Inside the L.A. Zoo’s messy $50-million breakup

Published On: July 2, 2025

Robert Ellis promised $200,000 in 2022 to build a garden in the bird theater at the Los Angeles Zoo.

Long-standing disputes over expenditure and other matters led to the city of Los Angeles suing the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association, its nonprofit partner, by January.

Ellis, a board member of GLAZA, transferred his gift to a fund for the nonprofit’s legal bills.

A almost $50 million endowment, which each party says is theirs and which finances a large portion of the zoo’s special initiatives, capital renovations, and exhibit development, is at the center of the contentious split between the city and the organization.

The zoo is in a hazardous situation with no clear strategy for what to do when the city’s contract with GLAZA, which oversees fundraising, special events, and more, expires on Tuesday.

Over 1,600 animals are kept at the zoo, which has gotten worse over time. Because they require significant restorations, exhibits including lions, bears, sea lions, and pelicans have been closed. Billy and Tina, the last two elephants, just left for the Tulsa Zoo following decades of animal rights activists’ protests about poor living circumstances, a history of fatalities, and health issues.

The 59-year-old zoo, which is located on 133 acres in Griffith Park’s northeast corner, is having trouble keeping its national accreditation after federal officials discovered corrosion and flaking paint in some of its exhibits.

According to a budget sheet released by the L.A. Zoo in November 2024, inspectors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums discovered a severe shortage of resources and personnel to handle even the most basic maintenance.

The zoo reported that attendance had decreased to a predicted 1.5 million visitors in 2024–2025, down roughly 100,000 from the year before. It attributed this fall in part to shuttered exhibits and outmoded infrastructure.

According to Karen Winnick, president of the city’s Board of Zoo Commissioners, we’re not as lively as we ought to be.

Since the zoo’s founding in 1966, GLAZA has served as its primary partner, managing volunteerism, publications, special events, membership, fundraising, and sponsorship.

According to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo, the organization only contributes 1% to 2% of the zoo’s $31 million operational budget, with the majority coming from ticket sales and other sources.

However, because GLAZA raises money through membership and special events and deposits some of that money in a fund that covers the majority of the zoo’s budget, the indirect amount is larger.

The organization also raises funds for programs like education, conservation, and animal care, as well as building upgrades, outside of the operational budget.

Ellis and other GLAZA board members declined to comment through a spokeswoman.

“The nonprofit spent more than 60 years building up an eight-figure endowment that the City of Los Angeles is now trying to seize without concern for the intent of the donors who chose to give to a trusted charity and not to a city running a billion-dollar deficit,” said Devin Donahue, a lawyer for GLAZA, in a statement. It would be disastrous for the LA Zoo and its animals if GLAZA’s protective role were to be taken away from Zoo funding.

According to one GLAZA insider, Zoo Director and CEO Denise Verret is to responsible for the disagreements, claiming that since taking over in 2019, she has attempted to deprive the organization of its authority.

According to a second source with knowledge of the arrangement, zoo authorities have long sought to sever ties with GLAZA because they don’t think they need it.

The second source, who was given anonymity to discuss the cooperation openly in the midst of the ongoing legal proceedings, stated that they [the city] think they could handle this on their own. Instead of a connection based on gratitude or health, there is a great deal of hostility.

The zoo and GLAZA have had a tense relationship for decades because of power and financial concerns, according to Manuel Mollinedo, the zoo’s director from 1995 to 2002.

According to Mollinedo, they would actually beg the zoo for money. The issue with GLAZA is that they regard themselves as an organization that is only accountable to themselves. They don’t consider themselves to be an organization that works with and supports the zoo.

According to Mollinedo, he has long believed that the zoo would benefit from removing some of GLAZA’s authority and forming alliances with other groups.

The zoo has been charged by GLAZA of improperly using the funds raised by the association.

The nonprofit alleged in court documents that the City has not used funds that GLAZA raised and made available to it for the necessary rehabilitation, despite red flag warnings of disrepair at the Zoo, enclosure and display closures, and concerning hazards to the health and welfare of the Zoo’s animals.

More than 20 years after Mollinedo’s departure from the zoo, in 2023, city officials declared that they would release requests for proposals for groups interested in carrying out GLAZA’s duties. They explained this as an attempt to ensure that the zoo was receiving the best services possible while also promoting fairness and transparency.

