## Meeting Overview On the morning of October 27, 2025, Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a virtual Zoom hearing to consider an appeal that crystallized the tension between public safety enforcement and individual rights in municipal parking law. The case, designated HE25VI-042, involved Jenessen Lavadia of Mill Creek, Washington, challenging both the validity of his vehicle's impound during the September 21, 2025 Bellingham Bay Marathon and the $710.14 in associated fees. Rice, an attorney who contracts with Bellingham and nine other municipalities as hearing examiner, presided over what would become a detailed examination of signage adequacy, enforcement protocols, and the human cost of large-scale event management. The hearing featured testimony from city parking enforcement, police leadership, the towing company owner, and Lavadia himself—each offering competing narratives about what constitutes adequate notice and fair enforcement. ## The Marathon Morning Impound The events that brought Lavadia before the hearing examiner began weeks before his September 20 arrival in Bellingham. Stephanie Mays, a Parking Code Compliance Officer with the city, methodically walked through the preparation timeline for the Bellingham Bay Marathon—an event that city officials knew from experience would require aggressive parking enforcement to maintain public safety. "So we'll start with August 28th," Mays testified, establishing that the city received advance notice of the marathon, which was expected to draw over 1,500 participants. "Any... they notify us with any event that has, like, over 1,500 people attending." The enforcement machinery began moving September 15, when event coordinators provided the city with a comprehensive list of streets requiring temporary no-parking restrictions. Rather than a traditional map, Mays explained, "it's kind of like a list of the areas, so it's... we're looking at, like, railroad between the street and the street." The scope was massive: 124 temporary no-parking signs would blanket the race route. By September 17, Mays had contacted Heston Hauling to request multiple tow trucks for Sunday operation. "Typically, they only have a couple people on staff on Sundays, and we were projecting anywhere up to, you know, 15 to 30 cars, to be removed off of those locations," she explained. The city's expectation of widespread violations reflected years of experience with similar events. The temporary signage went up September 18, shortly after 5:30 PM—paper signs zip-tied to permanent posts, clearly stating "no parking, 921, from 3 a.m. to 1.30 p.m." But nature would intervene. September 20 brought what Mays characterized as "a nice weather event that came in overnight that I don't think a lot of people were prepared for or really knew about." Weather data from the airport showed sustained winds between 10 miles per hour, with gusts reaching 25-30 mph, accompanied by intermittent rain beginning around 2-3 AM September 21. "When we showed up at 6, it was very rainy and very blustery," Mays recalled. Despite the conditions, enforcement proceeded as planned. ## The Signage Controversy The heart of Lavadia's appeal centered on a fundamental question of municipal parking law: what constitutes adequate notice? The photographs in evidence showed Lavadia's 2019 Subaru Impreza parked in a marked stall on East Laurel Street, with the temporary no-parking sign mounted on a permanent post adjacent to, but not directly in front of, his vehicle. Hearing Examiner Rice pressed Mays on this critical point: "Could you please explain how a parking individual is to know that that sign applies to the stall next to the stall where the post is posted?" "This sign applies to every parking stall on that street," Mays responded, explaining that the informational posts serve the entire block. "So, if you can see to the left, there's 2 parking stalls with vehicles in it, and then to the right, there's, like, 3 parking stalls up there, so it covers that entire section." But Rice's follow-up questions revealed the ambiguity that would define this case: "This sign doesn't appear to have arrows to indicate that it applies to more than one parking stall. Sometimes the signs have arrows. Can you speak about that?" Mays acknowledged the inconsistency in signage design, explaining that "depends on who makes the actual signs. The city doesn't make them, they're... I think CopySource actually produces them." Crucially, she testified that "the arrows, with or without arrows on it, it applies to the entire... entirety of the block." When pressed further about how members of the parking public, especially those unfamiliar with Bellingham's practices, could reasonably understand such scope, Mays admitted, "I can't give any specifics to that." The hearing examiner then explored the regulatory foundation for the city's signage practices. Mays cited the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), "a federal guideline that says you only have to have two signs on the entire block for the parking regulation." This federal standard would become central to the city's defense. ## Police