City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner

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.

**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 authority **Exhibits Admitted:** - Exhibit 1: Impound appeal request with supporting documents (7 subparts A-G) - Exhibit 2: Email from Parking Officer Stephanie Mays with photographic evidence - Exhibit 3: Email from Heston Hauling with documentation (12 subparts A-L) - Exhibit 4: Additional Heston Hauling email (11 subparts A-K) - Exhibit 5: Hearing clerk confirmation email

**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 street. That was with my assistance." **Jody Winningham, on timing dispute:** "According to this paperwork, I still have 15 minutes to move the vehicle, and I was forcefully prevented from doing so." **Matthew Stamps, on enforcement policy:** "If you've got folks that just know that they're not, they really don't have to abide by the sticker until parking enforcement shows up with the police and with the tow trucks...You'd expend a lot of resources unnecessarily if just showing up on site for nothing." **Stephanie Mays, on equal treatment:** "We treat every vehicle the same, whether somebody's living in it or not." **Jody Winningham, on impound impact:** "This is the second time my home that is a residence...Taking somebody's home is a sign of either...that was the absolute last resort, or an act of malice to make a point."

## 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, followed by March 31st photos demonstrating the vehicles remained in identical positions. Mays had coordinated with police for the impound operation "just because we knew that there was an occupant" and for "the safety of everybody involved." Under questioning from Hearing Examiner Rice, Mays confirmed the State of Washington's position that the van and trailer constituted separate vehicles due to individual registrations, requiring separate tow trucks and documentation. She reserved comment on Winningham's claim that he was prevented from moving the vehicle when officers arrived, stating she preferred to respond after hearing his testimony. ## The Towing Operator's Account Chris Heston, owner of Heston Towing, testified by phone about the March 31st operation. His company had been contacted at 8 AM and dispatched two Class A tow trucks to handle what the state required be treated as separate vehicle impounds. "We sent 2 tow trucks to the 1,500 D Street address. Trucks both of them... arrived around 8:30 AM. They were in tow at 9 AM. And then completed right around 10 AM," Heston testified, explaining each vehicle was charged for one hour under Washington's registered tow truck operator official fee schedule. The financial breakdown was stark: $400 for each impound, plus $101 per day storage charges. Both vehicles incurred half-day storage fees since they were redeemed the same day, bringing the total to $491.05 per vehicle after taxes - nearly $1,000 combined. Heston confirmed his company's rates were officially registered with the state, noting the charges reflected "Class A tow truck" rates under the "other municipality" category rather than State Patrol rates. He emphasized the regulatory requirement to separate the vehicles during towing, explaining "the state of Washington wants them separated on the basis that a lot of the times they're different owners." ## The Van Life Guardian's Defense Jodi Winningham's testimony painted a dramatically different picture of both his situation and his relationship with the city. Speaking with evident passion and occasional difficulty organizing his thoughts - which he attributed to brain damage from a heart attack seven years earlier - he described himself as far more than a homeless person parking illegally. "I've actually been parked on D Street in the 1500 block for approximately 4 years, off and on," Winningham began. "I actually have a relationship with the condo that is on the 1600 block, and they support me in the fact that I keep an eye. I actually have an 8 camera DVR system that keeps eyes on the street at all times." His testimony revealed an elaborate security operation: solar-powered surveillance cameras providing 360-degree coverage, flood lights for emergency assistance, and a sophisticated interior setup including "a 29 inch TV that displays all 8 of my cameras." He claimed this system had enabled him to assist police investigations, prevent trespassing at the Perry Aquatic Center, and stop multiple car break-ins and acts of vandalism. Winningham positioned himself as a community asset rather than a nuisance: "I do a whole bunch of cleanup around C, D, and E Street... that includes removing graffiti with my own paint and so forth... picking up trash... and generally keeping the community nice and clean." He claimed his presence had eliminated drug dealing on D Street, working alongside someone named Greg Flannery to "clean up D Street, got rid of all the drug dealers on the street." The van itself reflected this self-image. Winningham described "1.6 kilowatts worth of solar" powering what he called "a small apartment," complete with "my own Netflix server." He emphasized his dogs were "well-mannered," he was "well-mannered," and stressed "I'm not some drug user. I'm not a raging alcoholic." Central to his defense was the claim of an informal arrangement with parking enforcement. "I've had an arrangement pretty much for the last 4 years," he testified, describing periodic visits from Officer Mays roughly "once every 3 months" when complaints arose from outside the neighborhood. "We talk about our dogs, about everything kind of a deal, and I would shuffle my vehicles around. That's been our standing arrangement." Even more significantly, Winningham claimed former Mayor Seth Fleetwood had issued "a mayoral edict that instructed code