ILNews

Institute analyzing proposed sites for Marion County criminal justice complex

Dave Stafford
March 7, 2014
Keywords
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.”

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT