# Vehicle Impound Appeal: A Tale of Parking Enforcement and Financial Hardship ## Meeting Overview On the afternoon of September 12, 2025, Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a virtual hearing to consider an appeal challenging both the validity of a vehicle impound and the associated fees. The case involved a 2009 Chevrolet Traverse that had been accumulating parking citations since July and was ultimately towed on August 27th from Harmon Way in Bellingham. The appellant, Keller Pulkrabek, faced mounting storage fees totaling over $2,200 and the prospect of losing his vehicle entirely if the fees weren't waived. What emerged was a story that touched on housing challenges, financial hardship, and the sometimes harsh realities of municipal parking enforcement — a young man living at the intersection of two busy streets with no parking, trying to keep his only vehicle while navigating an enforcement system he didn't fully understand. The hearing would reveal both the methodical nature of parking enforcement and the human cost when those systems intersect with economic vulnerability. ## The City's Case: Methodical Documentation and Clear Violations Stephanie Mays, a Parking Code Compliance Officer with three years of experience, presented the city's case with the thoroughness of someone accustomed to defending impound decisions. Her testimony painted a picture of a vehicle that had been on the enforcement radar for months. "We have put 6 stickers on this vehicle since July 14th, and have received 9 full complaints about it," Mays explained, establishing a pattern of repeated violations rather than an isolated incident. The August 27th impound followed a familiar sequence: an initial complaint on August 21st led to a 72-hour notice being posted, complete with photographs documenting the vehicle's exact position using tire stem positions. "We electronically chalk the vehicles by taking pictures of the tire stems to see if they move or not," Mays explained, describing a modern technique that has replaced physical chalk marking. When a citizen called on August 25th to report that the vehicle had only been moved "back 3 feet, instead of moving the entire city block," it triggered the final enforcement action. Mays returned on August 27th to document what her professional judgment told her was a clear attempt to circumvent the parking regulations. The tire stem evidence was central to the city's case. Comparing photographs from August 21st and 27th, Mays used a clock face analogy to explain the movement: "If we're looking at a clock face, we're looking at 3 times movement, on both of those, and they both moved in the same direction." When Hearing Examiner Rice pressed her on whether the car could have legitimately driven away and returned with the tire stems ending up in similar positions, Mays relied on her experience: "I've been doing this for 3 years, and I have never had somebody drive away, come back, park in the same spot, and the tire stems be in that type of a position." The enforcement action was swift once the violation was confirmed. The vehicle was photographed extensively to document its condition before towing, loaded onto a flatbed truck, and transported to Heston Hauling's impound lot. ## The Towing Company: Rising Costs and Regulatory Process Chris Heston of Heston Hauling provided clinical testimony about the business side of vehicle impounds. His company was called at 12:14 PM on August 27th, arrived at the scene at 12:26 PM, had the vehicle in tow by 12:46 PM, and delivered it to their yard by 1:18 PM. The financial implications were stark. Under Washington State-approved rates, Heston Hauling charged $400 for the initial tow and $101 per day for storage, calculated every 12 hours. By the time of the hearing — 16 and a half days later — the total had reached $2,252.49 and was still climbing. "Currently, as of one minute ago, we're at 2,252.49 total," Heston testified, with the meter effectively running during the hearing itself. Heston also clarified an important legal point about vehicle ownership during impound proceedings. Even though Pulkrabek had transferred the title to his name after the impound, all financial responsibility remained with Steven Mork, the registered owner at the time of towing. "Everything still continues under the previous owner because it is at the time of impound," Heston explained. If the vehicle went unclaimed, the process was equally unforgiving. After auction, any shortfall between the sale price and accumulated fees would be sent to collections — against Mork, not Pulkrabek. The only way Pulkrabek could retrieve the vehicle was through a notarized permission letter from Mork, which had been provided. ## The Appellant's Story: Housing Constraints and Misunderstanding Keller Pulkrabek's testimony revealed the human circumstances behind the enforcement action. Living at the corner of Telegraph and Teemer Road with his girlfriend in an apartment building with only one parking space, he had been using Harmon Way as his primary parking location for about four months. "I live about 20 feet... Harmon Way's about 20 feet from my front door. I live on the corner of two very busy streets, with no street parking, and I only have one space inside of my apartment building that I share with my girlfriend," Pulkrabek explained. "Her car is taking up that spot, and so this street has been my one area to park my car." The vehicle in question was a necessity despite his limited use of it. "I don't use it very often, if at all, usually," he said, describing a situation familiar to many young adults who need a vehicle for emergencies or occasional use but can't afford regular