## Meeting Overview On December 2, 2024, at 1:04 PM, City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a vehicle impound appeal hearing via Zoom. Rice, an attorney who works on contract with Bellingham and nine other cities and counties as a hearing examiner, presided over the afternoon session to decide an appeal of both the validity of a vehicle impound and the associated towing and storage fees. The case—Hearing Examiner File Number H.24.VI.036 and Public Works Case Number 24.PW-01751—involved the November 4, 2024 impoundment of a 1987 Dodge pickup truck owned by Dominique Zervas-Foley. The vehicle had been parked on West Indiana Street in front of a residence when it was cited for obstructing traffic and subsequently towed by Heston Hauling. The hearing brought together three parties: City parking enforcement officer Tony Turner, towing operator Chris Heston, and the appellants—vehicle owner Dominique Zervas-Foley, her son Pascal Foley (who had been using the truck), and neighborhood resident Joan Bannell (at whose house the truck had been parked). What emerged was a complex case involving questions about traffic safety, municipal communication, and the impact of recent infrastructure improvements on a residential neighborhood. ## The City's Case: Public Safety Enforcement Tony Turner, the City's parking code compliance officer, testified first about responding to a citizen complaint on November 4, 2024. "We had a complaint," Turner explained, referring to a service request the City had received about the vehicle. When he arrived at the scene on West Indiana Street, Turner found what he characterized as a clear public safety violation. "The vehicle was obstructing traffic," Turner testified. "So it was jeopardizing public safety. Vehicles had to go around the vehicle onto the oncoming lane." Turner had photographed the scene extensively, and these images became central exhibits in the case. He explained that the truck was "parked on the lane of travel" and "impeding the flow of traffic." Turner noted that while he observed three potential violations—obstructing traffic, parking within five feet of a driveway, and parking within ten feet of a mailbox—he chose to cite only the traffic obstruction. "I figured one citation was good enough for obstructing," he said, demonstrating what seemed like restraint in his enforcement approach. When Examiner Rice pressed Turner about the street configuration, he confirmed that West Indiana Street is a two-way lane with no shoulder and no designated parking areas. "It's a two-way lane," Turner testified. "The vehicle is parked on the lane of travel. It's impeding the flow of traffic." The photographs showed a truck positioned close to the curb but extending into what Turner described as blocking "over half of the lane of travel on the right side." Turner also addressed questions about enforcement patterns in the area. He explained that the City typically does not enforce parking violations outside of designated "parking management zones"—the downtown and Fairhaven areas—except in response to complaints. "The reason we go outside of our parking management zones is to respond to complaints," he said. The officer revealed that this particular location had become an ongoing concern, especially around school dismissal times. "We've been trying to address that quite a bit lately," Turner said, referring to problems with parents from nearby Parkview Elementary School parking inappropriately during pickup times. "We actually receive a lot of complaints there." ## The Towing Operator's Account Chris Heston, owner of Heston Hauling, provided straightforward testimony about the towing process. His company had been authorized to tow the vehicle under the City's police rate structure. "The tow was requested at 11:40, driver went en route at 11:42, arrived on scene at 11:50, was in tow at 12:01, and completed at 12:42," Heston testified, reading from his impound invoice. The charges were $400 for one hour under the company's RCW police rate, which Heston noted is "posted with the State of Washington." Storage fees were $101 per day for a regular vehicle, charged every 24 hours. The vehicle was redeemed the following day, November 5, 2024, at 8 AM by Dominique Zervas-Foley. Heston's testimony was brief and procedural, focusing on the mechanics of the tow rather than the circumstances that led to it. His rate sheet, included in the hearing packet, showed the fees were consistent with state-registered towing rates. ## The Appellants' Story: Surprise, Confusion, and Lost Trust The appellants' testimony painted a very different picture of events—one involving miscommunication, temporary signage, and the unintended consequences of a major infrastructure project. Their story began with Dominique Zervas-Foley explaining the nature of the vehicle itself. "It's a 1987 Dodge pickup, an old truck that is used to haul compost and help neighbors move," Zervas-Foley testified. "We've loaned it to different community associations like the Cordata Association for their community garden. They use it to haul, you know, bring in porta-potties and lumber and compost. And basically, it's just kind of a neighborhood community truck." She had loaned the truck to her son Pascal, who works nights and typically sleeps until after noon, to help with tasks at Joan Bannell's house. Pascal Foley's testimony reinforced the shock of the situation: "I woke up at 3 o'clock when I rolled out of the house, like I usually do, to find the truck wasn't there. I had been to Miss Bannell's house a number of times in the past decade or so... parked on the street plenty of times before, and this has never been an issue." ## The Sidewalk Project and Its Aftermath Joan Bannell, the resident in front of whose house the truck had been parked, provided crucial context about recent changes to the neighborhood. About 18 months earlier, she explained, "the city started the Safe