ILNews

Indianapolis Justice Center responses due by end of June

Dave Stafford
May 2, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Editor's note: This story has been corrected.

Three groups chosen to design proposals for a Criminal Justice Center on the former General Motors stamping plant site west of downtown Indianapolis will have until the end of June to submit their comments on the project, a city official said Friday. Development proposals are due in the fall.

Indianapolis Director of Enterprise Development David Rosenberg told judges of the Marion Superior Executive Committee the city sent out draft requests for proposals last week.

The project envisions a complex costing several hundred million dollars that would combine new facilities for the Marion County Jail, Marion Superior criminal courts and various other court functions.  

Judges asked if there were any environmental remediation concerns regarding the former industrial site, and Rosenberg said the RACER Trust, which owns the property, is responsible for any remediation needed to return the property to use.

Rosenberg explained the successful developer will purchase the property from the independent trust that owns the property as the result of GM’s bankruptcy. The trust has an obligation to sell GM’s legacy properties at prices that approximate fair market value.

The successful bidder would arrange financing for the land purchase and construction, and the city would sign a long-term lease for the facility under the plan championed by Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and Marion County Sheriff John Layton.

The chosen development team also would acquire the balance of the 110-acre site on the west bank of White River south of Washington Street. The Criminal Justice Complex is planned to occupy only about one-third of the western portion of the site.

Officials have said savings realized by eliminating inefficiencies and office rent would fund the project and that no tax increase would be required.

Groups chosen to respond to a request for proposals 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.


According to the city’s timeline, a favored proposal will be chosen and introduced to the City-County Council in September.
 
 

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 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT