PLYMOUTH — The Washington County Sheriff’s Office has been assessed $5,600 in civil penalties after state animal-welfare inspectors found violations at the county animal shelter involving animal records, access to water, rabies vaccinations and documentation of care.

The Washington County Animal Shelter, located on Landfill Road, is operated by the Sheriff’s Office.

The Sept. 17 enforcement action followed an Aug. 17 inspection by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which did follow-up visits Aug. 26 and Sept. 2. The initial inspection was marked “Disapproved” due to several violations of state animal-welfare rules. A copy of the enforcement action appears below this story.

Washington County publicly responded to the findings on social media on Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2026, saying the county and Sheriff’s Office “take the findings seriously” and are reviewing each item “with the goal of promptly correcting the identified deficiencies and ensuring continued compliance.”

The county said the shelter had recently restarted operations after “extensive improvements completed earlier this spring with new staff” and had been working to rebuild the program. It also said that shelter officials had proactively contacted state inspectors earlier this year to seek additional guidance.

The state’s findings detail several problems during the three inspections.

During the Aug. 17 inspection, state officials reported that required shelter records did not exist for 12 cats and three dogs that had been impounded the previous week following an alleged animal-hoarding situation.

Inspectors also reported that two dogs with extensive hair loss had not yet been evaluated by a veterinarian. Seven cats showing visible signs of upper respiratory infections had not received veterinary care. Four other cats had been taken to a veterinary clinic that morning, according to the state report.

When inspectors returned Aug. 26, they found that intake records were then present for all animals being housed at the shelter.

The shelter director also told inspectors that all animals seized in the hoarding case had been examined by a veterinarian. According to the state report, the director said no treatment had been prescribed for the cats’ upper respiratory infections, although medical records from those veterinary visits were not available at the shelter.

Inspectors reported finding six cats without access to water during that visit. The report states their bowls had not been overturned and that volunteers had already cleaned, fed and watered the animals that morning.

Inspectors also reported that kennels said to have been cleaned earlier that morning remained visibly soiled with dried nasal discharge, grime and fecal matter. The state said it observed no improvement in the medical condition of 11 visibly ill cats and that none had been scheduled for re-evaluation.

A third visit Sept. 2 resulted in additional findings. Inspectors reported litter debris in unoccupied cat kennels and hair and fecal matter on enclosure walls despite being told the enclosures had been cleaned and sanitized.

The shelter also had not documented required daily social interaction and enrichment for a dog in long-term care, according to the state.

Inspectors further found that 11 cats and two dogs impounded Aug. 12 had not been vaccinated against rabies. The report says the shelter director told an inspector the shelter was waiting to determine the animals’ final disposition.

Penalties

The state assessed $1,500 for failing to maintain required intake and subsequent-care records for 15 animals; $1,200 for failing to provide continuous access to water to six cats; and $100 for failing to document required daily interaction and enrichment for a long-term-care dog.

Another $2,800 was assessed for failure to provide required rabies vaccinations to 14 animals. State officials identified that as the shelter’s second violation of the rabies-vaccination rule.

The Sept. 17 notice says the shelter previously was cited for the rabies violation during inspections in July and August 2025 and was assessed a civil penalty in August 2025.

State records show that the 2025 enforcement action resulted in a $1,650 civil penalty against the Sheriff’s Office for several violations, including the rabies requirement.

The sanitation and cleaning deficiencies identified during this year’s inspections resulted in a warning rather than additional monetary penalties. The state warned that continued or future violations could result in action against the shelter’s registration or additional civil penalties.

County weighing its response

Washington County said Tuesday that it is “carefully reviewing the civil penalties assessed for each individually cited deficiency and its available administrative options.”

Under the Sept. 17 notice, the Sheriff’s Office has 60 days to pay the $5,600 assessment, file a petition with the N.C. Office of Administrative Hearings contesting it, or initiate informal settlement negotiations with the Department of Agriculture.

The county said an informal meeting with state officials has already been requested “to review the specific findings and discuss the overall ongoing improvements to, and continuing operation of the County’s shelter.”

“At this time, no final decision has been made regarding an official appeal or other formal response,” the county said. “Any final decisions are expected to be made before the expiration of the initial 60-day response period.”

The county and Sheriff’s Office also said they expect to issue a more detailed statement after completing their internal review or making further decisions about the case.

“In the meantime, the County remains committed to the humane care of animals, public safety, and working cooperatively with state officials to address the concerns identified,” the statement said.

The county addressed the circumstances surrounding those animals in Tuesday’s statement.

“More recently, the shelter experienced an unexpected increase in its caseload while assisting with efforts to address an animal-hoarding situation,” the county said.

“While that transition and situation do not excuse any deficiencies, it provides important context for the County’s ongoing corrective efforts and dedication to provide compliant animal control services,” the statement continued.