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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT