Mason County and Joint Animal Services discuss contract to shift animal-control workload from sheriff’s deputies

Mason County commissioners on Tuesday discussed whether to contract with Joint Animal Services (JAS) to handle much of the county—s animal-control calls, a step county staff and the sheriff—s office said would free deputies to focus on higher-priority human-safety calls. The commission asked staff to produce a draft contract for review and signoff, with payments postponed until JAS hires and trains staff to begin service.

County staff described the arrangement as a two-year contract option the commission considered earlier this year and said it would reduce deputies— time spent on non-human-crime calls. The sheriff—s office representative, speaking about current capacity, said, "We are limited in our resources, so we respond to calls for service that are involving life and liberty," and that calls involving animals frequently compete with higher-priority duties.

Joint Animal Services— executive director Sarah Hawk and field manager Sierra Tee told commissioners the agency routinely handles complex animal-cruelty and large-animal incidents and can reduce the burden on deputies. Tee described a recent high-profile case in Thurston County involving hundreds of birds and livestock and said, "we identified, photographed, documented, and banded every single bird on the property, and that took around 8 hours." She added that with JAS involvement, the criminal-investigation work could be done in parallel with animal-care tasks, shortening overall response time.

Sheriff's office figures cited in the meeting indicated roughly 1,200 animal-related calls last year, and staff said analysis of a proposed generic contract suggested JAS would handle about 65% of that call load while deputies would still be involved in roughly 45% of incidents for reasons such as call timing or case complexity.

Commissioners discussed contract timing and oversight. One commissioner said they were "supportive" but would need to see the actual contract before voting. Commissioners and staff agreed on a likely timeline: a draft contract for review, a target operational start around the beginning of the year, and a signed contract with an explicit clause delaying payments until JAS has hired and trained the personnel needed to provide the service. The commissioners also asked staff to identify code changes and software tracking improvements to flag previously designated dangerous animals in county records (the transcript references county code 4.08 as a starting point for enforcement conversation).

No formal vote occurred in the meeting; the next steps are for staff and JAS to produce a draft contract for commissioner review, to discuss enforcement and licensing options (including the auditor—s role), and to return to the commission with details on costs, timing, and needed code or software changes.

Commissioners emphasized public-safety and quality-of-life benefits, while also repeatedly asking for a written contract and cost breakdown before any final commitment. The sheriff's office and JAS representatives said they would proceed with drafting documents and logistics for a potential January start if the commission approves the contract after review.