue that debt anymore. So it has to happen within that window. And the state would have to issue, or the legislature would have to pass another bill authorizing if we don't get get get authorization.
That's helpful. So my other so just to recap, the primary, the prime mover here is to get these investments done in time for the ncaa tournament.
I think the renovations.
Renovations, my understanding also is, is we're going to have that tournament whether we do those renovations or not, because we're contractually entitled to that.
Yes, we yes.
Answer correctly. Okay. So for folks following along, I did have the council clerk attached to the work session, a scholarly paper by an associate editor of the journal of sports economics. And the paper is called the economics of stadium subsidy subsidies. And it's a policy retrospective. And this is really important because we're going to make a really big decision here. And there's a whole section in this paper that describes the empirical economic impacts of special one off events. And they they don't really bring in that much relative to what they would have otherwise brought in. So we need to be reading that kind of stuff so we can evaluate this stuff with critical eye. I want to also note that in my reading of sb 1501, in part of the kind of negotiations to get to final passage, there was a dash 11 amendment, and that dash 11 amendment created a clause called section 62. A, I think two, a two, maybe, but basically it created funding and a requirement for the state of Oregon to pay for and supply an independent analyst to, to evaluate the terms of this deal. And so have we gotten that work done? Have they have they hired anyone yet?
They're closing in on that that hire.
Yes, they're closing it higher, but they won't have the results of the study.
Yeah. I we can follow up with the state on the timeline.
For that. I believe it's coming pretty quickly.
Okay. But the thing is, is like we in three weeks, we're to start having a council deliberation. There's no way we can evaluate the economics of this deal pursuant to even the state's own suggestion that we should do that. In that timeline, colleagues. And so I think that if it's if you're able to get the state legislature in this short session to ram together a $365 million bonding package, I think the total lobbying spend is about $130,000. So that's a pretty good return on investment. I think you can do it again in the long session, frankly. And I think that we owe it to portlanders to to at least get the data back. We're also going to be doing a refreshed analysis on the economic impact. Is that correct? That's correct. You know when that's going to happen.
We're aiming for the to bring that data back to you all, no later than the next work session on July 22nd. But ideally, the executive session that happens the week before is our target.
Okay, I know that I'm probably burning a lot of time here, but I just I want to say that the paper I cited, which has a bunch citations, basically the entire literature in the last 30 years, does have a section that talks about the validity and the shortcomings of economic impact analyzes that were commissioned. And so I think I heard julia brim edwards, commissioner Julia edwards say yesterday that the cross points consulting report not very compelling and was pretty thin on details. And so we're using them again, as my understanding, and I would hope that they would have a published list of assumptions. What are their multipliers? How do they get to those multipliers? What proportion of income stays in the region versus goes out? How much of this player's salary is a result of the net new? Like how much of that flows back into the Oregon arena fund and all that? Because that's all really important. And if we don't have that, we're basically running on vibes and there's a lot of opportunity from this investment. And I think the response we've seen from the public is a recognition that we don't really know at all whether this pencils out except for like the common assertions of boosters of these deals that goes back decades that sports economists have written about and said, be on the lookout municipality. So that's it for now. I don't know if we'll have more time, but I can get back into it to engage in the dialog. But thanks for your your answers and thanks for taking notes.
Thank you.
Please go ahead. Sorry, councilor, if I may. You know, first I want to say that the timeline consideration is not lost on me. As you know, I think I've been working on this for now, full two weeks. And so, you know, getting up to speed and getting all that information, this is not this is not the ideal process, just period. What we're going to do is try in good faith to get you the information that you need in order to be able to take a vote, and that might be a yes or no vote. We might not be able to get you what you need in time, but we're going to do our best to, to actually be able to respond to the offer on the table from the state. I also just want to note that you talked about the one off events and the economic impacts of the one off events. I think it's also going to be important as we look at what tools we have available to look at. How do you activate that as much as possible. So if we're only looking at the one off events, I think you're you're you're completely correct. We have that same issue at expo center, but being able to activate the site more. And so I have heard from you and others around interest in activating the site and making sure that that is a requirement as well, in order to gain some of the economic impacts. Thank you.
I appreciate that, and I did neglect to say street level pricing is something I very much see as needing to be in this deal, and I recognize that may be difficult to do. Both street level pricing and also food and beverage revenue share. So if we have to give on that street level pricing for me.
Thanks. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Green. I put myself in the queue. I have a couple of things I want to say. You know, I really appreciate the comments from my colleagues. So far, I haven't heard anything that I disagree with. I'll just note that my values include that this is going to be a you know, as councilor Green was saying, as doctor Green was saying, a fiscally responsible deal for the city, that we are seeing a real return in and that there are measurable family wage employment benefits to workers, that we engage in fair pricing, where families from my district can afford to see events in a city owned facility without feeling fleeced or excluded. And I also just want to mention that I want to see meaningful progress on the reunification of albina and the correction to the crimes committed against black portlanders via urban renewal in the 50s and 60s. I also as as I've heard the mayor say, a relatively gross term, but I do also want to see this asset sweat. This. This building should be active more than it's not. And I look forward to some of the renovations that are completely independent of the blazers because as everyone knows, I'm the music guy on council. I want to see bigger and better concerts coming to Portland that simply cannot come here. I also want to see things like rodeos and circuses, even if they are slightly lower. Return on investment. We need more opportunities for families and for fun things to define our city. And we have the building. It's sitting right there. If it's empty, it's doing none of us any good. I have a couple of quick questions. I think they might partially be for karl. I'm not totally sure. But first I just wanted to ask, you know, when when the city purchased the motive for $1 back in 2024, we signed a lease through 2030 when the building became public property. It also became exempt from property taxes. Do we know how much annual revenue was lost in that that deal and and how much the operator is now saving from not having to pay taxes?
We believe it's about $1 million a year. And with the investments that would that would then go up, right? Because you'd have a more valuable asset.
Sure.
Of course. And from the as councilor Avalos was saying earlier, we currently have a 5050 split on maintenance going forward. And that is a question for. The future. Prior to us taking ownership, did we have a maintenance obligation with there? Did we use.
No. So so yeah, let me talk about that a little bit. And carlisle spectator venues program manager. So, so yeah, so prior to the current agreements that went into effect in 2024, the building was still privately owned on city owned land, subject to the terms of the 30 year old land lease. Right. So, no, the city was not obligated to spend anything on ongoing upkeep at moda center. We were spending on the coliseum and other city owned venues, but but not moda center. Gotcha. What changed? One of the things that changed with the five year bridge agreements was that we agreed to the city agreed to reinvest blazers derived revenue that the city was collecting from blazers games only. So not the concert revenue. Not not things at the coliseum, not other rose quarter revenues, but parking and ticket user fees on blazer events. We agreed to reinvest those dollars back into identified capital projects at moda. If matched by city management. So it's a 5050 match up to the total amount of funds received by the city from blazers events in a year. So in the year we're just finishing, we spent $4.5 million approximately, which was matched and then some by the team. And the primary project that was accomplished during the last fiscal year is, was the new scoreboard and video board project. So the city did pay for a portion of that under the terms of the 2024 lease.
Great.
Thank you. And just briefly, when we it appears from the facility condition assessment that the prior owners of the moda allowed a backlog of maintenance to amass. And we were aware of that when we took over ownership. Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay. Thank you. Carl. Question about the spectator venue and visitor activities fund. How much does that fund take in every year?
So yeah, I can I can pull up real numbers if we want to get into the into those weeds right now, we can get it to you. But I mean, the primary sources of revenues are the ticket user fees from events at the rose quarter and a portion of the ticket user fees from events at providence park. That's a little bit more complicated. We can talk about that more, but it doesn't seem like. And then and then also parking revenues from parking at the rose quarter in two of the four garages, which were, you know, they're sort of called the city garages, the east and west garages. The city collects the revenue from those garages, revenue. If you park in the garden garage or the annex garage goes to city management. So be careful where you park at the rose quarter, right? You want to go into the east and west garages if possible. And then we also receive some interest on on fund balance, right. Investments, which actually has been significant recently because we've been spending down the bond proceeds on the coliseum renovation project, which is almost done. So there's actually quite a bit of that in the last couple of years. That's all required because of the bonding requirements to go into the coliseum project. So it doesn't really help the other projects, although it's good for the for that one. And then we get a small allocation from the visitor facility intergovernmental agreement, which comes from the visitor facility trust account, which is funded by a portion of the transient lodging taxes and vehicle rental car fees.
Okay. That's great. That's really helpful. Just to give a sort of a rough estimate, but I, I have a lingering concern about the, the specific funding thing. I'm sorry.
Point of order. Was there a number in any of that? No. Was there a single number in that answer? Oh.
The visitor here.
Let's, let's, let's do it. Let's do it. Let's do it right now. So in fiscal year 2425, I'll go down my list. We received 2.9 million in blazers user fees. And we received 4.3 million in user fees for non blazers events at moda center. And this is an interesting trend because this is something that's changed since since COVID. Just to go down a rabbit hole for a second up until 2019 or so, the blazers user fees were a larger portion than the blazers events. But in the last 5 to 6 years, we've seen so much growth in the concert business and other events that we now see considerably more coming in from non blazers user fees. So that's kind of interesting. Coliseum user fees were only $650,000 for, let's see, a total amount of user fees at the rose quarter of 7.9 million. Blazers related parking revenue was 1.4 million. And non blazers related parking revenue. And this is combined. This isn't moda only. But all the other things that rose quarter were 2.5 almost 2.6 million.
Thank you.
That's great. I really appreciate the.
We also got 1.2 million in rents and reimbursements. So there's a profit sharing deal and some rent on the office building. The profit sharing applies to the coliseum only, but that was 1.2 million. And then 531,000 from the visitor facilities intergovernmental agreement allocation that I mentioned this.
This will be my last question because I'm taking a. I'm taking up too much space, but on the the on the, the survey that we sent out, we included different conversation about different pots of money. And I noticed that in the results, one of them said, oh yeah, use the spectator venue fund. That makes a lot of sense. I've heard. I've heard you say in conversation that the moda center is subsidizing all the rest of the facilities and that until we last year or 2024, I guess, rather, when we took ownership, we weren't in an ongoing way contributing out of that spectator fund into the maintenance. Are there specific concerns about using that spectator venue fund in the next five years? What happens if if the city assumes full responsibility for maintenance? If the city assumes 50% maintenance, what could we be looking at in terms of support for the providence park or other spectator venues? There are some trade offs.
I guess. Yeah. So I mean, so basically the, the, the, the team's perspective is that all of the revenues generated by moda center should be going back into moda center, right. And understandably, from their perspective, it's not great that, you know, that we've been spending, you know, and it's the city's dollars to, to, to do whatever we want with. Right. But they've been spent on other activities within the program. So that is how we've paid for the debt service at providence park, for example, and other projects at some of the projects at veterans memorial coliseum and at other obligations of the of the fund administration, whatever, all of that. The more we put the available resources in the fund into motor projects, the less there is available for the other facilities. Absolutely. Right. So, you know, we have we have done and we don't know exactly where this is going to end up yet. So it's hard to say with any sort of clarity, you know, exactly what the implications of where we end up on a proposed deal will be because we haven't negotiated it. But yeah, I would say from my perspective anyway, there is some concern that we would over commit those dollars to, to make the mode of thing happen. And then we're creating additional problems, you know, around providence park or the coliseum or other obligations. So I think it's a valid concern, one that we just don't really have clear answers for yet.
Thank you. Carl councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thanks, council president, I have a question. And then I can list some of the things that I care about. So it's I'm not sure, folks, the public knows that it says in the bridge lease this lease that we're under right now, specifically that the arena operator, which is rip city management, is the one in charge of keeping the arena first class. So do we know how much the team currently owes? How far are we today from first class, and what will happen to that owed money in a possible future lease?
Yeah, so so that's a great question. One of the strongest provisions in the original 1995 ground lease was this what we call the first class standard. And it essentially, and actually it's worth mentioning at this point also that that original ground lease, if we if it's not clear to folks already, it, it stated that, you know, because the city owns the land, the arena is privately developed, but at the end of that lease, if not extended or, you know, otherwise, you know, amended, the ownership of the building would revert to the city for a dollar. So like that, that deal was actually set in 1995. We we actually did it a couple years, one year early because we accepted the building in 2024 instead of waiting for the lease to expire in 2025. But that construct was there from the very beginning. An additional piece in that original lease was that there's a requirement for the team to keep the building in a first class operating standard for facilities of its age. That's legally a little bit unclear exactly what that would mean in a situation where we tried to enforce that term, because the building is now over 30 years old. And, you know, many buildings of that age have been majorly renovated or, or, you know, replaced. Even. So, you know, there's, there's some conversation that would have to happen there. But I do think it's fair to say that there are some things identified in the facility condition assessment that that are items that would need to be addressed in order to say that the facility is truly meeting that first class standard, even for a 30 year old facility. Not all of it. Right. It's I don't think it's everything in there, but I, but I do think that that first class standard has an expectation that that those systems, while old, are operating at, at a, you know, at a, at a fully functional first class level. So this is, this is a term that, you know, frankly, new ownership and the team is seeking to, to replace with a new operating lease, right? So there isn't a lot of consideration that they would, you know, bring it to a standard and then we would enter a new lease and, and do the renovation project. So this is, I think you can think of the city, if we choose to enter a new lease and sort of forgive that previous requirement, that is another sort of a give in a situation where the blazers were to end the lease and perhaps relocate eventually. I think the city the program would certainly then, you know, try to recoup some of those costs through through enforcing that provision.
Is that a number that we can get at some point or a ballpark?
Not not really.
Councilor, if I might, my my guess, and I can say this is not a city employee, is that it would be the subject of litigation. So I think it would depend on who you ask.
Okay. All right. Appreciate the counselors that are asking for some more details and information. It sounds a lot very similar to what I heard in the meeting with the county and heard from, especially commissioners moyer and brim edwards. The need for more information. And brim edwards focused on the lack of any robust type of economic impacts. Analysis of the proposal, and commissioner Moyer heard her talking about frustration with the loss of property tax revenue, loss of services at the county, and really emphasized the need to fill that gap. So I agree with my colleagues that are saying, you know, we really can't talk about like compare and decide trade offs unless we have those comps in a really detailed way. So I first, every nba deal I've looked at has the owners participate in the financial contribution stack. I think we should be holding to that same standard. I also like the idea of paying them, paying rent, naming rights for us, payment in lieu of tax, rock solid, high paying union jobs that allow arena workers to live a dignified life here in Portland. I don't think we just need 4000 jobs. I think we need 4000 good jobs. I am committed to doing the work and investment to repair historical harm caused upon those in the albina neighborhood. And then this one is a little more like my personal hat on. And I don't think this is one that you negotiate as much until the end. But street pricing, ticket and concession prices being fair. And for everyday portlanders, I took my kids to the ncaa thing recently. It was very fun and my kids, I couldn't afford to buy my kids a box of candy. It was like 12 bucks. So wanting families to be able to enjoy games, concerts without breaking the bank on a box of candy or a bag of popcorn. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane councilor Morillo.
Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you, council president. So I expect moving forward for these work sessions that karl hirsch is going to be here in the room with us, ready to answer questions. I think it's unacceptable that he is not here today. I expect mayor wilson to be here as well, since he's the executive and will be implementing this. He needs to be able to answer our questions too, especially since he's getting information we are not. I expect that we are going to be. I at least plan to send follow up emails with all of my questions written down. I want a public faq
Of all of the questions the counselors are asking, which counselors asked, which questions and answers to all of that. Who do I direct those questions to? Is it you, donnie?
Sure, miss councilor.
And councilor. If I can just quickly acknowledge hirsch is watching. And I think our intent with this session was to do more listening than talking, but absolutely. At the exact session on the 16th and the next work session on the 22nd are. Our full team will be here to present information and answer your questions.