Schools project of reconstructing the street and adding sidewalks to my street. Previously, there were not sidewalks." Bannell testified that throughout the extensive construction project, she had maintained good communication with the City. "There was definite communication from the city as far as the changes that would happen, and at no time was there any notification that parking would not be allowed on the streets." The sidewalk installation, completed around February or March 2024, had significantly impacted her property. "I lost basically four parking places once they put in that sidewalk," she said. Her driveway had been "greatly shortened and narrowed," making street parking "an option that was never denied until this thing came up with the ticket and impound." Bannell emphasized her trust in the City's communication throughout the construction process. When the City had mistakenly placed the new sidewalk over her water meter, she had contacted them, and they had corrected the problem. "I felt like there was a relationship with trust there," she testified. ## The Mysterious No Parking Signs A central element of the appellants' case involved temporary no parking signs that appeared and disappeared around the time of the impound. Bannell testified that she had left for a work trip on Friday, November 1, when "people were parking on the street all day Friday. I had a handyman that had parked there all day Friday and his partner had a truck all day Friday in the same spot where Pascal had his truck. No issues, no calls, no tow trucks." When she returned, she learned that no parking signs had been installed on Monday, November 4—the same day Pascal's truck was towed. "The signs were put up for no parking on the Monday of November 4th, and the sign for no parking was removed on Thursday, November [7th]," she testified. This timing seemed particularly problematic to the appellants. As Bannell explained, "if you can see the way the truck was parked, you'd see that there was no way to see that sign, because the sign was placed behind the truck itself." The appellants had submitted photographic evidence showing the sign post after the no parking sign was removed, with enlarged bolt holes indicating where a permanent-style sign had been temporarily installed. In email exchanges with City staff that became part of the record, a City employee had acknowledged that the no parking signs had been "a mistake." ## Officer Turner's Response to the Sign Issue When Examiner Rice gave Turner an opportunity to respond to the appellants' concerns about the temporary signage, his answer was definitive. "The problem is, whether that sign is there or not, it's still jeopardizing public safety, still parked in the middle of the lane of travel, impeding the flow of traffic," Turner testified. He emphasized that multiple violations existed regardless of any signage: "It's still within five feet of that driveway cutout... it poses a sight hazard, because now, if they're making a right-hand turn, they can't see, because that vehicle is blocking the visual of people coming or going from the driveway." Turner also clarified that even if the no parking signs had been relevant, they would have needed to say "Tow Away" on them to authorize immediate towing. His authority to remove the vehicle came from municipal code provisions about traffic obstruction, not from temporary signage. ## School Traffic and Enforcement Patterns A significant portion of Turner's testimony addressed the broader enforcement context in the neighborhood. He explained that the area around Parkview Elementary School had become a particular concern during school pickup times. "The problem time is around 2, 2:30, when school lets out. Vehicles will just park their vehicles on the side of the road," Turner said. "We've actually had tow trucks en route to vehicles, and parents from the school come across and they remove the vehicles before the tow truck shows up." This enforcement challenge extended beyond West Indiana Street. "We've done that both on West Indiana, and we've done it there on Cornwall. People just park in the bike lanes," Turner testified. He had reached out to Parkview Elementary administrators, who had "sent numerous emails out to all the parents, asking them not to park their vehicles" inappropriately. The officer noted that complaints about parking in this area had increased when school started in the fall. "I've gotten a few complaints here in the last few months. I'd say when school started, I guess, is when we started receiving them again." ## Street Configuration and Traffic Flow Technical questions about the street's configuration became important to understanding whether the truck was truly obstructing traffic. Turner testified that following the sidewalk installation, "it's a two-way lane now, whereas before there was parking available. But now there isn't because of the sidewalks that were put in. It narrows it down to a two-lane travel." However, the appellants challenged some of Turner's characterizations. Joan Bannell specifically corrected Turner's testimony about road markings: "To just clarify, Mr. Turner, there is no yellow line on the street. So there's no clear lanes on the streets... in the whole neighborhood on Indiana." Bannell's testimony highlighted the ambiguity that had developed after the infrastructure improvements. "There are cars parking on the street 24/7," she said. "There's the school just a block away. Parents park on the street all day long. Never an issue with any kind of... I've never seen anyone towed, never seen a parking ticket placed." Pascal Foley supported this account, noting that "further up there is a dashed line as you approach Cornwall, but not within, let's say, at least 50 feet of where the car was." ## Questions About the Complaint An interesting wrinkle emerged regarding how the initial complaint had been categorized. The service request form that