Score: +3
(3/1/0)
San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2018-2019
San Joaquin County Grand Jury Micke Grove Zoo: Honoring the Past, Securing the Future
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 20 findings
F1
1 The lack of a Policy and Procedures Manual for Micke Grove Zoo creates inefficiencies and potential liabilities for the Parks and Recreation Division and San Joaquin County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1 The San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation Division develop a written Policy and Procedures Manual for all Micke Grove Zoo operations by June 30, 2020. Inspections/Permits Micke Grove Zoo is required to undergo several annual inspections. The United States Department of Agriculture conducts an annual inspection to ensure proper animal care and that Animal Welfare Act rules regulating captive wild animals are being followed. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife also inspects annually to determine compliance with regulations pertaining to enclosures, fencing, and other basic maintenance. No major deficiencies were noted during the inspections conducted by these respective agencies during 2018. The Zoo Manager is responsible for ensuring all required standards are met, while the Zoo Curator is responsible for ensuring all required permits are current. Budget Adequate funding to maintain Micke Grove Zoo continues to be a challenge. Over the past 10 years the budget for San Joaquin County has increased by 39%, while the Parks and Recreation Division budget has declined 16%. Day to day operational costs, deferred maintenance costs, and capital improvement costs all compete with the many service demands that are deemed a higher priority by the County. According to the Taussig Report, “…zoos of this form and size simply are not profitable. They rely heavily on donations, sponsorships, and foundation funding to remain operational.” Funding for the Zoo has historically been provided by the net operations of the Zoo, the General Fund, and fundraising by MGZS. Beginning in 2009, the County began using various trust funds to help balance the budget. Those trust funds are now near depletion and can no longer be relied on for financial support. That leaves the burden of funding the Zoo to the County and MGZS. Contributing to the funding burden is the lack of a detailed and comprehensive budget for the Zoo. Currently, the Parks and Recreation Division has no means to track individual line item costs for the Zoo. Without a detailed budget, it is impossible to manage the Zoo effectively and determine the true cost of operating the Zoo. A well-crafted budget will allow for goal setting and financial accountability. It will also allow for adjustments to unforeseen changes in revenue or expenses.
F2
1: Despite budget challenges, San Joaquin County leadership is committed to the continued operation and improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. Public Feedback On October 25, 2016, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors requested that the General Services Department provide a “zoo action plan” that included details on “what residents want” at Micke Grove Zoo. General Services presented their “Micke Grove Zoo Survey Results” to the Board of Supervisors on July 24, 2018. The public survey responses were generally favorable and supportive of Micke Grove Zoo. Positive comments were received regarding the beautiful location, the exotic animals, and the Zoo being a great place for small children. Perhaps most helpful to a zoo seeking to increase its popularity and support were the critical responses and requested improvements for Micke Grove Zoo, including: • Zoo needs updating • Add new and more variety of animals • Add interactive experiences, including opportunities to feed animals • Reopen the concession stand • Have staff present to answer questions • More special events • Create a VIP members program with privileges As County leadership moves forward in determining the kind of zoo that residents want and the County can afford, the critical feedback received through the public survey will help guide the process to ensure public support and success.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 The San Joaquin County General Services Department complete and present to the Board of Supervisors an analysis of viable options for the future direction of Micke Grove Zoo, including what they envision the Zoo to be in five, ten, and twenty years
F3
1 San Joaquin County’s ability to identify and secure multiple funding sources will be critical to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo. Micke Grove Zoological Society Since its inception in 1978, MGZS has been instrumental in raising millions of dollars to fund capital improvements and new animal exhibits. However, the ability of MGZS to raise funds for Micke Grove Zoo has substantially diminished over the past decade. The decline in fundraising resulted from numerous factors, including: economic recession, County budget cutbacks and departmental reorganizations, abandonment of the 2008 Zoo Master Plan, failure to complete the East End Project, and the transfer of all educational program responsibilities from the County to MGZS. While placing blame on the County for lack of commitment and priority for the Zoo, MGZS also acknowledges their responsibility in being unable raise funds to pay for new exhibits. The end result has been a strained and dysfunctional relationship between the County and MGZS that lacks necessary collaboration and no longer complies with the requirements of the 1999 operating agreement between the two entities. That agreement specifically gives MGZS the responsibility to “carry-out plans to initiate, sponsor and promote activities that will raise money to encourage the prosperity and development of the Zoo.” The Taussig report made clear that “Zoos rely heavily on donations, sponsorships, and foundation funding to remain operational.” The report also stated that “…third party non-profit organizations affiliated with the benchmarked zoos provide a high-level of support by assisting with operational demands and sourcing and administering corporate sponsorships and fundraising events.” The report further concluded that the fundraising efforts for Micke Grove Zoo “…have yielded limited results in recent years” and that the County should renegotiate their operating agreement with MGZS. A review of tax documents from 2010-2016 for both MGZS and the San Joaquin County Historical Society (see Appendix A) reveals an obvious disparity in fundraising results between the two non- profit organizations. If MGZS is to remain the designated organization responsible for raising funds for the future Micke Grove Zoo, then collaboration with the Historical Society would prove beneficial in improving fundraising efforts moving forward. Financing the vision for the future Micke Grove Zoo requires a third-party non-profit or foundation capable of raising significant funds. The County and MGZS need to determine if MGZS will be that essential fundraising organization or whether a separate charitable foundation, similar to the Happy Hollow Zoo Foundation in San Jose, should be established. It is the County’s responsibility to ensure compliance with their operating agreement with MGZS and to renegotiate that agreement as necessary. Findings F3.2 A non-profit organization or foundation capable of raising significant funds is essential to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo. F3.3 The recent fundraising results from the Micke Grove Zoological Society are insufficient to support the necessary improvements for Micke Grove Zoo.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
1 The San Joaquin County General Services Department determine the role and responsibility of the Micke Grove Zoological Society for fundraising to support the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo, and renegotiate their operating agreement accordingly by June 30, 2020. Corporate Sponsorships Perhaps the most promising of all long-term funding sources for Micke Grove Zoo is the potential for corporate sponsorship. The proximity of the Zoo to the increasingly successful Lodi wine industry offers an opportunity for significant support and possible naming rights. The marketing potential in this relationship is presently being tapped for the MGZS fundraising event “Wild About Wine” being held in June 2019. It should be emphasized that the potential for obtaining corporate sponsorships is greatly enhanced by accreditation and the development of a clear vision and plan for the future Zoo. State Funding Proposition 68 was approved by California voters in June 2018 and is intended to “…expand access and infrastructure in State and local park systems”. The County should explore this and other available options for State funding. Grants Additional funding through public and private grants may be available and should be pursued. The Taussig report stated that, “Coordination and outreach with San Joaquin County’s Department of Community Development is vital to accessing additional sources of grant funding.” The report also emphasized that “…accreditation improves access to grant programs.” Tax Measure The viability of obtaining voter approval of a sales tax measure to improve Micke Grove Zoo is questionable at this time. The Fresno Zoo was successful in the passage of Measure Z, a .1% sales tax measure approved by two-thirds of voters in 2004. Ironically, a billboard advertising the Fresno Zoo was recently sighted in San Joaquin County.
F1.1
The lack of a Policy and Procedures Manual for Micke Grove Zoo creates inefficiencies and potential liabilities for the Parks and Recreation Division and San Joaquin County.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2
The lack of a detailed and comprehensive budget for Micke Grove Zoo makes proper financial management difficult.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.3
Micke Grove Zoo staff and operations have been negatively impacted by departmental reorganizations, turnover in administrators and staff, layoffs of part-time employees, understaffing, and lack of cross-training.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.4
The lack of a preventive maintenance schedule and record of repairs has resulted in increased costs and staff time in maintaining Micke Grove Zoo.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.5
The inability of MGZS to operate the concession stand and gift shop, as well as provide necessary fundraising support, demonstrates noncompliance with the 1999 operating agreement with San Joaquin County.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.6
The inability of San Joaquin County to ensure compliance with its 1999 operating agreement with MGZS has been financially detrimental to Micke Grove Zoo and its visitors.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1
: Despite budget challenges, San Joaquin County leadership is committed to the continued operation and improvement of Micke Grove Zoo. Public Feedback On October 25, 2016, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors requested that the General Services Department provide a “zoo action plan” that included details on “what residents want” at Micke Grove Zoo. General Services presented their “Micke Grove Zoo Survey Results” to the Board of Supervisors on July 24, 2018. The public survey responses were generally favorable and supportive of Micke Grove Zoo. Positive comments were received regarding the beautiful location, the exotic animals, and the Zoo being a great place for small children. Perhaps most helpful to a zoo seeking to increase its popularity and support were the critical responses and requested improvements for Micke Grove Zoo, including: • Zoo needs updating • Add new and more variety of animals • Add interactive experiences, including opportunities to feed animals • Reopen the concession stand • Have staff present to answer questions • More special events • Create a VIP members program with privileges As County leadership moves forward in determining the kind of zoo that residents want and the County can afford, the critical feedback received through the public survey will help guide the process to ensure public support and success. Finding
No recommendations for this finding
F2.2
: The residents of San Joaquin County value Micke Grove Zoo and desire to see it improved. Master Plan After Micke Grove Zoo lost AZA accreditation in 2006 due to its outdated exhibits, an ambitious and expensive Master Plan was developed and unveiled in 2008. Due to the corresponding and prolonged economic recession, only a portion of the planned improvements were actually built. The 2008 Master Plan is currently viewed by County leaders as cost-prohibitive and no longer conforming to evolving AZA standards. For most of the past decade, Micke Grove Zoo has continued to operate without a defined plan or vision. County leaders now acknowledge that a strategic plan to improve the Zoo is essential and indicate they are currently working towards that goal. It is noted that one of Micke Grove Zoo’s stated “Guiding Principles” is “Ensuring a Secure Future Through Balanced Development.” The recent Taussig Report included a recommendation that the County “…evaluate its strategic options for Micke Grove Zoo” as to their intention “…to renovate and revitalize the Zoo.” Prior to developing a master plan for physically improving Micke Grove Zoo, the County must decide what kind of zoo is both desirable and affordable moving forward. Decisions regarding the variety of animals (e.g. exotic and/or native species), the number of animals, the level of public engagement with animals, and the incorporation of educational opportunities, are just a few of the critical factors that will influence the configuration and operation of the Zoo into the future. The following statement is currently found on the Zoo’s website: “Micke Grove Zoo is focused on providing quality care to a diverse collection of exotic and native species that will provide you an opportunity to connect with nature in a way found nowhere else in the area.” The website also defines it as “a small Zoo…committed to housing and displaying animals appropriate for the size and scope of our facility.” Such statements will need to be reevaluated to determine if they will continue to accurately reflect the vision and purpose of the Zoo. A cost analysis of all needed infrastructure improvements must be done in conjunction with a new master plan for the Zoo. Additionally, County management and Zoo staff generally agree that the unfinished East End Project, including the snow leopard exhibit, is the necessary starting point for any renovation of the Zoo. County leadership is admittedly inexperienced in zoo management. As such, the guidance and expertise of industry professionals in both determining and designing the future of Micke Grove Zoo is essential. Additional guidance might also be obtained through other zoos. The nearby Sacramento Zoo drafted a new Master Plan in 2017 and may be able to provide valuable assistance. Findings
No recommendations for this finding
F2.3
Developing a vision and plan for the future of Micke Grove Zoo is essential to generating the financial support necessary to make that vision a reality.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.4
San Joaquin County leadership must obtain the guidance and expertise of industry professionals in both determining and designing the master plan for Micke Grove Zoo in order to ensure its successful future.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.5
Owning and operating a zoological facility today where animal care standards are subject to intense scrutiny and criticism may necessitate certification from a recognized professional association. Such certification is further justified through numerous additional benefits.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.6
Regaining accreditation through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) may not be practical or affordable for Micke Grove Zoo due to the stringent requirements and constantly evolving standards.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.7
Accreditation through the Zoological Association of America (ZAA) offers many of the same benefits as AZA, but may allow more flexibility and affordability as the County works to improve Micke Grove Zoo.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.1
