Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Amphitheater Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council for town hall, appraisal and answers on amphitheater deal; questions raised about revenue math and mayoral conflict
Summary
Speakers at the Feb. 17 Washington City Council meeting urged a 90‑day hold on the proposed amphitheater, cited 125 signed petitions, flagged apparent errors in a consultant’s revenue totals and raised concerns about a possible mayoral conflict of interest; the council said a town hall has not yet been scheduled and the city attorney’s written recusal opinion is covered by privilege unless the council votes to release it.
Public commenters at the Washington City Council meeting on Feb. 17 pressed elected officials for more information and public involvement before approving the proposed amphitheater project.
"Please listen to the citizens of Washington — think and pray as to what to do with this gift," Jackie Mason told the council, and asked that her letter be included in the meeting minutes. She said residents had submitted 125 signed petitions calling for a 90‑day hold on the project as of the Feb. 10 meeting.
Simon Petravic, who lives about three‑quarters of a mile from the proposed site, challenged projections in the consultant’s report. "There is a typo in the total amount of tax revenue that is listed in the consultant's report; it's listed as 5.3 million but the four components only add up to 3.8 million," he said, and questioned assumptions behind a projected average concert attendance of 3,700. Petravic also asked the council to consider whether the mayor has an actual or perceived conflict of interest connected to the project.
Beth O’Brien requested that the land appraisal for the 223‑acre site be released to the public before any vote on the project. Mark Bara, another resident, disputed claims that the community lacks demand for outdoor music and urged councilors to consider local economic context and prior venue costs when evaluating the project.
Council members acknowledged the concerns but did not schedule a town hall during the meeting. Mayor and staff said an appraisal exists but has not been released; the city attorney explained that the written legal opinion about whether the mayor should recuse himself is covered by attorney‑client privilege and would require a formal council vote to waive that privilege and make the opinion public. A motion to have that opinion released was discussed as a possible action but not adopted during the meeting.
Why it matters: Council decisions on the amphitheater could involve large public investments, long‑term leases and land use changes; petitioners and nearby residents want more public engagement, clearer financial assumptions and explicit steps to address potential conflicts before council votes.
What’s next: Council indicated the town hall has not yet been scheduled. Residents asked the clerk to provide an updated tally of petitions at City Hall and urged the council to publicly release the appraisal and consider a public forum before proceeding.
