Hostess prepares to open plant despite tax-break question

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hostess Brands LLC is taking steps toward re-opening its Indianapolis plant well ahead of a city commission approving its requested tax abatement on $10 million in new equipment.

The Metropolitan Development Commission is scheduled to vote on the abatement request July 3, but the company already has started hiring and is testing and inspecting equipment, said Ryan Hunt, senior project manager in the Department of Metropolitan Development.

new version of hostess 15col photoThe plant at 2929 Shadeland Ave. has started hiring, and its parking lot is often nearly full. (IBJ Photo)

The activity is obvious, as the plant’s parking lot at 2929 Shadeland Ave., recently repaved and striped, is nearly full during daytime hours. Workers wearing hard hats and white coveralls can be see going in and out. The firm's tax abatement request said that the east-side facility could employ up to 145 people.

Hostess Brands spokeswoman Hannah Arnold said no one from the company was available to comment on its plans for Indianapolis. It is not immediately clear when the plant would start production or whether the equipment covered in the abatement request already has been purchased.

Department of Metropolitan Development staff has recommended approving the abatement, determining that the new investment in equipment wouldn't be economically feasible for Hostess without it. The tax break on personal property taxes would be worth up to $536,220 over eight years.

Hunt said the company should remain eligible for the tax break, despite the activity already under way at the plant. The Metropolitan Development Commission doesn't usually grant abatements on existing equipment, but can do so by waiving a statutory prohibition.

The MDC recently granted two 10-year abatements worth $30.6 million to Eli Lilly and Co., which because of an unexpected procedural delay already has installed some the equipment that's part of a $400 million upgrade and expansion of a facility southwest of downtown, Hunt said.

The MDC ends up waiving the statutory prohibition on abatements for existing equipment a couple of times a year, Hunt said. Hostess doesn’t plan to install the new equipment in the Indianapolis plant before July 3, he said.

Hostess announced in April its plans to re-open the Indianapolis facility  but didn’t apply for the abatement until May 28. The new company, owned by private-equity firms Apollo Global Management and Metropolis & Co., bought five factories out of bankruptcy in March and has received taxpayer-funded incentives in Columbus, Ga., and Emporia, Kan.

In Schiller Park, Ill., Hostess started cranking out cupcakes again without discussing tax abatements with village officials, Village Manager Kevin Barr said.  

The company has said it would have Twinkies back on store shelves by July 15, but those are not made in the Indianapolis plant, which in the past produced buns, mini doughnuts and muffins.

The nine-member MDC isn’t likely to question whether Hostess needs the abatement to make re-opening feasible, because members would hesitate to pull the rug out from under a company that proceeded with its plans based on a positive recommendation from MDC staff , said outgoing president Ed Mahern.

Mahern and Cornelius Brown will lose their seats on the commission after July 1, under a new state law that expands the mayor of Indianapolis’ budget authority and gives him five out of nine appointments on the MDC. Mahern and Brown were appointed by the county commissioners, but after July 1 the mayor and City-County Council will split those seats.  


  • Experts on every business plan
    From the article: Department of Metropolitan Development staff has recommended approving the abatement, determining that the new investment in equipment wouldn't be economically feasible for Hostess without it. Right. Because the DMD has staff that are experts in the field of industrial baking. As if they've seen every dollar amount in the Hostess business plan and have determined that an average yearly property tax break of $67,000/year is just the right amount to result in a reasonable rate of return for the revived Hostess operation. Nonsense! The DMD staff is recommending approval of it because the real power brokers at Develop Indy told them to. The Develop Indy folks are probably supporting it because Hostess v.2.0 hired a consultant/lobbyist who formerly worked for Develop Indy. That's how this works. The fact that they are already proceeding with the investments before the MDC considers should prove that they don't need it. Mahern's statement about not pulling out the rug is proof of how little independent evaluation occurs during the MDC hearings.
  • Yo Ding Dongs!
    So for all the people blaming "da unions' fault" for the original closing: You going to step up and pay the corporate welfare tax break for the "right to work" state, as long as the rights stay within the boardroom paychecks?
  • oh Yeah
    Super. Tax breaks for food products that feed the fatties across the country; we all pay for resulting health issues. I need a cigarette and bacon - how proud...
  • Hostess
    Now that this is a "right to work" state they will start over with employees who are desperate for jobs, even if those come at much lower pay. More for corporate, less for the worker on the floor.
  • Hostess
    Either the business plan makes sense without the "tax breaks" or it should just fail on it's own. It would be unfortunate to bail out the employees who chose not to work and draw unemployment.

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. Aaron is my fav!

  2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

  3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

  4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

  5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...