Indianapolis Justice Center responses due by end of June

Dave Stafford
May 2, 2014
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.


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?