In a cost-cutting move, Toronto city manager Joe Pennachetti’s report on the “core services review’’ suggests the city issue a call to bidders interested in buying, leasing or operating the Toronto Zoo.
That’s not a new notion; in fact, it’s a widely accepted practice across North America: Dallas, Texas, privatized the day-to-day operation of its zoo in 2008. Los Angeles has issued an RFP seeking a private sector partner to operate its zoo. And the San Diego Zoo, Seattle’s Woodland Park Zoo and the Denver Zoo are all operated by non-profit interests.
“About 84 per cent of major U.S. zoos have privatized. Typically the city retains ownership of the land, buildings and animals, and a private interest manages the day-to-day operation,’’ says Jeb Bonner, vice president and CFO of the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association (GLAZA), a private non-profit supporting the city’s bid to privatize its zoo.
Los Angeles is taking such steps because it’s faced with a shortfall of nearly $500 million in its next budget. The city contributes about $15 million a year to its zoo.
Proponents argue that one upside of privatization is increased donations. The downside is job losses.
“There’s a significant number of (potential) donors who say their giving would increase if our zoo was privately operated,” says GLAZA’s Bonner. The prevailing belief, at least in the United States, is that it’s tougher to get people to give to government-run entities than private ones, because the latter are viewed as more fiscally accountable and run more efficiently.
After the Dallas Zoo went private in October 2008, it saw almost instant results: Within two months, four donors stepped forward pledging a total of $2 million, according to Michael Meadows, president of the Dallas Zoological Society.
A few years back the Toronto Zoo’s board of management, composed partly of city councillors, effectively fired the zoo foundation, a volunteer board responsible for fundraising, arguing it wasn’t able to attract big donors. But efforts to dig up such donors, with a goal of raising $250 million to revitalize the centre, have yet to hit pay dirt.
Toronto contributes about $12 million a year to the zoo, as well as maintaining small zoos in High Park and at Riverdale Farm, both of which may be closed under the proposed budget cuts.
Dallas’ zoological society pushed for and established independent management that took over operations after the city ran into financial difficulties.
At the time, Dallas wanted to reduce significantly the $16 million it poured into the zoo annually. The city reduced that figure to $11 million in the first post-privatization year by doing things such as outsourcing night zookeepers, security, and maintenance such as garbage disposal, Meadows explained.
But the changes came at a price. About 8 per cent of the city’s zoo employees did not secure work with the new entity, though Meadows argues the job losses would have been much worse had the city maintained operations and gone ahead with the cuts envisioned in 2008.
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
That’s not a new notion; in fact, it’s a widely accepted practice across North America: Dallas, Texas, privatized the day-to-day operation of its zoo in 2008. Los Angeles has issued an RFP seeking a private sector partner to operate its zoo. And the San Diego Zoo, Seattle’s Woodland Park Zoo and the Denver Zoo are all operated by non-profit interests.
“About 84 per cent of major U.S. zoos have privatized. Typically the city retains ownership of the land, buildings and animals, and a private interest manages the day-to-day operation,’’ says Jeb Bonner, vice president and CFO of the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association (GLAZA), a private non-profit supporting the city’s bid to privatize its zoo.
Los Angeles is taking such steps because it’s faced with a shortfall of nearly $500 million in its next budget. The city contributes about $15 million a year to its zoo.
Proponents argue that one upside of privatization is increased donations. The downside is job losses.
“There’s a significant number of (potential) donors who say their giving would increase if our zoo was privately operated,” says GLAZA’s Bonner. The prevailing belief, at least in the United States, is that it’s tougher to get people to give to government-run entities than private ones, because the latter are viewed as more fiscally accountable and run more efficiently.
After the Dallas Zoo went private in October 2008, it saw almost instant results: Within two months, four donors stepped forward pledging a total of $2 million, according to Michael Meadows, president of the Dallas Zoological Society.
A few years back the Toronto Zoo’s board of management, composed partly of city councillors, effectively fired the zoo foundation, a volunteer board responsible for fundraising, arguing it wasn’t able to attract big donors. But efforts to dig up such donors, with a goal of raising $250 million to revitalize the centre, have yet to hit pay dirt.
Toronto contributes about $12 million a year to the zoo, as well as maintaining small zoos in High Park and at Riverdale Farm, both of which may be closed under the proposed budget cuts.
Dallas’ zoological society pushed for and established independent management that took over operations after the city ran into financial difficulties.
At the time, Dallas wanted to reduce significantly the $16 million it poured into the zoo annually. The city reduced that figure to $11 million in the first post-privatization year by doing things such as outsourcing night zookeepers, security, and maintenance such as garbage disposal, Meadows explained.
But the changes came at a price. About 8 per cent of the city’s zoo employees did not secure work with the new entity, though Meadows argues the job losses would have been much worse had the city maintained operations and gone ahead with the cuts envisioned in 2008.
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
No comments:
Post a Comment