Portland council reviews 18,000‑response survey on Moda Center renovation; members demand private investment, itemized costs and stronger safeguards

Portland City Council held a work session on Wednesday to frame the city’s role in a potential renovation of the Moda Center, hear results from a recent community outreach effort and set priorities staff should secure in negotiations before any funding decision. The meeting focused on survey findings, funding options tied to state legislation and a long list of information councilors said they need to vet the deal.

Council President Dunphy opened the meeting and turned the discussion to Kristen Dennis, the council‑designated project lead, who asked councilors to clarify how they will “grade” a future funding proposal. "The most critical first step here today is for you to talk to each other," Dennis told the dais, framing staff’s task as translating council priorities into a term‑sheet that can be negotiated.

Laura Oppenheimer, interim chief engagement officer, summarized the outreach. "We had over 18,000 responses," she said, noting the effort combined parks pop‑ups and an online survey and was intended as a civic engagement exercise rather than a statistically representative poll. Oppenheimer described a U‑shaped distribution of opinion — many respondents strongly for and strongly against renovation — and said open‑ended comments (about 27,000) clustered around five themes: whether the Blazers should stay; who should pay or be responsible for renovation; city spending priorities; questions about using the Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF); and a near‑universal demand for transparency and accountability.

Staff and councilors spent much of the session interrogating what the survey does and does not show and what data the council will need next. "We could literally see when there was a particularly effective social media push," Oppenheimer said, acknowledging that organized campaigns influenced response volumes and that the survey therefore misses a cross‑section of moderate opinions. Several councilors asked staff to produce cross‑tabs that isolate responses gathered at park pop‑ups and to try to attribute swings in responses to outreach channels.

A central factual anchor for the discussion was the state legislation known as SB 1501. Kristen Dennis and other staff described SB 1501 as authorizing up to $365 million in state bond proceeds but tied to conditions the state requires to unlock funds: the establishment of a joint authority, a local funding commitment (staff said the current framing points to roughly $120 million), and a lease term long enough to underwrite bond repayment. "There are going to be trade‑offs," Dennis said, distinguishing the council’s desired outcomes (accessibility, community benefits, jobs) from the financial tools used to pursue them.

Councilors voiced consistent demands before any public commitment. Many said they will not support significant public dollars unless the ownership group contributes meaningful private capital for renovation. "I am going to have a hard time agreeing to give public money if I'm not seeing a private investment," Councilor Avalos said, and listed other priorities he expects in a term sheet: private capital participation, rent or payments in lieu of taxes that flow to city priorities, enforceable community benefits, prevailing wages and independent cost analyses.

Several councilors criticized the compressed timeline. Councilor Morillo said, "I'm trying not to be extremely livid right now because we are under an extremely compressed timeline," and demanded comparative deals from other cities, a 20‑year forecast of spectator‑venues fund impacts and itemized evidence for promises like neighborhood electrification. Councilor Novick repeatedly asked for the facility‑condition assessment (FCA) detail used to justify scale, noting staff estimates that keeping the arena in its current condition over 20 years could require roughly $400–$500 million in work absent a major renovation.

Staff provided fiscal context for revenue sources the council should consider. Spectator‑venues and ticket‑user fees, parking revenue and certain visitor‑tax allocations are already used to support venue work; staff gave high‑level FY24–25 numbers (total Rose Quarter user fees of roughly $7.9 million, Blazers user fees and parking revenue amounts) and warned that dedicating large shares of those funds to Moda would reduce availability for Providence Park, the Coliseum and other venue obligations.

On lease and legal constraints, staff noted a pre‑existing ground‑lease provision that historically required the operator to maintain a "first‑class" standard; the bridge lease negotiated when the city took ownership pauses enforcement so parties can negotiate a larger investment package, but the underlying obligation remains in the contract and could be enforceable later. Councilors asked for a legal briefing on whether enforcement actions or claims for unpaid maintenance might be available now.

Several councilors also argued for neighborhood‑level protections. They pressed for enforceable community benefits oriented to Albina and surrounding areas, local hiring and union standards, street‑level pricing for access, and explicit commitments to neighborhood activation. "We need a manager and tenants who are invested in the surrounding neighborhood," Councilor Pirtle‑Guiney said, urging concrete neighborhood commitments in any deal.

What happens next: staff committed to return with much of the requested material. Oppenheimer said the team will deliver a detailed demographic and cross‑tab report and that staff aim to deliver additional economic and cost analyses at the next scheduled work session; at various points staff identified a target of returning more detailed economic impact information and cross‑tabs by the July work sessions. No formal action or vote occurred during the work session.

Why it matters: the state bond offer, if approved and conditioned as staff describe, would represent a significant public investment that councilors said must come with binding private investment, firm accountability measures, and transparent public spreadsheets showing who pays for which part of a renovation. Councilors repeatedly said a rushed timetable without those commitments risks public trust and fiscal harm to other city services.

The council recessed briefly for a break and scheduled additional briefings as staff assemble the itemized lists, cross‑tabs and independent analyses requested by members.

Closing note: staff and the council agreed more public information should be posted in one location and that the council should receive a consolidated spreadsheet of questions and answers. No votes were held; staff will return with more detailed materials to support any future deliberation or vote.