Vol. 70, No. 12, December
1997
Guest Column
The State Bar Has Outgrown
Its Current Building
By Gerald M. O'Brien
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.
Questions or Comments?
For more background on the State Bar facility or to provide feedback
to the Facilities Committee, please
visit WisBar's Bar Center Homepage.
If you prefer to contact Facilities Committee members by phone or fax,
please consult the online roster.
|