IBJNews

Miller Pipeline plans $5.3M expansion, more jobs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Miller Pipeline LLC, an Indianapolis-based subsidiary of Vectren Corp., announced Wednesday that it plans spend $5.3 million on a new headquarters facility, allowing it to hire up to 48 more local workers by 2016.

The company, which specializes in the installation of natural gas, water and sewer-system underground pipelines, said the 52,000-square-foot building will be constructed at its 34-acre corporate campus at 8850 Crawfordsville Road.

The facility will house maintenance operations, fabrication shops, material-handling and shipping areas, a training center and administrative-support offices. It should be fully operational by next year.

Miller, founded as family-owned business in 1953 and acquired by Vectren in 2006, has 125 full-time employees in Indianapolis, 600 in Indiana and more than 3,000 employees nationally. The firm has six facilities in Indiana and operations in 21 other states.

"We decided to expand our Indianapolis headquarters to reflect the developments we are seeing within the shale gas and infrastructure pipeline replacement markets," said Miller CEO Doug Banning in a prepared statement.

The Indiana Economic Development Corp. offered Miller up to $200,000 in conditional tax credits and up to $200,000 in training grants based on the company's job-creation plans.

The city approved an additional tax abatement at the request of Develop Indy, a business unit of the Indy Chamber.

Vectren’s Infrastructure Services division, which is composed of Miller Pipeline and Minnesota Limited, earned $40.5 million last year on revenue of $664 million.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

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

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!

ADVERTISEMENT