# City Vehicle Impound Appeal: When a Marathon Runner Challenges a Tow The October 24, 2025 Bellingham Hearing Examiner session opened with a familiar refrain — Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice mistakenly announcing it as a June hearing before quickly correcting herself with a chuckle about the "time warp." But beneath this lighthearted moment lay a serious civic matter that would illuminate the intersection of event planning, parking enforcement, and individual rights. At stake was $710.14 in towing and storage fees that Scotty Fermo, a Bellingham Bay Marathon participant, was challenging after his vehicle was impounded on September 21, 2025. The case, filed as HE25VI-037, would explore fundamental questions about how clear temporary parking restrictions need to be and whether good-faith confusion can justify overturning an impound. Rice, an attorney who contracts as hearing examiner for Bellingham and nine other jurisdictions, noted this was one of approximately 30 appeals stemming from the marathon — a significant enforcement action that would keep her busy issuing decisions well into November. ## The City's Case: Comprehensive Signage for Public Safety Stephanie Mays, a Parking Code Compliance Officer 2, methodically walked through the city's preparation for the September 21 marathon, beginning with the August 28 notification from the permits department. The event would host over 1,500 participants and require extensive street closures through downtown Bellingham. "On September 15th, parking was notified by the event coordinator and Bellingham Police Department that we needed to assist with vehicle impounds that were parked along the no parking routes," Mays testified. The coordination was extensive — by September 17, she had contacted towing operators to ensure sufficient coverage, knowing from experience that "it's not uncommon for us to do a large number of tows from these type of events." The temporary no-parking signs went up on September 18, three days before the marathon. Mays emphasized that the event coordinators had reused the same road closure plan from 2024, though she noted some documentation still showed the previous year's dates. On September 20, Mays and a coworker conducted a systematic verification of all signs at 3 p.m., documenting their locations and times. They arrived at 6 a.m. on marathon day to begin enforcement. The weather proved challenging — "very, very windy, very rainy" with sustained winds of 10-12 mph and gusts up to 30 mph. Despite these conditions, Mays testified that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requires only two signs per block to be legally sufficient, but "the event staff put a sign on every single meter out there to make sure that the message was getting across." Even with this extensive signage, enforcement proved difficult. "While we were on this particular block, I think it's important to note that even with the sign standing and the signs that were still remaining on there, we had tow trucks actively impounding vehicles, and people were still driving past these signs and trying to park," Mays observed. The enforcement team had moved signs into the middle of the roadway to stop traffic, "and they were still driving around the signs." Bellingham Police Department officers assisted by making phone calls to vehicle owners when possible, helping clear "at least half of the cars off of all the routes." Regarding Fermo's specific vehicle, Mays showed photographs of the car parked adjacent to a meter with a clearly posted temporary no-parking sign. While the sign wasn't directly in front of Fermo's parking space, it was immediately adjacent, and Mays noted that anyone exiting the vehicle "would have been walking right past that sign." ## The Towing Operator: State-Regulated Fees and Minimum Charges Chris Heston, owner of Heston Hauling, explained the financial breakdown that Fermo was appealing. The $710.14 total consisted of $400 for the tow, $50.50 for half-day storage, $259.64 for additional storage time, and a $201 after-hours release fee. Heston emphasized that his rates weren't arbitrary: "All of our fees are dictated by the state of Washington. They did that to keep fairness with the towing operators and the customers. It's the same rate for every tow company that is licensed in this state." The rates are set annually based on the Consumer Price Index. "Don't ask me how that works, I tried to figure it out. I am not smart enough," Heston admitted with candor that drew understanding from the hearing examiner. For police impounds like this one, companies charge a minimum of one hour regardless of actual time spent. "When a police impound occurs, we charge 1 hour, because we're including our en route time, our on-scene time, and up until the vehicle is in the storage yard. After that, it goes in 15-minute increments." Storage fees begin immediately upon arrival at the yard, with the first 12 hours counting as half a day. The after-hours fee applied because Fermo retrieved his vehicle on Sunday, outside the Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. business hours. "If they had waited until Monday, it probably would be about $50 cheaper, at least," Heston noted, "but unfortunately, a lot of people, it's understandable, they need their car for Monday." ## The Appellant's Argument: Reasonable Confusion About Sign Coverage Scotty Fermo, speaking as both marathon participant and vehicle owner, built his appeal around a straightforward principle: he parked where there wasn't a sign directly prohibiting parking. Fermo began by citing communications from the marathon organizers that had shaped his understanding of downtown parking availability. "The event coordinators had shared a link," he testified, referencing website information stating that marathon participants "can park anywhere downtown