triggered Turner's response had been filed under "abandoned vehicle" rather than a parking or traffic complaint. This raised questions from the appellants about whether bias against the older truck's appearance had influenced the situation. Turner clarified that complainants filing through the City's "Click Fix" system choose their own categories. "When people go on... you can see where it says request traffic abandoned vehicle... that's how they chose to file it," he explained. The person filing the complaint "could have chosen parking enforcement in the category of parking enforcement, but he chose abandoned vehicles. For what reason I have no idea." The complaint form indicated the vehicle had been there "since Thursday last week," which Turner noted was within the 72-hour limit typically applied to vehicles on public rights-of-way. However, he emphasized that the traffic obstruction issue superseded any abandoned vehicle concerns: "Since this was jeopardizing public safety, we had to remove the vehicle." ## The Appellants' Final Arguments In their closing statements, the appellants emphasized several key themes: lack of notice, inconsistent enforcement, and broken trust with the City. Dominique Zervas-Foley focused on the broader implications of the situation. "By creating a situation of reliance, it puts the residents in a bad situation," she argued. "Once you've created a situation of reliance on the rules... if there are complaints, if there are people who are... maybe just don't like an ugly truck, and other people are just parking... these communications need to be made." She also noted that Pascal had been "house-sitting for Miss Bannell" and knew Joan's car was parked in the driveway, so he wouldn't be blocking access. "Just as a courtesy... because it's a longer truck he couldn't fit in the driveway... instead, was taking up less room by partially [parking near] the driveway." Joan Bannell's closing testimony conveyed deep frustration about the lack of clear guidance following the infrastructure changes. "Now I hear there's a safety issue, and so should I be concerned about all the cars that park every day on the street? Should they be towed as well?" she asked. She described feeling "confused" and experiencing "a lack of trust" with the City. "I'm a good neighbor... I used to take my kids to school. So I'm not going to be calling to have parents' cars towed," she said. "The whole point was to have the sidewalks for safe school, so when they leave their car they're not crossing unsafely, they're able to walk on the sidewalk all the way to school. And so now I'm hearing this is a safety issue." The practical impact on her daily life was significant: "I've already lost my parking places to the sidewalk... now I can't have my handyman come over and fix stuff because it'll be obstructing traffic." ## Examiner's Scope and Concerns Near the end of the hearing, Examiner Rice clarified the limitations of her authority in vehicle impound appeals. "I am only authorized to determine whether the city staff violated their own authority under city code when they impounded the vehicle, and with regard to the tow and storage fees, I'm only authorized to determine whether the tow and storage fees are consistent with the rate sheet or whether they are not." However, Rice acknowledged the broader concerns raised during the testimony. "In the course of conducting these appeals, I frequently come across information I feel the city needs to be aware of, and I frequently forward the information these concerns to the city, and I will be doing so in this case." She specifically noted Bannell's concerns about "the loss of your parking stalls and the lack of clarity about where parking is allowed" and promised to forward these to the City for consideration "in another context." ## Procedural Conclusion The hearing concluded with the record being closed and eight exhibits admitted into evidence: the original appeal packet (exhibits 1-4), Joan Bannell's declaration (exhibit 5), Pascal Foley's email statement (exhibit 6), email exchanges between Bannell and City staff (exhibit 7), and a photograph showing the sign post after the no parking sign was removed (exhibit 8). Examiner Rice indicated she would take the evidence under advisement and issue a decision within 10 business days, by December 16, 2024. The decision would be forwarded through the City's staff to the appellants by email. ## What's at Stake This case illuminated broader tensions about how cities communicate with residents when infrastructure improvements change long-established parking patterns. The appellants' experience suggested a breakdown in the trust-based relationship they had developed with the City during the lengthy sidewalk project. Their surprise at the impoundment reflected not just individual inconvenience but a sense that the rules had changed without adequate notice. The City's position, articulated through Turner's testimony, emphasized public safety over notification concerns. From this perspective, vehicles parked in travel lanes created immediate safety hazards regardless of historical parking patterns or temporary signage confusion. The case also highlighted the complexity of enforcing parking regulations in residential areas undergoing infrastructure changes, particularly near schools where temporary parking by parents creates ongoing enforcement challenges. Whether the solution lies in better communication, clearer signage, or different enforcement approaches remained an open question as the hearing adjourned. The December 16 decision would determine whether the City had acted within its authority in impounding the truck and whether the towing fees were appropriate. But the broader questions about municipal communication and the impact of infrastructure improvements on neighborhood parking would likely require attention from City leadership beyond the scope of the hearing examiner's authority.