The Honolulu Zoo is a public asset the city should strive to keep and not allow to wither. And yet, unless officials start taking a hard look at the financial support for the zoo and find ways to make it more sustainable, its days as a Waikiki attraction probably are numbered.

The zoo has struggled to meet accreditation in recent years, and before its current accreditation expires in 2016, the zoo will undergo another round of tough scrutiny from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the organization that credentials professional zoos.

Lacking accreditation hinders an institution’s ability to participate in animal exchange programs, diminishes its ability to earn grants, and deprives the facility of access to impartial evaluations of its operations.

The latest warning sign that the zoo is on the precipice of decline came this week with the news that Jeffrey Wilkinson, the zoo director only since April, had resigned.

Wilkinson is the fourth top administrator to leave the zoo in five years and the third since March 2013.

That kind of turnover is sure to raise eyebrows at the AZA, which is sure to insist on the timely hiring of a qualified replacement, someone with an understanding of zoo management.

And the leadership crisis ought to provide the same kind of wake-up call for the Honolulu City Council, which needs to demand a new financial plan for the plainly under-resourced facility.

Private fundraising efforts by the support organization, the Honolulu Zoological Society, need to be stepped up as its principal function. And among the options that should be on the table for the Council is making the zoo more of a public-private partnership than it is now, or perhaps even privatizing it altogether.

Councilwoman Kymberly Pine, who chairs the Parks, Community and Customer Service Committee, said she will begin this exploration, starting with a inquiry of former directors about the persistent problems.

Pine should start with a look at the last AZA report, which is full of details. The association restored full accreditation in April 2012 after the zoo’s biggest deficit — the delays in completing its new elephant enclosure — was overcome.

Manuel Mollinedo, the director in charge during that review, told the Star-Advertiser that the zoo "barely squeaked through" that review, and added that the association expected to see "ongoing improvements."

City administration officials have said it is heeding the advice of the accreditors and pointed to documents showing some of the concerns addressed, starting down the list of repairs to gates and animal enclosures.

There also have been efforts to run more drills to prepare staff for fires and other disasters, they said.

Here are just a fewof the the myriad other conclusions from the 2011 report:

» The recent capital improvements, such as the elephant enclosure and the upgraded zoo entrance, were noted with approval, but deferred maintenance shows a need for more operating-budget support.

» The animals appear to be healthy, but staffing limits inhibit best practices in animal training and husbandry.

Volunteers are used extensively, according to the report, "possibly creating a dependency where staff are needed."

» Salaries remain below industry standards.

The job Wilkinson leaves behind pays between $92,868 and $154,592. The city should consider whether that’s enough to attract what it needs right now: a director with the experience to get the institution moving in a more positive direction.

Maintaining a reputable zoo is a major investment, which is challenging for a city facing many competing needs for resources. But it’s also an ongoing responsibility, and if the city can’t keep pace with the requirements of a zoo, it’s going to need an alternative strategy. Simply postponing a decision is, in fact, making a decision: to let the Honolulu Zoo go.