City Council Votes to Seek Zoo Privatization Plan

The City Council voted today to ask private companies and nonprofit groups to submit applications to manage the Los Angeles Zoo, an idea described by its chief advocate as "the only model'' available to the cash-strapped city if it wishes to keep the attraction open.

"We're going to go out there and see who in the world could be a partner with the city of Los Angeles to operate our zoo, to expand our zoo, to continue the great care for the animals,'' said Councilman Tom LaBonge, whose district includes the zoo. "We'll have an opportunity in seven or eight months to see if we want to reject this or not. We'll see who's out there.''

The council also approved a separate track requested by Councilman Herb Wesson that asks the city administrative officer to put forward a plan that keeps the zoo under city management. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa proposed that the city investigate privatizing the zoo's management more than two years ago.

Zoo employees told the council they feared that ticket prices would increase, and the animals would suffer under a private manager. At least a dozen zoo workers testified that they are dedicated to their positions and new hires would lack institutional knowledge about how to care for the grounds and its tenants.

Because salary, pension and health care costs are rising while the zoo's budget has remained flat, the zoo has been forced to cut its staff from 268 employees in 2008 to 228 today, said City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana, who wrote the proposals.

"Any further reductions means it will be harder for the zoo to stay open,'' Santana said. "We'll have less programs, and we'll need to further increase the fees to get in. That's the opposite direction we want to go.''

Santana said donors are less likely to support a city-managed zoo because too much of their money goes toward administrative costs and not enough to zoo improvements and programs. The city would save about $20 million over five years under the proposal, according to a study by city-hired consultant KPMG.

Under a so-called alternative management structure, the city would retain ownership of the zoo, and none of the zoo's 228 full-time workers would be laid off.

Employees who do zoo-specific work, 47 percent, would keep their current jobs. However, plumbers, carpenters, gardeners and other non-zoo specific employees could be transferred into other city departments. All new hires at the zoo would work for the new private manager.

The zoo, where admission is $9 for children under 13 years old, has long been an affordable alternative to other area attractions, such as Disneyland, which costs $74 for children ages 3-9 and increases in price from there. Tickets at the San Diego Zoo are $30 for children age 3-11.

"If we want to have a zoo, if a zoo is important for Angelenos, then this is really the only model available to us,'' Santana said.

Addressing concerns that ticket prices at the zoo would spike under private manager, Santana said the City Council would have to approve any changes to ticket prices.

Councilman Tony Cardenas voted to oppose the proposal, saying the studies that had been done were not thorough enough. There is a possibility the private manager could propose improving the zoo by raising the ticket price $10, he said. "If we did that, could we continue to run it, and not depend on the general fund?''

"In these tough times we don't even have enough resources to get enough answers to have enough information to make a well informed decision,'' he added.

LaBonge said he would love to see the city retain management of the zoo. That would only happen, he said, "if the City of Los Angeles hit the lotto and we had $500 million just sitting there. But that's not going to happen.''

The city hopes to have the private company managing the zoo by July 2012.

— City News Service