Duke to downsize, lay off 45 workers

Cory Schouten
April 9, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Duke Realty Corp. is laying off 45 employees this week - about 3.3 percent of its work force - as the local company copes with a giant drop in development starts.

The layoffs include about 20 workers at the company's Indianapolis headquarters, leaving about 540 local employees. After the cuts, the company will have about 1,350 employees nationwide.

Last month, Duke reduced its projection of 2008 development starts from $1.3 billion to between $750 million and $1 billion.

"Although our development pipeline and construction volume are strong, our outlook for 2008 is not as robust as we had planned when we finalized this year's budget," CEO Denny Oklak said in a statement to IBJ. "As a result, we have adjusted our income and expense projections to reflect the realities of the current economy."

Shares in Duke have lost about 45 percent since peaking at $45.40 in April 2007. The stock traded at $23.86 this morning. Last week, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its outlook for Duke to "negative," saying the company's speculative projects stand to hurt its financial profile in a weak economic environment.

Duke isn't the only local developer shedding employees. Lauth laid off 80 employees, including 54 at its Indianapolis headquarters, in January, then dropped dozens more in March. Premier Properties USA Inc. laid off about half its headquarters staff - more than 40 employees - at the end of March.

For more, go to Property Lines.


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!