Carrier to invest $36.5M in local plant, create 276 jobs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Carrier Corp. said it plans to create 276 new jobs and invest $36.5 million to start a second production line at its plant on the far west side of Indianapolis.

The Farmington, Conn.-based company is requesting tax abatement from the city to help offset the cost of the investment. The Metropolitan Development Commission granted preliminary approval at its Wednesday afternoon meeting.

The new jobs should pay an average of $19 an hour and should be filled by the end of 2015, said Carrier, which will retain 1,450 additional jobs with the help of the abatement, it said.

The company said it already spent $32 million to upgrade equipment at the plant at 7310 W. Morris St. to produce high-efficiency furnaces.

Carrier employed as many as 2,000 people in Indianapolis in 2005 but began trimming its work force as the residential real estate market slumped.

Also, Enterprise Leasing Co. of Indianapolis LLC, an affiliate of St. Louis-based Enterprise Rent-A-Car, is seeking an abatement to help renovate a warehouse and office formerly used by National Car Rental at 7111 W. Washington St.

Enterprise expects to spend $2.1 million and move its administrative office from 9797 Enterprise Drive in Carmel. Fifty-seven employees will be relocated to the 25,000-square-foot building.



  • New/old jobs
    I am just wondering if anyone knows if these new jobs are actually "new" or if they are jobs that will be created by transferring a product in from another Carrier plant....

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.