What happens next after the City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner meeting?

**May 23, 2025:** Hearing Examiner decision due (10 business days from hearing date) **Decision Distribution:** Written decision will be emailed to hearing clerk, then forwarded to all parties **Appeal Options:** Not specified in hearing, but likely available through superior court if parties disagree with decision **Fee Resolution:** Appellant owes $982.10 to community members who paid for vehicle release, pending hearing outcome

City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner

Executive summary

The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner conducted an appeal hearing for Jody Winningham, challenging the March 31, 2025 impound of his 1986 Dodge RAM Van and trailer from the 1500 block of D Street. The case represents more than a typical parking violation — it highlights the complex intersection of homelessness policy, community relations, and municipal enforcement procedures. Winningham, who has lived in his van on D Street for approximately four years, argues he had an informal arrangement with parking enforcement and was wrongfully prevented from moving his vehicle when tow trucks arrived just 15 minutes after the 72-hour deadline expired. The city maintains it followed standard procedures after receiving a complaint and issuing proper notice. The appellant presented extensive testimony about his community contributions, including providing security camera coverage for nearby properties, assisting with cleanup efforts, and working cooperatively with police. He claims former Mayor Seth Fleetwood issued a "mayoral edict" instructing enforcement to take a hands-off approach to his situation, and argues the impound violated recent court precedent requiring cities to use impoundment as a last resort for people living in vehicles. City staff defended their actions as consistent with standard parking enforcement procedures, noting they treat all vehicles equally regardless of occupancy status. The city attorney emphasized that living in a vehicle does not immunize someone from compliance with general parking regulations, and argued that allowing people to move vehicles only after tow trucks arrive would waste resources and undermine enforcement effectiveness. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice took the matter under advisement and will issue a written decision by May 23, 2025. The case involves $491.05 in fees per vehicle, which community members paid to secure Winningham's release the same day.

Key decisions

**Case Status:** Under advisement - no decision rendered **Fees at Stake:** $982.10 total ($491.05 per vehicle - van and trailer) **Decision Timeline:** Written decision due by May 23, 2025 **Burden of Proof:** Two-part process - city must first prove impound was consistent with regulations, then appellant must prove city actions were inconsistent with authorit…

About 49% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →

Policy discussion

**Municipal Enforcement Philosophy:** The case revealed competing philosophies about how cities should handle people living in vehicles. City Attorney Matthew Stamps argued that allowing people to move vehicles only after tow trucks arrive would "waste resources" and create "undesirable results" by essentially making the 72-hour notice meaningless. The city's position is that parking regulations must apply equally regardless of vehicle occupancy. **Homestead and Housing Rights:** Winningham invoked the Seattle v. Long case, arguing it requires cities to use impoundment as a "last resort" for people living in vehicles. City Attorney Stamps countered that this case only applies when vehicles aren't redeemed within 15 days, preventing tow operators from selling vehicles to recover fees. Since Winningham redeemed his vehicles the same day, Stamps argued the precedent d…

About 49% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →

Stakeholder positions

**Jody Winningham (Appellant):** Argued the impound was wrongful because: 1) He had an informal arrangement with the city allowing periodic moves, 2) He was prevented from moving the vehicle when he had time remaining, 3) The Seattle v. Long case requires impoundment be a last resort for vehicle residents, 4) He provides valuable community services including security and cleanup. Seeks fee waiver and acknowledgment of wrongful impound. **Stephanie Mays (Parking Code Compliance Officer):** Testified that all vehicles are treated equally regardless of occupancy. Explained that tow trucks were scheduled early due to multiple vehicles potentially needing removal, but actual impound didn't proceed until after the 72-hour deadline. Noted Winningham had successfully moved other vehicles by the deadline, showing he…

About 50% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →

Notable quotes

**Sharon Rice, Hearing Examiner, on burden of proof:** "The city bears an initial burden of proving that the impound is consistent with city regulations...then the burden shift to the appellant, who must prove that their actions are inconsistent with their authority under code." **Jody Winningham, on community contributions:** "I've been a benefit to the community...The abatement team for the last 2 years since me and Greg Flannery cleaned up D Street, got rid of all the drug dealers on the s…

About 49% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →

What’s next

**May 23, 2025:** Hearing Examiner decision due (10 business days from hearing date) **Decision Distribution:** Written decision will be emailed to hearing clerk, then forwarded to all parties **Appeal Options:** N…