In a letter to Mayor Karen Bass in October, Erika Aronson Stern, chair of the GLAZA Board of Trustees, stated that the city’s decision to start the application process demonstrated that it had no intention of extending its overall collaboration with the group.

GLAZA said it would be leaving, along with its endowment of around $50 million, and declined to apply.

According to the wishes of the donors, a portion of the endowment funds still needed to be used for the zoo. GLAZA would send those funds to the institution, but it would not give up management of the fund.

The city filed a lawsuit against the association late last year, claiming that it was the legitimate owner of the endowment.

According to Deputy City Attorney Steven Son, GLAZA has never been allowed to raise money on its own behalf; it has only ever been allowed to do so on behalf of the City.

GLAZA claimed that the city has been misusing zoo funds for years and that it is within its rights to generate money for itself.

According to court filings, GLAZA claimed that Verret, the director of the zoo, lavished excessive sums of money on non-zoo-related activities, such as $22,000 for a celebration of her own appointment in 2019, $13,000 for office improvements, and $14,000 for the assistant director’s office.

Additionally, according to court records, the association sent Verret at least $1.7 million for conservation groups that are not affiliated with the zoo.

In court documents, Verret said that she was justified in using the funds. She updated administrative offices from the 1960s, and her welcome party improved relations. She stated that one of the zoo’s main goals is conservation and that GLAZA didn’t bring up the expenditure issues until after the city filed a lawsuit.

Verret said in a statement that the zoo is ready to compete internationally in the 2028 Summer Olympics.

“The L.A. Zoo is in a very healthy place now and continues to focus on its mission with the new structure and… new business partners in place,” she said.

Her stance on fundraising was less clear.

We are focused on the future, with our priorities and efforts based on the highest standards of care and wellbeing for the zoo’s animals, even though we are still creating plans to create a new fundraising model, she said.

A judge ruled on Wednesday that GLAZA is not allowed to use endowment funds without the city’s consent or seek donations that are not solely for the Los Angeles Zoo. It is still unclear who is in charge of the endowment.

The GLAZA attorney, Donahue, characterized the judge’s decision as being against the law and the facts, having serious analytical flaws, and not serving the interests of the Zoo, its animals, its sponsors, or the citizens of Los Angeles. He expressed confidence that a different verdict would be made by an appellate court.

The City Council is attempting to authorize new agreements with other organizations to manage memberships, concessions, and other operations as the litigation progresses. While city workers handle many essential tasks, such feeding and tending to the animals, GLAZA-provided volunteers—such as the tour guides—were crucial to the zoo’s daily operations.

Ron Galperin, a former city controller who carried out a special examination of the nonprofit’s connection with the zoo in 2018 and found it to be complicated and unclear, said it’s truly unfortunate that it has gotten to this stage.

Galperin has advocated for the zoo to be run as a public-private partnership, with the city leasing the land and animals to an organization like GLAZA that would run it, similar to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art or the Hollywood Bowl.

After the 2008 financial crisis, the city had already considered that option, but it was rejected by zoo employee unions and animal rights advocates who thought there would be less openness about the animals’ treatment.

According to a research by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, non-governmental groups run over 73% of accredited zoos, followed by NGOs (57%), and for-profit companies (16%).

Winnick, head of the Zoo Commission, thinks a privately operated zoo would save the public money and collect money more efficiently.

With so many issues plaguing our city, now is the perfect moment to implement new governance for our zoo, she remarked. Entering into a public-private collaboration would benefit the community and the citizens of Los Angeles.

Instead, at least two organizations will take over GLAZA’s responsibilities in the zoo, and the city will manage it piecemeal.

The city recently came to an agreement withSSA Group, LLCto run membership, special events and publications, whileThe Superlative Groupwill run sponsorship programs. The city intends to handle volunteer management on its own.

But the zoo still has not found a fundraising partner.

Richard Lichtenstein, a former GLAZA board member and former zoo commissioner, said he was speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the association, saying it is sad for the city to lose a fundraising partner at this time, given the deficit we have and the visitors we are expecting to L.A.

The city does deserve, and its residents deserve, a first-class facility, and without a funding partner, it is difficult to see how the zoo is going to be able to maintain itself as a world-class facility, he said.