Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council holds Jerrick Companies enterprise‑zone request to next meeting after member recusal

2695770 · March 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Councilors discussed a proposed 402,500‑square‑foot warehouse project and a 10‑year, 75% enterprise‑zone exemption for Jerrick Companies but, because a council member recused and another member was absent, the ordinance remained on first reading.

Councilors reviewed an enterprise‑zone agreement request from Jerrick Companies and J Warehouse LLC for a warehouse and logistics facility on the city’s Daisy Way site but did not vote on the ordinance.

Jonathan (Worcester Growth) and staff described the proposed investment: the developer plans a roughly $19.5 million build of a 402,500‑square‑foot warehouse and logistics facility and anticipated creation of about 30 full‑time jobs with roughly $1 million in new payroll. The applicant asked for a 10‑year community reinvestment/enterprise‑zone exemption at 75% to improve the site’s competitiveness and retain local employment. Staff said the project was advanced to the city after other sites could not meet the company’s clean‑energy requirements and that rooftop solar and coordination with AEP were part of the company’s proposal.

Councilors praised the company but raised procedural and fiscal questions about price per acre, site utilities and whether the city had provided sufficient lead time for review. Councilor Gaffey and others asked for more detail about the eastern portion of the site and a roughly 3,700‑foot sanitary sewer extension that Worcester Growth estimated would cost roughly $400,000 to serve the southeast portion of the parcel.

Councilor Huizet recused himself from discussion and the ordinance could not move forward tonight because another councilor was absent. The measure stayed on first reading and was scheduled for further consideration at the next regular meeting.