Tax Breaks Are Good-Faith Gestures, Not Determinants of Where to Build a Food Plant

Dozens of objective and subjective considerations enter into decisions on where to build a food plant.

By Kevin T. Higgins, Managing Editor

1 of 2 < 1 | 2 View on one page

Money talks, idle chatter walks, as polite society says. And the final stage of a new-plant siting decision or an existing-plant expansion usually is a discussion with local officials about the package of grants, tax abatements and training assistance they can provide a food or beverage manufacturer.

Transportation, available land and a workforce with the skills and education needed to run a modern manufacturing facility are the top priorities for food and beverage companies. Nowadays, financial incentives play an icing-on-the-cake role, suggests Don Cunningham, CEO of Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corp., the Bethlehem, Pa., agency responsible for attracting businesses to eastern Pennsylvania.

Food manufacturers are one of Cunningham’s top priority sectors. He characterizes financial incentives as goodwill gestures of a community’s interest. “They may get minimal levels of incentives, but less than $2 million in tax breaks aren’t going to move the dial,” he says.

In some cases, good faith gestures are accompanied by a whiff of desperation. Consider New Jersey Economic Development Authority, which approved a $14.45 million tax incentive package last year to land a new headquarters and R&D center for Nestle Health Science. The tax breaks represent 20 percent of the project cost and will allow the Garden State to hold onto 60 Nestle management jobs already based there, plus 100 R&D positions currently in Minnesota.

Corporate offices can be built anywhere, ideally within a brisk walk from the CEO’s home. Food manufacturing facilities, on the other hand, need reasonable access to raw materials and customers and be serviced by solid infrastructure. Low-cost energy, a qualified workforce and long-term water availability also are priorities. When dozens of factors are weighed, a short list of shovel-ready sites remains.

State agencies often are the source of financial incentives, although the competition for a given project typically is between communities in the same state, according to Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, an advocacy group for economic development accountability. Strategies vary widely between states: New York leads the nation with $24 billion in grants and tax waivers, although that is spread over 743,964 projects. Pennsylvania’s largesse is $5 billion, but it is more concentrated and averages $514,456 per project, 61 percent more than New York's.

Biggest State Food Aid Pack

Rather than play the bidding war game, some development agencies are adopting strategies that emphasize the ripple effect of production on agriculture. The biggest state subsidy in 2015 was a $25.2 million package from Michigan to Clemens Food Group, which is building a pork processing facility in the state’s southwest quadrant. That will stimulate hog farming, which in turn will expand the livestock feed market.

A similar game plan on a grander scale is playing out in southeastern Ontario, the Canadian province that is home to about 3,000 companies generating $34 billion in annual food sales. Italian confectioner Ferrero Rocher commissioned a plant in Brantford 10 years ago. The maker of Nutella and hazelnuts enrobed in chocolate imports raw materials from Turkey, but fledgling hazelnut orchards in the province may provide long-term supply stability.

Hazelnuts are a new crop to the region, and the hardiness of the trees is uncertain. Nonetheless, provincial authorities are optimistic. Climate change could turn Ontario into North America’s breadbasket, suggests Jeff Leal, minister of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. “It’s happening, and it’s happening quicker than people realize,” Leal says of global warming. Milder weather may be a factor in higher yields for oats and other existing crops, he intimates.

Baked goods constitute the province’s fastest growing food category. Annual sales gains of 3.5 percent are spurred by booming exports, much of it headed south of the border. The provincial government chipped in $5 million for a flour mill expansion under way at Parrish & Heimbecker Milling in Hamilton, Ontario. The $40 million project will be the first Canadian mill capable of blending multiple varieties of wheat, a common U.S. practice that plays to bakers’ just-in-time needs for custom blends.

One of several food production clusters in the province’s southeast, Hamilton — a.k.a The Hammer — is the industrial heart of Canada. Steel production is a shadow of its heyday, but the area is blessed with multiple transport options and proximity to U.S. border crossings. It also enjoys an abundance of an essential natural resource for both agriculture and food manufacture: located on the isthmus separating Lakes Ontario and Erie, Hamilton draws fresh water from both Great Lakes.

With the Canadian dollar fluctuating between 70-80 cents to the U.S. dollar, the region is drawing interest from U.S. food companies. But currency exchange rates are subject to dramatic shifts and are unreliable predictors of operating costs for a plant that will be in operation for 30-plus years. Long-term water availability, on the other hand, is on many food executives’ minds.

1 of 2 < 1 | 2 View on one page
Show Comments
Hide Comments

Join the discussion

We welcome your thoughtful comments.
All comments will display your user name.

Want to participate in the discussion?

Register for free

Log in for complete access.


No one has commented on this page yet.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments