Portland Trail Blazers debated responding to city’s written questions on Moda Center deal
Internal emails show Trail Blazers officials considered not providing written answers to Portland's inquiries about private investment, rent and labor terms for the $600 million arena renovation.
Portland city officials sent a set of seven written questions to the Trail Blazers in June, seeking the team’s commitments on private funding, rent, labor agreements and other conditions tied to a proposed renovation of the Moda Center. The inquiries followed an in-person negotiating session on June 15 and were forwarded to the team’s legal counsel, Zandria Conyers, who then circulated the questions among senior staff.
Team executives discussed whether to reply in writing. Conyers noted the questions had been answered verbally many times and expressed concern that a public written response might be poorly received. Dewayne Hankins, the president of business operations, suggested the team consider not responding at all, describing the request as “a trap.” Chief financial officer Joe Loomis referenced a separate dispute over an April 22 city letter about early access to Spectator Venues Fund money for pre-construction work, noting the city’s offer of a 50-50 cost-share or a reimbursable Letter of Intent.
The internal email chain was later forwarded to city attorney Ken McGair, making it part of the public record. City records show that the Blazers never submitted written answers to either the June 16 or July 7 letters, although a team source said the questions were answered verbally during negotiations. In July, McGair sent a letter offering to protect any information shared by the team from future litigation, while also reaffirming the city’s right to sue if a new lease is not reached.
The city council is scheduled to vote on a final term sheet on August 12, with both parties aiming to finalize a long-term arena agreement by the end of the year. The Trail Blazers released a statement saying they have continued to negotiate verbally and that they consider the city’s term sheet a “non-starter” with numerous points of contention.