Wisconsin Lawyer: Wisconsin Lawyer December 1997: Guest Column - The State Bar Has Outgrown Its Current Building:

Home > News & Publications > Wisconsin Lawyer > Article

December 01, 1997

Wisconsin Lawyer December 1997: Guest Column - The State Bar Has Outgrown Its Current Building

Guest Column

The State Bar Has Outgrown Its Current Building

The State Bar's current facility does not adequately meet the needs of a growing membership. As the Facilities Committee moves closer to a recommendation for space needs, it will keep members informed and address issues as they arise. Committee members are attending local bar association meetings and other lawyer gatherings whenever possible, and I personally have attended such meetings to talk with members about any concerns about this project. That is why I am pleased to respond to the issues raised in attorney Goepel's companion article.

The State Bar began its study of space needs more than five years ago, and discussion of the current facility's shortcomings goes back at least 10 years. We are now at a crossroads. As we approach the 21st century, our technology needs are changing and our membership is growing by at least 400 attorneys each year, demanding new programs and services from the association.

The current State Bar Center is 40 years old. It was built when membership was approximately 6,500. There were five staff members, far fewer member service programs, dramatically fewer committees, commissions, sections and divisions. Today, we have more than 19,000 members, 78 staff, 50 committees, 23 sections and three divisions and a long list of member service activities. The State Bar clearly is not the same bar it was 40 years ago, nor should it be. Think about how much the legal profession has changed since 1957.

Attorney Goepel asserts that past studies are inadequate and that the association does not need a different, larger facility. Let me dispel the confusion.

Committee studies and recommendations

In January 1993 the Long Range Planning Committee reported:

". [S]pace and parking limitations presently cause the State Bar to operate inefficiently. Staff inefficiencies from dispersed operations and overcrowding probably push the price tag of operating from inadequate facilities much higher. The State Bar should evaluate its existing facilities in light of the level of programming it anticipates over the next three to five years and in light of the infrastructure necessary to support approximately 2,000 additional members over a five-year period. The bar should investigate a variety of ways to meet possible space needs."

The Long Range Planning Committee also reported that "the State Bar Center is at capacity. Inadequate parking is a problem for members and staff." The committee recommended that the Board of Governors decide either to reduce the current level of bar activities or plan to acquire a larger facility.

In August 1994, Facilities Committee chair Jim Pouros said he "had reached the same conclusion that the Long Range Planning Committee had reached in 1993: 'The State Bar needs a new facility in order to be able to continue to deliver services to the members.'" A review of Facilities Committee minutes over the past three years conclusively reflects these developments.

Facilities Committee minutes also show the State Bar engaged in several space studies, including:

1) In April 1994 the State Bar arranged with Zimmerman Design of Madison to look at the Bar's space needs. Zimmerman estimated that the Bar needs approximately 40,000 square feet of space. It currently has about 20,000 square feet.

2) In April 1994 Strang & Associates of Madison, original architects of the Bar Center, reported that, based on its zoning, the Bar could add one more floor . However, because of the facility's engineering structure, the older half of the building could not hold another floor. Therefore, another floor could be added only to the newer half of the building, resulting in only 3,000 additional square feet at a cost of $350,000.

Adding another half-floor is a short-term, band-aid approach with no long-term value to the Bar. It also does not solve the parking and member-access issues discussed later. Adding to the current facility will never gain the amount of additional space the State Bar needs to operate efficiently.

3) In April 1995 Devenish & Associates of Madison, specialists in space planning, studied the Bar's space needs and reported that the Bar could remain in the current facility only if it held seminars offsite and further limited meeting room space. These are not viable long-term options because:

a) estimates show that moving Madison seminars offsite costs the Bar an additional $50,000 annually;

b) the Bar would spend an estimated $700,000 to renovate the facility as a temporary remedy to space problems; and

c) moving committee and section meetings, admissions, other events and special meetings offsite adds costs and inefficiency.

Examining the alternatives

The Facilities Committee looked at alternative solutions to the space needs issues, including:

Locating to a different facility; considering whether to own or lease; building a new facility or finding an existing building. The Facilities Committee first determined that owning a building is a more advantageous long-term option than leasing. One consideration is the tax advantage; another is the ability to customize a building for the association's needs.