That's great. I have already been to 50 extremely vague executive sessions where I have stated the things that I need to get information to make decisions. I don't need another public work session to do that. I need information now. And I'm telling you right now, I am not doing this timeline by the end of the summer with a lack of information that we are receiving right now. So now I will move into the things that I want and then some of the value statements. And I hope that you're taking a lot of notes. I definitely want the information on the spectator venues and the visitor funds, specifically, how the use of those funds will impact our commitments on other maintenance needs. And I will send all of this in a follow up email as well. I want confirmation of the figures on the impact on property taxes that president Dunphy asked about across local government jurisdictions following the transfer of ownership to the city. I want more information on what councilor Koyama Lane was asking about, and specifically whether the city is considering a proposal of that clause in a future lease about the first class clause, and I want to just reemphasize everything that councilors, Koyama Lane and Green have brought up for inclusion in the contract, specifically the rent and private capital aspects. I especially want to flag the necessity of private capital contribution. If the owners put up just 25% of the $600 million price tag on this renovation and agreed to pay rent equivalent to what the hurricanes pay in raleigh. That alone would cover the upfront costs being asked of the city and the county. I think it's unacceptable that we're not having that discussion right now. We are talking about a project with a total cost of nearly $900 million. Add to that $300 million in interest, and the public will be paying north of $1 billion for this renovation. A substantial portion of that cost, probably about half, is not advancing life and safety for the arena. It is largely upgrades that put revenue directly in the pockets of a billionaire. Unless the city decides to invest in these luxuries and demands a return on that investment. That includes $100 million in luxury suite renovations. Regardless, we have heard about how these costs aren't so bad because the state is contributing $365 million. It's been common in the last decade or so for the owners and the public to split construction costs and the like. 5050, the state is already offering 60% upfront, while the city is being asked to fund another $285 million ongoing for the next 20 years, and asking for the city and county to cover the remaining 40% strikes me as wanting a better than market deal, and I'm not looking for a better than market deal for anyone who's not a portlander. And this isn't just about getting a fair deal, though. The hundreds of millions of dollars that the owners would normally pay for in a deal like this, but that the public is being asked to pay for here means service cuts. As commissioner Moyer pointed out at the county this week, the county is being asked to put $35 million towards this deal, despite the projected general fund deficit of $78 million over the next four years. That's going to force cuts in school based mental health during a mental health epidemic among youth. It will force cuts in domestic violence shelters and victim services. And here on this dais, we just made huge cuts to our core services and to. To nearly 100 city employees who do absolutely critical work for the city. So I think I can speak for everyone when I say that I am not happy. And we are not happy to have to make cuts in public safety, in parks and everywhere else that we are being forced to make, and we're going to be looking at difficult deficits in the future if we don't find a way to raise revenue. So that means even more cuts to core services. The options on the table here, at least from the limited information that I have been given, are shaky at best and fiscally irresponsible at worst. And it seems absurd to tout this as a good deal. A good deal would be substantially diversifying our sources of funding to include private investment and to ensure at least a break even return on investment for the public. That's the bare minimum. If the owners put up just 25%, that again, is going to cover the upfront costs that for the city and county, and that's what's been done in other cities. There are numerous other terms that are both common and fair, and it's time for people who are making these decisions and gathering this data to give that to us. Counselors, I don't ever want to come to a council session again where you are rattling off numbers to us that are not in a public presentation or a spreadsheet that are publicly accessible. I should not be scrambling to take down notes and chicken scratch on the little pieces of data that we receive here and there, incidentally, because we happen to ask the right question. I need that all written out in a spreadsheet. I want the spreadsheet of all spreadsheets, and then I want a presentation that makes that simple for the public so they know what they can ask for to. And I am sorry if I'm being really stern right now, but I'm also not that sorry, because apart from you who just joined our team, sorry you're here when I'm very angry. You're wonderful. But we have been asking for this in every single executive session thus far, so I don't think I'm bringing anything crazy. And the people that we were told were presenting today did not come to present. We were not I didn't know that we were going to be having a discussion about a discussion. I thought we were really going to get into the meat of it today. And I'm. So those are the things I will be asking for. Dca oliveira. I will be sending you a follow up email, or my staff will be with all of these questions. And again, I want that public q&a. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilor. Morillo. Councilor. Ryan.
Thank you, council president, and thank you, the three of you that are up here right now, I think it's probably good you're staying there. I appreciate that we're having this conversation. Colleagues. We really haven't had a conversation like this yet. So this is really awesome. It should be our priority to reach an agreement on a term sheet where we as a council, are united on what we consider success looks like. And I think by listening to my colleagues today, I'm getting a better sense of that for the first time, both for Portland taxpayers and for blazer fans everywhere. In my opinion, success looks like the following. Portland earns revenue. We should see a return on our investment, and we should have that specced out. We should have the best in show nba caliber arena. We're investing in our arena, and again, it should be best in show with nba arenas around the country, blazers must stay in Portland. That means bound to Portland for 30 years. Not 20 is not enough. There should be no opportunity for a buyout and no chance to simply pay a penalty to get that buyout. An agreement with the nba owners and commissioner Silver considered that they consider as reasonable. We need nba board of governors and the commissioner on our side in support of the terms, the term sheet that we come up with, we don't want texas, tom, to say that that he just couldn't work with us. Got it. Jobs, jobs, jobs, neighborhood activation from the river to moda center through the lloyd center, including areas of lower albina, big district two bias here. Big picture Portland bias as well. Speaking of big picture, we need something Portland can be proud of. Just like we're all so proud of the airport. We have an international airport, a brand that really helps us a lot. Everyone loves our airport. We feel pride about that airport. When you land there, you have the great first impression of Portland. Let's follow it up with having that same experience. When you see an international brand called nba and us having that type of arena. Colleagues, when I play this forward, I can't see one scenario where having an international brand, the Portland trail blazers, again, we only have two leave our city. And that's going to be good for the long term for my hometown. That's where I'm coming from. I look forward to continuing to figure out what success looks like, and for us to get together on what our terms are like, so we can take this seriously. Thanks.
Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues, it is 333. I'm going to give us a 12 minute bathroom break. 11 minute bathroom break. It's 330 for now. Everybody, please be back here at 345 minutes. Sorry.
Diego.
Let's do this thing. Okay. We are coming back. Thank you all for your patience while we took a quick human break. We're going to start with councilors councilor, Novick and then pirtle-guiney. And then Koyama Lane. Councilor. Sorry. Councilor. Novick.
Thank you, mr. President. So one of the more valuable things I've seen in the last few weeks was something that basically said, here's how much we would have to spend in order to keep the arena in its current condition over the next 20 years. And then here's how much that we'd have an ongoing maintenance if this renovation happened, and here's how much the state and the county are putting in. And that wound up sort of looking like the we wind up saving more money in maintenance costs, even after putting out the 120 million than if we took on all the maintenance costs ourselves. Is that right?
Yes. I think you're referring to the facility condition assessment. Right. Which kind of looked at a 20 year spending plan to keep the building operating, you know, in its current configuration, absent the major transformative renovation, but keeping everything going, you know, in in tip top shape. And that estimated between 4 and $500 million worth of work. And you're absolutely right that, you know, that those are costs that that would need to be invested in the building and the city as the owner of the building without it, you know, it's hard to know. Like, do we have an operator in that scenario who's contributing or not? We don't know, but it's possible we wouldn't. And then those would essentially be city costs to keep the building running.
Okay. And I mean, that's something I think that it should be like a very public website saying, you know, here is the value of what the state is offering. But another question is, I mean, I think we need to spell out for people, and most of my questions are about things that I want myself, but I also want the public to know, like, what exactly is the is the $400 million we need to spend to keep the building in its current condition, sort of like list out some of the things that are necessary. And also a, at what point would we have to just shut the building down? Do things start like falling on people's heads? Is that 2032? When is it? And another thing I think we need to get at is, is this building always going to be a money pit? Because my impression is if we're only making like, you know, $6 million a year that we get in revenues from the building or something to that effect, then we, you know, we'll well, the building will always be costing us some money. So I think that should sort of be spelled out. And I think another thing I think would be useful is ranges of types of revenues we could get based on different assumptions, like what do we get if we get revenues from concessions? How much revenue do we get? If we have street pricing, how much revenue do we get? If we have labor guarantees, living wage, you know, what are the, what are the what are the impacts of those things? I mean, councilor Green was talking about what his priorities are. I think my priorities would probably be for living wages for employees would take precedence over prices. But I'd like to see sort of some gradations of based on these assumptions, here's how much money the city makes. Here's how much people have to pay. We all both all of us have said we'd like to see how much of the grand blazer vision, how much money is for blazer specific things, because I think that we should be pushing to get the blazers to pay for things that are blazer specific. And another thing that I think that we need to I mean, if we need to contemplate the possibility that we do just shut the arena down at some point and we should say, okay, if we don't put any renovations in, then the building shuts down in 2032. But that saves us from having to spend $400 million or 200 million or whatever it is in maintenance. And I do think that it's useful to see. I mean, one question I have is actually that's a very basic question. Are we getting any money from the naming rights now?
