A routine city council discussion on economic development incentives was briefly delayed Thursday night after Council Member Greg Hollins requested additional data, specifically the type of data that would confirm what he already believed before the meeting began.
Hollins, who described himself as “a big believer in making decisions based on information,” said he was not comfortable moving forward until staff could provide more numbers, charts, projections, and third-party analysis demonstrating that his original position was correct.
“I’m not against the proposal,” Hollins said, adjusting his reading glasses while looking over the packet he had not opened until two minutes earlier. “I just think before we make a decision, we need to see the data. And by data, I mean something that raises serious concerns about this project without making it seem like I’m personally opposed to it.”
The proposal, which had been reviewed by city staff, outside consultants, legal counsel, the economic development board, and three separate committees with overlapping membership, would provide infrastructure support for a new business expansion expected to create jobs, increase tax base, and generate additional utility revenue.
However, Hollins expressed concern that the numbers were “too positive.”
“When every chart says this could be good for the community, that makes me suspicious,” he said. “I’d like to see a more balanced analysis. Ideally one that validates my concern that we may be moving too fast, despite this project being discussed publicly since the previous fiscal year.”
City staff noted that the council had already received a fiscal impact analysis, wage comparison, incentive performance model, infrastructure cost estimate, traffic review, project timeline, clawback provisions, and a 22-page memo answering questions from the last meeting.
Hollins said he appreciated the effort but felt something was still missing.
“I just think we need to look at the bigger picture,” he said, without identifying which part of the bigger picture had not already been included in the 184 pages of supporting material.
Several residents spoke during public comment, including one who said the city should “stop giving away money to corporations,” another who said the city should “do whatever it takes to create jobs,” and a third who asked whether the proposed business would affect parking at a restaurant located three miles away.
Following public comment, Hollins requested staff return with “more community-specific data,” “less consultant-type data,” and “real numbers,” though he clarified he did not want the numbers to be “so technical that regular people can’t understand them.”
Economic Development Director Karen Fields said her office would prepare a supplemental report.
“We’ll bring back additional context,” Fields said. “This will include a summary of the original summary, a comparison of the previous comparison, and a simplified version of the detailed model that was created because council previously asked for more detail.”
Mayor Denise Alvarez thanked staff for their work and encouraged council members to submit any specific questions in advance, a suggestion immediately met with thoughtful nodding and no follow-up questions.
At the close of the discussion, Hollins reiterated that he was keeping an open mind.
“I’m willing to be persuaded,” he said. “But I’ll need compelling evidence, preferably from a source I have not criticized publicly in the past, showing that the best course of action is the one I already mentioned on Facebook.”
The item was tabled until next month, pending additional data, revised data, clarified data, simplified data, locally relevant data, and at least one chart that can be interpreted two different ways.
