Broadbent spins off construction business

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Beleaguered local developer The Broadbent Co. plans to spin off its construction division as an independent company as of Jan. 1.

S&B Construction—which opened its doors in 1972 as the construction arm of what was then known as The Skinner & Broadbent Co.—plans to change its name to S&B Construction Group and move to a new headquarters.

Longtime S&B President William Cooper will take ownership of the company, which will move to 10049 E. Washington St., from Broadbent's newly remodeled headquarters at 117 E. Washington St.

"We look forward to providing you with the same construction management and general contracting expertise and attention to detail under our new ownership and from our new location," company spokeswoman Teri Nihiser wrote in an e-mail to clients.

Broadbent officials could not be reached Thursday morning, and Nihiser did not immediately respond to an e-mail requesting more information on the change.

The move likely is a response to financial troubles that have plagued Broadbent's core development business. The retail strip centers that are the company's specialty have been hit particularly hard by the lingering effects of a recession that weakened occupancy rates and shrank property values.

Two banks in May filed lawsuits that claim Broadbent President George Broadbent defaulted on loans and owes more than $2.6 million. Two of the company's largest projects in Indianapolis—Clearwater Crossing along East 82nd Street and Greenwood Place on South U.S. 31—were ensnared in the litigation.

All told, financial institutions are seeking to collect about $13 million from the 38-year-old firm, long one of the city’s biggest developers of shopping centers.

Past clients of S&B Construction include the U.S. Postal Service, Kroger, CVS, Kohl's and IBJ Media.


  • FIrst Step?
    Could they be spinning off the one, profitable piece of the business before they fold up tents? Broadbent Co probably guarantees real estate loans, but S&B would be free and clear. No inside knowledge here, just throwing ideas out.

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!