County work session examines potential Multnomah County contribution to Moda Center renovation; commissioners demand stronger ROI, labor and community‑benefit내용

Multnomah County commissioners spent an extended work session on Tuesday examining a proposed county contribution to a planned renovation of the Moda Center and surrounding district, with staff presenting a preliminary funding plan and outside stakeholders urging the board to link a renovation to a larger restorative vision for Lower Albina.

Mike Alexander, board chair of the Albina Vision Trust (AVT), urged the board to treat the renovation as part of a district strategy. “This arena investment can become the foundation of a district strategy that reconnects growth with belonging and development with restoration,” Alexander said, asking the county to press for development rights and benefits that align with AVT's community vision.

County staff said two revenue sources are under discussion: one‑time business income tax proceeds (up to $35 million if realized from a transaction) and a motor vehicle rental tax capture that would support debt issuance (roughly $53 million principal in staff estimates). Eric Ardano, Multnomah County chief financial officer, described the preliminary capital stack as about $88 million applied to renovation (35 million business income tax + 53 million principal from debt) and said estimated county costs including estimated 20‑year debt service would bring total county cost to about $138.6 million; staff emphasized these are estimates and that timing and availability of revenues are uncertain.

Donnie Olivera, deputy city administrator for Portland, said the city plans to commit roughly $120 million in initial capital and about $275 million for ongoing maintenance and improvements, funded from the spectator venues fund, bringing the city's total investment closer to $400 million over time.

Commissioners pressed staff on multiple fronts: the distinction between repairs that should be the operator’s contractual responsibility and upgrades to be funded with public dollars; whether the county's contribution should be restricted to public-asset improvements; labor protections and a project labor agreement (PLA) or labor‑harmony commitments for both construction and ongoing operations; and the economic assumptions behind job‑creation claims. Commissioner Moyer said the economic analysis lacked detail: “This is the thinnest document I’ve seen — it states there are 5,000 jobs but offers no breakout by job type, pay or benefits,” she said, asking for a county‑specific updated model and full job/pay breakdowns.

Staff committed to follow up with an updated economic model (City and county are working with consultants), a year‑by‑year funding schedule, line‑item cost breakouts for capital and maintenance, clarification of which revenue streams would be available in what years, and responses to a list of commissioner questions. City staff said some term-sheet items will be finalized quickly because state bond timelines require early commitments; other items — notably a detailed community benefits agreement (CBA) and PLA specifics — will take longer to negotiate.

No budget action or formal votes occurred during the session. Staff asked commissioners to submit written questions by the end of the week so city and county partners could consolidate answers; the county and city plan further work sessions, and the city council scheduled its own work session on July 23 where design specifics and some cost details will be discussed.