Shelton council reviews draft camping ban, focuses on enforcement, legal risk and support services

At a May 27 study session the Shelton City Council discussed a draft ordinance to restrict camping on public property, reviewing enforcement procedures, legal risk and operational costs; staff said the draft is scheduled for a public hearing on June 3.

City staff and the council focused discussion on how officers would respond in the field, what happens to a person’s belongings, the pathways for fines or criminal citations, and how the city could reduce litigation risk while coordinating with service providers. City staff repeatedly emphasized that the ordinance text is short by design and that the detailed implementation would be carried out through administrative policy and procedures developed by the city manager and involved departments.

Mark Ziegler, the city’s team manager, told the council that initial enforcement would typically begin with either a call for service or a proactive police contact: “the individual will be contacted in person, advised of the public camping ordinance, and given the opportunity to voluntarily leave,” he said. If a person accepts assistance or agrees to relocate, the ordinance text includes language allowing charges to be deferred and fines or penalties to be waived “to the degree permitted by law,” according to the bluelined draft staff presented.

Staff outlined possible outcomes after a citation: if an individual remains after being cited, an officer could arrest the person; otherwise the person could be released with a court date. Ziegler also summarized state law on monetary fines, citing RCW 10.01.160 and noting that courts must consider indigence and may allow community service in lieu of monetary payment. The city attorney, Kathleen, cautioned that although the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions change the landscape, the greater litigation risk now is an “as-applied” challenge — a lawsuit based on how a particular person’s encounter was handled — rather than a wholesale facial challenge to a camping prohibition.

Council members pressed staff on several operational details. Those questions and staff answers included: - Personal property: the draft removes specific language requiring police to inventory and store property for 60 days and instead delegates property-handling procedures to an administrative policy. Staff said policy could require advance notice windows (examples given ranged from 24 to 72 hours) and protocols modeled on other cities’ encampment policies (Shoreline, Spokane). The draft also preserves an exception for obvious garbage while directing that usable property be stored to allow reclamation. - Repeated moves: staff acknowledged a realistic enforcement obstacle if individuals relocate short distances and reestablish encampments; council members suggested the city consider policy options (e.g., limiting enforcement to designated areas or creating officially permitted mitigation sites), while staff warned each option carries trade-offs and possible legal or accessibility challenges. - Animals: staff said animals found when a person is arrested would typically be taken to the animal shelter; the council asked staff to add a pets protocol to administrative procedures because the shelter has limited capacity. - Crisis response capacity: staff described one designated crisis responder (DCR) funded by a Mason County behavioral-health grant, working a 40-hour week and embedded to assist police. Council members asked whether additional DCRs or a co-responder program could reduce enforcement contacts; staff said that is a policy choice and may be a productive use of settlement or grant funds but would require regional coordination.

Staff provided rough cost and activity figures intended to inform the council’s budget considerations. Among the figures presented: staff reported an average of roughly 532 municipal criminal cases per year in their sample period; the municipal court budget was stated in materials as approximately $5.753 million; the staff memo listed per-case administrative and contractual figures (an administrative allocation of about $14.15 per case, a prosecution contract line noted in the memo, and public defense costs shown as about $348 per case). Staff also supplied recent municipal cleanup and restroom service costs tied to Brewer Park and other cleanup events and described a mitigation-site example (Longview’s Hope Village), which staff said cost a little over $1 million to set up with an annual management contract of roughly $1.4 million in their example.

Kathleen, the city attorney, reviewed recent court decisions the council should consider and said the city has reduced risk of a facial challenge after the Supreme Court’s recent rulings but must carefully document enforcement to defend against as-applied claims. She also discussed the public-duty doctrine and said ordinary failures to enforce would not generally create liability to private businesses, while pointing out narrow exceptions (a special-relationship claim) are unlikely but possible.

Public comment at the study session underscored the issue’s local tensions. Several downtown business owners and residents described vandalism, safety concerns and repeated emergency responses at Brewer Park and urged the council to adopt and enforce stricter rules; other speakers, including representatives of local service providers and volunteers, urged the council to pair any enforcement with outreach, shelter alternatives and long‑term services, emphasizing the experiences of people who declined offers of shelter or services during outreach. Council members and staff repeatedly returned to the same practical questions: where would people go if moved, how to ensure accessible mitigation areas, how to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions, and how to document offers of services to defend against legal challenge.

Next steps and timing were discussed in detail. Staff confirmed the draft ordinance is set for a public hearing on June 3; if the council acts at that meeting and adopts the ordinance, staff stated publication in the paper of record would follow and the ordinance would likely take effect roughly five days after publication (staff estimated a publication date around June 12 and effect in mid‑June if adopted on June 3). Staff said the city manager would develop the proposed administrative policies and procedures (including property handling, notices, staff roles and pet protocols) in coordination with police, the prosecutor’s office and court staff; staff suggested that adopting the policies administratively would speed implementation once the ordinance is adopted.

The study-session discussion did not include a council vote to adopt the draft ordinance; council members authorized staff to refine the draft and produce a policy draft for review before the public hearing.

Ending — what to watch for: the council’s public hearing on June 3 and any subsequent action meeting will determine whether the draft ordinance advances. If adopted, watch for the city manager’s administrative policy on enforcement and for follow‑up items covering designated mitigation sites, additional DCR capacity, and explicit protocols for handling personal property and pets.