## Meeting Overview On June 25, 2025, Bellingham Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a virtual impound hearing to consider an appeal filed by Weston Warfel challenging the validity of his vehicle's impound and associated towing and storage fees. The hearing, conducted via Zoom, addressed the impoundment of Warfel's 1999 Subaru Forester from a residential permit parking zone near Western Washington University on May 8, 2025. What began as a routine parking violation had evolved into a costly ordeal for Warfel, who worked out of state and claimed he had no reasonable way of knowing his vehicle had been towed until nearly two weeks after the fact. Rice, who serves as contract hearing examiner for Bellingham and nine other jurisdictions in Western Washington, opened the proceedings by carefully explaining the legal framework and order of testimony. The case file, designated HE.25-VI-016, would unfold in measured stages: first the city would establish its prima facie case for the impound, then the towing operator would explain the charges, and finally Warfel would present his challenge. By the time of the hearing, 48.5 days after the initial tow, storage fees alone had pushed the total bill to $5,775.37 — a sum that represented both the longest storage period Rice had encountered in an impound appeal and a financial burden that prompted Warfel to fight for his vehicle rather than abandon it. ## The City's Case: Residential Permit Zone Enforcement Code Compliance Officer Stephanie Mays took the witness stand first, methodically building the city's case through both testimony and photographic evidence. Her account traced back to April, when the wheels of enforcement had begun turning in response to citizen complaints about unauthorized parking in the residential permit zone near WWU. "It is very common for our parking staff to receive complaints in this area, because it is located so close to Western Washington University," Mays explained, setting the context for what would become an eight-vehicle sweep on May 8. The enforcement action hadn't happened immediately. Complaints came in on April 11 and April 17, but staffing constraints — the department was in the process of hiring additional officers — delayed the initial response until April 28. "At the time there was only 2 of us," Mays noted, explaining the gap between complaint and action. The first visit resulted in tickets; the second, on May 8, escalated to impoundment for vehicles that remained in violation. Mays walked through a comprehensive photographic record of Warfel's Subaru, carefully documenting both the violation and proper procedure. Page 11 of the evidence packet showed the vehicle parked next to the regulatory sign, while subsequent photos captured every angle: back passenger side to check for the required permit sticker, front driver and passenger sides to confirm no visitor pass was displayed in the windshield, and finally the license plate — which Mays noted carried expired tabs, adding another violation to the mix. "With the RPZ, residents that have a pass or a permit, get a little sticker that goes on the back of the vehicle, either on the bumper or the back windshield," Mays explained, describing the system's mechanics. But visual inspection was only the first step. "We also, when we go to issue the ticket associated with it, scan the plate just in case the sticker was removed or stolen, or whatever, and it tells us it cross references against what our finance department has, and tells us if there's an active permit or not on the vehicle." The technology confirmed what the visual inspection had suggested: no permit was associated with this license plate. Under city regulations, that made the vehicle subject to immediate impoundment from the tow-away zone. The regulatory framework was clear, the procedure had been followed, and the documentation was thorough. From the city's perspective, this was enforcement by the book. ## Towing Operations and Escalating Costs Chris Heston, owner of Heston Hauling and Heston Towing, provided insight into the business mechanics that had transformed a parking violation into a mounting financial crisis. His testimony revealed both the regulated nature of towing operations and the inexorable arithmetic of storage fees that accumulate regardless of an owner's knowledge or circumstances. "Tow pricing for the city of Bellingham, goes under our RCW official tow rates, posted with the State of Washington as a class A truck for $400 per hour," Heston explained, outlining the regulatory framework governing his industry. The structure was straightforward but unforgiving: a minimum $400 charge for the initial hour, regardless of how quickly the job was completed, followed by $101 per day in storage fees. "Automatic hour given on the initial call," Heston emphasized, making clear that even a quick tow carried the full hourly rate. Some confusion emerged around the precise timing of the tow operation. Heston's invoice showed the truck arriving at 10:56 AM and completing the job by 11:00 AM — a four-minute window that prompted questions from Rice. "There's no way he loaded a car in 4 minutes," Heston acknowledged, explaining that drivers sometimes failed to update the computerized tracking system properly. But the timing discrepancy didn't affect the billing: "If we go en route at 10:30, and we're completed at 10:50, it's still an hour." What made this case unusual was the extended storage period. At 48.5 days, this represented the longest timeframe Rice had encountered in impound hearings. The vehicle had been scheduled for auction the previous Saturday — the standard fate for unclaimed