driving. When the enforcement notices began appearing, Pulkrabek believed he was complying with the requirements. "On the note, it says that, after 72 hours of not moving, it'll be towed. And so I took that as it just needs to be moved from the spot that it is ticketed," he testified. The fatal misunderstanding came on August 27th when, running late for work and biking rather than driving, he quickly moved the car backward a few feet rather than relocating it to another block. "One day I was running late for work, I biked to work, so I was running late. I moved my car back, I'd say a little bit more than 3 feet, but, that's a rough estimate." When he returned two days later, the car was gone. His attempts to resolve the situation immediately ran into the reality of Labor Day weekend and business hours. "I instantly started making calls to the non-emergency number and the Heston Towing. But since it was Labor Day and past... or Labor Day weekend, sorry, and past office hours, I couldn't get any help." ## Financial Hardship and Bureaucratic Reality The financial implications for Pulkrabek were devastating. Even transferring the title from his stepfather's name to his own "was a stretch," and the accumulated parking citation and storage fees created an impossible burden. When Hearing Examiner Rice asked about his ability to pay the $2,252.49 total, his response was direct: "If the fees are not waived, and the car is not released, I will have to give up the car to the tow company, and just empty my stuff from it." This economic reality highlighted the regressive nature of parking enforcement when it intersects with housing insecurity. Pulkrabek's situation — living at a busy intersection with limited parking, needing but rarely using a vehicle, and lacking the financial resources to navigate enforcement systems — represented challenges faced by many renters in Bellingham's tight housing market. The procedural aspects of the appeal process added another layer of complexity. The city challenged the timeliness of Pulkrabek's appeal, noting it was filed 10 days after the statutory deadline. Officer Mays took a firm stance: "I feel like we need to stick with it. I know it's a couple days past that, I'm more than happy to present my side of it, but that's just my two cents on the whole thing." ## Questions of Abandonment and Enforcement Philosophy A significant portion of the hearing addressed the definition of "abandoned" vehicles and whether Pulkrabek's repeated movement of the car demonstrated it wasn't abandoned. When Pulkrabek questioned this classification, Officer Mays clarified the city's position. "It's my understanding that the term abandonment is a vehicle that is unmoved, or not moved off the block per the listed BMCs on the sticker," Mays explained. The term "abandoned" was somewhat misleading, as it didn't refer to a vehicle's condition or operability, but rather to its compliance with parking time limits. This distinction illuminated the broader enforcement philosophy. The system wasn't designed to identify truly abandoned vehicles but to prevent long-term parking in residential areas. The repeated movement of Pulkrabek's vehicle actually worked against him by establishing a pattern of attempted compliance that fell short of the full requirements. ## The Hearing's Conclusion and Broader Implications As the hearing concluded, Pulkrabek made one final appeal based on his circumstances and misunderstanding of the rules. "I just feel like this whole situation kind of stemmed from the misinformation on my end of not knowing I had to move a block. I think the car was obviously not abandoned, or anything like that, and I think there was obviously an effort being shown through the many times it was moved." He also suggested that his vehicle's condition might have made it a target for enforcement: "I think that it's kind of unfair that my car would get ticketed so often, and I'm sure it's just because of the fact of the way it looks." Hearing Examiner Rice noted the ongoing accumulation of fees and promised a decision by September 26th, acknowledging the urgency given the vehicle's continued impoundment. The practical reality was that every day of delay increased Pulkrabek's financial burden and decreased the likelihood he could afford to reclaim his vehicle. ## A System at Cross-Purposes The hearing revealed a parking enforcement system working exactly as designed — methodical documentation, clear procedures, and consistent application of regulations — intersecting with personal circumstances it wasn't designed to accommodate. Officer Mays and the towing company followed protocols precisely, while Pulkrabek found himself caught in a system that treated his good-faith but inadequate compliance efforts as violations worthy of significant financial penalties. The case highlighted broader questions about proportionality in municipal enforcement and the impact of housing constraints on residents' ability to comply with parking regulations. For someone living paycheck to paycheck at the intersection of busy streets with no parking alternatives, the difference between moving a car three feet and moving it a full block could mean the difference between keeping and losing their primary means of transportation. As the hearing concluded at approximately 2:00 PM, all parties awaited a decision that would determine whether Pulkrabek would recover his vehicle or be forced to abandon it to the auction process, leaving his stepfather potentially responsible for any remaining debt. The case embodied the sometimes harsh intersection of municipal governance, housing policy, and economic inequality in Bellingham's evolving urban landscape.