Shelton council directs staff to study clarifying code on storage of personal property

The Shelton City Council on May 26, 2026 directed city staff to research options for clarifying municipal code definitions and enforcement procedures related to the storage of personal property on public property.

City Manager Mark Sigler framed the issue around constitutional and statutory limits, saying the city must be careful about searches, seizures and takings when personal property is present on public ways. "We have the responsibility not only to uphold Shelton municipal code and state law but the U.S. Constitution," Sigler said, urging legal review before any changes.

Sigler reviewed examples from other jurisdictions (Long View and Redmond) that use an "excessive storage" or "bulky items" approach — often defining a size threshold (for example, items larger than a 55-gallon drum or about seven cubic feet) and limiting enforcement on occupied sites. He noted some cities tie enforcement to the availability of shelter or limit abatement when no shelter options exist.

Council members raised two consistent themes: (1) public-safety and public-health risks from accumulated trash and bulky waste (rodents, sanitation hazards), and (2) equity concerns about criminalizing or "weaponizing" enforcement against unhoused or low‑income residents. One member cautioned that seizure and storage of personal property can impose costs and trauma and asked staff to avoid punitive default actions.

Several members urged drafting clearer, quantifiable definitions for "excessive" storage (time limits, size thresholds and whether a person is present or maintaining items) to reduce discretionary enforcement. Council members also recommended stronger communication procedures so code enforcement provides clear notices and assistance before resorting to abatement.

Council discussed related long-term solutions, including reconstituting a housing task force, expanding emergency and transitional housing and engaging nonprofit partners. A speaker said the county has held opioid‑related funds (cited as $1,406 in the meeting) that could be used to study housing options; council members did not adopt any expenditure and noted that funding availability and authority are separate issues.

Sigler said staff will consult the city attorney, gather examples from other cities, and return to council with ordinance options and recommended definitions for the nuisance code; no timetable was established. "We'll get some options and alternatives put together that the council can consider," he said.

The council emphasized that any code changes will need to respect constitutional protections and the city's existing abatement and civil-infraction processes, and that the abatement process should remain a last resort when occupied sites are involved.