The Los Angeles City Council tentatively approved a $2 increase to the L.A. Zoo’s admission fee today, after implementing a $5 increase last year.
The council voted 11-0 to increase admission fees via an ordinance. Council members Bob Blumenfield, John Lee, Monica Rodriguez and Hugo Soto-Martinez were absent during the meeting.
There was no discussion on the matter.
A second vote on the ordinance is required as only 11 members were present, and did not meet a 12-member requirement to be immediately advanced.
Council members are expected to vote on the ordinance next Wednesday.
General admission prices increased by $5 in August 2025, bringing ticket prices to $22 for children ages 2 to 12, $27 for adults ages 13 and older and $24 for seniors ages 62 and older. Group rates for 15 people or more are $24 for adults and $21 for children.
With the additional $2 increase, general admission prices will rise to $24 for children, $29 for adults and $26 for seniors. Group rates will increase to $26 for adults and $23 for children.
Zoo officials have said that admission prices remain comparatively affordable even with the new increase and last year’s $5 hike.
The zoo went without an admission price increase from 2019 to 2025, while the costs of goods and services needed to operate the facility increased, according to officials.
Zoo officials noted that general admission and membership discounts are periodically available on Groupon. Discounted tickets are offered at the pre-2025 rates of $22 for adults and $17 for children.
Ticket revenue helps fund zoo operations, animal care and day-to-day expenses.
Last year, Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council approved the $5 increase to the zoo’s general admission as part of efforts to address a roughly $1 billion deficit.
On a separate but related matter to the L.A. Zoo, the council also approved a motion to study potential partnership models to operate the facility.
“The L.A. Zoo is one of the only major zoos in the country that is still entirely operated by municipal government and L.A. spaces like the Hollywood Bowl, LACMA, and the Walt Disney Concert Hall have all demonstrated that models that support city ownership with private or nonprofit operation can help preserve and even strengthen culturally significant institutions without compromising what makes them special,” said Councilwoman Ysabel Jurado, who introduced the motion alongside Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky to explore new operation models.
“How a city protects these spaces is one of the clearest signs of a government that values its vibrant local culture, and for Los Angeles that means a prerogative to explore every responsible path toward a more sustainable future for the zoo,” Jurado said.
The city is seeking a new operation model for the zoo amid an ongoing legal battle with the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association. The city and nonprofit have been fighting over management of a $50 million fund.
In June, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Deborah J. Salzman approved a motion filed by city attorneys to dismiss GLAZA’s petition for bankruptcy. The city sought the dismissal in a bid to advance an ongoing lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against GLAZA over the $50 million endowment raised on behalf of the L.A. Zoo and Botanical Gardens.
GLAZA, a nonprofit corporation, was formed in 1963 to assist Los Angeles with fundraising, membership programs, volunteer coordination, and special events for the zoo, which opened three years after in 1966.
But after a more than 60-year partnership, the city filed a lawsuit in 2024 against GLAZA over allegations that the nonprofit prioritized its own interests over those of the zoo. That year, the nonprofit canceled a key fundraising event it was obligated to oversee.
The city alleged breach of contract and of fiduciary duty. City attorneys also sought accounting of the nonprofit’s books, and a judge’s declaration of the rights and duties of the parties.
As part of initial proceedings, the two parties agreed to continue their partnership through June 30, 2025. Later, city attorneys won a preliminary injunction preventing GLAZA from spending any of the $50 million when its contract with the zoo ended.
A judge also ruled that GLAZA could not solicit donations that were not for the benefit of the zoo.