Johnson & Johnson warehouse plans to add 465 jobs

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Johnson & Johnson is building a warehouse in Hendricks County that is expected to create 465 jobs when completed in mid-2011.

The distribution arm of the New Jersey-based manufacturer of health care and consumer products is building the facility in the 70 West Commerce Park at Interstate 70 and State Road 39, said Cinda Kelley, executive director of the Hendricks County Economic Development Partnership.

“We are nationally known and identified as a distribution hub,” Kelley said. “So this is just one more additional project that we’ve been successful in landing.”

Hendricks County, and particularly Plainfield, are home to several large industrial parks. The 12 million-square-foot Airwest Business Park and 4.7 million-square-foot AirTech Park are among the largest.  

The $82 million, 1.1 million-square-foot Johnson & Johnson development will be the first in the new 1,000-acre industrial park west of Plainfield.

The Hendricks County Council approved a 10-year property-tax abatement.

Also, the county received assistance from the state to help land the project. The Indiana Economic Development Corp. will provide Hendricks County with $300,000 to help with infrastructure improvements, and the Indiana Department of Transportation will kick in $400,000 for additional road improvements.

“This was a true collaborative effort between the state, INDOT and Hendricks County to get this project in Hendricks County,” Kelley said.

She said the county beat out competing sites in several states to win the project.


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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.