Noblesville OKs tax break for iron castings plant

February 26, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three time-worn buildings on the old Noblesville Foundry property are set to come down this spring to make way for a 260,000-square-foot factory employing 50.

Noblesville Common Council voted 5-0 on Tuesday to approve a three-year tax abatement for ID Castings LLC, which plans to install $31 million in manufacturing equipment as it brings the long-neglected site back to life.

The company’s capital investment is expected to be about $20.4 million.

Plant Manager Jack Kruse told council members that demolition permits are in hand for two of the buildings, and the work is expected to begin in the next few months.

The company already has 27 workers in an existing building on the property, turning out iron castings for clients nationwide. Kruse said production—and employment--should double within a year.

Demand for domestic castings is strong, he said, and the competition is not as stiff as it once was. Kruse said only about 500 iron foundries remain in operation in the United States, compared to about 4,000 in the mid-1970s.

ID Castings was founded last fall. Kruse oversees operations for an investment group that owns the company.

“This has been a long time coming,” he told the council. “We’re very happy.”

Council member Steve Wood said although past owners have failed to deliver on promised improvements, he is encouraged by current activity on the site.

“I think this is going to be a good project for Noblesville,” he said told Kruse. “I hope you’re going to do what you say you’re going to do.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
  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.

ADVERTISEMENT