About 50% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →

What changed

**Legal Precedent:** Case may establish precedent for how Bellingham handles vehicle impoundments for people experiencing homelessness, particularly regarding timing disputes and informal enforcement arrangements. **Documentation Standards:** Hearing revealed detailed photo documentation requirements for parking enforcement, including tire stem positioning to prove non-movement. **Policy Clarity:** City attorney provided clearer articulation of municipal position th…

About 49% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →

Full meeting narrative

## Meeting Overview On May 9, 2025, Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a vehicle impound appeal hearing in the City of Bellingham's hybrid meeting format. The hearing concerned case number HE-25-VI-009, an appeal filed by Jodi Winningham challenging the impound of his 1986 Dodge RAM Van and attached trailer from the 1500 block of D Street. While Winningham and the hearing clerk attended in Council chambers, Rice and other participants joined remotely via Zoom. The hearing would determine both the validity of the March 31, 2025 impound and the associated towing and storage fees totaling nearly $1,000 for both vehicles. This was no routine parking violation. Winningham had lived in his van on D Street for approximately four years, maintaining what he described as a mutually beneficial arrangement with city parking enforcement. He positioned himself as a community guardian with eight security cameras monitoring the area, claiming to have eliminated drug activity and assisted police with investigations. The city, however, treated this as a straightforward enforcement action: two vehicles that failed to move after receiving 72-hour notices were lawfully impounded. ## The City's Case: Following Standard Procedures Parking Code Compliance Officer Stephanie Mays testified first, methodically walking through the enforcement timeline. She had responded to a complaint about vehicles on the 1500 block of D Street on March 28, 2025, finding "2 minivans and 2 trailers." Following standard procedure, she tagged all four vehicles with 72-hour notices. "The reason each one gets one is because they're all considered separate vehicles in the State of Washington," Mays explained. When the compliance period expired on March 31st, she returned to find Winningham's van and attached trailer had not moved, while the other vehicles had been relocated. Mays presented extensive photographic evidence documenting the impound process. The photos showed tire stem positions - photographed like clock faces to prove vehicles hadn't moved - along with close-ups of the orange violation stickers and overall positioning of the vehicles. She explained the tire stem methodology: "We base it on a clock face like 12 or one through 12, and if we do it initially and then come back, and the tire stems haven't moved. It tells us that the vehicle itself hasn't moved at all." The photographs revealed meticulous documentation. Images from March 28th showed initial placement of violation stickers…

About 14% shown — sign up free to read the rest Sign up free →

Study guide

### Meeting Overview Bellingham's Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice conducted a vehicle impound appeal hearing on May 9, 2025, reviewing an appeal filed by Jody Winningham challenging the impoundment of his 1986 Dodge RAM van and trailer from D Street, along with the associated towing and storage fees. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** An independent attorney contracted by the city to hear appeals and make binding decisions on code enforcement matters. The hearing examiner operates separately from city staff to provide impartial review. **Vehicle Impound Appeal:** A formal process allowing vehicle owners to challenge the validity of an impound and associated fees. The city bears the initial burden of proving the impound was lawful, then the appellant must prove it was not. **72-Hour Notice:** A yellow sticker placed on vehicles parked in violation of city code, giving owners 72 hours to move the vehicle before it can be towed and impounded. **Tire Stem Documentation:** A method used by parking enforcement to prove a vehicle hasn't moved by photographing tire valve stems positioned like clock faces, then comparing photos taken 72 hours later. **Registered Tow Truck Operator:** A towing company licensed by the State of Washington with official fee schedules approved by the state. Different vehicle classes and circumstances determine the rates charged. **Seattle v. Long Case:** A legal precedent establishing that while people living in vehicles aren't exempt from parking laws, their vehicles cannot be sold to pay impound fees if not redeemed within 15 days, recognizing the vehicle as their home. **Burden of Proof:** In impound appeals, the city must first prove the impound was valid under city code, then the appellant must prove the city's actions were improper or unauthorized. **Executive Session:** Though not applicable here, this refers to closed portions of meetings where sensitive matters are discussed without public access. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner (contracted attorney) | | Jody Winningham | Appellant (vehicle owner living in van) | | Stephanie Mays | City Parking Code Compliance Officer | | Matthew Stamps |…

About 49% shown — premium members only Upgrade to premium →

City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner

Share This Briefing

Tags & Connections