Perspective on Public Safety Lieutenant Dante Alexander of the Bellingham Police Department provided the law enforcement perspective, emphasizing the safety imperatives that drive aggressive event parking enforcement. As Special Operations Lieutenant, Alexander reviews permits for large events and coordinates with parking enforcement. "There's safety concerns of people, if their cars are parked in that area and try to leave during the race, it could put jeopardy at the racers," Alexander explained. "So it's a significant safety issue that we make sure those routes are as clear as possible so that people have safe passage for their race." The morning of September 21, Alexander joined parking enforcement at 6 AM, his role focused on contacting registered vehicle owners before impoundment. "I do this by contacting our records department or dispatch, and getting registered owner information, which then they query our report writing system," he testified. Despite these efforts, Alexander was unable to reach Lavadia. "It looks like this individual's from the Mill Creek area, so that's probably why we don't have contact information for them," he explained, highlighting how out-of-area visitors become particularly vulnerable to enforcement actions. Alexander shared a telling anecdote about public behavior during events: "That morning, as we were towing cars off, especially North State Street, and it was actively coned off, that people aren't supposed to park there. We still had people trying to parallel park at that time while all that was going on." This observation supported the city's position that even clear, active enforcement doesn't deter all violations, but it also raised questions about whether the problem lies with inadequate signage rather than public disregard. When Rice questioned Alexander about the signage adequacy—noting the lack of arrows and the sign's placement away from Lavadia's specific stall—his response revealed the practical challenges facing both enforcement and the public: "Getting out of this vehicle, especially where this one's parked, seeing that right next door, I would be mindful of 'Oh, maybe I should call and ask if this is a no-parking zone.'" Significantly, Alexander confirmed that the phone number on the sign—the non-emergency dispatch line—would have been staffed 24/7 and could have provided information about parking restrictions. ## The Towing Industry's Constraints Chris Heston, owner of Heston Hauling and Heston Towing, provided insight into the towing industry's regulatory framework, emphasizing that his fees weren't arbitrary but state-mandated. "This amount is determined by the state of Washington under our Registered Tow Truck Operator official fees," Heston testified. "They dictate the rates on what we can charge, the timing... And it goes by the Consumer Price Index." The fee structure reflected both the complexity of large-scale operations and minimum billing requirements. Heston's company had brought in additional staff and multiple trucks for the marathon, expecting numerous impounds. When drivers failed to accurately record times, "we went with a minimum amount, which was the 1-hour impound fee" of $400. Storage fees followed similar minimums: "From 1 minute until 12 hours. It's a half a day storage" at $50.50. Since Lavadia's vehicle was redeemed at 11:05 AM the same day—roughly three hours after impound—he still paid the half-day minimum. An after-hours fee of additional charges applied because the retrieval occurred on Sunday, outside normal Monday-Friday, 8-5 business hours. The total: $710.14. "This industry has a bad history," Heston acknowledged, explaining that state regulation exists to prevent gouging. "This is what the state of Washington came up with being fair for the privately owned companies and for the customers." ## Lavadia's Defense: A Visitor's Perspective Jenessen Lavadia's testimony brought the human dimension to what might otherwise seem like a technical dispute over municipal code compliance. Speaking from Mill Creek, Washington, Lavadia described arriving in Bellingham around 9:30-9:45 PM on September 20 to celebrate a friend's work achievement. "I called my friend who lives on East Laurel Street, he lives in an apartment complex there, and, he says it's a great parking spot to park that night," Lavadia testified. His friend's local knowledge proved inadequate against the temporary restrictions that would take effect hours later. Lavadia emphasized his usual vigilance about parking legally: "I'm pretty vigilant with what I see, regarding to where I park, and if it's a legal place to park. During that time, and given it was at night, it was in the middle of a windstorm, with rain and all that stuff, I did not see, any signs or, reflections of the sign." The discovery of his missing vehicle came the next morning around 9 AM: "I found that all of the cars were, taken away." While his friend from Snohomish received a phone call about the impound, "I did not get a phone call at all, regarding that impound at all." Most significantly, Lavadia described finding the temporary sign on the ground after the impound: "We went