With finger pointing blame game over the Elk Grove Zoo cancellation, here is an unbiased analysis of who is at fault

Anyone with common sense was not surprised by yesterday's announcement that the Sacramento Zoo's proposed relocation to Elk Grove was ending. The plan was nothing if not grandiose. 

Months ago, it was evident that the Sacramento Zoological Society would not meet the fundraising milestone created by the City of Elk Grove, one of which was today. It was clear the SZS could not get $50 million in cold, hard cash from donors. 

While the end of the $300 million project is an embarrassment for Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen, who spearheaded it, the SZS's reputation is also tarnished. From our perspective, following yesterday's disclosure, there was passive-aggressive finger-pointing between the city and the zoo crew regarding where the blame for the project's demise resides.  

To that end, we have called on a cold, calculating party who will call balls and strikes based on statements and public documents without bias. To perform this task, we framed what we believe to be an objective request of ChatGPT to conduct an analysis of who is more to blame.

Here is the question posed:

For whatever it is worth, here is what ChatGPT said:

Summary

The relocation project for the Sacramento Zoo to Elk Grove officially ended on April 30, 2025, with both the City of Elk Grove and the Sacramento Zoological Society (the Society) citing financial and operational concerns as the primary reasons for discontinuation. A close review of the project timeline and official communications indicates that Elk Grove largely fulfilled its contractual and financial commitments—conducting feasibility studies, securing land, and allocating funding—while the Society repeatedly underestimated rising construction costs and scaled back crucial elements of the zoo’s design, ultimately failing to secure the necessary private fundraising and sustainable operational plan Elk Grove |. Although broader economic uncertainty and inflation played a role, the preponderance of evidence points to shortcomings in the Society’s project management and financial planning as the more significant factors in the project’s demise.

Background

Project Timeline

• September 2021: The City of Elk Grove and the Sacramento Zoological Society entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) to evaluate a new zoo site, laying out a multi‐phase planning process Elk Grove.
• March 2022: Release of a joint Feasibility Study and Economic Impact Analysis, accompanied by public town halls and community outreach, demonstrating initial project viability Elk Grove.
• November 2022: Unveiling of conceptual plans and master drawings for a 65-acre, state‐of‐the‐art zoological park, including detailed exhibit renderings Elk Grove.
• May 2024: Elk Grove City Council approval of the project, following staff reports and environmental review, clearing the way for advanced design and fundraising.
• April 30 2025: Joint announcement discontinuing the relocation, citing that the project was no longer “financially or operationally sustainable."

Official Statements

City of Elk Grove

The City issued a press release stating it had met all obligations under the ENA, investing approximately $4.5 million in planning, design, and engineering studies, and purchasing nearly 100 acres of land near Kammerer Road and Lotz Parkway Elk Grove. The City committed $93 million—drawn from General Fund reserves, casino revenues, and community facility district fees—and structured $114.5 million in bonds to support the project, with annual repayments shared between the City and the Society. Elk Grove leadership affirmed their belief in the project vision and expressed disappointment, yet underscored their intention to pursue alternative enhancements for the site Elk Grove.

Sacramento Zoological Society

Interim CEO Robert Churchill’s statement emphasized that, as design work advanced, escalating construction costs forced the elimination of key features—such as an event pavilion, permanent classrooms, overnight guest accommodations, and an Okapi Aviary—to stay within budget, leaving a “dramatically reduced” zoo housing fewer species than the existing Land Park facility. The Society cited “economic uncertainty and increased construction costs” that created an unacceptable level of risk and acknowledged that the downsized first phase would have accommodated only 30 species compared to 94 at the current location.

Analysis of Key Issues

Financial Planning and Fundraising

The initial $302 million project budget relied on a combination of City funding ($93 million), bond financing ($114.5 million), development fees, and $80 million in private donations—$50 million of which was to be raised by the Society|. Despite multiple design revisions, the Society did not secure sufficient commitments to meet its fundraising target, and failed to anticipate the rapid escalation in construction and materials costs driven by post-pandemic inflation. In contrast, the City’s financial analyses—such as the Financing Plan—indicated the project would not require an operating subsidy, suggesting that, absent the Society’s shortfall, the financial structure was sound. Elk Grove.

Project Scope Management

From the outset, the project’s scale was ambitious: a 65-acre modern park with immersive exhibits. However, as the Society grappled with budget constraints, successive “value engineering” efforts eliminated revenue-generating amenities (e.g., pavilion and educational facilities) that might have bolstered long-term sustainability. These cuts undermined the foundational projections of attendance, membership revenue, and community engagement that justified the Society’s private fundraising goals.

Due Diligence and Risk Allocation

Elk Grove performed thorough due diligence—including environmental impact reports, economic studies, and public hearings—before committing resources Elk Grove. The ENA framework clearly delineated responsibilities: the City provided site preparation and funding mechanisms, while the Society was tasked with fundraising, design leadership, and operational planning. When the Society encountered funding gaps and rising costs, it chose to terminate rather than reassess the scope or seek phased implementation, indicating a breakdown in risk management on its part.

Conclusion

While external factors—such as inflation, supply-chain disruptions, and broader economic uncertainty—played a meaningful role in inflating project costs, the Sacramento Zoological Society bears greater responsibility for the relocation’s cancellation. The Society’s repeated underestimation of costs, failure to secure critical private fundraising, and elimination of revenue-generating project elements ultimately made the plan unsustainable. In contrast, the City of Elk Grove met or exceeded its contractual and financial obligations, conducted comprehensive due diligence, and facilitated a clear path forward. Thus, the evidence supports the conclusion that the Society’s project management and financial planning shortcomings were the decisive factors in the project’s demise.