enforcement and parking enforcement to take their hands off of me" in recognition of his community contributions. ## The Critical Fifteen Minutes The heart of Winningham's legal challenge centered on timing and his claimed right to move the vehicle. He testified that he checked his security cameras at 8 AM on March 31st and "there was nothing going on." Around 8:12 AM, one of his dogs became agitated, prompting him to look at his monitors and notice "a tow truck getting ready to back in and block my vehicle." "I immediately, with keys in hand, to ask whether or not: Hey, sorry, I didn't think that you guys want to actually bring tow trucks. I can move this," Winningham testified. Instead, he was "escorted by the police and told absolutely not." When he tried to speak with Officer Mays, "She just said, 'I can't talk to you right now,' which I understand." Winningham's most pointed argument concerned the timing documented on Heston's invoice. "According to this paperwork, I still have 15 min to move the vehicle, and I was forcefully prevented from doing so," he argued, noting the tow time was listed as 8:15 AM while the 72-hour period didn't expire until 8:30 AM. He also raised concerns about his dogs being in the vehicle during the lifting process: "My dogs were in that RV while it was being lifted up... I'm not stowed for lifting up of a vehicle where things can actually fall out, because I actually don't have a closed cabinet system." ## Legal Arguments and Seattle v. Long Winningham attempted to frame his situation within broader legal precedents, particularly citing Seattle v. Long, though acknowledging "I'm not going to go into all the merits of the thing. I'm not a lawyer." He characterized the case as establishing that impoundment "should be the only time that a city impounds somebody's residence after all other efforts have actually legitimately been tried." He also invoked what he understood as city policy to "give every possible allowance to somebody they know lives in their vehicle, an opportunity to move." His argument was that impoundment should be "a last recourse" only after "malicious behavior, or the vehicle literally is blowing garbage all over the place." The scheduling also troubled him. He noted that Heston was contacted at 10:38 AM on March 28th to schedule the tow trucks - "less than 2 hours after I was orange ticketed." He saw this as evidence that "it was the city's intention that under any circumstance, if my van was on D street, it would be towed." ## The City's Response: Equal Treatment Under Law When given the opportunity to respond, Officer Mays maintained that standard procedures had been followed regardless of the vehicle's use as a residence. "I mean, it's nothing against Mr. Winningham. He's been a great guy to work with. This is, I mean, we treat every vehicle the same, whether somebody's living in it or not." She explained the early scheduling of tow trucks as practical necessity given the multiple vehicles involved: "Because we were potentially looking at 4 vehicles, I contacted Heston and scheduled for tow trucks... I have to make sure that the trucks are going to be available. They're just as easy to cancel if we don't need them." Regarding the specific timeline, Mays clarified that she met the tow trucks at 8:15 AM at "the Soy house which was down the road on Holly Street. We didn't actually go in route until the 8:30 timeframe, which was over the 72 hour mark." On the critical question of why Winningham wasn't allowed to move his vehicle, Mays emphasized the department's position: "When the 72 hour timeframe hits, we expect the vehicle to be moved already by that time... He understands that the vehicles needed to be moved. He had the other minivan and trailer moved well before that 72 hour Mark... We do offer extensions. If we had heard from Mr. Winningham, we just never heard anything from anybody." ## Legal Framework and Policy Rationale Senior Assistant City Attorney Matt Stamps provided the legal context for the city's position. He emphasized that once the 72-hour violation period expired, "you've already got the civil infraction or parking infraction committed. You got your 72 violation established, and the impound is authorized." Stamps explained the policy rationale behind not allowing last-minute moves: "You can imagine why the other approach would be can lead to some undesirable results. If you've got folks that just know that they're not, they really don't have to abide by the sticker until parking enforcement shows up with the police and with the tow trucks essentially. And then at that point you move." Such a policy would be wasteful, Stamps argued: "You'd expend a lot of resources unnecessarily if just showing up on site for nothing... the tow truck operator, by the way, doesn't get reimbursed in that situation. They're just having to show up for nothing." On the Seattle v. Long case that Winningham cited, Stamps acknowledged its relevance to "people parking enforcement with regard to people living in their vehicles" but emphasized its limitations: "The fact that someone's living in their vehicle does not immunize them from compliance with generally applicable parking rules." He explained that Seattle v. Long "really stands for is that if a vehicle is not redeemed, picked up within the 15 day... statutory period, that case prohibits tow operators from selling the vehicle in order to pay off the impoundment and fees." Since Winningham redeemed his vehicles the same day, "that case just doesn't apply here." ## The Community Investment Perhaps the most compelling aspect of Winningham's testimony was his description of community support. He revealed that two community members - including a condo association president - had immediately paid the nearly $1,000 in fees to retrieve his vehicles within two hours of impoundment. "Nobody