impounds — but Heston had held it back once the appeal was filed. This decision to preserve the appellant's property rights had inadvertently extended the storage charges, creating the very financial burden that drove Warfel to seek relief. Heston also outlined the notification requirements that governed his industry. Within 24 hours of impoundment, a letter must be sent to the registered owner. Within five business days, a certified letter or letter with certificate of mailing provides formal notice. These communications rely entirely on Department of Licensing records — the same source that had failed to connect with Warfel due to his address change affecting only his driver's license, not his vehicle registration. ## A Working Man's Dilemma When Warfel took his turn to testify, his words carried the weight of someone grappling with a bureaucratic maze that had ensnared him while he was simply trying to make a living. His case was built not on legal technicalities but on the fundamental unfairness of accumulating massive fees for a vehicle he didn't know had been towed. "What I have is basically the statement of I had no reasonable way of knowing my car had been towed, and I would have responded, or tried to retrieve it in the proper way. But I wasn't aware," Warfel began, his testimony straightforward and unadorned. He wasn't challenging the underlying violation — "I'm not arguing that I didn't park in a tow away zone. And I'm not trying to dispute that my car was towed right. Made a parking violation. Okay" — but rather seeking relief from the consequences of what he saw as an impossible situation. The timeline Warfel described revealed the cruel arithmetic of impound storage. His vehicle was towed on May 8. Working out of state, he didn't learn about it until sometime between May 18 and 20 — roughly 10 to 12 days later. By then, storage fees alone had pushed the total well beyond what he could immediately afford. "It was over $2,000 or losing my car," he explained, describing the stark choice he faced upon notification. Warfel's employment situation had created a perfect storm for this type of problem. Working away from Bellingham, he had responsibly updated his address with the Department of Licensing — but only for his driver's license, not his vehicle registration. This distinction, which he admitted he hadn't understood at the time, meant all official notifications went to an address where he couldn't receive them. "I still again, I'm not very literate in the law, or any or anything to do with that. So I have since learned that there's 2 separate filings with the DOL for my car's address, registration and my address." Rice pressed him on his arrangements for the vehicle while traveling. Warfel revealed he had asked his mother to watch the car, but she had seen it was gone and only notified him when he checked in days later. This detail would later draw questions from Officer Mays about why the absence hadn't been reported sooner. The remedy Warfel sought was rooted in principles of fairness rather than legal precedent. "My argument is my action is in good faith that I didn't try to avoid my responsibility to the city, or even to the Towing Company," he explained. He was willing to pay the initial tow fee and parking violation, but the accumulating storage charges — now approaching $6,000 — represented a disproportionate penalty for circumstances largely beyond his control. "I would ask that the fees be waived or significantly reduced, and I would, or even a payment plan." ## The Human Cost of Bureaucratic Precision The rebuttal phase of the hearing revealed the stark differences in perspective between institutional processes and individual circumstances. Officer Mays, representing the city's enforcement arm, posed a question that highlighted the gap between bureaucratic expectations and real-world complications: "Was nobody able, or did you not have anybody there that could watch your vehicle, since you were going to be out of town? That would have seen that the vehicle was no longer in its place before the 10 days?" The question, while reasonable from an enforcement standpoint, illustrated the challenge facing working people who must travel for employment. Warfel had indeed arranged for his mother to watch the vehicle, but the notification process had broken down somewhere in the chain of family communication. Mays also clarified that payment arrangements weren't within her department's purview: "The towing fees are done all through the towing operator, and the tickets are all handled through Municipal court." This institutional division meant no single entity had authority to address Warfel's request for a payment plan or fee reduction, despite the obvious good faith nature of his situation. Heston's rebuttal was more substantive, addressing both the notification issues and potential remedies. He confirmed that his company had followed all required procedures, noting that "we are no different than Ms. Mays when we pull up a department licensing report for a vehicle. That is the address we have. We have no other options." The system worked as designed — it simply didn't account for the complexities of modern work life that might separate someone from their registered address. More significantly, Heston revealed that he had spoken with Warfel about potential solutions when the bill was still around $2,000. The options weren't generous, but they reflected the limited flexibility within the regulatory framework: "You can come and get it. You can, depending on circumstances, have insurance come and get it... you can let it go to auction and then just pay the remaining balance that's