No.
What?
No, no.
So have we. I mean, have we put it out to bid for somebody else?
No. I mean, that was a negotiated term at the beginning of the of the deal, which was that the naming rights were the the rights of the operator.
Oh, okay.
Yeah. And actually so stadium is the same thing for for example.
All right. So we would need to I mean, but but okay. Is the operator getting money from the naming rights right now. Oh yes. How much.
We don't know.
That's not public interesting.
I mean do we. It's not public. So do we have an idea of what naming rights are worth in other jurisdictions? You know, similarly.
Jurisdictions get that. Yeah.
And I mean, one thing I'd be interested in is how much could we expect to get for naming rights, assuming we're the ones getting them if the blazers are there, as opposed to if they're not, what we expect to get, if it's just a music arena.
Much less. Yeah.
Yeah, I think, but it would be nice. It would be nice to know that. I mean, I think I've implicitly said this earlier, but I'd like to know what parking revenues we might get depending on different levels of what we're charging for parking and how that compares to other arenas. And do we so we sort of have a choice. Do we want to make more money by charging the highest antibody charges for parking, or do we make less by charging a small amount for parking?
Yeah, I mean, the garage is generally fill for large events. So, so you're obviously making more by charging more.
And councilor Novick if I can further complicate this for you. Sure. You talked earlier about I mean, for these venues, we certainly are experiencing this at metro. It's a depreciating asset. And so having to there are always going to be new costs that are going to come forward. And it all just depends on what the values are and what the trade offs are. You know, for the expo center, for instance, that that model, that business model has changed quite a bit over the decades that it's been in operation. And so metro has had to spend a lot of time in research and trying to figure out, okay, well, what, what is that next piece look like? Similar conversations, obviously, around the p5 venues. Keller. Looking at what types of events do you want? How often do you want to have it in there? And then that all depending on the type of events that tells you the types of investments and the types of structural changes you need to make. And some of that creates more, again, more venues and then more parking revenue. And then, you know, it kind of keeps going. We've, we've talked about this with improvements at the concession stands in the keller. And so you can, you can complicate this quite a bit. And so as we have some of those inputs, and I think I'll work with staff to try to get you some of these answers. But what I want to make clear for the public to is that that's going to be all of these things interact with each other, and it really just depends on what the vision for the arena is. And where do you want do you want it to be first in class? Do you want it to be open and available all the time? Do you want to have subsidized events for the public to be able to use it? You know, these are all these questions and then you want to get. And then what other revenue sources are available based on the amenities that you have in the arena?
Another question. I have to be honest, this might be sort of academic interest is is there anybody anywhere who actually makes money off facilities like these? And and if there is, why does it appear like there's no real prospect of ever making money off of it? It is, is it that we took a building with hundreds of billions of dollars in deferred maintenance and they've been up to snuff, then we could be making money off of it.
So I'm not the expert on this, but what I can say from the limited information that I have is obviously it depends on who the operator is and what the values are. So if it's a fully private operator operator that's running it as a business, which is not the case here. You know, they're they're not going to want to have street level pricing, for instance, or high wage jobs, family wage jobs. And so there are some some trade offs there that the public and the public sector. This is also the case for metro venues. We've made decisions which really kind of hurt our bottom line because of the values that that that we have now. I don't know that every deal is different for some of these venues, but that is a challenge. Unfortunately, or fortunately for for public sector venue operators.
I think it is worth, you know, spelling that out for people. So we have an example of a similar arena that's privately run that actually makes money. I'd like to see what the differences are. Why are they making money? And we're not.
Councilor like that's what we're contemplating right now with the p5 venues, right? They've been managed publicly. Right now we have to subsidize them. Is there a model where we have a third party operator, nonprofit or private? We'll figure that out. That can run it at cost recovery at a minimum and perhaps even make revenue. So we're looking at that for p5. We'll have to consider that with with providence park as well. And then of course, you're asking the question about the arenas. So we can look at that.
I think that it's because I think the public is going to want is, is going to largely to share our values as to things like pricing and labor agreements, etc. But the public is also going to want to know, wait a minute, why, if you own this building, can't you make some money off it? So I think it's going to be helpful to explain what the trade offs are and to be able to say possibly, well, we could make money off of it, except we don't want to screw workers and consumers.
What are the trade offs? Yeah, yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president. I am. As as I hear my colleagues and think about my own list that I've written down and very aware of this odd dynamic where some of what we are talking about is related to the venue. And what we do with the venue and some is related to rip city management as the property manager, and some is related to the blazers as our primary tenant. And some of the things that we are asking for are things that we actually, as the city control, that frankly, we should not give the blazers or rip city management or anybody else any bargaining power over, we should just do them. Some of them are things we need to talk to. Our manager currently rip city management about, and some are things that have more to do with the blazers. And so I just I want to note that because I don't want us to put things on the table in a lease negotiation that we could just do or say we are doing. I don't want us to come to the table with free items. And by free, I don't mean cost. I mean things that are easy yeses for the other side and therefore allow them to say, we gave you these wins when they actually did not give us anything at all. And so I just want to start with that framing, because I am very worried that as we conflate all of these different things that we need for the community, for portlanders in how moda ultimately operates, that we're conflating pieces that we should be getting in different spaces and ways. To that end, I think it's really important to ask the questions about should we be doing this renovation? If so, what does that look like? And then if so, what does the lease agreement look like? And I will just say, from my perspective as a district two councilor, this arena is in my district. We need to renovate it. The idea that moda has fewer and fewer active nights a year moving forward, because there are just fewer events it can support. Is not an not not a future that I want us to be moving toward. So then I ask the question, okay, then what does that look like? Right? What are the sources of funding? What are we putting it toward? And when I think about the bottom lines there. It is a bottom line for me that we are paying to upgrade the arena for accessibility, right? There are parts of the arena you can only get to right now through one elevator. That's not acceptable. We need to be looking at upgrades that make life easier for the people who work there. The fact that the loading docks and rigging are such that our crews that work on events at moda have to put in significantly more work to do the same thing compared to what happens in other arenas is not acceptable. There are pieces like that that I think are our bottom lines around what are we funding? And to that end, there's a very distinct line for me, maybe not a clear one, but a distinct one between upgrades that are about usability for many users of the arena, the functionality of the arena, sustainability of the arena. Those are things that I am very comfortable talking about public dollars for, because this is a facility we own and we are making it a a more usable facility. There are things that are about. A better arena for basketball locker rooms that are more functional for the fire, not just the blazers, that are about specific users, but about us having good lease agreements with those users that I think are important for us to talk about public dollars for. But perhaps the space for those more expansive conversations that some of my colleagues have noted. But I'm not uncomfortable talking about public dollars there. And then there are things like owner suites and pieces like that that I very much think we need to be looking at the users who are asking for those to fund. So as you think about what are the bottom lines, I'm going to be looking at what funds are going toward. And I also think there's a really important piece of transparency here. We know that there are many portlanders who don't trust this process right now. And so I think that information, what funds are going to what parts of the project is going to be really important to be clear on for transparency sake to I want to talk about a couple of things that I want to see, some of which might fall into a lease agreement with rip city management or with the blazers and some of which might not, but all of which have to do less with what happens with the arena remodel and more about what happens with the use of the arena and the involvement of blazers and rip city management moving forward. And I recognize that I'm blurring that line. I asked us to separate some in these, but they're all in that kind of. After the renovation category. The first is jobs in the trifecta of lower costs, revenue for the city and good jobs. There need to be good jobs in this arena. The city of Portland has no business funding, low wage jobs that work, that require portlanders to be reliant on public supports. And as long as we own this arena, that statement extends to the jobs in this arena. So that can look a lot of different ways. You had asked us not to get too deep into tools. I won't we need good jobs. They're not necessarily all full time jobs. These are events. I understand that, but they need to be high quality jobs. The second thing is a strong commitment to be a proactive neighbor, and for moda to be a neighborhood asset, we know that there is going to be significant change through the work of albina vision trust through the work of 1803 fund in the areas directly adjacent to moda center, and either we have a manager of moda center and core tenants there who say, hey, great to see you over there. Thanks for the work you're doing and frankly, reap the benefit of those investments, because activation of the spaces around moda will be nothing but good for the users of moda. Or we have a manager and tenants who say, hey, we are invested in you. We are invested in your success because we know it contributes to our success. We are invested in your success because we bring this city up together, and we absolutely must see