Web firm promises 107 new jobs after '08 pledge fell short

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A local tech company that fell far short of its job-creation goal after reaching incentive agreements with the state and city two years ago is ready to try it again.

Indianapolis-based Fusion Alliance Inc. announced Tuesday morning that it plans to create up to 107 jobs by 2014 by investing more than $2.2 million to lease and equip additional space at its northwest-side headquarters in Park 100. The Indiana Economic Development Corp. is offering the company up to $1.5 million in performance-based tax credits based on the job-creation plans. The city of Indianapolis will consider property-tax abatement at the request of Develop Indy.

The Web site and software developer currently has 175 employees in Indianapolis and 50 in Cincinnati.

However, the company said it had 190 local employees and 30 in Cincinnati in January 2008 when it said it would spend $2 million and create 110 local  jobs by 2010. Based on those plans, the Indiana Economic Development Corp. said it would offer the firm $250,000 in training grants and the city said it would offer property-tax abatement.

Fusion CEO Douglas Brown said Tuesday morning that the company actually only had 157 employees when it applied for the earlier incentives. He acknowledged the company fell far short of its job-creation target, but did create 18 jobs.

Gov. Mitch Daniels and Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard praised the new agreement in separate news releases issued Tuesday morning, but state and city officials listed as contacts on those releases did not return several phone calls to explain the new incentives.

IEDC spokeswoman Blair West on Tuesday afternoon said Fusion did not receive a tax abatement for its 2008 incentive package. She said the company had been eligible to receive up to $200,000 in training grants, but ultimately received $70,267.

Founded in 1994, Fusion Alliance is the largest Indianapolis-area Web site and software developer in terms of employment, according to IBJ research. The company also ranks fourth among area computer consulting firms.


  • how does a consulting firm "create" jobs?
    I'm sorry, normally a consulting firm places people who satisfy job requirements submitted by the firm's customers.

    It's hard for me to understand how Fusion can take any credit for "creating" jobs.

    They fulfill job requests.
  • Where did this come from?

    Did anyone check Ch 13's (I have no affiliation with them) coverage of businesses which tried to scam the state, cities, etc.?

    They covered these types of business stories, showing companies which were barren (except for the dirt and empty refuse barrels).

    This: http://tinyurl.com/2fhrpzc

    Which produced the results on the first pass.

    Granted, that's not many hits, but I can tinker around a bit and see how many related or semi-related.

    When a company says, "... with jobs...". Sometimes, they say, "... jobs in years..." In today's (particularly tech) world, a long period of time is less than half the time you can hold your breath.

    I've never been a fan of this type of information used to do what? Instill some degree of stability (in the company) and see a dynamic environment because all of those people are going to have to do everything.

    There's a major project underway - something on the order of $1B, but they're waiting for infrastructure services (traffic signals, water/sewer). Why is the city paying for this? Before there's any champaign popped in one hand and a gold shovel with the other.

    Several? Many? Years ago, the Star had a long, yet thorough discussion about how Castleton came about.

    What was obvious is businesses were expected to fill in these (see above) infrastructures and the companies would promise to do so within months/years. Guess what never happened? The same things a commercial entity is expecting to be handed over (today).

    I could go on & on, but it would appear someone needs to put certain feet to the fire, even if it's a hardcopy series of questions & answers.

    Party affiliation, some feel they know what's good for us - more than we know about ourselves. And they put together a series of laws & regulations to employ this power.

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. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).