San Joaquin County’s ability to identify and secure multiple funding sources will be critical to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo. Micke Grove Zoological Society Since its inception in 1978, MGZS has been instrumental in raising millions of dollars to fund capital improvements and new animal exhibits. However, the ability of MGZS to raise funds for Micke Grove Zoo has substantially diminished over the past decade. The decline in fundraising resulted from numerous factors, including: economic recession, County budget cutbacks and departmental reorganizations, abandonment of the 2008 Zoo Master Plan, failure to complete the East End Project, and the transfer of all educational program responsibilities from the County to MGZS. While placing blame on the County for lack of commitment and priority for the Zoo, MGZS also acknowledges their responsibility in being unable raise funds to pay for new exhibits. The end result has been a strained and dysfunctional relationship between the County and MGZS that lacks necessary collaboration and no longer complies with the requirements of the 1999 operating agreement between the two entities. That agreement specifically gives MGZS the responsibility to “carry-out plans to initiate, sponsor and promote activities that will raise money to encourage the prosperity and development of the Zoo.” The Taussig report made clear that “Zoos rely heavily on donations, sponsorships, and foundation funding to remain operational.” The report also stated that “…third party non-profit organizations affiliated with the benchmarked zoos provide a high-level of support by assisting with operational demands and sourcing and administering corporate sponsorships and fundraising events.” The report further concluded that the fundraising efforts for Micke Grove Zoo “…have yielded limited results in recent years” and that the County should renegotiate their operating agreement with MGZS. A review of tax documents from 2010-2016 for both MGZS and the San Joaquin County Historical Society (see Appendix A) reveals an obvious disparity in fundraising results between the two non- profit organizations. If MGZS is to remain the designated organization responsible for raising funds for the future Micke Grove Zoo, then collaboration with the Historical Society would prove beneficial in improving fundraising efforts moving forward. Financing the vision for the future Micke Grove Zoo requires a third-party non-profit or foundation capable of raising significant funds. The County and MGZS need to determine if MGZS will be that essential fundraising organization or whether a separate charitable foundation, similar to the Happy Hollow Zoo Foundation in San Jose, should be established. It is the County’s responsibility to ensure compliance with their operating agreement with MGZS and to renegotiate that agreement as necessary. Findings
No recommendations for this finding
F3.2
A non-profit organization or foundation capable of raising significant funds is essential to fulfilling the future vision for Micke Grove Zoo.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.3
The recent fundraising results from the Micke Grove Zoological Society are insufficient to support the necessary improvements for Micke Grove Zoo.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.4
The opportunities for San Joaquin County to obtain funding support for Micke Grove Zoo through corporate sponsorships and grants are hindered by lack of accreditation and a new Master Plan for the Zoo.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1More than 60 years ago, Julia Micke had a vision which resulted in her husband’s efforts to build a zoo for the enjoyment of all, especially children. San Joaquin County remains the designated caretaker of that vision. After years of neglect, the vision needs refreshing and reimagining in order to benefit future generations. After Micke Grove Zoo lost its accreditation in 2006, the AZA accreditation commission stated that: “This zoo has great potential with the area increasing rapidly in population. Without a forward- thinking governing authority, strong advocates in community, and a clear vision in direction from staff, the potential cannot be realized.” That assessment remains true for Micke Grove Zoo today. The 2018-2019 Grand Jury has indicated numerous findings and recommendations to help current conditions at the Zoo, while providing direction for both developing and funding a vision for the future of the Zoo. Though much has changed in the past 60 years regarding standards for animal care and conservation, the core vision remains of Micke Grove Zoo as a place “…for the education and enjoyment of children.” Acknowledgements The Grand Jury would like to acknowledge the many dedicated individuals, County employees, MGZS members, and Park Commissioners that lovingly serve Micke Grove Zoo, and who desire to see this jewel of San Joaquin County shine once again as an enjoyment for future generations. Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911. 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report. The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to all Findings and Recommendations. Mail or hand deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Linda L. Lofthus, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court 180 E Weber Ave, Suite 1306J Stockton, California 95202 Also, please email a copy of the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at grandjury@sjcourts.org Appendix A Table 1. Revenue comparison between the Historical Society and Micke Grove Zoological Society Fiscal Year Membership Dues Fundraising Revenues Grants Historical MGZS Historical MGZS Historical MGZS Society Society Society 2016 $86,895 $33,982 $63,518 $8,420 $349,965 $0 2015 $96,161 $34,547 $73,326 $24,178 $349,965 $0 2014 $84,902 $47,911 $76,727 $21,484 $349,965 $0 2013 $79,695 $37,814 $77,002 $16,071 $333,300 $0 2012 $78,750 $26,174 $30,283 $28,129 $303,000 $0 2011 $81,807 $22,340 $53,724 $28,948 $275,000 $0 2010 $80,294 $17,165 $48,901 $15,375 $243,000 $0
Agency Responses 4
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.