Residents urge 90-day hold and more transparency on proposed 223‑acre amphitheater

Several Washington residents used the council’s public comment period on Feb. 3 to urge elected officials to pause any further action on a proposed 223‑acre amphitheater and to release detailed studies and financial analyses.

Morin Hovic, who said they live at 1401 Westminster Drive, asked the council to “place on hold for 90 days any future action regarding the proposed Amphitheater” and to hold a question-and-answer town hall so the city can make feasibility and financial information available to constituents. Hovic asked for studies that support projected financial benefits and questioned whether local and state noise ordinances could be met and how policing and vandalism would be handled.

“Please give us more factual information before moving ahead with a project that leaves the citizens of Washington with so many questions,” Hovic said.

Bernice Vaugh told the council she strongly opposes the amphitheater concept and cited the draft feasibility study (referred to in testimony as Draft 2.0), saying the current design “will produce noise levels surpassing local and state regulations” and would affect multiple subdivisions. Vaugh warned of traffic congestion, potential property‑value impacts and the risk of higher property taxes to cover ongoing costs.

“Washington residents will remember who represented our community’s interests when it comes time to cast our ballots,” Vaugh said, urging the council to consider alternative uses for the city’s 223 acres.

Casey Dreis, who described experience working in the music business, questioned the accuracy of information presented at a city open house and said a posted claim that “$12 million is paid for” the project was misleading. Dreis disputed attendance and revenue assumptions used in city materials, citing a city estimate of nine concerts at about 3,000 attendees each and an asserted $60,000 earned per concert as unrealistic based on venue guarantees and artist costs.

“Venues are a money pit,” Dreis said. “If you really think you’re going to make a gigantic profit close to a million dollars in the very first year, that’s absolutely ludicrous.”

Why it matters: Public commenters asked for greater transparency (feasibility/financial studies, noise modeling and policing plans) before the council advances the project. Several speakers pointed to Five Points Washington — an existing local entertainment venue mentioned during testimony — as an example raising doubts about profitability for outdoor venues in the region.

What the council did: The council heard the comments during the public‑comment portion of the Feb. 3 meeting. No formal vote or action on the amphitheater was taken that evening; speakers asked that the council formally pause further action and provide opportunities for public Q&A and documentation.

Next steps: Residents who testified requested a 90‑day hold, public town‑hall sessions and publication of the studies and revenue/expense assumptions used to justify the project. The council did not set a date for those follow‑ups during the meeting; any next procedural steps would need to be placed on a future agenda.