Zoo mired in debt it cannot afford Posted: 07 May 2009 10:56 AM PDT By: Brent Begin Examiner Staff Writer The San Francisco Zoo has overdue bills that it cannot afford to pay. The nonprofit San Francisco Zoological Society, which runs the facility, has amassed a $2.4 million tab for utility bills and labor costs in the current fiscal year. Another $400,000 is still outstanding from last fiscal year, according to officials with the Recreation and Park Department, which has paid the overdue bill out of its own budget. But the zoo said it cannot afford to pay. And that even if it had the $2.4 million The City is demanding, the hefty bill is higher than it should be and the zoo does not owe the full amount. “I’m fairly sure we won’t be able to make out a check tomorrow,” zoo spokeswoman Lora LaMarca said. Caring for creatures: The Zoological Society took over the zoo in 1993, but The City maintains ownership of the animals and the property at a cost of $4 million a year. Caring for creatures: The Zoological Society took over the zoo in 1993, but The City maintains ownership of the animals and the property at a cost of $4 million a year. That $2.4 million is roughly the same amount the zoo receives for membership fees, and it represents about 10 percent of the operating budget. City officials say the Zoological Society is breaking a contract that has long been the subject of debate, and the Mayor’s Office has become involved in an effort to broker peace between The City and the zoo. The Zoological Society took over the facility in 1993, and under the agreement, which was renewed last year amid controversy, The City maintains ownership of the animals and the property at a cost of $4 million a year while the nonprofit manages the zoo. The Zoological Society is required to pay its own utility bills, and it must pay Rec and Park employees who work at the zoo. After a 2006 state Supreme Court decision that required city departments pay for their own water from the Public Utilities Commission, the Zoological Society was hit with another bill. But since a Siberian tiger mauled a teenager to death in 2007, the Zoological Society has been dealing with its own financial crisis, LaMarca said. After the incident, the nonprofit also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in safety improvements and attorney fees. It could be reimbursed for some of that, but the matter has yet to be settled. “We’ve been in discussions for about nine months to see what money is owed to The City, and whether there actually is [money owed] or not,” LaMarca said. The recession has also hurt the zoo and attendance has declined, making for a tough budget year in 2008, said Jim Lazarus, vice president of the Recreation and Park Commission, an oversight board that receives monthly status reports from the Zoological Society. “Attendance and revenues have improved recently, but clearly they’ve got a hole to dig themselves out of,” Lazarus said. Operating costs $20.1 million Zoo’s 2008-09 operating budget $1,560,000 Amount The City says the zoo owes it $858,000 Labor costs for city employees who work at the zoo $400,000 Balance zoo owes The City from fiscal year 2007-08 Sources: San Francisco Zoological Society, Mayor’s Office, Recreation and Park Department
Finding more ways to reduce that debt... Cash-strapped zoo may close some exhibits | San Francisco Examiner
This zoo has been steadily declining for years now, and it is interesting that the article mentioned the fact that 50% of the exhibits are over 80 years old. I visited San Francisco in 2006 and the city is fascinating but the zoo is terrible. Unless some wealthy benefactor takes over then I have no idea how it will get out of the financial mess that it is currently embroiled in.
If you all remember some of our close knit SF posters have documented what is happening at the SF Zoo in terms of conservation and education. I do hold the City Council morally responsible for being rather complacent where the SF Zoo is concerned. The very fact that they expect the SF Zoo in the difficult climate it has seen itself in over the last 2 years to come up with some $2 mio in funds to the city coffers is a travesty beyond belief. Just think what amount of cash should be invested to turn so much municipal neglect on its head? It is what we term calling a stale-mate catch 22 situation for the SF Zoo it might never ever get out of. SF is a touristy place and vibrant location. Now, how on Earth can SF not make the SF Zoo go forward and be profitable once more? I would petition my State Rep or Congressman for this (if I where an US citizen)!
I know it'll never happen,but it would be nice to see this zoo end up in private hands some day. There are plenty of wealthy folks in NorCal who could put up the money if they were feeling philanthropic enough. It may be better run in that kind of situation anyway. That city deserves better.
I'm new to ZooChat but know people who are very familiar with the situation in SF. The SF Zoo has been operated by the San Francisco Zoological Society under a contract with the city since 1993. The Zoo was starting to do very well under the previous director and had ended their fiscal years 06 and 07 with a profit. The zoo, as well as the City/County of San Francisco, is highly unionized and the keeper's union at the zoo is very difficult to work with despite the fact that they the highest paid animal keepers in the US. After the tiger incident, the Zoological Society board began interfering with management and the City of San Francisco, instead of standing behind the zoo chose to take an adversarial position. The Zoological Society Board forced the previous director out and appointed one of its members, an attorney who worked for Hewlett Packard, as interim. Six months later they gave her the position permanently even though she had no previous management experience much less zoological experience. The Zoo has lost most of the development department staff as well as the chief operating officer, human resources director and other positions and the board has chosen to leave those jobs empty. The City/County of San Francisco is facing a massive budget deficit and does not want to take over operating the zoo. I do not see much future for the Zoo unless the city takes it back or finds an organization such as the California Academy of Sciences to operate the zoo properly.
