Developers present $35 million amphitheater plan for Longview; council requests financial details and county concurrence

Longview officials heard a presentation June 5 on a proposed privately developed amphitheater and adjoining entertainment district that developers say could cost about $35 million to build and stimulate private investment around the I‑20 corridor.

Steve Powers, principal of Red Cat Projects, and Jim Leslie of Wolverine Interests described a plan for a roughly 10,000‑seat amphitheater and an adjacent 80‑acre entertainment district. "It's a 10,000 person capacity," Powers said, and the team described a conservative operating target of about 30 shows a year and roughly 250,000 annual patrons.

Mayor Shihara convened the Longview City Council work session. Prior Mayor Andy Mac, who introduced the project, told council members the developers are asking the city to participate by approving a tax‑abatement mechanism that would not draw on the city’s general fund or reserves. "The proposal we have tonight would not jeopardize that or impact it at all," Mac said.

Nut graf: Developers asked the council to consider a Chapter 380/381‑style abatement to rebate ad valorem and sales tax revenue for a defined period so private lenders and investors can complete the project's capital stack. Councilmembers asked for detailed financial projections, a timeline for construction, clarification of the city’s legal and fiscal exposure, and county concurrence before any formal commitment.

The developers said the total estimate is about $35 million, including roughly $17 million for the amphitheater structure and about $18 million for public‑grade infrastructure such as roads, sewer and drainage. Powers said the amphitheater would be investor‑funded and privately operated; the request to the city is for a tax rebate to help fill part of the financing gap. Jim Leslie described use of a site‑specific abatement that would rebate property and sales tax receipts for a set period in order to support debt service for construction.

Council members repeatedly sought the pro forma and finer‑grained financials. Councilmember Allen said he could not make an "educated financial decision without knowing the entertainment district developer and having that pro forma." Developers replied they will provide the financial projections and that their current debt/equity model is roughly 70% debt and 30% equity, which they estimated would leave about a $25 million construction note and roughly $10 million in equity commitments if the $35 million figure holds.

The council pressed for risk‑limiting language. Developers and City staff discussed potential contract terms including a sunset clause for any abatement and other guardrails so the city would not have an open, indefinite subsidy if the project failed to achieve financing or performance targets. City staff member Roland (role: city attorney/finance adviser in the meeting) said such provisions are negotiable and could be drafted into any agreement.

Council members also raised operational and site questions: the parcel plan uses roughly 38–40 acres for the amphitheater and another 40 acres for the entertainment district; the team said about 80 acres are under option, divided across four landowners, and that the option costs have been maintained by project organizers. Developers acknowledged some of the amphitheater site lies in a FEMA floodplain and said cut‑and‑fill and a re‑map with FEMA will be required; engineer Wade Johnson of Johnson and Pace said the team has factored reclamation and site work into the cost estimate but that FEMA review can take time.

Several councilmembers emphasized the need for coordinated action with Gregg County. The developers confirmed they would seek a matching county agreement (described repeatedly in the meeting as a "3 81" agreement) and that the project would rely on both city and county abatements to make certain financing options available. "You can make your agreement contingent on the county's agreement being done," Jim Leslie said.

Developers cited independent impact studies they commissioned and listed national operators they expect would manage or book the venue; they also cited examples of comparable amphitheaters and said national promoters view the proposed sizing as attractive. The team said the facility could create temporary event jobs, increase lodging and retail spending, and attract subsequent private development in the entertainment district, but they also said exact returns would vary and that their projection for city receipts from the amphitheater alone was roughly $400,000 a year — a figure they described as not including the larger district.

Council directions and follow‑ups: multiple councilmembers and the mayor asked staff and the developers to return with (1) a detailed pro forma for the amphitheater alone and for the entertainment‑district economics; (2) a timeline for site remediation and FEMA re‑mapping; (3) clearer capitalization and lender commitment letters or lender‑type interest; (4) proposed draft language for any Chapter 380/381 abatement including a sunset provision and limits on assignment; and (5) documentation of land options and the special‑purpose entity that would hold any abatement. Mayor Shihara asked for a consolidated list of follow‑up items the city will receive from the developers.

No formal vote or commitment was taken at the work session. Several councilmembers said they were sympathetic to the project for its potential to catalyze development along the I‑20 corridor but said they could not recommend moving forward without the requested financial details and county participation.

The developers requested the council's show of support to strengthen their conversations with investors and lenders; council members agreed to receive the additional materials before taking any formal action.

Ending: Councilmembers scheduled further review rather than immediate approval. Developers said they will provide the requested pro forma, alternate‑use plans for the structure in the event of nonperformance, and additional documentation on land options and financing. The matter will return to staff and council for follow‑up once those items are provided.