a strong commitment to be not just a, hey, how you doing, neighbor, but a proactive, involved neighbor adding value to the neighborhood from our manager and our main tenants at moda. Again, that can look a lot of different ways. I won't get into the specific tools, but I know that there are some really interesting ideas that albina vision trust has floated. I know that there are some incredible creative thinkers in the community looking at how moda, just given the space that it takes up and the opportunity that comes with that square footage, could provide value to the surrounding areas. And I believe that we need to be taking those very seriously. I don't think enough people have said this yet, so I will say we need a clear commitment from the blazers to stay in Portland for the long haul. If we are investing in an arena that is optimized for both concerts and basketball, as well as other events, which I assume we are going to do, though I guess that's a question we should probably ask. Do we want this to be a concert venue, a sports venue, a something else? If we are making investments specifically for basketball, we need our basketball teams to be committed to being here for the the payoff term of those investments. And if they are not, then we need a payout for those investments. And we need to see more. I think just know three more things I apologize. We need to see more activation of that space. We have not taken full advantage of that space. And I hear a lot of my colleagues talking about revenue from the facility, the way that we get more revenue from the facility. If we want to focus on things like good jobs or street pricing, is by having more activation of the facility. So if we are talking about an external property manager, they need to be committed to optimizing activation of that space. I have had well, related to that, I guess I'll go next to self generating revenue for ongoing needs at the facility. I know we've had a lot of conversations about the different ways that revenue can be generated at the facility. One of my colleagues asked for revenue back to the general fund. I would much rather see us at our ongoing investment needs because there is self-generating revenue at the facility. How are we making sure that the dollars generated there are not going somebody else's bottom line, but are going into the facility, into the ongoing maintenance? And how are we using this point in time while we make a very large potential investment to think about the next end of life conversation, whether that's another remodel or saying that this arena has reached the end of its life. When you start planning for those things five years in advance, you're already in a crisis. When you plan for that 15 or 20 years in advance, you have a plan. So how are we making sure that that self generating revenue is part of building toward a conversation about whatever happens next? I have had a lot of conversations with community members about community access, and I want to put that on the list that you have. Also, knowing that community access can mean a lot of different things. And I've been trying to avoid tools, but I want to name three things that I've heard from community members, all of which I think are really interesting, none of which I am specifically tied to being the answer. But I think we do need to show portlanders that there is some level of community space in this community place, and it could look like a lot of different things. I have had community members suggest that there be a minimum number of community events a year, and there would be applications to the city on what those are. Maybe we prioritize school events could look a lot of different ways, but that there be 10 or 12 or some number of nights reserved for community events. I have had community members ask about dedicating one of the boxes to community organizations, and I've had conversations with a few people about specifically prioritizing youth organizations to put in to get access one event a year for each organization to a box for, for community groups, for free access. I had a really interesting conversation with a portlander who said, you know, on broadway, there are raffled off cheap tickets every night for shows. What if we reserved a certain number of tickets, half a section for a raffle for every event, not just basketball, for everything we do at moda for highly affordable seats for community members. I am not tied to any of those three things being the answer, but I do think we need to have a conversation about what it means for the community to have access to this space, and how that is part of what we do. And again, depending on our setup, that could be something that we just say we own this building, that is a part of it. It could be a part of a negotiation with a a property manager. I don't think it's related to the blazers as a tenant at all. So as we think about our bargaining power, let's make sure we're being careful with that one. But I think there's a there there. Finally, I just want to come back to the idea of accountability and transparency that I stated at the beginning, because how we move forward with the information that we talk about in this space and that you share with us, is really important. And not every portlander is able to watch our meetings, but we can share things that are publicly available online quite easily with far more people. And so as we start getting into conversations about what are we actually paying for? What are the different dollar sources and what is each dollar source going to? I think it's really important to have that information, at least at a high level, very available. The state has said that there's money available if certain conditions are met. Presumably their money goes first to meeting those conditions. There are some things that I think if we do, like I said, there needs to be private money for. Let's be clear about that. What is it that city dollars have to go toward, and therefore, what are the most responsible sources of funding? I just think that needs to be a very clear conversation. And while I'm talking about the state dollars, I will just note that if we are going to optimize this arena for basketball, let's make sure we do it on a timeline where we can take advantage of those state dollars. I don't want to be talking about 300 million more city dollars, because we didn't take advantage of the state dollars on the table. I think we still need to answer that question. Are we doing this in a way that meets the conditions they've laid out? But if we are, let's take that money and use it as part of what we're doing. Council president, I'm trying to stick to just the questions at hand, so I'm going to stop there. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Councilor pirtle-guiney councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you. Kind of basic question that commissioner Edwards was asking yesterday that I think would be helpful for us is to get an itemized list of improvements to know what is the 600 million for. And because without that, it's really hard to make a decision going forward. And I am going to go back. I know I asked, I kind of felt a little drowned in legalese, but councilor, Novick and I were talking about this a little more. There is a bridge lease right now that says the team is in charge of keeping the arena first class, so how can we figure out, even if it's ballpark, how much the team currently owes and how far we are from first class? And you know what has happened to that? What's going to happen to that owed money? So I would like to put that question out there again and hope that I can get answers to both of those.
Right now or someday.
Councilor those are that's a very complex question, but we'll definitely dive in with our team and see what we can come up with, even to give you a range. But I think, as kristen said, there's there's a. Opinions may vary on that answer.
I think that's the case. That's the case with a lot of this. Opinions vary very different opinions around what the economic impact is around almost all of these. Yeah.
Well, and what I would say about that, that specific need is that Portland city staff may come up with an amount that they say is owed part, which I think is an important data point for you all when I run and recognize is that the other party may not agree that that is the actual amount. And so then it might be somewhere in the middle. Those are both important data points for you, so we can make sure to get them for you. I just want to make clear about that.
And that happens a lot just in negotiations. Sure that happens. But even to have have some numbers and know what we're talking about would be helpful.
Absolutely.
Thank you. Councilor. Koyama Lane. Councilor Green.
Mitch Green: Thank you. Council president, just wanted to come back in with some additional comments and questions I neglect, I neglected earlier. I didn't get through my full list of things I'd like to see in here, because I just sort of got spun up on other ideas in my head. But a labor peace agreement is very important to me. I know, I know that's you're hearing that across the dais, and I just wanted to make sure that I was explicitly expressing that that perspective. That's in addition to the project labor agreement. I know that that's going in a negotiation. That means that you might give up on some other areas, but I don't want to give up on that. The I know we're not supposed to talk about tools today, but I think what I'd like clarity on is the term sheet. Is the term sheet going to have funding? Yeah. And so I think if we're trying to indicate today how to be prepared with a term sheet. The thing that's sort of elephant in the room is the Portland clean energy fund. And I think I know that there's going to be a PCEF committee conversation coming up. But for me, you know, this facility conditions assessment, which is 500 and some odd million dollars, there's probably things in that itemized list that are weatherization projects and the like. But I think I've been hearing a lot about transformational investments, things like district heating, district cooling, rooftop solar. And so if we're doing big piece effable concepts, does that not add to the cost? And then so then if PCEF, if the $75 million that the mayor put down in March to get the state legislature to say, cool, we'll we'll meet you there. If that's the play, doesn't that not just get eaten up by all this extra new stuff? That would be part of it. So we're still left with a funding gap.
Councilor. That's that is such an important question. And thank you for bringing up piece f in particular to, to name this, because we are still very much like prepared to enter into the negotiations, those requirements. I think councilor Kanal just mentioned it as well. Like, what are the things that we're prioritizing and the range of options that you might do to improve an arena? Like, what is this today you are telling us a long list of things that you want us to contemplate. This is helpful. This helps us start to prepare for our term sheet, including, hey, if we're going to put in 575 of public dollars representing the county and the state for one second, these are our priorities. These are where the investments need to be. We don't want to prioritize owner suites. We want to prioritize investments in battery storage or climate resiliency. That is what you are arming us with as directive to go negotiate for on terms. And so the ideal would be that we're targeting this. 575 number 75, which again, to be determined is safe. But that's part of the 575. It's not 75 on top of whatever the blazers want. We have agency in that negotiation. And and you're seeing this right now essentially. I mean, not just the only time, of course, with some of that directive.
