They’ve scotched the idea for now, but N.C. lawmakers might return later to a plan that would call on taxpayers to foot a larger share of the bill for running the North Carolina Zoo.
A study committee dropped the idea during a meeting Tuesday, but at least two members signaled their support for reviving the plan once the state’s budget picture improves.
“Unfortunately, our timing couldn’t be lousier,” said Rep. Cullie Tarleton, D-Watauga. “But I support taking this out [of the committee’s report to the new General Assembly] in light of what we all know we’re going to be facing.”
Tarleton and his colleagues face a hole in the $21.5 billion state budget that could reach as high as $1.6 billion, according to the state’s economic forecasters. Gov.-elect Beverly Perdue has signaled she thinks the hole in the next state budget could grow as large as $3 billion. That budget will take effect July 1.
The N.C. Zoological Park Funding and Organization Study Committee took the budget information into account as it dropped a proposal to shift more money from the state’s ailing General Fund to cover zoo operations. The original proposal would have shifted about $4 million per year for zoo expenses.
“But I would like all of us to recognize and acknowledge the need to keep this very much alive and on the table,” Tarleton said. “You know, the North Carolina Zoo is unlike anything else we have in this state … that belongs to the state. Rules that apply to other state entities don’t always apply to the zoo because of its uniqueness. We have to recognize that.”
The proposed funding shift could return to the drawing board in future years. “I really hope that as we go forward, that we’ll keep revisiting this and say, ‘Can we do it now? Can we do it now?’ Because it is something, folks, that we need to do,” Tarleton said. “I mean, we just need to do it. And eventually we’ve just got to bite that bullet and do it. But I agree that our timing couldn’t be worse right now.”
Tarleton’s assessment drew favorable reviews from at least one colleague. “Thank you — that’s a good observation,” said Rep. Edith Warren, D-Pitt, a committee co-chair.
“I think this a critical issue,” Warren said as the committee put the finishing touches on its report. “As Rep. Tarleton mentioned earlier, it is the most difficult of times for us to be wanting to do the kinds of things that really need to happen. But we will just keep this on the front burner, keep this work going so that we can take care of this most prized possession that we have in North Carolina. That is a crown jewel.”
The shift of General Fund money — from state taxpayers — was tied to a plan to change the way the Randolph County-based zoo could use its Special Zoo Fund. The plan would have allowed the zoo to steer some gate receipts toward construction projects. Zoo supporters depend largely on the Assembly to approve specific expansion projects.
The proposed change would have helped the zoo address more than $123 million in building and other capital costs expected during the next decade, according to zoo officials. That money includes planning for a new Asian exhibit, to join the zoo’s existing exhibits covering North America and Africa.
Zoo officials touted the new exhibit as part of an expansion plan that could boost attendance, especially among guests planning to stay overnight. Zoo development could lead to other projects nearby, such as a theater or hotel.
Taxpayers should be glad lawmakers have set this idea aside, said Joseph Coletti, fiscal policy analyst for the John Locke Foundation. “That is good news, given how many other things are being requested this year despite the budget problems,” Coletti said. “Any time legislators say, ‘You know, maybe we can hold off on this spending idea,’ it’s great news.”
There’s no good reason to bring the funding plan back, Coletti said. “There’s nothing like legislators acting like 4-year-olds in the back seat, saying ‘Are we there yet? Are we there yet?’ That’s what they’ve promised to do, to keep coming back until there is money that doesn’t seem to have a better use,” he said. “Then they can use General Fund money to pay a larger share of the operating budget of the zoo.”
That arrangement doesn’t make sense, Coletti said. “Ideally, you’d like to see more of the costs of the zoo coming from donations and from ticket sales so that it’s more self-sustaining.”
The zoo’s advocates should follow the University of North Carolina’s lead in raising private dollars for capital costs, Coletti said. “Raise capital on your own — convince people that the zoo is worthwhile,” he said. “Don’t just have your expansion plan imposed on everyone else in the state, including many people who don’t use the zoo and have no desire to go to the zoo.”
Though the study committee scrapped the primary funding proposal, it endorsed other ideas designed to help the zoo improve its financial picture. The committee wants the legislature to exempt the zoo from the Umstead Act, a state law that blocks state agencies from competing with the private sector.
Committee members also asked the legislature to reappoint a study group that could continue investigating restructuring and oversight of zoo operations.
Vendors working with the zoo through “revenue-generating contracts” would also have greater flexibility to advertise those contracts. For instance, a soft-drink vendor could advertise its relationship with the zoo on merchandise or in radio advertisements.
“That’s a good idea,” Coletti said. “The contractors are going to be there. Having worthwhile vendors at the zoo improves the value of your experience there. To the extent companies are willing to pay to provide that service, that’s worthwhile. To the extent they can advertise their relationship with the zoo, they might even be willing to pay more.”
The Assembly could consider these ideas once it returns to work in January.
Mitch Kokai is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.