Although tenants are warned before eviction, they often leave personal belongings behind, forcing cities and towns to pay to store and possibly auction off the items.

Municipalities are required by law to collect and store the possessions of evicted residential tenants for at least 15 days. Many city and town officials believe this is an unfunded mandate in need of repeal. Groups like the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities are urging state lawmakers to provide relief, and a bill co-sponsored by several Republicans, including Sen. Sam S. Caligiuri, R-Waterbury, and Rep. Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, would help cities and towns by repealing the property storage mandate.

The bill is being considered by the legislature's Judiciary Committee.

CCM calls the property storage requirement burdensome and unnecessary, and municipal leaders like Meriden City Manager Lawrence J. Kendzior call it archaic.

CCM estimates that throughout the state there are about 2,500 residential evictions each year. The organization adds that those numbers will likely be higher this year because of the economy.

On average, Meriden must deal with between 115 and 120 residential evictions per year, said Beth Vumbaco, director of the city's Health and Human Services Department. The city is notified by a marshal of an eviction and items are moved to a private storage facility in Cheshire. Meriden has a contract with Ace Van and Storage Inc. for removal and storage.

If the storage fees are paid by the person evicted, items are returned to the rightful owner. If no one claims the property, the city can hold an auction. If the owner does not request the auction proceeds within 30 days, municipalities can keep the money, but they also must pay the costs associated with the auction.

Little to no money is made from auctions, Vumbaco said, adding that most of the items Meriden is required to store would be considered trash.

Taking into account any money made during auctions, Vumbaco said the entire process costs Meriden about $55,000 per year.

"That's the bottom-line amount," she said, adding that she wishes tenants would realize sooner what eviction means. It is an expensive mandate, Kendzior said. Landlords - and not the city - should be responsible for paying the costs for evicted tenants, he said.

A 2006 report by the state Office of Legislative Research found that, of the 37 states researched, an overwhelming number allowed landlords to dispose of personal property tenants leave behind by selling it after notifying tenants of their intent and storing the property for a period before the sale.

But Nader Saleh, of Property Investments LLC in Meriden, does not believe landlords should be responsible for paying for the removal and storage of personal property.

"I think, personally, the tenants should be responsible for the costs," he said.

Saleh has never understood why municipalities got involved in the eviction process, but said it is not fair for cities and towns or landlords to be held financially responsible. Tenants are evicted based on a legal judgment, and should be held responsible, he said.

As a practical matter, Saleh does not think many landlords could shoulder the costs associated with collecting and storing items. There isn't a lot of profit in being a landlord, and often when a landlord is dealing with an evicted tenant, the landlord is already missing out on nearly four months of rent, he said.

Candelora also does not believe the burden should be shifted from municipalities to landlords. If landlords have to pay, the cost is likely to be passed along through the rent that future tenants are charged, he said.

Instead, Candelora said, the state could establish the intent of abandonment in eviction cases, allowing landlords to do what they want with the property.

"It's something to work through," Candelora said.