I appreciate that. I think that's but I think some folks have been sold on this idea that PCEF can be this big transformational, clean energy boon, but I don't see that in the facility condition assessment.
So if I might, there there's a lot of conversation that still needs to happen that will come back. And what we bring you bring forward to you. And there's a lot of as we talked about, there's a lot of different pieces. There's the arena, there's the neighborhood, there's a bunch of different things that are together, and they all relate to each other, but they are different deals. So there is going to be a conversation. So when we're talking about the state money, what what the state statute looks at is kind of a meaningful I can't remember what the amount, but, you know, a meaningful local investment there aim at that right now seems to be at about $120 million. It is unclear whether those. And it's not in the the state statute itself, whether that is has to be in the arena itself, whether it can be around the area. And so that is a separate piece of negotiation that we're going to have to do in our relationship with the state as well, to kind of define what types of the scope of the project. So both for kind of the immediate investments and then kind of the scope of future projects as well. So this is, this is we have an immediate issue in front of us in terms of these investments, but there are further conversations that council is going to need to have around, you know, additional investments that happen later.
Yeah, thank you for that. And so what I'm hearing is there's some potential for the scope of this to grow.
If council chooses to. Yes.
Yeah. So I guess what I'm, I'm really worried about here is we adopt a term sheet that provides some discussion and some indication around one scope. And then we say yes to that scope, and then the scope then grows, and then the cost then grows. And then taxpayers are watching all that happen. So that's important.
And I'm hearing that very clearly, and particularly as some of the lessons learned, that a lot of the information that's been around around other terms in other stadiums, in other places have been where that where that same thing has happened. And I'm hearing very clearly from council wanting to be very clear about which pots of money go to which pieces of the the infrastructure.
Thank you. And then will the term sheet contemplate things like district taxing, district stuff? Kind of, you know, those sort of those other tools.
If that's something that council's interested in us contemplating, or if another party like the state or the blazers want to talk about it, that would be negotiated. But that is not necessarily something.
Not going to bring that necessarily in a few weeks.
Not necessarily.
Okay. Yeah.
Thank you. And council, I don't know if you saw the memo that carl had produced that sort of tried to kind of give you an example of like, what's in the fca, sorry, the facilities condition assessment versus like what the like the blazers ask was or basketball centric, whatever you want to say. There's also this reality that there are, there's a punch list in the fca, but there's just a larger like when you upgrade any facility, in this case, an arena, you're making broader investments in things that might not be as obvious as on a punch list, like an elevator or a or a, you know, loading dock. It might be expanding, you know, the concourse as an example, that's more, you know, less, less functionally required. But it just improves the, the arena experience for, for guests as an example.
Thank you. And my last question is so. Councilor. Novick, you actually raised a really good line of questioning, which was sort of like the long term liability cost of the thing that we agreed to enter into in 2024, before most of us were on the city council. We do have to think about that. Councilor pirtle-guiney, you also raised similar questions we have to be planning for. That is part of this conversation, although this is the worst case scenario. But if the blazers were to leave, are we are we trying to price in do some sort of market comps for what it would look like to do a competitive bid for a new operator? Because in seattle they did that and they paid for an upgrade?
Yeah. Councilor, thank you for just naming this for one second. So I just want to use the moment to say for council, one of the important stage gates of this August moment is that if we don't land on a term sheet with with you all that you agree to that the blazers sign off on, which are also signaling to us, is that we pivot into a future without an nba franchise. We still have a wnba franchise. We still have, you know, an arena that needs to have, you know, but that's we have to start thinking about that world. I don't think that's going to happen. I'm just saying that is part of this. This process is understanding what the direction of the moda center.
Thank you. And I just think, as you know, as the state's doing their independent economic analysis and we're refreshing ours, that does seem like part of the broad stack of cost benefit analysis. When we think about the discounted cash flow, the long term total cost and benefit. So I hope that's part of the consideration. Thanks.
Thank you, councilor Green.
Mitch Green: Councilor Kanal thank you, council president. Thanks for getting the scheduled as well. Thanks for being here. Thanks, mayor wilson, for coming back. Chris and laura, appreciate the information, and chris and I really appreciate you taking this work on in support of of the council here on this. I'm a district two councilor. This is in district two. I support public ownership. I support public investment and public assets. I'm a blazer fan who's gone to moda since the rose garden was new. I also strongly defend defend the will of the voters to determine what piece of dollars go to. And I don't believe an elected official should overturn that. I also know the fiscal crisis we're in as a city and the other spending priorities we could spend this money on. And I also know that one of the reasons our commercial spaces sit empty around the city is that commercial landlords in the city expect tenants to improve their own spaces. To put another way, I'm aware of the nuances and complexities of this conversation decision point, and I'm approaching this issue with interest in the details and not big picture, big picture statements, because I want to come up with the best possible option and then determine if I can support it or not. This is a publicly owned arena in the district. It's situated near to two other parts of our district, which are have potential large scale changes and historical underinvestment to lloyd and the convention center. And it's all contextualized by them being in historically underinvested in albina, the activities across not just moda but the rose quarter are core parts of the community. From el grito in mid September on the plaza celebrating mexican heritage, to the winterhawks at vmc to professional basketball, as well as concerts inside moda itself and so different parts of the community access different types of events, not just portlanders, but people from across the whole region, which in theory should be able to. We should be able to build a situation where that's money flowing in the building does have needs to keep it as is, to keep up with the evolving needs of the activities that use it, or to be up to the level of a new venue that would host professional basketball as well as concerts. And I think that that's a third tier that hasn't been discussed here. We're comparing the the fca, which is really keep the arena the way it is, and we're talking about like a wish list from one tenant. But there is also that the needs evolve over time. And so keeping the arena as it is, is falling behind. It's maybe not as much as it would be to do the the as good as a brand new arena. But there is a middle place that we have to navigate as well. And the needs that we know of are in bathrooms and cracked cement and accessibility and rigging, moving away from the diesel generators that unionized iatse members have to work and breathe around. There are also some parts that are more publicly visible as well. Obviously, we can't bankrupt the city to do it. We can't overturn election outcomes to do it. We can't have this not be a good financial investment or not good for the community. Beyond just the governmental balance sheets, we can't set ourselves up for failure on future conversations because we tied our hands here. And I think those are consensus positions in the city. What I just said, it's just about does this apply here?
