Institute analyzing proposed sites for Marion County criminal justice complex

Dave Stafford
March 7, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana University Public Policy Institute is analyzing proposed sites for a Marion County Criminal Justice Complex and may reveal its findings by the end of next week.

“The judges are constitutionally responsible for and very interested in good, individual accessibility for a new judicial center,” said Kathy Davis of Davis Design Group, who is working with judges to facilitate an analysis. Davis is a former lieutenant governor, state budget director and Indianapolis city controller.

Davis said the Public Policy Institute is evaluating various sites for a proposed criminal justice complex using what she termed a gravity study and a transportation study. The gravity study would weigh proposed sites in comparison to populations that most use criminal justice services. The transportation component would judge sites on the basis of accessibility for those with cars and those who use mass transit.

PPI will look at sites the city identified in a market analysis, Davis said. While city officials have said no site has been identified, the market analysis ranked an Indianapolis International Airport site along Washington Street east of Raceway Road as the preferred location.

Meanwhile, Indianapolis Director of Enterprise Development David Rosenberg on Friday briefed judges of the Marion Superior Executive Committee about the recently released short list of groups vying to build the facility.

Rosenberg said a presentation about the status of the complex proposal will be made to criminal judges at the next meeting of the Marion Superior Criminal Term at noon March 13 in the courtroom of Superior Judge Lisa Borges. Rosenberg said a proposed site could be announced by the end of the month.

The complex could cost several hundred million dollars, but backers including Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and Marion County Sheriff John Layton say the facility could be funded by savings realized from consolidation and gained efficiencies. Current plans call for consolidation of criminal court and jail functions as well as related offices such as prosecutor, probation and public defender.

Groups on the short list to build the facility are:

— WMB Heartland Justice Partners, led by equity members Meridiam Infrastructure Indy Justice LLC, Balfour Beatty Investments Inc. and Walsh Investors LLC with major non-equity contributions by Walsh Construction Co. II LLC, Heery International Inc., Cofely Services Inc., Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP; and Dewberry Architects.

— Indy Justice Partners, led by equity members Fengate Capital Management Ltd., AECOM Global Fund I LP and Shiel Sexton Co. Inc., with major contributions by W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co., Tishman Construction Corp. and Johnson Controls. Frost Brown Todd LLC attorneys are non-equity members.

— Plenary Edgemoor Justice Partners, led by Plenary Group USA Ltd. and Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate LLC. Major non-equity members are Clark Construction Group LLC, F.A. Wilhelm Construction Co. Inc., HDR Architecture Inc. and CBRE. Krieg DeVault LLP is a non-equity member.

Those groups will be invited to submit a request for proposals that will further define each proposal. According to the city’s timeline for the project, RFPs will be due in the summer and a preferred group will be selected in September with a proposal submitted to the City-County Council.

Davis said the analysis came about quickly because the process is moving quickly.

“The judges are working hard to respond to the city’s schedule,” she said. "When the people with the project and the authority are on the fast track, the rest of us must respond accordingly.”



  • Question to those who know
    Is this going to be a new supplement to the existing facilities on the east side of downtown, or a full replacement?

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?