Proposal would raise nonresident admission to zoo
STAR-ADVERTISER
Guy Kaulukukui:
The city enterprise services director views the increase as a “modest” proposal
Nonresidents 13 and older who visit the Honolulu Zoo will need to pay $2 more starting next year under a proposal by Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s administration.
The proposed fee hike, which would raise the nonkamaaina adult fee to $16, comes on the heels of a report issued by the Honolulu Zoo Working Group last month. The group of key zoo stakeholders convened shortly after the facility lost accreditation from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums last spring.
The working group’s findings will be on the agenda of Wednesday’s City Council Budget Committee meeting at 9 a.m. The report found that the zoo’s operating expenses have increased four straight years while zoo attendance has declined noticeably.
“The zoo presently relies on zoo admissions fees for 83 percent of its total operating revenue,” the report said. Declining attendance has placed a burden on the zoo’s operating budget, and, as a result, “the working group finds that the zoo’s present business model must be changed to reflect a much more diversified selection of revenue generating programs and activities.”
Guy Kaulukukui, the city’s director of enterprise services, described the nonkamaaina fee increase for those 13 and older as a “modest” proposal. The report suggested an increase of $5 for nonresident adults could be sustained. “But we strongly believe we want to go up incrementally,” Kaulukukui said. “We wanted to have the opportunity to add more value back to the experience before we take more value from the visitor.”
The working group’s findings were based largely on two marketing studies commissioned by the Honolulu Zoo Society. The first study, conducted by SMS Research, called the Honolulu Zoo experience underpriced. It suggested that zoo attendance would not be adversely affected by the proposed price increase.
Meanwhile, an operating and finance study by Schultz & Williams echoed findings in the SMS study and further suggested that “the zoo would benefit from greater flexibility in its management and operations, the creation of new sustainable revenue sources and a significant investment in marketing, advertising and branding.”
Figures show 58 percent of fiscal 2016 admissions revenues came from single-ticket, nonkamaaina visitors, city officials said.
Diversifying the zoo’s revenue stream “is our No. 1 priority moving forward,” Kaulukukui said. Among the possibilities are “value-added programs” such as animal encounters and other types of behind-the-scenes tours allowing visitors to get closer, where appropriate.
Other types of products might be tailored to the visitor industry, perhaps providing more of a unique Hawaii experience given that the zoo is across from Waikiki, he said.
David Earles, zoo society executive director, concurs with the working group’s analysis and is prepared to help. “We stand ready to implement anything that the zoo and city tell us,” Earles said.
Councilman Trevor Ozawa, who represents the East Honolulu district that includes both the zoo and Waikiki, said he supports higher admission fees for nonresident adults as long as prices for youth do not increase.
Alethea Rebman, president of the Kapiolani Park Preservation Society board, said that it’s up to the city and the zoo to increase admissions, but her group will be monitoring closely how the city plans to raise more revenue since the land is supposed to be used only as a public park.
“They cannot have commercial or non-zoo-related activities on there,” Rebman said. “It is not a commercial area for rent.”
Also on Wednesday’s agenda is Bill 68 (2016), which allows the mayor’s Department of Enterprise Services to adjust admissions fees through rule-making, bypassing Council approval.
The administration is aiming to petition for reaccreditation by sometime in the second half of 2017 and no later than 2018, Kaulukukui said.
Zoo Director Baird Fleming announced his resignation in November. He was the city’s fifth zoo director in seven years. Kaulukukui said the city expects to launch a search for Fleming’s replacement by March and make a selection by June.
23 responses to “Proposal would raise nonresident admission to zoo”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Whatever happened about the constitution amendment for funding the zoo? I know it passed.
Secretly being siphoned off for the Rail Fail
Maybe the city administration doesn’t read the paper. Or, maybe they are exempt from our constitution. Just close it and get rid of all this unnecessary debt.
olderbob, exactly! close it and replace it with something that will generate real revenue
The zoo should not be thought of as a revenue generating facility, it’s an educational facility. Which is why it should be under the Parks department, rather than DES, which is how it is now. Why on earth would anyone think the zoo should be managed by the same people that run Blaisdell? It makes zero sense. You also have to consider that it lies within Kapiolani Park, which forbids for-profit operations as a result of the legislation that passed the park into state hands.
