Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wooster Council adopts 75% CRA tax incentive for Compac and Star Baker
Summary
On March 16, 2026, the Wooster City Council approved Ordinance 2026-06, authorizing the mayor to enter agreements offering 75% community reinvestment area (CRA) tax incentives for 10 years to Compac LLC and Star Baker 2570 LLC. Council voted 4–0 to adopt on third reading.
Wooster City Council voted March 16 to adopt Ordinance 2026-06, authorizing the mayor to enter into community reinvestment area (CRA) agreements with Compac LLC and Star Baker 2570 LLC that would provide a 75% tax incentive for 10 years. The ordinance was adopted on third reading after a roll-call vote.
The measure authorizes the mayor to sign the CRA agreements and allows immediate enactment. "So this will be a CRA 75% for 10 year. We are on our third reading here. So I think we've had ample time to review," Mr. Abernathy said before moving to adopt; Mr. Paul seconded the motion. Ms. Hamilton read the ordinance title aloud before the roll call.
During the roll call, votes of 'Yes' were recorded for Abernathy, Gaffney, Paul and Malta; the ordinance was adopted. The transcript does not record additional 'no' or 'abstain' votes; absent members were noted earlier in the meeting. The council confirmed it had a quorum at the start of the session.
City officials have not recorded details of the developers' proposed investments, employment estimates, or projected tax impacts in the public transcript of the meeting; the ordinance authorizes the mayor to execute the agreements consistent with the CRA terms stated in the read ordinance. Council members indicated this was a third reading and that prior materials had been available for review.
Next steps: with council approval, the mayor may execute the CRA agreements with Compac LLC and Star Baker 2570 LLC as authorized; any implementation steps requiring city resources or intergovernmental approvals were not detailed during the meeting. The council did not debate or amend the ordinance at the March 16 session, and no formal motions to reconsider or further hearings were recorded.
