Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Los Angeles Zoo warns proposed cuts would erode animal care and maintenance; council asks for memo on elephant relocation costs
Summary
Zoo General Manager Denise Ferrett told the Budget Committee proposed staffing reductions would affect animal care, maintenance and regulatory compliance. Councilmembers requested memos on offsets, facility condition assessments and costs associated with moving elephants.
The Los Angeles Zoo told the City Council Budget Committee on May 6 that proposed budget cuts—19% across programs and workforce—would reduce animal care staffing, maintenance capacity and the zoo’s ability to meet regulatory standards.
What the zoo reported General Manager Denise Ferrett said the proposed reductions would remove 53 positions from the department, including 31 filled positions (layoffs) and 22 vacant positions recommended for deletion. The department asked the committee to restore 10 positions through departmental offsets and to restore one vacancy in exchange for deleting certain funded vacancies. Ferrett said the zoo had not raised admission fees since 2019 and that the proposed budget includes a $5 admission increase in its plan for FY 2026.
Maintenance and accreditation concerns Ferrett told the committee many zoo buildings date to 1966 and that deferred maintenance and reduced construction staff would make it harder for the zoo to maintain exhibit spaces, building systems and safety standards. She listed priorities such as pavement repairs, roof and cooling‑tower work and other capital repairs, and asked for more stable funding for alterations and improvements.
Elephant issue and council follow‑up The committee also discussed recent public statements about the future of the zoo’s elephants. Councilmember Blumenfield asked for a cost analysis and an explanation of options before any animals are moved. Members requested a budget memo on the estimated costs of relocating elephants to different options, including accredited sanctuaries and an out‑of‑state zoo (Tulsa was specifically mentioned in committee exchanges). Councilmembers asked the zoo to include whether any relocations would affect institutional accreditation and to provide a timeline and cost breakdown for each option.
GLAZA, membership and revenue Committee members asked about the zoo’s relationship with the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association (GLAZA), which historically ran membership programs and supported zoo fundraising. Ferret said negotiations and new agreements are underway and that membership revenue is expected to flow differently to the zoo going forward; she said final terms were still under discussion and that she expects the zoo to receive more direct revenue from the membership program in the future. The zoo said one curator role is funded via reimbursement from GLAZA and that the department would report on any additional positions tied to outside reimbursements.
Requests from council Councilmembers requested memos and special studies from the CAO and the zoo, including: - A report on offsets and cost savings the zoo proposed to reduce layoffs. - A facilities audit against independent standards (for example, the Association of Shelter Veterinarians or similar) to estimate capital needs. - An analysis of the costs and accreditation implications of any proposed elephant relocation options.
Ending note Committee members thanked zoo staff for operations such as Zoo Lights and asked the department to return with more detailed cost and facility analyses to help the council weigh any staffing or capital tradeoffs.