I’ve been to many zoos around the country. Honolulu zoo is not worth kept opened. It’s in deplorable condition and for some animals unfit. Why in the world would a tourist pay $16 for such a bad experience. Admission cost of zoos on the mainland are much less for a better product.
Not sure what zoos you have been to that are any cheaper. LA Zoo is $20, and San Diego (admittedly one of the best in the world) is a whopping $58. You also have to consider that this is the only zoo we have, and is likely to be so forever due to the difficulty of getting animals here. You have an incredibly dedicated staff trying to make the place work with a ridiculous shoestring budget that results from mismanagement at the city level.
Close it.
So every tourist who looks at the new rates and says that’s too much will mean a $14 per person loss to the zoo. Every tourist who says, I don’t mind paying $2 more will mean an extra $2 income per customer. I guess I’ll stick with the sure thing $14 and not the maybe $2 extra dollars per customer.
It’s all about numbers. It’s a gamble for sure, but what you stated gives no evidence whether the new proposal would be beneficial financially to the zoo. To start with you have to estimate how many visitors would decline spending the new entrance fee versus the increased revenue from those who do pay. Even $14 is not a “sure thing”. It’s the status quo but not a “sure thing”.
They’d be better off lowering the admission fees. This way more families will get to experience the zoo and some may even return on multiple days. Revenue lost at the admission gates by lowering admission fees can be made up at the concession stands and gift shops. Charge “normal” prices for good quality food and refreshments and people will purchase on site rather than bringing stuff in. This would result in revenue from both tourists and locals.
Can’t speak for the rest of the community, but I’d rather buy my cold drinks on site then lug around a cooler full of drinks while I have the children in tow.
It may be a “modest” amount but how much you wanna bet attendance numbers D R O P significantly?????
People do not like getting shafted and especially when they can SEE the difference staring right at them!
The zoo’s operating funds come from the city – as far as I know, the gate receipts flow to the city coffers, and then the city doles the money back as they see fit. The zoo does not benefit directly from the collected admissions fees. AZA’s primary complaint was that the zoo had no guaranteed funding base. This doesn’t address that, unless the gate receipts are going to be retained by the zoo. The recent city amendment did set aside a fraction of the budget, so that was a start. Star-Advertiser, look a little more cloely at this, as this article is quite misleading.
that’s correct – the City has not guaranteed any funding base. The City also allocates a part of its debt service to the zoo so the zoo has to pay for the city’s other borrowing for other projects. That’s how the City creates an artificial crisis and pretends that what it wants to do is the only way to solve things.
“are ti down” the expenses, SAFETY and ALOHA is a good experience ..my be the elephants are too expensive …
When I was little, I remember the zoo and aquarium being AWESOME places to go! Then, as I got older, I was able to visit the San Diego Zoo, Washington (DC) National Zoo, and Osaka and Churaumi (Okinawa) Aquariums and of course, our venues cannot compare. Once you see something better (WAYYY better!), it’s really difficult to go back and think of them the same way.
Like the Oahu train to nowhere project, the Honolulu Zoo needs to be SHUT DOWN and release the animals to other mainland zoos like the San Diego Zoo that can properly care for these animals.
Which zoo are the referring to? The Zoo located at: 530 South King Street, Room 300 still hasn’t contained the rabies infested “D” animals running around the county on the loose. Last I recall the king of the pack was last seen at watering hole called the “rail” with the other “D” animals eating $100 bills like there’s no tomorrow.
Funny.
Basic economics dictate that prices go up when the quality of a product/service is improved and/or when the market demand increases. Only in a government operation are prices raised for a service/product whose quality is declining along with the market demand for it.
ENOUGH with the taxation for ANY reason.
Well put!
This practice is known as:
“Biting the hand that feeds you”.
Charging non-residents more leaves a bad taste in their mouths.
Remember: Hawaii “needs” tourists, more than tourists “need” Hawaii.