That budget item actually contained about $40,000 for outside legalcounsel to draw up documents to create a “not-for-profit corporation to assumeoperation and management of the Milwaukee County Zoo effective October 1,2011,” as well as $20,000 for an outside consultant to study whetherprivatization was the best step for the county and the zoo.
The $60,000 amendment was rejected by the county's Finance and AuditCommittee last Monday.
Instead, the committee passed an amendment proposed by SupervisorsLynne De Bruin, Gerry Broderick and Jim (Luigi) Schmitt, which set aside$20,000 for a consultant to study privatization, then report back to the countyboard in early 2010 for further action.
“My amendment was designed to pull out all of the language that saidit's a done deal,” De Bruin said.
Zoo Director Chuck Wikenhauser confirmed De Bruin's account.
“It's a study,” Wikenhauser said. “It's not a done deal.”
Wikenhauser said he's studied privatization every few years, but theidea never went beyond that. This year, though, was different. The county'ssevere budget crunch has made Wikenhauser wonder if the zoo will receiveadequate funding from the county for its operations. County Executive ScottWalker had proposed a $2 million cut for 2010, from $5.4 million in 2009 to$3.4 million next year. In 2008, the zoo received $6.4 million from the countytax levy.
“The zoo is subject towhatever the [county's] budget is each year,” Wikenhauser said.
Supervisor Broderick saidthe budget crunch was due in part to the unwillingness of the governor and bothhouses of the state Legislature to approve a 1-cent sales tax for the parks,transit, cultural assets, emergency medical services and property tax relief,which county voters supported last November. Part of that sales tax would havebeen directed to the zoo.
“We'd be ina very different place if that had gone through,” Broderick said. “The budgetwould be very, very different.”
Karen Peck Katz, the former chair of the Zoological Society ofMilwaukee, said that organization favored studying privatization because donorswould prefer to give to a nonprofit over a government-run entity.
“It should be explored, whether good or bad,” she said.
David Sikorski, vice president and chief steward of AFSCME Local 882,which represents zoo employees, said the real target of the privatization planis the dedicated group of unionized zookeepers and zoo employees.
“I think that's the ‘PhaseII' of this projectto dissolve the union positions there,” he said.
Is Privatization the OnlyOption?
Wikenhauser'sprivatization vision is for the zoo to continue receiving some financialsupport from the county, which would still own the facilities and grounds. Buta nonprofit entity would operate and manage the zoo, and raise funds frommemberships, contributions and revenues.
Wikenhauser said thatfund-raising during a recession does worry him, but that the ZoologicalSociety's ability to attract contributions shows that people are still willingto give to the zoo.
“It's no doubt that therewould be a couple of tough years, just getting it started,” Wikenhauser said.
He said that the study would look at a host of unanswered questions,such as union employee contracts and inefficiencies and redundancies in thebudgets of the county and the Zoological Society. But he admitted that somethings might be more expensive under a new nonprofit entity. For example,Wikenhauser explained, the county is self-insured, so if someone is hurt at thezoo grounds the county will cover it. But a nonprofit entity would have topurchase insurance, which most likely would be more expensive than the county'sumbrella coverage, he said.
De Bruin said privatization isn't the only option. After analyzing theforthcoming study, the county could decide to keep the zoo under countycontrol; create a public-private partnership; or make financial changes thatdon't require a governance change.
“We may learn ways to reduce the cost of operating the zoo withoutprivatizing it,” she said.