And if so, what do we do about it? But separate from the content. I just have to say, this process has been terrible for city councilors and for the public. Mr. Mayor, we should have been brought in last year, ideally by early November when project mount hood was convened. I don't love reading in the paper that an executive in residence at Oregon state university, Oregon state university's college of representatives from other governments and more were brought in, but not city councilors, especially those who represent the area, were on the council when we brought them to chair. The committee that deals with our economy and or have phds in economics. I think all of those are pretty valuable skill sets to have here. We need time to do this, and we would need that time, even if this was a backroom conversation with just the people on this side of the dais. And I don't think that we really have the time to do that right now, let alone the actual responsibility we have, which is to do this conversation in public and bring our community into the conversation. And just to put a finer point on that, I'm frustrated when I hear that in August, if we don't land on a term sheet with you all that you agreed to, that the blazers sign off on that. It would signal to us that we pivot to a future without an nba franchise. That is putting a gun to our head. And I really, really do not appreciate that because the clock for y'all has started. But it hasn't started for us because we still don't have the information we need. We don't have the information necessary to start the clock. And so what I'm calling for here is a reset. I'm asking for us to start from the top, because this is the first time today that council is discussing this. Recently, a colleague of ours said good process means sitting down, figuring out the math and keeping the public informed and empowered every step of the way. Yeah, let's do that. Please, god, let's do that. And the best way to do that is to center the city council within this government on this issue, because public trust in the city has been hurt immensely by what's been done so far by one part of this government up to and including an email yesterday, pivoting back. It's hard for me to describe my goals because I know saying I support an arena renovation, absent context will be spun as saying I support defunding piece f or something, so I'm not going to call it as goals in that way, but I'm going to describe a realistic vision and also not a perfect world. I want to first class, publicly owned arena with the blazers, the fire, and big concerts. I want it and the plaza activated 300 plus days a year. I want it to benefit the uppercase city through supporting our broader budget. I want it to benefit the lowercase city through good jobs that build our tax base. I want to support the local community and businesses, including through the rebuilding of a historically black neighborhood in albina. I want it to not bankrupt, literally or figuratively, the city. I want any money we use to honor the restrictions voters gave us in ballot measures. And I want people to look at this deal and see a good deal for the city and our tenants, and that's possible for both of us, because it is a privilege to be in Portland, whether you're a resident or a business. And it's time we stop talking about Portland like we have to tolerate being here. We love being here. And I think everybody should too. And if I think as people dig into it, they will. So yeah, councilors need more information. I think it's frankly astonishing that we've been talking about a potential renovation for more than six months, and still haven't received the detailed list of what the city's money would pay for. I've been asking for several months in executive sessions, and I want to be clear, I do not want renderings. I do not want narratives. I want numbers, and I want spreadsheets. That's it. I'm not asking for big fancy drawings. We need to keep doing engagement because, like the council, the public has not felt informed nor empowered through this process. We had to fight to get the public survey open longer than a week, and I'm very grateful that laura was able to do that. That's not how you empower portlanders. In the absence of transparent leadership from the administration, members of council have communicated directly with constituents through newsletters, town halls and social media. Because smart communicators reach people where they already spend their time. So I expect to see more transparency in community outreach from the administration over the coming months, because it's a very big decision involving very big sums of money, and the public has made it clear that they care deeply about it and want their voices not only heard in the sense of entered our ears, but that it informed decision making and artificially compressed timeline does not increase the likelihood of support. It diminishes it. We've heard that the state has a December deadline, and I want to pursue the question of, is there potential for the state to secure that funding on a different timeline? That gives us a little more flexibility. I'm not talking about years. We're talking about months here. We should have a conversation about to what degree having more time might facilitate a better outcome on the content. I have four big concerns financial return PCEF maintaining public ownership of assets beyond just the moda and community benefits. I agree with the mayor. The future of the moda center must be decided on the numbers. The investment would need to see a monetary return. We're not in the financial position of the city to move forward with a nine figure deal that doesn't generate or free up substantial revenue. I agree with councilor Green on this. We must retain some of the money this brings in, not just put it all back into investments made in the moda. Over time, the level of private contributions need to be made clear. Just people need to understand that, including us and having credible economic impact analysis. And by the way, I'm not as pessimistic as some of my colleagues are, I think, on that particular thing. But regardless of whether we're optimistic or pessimistic, we just need the numbers. Secondly, we must honor the will of the voters. If an expense is not acceptable. There's no conversation here for me about using PCEF dollars for it, in my view. And if they are acceptable, there's a conversation, but that's not necessarily a yes. We need to have the conversation about trade offs and opportunity costs of funding sources, because those dollars are currently spoken for in the climate investment plan. And whether you're hearing this issue or someone on a street corner is trying to get you to sign something, people need to know that every dollar of PCEF is committed is not just sitting there unused. That doesn't mean we can't move it around, and I think we should have that conversation. The mayor said this week that if the committee doesn't support using the f resources for the renovation, we should find another funding source. I really appreciate him arriving at that position. It's one I share. Third, we must retain majority ownership of the moda center, even as we continue to negotiate with the state on the joint authority, and we can't tie our hands in this arrangement by committing financial streams here that we will need for providence park in the future. And I just want to make that clear, because right now more money goes into providence park than it generates, and that is made up for by this fund. The spectator venues fund. And then there must, of course, be robust community benefits. And I think we could go through all of those. And I'll mention a couple, but I think the best deal does share costs with our regional partners. I think this building is going to need renovations at some point, no matter what a proposal at a larger scale that splits those costs with the state and county could actually save the city government money as compared to a smaller scale proposal where the city foots the bill alone. Colleagues have mentioned that an agreement is good for the city if it has meaningful benefit for the surrounding area and for all portlanders, not just those who patronize or patronize the moda center. So I mentioned not giving up a majority ownership stake, having a strong roi jobs, strong union jobs, not only through construction. And by the way, we need to make sure that the the contractors are local. That hasn't really been mentioned yet, I don't think in this space, but I know it's been mentioned behind the scenes also for ongoing employment and labor peace, prioritizing necessary improvements, not using public dollars to fund premium perks and upgrades. And the survey results make that clear that that's a community position as well, not violating the will of the voters by using PCEF dollars that aren't for things that aren't acceptable. Committing the team to staying at the moda center. And I wrote down for at least 20 additional years because this 20 year agreement thing has really been floated as 17. Right. We have an agreement through 2030, and it's been about 2027 to 2047. So it's been floated as 20, but it's been 17. But actually, I disagree with councilor Ryan that it should be 30 and we should be done with it and have it go longer. I just really appreciate that.
Councilor Ryan, I'm glad you like the direction though. Yeah that's great.
Yeah. And obviously I think we've already talked about it. But a penalty for breaching that, you know, for relocating, for example, which is so big as to, you know, stop it in its tracks. Mentioned the providence park trade offs, putting in writing who's responsible for cost overruns. I know this has been mentioned. I want to just put that out in the daylight. I want to host a wnba all star game. I want to host an nba all star game. Portland is one of two cities that hasn't hosted an nba all star game, two franchises, four cities. But I think that's an important thing as well. And then in terms of community benefit, I think we could get into it. We probably should at some point. We should talk about all the albina vision trust needs and the things that that the tenants, the management company would be providing as a benefit to the ave and to the neighborhood. We should obviously talk about street level pricing to access to the ice rink for the public at vmc has not been mentioned, and I think that's something we should we should explore as well. And I definitely want to put on the table the conversation around the development rights in the area and the naming rights for the stadium. I think that we're going to have to have that conversation anyway, because moda may have different priorities now that they're pivoting as a business. The company moda. So getting out of the insurance game might mean that they're less interested in having those naming rights. So the timing might be appropriate to have a conversation there. So that's a lot. I just wanted to get it all out there. I apologize, but we've we've been waiting several months. And so I wanted to get that on there. I did want to just for future, not for today, ask if we can get a definitive answer on. Has there ever been an ask from the city executive or administrative branches to any tenants or management companies to contribute private funding? I don't I have not gotten a yes or no on that. If there has been an ask given, I'd like to know when the economic. The fca basically is going to. If that's going to be part of the update or if there's a separate thing coming to. To bring that forward, I'd like to know how the community benefits agreement. If there's any constraints on your ability to negotiate that based on the mayor's executive order about dei, and I'd like to understand the amount of time to me between when we get the itemized list and July 30th, which is the first time we hear it in the committee of the whole, that is our clock. I feel like we're I don't know what this is going to be. Terrible metaphor subbing into the game late. You know, we're already down starting the game in the third quarter. Whatever metaphor you want to use, we're starting it late. But I of course Novick you appreciate that more? Yeah. What I think just understand the public should understand this too. The clock starts for us when we get the numbers and we don't have the numbers yet. Thanks.
Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Novick.
First of all, I need to add to councilor Kanal comment that, look, we're not the new york knicks, so we can't afford to start in the fourth quarter. We're down by 17 points. So I have to express my great appreciation to councilor Koyama Lane because to my shame, I was not aware about the provision in the bridge lease that she was talking about. But now that I'm looking at it, or at least a document that summarizes the purports to summarize it, my one word reaction is yowza. Because if it's true that rip city will continue to have full responsibility for operating moda center and funding and completing moda center capital repair, maintenance and improvement projects and maintaining the arena in a first class manner. Well, I thought the whole point of this 600 million investment was to make it a first class arena. So why haven't we filed a lawsuit asking for $600 million? And I say that playfully, but not lightly. So forget all the other requests I have. My one request is to sit down with whoever in the city attorney's office has evaluated the value of that provision and find out why we haven't filed the lawsuit. So can you hook up me, hook me up with whoever in the city attorney's office I should talk to you about that.
We will check in. Can can make our our attorney on this one.
Okay. And also, I wanted to add that, as I mentioned this to councilor Green earlier, and he thought he should bring it up. One thing that we should consider is a championship reward slash penalty, that if the city puts any money in, then we should get it back. If the team doesn't win the nba championship in ten years. I mean, tom dutton has already proved he can win championships, so he should be able to do it again.
Thank you. Councilor Novick vice president Clark.
Steve Novick: Thank you, council.
President, and my apologies, colleagues, for being late both this morning and this afternoon. I sorry I missed the earlier comments. I thought the results of the survey were really interesting. They were validating in some regards, especially on the renovation priorities and community benefits. But I'm hearing a lot of things here that I really resonate with that are interesting. Others I not as much. And I'm wondering if the staff are you you taking all of this and putting it in some kind of a chart that we can all review? Because there's been a lot of stuff here just in the last 45 minutes.