due after it's been sold." The most telling option was one designed to limit financial damage while accepting total loss: "We offer they can pay the tow sign over the title, and we scrap the vehicle, and we wipe out the storage." This arrangement would have cost Warfel $400 plus the parking ticket instead of nearly $6,000, but it meant losing his vehicle entirely. "I know that's not always the greatest answer, because the person's still losing their vehicle, but they are saving significant amount of money," Heston acknowledged. ## Closing Arguments and the Weight of Fairness In his final statement, Warfel returned to themes of good faith and proportionality that had run through his testimony. He addressed Mays' question directly: "I did have my mother watching the car, but she saw it the top [towed], and notified me when I was notified about 11 days after." The communication breakdown wasn't from lack of arrangement, but from the informal nature of family-based monitoring systems. "My only statement is that I really wasn't avoiding responsibility," Warfel emphasized, pushing back against any suggestion that his absence was calculated to evade consequences. He revealed that he had seriously considered Heston's offer to sign over the title and pay just the towing fee: "I was really close to doing it, but I suppose I've been persuaded that maybe I had a case, and I wouldn't have to give away my car or lose my car." This admission highlighted the agonizing choice facing vehicle owners caught in extended storage situations. Accept a total loss to minimize financial damage, or fight for justice and risk accumulating even greater costs. Warfel's decision to pursue the hearing had likely added hundreds more dollars to his bill, but it also represented his only hope of recovering his vehicle without financial devastation. "Even the $2,000, or even $500, and losing my car was a pretty extreme burden on me," Warfel concluded, putting human context around numbers that might seem routine to hearing officers and towing operators but represented genuine hardship for a working person. ## Legal Framework and Institutional Limitations Throughout the hearing, Rice's questions and the testimony revealed the rigid framework within which these disputes must be resolved. The hearing examiner's role, as Rice carefully explained at the outset, was limited to determining whether the impound was consistent with city regulations and whether the fees were proper under those regulations. Questions of fairness, proportionality, or individual hardship, while compelling, fell outside the narrow legal scope of the proceeding. The notification system, while legally sufficient, demonstrated the increasing disconnect between regulatory assumptions and contemporary life. The requirement to send notices to Department of Licensing addresses works only when people live at their registered addresses and maintain unified records across multiple DOL divisions. For working people who travel, students with temporary addresses, or anyone navigating the complexities of modern housing situations, the system creates potential pitfalls. Similarly, the storage fee structure — designed to encourage quick retrieval while compensating towing operators for space and security — becomes punitive when owners cannot promptly respond. The $101 daily rate, reasonable for short-term storage, becomes devastating over extended periods, especially when the owner's delayed response stems from factors beyond their control. The hearing also revealed institutional limitations around payment plans and fee reductions. Neither the towing company, the city's code enforcement division, nor municipal court had clear authority to modify charges based on individual circumstances. This diffusion of responsibility meant that even sympathetic officials lacked tools to address obvious inequities. ## Closing and Implications Rice closed the proceeding with characteristic precision, outlining the timeline for her written decision — due by July 10, accounting for the July 4 holiday — and the process for distribution. Her role, as she had emphasized throughout, was to review the evidence and determine compliance with city regulations, not to weigh the human costs or institutional fairness of those regulations. The case highlighted broader tensions in municipal governance between rule-based enforcement and equitable outcomes. Warfel's situation — a working person caught by timing, geography, and bureaucratic complexity — represented challenges facing many residents in college towns where parking enforcement must balance neighborhood protection with the realities of transient populations and economic pressures. Whether Rice would find grounds within the regulatory framework to provide relief remained to be seen. Her decision, when issued, would either validate the system's precision or find space within existing rules for consideration of circumstances that, while not legally exculpatory, might warrant different treatment. The hearing concluded with Warfel facing the same difficult choice that had brought him to the proceeding: accept devastating financial consequences for a parking violation, or lose his vehicle entirely. For a hearing that lasted less than an hour, it captured fundamental questions about how municipal systems serve residents and whether legal compliance necessarily equals just outcomes. The answer, delivered in Rice's forthcoming written decision, would determine whether Warfel could retrieve his vehicle or join the ranks of residents who learn, often at great cost, that good faith and reasonable circumstances don't always translate to institutional relief.

### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner held an impound appeal hearing on June 25, 2025, to determine whether a 1999 Subaru Forester was properly impounded from a residential permit parking zone and whether the associated towing and storage fees were valid. Weston Warfel challenged the impound and requested fee reduction due to lack of notification. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** An independent attorney who conducts quasi-judicial hearings and makes binding decisions on appeals of city administrative actions. **Residential Permit Zone (RPZ):** A restricted parking area requiring special permits for residents and visitor passes for guests, typically near universities to prevent student parking overflow. **Prima Facie Burden:** The legal requirement that the city first prove their impound was justified before the appellant must prove error occurred. **Impound Appeal:** A formal process allowing vehicle owners to challenge the validity of a vehicle tow or the fees charged by presenting evidence to a hearing examiner. **Department of Licensing (DOL):** Washington state agency that maintains separate records for driver's licenses and vehicle registration addresses. **Code Compliance Officer:** City staff who enforces parking regulations and municipal codes, including authorizing vehicle impounds. **Registered Tow Truck Operator:** Licensed towing company with state-approved fee schedules for official impounds. **Abandoned Vehicle Affidavit:** Legal document prepared when an impounded vehicle isn't claimed, allowing it to be sold at auction. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | Hearing Examiner (Contract Attorney) | | Weston Warfel | Appellant (Vehicle Owner) | | Stephanie Mays | Code Compliance Officer 2, City of Bellingham | | Chris Heston | Owner, Heston Hauling and Towing | | Ms. Bowker | Hearing Clerk (not present, referenced) | ### Background Context This case illustrates common conflicts between residential neighborhoods and nearby universities. The City of Bellingham established residential permit parking zones near Western Washington University to prevent students from parking in residential areas, requiring residents to obtain permits and visitors to display passes. Code enforcement regularly patrols these areas due to frequent violations. The impound occurred during a larger enforcement action on May 8, 2025, when eight vehicles were towed from the same residential permit zone after repeated complaints. The vehicle had been sitting in violation since at least April 28 when tickets were first issued in the area. This hearing demonstrates the formal legal process required when someone challenges a city impound, including strict evidence rules, witness testimony under oath, and a written decision from an independent hearing examiner within 10 business days. ### What Happened — The Short Version Code Compliance Officer Stephanie Mays testified that Warfel's 1999 Subaru Forester was properly impounded on May 8, 2025, from a residential permit parking zone after having no permit or visitor pass. Photos showed the vehicle violated posted signs requiring permits during weekday business hours. The vehicle also had expired tabs. Chris Heston from Heston Towing explained the $400 minimum towing charge and $101 daily storage fees, totaling $5,775.37 after 48.5 days. The vehicle was scheduled for auction but held back due to the appeal. Weston Warfel didn't dispute parking illegally but argued he had no reasonable way of knowing his car was towed because he works out of state and only updated his driver's license address with DOL, not his vehicle registration address. He learned about the impound 10-13 days later and requested fee reduction or a payment plan due to financial hardship. Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice will issue a written decision by July 10, 2025. ### What to Watch Next - Written decision due July 10, 2025, determining if impound and fees were valid - If appeal is denied, vehicle may proceed to auction unless Warfel pays full amount - Municipal court will separately handle the parking violation ticket ---

**Q:** What is the Meeting ID for this hearing? **A:** BEL-HEX-2025-06-25 (Bellingham Hearing Examiner, June 25, 2025) **Q:** Who is the Hearing Examiner for this case? **A:** Sharon Rice, a contract attorney who provides hearing examiner services to Bellingham and nine other jurisdictions. **Q:** What vehicle was involved in this impound appeal? **A:** A 1999 Subaru Forester with license plate BVU 4921. **Q:** When was the vehicle impounded? **A:** May 8, 2025, as part of an enforcement action that impounded 8 total vehicles. **Q:** What is the current total amount owed on the impound? **A:** $5,775.37 after tax (as of the June 25, 2025 hearing date). **Q:** How many days had the vehicle been in storage at the time of the hearing? **A:** 48.5 days, making this the longest storage period for any impound appeal heard by this examiner. **Q:** What is the minimum towing charge under state regulations? **A:** $400 for the first hour, regardless of actual time spent, using a Class A truck. **Q:** How much is daily storage at Heston Towing? **A:** $101 per day. **Q:** Who is Stephanie Mays? **A:** Code Compliance Officer 2 with the City of Bellingham who authorized the impound. **Q:** Who is Chris Heston? **A:** Owner of Heston Hauling and Towing, the company that towed and stored the vehicle. **Q:** What zone was the vehicle parked in when impounded? **A:** A residential permit parking zone (RPZ) requiring special permits Monday-Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM. **Q:** Why are residential permit zones established near WWU? **A:** To prevent Western Washington University students from parking in residential neighborhoods. **Q:** When did Weston Warfel learn his car was impounded? **A:** Approximately 10-13 days after the impound (around May 18-20, 2025). **Q:** What was Warfel's main argument for fee reduction? **A:** He had no reasonable way of knowing his car was towed because he works out of state and didn't receive proper notification. **Q:** What addressing issue complicated notification? **A:** DOL has separate records for driver's license and vehicle registration addresses - Warfel only updated his driver's license address. **Q:** What enforcement action preceded the impound? **A:** Tickets were issued on April 28, 2025, followed by a second round of tickets and impounds on May 8, 2025. **Q:** Does the towing company offer payment plans? **A:** No, Heston Towing stopped offering payment plans because vehicles must be held during payments and many people don't complete payments. **Q:** What alternative did the towing company offer Warfel? **A:** Pay the towing fees, sign over the title, and they would scrap the vehicle and waive storage fees. **Q:** When is the written decision due? **A:** July 10, 2025 (10 business days from hearing, accounting for July 4th holiday). **Q:** What evidence showed the vehicle lacked a permit? **A:** Photos showed no permit sticker on the vehicle, and a DOL scan confirmed no active permit associated with the license plate. ---