State to scope Indy block for new building to house judiciary, legislative office space

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mike Pence’s administration is in the early stages of a land-use study for a hot piece of downtown Indianapolis property north of the Statehouse.

The study, required under Senate Enrolled Act 367, is to consider the feasibility of a new building to house the judiciary, provide more legislative office space and offer parking for employees and visitors. The act requires the Office of Management and Budget to complete the study by Dec. 1, 2015.

This would be the third time since the late 1980s that state government has considered expanding its presence to what’s now a parking lot northwest of Ohio Street and Capitol Avenue.

Judges and legislators say they—and the public—are working with cramped quarters. The administration last fall solicited “creative” proposals for additional state-employee parking on the site and ended up with developers pitching multi-use buildings.

The Indiana Finance Authority, which issued the request, isn’t acting on the responses partly because of the pending land-use study, Finance Director Kendra York said. Senate Enrolled Act 367 passed earlier this year.

Pence spokeswoman Christy Denault said OMB is in the early stages of reviewing the request for a study and will work with the Department of Administration to gather the “necessary data.”

It’s hard to tell whether Pence and legislative leaders are serious about developing the downtown parcel. Senate Enrolled Act 367 dealt mainly with property tax issues and was amended by Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, to require the land-use study.

Turner was traveling and couldn’t be reached for comment.

“I don’t know why he did it or why he put it in there,” said Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville and one of the co-authors of the bill.

Kenley said it’s “questionable” whether Indiana has the money for a new state-government facility, but noted that the state’s cash position—a $2 billion reserve—is good and interest rates are low.

While he said he’s “not too enthused” about conducting another study, Kenley said it’s better than giving up the asset to the private real estate market.  

SEA 367 also requires the feasibility study include ways to enhance public access to the legislature and judiciary, including additional space for legislative hearings. The Legislature conducts important committee hearings in rooms barely large enough to accommodate members, their staff, people scheduled to testify and the press. Lobbyists and citizens who may also want to speak observe proceedings on monitors in the halls of the Statehouse.

The study is to include ways to enhance security while also enhancing public access and might include past architectural studies, according to the act.

One question OMB should ask is whether it’s cheaper to build than for the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Court of Appeals to continue renting office space downtown for some functions, said appellate Judge John Baker.

The Legislature has twice approved plans for a capitol expansion, but both times they were squashed by governors. The first plan, drawn up in 1988, was vetoed by former Gov. Evan Bayh. That plan called for a neo-classical style building, complete with a copper dome, that would have been twice the size of the Statehouse. Bayh, a Democrat, later oversaw construction of the south wing of the state office building.

The late Gov. Frank O’Bannon vetoed the plan for a judicial center that the Legislature approved in 2001, and no one has picked up the ball since, said Baker, who sat on the committee that crafted the 2001 plan. The state spent about $4 million on those plans, he said.

Baker is not reading much into the forthcoming land-use study.

“I think I would be encouraged if I knew there was the political will to do something with a study," he said. "I don’t know if I’m in favor of spending taxpayers’ money on a project that is doomed to fail. “


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?