County backing off zoo meddling

It’s good that the Sedgwick County Commission is backing off its misguided attempt to meddle in the operations of the Sedgwick County Zoo. It’s not clear yet whether its proposal for a new funding agreement is best for the zoo and the community.

The commission had been demanding that the county’s representation on the board and executive committee of the nonprofit Sedgwick County Zoological Society increase from 10 to 40 percent. It also wanted a “non-disparagement clause” in the new operating agreement that would prohibit the zoo director from doing anything to bring the county or society “unwanted or unfavorable publicity.”

The society resisted these demands, noting that the board membership change could hurt its independence and fundraising potential. It also argued that the proposed gag rule was an insult to the professionalism of longtime zoo director Mark Reed.

The public was also baffled. Why would the commission mess with the success of the zoo?

The issue was one reason Commissioner Karl Peterjohn lost in the Aug. 2 primary.

Now the county is offering to drop both demands. But it also proposes to change the zoo’s funding agreement to be based on a fixed property tax mill levy instead of an annual budget allocation from the county.

Commission Chairman Jim Howell argues that the mill levy agreement would create more certainty and potentially result in more funding. It also could avoid annual funding debates that might result in political disputes, as happened last year when the commission reneged on a promised funding increase to the zoo.

But the proposal raises questions, including: What happens when the zoo opens a new exhibit? Would it have the operating funding to add staff? What would be the impact of the state’s new property tax lid? Would this funding agreement actually make it more difficult for the zoo to do long-range planning?

The proposal also dictates that requests for more funding would require the support of at least four of the five commissioners. And it says that the county would no longer pay for capital improvement projects.

These demands seem to reflect the commission majority’s continued bitterness about the county agreeing to pay for the new elephant barn.

The county and the zoo board have had a great working relationship over the years, which has resulted in a zoo that is a top tourist attraction and the pride of the community. It’s only been in the past two years that there’s been a problem.

That raises the obvious question of whether it’s the funding and operating agreements that need changing or the current commission majority – a problem voters are already addressing.

This story was originally published August 19, 2016 at 5:04 AM with the headline "County backing off zoo meddling."