drops 491 bucks out of 'Oh, here you go, sir, we're sorry about your issues.' They want me here just as much as I need to be here," Winningham argued. "That said something about their investment in me as a community resident, as a neighbor, not just some homeless guy living in a van." This community backing seemed to validate his self-described role as neighborhood guardian. He provided specific claims about his security contributions: "Since August of 2023, until this date, notice there's been no RVs parked there with the exception of mine. There's been no code enforcement activity on D Street in relation to any abatement cleanup - 0 - compared to the every 2 months in the previous years." He claimed police officers "cruise by my van at least twice a day" but only interact when they "desire assistance with my security cameras" or need witness information. "I've stopped 3 trespasses this year alone," he testified, describing his role as "kind of like your roving neighborhood watch." ## Personal Stakes and Larger Questions Winningham's testimony revealed deeper stakes than simple parking fines. He described losing his previous home setup seven years earlier when he suffered a massive heart attack while living on a boat in Bellingham Bay. After 28 days in a coma and major cardiac surgery, he returned to find his van had been towed and ultimately lost $20,000 worth of sailing equipment when he couldn't afford the accumulating storage fees. "For 6 months I had to live where the log cabin is... because nobody would take me in, because I wouldn't give up my dog," he said, explaining his determination never to be separated from his pets again. This history informed his passionate resistance to the current impound: "Taking somebody's home is a sign of either... that was the absolute last resort, or an act of malice to make a point, and that's how I see it." He positioned the impound as part of ongoing harassment by the Lighthouse Mission, claiming their community liaison officer "calls every single day to complain about me" because "he believes that nobody should live in their vehicle within their little radius." Despite the mission's new "$26.1 million dollar building" and public commitment to helping the community, Winningham saw them as "doing everything they possibly can to disrupt my life." ## Closing Arguments and Community Policing In his final statement, Winningham returned to his central theme of community partnership rather than conflict. He cited specific crime statistics for his patrol area - "the 1400 to the 1600 block only of D Street" - claiming dramatic improvements since he and Greg Flannery "paid off all the drug dealers told them not to come back." His solar-powered setup enabled him to provide emergency lighting assistance, as when he helped police search for "a 15 year old autistic boy" by flooding the area with lights and reviewing security footage to confirm the child hadn't come down D Street, "which saved the police time and time is of an essence." "I see you do something. If we can't resolve it, make it right, I'm reporting it to the appropriate authorities," Winningham explained his philosophy. "We live in a civil society. I am part of the city of Bellingham." The tension in the hearing room was palpable as he concluded: "I do believe more... every opportunity should be given to somebody that is homeless, houseless, whatever politically correct, or I consider myself contributing member of society van life dude... but I still like to try to stay positive." ## Administrative Resolution Hearing Examiner Rice closed the record after all testimony concluded, admitting exhibits one through five into evidence. She announced that per city code, she had 10 business days to issue a written decision, with the deadline falling on May 23rd. The decision would be emailed to the hearing clerk for distribution to all parties. The hearing revealed fundamental questions about how cities balance enforcement of generally applicable laws with the reality of residents who live in vehicles, particularly when those individuals position themselves as community assets rather than problems. Whether Winningham's claimed community partnerships and mayoral protections could override standard parking enforcement remained for the hearing examiner to decide. Both sides had presented their cases with conviction. The city emphasized equal treatment under law and the practical necessity of consistent enforcement procedures. Winningham argued for recognition of his unique circumstances and community contributions, supported by neighbors willing to pay substantial fees for his immediate release. The decision would determine whether good intentions and community support could overcome a straightforward parking violation, or whether the law must apply equally regardless of the violator's claimed civic contributions.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** BEL-HEX-2025-05-09 ### 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 | Senior Assistant City Attorney | | Chris Heston | Owner, Heston Towing (towing operator) | | Ms. Bowker | Hearing Clerk | ### Background Context This case represents the intersection of homelessness policy, parking enforcement, and property rights in Bellingham. Winningham had been living in his van on D Street for approximately four years, claiming an informal arrangement with parking enforcement and community support for his presence. He argued he provided security services and community benefits, including crime prevention and street cleanup. The impound occurred after a complaint triggered the standard 72-hour notice process. However, Winningham contends he had reasonable expectation of being able to move the vehicle before towing, citing past practices and the proximity of no-parking signs for street work scheduled for April 