Keeping the Bar's long-term goals and space needs to the forefront, the committee also looked at several existing office facilities. However, no action was taken on these properties for reasons of limited size, location, price or availability. Simply put, no existing facility currently on the market meets the Bar's needs. However, the committee continues to watch for new listings in the Madison real estate market.

Splitting operations between the existing Bar Center and other facilities. Due to space constraints, the Bar currently maintains mailing, printing, record retention and some inventory storage at two separate locations - resulting in unnecessary travel time to locate and obtain records and office inventory, and deliver, produce and mail printed products. It is clear this option is inefficient and expensive.

Staff cooperation and interaction is critical to efficient, quality services. When you consider breaking up the Bar staff, you must consider the effect it has on the Bar's ability to provide services to attorneys and the public. Inventory, mailing and printing operations are best performed onsite for cost and efficiency considerations. Requiring more operations activities offsite would only make things worse.

Exploring work-at-home options for employees. Currently, several Bar employees who can perform their jobs more independently work at home. However, most staff have responsibilities that are intertwined with other staff, making it difficult to work in a separate location. The ability for staff to work together on projects and programs is critical. Convention and seminar planning, member services, public relations, legislative outreach, communications, publishing, marketing, accounting and many other services are all interrelated.

Attorney Goepel questions whether we are housing too many employees of related agencies. The Bar houses two full-time employees from the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation, and two Bar staff provide part-time service to the Wisconsin Law Foundation and the Equal Justice Task Force. The Bar is reimbursed for all of these services and related facilities costs.

Other facilities-related issues

Parking. Is parking an issue? Of course. There are 25 parking spaces available for a building with more than 70 employees, visiting attorneys and others. Members often must search for available street parking, oftentimes parking a substantial distance from the Bar Center when attending CLE seminars or other meetings. The Madison Common Council recently voted to enforce a ban on backyard parking lots in the nearby neighborhoods, putting two-hour on-street parking at an even greater premium.

Staff rent 23 parking stalls from a business three blocks from the Bar Center; and several staff are on a waiting list for these spaces. Because this business is relocating, the arrangement is available only on a month-to-month basis. In addition, this arrangment does nothing to relieve members' parking woes.

Why aren't the nearby parking ramps viable options to solving the parking dilemma? The ramp closest to the Bar Center often is at capacity early in the day; there are several hundred commuters on its waiting list for all-day, long-term rental parking. The new Monona Terrace Convention Center, just under a half mile from the Bar, also has no long-term rental parking available. Short-term parking is hit or miss, wholly dependent upon that day's event attendance. In addition, Convention Center parking already frequently has been inadequate for Convention Center events, making on-street parking near the Bar Center even more dear. The Kohl Center, which is about a mile from the Bar, not a couple blocks as attorney Goepel claims, also is not a viable alternative due to its distance.

Location of the Bar Center. Lawyers come to the State Bar Center from across the state for various meetings and CLE activities. The current downtown location is not accessible to most members. Consequently, the committee is seriously considering relocating to Madison's east side, to provide easy access to lawyers using the state's main highways and interstate system.

Use of other facilities. The Bar rents space for CLE seminars and other meetings from area hotels and other local facilities. While most facilities rent space for Bar meetings, long-range scheduling can be difficult. The Monona Terrace Convention Center and area hotels give priority to larger groups and conventions that more fully use their sleeping and meeting room space and food service.

Gerald M. O'Brien, of Anderson, Shannon, O'Brien, Rice & Bertz in Stevens Point, chairs the Facilities Committee. He is a former State Bar president.

What will a new building cost?

Obviously, cost is an important factor. Early projections put the cost of a new building at somewhat more than $4 million. One model is that this would be paid for through a combination of reserve funds (a little more than $1 million), sale of the current building (also around $1 million) and borrowing. The Facilities Committee will bring financing options to the Board of Governors for consideration.

The committee has no interest in linking any future dues increase with the cost of a new building. The figures above are not invented, "fantastic" figures as attorney Goepel suggests; they are realistic projections from professional accounting experts.

Where do we go from here?

The Facilities Committee continues to study facility options and will make its recommendation to the board at its Jan. 28 meeting. A project development consultant is reviewing our prior needs assessment studies to refine and further address many of the issues critical to a sound decision in anticipation of the Bar's space needs well into the future.