downstairs, we only found one sign, and at that time, it was on the ground. It didn't seem like it was reflective. There are no arrows indicating where it was. It was folded, it was on the ground." Lavadia contrasted Bellingham's approach with his experience in Mill Creek: "In the city of Mill Creek, they usually put multiple signs on each stalls, or, like, one other stall to... and some of the... the folding signs to inform that this place would not be, a place to park." He specifically described "sandwich board" style signs—triangular, two-sided temporary signs placed directly in parking areas. The scope of the enforcement reinforced Lavadia's belief that the city's approach was systematically inadequate: "They did inform me that there was about 33 cars that had been towed, that morning. I just believe that, with this numerous amount of vehicles that were impounded, I feel like that was a systematic failure in the city of Bellingham just to properly let all the people who park there, especially those who do not live in that area, just to know that their parking is not allowed there." ## Photographic Evidence and Real-Time Testimony During the hearing, Lavadia submitted photographs he had taken the morning of September 21, which became Exhibit 5. The images, timestamped at 9:54 and 9:59 AM, showed the temporary no-parking sign lying on the ground, no longer attached to its post. The photos were taken while marathon runners were actively using the street, providing stark visual evidence of why vehicle clearance was necessary for public safety. Mays immediately seized on the timing: "It's clear that the race is happening, and that is exactly why vehicles can't be on there, because if this vehicle or any of the vehicles that were there on that street tried to leave, they would unfortunately hit any one of those people." The photographs created a compelling but double-edged piece of evidence. While they supported the city's safety argument, they also showed that by the time residents discovered the impounds, the very sign meant to provide notice was no longer in its intended position. ## City Rebuttal: Statistical Defense In her rebuttal testimony, Mays provided crucial context about the enforcement's scope and the public's general compliance. "We did authorize the impound of 7 vehicles off of that block," she testified. "And to my knowledge, only 3 of them are disputing the impound. Which means it's sufficient enough to write a ticket, it's sufficient enough to tow from." This statistical argument suggested that the majority of impounded vehicle owners accepted the validity of the enforcement, implying adequate notice. Mays also noted that the city regularly impounds vehicles for street sweeping violations using similar permanent signage: "We do tow a lot... a large amount of vehicles with permanently mounted signs about once a month off of our street sweeping route, and those are up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week." Importantly, Mays clarified that the city did not control the event coordinator's signage methods: "The city itself did not put the signs out, that was the race event coordinator, so the city has no control how or what they do to put signs up." Regarding the parking meters that Lavadia mentioned had been subsequently installed on East Laurel Street, Mays dismissed any connection to the marathon enforcement: "I'm assuming it was already in the works, because a lot of, large amount of money and time and materials goes into installing a parking meter, so... I'm just gonna assume that those were already in the works." ## The Federal Standards Defense Both Mays and Alexander repeatedly emphasized that the city's signage approach complied with federal MUTCD guidelines requiring only two signs per block. Alexander shared a personal anecdote that reinforced this standard: he had received a parking ticket in Leavenworth for violating a permit parking requirement indicated by a single large sign covering an entire block. "I do get the frustration with the parking signs," Alexander acknowledged. "But that's the requirement, so unless we want to change the requirements, that's what we're gonna go by." This federal compliance argument became the city's primary legal defense, but it also highlighted the gap between legal adequacy and practical notice, especially for out-of-area visitors unfamiliar with local enforcement practices. ## The Broader Policy Implications The hearing revealed tensions that extend far beyond one vehicle impound. Lieutenant Alexander's testimony about people attempting to park in actively coned areas during the enforcement illustrated the challenge of balancing public safety with individual convenience. His comparison to a fatality scene where someone tried to drive through police barricades painted a picture of public disregard for traffic control measures. Yet Lavadia's experience highlighted how easily a visiting member of the public could unwittingly violate temporary restrictions, especially when weather conditions compromise sign visibility and local residents provide incomplete information about parking availability. The 33 