Commissioners weigh replacing 15-year, 100% CRA with shorter, flexible abatement tied to JED
June 05, 2026 | Portage County, Ohio
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
A township presenter told the Portage County Board of Commissioners that the township is proposing to replace an older 15-year, 100% community reinvestment agreement (CRA) with a new, shorter and more flexible CRA that would be limited to a maximum of 10 years and up to 75% tax abatement.
That change, the presenter said, would allow the CRA to cover areas of the township that the older agreement excluded — including portions of an industrial park — and would require new or incoming businesses to join the Joint Economic Development (JED) arrangement so most income tax revenue would stay local. “We only went to 60% in 10 years versus a 100% for 15,” the presenter said, citing a prior company’s deal as an example that ultimately produced about $33,000 a year to the township after the abatement period ended.
Commissioners asked for clearer language in the sample resolution: one commissioner noted the draft did not specify that residential abatement would be “up to” 75 percent and suggested limiting the geographic scope rather than automatically covering the whole township. The prosecutor was asked to review statutory language and the composition and appointing authority for the review council referenced in the draft; the prosecutor said he would examine recent statutory changes and report back.
Presenters and commissioners framed the new CRA as a negotiating tool intended to attract employers that might otherwise locate in neighboring jurisdictions. The presenter said utilities and roadway upgrades tied to prior abatements provided long-term infrastructure benefits that, in that example, outweighed the short-term tax reduction. Commissioners did not vote on a replacement ordinance or resolution during the meeting; staff said a drafted resolution will be circulated for review and the county prosecutor will check statutory appointment authority before the board considers final action.
Next steps: staff will finalize a draft resolution, the prosecutor will review statutory appointment language for the review council, and the board will consider the resolution at a future meeting.
That change, the presenter said, would allow the CRA to cover areas of the township that the older agreement excluded — including portions of an industrial park — and would require new or incoming businesses to join the Joint Economic Development (JED) arrangement so most income tax revenue would stay local. “We only went to 60% in 10 years versus a 100% for 15,” the presenter said, citing a prior company’s deal as an example that ultimately produced about $33,000 a year to the township after the abatement period ended.
Commissioners asked for clearer language in the sample resolution: one commissioner noted the draft did not specify that residential abatement would be “up to” 75 percent and suggested limiting the geographic scope rather than automatically covering the whole township. The prosecutor was asked to review statutory language and the composition and appointing authority for the review council referenced in the draft; the prosecutor said he would examine recent statutory changes and report back.
Presenters and commissioners framed the new CRA as a negotiating tool intended to attract employers that might otherwise locate in neighboring jurisdictions. The presenter said utilities and roadway upgrades tied to prior abatements provided long-term infrastructure benefits that, in that example, outweighed the short-term tax reduction. Commissioners did not vote on a replacement ordinance or resolution during the meeting; staff said a drafted resolution will be circulated for review and the county prosecutor will check statutory appointment authority before the board considers final action.
Next steps: staff will finalize a draft resolution, the prosecutor will review statutory appointment language for the review council, and the board will consider the resolution at a future meeting.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
