The Los Angeles City Council is set to vote Wednesday on a proposal to temporarily boost its spay and neuter voucher programs, making sterilization surgeries free for dogs, cats and rabbits for one year.
The move would mark the city’s first voucher rate increase in nearly a decade. Free voucher amounts would rise from $70 to $120 for cats, from $125 to $195 for dogs, and from $125 to $250 for rabbits.
The motion, first introduced in April 2023 by Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martínez, aims to make it easier for residents—especially those in underserved areas—to access affordable pet sterilization services as veterinary costs climb and shelters face continued overcrowding.
The city offers discounted vouchers to all residents and free vouchers to low-income pet owners, who can self-certify eligibility without proof of income. The free vouchers apply to pets adopted or purchased outside of city shelters and must be used at participating veterinary clinics.
If approved, the new rates would effectively render sterilization procedures free to eligible pet owners using city vouchers. Animal welfare advocates said that could make a meaningful difference.
“We really feel like it’s a step in the right direction,” said Jana Brennan, program manager for Michelson Center for Public Policy’s Spay and Neuter Initiative. “The voucher value has not been raised in a decade, so the adjustment really brings these vouchers into closer alignment with today’s veterinary costs.”
For years, participating clinics—most of which are small businesses or nonprofits—have warned the city that outdated reimbursement rates made voucher participation financially unsustainable, according to a Department of Animal Services report.
Rising costs tied to inflation, the pandemic, the veterinarian shortages and overhead have pushed some veterinary providers to drop out of the program altogether.
According to a city survey of its veterinary partners, the average cost of a spay or neuter procedure is about $121 for cats, $195 for dogs and $202 for rabbits—nearly matching the proposed reimbursement rates.
Brennan said that access has sharply declined over time. A decade ago, nearly 100 veterinary providers accepted city vouchers. Today, she said, that number has dropped to around 30—nowhere near enough to serve a city of nearly 4 million residents.
Long wait times for appointments—sometimes up to six months or more—can make the vouchers hard to use, especially when unsterilized pets can produce new litters during that window. That, in turn, adds pressure on city shelters, which are already struggling with overcrowding.
“There’s a lot of animals in the shelter that are waiting on spay and neuter to be able to be adopted out, because spay and neuter is mandatory to leave the shelter,” Brennan said, “So it puts the shelter at quite a backlog as well.”
Other cities and counties have faced similar challenges. A national shortage of veterinarians has made it harder for communities everywhere—not just Los Angeles—to provide affordable spay and neuter services, she said.
In Los Angeles County, unincorporated areas and some contract cities offer vouchers to help offset spay and neuter costs, but residents must show proof of address and may still be responsible for paying the balance of the procedure.
Cities like Long Beach and Pasadena offer low-cost or partially subsidized services, but most rely on limited funding or nonprofit partnerships to fill the gap.
Pasadena Humane, for instance, offers affordable surgeries for pets residing in its service areas, which includes Altadena, Arcadia, Glendale, Pasadena and several nearby cities. In Long Beach, vouchers typically cover $60.95 for dogs and $100 for cats.
Even cities that operate their own shelter systems—like Burbank and other smaller jurisdictions across L.A. County—are facing similar access and funding challenges, Brennan said.
“I can say for at least the greater Los Angeles area, even the independent cities and places outside of L.A. Animal Services’ service areas are experiencing some of the same issues and also trying to close the gap with similar programs like the voucher program,” she said.
But as cities work to improve access, the biggest obstacle remains cost—and whether local governments can sustain these programs long-term.
In Los Angeles, two City Council committees have recommended slightly different versions of the proposal. In February, the Arts, Parks, Libraries, and Community Enrichment Committee supported raising rates only for dog and cat vouchers.
But in June, the Budget and Finance Committee, which reviewed the item after Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson amended the referral, backed a broader one-year increase that would also apply to rabbits, mobile spay/neuter clinics and the Citywide Cat Program.
Both versions are based on “Alternative 1”, a plan outlined in a January report by the City Administrative Officer that includes the biggest voucher increases, implemented all at once.
But the CAO actually recommended a more gradual and lower-cost option—“Alternative 3”—which would phase in smaller increases over three years by species, starting with dogs, then cats and rabbits, to reduce the immediate budget impact.
Implementing Alternative 1 would cost roughly $9.2 million in the 2025–26 fiscal year—a 32% jump from current funding levels. The CAO’s preferred option, by contrast, starts at $6.1 million and grows over three years.
Even with the proposed increase, advocates worry the city hasn’t set aside enough money to keep the program running all year.
“The voucher will also be rendered fairly meaningless if there’s not an adequate sustainable funding source through the year,” Brennan said. “We expect that the funding for those vouchers will run out before the end of the fiscal year.”
As part of the proposal, Animal Services and the CAO would be required to submit quarterly reports on the status of the funding—a step Brennan said will be crucial for securing additional funding if needed.
“Getting this implemented as soon as possible is really the priority,” Brennan said. “ Then we’ll need to prioritize and focus on in this first quarter, how quickly are those funds being spent down and what sort of strategy can we collectively put together to make sure that this is sustainable through the rest of the fiscal year.”