Here is an update on current developments at the SF Zoo from the local newspaper. At its 80th anniversary, S.F. Zoo reassesses Enjoy! K.B.
I find it hard to believe that crying poor is a good marketing tool. The SF Zoo focusing attention on their poor financial state doesn't exactly make me want to visit.
Here is a more recent article about the zoo's financial situation: San Francisco Zoo Struggles - WSJ.com
This cost cutting strategy underlines that cost cutting and cutting out the essentials in a zoo facility is not able to sustain visitor flow and numbers sufficiently. It should wonder everyone how in an environment where people seek outings closer to home the visitor numbers at SF Zoo are 60% down on pre-2007 numbers.
Financial difficulty has been a problem for the San Francisco Zoological Society since taking over the zoo in 1993. This time they don't have any wealthy philanthropist on their board who will bail them out of their predicament as happened in the past. I have a difficult time feeling sorry for them since they got themselves into this situation. They left most of the positions in the development department vacant for over a year. They could not afford to bring in reindeer or an ice rink for the Christmas holidays which would have helped attendance. The management is inexperienced in running a zoo. Frankly, I think the Zoological Society is mismanaging the zoo but the City of San Francisco will not step in unless forced to because of the dire financial situation the city also faces. My opinion is that the best thing for this zoo is for it to be closed. The Bay Area has another very nice zoo, The Oakland Zoo, less than 30 minutes away. Oakland has better weather, a much more stable financial situation and is poised to expand in the near future. Their attendance increased last year!
Those articles certainly go a long way towards explaining (but not excusing) several of the issues I saw during my visit last September (2009). I still have hope for the place, but it does sound like they're going to need a miracle to come through this.
Blackduiker I don't know the solution for saving the San Francisco Zoo, but I totally disagree with closing up shop, and leaving the bay area zoo option to just visiting Oakland and leaving it at that. This is ZooChat, and I think it should be one of our goals to support zoos, not tearing them down when in need. Especially an institution that has been around for so many years, and has strived to conserve wildlife and educate the public these many years. I've visited there twice, first in 1980 and again in 2002, and I think they've received some overly harsh criticism. No, they're not perfect, but have been hit by several unfortunate situations; particularly in recent years. My home zoo here in Los Angeles is also facing being privatized due to city debts. This could be a good thing, like what we're seeing in Dallas, or it could mean financial woes, as we're seeing with San Francisco. Will people be saying, "well Southern California has two financially successful institutions just 120 miles south in the San Diego area, L.A. should finally just throw in the towel and close up shop." Not if I have anything to say about it! So I propose to all fellow zoo lovers out there, to put your money where your mouth is, or post, or heart if you like. I'm proposing San Francisco Zoo as the first recipient of our financial support. And if you disagree, fine. But I'm pledging something, and hopefully this is the beginning of a call to start saving zoological institutions throughout the world, by supporting them. I believe in second chances, and moving forward, not looking back. And during these trying economic times, who knows whether your favorite zoo will be in need soon as well? Here is where they can be reached should anyone else so choose. https://sfzoo.doubleknot.com/Registration/GroupInfo.asp
Blackduiker, that's noble of you and I'm sure the SF Zoo will appreciate your support. I am a former donor and am leaving it that way as I've seen and heard about how funds have been misspent or wasted. I certainly hope that if Glaza reaches an agreement to take over operating the Los Angeles Zoo that they do a better job of raising money than they currently do and craft a much better agreement than SFZS has with the City of San Francisco. There are certainly better operating models in the US than either organization such as the Columbus Zoo.
Would that also include the Bronx Zoo? It seems not too long ago, they were in a financial mess and talking of downsizing and closures. And to the best of my recollection, I believe the stellar London Zoo almost went under in recent years. Would anyone else like to comment here? As I stated, "who knows whether your favorite zoo will be in need soon as well?" Or is it only the San Francisco and possibly soon Los Angeles Zoos that are unworthy of our support? ...gnuzoo? Everyone journey to Columbus!
Although I'm not living in California (or even USA) I must say: I'm totally agree with Blackduiker. The SF Zoo needs the support from everyone who likes zoos. I've visited SF Zoo just once in the late 90ies, but I think the institution has some good exhibits in a wonderful landscape. Would we let this area really come down into a shopping mall (or any other commercial stuff)? All I can say is: No, no and no! So I hope, that a lot of people in Northern California share my opinion and try to save their unique Zoo. They should remember the words of Charlton Heston (although in another context): Closing the zoo? - "Only from my dead cold hands".
Blackduiker And just today, I read the following article on this site's Zoo News section concerning the Saint Louis Zoo, a wonderful Zoo I visited in 2008 with free admission. In the readers comments section, one writer asks the question, "Is the zoo having money issues?" Could the St. Louis Zoo start charging admission? | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO Is this also going to be the trend for others in the near future, like for instance Chicago's Lincoln Park or even D.C.'s Washington National? Can we merely write off the San Francisco Zoo due to "bad management" only, or is this truly another sign of these economic times? Again I stress, let's not be too harsh or hasty in our judgement. Your zoo could be next.