Yes. Councilor Clark, thank you. Yeah. Just in terms of process, that's exactly what that I'll be working with the staff, but I'll be responsible for making sure that we have that all together for you. It's going to do a few things. One, be a tool for you all, but also for the public to see as we progress. This is again, kind of a starting point where council is going to say this. You're putting out the the goal, and then we're going to figure out how close we can we can get there in the term sheet. And so that'll be very helpful. And then you'll be meeting with me quite a bit in the next few weeks as I work with you on some of the specific terms and tools. So we weren't able to get into deep into the tools, but we'll be working through that so that I can meet with you all individually. I want to acknowledge, and I have to do this in my other job at the metro city council, the limits that you have and being able to talk to each other, it makes it very challenging. So that's an added challenge. On top of all the challenges you already discussed in terms of getting working on this timeline, but that's one of the reasons why I'm available to just get this, because this is how we're going to expedite it. So you'll be spending a lot of time with me. And so I'll be able to have one on one conversations with you and then figure out how we, how often we need to have you guys all together.
I think you're, you're summarizing everything that you've heard here and the list and letting us look at that list. And I don't know if we're going to, you know, prioritize things because I don't think we all agree on everything. We agree on a lot of things, but I'll be really interested in seeing that. And we this came up very briefly in our discussion of public works was just yesterday on asset management. And I've already talked to you, kristen, about how I feel about this, that, you know, we have so many venues like the schnitz and the keller and the moda that need help. And I think what's unique here is that we're getting outside help to pay for something that we own and that we need to fix up. So having that 3 to 1 match for me is so important. We're not going to get that in any other assets that we have that need updating. I also don't feel like I have a gun at my head. I just want to say, I do feel that this is a challenge and it's an opportunity, and it's one I think we can meet. Folks. I, my colleagues, I really feel like, you know, the public is not smiling on us right now. We've got a pretty low rating. Our reputation is really suffering out the public. So I think that, you know, if we can approach this as an opportunity and show the public that we can actually come to a good decision here, and we can come to it in the time that we have available, we're going to be winning, you know, in in multiple ways. So I'll share my other comments with you later for your chart. But thank you for all the work. Thank you for being here. And thank you for the work. And thank you for the survey.
Thank you, vice president Clark councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thanks, vice president Clark. We still have a higher percentage approval than the last council. Let's remember that. Yeah. As folks were talking about the 20 year versus 30 years, making sure the blazers stay here, that did make me think about and I heard some murmurings too, of raising the penalty of if they leave and what that could look like if there's an ability to claw back, ideally, fully. And also just want to say on the record, I'd be interested in having a briefing, a meeting like this that has the county here too. So just want to put that on the record. Okay. That's it.
Thank you. Councilor. Koyama Lane. Councilor. Morillo.
Thanks, council president. I have follow up questions about the bridge lease aspect. So is the reason that we haven't sued on the first class item, because the bridge lease says that we're not holding them to that requirement right now.
Yes. So during the bridge agreement negotiations, the parties agreed to not enforce that at the time of the lease extension. It still remains in force in the agreement. So, you know, if they if they, you know, are to if they break the the existing lease or it expires at the end of the lease, it's absolutely enforceable. And I'm not an attorney. This is my understanding. And our attorney is sick today. So we'll get him back up here next time. But but yeah, we agreed to proceed in good faith through the bridge agreement. And the intention of the bridge agreement was to create that time and space for the parties to bring in additional funding partners to, to get us to a bigger deal. Because the original ask starting the bridge agreement conversation was for a large city investment in a renovation that was beyond the scope of the city's means.
Okay. And the lease ends when, exactly?
October of 2030.
So that's when we could technically sue for the first class requirement.
Yeah, I actually, I mean, we would need to talk to the to the attorneys about whether we could choose for some reason to do that at any time.
Just curious. I'm not threatening lawsuits. I'm not very litigious. Some councilors are, but they're not here right now. That's true. I want to state very clearly that I don't have any appetite whatsoever to, you know, change requirements on the first class maintenance aspect of this. And I actually hope that we include that in any and all future contracts moving forward. But I think you've heard a lot of interest on the bridge lease agreement and the first class requirements, because a lot of this discussion is that the building is not at all in first class condition right now. So I don't really understand how they're not in violation of that right now. Do they owe us a bunch of money right now?
We will get you those answers. Councilor.
I think this is a good conversation we should have with an attorney and perhaps an executive session.
Yeah. Can we have an attorney present? I'll keep adding lists of people that I want here. I think mayor wilson should be here the whole time. I think our negotiators should be here the whole time. I think the attorney should be here the whole time because I don't I cannot sit in another another public session where we don't have the people here to answer those questions.
Thank you. Councilor aye, Morillo councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos: Thank you. It's been an interesting discussion. I'm just kind of reflecting on what I'm hearing from my colleagues. I obviously share a lot of the goals that they have stated, but I think where I want to draw a finer point and get some confirmation is for me, a top line is private investment. That is my starting place. I am not interested in fully funding anything at the public's expense. Without people who have a lot of money paying towards something. I don't care that you bought the blazers. That is not an investment in the city. And so where does that stand? Because that to me is like the starting line of the negotiation. And I don't really know what has already been said. Has that been, you know, floated? Have they said anything about that? Because that, to me is the most urgent priority in this lease.
So, so councilor, we have actively communicated that the city is interested in a private investment from the team, whether it be a capital investment up front for the renovation, whether it be rent. Some of the things we've heard today that has been formally disseminated to the to the team, and we have not gotten a response from them on that.
And to be clear, I am not counting rent as part of that. Rent is a given. So to me, when I say a private investment, I do mean in the renovation.
I was being inclusive of the ask. We put out a range of questions to them that were centered around a private stake, and whether it be a renovation to your question, or more broadly, other revenues like rent.
If I could just maybe add. So so to date, right. They have not there's not been any confirmation that they're willing to do that. Right. So that's where we are right now. Their response has been the ticket user fees and the parking revenues that are generated and paid to the city by our events are our private contribution.
Well, my answer to that is absolutely not. So I want to make that clear that I do not accept that response from them, and they need to start speaking to us and to our negotiators about their contribution. I'm not willing to move forward to deal without it. So thanks.
Thank you, councilor Avalos. Colleagues, there's no one else in the queue to ask questions. I'd like to just note that my chief of staff just sent around an email to everybody asking for every office to please send any further follow up questions that you would like answered. I'm hearing from my colleagues that this is not an opportunity for us to privately send you an email that says the answer, but instead to also make that a public thing. So heard a lot of really great requests and feedback on the process. I apologize for any missteps that have happened on my part to this point, and we will continue to drive this home. So kristen, any last any last comments before we part ways.
I will just say, you know, as I said before, this is a tall order. You guys have put a lot on the table. I'm energized though by it. It's a, it's a, it's a tight timeline. But I really appreciated the vision that you've all laid out for the arena, for the public asset and for the future of the city of Portland. And we're going to work to get responses to all of those things and make sure that you are feeling confident in having, making sure you have the information to make a decision very soon. And I'll be spending a lot more time with you all individually, and then we'll figure out at the chair's discretion, those additional meetings as well.
Thank you. Kristin councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos: Sorry, I didn't mean to steal the last word from you, but I did have it just based on what you just said. I think we talked about this before, but I would love for the public page to include things like links to this work session, all of the documents that were receiving being available, the questions that we get answered, having that be in that place. I just want to see that page be a little more dynamic to be including all the things that are public, you know, information. They should all live in one place so that when we're talking to constituents, we can point them to that. And they could easily click on this and view our discussion, right? Like I just want that to be more dynamic. So that would be my request.
Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos: Thank you. That's right. To take the last word back. I'm sorry, but that that's really helpful. And I want to underscore I understand what a difficult position you all are in just because of the situation that we're in right now. And so whatever we can do to make that you more confident in your ability to make the decision, including having stronger communications, we want to do that for you. Thank you.
Colleagues, thank you very much for the conversation. Staff, friends, everybody. Thank you. Public. Thank you for showing up and hanging out. There will be more opportunities for for public dialog. There will be more opportunities for input and there will be more information coming. With that, we are adjourned.