for free" with the exception of the Depot Market parking lot. "Going into the situation with that information, I would have approached downtown, approached Railroad," Fermo explained. While he acknowledged passing the advance warning sign about road closures, "probably, at least my mindset approaching, would have been, despite the sign, I can see plenty of cars are parked. Perhaps this is something reserved for the racers or something like that." The crux of Fermo's argument centered on sign placement and interpretation. He had noticed the no-parking sign adjacent to his chosen space but reasoned that since it wasn't directly in front of his meter, it didn't apply to his spot. "I would have picked the spot next to the no parking sign, because the no parking sign wasn't in front of the spot," Fermo testified. "If there's no sign on the spot in front of me, I generally look at that and say, well, that's a valid parking spot." Fermo raised broader questions about signage interpretation that went beyond his individual case. "How many spots over do we decide is kind of the threshold of non-parkability? Are we to know that that sign indicates that the entire row is not parkable? Is it one spot over is reasonable? Is it two spots over is reasonable?" He submitted photographs taken after the marathon showing what he characterized as "sporadic" sign placement, with some areas lacking signs entirely and others displaying dates for different events. "It certainly didn't seem like all of the spots were covered. Seemed like they were being spot-checked in certain areas." Perhaps most tellingly, Fermo noted that when he returned from completing the full marathon, "there was another car parked there" in the same area where his vehicle had been towed, suggesting the space had remained accessible to runners throughout the event. ## The City's Response: Safety Requirements Trump Individual Convenience In her response to Fermo's testimony, Mays clarified several key points about downtown parking and the marathon's specific needs. She confirmed that Sunday parking is indeed free throughout downtown "as long as there's not an indication that says you can't park there, that the road will be closed, there's a sign, whatever." The marathon website had recommended parking in the Commercial Street garage or the Mezzanine, "a huge 5-story building, with plenty of parking in it" located about two blocks from where Fermo had parked. Mays addressed Fermo's photographs showing mixed signage, explaining that different signs served different purposes. Some were permanent street sweeping notifications, others were for paid parking information, and still others were the temporary marathon restrictions. She emphasized that the section where Fermo parked was specifically needed for runner safety. "The marathon runners coming off of the number 1 section were going straight through number 2. So they needed the cars off of there because there were thousands of people running through that," Mays explained. "The last thing that we wanted, from the city standpoint and from PD's standpoint is to have a vehicle parked there while people were running and back into somebody and cause a problem." Importantly, Mays noted that "the city did not put any of these signs up. These were all put up by the Marathon event staff." She added that the police department had already begun discussions with marathon organizers about updating their website and improving communication for future events. ## Final Arguments: Competing Interpretations of Reasonable Notice In his final statement, Fermo remained focused on the core issue of sign placement and interpretation. He dismissed the relevance of alternative parking recommendations or the identity of who placed the signs, maintaining that "the basic idea was there was a sign not covering a certain spot which I had chosen." His observation about finding another car in the area after completing the race reinforced his argument that the space wasn't critical for runner safety. "I went straight to my car, and there was another car parked there," he noted. "There are plenty of cars parked on that row, it just wasn't mine anymore." At Hearing Examiner Rice's suggestion, Fermo agreed to submit screenshots from the marathon website as additional evidence, which would become Exhibit 6 in the record. ## A Broader Pattern of Marathon-Related Appeals The hearing illuminated a significant enforcement action that generated approximately 30 vehicle tows and a corresponding number of appeals. Rice noted that the volume of marathon-related cases would delay some decisions beyond the standard 10-business-day deadline, though she remained committed to issuing Fermo's decision by November 7. The case represents more than a simple parking dispute — it highlights the challenges cities face in balancing public event needs with clear communication to residents. Questions of reasonable notice, sign interpretation, and the limits of individual responsibility in understanding temporary restrictions will likely influence how future events are managed. As Rice noted when accepting the complete record, the decision will rest on six exhibits including city documentation, towing records, and both official and citizen photographs, along with testimony from all parties involved. The hearing adjourned with appreciation expressed for all participants' time and cooperation, leaving Fermo to await a written decision that could either validate his interpretation of reasonable parking behavior or uphold the city's authority to enforce comprehensive event-related restrictions regardless of minor signage ambiguities. The outcome will contribute to the evolving understanding of how cities must balance public safety needs during large events with clear, unambiguous communication to citizens about temporary restrictions on public spaces.