total vehicles impounded during the marathon—generating potentially over $23,000 in towing fees—suggested that either the signage was inadequate for effective public notice, or that large numbers of people willfully violated clear restrictions. The fact that only three appeals were filed could support either interpretation: either most people recognized they had received adequate notice, or most simply accepted the financial loss rather than navigate the appeal process. ## Economic and Procedural Questions Heston's testimony about state-mandated fee structures added another layer to the dispute. The $710.14 total reflected not just the tow itself but minimum billing requirements, storage fees, and weekend surcharges that quickly escalated costs. For someone like Lavadia, visiting from out of town for a single evening, these fees represented a significant unexpected expense. The requirement that vehicle owners pay towing fees upfront, then appeal for potential refunds, created a financial barrier to challenging potentially invalid impounds. This structure incentivized acceptance of questionable enforcement while placing the burden and risk entirely on vehicle owners. ## Final Arguments and Unresolved Questions In closing, Lavadia reiterated his core position: "Given it was at night, it was windy and raining, and I'm, repeat myself that I'm very hypervigilant when it comes to parking. Legally, I don't get parking tickets at all, so I would look around signs, and I honestly did not see any sign reflective to show that it was okay for me... oh, not okay for me to park." His emphasis on being "hypervigilant" about legal parking, combined with his clean parking record, suggested that his failure to see the sign reflected genuine inadequate notice rather than willful disregard. The city maintained that federal standards were met and that the safety imperative justified aggressive enforcement. The towing company emphasized that fees were state-regulated and non-negotiable. But questions lingered about whether technical legal compliance provided sufficient protection for the public's reasonable expectations of notice. ## What's Ahead Hearing Examiner Rice concluded the session by establishing that she would issue a written decision within 10 business days—by November 10, 2025. The decision would need to balance federal signage standards against reasonable public notice expectations, consider the safety imperatives of large events against individual property rights, and determine whether the enforcement in Lavadia's case met legal requirements for validity. The hearing adjourned with fundamental questions about municipal event management unresolved: whether cities can rely solely on minimum federal signage standards for temporary restrictions, how to balance public safety with fair notice, and what protections exist for out-of-area visitors unfamiliar with local enforcement practices. Lavadia's appeal represented not just one person's $710 dispute, but a test case for how municipalities handle the intersection of large-scale event management and individual rights in an era of increasingly complex urban activity. Rice's decision would ultimately determine whether Bellingham's enforcement practices during the marathon met legal standards for validity, but the hearing had already illuminated the broader tensions between technical compliance and practical fairness that characterize modern municipal governance.

### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner met to consider case HE25VI-042, an appeal filed by Jenessen Lavadia contesting the impound of his 2019 Subaru Impreza and associated fees following the September 21st Bellingham Bay Marathon. The hearing examined whether proper signage was posted and fees were justified. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** An independent attorney who contracts with municipalities to hear appeals and make legal decisions on city matters like impounds, rather than having these cases go to regular courts. **MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices):** Federal guidelines that establish standards for traffic signage, including how many no-parking signs are required per block. **Registered Tow Truck Operator:** A state-licensed towing company that must follow Washington State pricing guidelines and cannot charge more than officially approved rates. **Impound Appeal:** A legal process where vehicle owners can challenge whether their car was properly towed and whether the fees charged were correct. **Class A Tow Truck:** The largest category of tow truck, which commands the highest state-approved towing rates ($400 minimum in this case). **Informational Signpost:** Permanent metal posts on streets without parking meters that display parking rules and where temporary signs are attached for special events. **Public Works File Number:** The city's internal tracking system for impound cases (this case was 25PW-01456). **After-hours Fee:** Additional charges applied by towing companies for vehicle releases outside normal business hours (Monday-Friday, 8 AM-5 PM). ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | Hearing Examiner | | Jenessen Lavadia | Appellant (vehicle owner) | | Stephanie Mays | Parking Code Compliance Officer, City of Bellingham | | Lieutenant Dante Alexander | Special Operations Lieutenant, Bellingham Police Department | | Chris Heston | Owner, Heston Hauling and Heston Towing | | Christina Bowker | Hearing Clerk | ### Background Context The Bellingham Bay Marathon required clearing multiple downtown streets of parked vehicles for runner safety. Event coordinators posted 124 temporary no-parking signs throughout the race route on September 18th. However, a windstorm with sustained winds of 10-25 mph and intermittent rain occurred overnight, which may have affected sign visibility. The city impounded 33 vehicles total that morning, with only 7 vehicles removed from Lavadia's block on East Laurel Street. This represents a systematic enforcement action where police and parking enforcement began operations at 6 AM, three hours before the 9 AM race start, attempting to contact vehicle owners before impounding. The case highlights tension between federal signage standards (which allow two signs per block) and public expectations for more extensive warning signage. ### What Happened — The Short Version Lavadia parked on East Laurel Street the evening of September 20th, visiting from Mill Creek to celebrate a friend's achievement. He testified he didn't see any no-parking signs during the windstorm. The next morning, his car was gone along with others on the block. City staff testified that proper signage was posted according to federal MUTCD standards, with temporary no-parking signs zip-tied to permanent posts. The towing company charged $710.14 total: $400 for the minimum one-hour tow, $50.50 for half-day storage, and additional after-hours fees since it was Sunday. Lavadia submitted photos showing a sign on the ground during the race, arguing the single sign per block was inadequate notice. The city maintained that one sign per block section meets federal requirements and that 124 signs were posted citywide for the marathon. ### What to Watch Next • The hearing examiner's written decision is due November 10th, which will establish precedent for future impound appeals • The case may influence how Bellingham posts temporary no-parking signs for major events • Other appellants from the same marathon may be pursuing similar appeals, potentially affecting the city's enforcement practices ---

**Q:** What case number was this impound appeal? **A:** HE25VI-042, also known as Public Works File Number 25PW-01456. **Q:** How many vehicles were impounded citywide during the marathon? **A:** 33 vehicles total were impounded that morning according to the towing company. **Q:** What was the total amount Lavadia was charged for the impound? **A:** $710.14, which included $400 for towing, $50.50 for storage, and after-hours fees. **Q:** How many no-parking signs did event coordinators post for the marathon? **A:** 124 temporary no-parking signs were posted throughout the race route. **Q:** What time did the city begin impound operations? **A:** 6 AM, three hours before the 9 AM race start time. **Q:** Who is Sharon Rice? **A:** The Hearing Examiner, an attorney who contracts with Bellingham and 9 other jurisdictions to hear appeals. **Q:** What federal standard governs traffic signage requirements? **A:** MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices), which allows two signs per block. **Q:** When did the windstorm begin on September 20th-21st? **A:** Around 2-3 AM, with sustained winds of 10-25 mph and intermittent rain. **Q:** How many vehicles were impounded from Lavadia's specific block? **A:** 7 vehicles were impounded from that block on East Laurel Street. **Q:** What time was Lavadia's vehicle retrieved? **A:** 11:05 AM on the same day, qualifying for half-day storage rates. **Q:** Who sets the towing rates in Washington State? **A:** The Washington State Patrol under the Registered Tow Truck Operator program. **Q:** What is the minimum towing time charged in Washington? **A:** One hour minimum, then 15-minute increments after that. **Q:** Where is Lavadia from? **A:** Mill Creek, Washington, which is why police couldn't contact him beforehand. **Q:** What type of signs does Mill Creek use for events according to Lavadia? **A:** Multiple sandwich board signs and signs on each parking stall. **Q:** When is the hearing examiner's decision due? **A:** November 10th, within 10 business days of the October 27th hearing. **Q:** What was the weather like when Lavadia parked? **A:** Windy and rainy conditions that he said prevented him from seeing signs. **Q:** How many people from this block are appealing their impounds? **A:** 3 out of 7 vehicles impounded are disputing the action. **Q:** What safety concern did police cite for the impounds? **A:** Parked cars could create hazards if owners tried to leave during the race. **Q:** What phone number was on the temporary signs? **A:** The non-emergency 911 dispatcher line, staffed 24/7. **Q:** What evidence did Lavadia submit during the hearing? **A:** Four photographs showing a temporary sign on the ground after the race. ---