I got wind of a letter from the tag team of Carrie Samis and Jim Rapp of the Salisbury Zoo from Salisbury City Councilwoman Debbie Campbell, and I’ll share a couple of Debbie’s thoughts on it below (since she graciously allowed me to.) The Samis/Rapp letter is also posted on Salisbury News, so rather than reinvent the wheel I’ll summarize what those two zoo employees are concerned about.
According to the Samis note, if the city cuts its budget as Campbell and Cohen wish, 5 of 14 zoo employees would be furloughed. Rapp adds that “these cuts will ruin the zoo” and details the five positions: zoo curator, zoo education curator, and three zookeeper positions. According to Rapp, the education curator position is “funded through a grant from the MD State Department of Education, two endowments at the Community Foundation of the Eastern Shore, special events, and program fees.” Continuing by claiming the zoo is the “heart and soul” of the city, Rapp also contends that “Campbell & Cohen use the term ‘non-essential’ to refer to this Zoo: how does that make you feel?” Nice emotional appeal. Rapp also notes that, “(w)e need a strong presence (at the May 29 City Council meeting) – bring your friends, your children, and your passion for your Zoo.”
For her part, Campbell defends her idea by saying:
“I don’t think that they understand that although it is used regionally, that the Salisbury taxpayers are the only taxpayers supporting the facility. I love the zoo, but it is time for some fundraising (I plan to try to raise $10,000 toward the construction of the new health building) and if there is to be government support – some other governments besides Salisbury. I would like to see businesses, perhaps the Chamber and Greater Salisbury working together to capitalize a fund at the Community Foundation to provide perpetual operating support for the zoo. I would also like to see a small admission fee, maybe $1. The could be a free day each week or month, but if people want a zoo they (regionally) should be supporting it. Not just the taxpayers in the city of Salisbury.“
Awhile back, when my readership was far less than it is now, I posted a comparison of sorts between the Salisbury Zoo, the Baltimore Zoo, and my native Toledo Zoo. In it, I suggested an admission fee of $7, $3 for kids. That way a family of four could get in for $20. As I’ve now actually been through some of the zoo since I wrote that, it’s probably more fair to cut those prices in half. But if the zoo draws 50,000 paying visitors a year split between adults and kids, that’s a revenue stream of $250,000 $125,000 – paid for by those who use it. My guess is those five jobs and benefits probably could be saved by that income. And we could allow free days and such as Campbell suggests.
(Whoops, poor math on Michael’s part. That revenue stream would be $125,000 if it’s based on a $3.50/$1.50 admission scheme, or half the $7/$3 I originally proposed.)
The zoo is a cautionary tale of what happens when a group or entity becomes dependent on the taxpayer for their livelihood. Instead of seeking different and more reliable ways to gain income (like a user fee), they depend on the good will of the Salisbury City Council. Bill Reddish has said it well: the city’s priorities should be police, fire/EMS, water/sewer, garbage, and roads. The rest is gravy.
If the zoo were to charge admission, that would not be bothersome to me. As I stated, it would be a nice place to spend an afternoon casually strolling around with a friend. (I just need to find the right friend for it.)
*ahem* By going to a user fee and other funding routes that Campbell suggests, it shifts the burden to those who actually use the Salisbury Zoo and those who wish to help benefit the community by supporting it. Since the voters do not have a direct say in how the zoo is funded, this seems to me the best alternative.
Excellent timely post, Michael.
It’s time for candid consideration of “how much zoo” and how much taxpayer funding is appropriate.
I suggest cutting back now and limiting future growth of the zoo, even if private funding becomes available, because that may not be permanent. If a large endowment is ever obtained, then the situation can be reviewed and changed if a larger zoo can be sustained without more taxpayer funding by Salisbury property owners.
Campbell and Cohen deserve credit for facing the real problems and not simply whining and sweeping them under the run for another year. We have got to have better priority in spending tax revenue, and the zoo should be demoted in that ranking.
I have visited the zoo, but not recently, and I do not know enough details about its financial base; but I have had substantial experience with zoos and nonprofits, and I know that it is unwise to rely too heavily on municipal funding for support. I also have found that admission fees are not always the best way to go. When I was in charge of a zoo facility in the Chicago area, we were able to raise $600,000 in a year in entry donations, which was more than our budgeted operating expenses for that facility. When a compulsory fee was imposed, attendence and income declined. You need to examine your mission and goals. Your goals should include education, conservation, science, and recreation–with the entertainment and amusement parts of recreation the least important in terms of purposes–they should be used to attract people in order to advance the main purposes. Feel free to contact me. I’ll be glad to help.