# MODULE 1: MEETING OVERVIEW **Meeting Type:** Vehicle Impound Appeal Hearing **Date:** Thursday, September 19, 2025 **Duration:** ~45 minutes **Presiding Officer:** Sharon Rice, Contract Hearing Examiner **Case:** HE-25-VI-030 **Key Participants:** - Sharon Rice: Contract Hearing Examiner for City of Bellingham - Melanie Archuleta: Appellant (vehicle owner/renter) - Chris Heston: Owner, Heston Hauling and Heston Towing - Ms. Bowker: Hearing Clerk (Planning Meetings staff) **Case Summary:** Appeal of impound validity and fees for 2023 Dodge Charger rental vehicle towed from State Street on August 17, 2025. Vehicle was impounded by Bellingham Police Department for alleged improper parking in newly implemented back-in angled parking spaces. Total fees paid: $655.09. **Notable Circumstances:** - First rental car impound appeal for this hearing examiner - Police officer unable to attend hearing - New angled parking configuration on State Street - Towing operator acknowledged appellant appeared to be within parking lines on driver's side --- # MODULE 2: KEY ISSUES & DECISIONS **Primary Issue:** Whether vehicle impound was justified under newly implemented back-in angled parking system on State Street. **Appellant's Position:** - Vehicle was "well within the line" on driver's side - Used driver's side line as parking guide - Rental car was larger than appellant's usual vehicle, creating parking challenge - Officer should have sought vehicle owner before impounding - No traffic obstruction was occurring **Evidence Presented:** - Body cam footage (37 minutes total) from impounding officer - Color photographs showing vehicle position from multiple angles - Impound invoice and payment documentation - State registration of towing rates and fees **Key Testimony - Towing Operator Chris Heston:** "I said it [to appellant]. The photos, from what I looked at, I mean, I don't know how the rules are for Bellingham, but me personally, I mean, if I pull in and I see that the white line is... my car's within it, then I'm gonna think I'm fine." **Technical Details:** - Impound occurred 5:40 PM August 17, 2025 at 1256 North State Street - Vehicle retrieved August 18 at 10:14 AM - Total towing time: 1.25 hours at $400/hour = $500 - One day storage: $101 - Total with tax: $655.09 **Decision Timeline:** Written decision due by October 3, 2025 (10 business days) --- # MODULE 3: FINANCIAL IMPACT **Direct Costs to Appellant:** - Towing fee: $500 (1.25 hours at $400/hour Class A rate) - Storage fee: $101 (one day) - Tax: $54.09 - **Total paid: $655.09** **Additional Economic Impact:** - Lost work day for appellant (Mount Vernon to Redmond commute disrupted) - Uber transportation costs to retrieve daughter's keys - Enterprise rental car complications and coordination - Appeal fee (amount not specified in hearing) **Rate Structure:** - Washington State registered Class A towing rates - $400 per hour for flatbed towing service - $101 daily storage fee - After-hours fees waived due to weekend timing accommodation **Unusual Circumstances:** - Rental vehicle required special release authorization from Enterprise - Towing operator made "concessions" to allow personal item retrieval - Complex coordination between appellant, towing company, and rental agency **Potential Refund:** If appeal succeeds, Bellingham Police Department would be responsible for reimbursement per towing contract terms. --- # MODULE 4: POLICY & REGULATORY CONTEXT **Parking Regulation Changes:** - State Street recently converted to back-in angled parking system - New striping and signage implemented within week of incident - Previous parking configuration was standard parallel or pull-in parking - "Learning curve" acknowledged by both towing operator and appellant **Legal Framework:** - City code requires hearing examiner to issue written decision within 10 business days - Police department authority to order impounds not challenged by towing operators - Towing operators contractually obligated to comply with police impound requests - Evidence must be submitted during hearing; no post-hearing submissions allowed **Hearing Examiner Authority:** - Jurisdiction to review impound validity and fee assessment - Cannot consider evidence submitted after hearing concludes - Body cam footage accepted as city's evidence in absence of police testimony - Power to order refund if impound determined invalid **Precedent Implications:** - First rental vehicle impound appeal case for this examiner - Decision may establish precedent for new angled parking enforcement - Could influence future police training on newly configured parking areas --- # MODULE 5: PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES **Melanie Archuleta (Appellant):** "I seriously thought my car had been stolen. Went into a complete panic. We were trying to enjoy a nice evening... I was well within the line on the driver's side, which is the line that I was following." *Perspective:* Experienced driver caught off-guard by new parking system while driving unfamiliar rental vehicle. Felt punishment disproportionate to violation and that alternative solutions should have been attempted. **Chris Heston (Towing Operator):** "The photos, from what I looked at... if I pull in and I see that the white line is... my car's within it, then I'm gonna think I'm fine... I was upfront and honest with her, I'm not gonna deny that." *Perspective:* Professional operator caught between contractual obligations to police and recognition that parking appeared reasonable from driver's perspective. Acknowledged advising appellant to appeal. **Sharon Rice (Hearing Examiner):** Maintained procedural neutrality while managing technical challenges (absent police officer, Zoom connectivity issues). Focused on establishing complete evidentiary record including 37 minutes of body cam footage. **Police Department (Absent):** Submitted documentation and body cam footage but unable to provide live testimony. Relied on photographic evidence showing vehicle extending beyond passenger-side parking boundaries. --- # MODULE 6: PUBLIC TESTIMONY & ENGAGEMENT **Limited Public Participation:** No general public testimony period. Hearing focused solely on appellant, towing operator, and documentary evidence. **Appellant's Account of Public Impact:** - Restaurant patrons witnessed towing operation - Fellow diners able to identify whose vehicle was being towed - Suggests alternative outreach could have located vehicle owner - Traffic disruption during towing required street closure on State Street **Community Context:** - Cornell Restaurant location represents popular dining district - New parking system affecting multiple businesses and patrons - "Learning curve" acknowledged for both drivers and enforcement **Transparency Measures:** - Full hearing conducted via Zoom with recording - All exhibits made available to appellant before hearing - Body cam footage provided despite officer's absence - Written decision to be publicly issued **Accessibility Considerations:** - Hearing conducted remotely to accommodate participants - Technical difficulties managed professionally - Document packet provided in advance for review --- # MODULE 7: PROCEDURAL & OPERATIONAL NOTES **Hearing Logistics:** - Conducted entirely via Zoom due to remote participation needs - Audio recording maintained for legal record - Exhibits numbered 1-7 and formally entered into record - All participants sworn in under oath **Technical Challenges:** - Towing operator experienced unmuting difficulties mid-hearing - Required temporary disconnection and reconnection - Hearing clerk managed real-time document transmission - Body cam footage reviewed by examiner pre-hearing to save time **Evidence Management:** - Initial packet: 33 pages with numbered exhibits - Supplemental packet: 10 pages from towing operator - Additional photo submitted by appellant September 17 - Body cam footage: two files totaling 37+ minutes - Post-hearing invoice correction submitted **Professional Courtesies:** - Weekend accommodation to avoid after-hours fees - Special considerations for rental vehicle complications - Flexibility in evidence submission timing - Respectful management of participant technical difficulties **Decision Timeline:** - 10 business day requirement per city code - Decision due October 3, 2025 - Electronic distribution to all parties - Hearing clerk to format and finalize decision --- # MODULE 8: GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY **Open Government Practices:** - Public hearing despite administrative nature - Complete record preservation through audio recording - All evidence made available to appellant in advance - Written decision to be publicly issued and distributed **Institutional Accountability:** - Police department provided documentation despite officer absence - Body cam footage voluntarily submitted as evidence - Towing operator contracts include cost liability for invalid impounds - Independent