1st. The case raises questions about how cities balance consistent code enforcement with accommodating residents experiencing homelessness. ### What Happened — The Short Version After receiving a complaint about vehicles on the 1500 block of D Street, parking enforcement Officer Stephanie Mays visited on March 28, 2025, and placed 72-hour notices on four vehicles including Winningham's van and trailer. When she returned March 31st, two vehicles (the van and trailer) hadn't moved, so she called for tow trucks. Winningham says he was ready to move the vehicles when the tow trucks arrived around 8:15 AM, with keys in hand, but was told by police he couldn't enter the vehicle once the towing process began. The city argued that once the 72-hour period expires and tow trucks arrive, the impound proceeds regardless - otherwise people would just wait until the last minute to move. Both vehicles were towed to Heston Towing, where Winningham redeemed them the same day for $491.05 each after community members paid the fees. The hearing examiner will decide whether the impound was valid and whether the fees should be waived or refunded. ### What to Watch Next - Hearing Examiner Rice has until May 23rd to issue her written decision - The decision will determine if impound fees totaling nearly $1,000 should be refunded - This case could influence how Bellingham handles similar situations involving people living in vehicles ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** BEL-HEX-2025-05-09 **Q:** Who is Sharon Rice and what is her role in this hearing? **A:** Sharon Rice is an attorney who works on contract as Bellingham's Hearing Examiner for about 10 cities and counties, providing independent review of code enforcement appeals. **Q:** What vehicles were impounded and when? **A:** A 1986 Dodge RAM van and an Arrowhead trailer, both owned by Jody Winningham, were impounded on March 31, 2025, from the 1500 block of D Street. **Q:** How much did each vehicle cost to redeem from impound? **A:** Each vehicle cost $491.05 to redeem, including $400 for the impound fee, $50.50 for half-day storage, and taxes. **Q:** What is the "tire stem" method of documenting vehicle movement? **A:** Parking enforcement photographs tire valve stems positioned like clock faces, then takes comparison photos 72 hours later to prove whether a vehicle has moved from its parking spot. **Q:** What was Winningham's main argument for why the tow was improper? **A:** He argued he was ready to move the vehicle with keys in hand when tow trucks arrived, but was prevented from doing so by police, and that he had a reasonable expectation based on past practice that he could move before towing. **Q:** Why does the State of Washington treat a van and trailer as separate vehicles? **A:** Each has its own Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and license plate, and they're registered separately, so the state requires separate tow forms and fees even when owned by the same person. **Q:** What is the city's policy once tow trucks arrive on scene? **A:** Once the 72-hour notice period expires and tow trucks arrive, the impound proceeds regardless of the owner's presence or desire to move the vehicle. **Q:** How long does Winningham claim he's been parking on D Street? **A:** Approximately four years, with what he describes as an informal arrangement with parking enforcement where he would move vehicles when complaints occurred. **Q:** What legal case did Winningham cite in his defense? **A:** Seattle v. Long, which he argued requires cities to exhaust all other options before impounding vehicles that serve as someone's residence. **Q:** What services does Winningham claim to provide the community? **A:** Security through 8 surveillance cameras, graffiti removal, street cleanup, crime prevention, and assistance to police with investigations and missing person searches. **Q:** Who paid for Winningham to redeem his vehicles? **A:** Two community members, including a condo president, paid the fees with "no questions asked" according to Winningham's testimony. **Q:** What organization does Winningham blame for the complaint leading to his impound? **A:** The Lighthouse Mission, specifically their community liaison officer who he says complains about him daily to the city. **Q:** When was the 72-hour notice period supposed to expire? **A:** The notice was placed March 28th, so the 72-hour period expired March 31st at 8:30 AM, which is when enforcement action was scheduled to begin. **Q:** What is the hearing examiner's deadline for issuing a decision? **A:** Sharon Rice has 10 business days from the hearing date to issue a written decision, making the deadline May 23, 2025. **Q:** What burden of proof applies in vehicle impound appeals? **A:** The city must first prove the impound was consistent with city regulations, then the appellant must prove the city's actions were inconsistent with their authority. **Q:** How quickly were the vehicles redeemed after impound? **A:** Within two hours of being towed, according to Winningham's testimony. **Q:** What upcoming change did Winningham mention regarding his vehicles? **A:** He's auctioning off his current setup and switching to "one big rig" to avoid future issues with multiple vehicles. **Q:** What mayor did Winningham claim issued an edict protecting him? **A:** Former Mayor Seth Fleetwood, who Winningham says instructed code enforcement to "take their hands off" him in recognition of his community contributions. **Q:** What time does the towing invoice show the vehicle was towed? **A:** 8:15 AM on March 31, 2025, which Winningham argues was still within his 72-hour notice period. **Q:** What happens to the hearing examiner's decision once issued? **A:** It will be sent to the hearing clerk Ms. Bowker, who will format and forward it to all parties via email. ---