hearing examiner review of police enforcement actions **Due Process Protections:** - Right to appeal impound decisions - Sworn testimony under oath requirement - Complete evidentiary record development - Neutral decision-maker with defined timeline **Systemic Issues Identified:** - Gap between new parking implementation and enforcement training - Need for public education on parking system changes - Communication challenges between enforcement and business districts - Balance between traffic management and reasonable enforcement **Reform Implications:** - Decision could influence future enforcement protocols - May prompt review of new parking system signage - Could affect police training on discretionary enforcement - Potential model for handling infrastructure transition periods --- # MODULE 9: BROADER CIVIC SIGNIFICANCE **Urban Planning Intersection:** Case highlights challenges of implementing new traffic infrastructure in established commercial districts. State Street's conversion to back-in angled parking represents broader downtown development strategy, but enforcement during transition period raises equity questions. **Economic Justice Dimensions:** $655 impound fee represents significant financial burden, particularly compounded by lost wages and transportation costs. Appeal process provides important check on enforcement actions that can have disproportionate impact on working families. **Government Responsiveness:** Hearing demonstrates commitment to accessible appeals process, but absence of police officer testimony raises questions about agency accountability. Independent hearing examiner model provides valuable neutral review of executive branch enforcement actions. **Community Relations:** Incident occurred in popular restaurant district where parking enforcement directly affects local business climate. Balance between traffic management and customer accessibility remains ongoing municipal challenge. **Precedent Setting:** As first rental vehicle impound appeal, decision may establish important precedents for: - Enforcement standards during infrastructure transitions - Reasonable accommodation for drivers using unfamiliar vehicles - Police discretion in new parking configurations - Due process protections for vehicle impound appeals **Systemic Reform Potential:** Case could catalyze improvements in: - Public communication about parking changes - Officer training on enforcement discretion - Signage and marking clarity - Inter-agency coordination on infrastructure rollouts --- # MODULE 10: CONCLUSION & FOLLOW-UP **Immediate Outcomes:** Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice will issue written decision by October 3, 2025, determining whether the August 17 vehicle impound was justified and whether appellant Melanie Archuleta should receive refund of $655.09 in fees. **Key Factors in Decision:** - Photographic evidence showing vehicle position relative to parking lines - Appellant's reasonable reliance on driver's side parking guide - New parking system implementation timing - Towing operator's professional assessment supporting appellant's position - 37 minutes of body cam footage documenting incident **Potential Implications:** If appeal succeeds, Bellingham Police Department will bear financial responsibility and case may influence future enforcement protocols for new parking configurations. Decision could establish precedent for reasonableness standards during infrastructure transitions. **Systemic Questions Raised:** - Adequacy of public education about parking changes - Police training on enforcement discretion - Balance between traffic management and reasonable accommodation - Effectiveness of current signage and marking systems **Process Evaluation:** Despite technical challenges and absent police testimony, hearing provided thorough examination of evidence and fair opportunity for all parties to present positions. Remote format demonstrated accessibility while maintaining legal formality. **Civic Engagement Value:** Case exemplifies importance of accessible appeals processes in maintaining public trust in municipal enforcement actions. Transparent hearing demonstrates commitment to accountability while protecting individual rights against potentially arbitrary government action. The decision, when issued, will provide important guidance for future enforcement of Bellingham's evolving downtown parking infrastructure and may influence how other municipalities handle similar transitions.

### Meeting Overview The Bellingham Hearing Examiner held a vehicle impound appeal hearing on September 19, 2025, to consider Melanie Archuleta's challenge to the impound of her 2023 Dodge Charger rental vehicle and associated fees. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice presided over the proceedings, which examined whether the impound was valid and fees appropriate. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** An independent attorney who conducts administrative hearings and makes binding decisions on appeals of city actions, operating under contract rather than as a city employee. **Vehicle Impound Appeal:** A formal process allowing vehicle owners to challenge the validity of a police-ordered vehicle impound and associated towing and storage fees. **Back-in Angle Parking:** A parking configuration where drivers must reverse into diagonal parking spaces, recently implemented on North State Street in Bellingham. **Class A Towing Rate:** The highest category of towing fees set by Washington State, applicable to complex or time-intensive towing operations. **Body Cam Footage:** Video evidence from police officers' body-worn cameras, admissible as evidence in administrative hearings. **Impound Invoice:** The billing document showing all charges for towing and storage of an impounded vehicle. **Executive Session:** While not applicable to this hearing, refers to closed meetings for legal matters - this hearing was conducted publicly via Zoom. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | Hearing Examiner (Contract Attorney) | | Melanie Archuleta | Appellant (Vehicle Owner) | | Chris Heston | Owner, Heston Hauling/Heston Towing | | Ms. Bowker | Hearing Clerk | ### Background Context This case represents the intersection of changing city infrastructure and enforcement policies. North State Street recently underwent a major parking reconfiguration, switching from standard parallel parking to back-in angle parking - a system that requires drivers to reverse into diagonal spaces. This change created a learning curve for drivers unfamiliar with the new system. The hearing also highlighted unique challenges with rental vehicle impounds, as towing companies must verify authorization before releasing vehicles to non-owners. The case demonstrates how administrative hearings provide due process for citizens to challenge government actions, particularly when new policies may create confusion or unintended consequences. ### What Happened — The Short Version On August 17, 2025, Melanie Archuleta parked a rental Dodge Charger in the newly configured back-in angle parking on North State Street while dining at Cornell restaurant. Bellingham Police determined the vehicle was improperly parked and called for impound. Heston Towing removed the vehicle, charging $655.09 total. Archuleta appealed both the validity of the impound and the fees. During the hearing, the towing operator acknowledged the vehicle appeared within the driver's side parking line and stated he had advised Archuleta to appeal. The hearing examiner took testimony, reviewed body cam footage and photographs, and will issue a written decision within 10 business days. ### What to Watch Next - Decision deadline: October 3, 2025 (10 business days from hearing date) - Potential refund of $655.09 in towing and storage fees if appeal succeeds - Precedent-setting implications for future parking enforcement on reconfigured North State Street ---

**Q:** What type of hearing was conducted on September 19, 2025? **A:** A vehicle impound appeal hearing challenging both the validity of an impound and associated fees for a 2023 Dodge Charger. **Q:** Who serves as Bellingham's Hearing Examiner? **A:** Sharon Rice, an attorney who works on contract with Bellingham and other cities in Western Washington. **Q:** What was the total amount paid for towing and storage? **A:** $655.09, which included $500 for towing (1.25 hours at $400/hour) and $101 for one day storage, plus tax. **Q:** What type of parking system was recently implemented on North State Street? **A:** Back-in angle parking, where drivers must reverse into diagonal parking spaces. **Q:** Who owns the towing company that impounded the vehicle? **A:** Chris Heston, owner of Heston Hauling and Heston Towing. **Q:** What evidence did the hearing examiner review? **A:** Seven exhibits including the appeal request, police documents, towing invoices, photographs, and 37 minutes of body cam footage. **Q:** What was unique about this impound case? **A:** It involved a rental vehicle, requiring special authorization from the rental company before the vehicle could be released. **Q:** When will the hearing examiner issue her decision? **A:** Within 10 business days, by October 3, 2025 at the latest. **Q:** What did the towing operator tell Archuleta about her parking? **A:** He said she was well within the (driver's side) line and advised her "I would fight this if I were you." **Q:** Why wasn't the Bellingham Police Department represented at the hearing? **A:** The officer was unavailable, conducting other police work, so the department submitted documents and body cam footage instead. **Q:** What restaurant was Archuleta visiting when her car was impounded? **A:** Cornell restaurant on North State Street. **Q:** How long did the towing operation take? **A:** 1.25 hours total, from dispatch at 5:40 PM to clearing the yard at 7:05 PM on August 17, 2025. **Q:** What special equipment was needed for this tow? **A:** A flatbed truck, due to the vehicle being very low and the need to block traffic during the operation. **Q:** What is the hearing examiner required to do after the hearing? **A:** Take all evidence under advisement and issue a written decision within 10 business days. **Q:** How did Archuleta initially react to discovering her car was missing? **A:** She thought it had been stolen and called 911 to report a stolen vehicle before learning it had been towed. **Q:** What was the storage charge for the impounded vehicle? **A:** $101 for one day of storage. **Q:** What authority do towing operators have to question police impound orders? **A:** None - under their contracts, towing operators must comply with police requests unless the action would be unsafe. **Q:** What additional challenge did the rental car create for Archuleta? **A:** It was much larger than her regular vehicle (a small Lexus), making the new parking system more difficult to navigate. ---